But after spreading its bets to clean technology — and missing out on early-stage investments in some of the hottest new Internet companies — the firm is scrambling to grab a leadership role in the latest Web boom.

That was evident at a June event in San Francisco, where the firm hosted a packed room of entrepreneurs. At the front of the room, Kleiner venture capitalist Bing Gordon spent an hour onstage espousing his theory of “gamification” — that is, how start-ups can benefit from using online gaming techniques — to the gathering.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

During the economic turbulence of the last decade, most middle managers were content climbing the corporate ladder. But as more start-ups rake in venture capital and, in some cases, generate enormous wealth for employees when the companies are sold off or go public, some corporate middle managers are changing course. In the last year, executives from American Express Co. and Comcast Corp.’s NBCUniversal, as well as various Wall Street investment banks and major law firms, have all taken senior-level roles in start-ups.

“From an enterprise and consumer standpoint, [start-ups] have a need for more experienced management, folks that have built more of an operational superstructure from bigger companies,” says Eric Wiesen, a general partner at New York venture firm RRE Ventures.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

With the $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility, the iconic but struggling maker of mobile devices, Google has put a huge stake in the ground in this highly competitive market and thereby shaken up the entire ecosystem.

A lot of this is about patents, as Google CEO Larry Page said in his blog post about the megadeal this morning, and about acquiring a bigger portfolio that Google has long sought for its Android mobile operating system and has been unsuccessful at getting for itself, despite onerous efforts. Since Motorola has been in the mobile arena for so long, it has a large trove of important ones.

But the dramatic acquisition by Google is also a declaration that mobile is more important to it than the skein of alliances it has built for Android with phone makers worldwide, as part of its objective of making it the dominant mobile platform for smartphones and tablets globally.

While Google has been reaching out to other hardware partners to assure them, and has said they all will remain the same in Android-land, the large mobile manufacturers who have placed their trust in Google — especially Samsung or HTC — have to be wondering what to do now.

Make no mistake — they already resent Google from time to time, the way Compaq or Dell has resented Microsoft in the PC business.

But, since Google already showed favoritism to Motorola by letting them do the first Honeycomb tablet, the Xoom (although it didn’t do any good), that discomfort will only increase now.

While Google managed to get them into lockstep on today’s announcement, with a whole Web page titled “Quotes From Android Partners,” each of them using the exact same phrase “defending Android” in their quotes feels a little like they are victims of Stockholm syndrome.

Yes, we concur with everything the Borg tells us to! Defending! Android! We’re Droids too! (Calling Patty Hearst, stat!)

The impact on everyone — from Microsoft and its partner Nokia to Apple to Research In Motion and, also, to all the wireless carriers — will be felt immediately.

And, of course, by government regulators, who have watched warily as Google has marched into business after adjacent business to its core search one.

This deal — which will require approval — is sure to even further put all of Google’s businesses in the crosshairs of rivals, who will agitate for fervent investigations.

While Android has been conceived at Google and has an “autonomous unit” with the company — run by longtime mobile vet Andy Rubin — it has now entered a new and perhaps dangerous phase for all involved, including Google.

Because while such a union is not uncommon in the mobile business — Apple and RIM do software and hardware together and Google has released its own Nexus phone (made by others) — no one has done it via acquisition and in such a definitive way.

And what an acquisition it is. Or, perhaps more accurately, could be.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Related posts

• Google: We’re Spending $12.5 Billion on Motorola to ‘Protect’ Android
• Motoogle: BOOM! The Mobile Business Just Got Completely Blown Up
• Google’s Motorola Deal Will Spur Antitrust Regulators to Action
• Watch Google Android Kingpin — and Motorola Acquirer — Andy Rubin Unplugged (Video)
• Defense Spending: Google Arms Itself With Moto Patents
• Is Google’s Motorola Deal the Break That Windows Phone Needed?
• Should Google Keep Motorola’s Patents and Sell Off the Hardware Business?
• Motorola Could Get Google Closer to Your Living Room — If the Cable Guys Play Along
• U.S. Carriers Silent on Motoroogle, but France Telecom Gives It a Thumbs Up
• Google-Motorola Deal Includes $2.5 Billion Reverse Termination Fee
• Google Can’t Say Hello To Hulu Now. (Can It?)
• More Google news
• More Android news
• More Motorola Mobility news

(Image courtesy of the United States Department of Energy)

A year ago, the 75,000-square-foot building at 410 Townsend St., near AT&T Park, had filled to capacity with young tech companies, after hovering at a 60 percent vacancy rate in late 2008 as the financial crisis hit. Now many of those start-ups have grown so much they have had to move out to bigger digs, while some remaining tenants have cannibalized the space.

“In 30 years in real estate, this is the fastest-growing building we’ve ever had,” said Chris Economou, the San Francisco leasing manager for PMI Properties, the landlord for 410 Townsend. “We’ve never had start-ups that have gone from 10 people to 200 so fast.” He adds that PMI is now able to charge rents of $34 to $35 a square foot at the property, up from $18 to $20 a square foot 18 months ago.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The voluble entrepreneur and investor, who made his fortune off Web video during the first Internet boom, is dabbling in it again: He has put money into Revision3, the Web video studio/network best known as the home of Diggnation.

The investment was part of a small round of funding Revision3 raised last year, which it hasn’t disclosed until now.

That wouldn’t be that noteworthy, except that Cuban, again and again, has argued that ever-rising expectations for Web video were overblown, and that the technology wouldn’t displace TV. Which happens to be where Cuban is betting heavily, via his HDNet network.

