I was struck by an Op-Ed in the NY Times over the weekend where it was remembered that during a long procedural Senate session, Bobby Kennedy once asked Ted "how long will it take before I become a great Senator"? The response was, 'whatever time it takes'. Sometimes, you just never know enough to give a more succinct answer.
Early stage venture backed companies often don't have the luxury to purse a 'whatever time it takes' strategy. Capital is invested, a site is built and the next step is the launch. The launch event that, pre-Google, was accompanied by shrimp with cocktail sauce, mini hot dogs and much press schmoozing. Post Google (excepting Bing), the standard seems to have gravitated towards a 'softer' launch, SEO tweaking, a beta banner, and a not too subtle buzzzzzz campaign with Facebook and Twitter resources brought to bear.
Though using different tactics, both methods have the same corporate objective; build positive metrics to raise more capital before the current dollars are exhausted. Today, early stage venture backed companies tend to be capitalized for an approximate 18 month run before more capital is required. Whatever time it takes means 12 months of market vindication (assuming a 6 month R&D incubation).
Contrast these ritualistic approaches with Wikipedia, now the 7th most visited site (per Alexa) or SpringSource, recently acquired by VMWare for $362mm. Here's their mission:
'SpringSource forges open source innovations to create lean and powerful technology that people love to use.'
Simple, direct, and all about creating great product that people will use (note that Springsource was venture backed, led by Accel and Benchmark). Numerous examples abound of quite successful sites that took a 'whatever time it takes' approach to building equity value. A couple of years ago, Club Penquin was the rage, today it's Twitter.
Another example of a 'whatever time it takes' success story is The New York Road Runners Foundation. My buddy Jim Milne is a co-founder of this organization that establishes community-based running programs, primarily through schools. Today, with a staff of 30, it serves more than 50,000 kids/week in more than 250 schools and has recently helped establish a program in S. Africa.
Obviously a key to successfully adopting the 'whatever time it takes' strategy is building and launching a site with enough novel utility that its adherents vocally support it via word of mouth, community forums, and product suggestions. Incidentally, all contributors to incredible capital efficiency.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Candidate for man of the year
Admittedly, similar to my smart friend Larry, I have Libertarian tendencies. Nevertheless, I am quite put-out by the opaque handling of the Merrill bonuses. Billions of dollars of taxpayer went out as bonuses to folk who brought a company to its knees, and its head to the M&A chopping block. The SEC has been notably silent about who knew what and when about all this.
Rather than blindly accepting yet another 'slap on the wrist' settlement, Judge Jed S. Rakoff wants to know more. He's requested, and will publicly release the information that we should know, before deciding to accept, or deny the SEC settlement with Merrill.
Here's the NY Times article describing his perspective. Also, just in, is the B of A response. The SEC will file its response by the end of the day.
Rather than blindly accepting yet another 'slap on the wrist' settlement, Judge Jed S. Rakoff wants to know more. He's requested, and will publicly release the information that we should know, before deciding to accept, or deny the SEC settlement with Merrill.
Here's the NY Times article describing his perspective. Also, just in, is the B of A response. The SEC will file its response by the end of the day.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
ATT and GOOG Voice
Andy Kessler wrote a nice piece in today's Wall Street Journal, where he opined that ATT/Apple's disincentive to 'open' the airwaves is as much an 'alpha' (company) problem, as it's a 'beta' (industry) issue.
Beginning with the concept that airwaves can be owned by private entities, the government has not only sold, but set a mechanism to maximize the price companies pay for exclusive airwave access. Of course, the derivative of large upfront payments is an expectation of a long and fruitful annuity of high customer payments.
We have a situation here where there is a non-alignment of government objectives (per the President "the US should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access.") and its policy of selling access.
Given the airwave ground rules, plus the granting of municipal cable monopolies (more upfront government fees) ATT/Apple, and others, are behaving exactly the way one would expect. Unfortunately, it's not in their long-term interests, nor those of the US, to have regulations that unnaturally create high margins in a world where marginal costs are plummeting and innovators, such as Google, are at the doorstep.
As we have seen, entrepreneurs who are stifled by locked doors, find windows of opportunity.
Beginning with the concept that airwaves can be owned by private entities, the government has not only sold, but set a mechanism to maximize the price companies pay for exclusive airwave access. Of course, the derivative of large upfront payments is an expectation of a long and fruitful annuity of high customer payments.
We have a situation here where there is a non-alignment of government objectives (per the President "the US should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access.") and its policy of selling access.
Given the airwave ground rules, plus the granting of municipal cable monopolies (more upfront government fees) ATT/Apple, and others, are behaving exactly the way one would expect. Unfortunately, it's not in their long-term interests, nor those of the US, to have regulations that unnaturally create high margins in a world where marginal costs are plummeting and innovators, such as Google, are at the doorstep.
As we have seen, entrepreneurs who are stifled by locked doors, find windows of opportunity.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Legal agreements
Fred Wilson, Chris Dixon, Brad Feld and others have recently posted about first round funding terms, and helpfully followed with advice and pointers to documents from the law firms Gunderson, Wilson Sonsini and Cooley Godward that will assist entrepreneurs (and VC's) to come to equitable terms.
A site that I have found helpful is Techagreements.com, which hosts a searchable database of a myriad of agreements, by scores of law firms.
In addition, you may want to search Scribd for relevant documents. As an example, here's a search that I conducted on venture financing.
Better transparency in the financing process is good for all.
A site that I have found helpful is Techagreements.com, which hosts a searchable database of a myriad of agreements, by scores of law firms.
In addition, you may want to search Scribd for relevant documents. As an example, here's a search that I conducted on venture financing.
Better transparency in the financing process is good for all.
Monday, August 17, 2009
20 million video views and going strong
User generated video
Site built by a friend (in the business)
100% viral 'marketing'
Ads by Google on the home site (not sure of the relevance for all, but clearly some return)
Video hosted and stored, for no cost @ Youtube
Those Twin Lakes rock!
And of course, the spoof with 1.4mm views:
Site built by a friend (in the business)
100% viral 'marketing'
Ads by Google on the home site (not sure of the relevance for all, but clearly some return)
Video hosted and stored, for no cost @ Youtube
Those Twin Lakes rock!
And of course, the spoof with 1.4mm views:
Virtually yours
I have recently been exposed to some happenings (in the estimated $2B revenue) virtual world arena. As in just about any market of this size, it is experiencing fragmentation as the communities become more granular.
Second Life is probably the best known property for folk of my generation. With IBM as a visible member of its community, it's just fine for folk like me to 'research' the site.