A very brief summary of his argument:  Internet infrastructure can’t support TV-scale viewing; Web advertising can’t support TV-scale programming; people like TV.

And some representative blog posts where he make his case: The Great Internet Video Lie; Why Do Internet People Think Content People Are Stupid?;  The Future of TV Is…TV.

And here’s a representative counter-argument: Cable TV Is Screwd. It was written two years ago, by Cuban’s new partner, Revision3 CEO Jim Louderback.

So what gives? Is Cuban finally backing down? Not at all, the billionaire says. He’s merely investing in a potential source of content for his TV network.

The dollars he’s putting into Revision3 will give him what amounts to a first look on the video site’s programming, and the chance to turn some of it into TV shows.

“I think Jim can make some money from this. I don’t throw money away,” Cuban says via email. “But this investment really confirms my position on web video. While Revision3 will make some money on the web, the real money is [in] TV. And I wanted HDNet to have the option to be that outlet.”

Louderback, for his part, seems fine with a less than total endorsement of his industry–he’s the one highlighting Cuban’s investment. “I like to think that we’re doing some pretty innovative stuff, and [the investment] gives him a broader visibility into that space”, he says.

And since Revision3 won’t say how much money Cuban invested in the company, or the total size of the round–Louderback will only say that it was “relatively immaterial” for his company–it’s impossible to gauge what any of this really means from the outside.

In related can’t-really-judge-what-this-means news: Revision3 says its revenue, which it won’t disclose, grew 80 percent last year, and that the company turned a profit in Q4 of 2010. Louderback defines profitable in this instance as “EBIDTA-profitable,” and says his company should be “solidly in the black” by the middle of this year.

In December, retail sales jumped 0.6 percent as consumers bought more goods from online retailers, drugstores and building-supply companies.

When excluding auto sales, which can vary wildly, sales were up 0.5 percent, which was just shy of the 0.7 percent forecast that economists surveyed by MarketWatch were expecting.

The biggest gains in the retail sector were led by online and catalog companies, such as Amazon and Land’s End. That category witnessed sales jump 2.6 percent, the biggest increase in almost three years.

Earlier reports by comScore hinted that may be the case, with December online sales up almost 12 percent over last year. Many retailers encouraged shoppers to spend online by offering discounts and free-shipping incentives up until the last few days before Christmas.

Overall, the full-year gains were the most impressive numbers from today’s government report. Retail sales jumped 6.6 percent in 2010 compared to the year-ago period. The last time sales rose at a faster clip was 11 years ago during the Internet boom, when sales surged 8.2 percent.

Or, alternately, it’s premised on the idea that Google is going to spend more of its billions on ad technology start-ups. Same thing, sorta.

Either way, banker Terry Kawaja, whose Luma Partners makes money navigating the ad tech landscape, does a nice job of parodying it here.

This is definitely inside baseball: If you don’t know what AdExchanger* is or don’t know who Mike Walrath** is, this may not do much for you.

Then again, if you’re familiar with any other overhyped industry jammed full of money and buzzwords, you can probably follow along just fine. (Couple of f-bombs here, so figure out on your own if this is work-safe or not):

*It’s a really good ad tech trade site.
**An ad tech pioneer who founded Right Media and sold it to Yahoo in 2007.

[Image credit: AMagill]

As Kara Swisher has reported, Google (GOOG) and MySpace owner News Corp. (NWS) are close to a “realistic” search deal to replace the famous three-year, $900 million pact signed during the Web 2.0 boom. The old deal expired this summer, and the two companies have been negotiating a replacement while working through a couple of one-month extensions.

News Corp., which also owns this Web site, doesn’t have much leverage here. Its once-hot social network has long been eclipsed by Facebook, and Microsoft (MSFT) doesn’t seem inclined to make a competitive bid for the MySpace business.

Translation: The new deal should save Google $200 million in traffic acquisition costs, Khan says. And he figures that those savings will show up as soon Google’s Q3 results, due out next week: He’s boosted his net revenue estimate to $5.33 billion, up from $5.32 billion.

It’s important to remember this whenever you see stories about Hollywood’s resurgence, measured by box office receipts. Because box office receipts don’t do that much for Hollywood’s bottom line–that’s the role of DVDs.

It’s also important to remember this when you see stories about Hollywood’s conniption fit over “windowing” and the lawsuit/hardball deal combo the studios have used with Redbox and Netflix (NFLX). Because the studios’ desire to wring every last penny from DVDs is what’s driving those moves.

Ditto for Hollywood’s desire for a 3-D boom: The studios are in desperate need of a new revenue stream to replace the disappearing discs.

So here’s the one-sentence story I promised, which illustrates the collapse. It comes via Edward Jay Epstein’s dissection of MGM’s blowup, published on Defamer (nice get!):

In the US alone, MGM’s net receipts from DVDs fell from $140 million in its 2007 fiscal year (which ended March 31, 2008) to just $30.4 million by 2010.

That clarifies things, no?

Yes, you can add plenty of caveats if you’d like. For instance, MGM has been more or less dormant except for its Bond films the last couple years, and studios rely on new releases to juice DVD sales. And the DVD slump hasn’t hit all studios equally–Disney (DIS) and DreamWorks Animation (DWA) have done less poorly, because parents still need to buy stuff to occupy their kids.

But that’s still a staggering 78 percent drop in a couple years. So even if you’re running a studio whose DVD sales don’t look that bad, you’re looking at plummeting sales. Scary stuff.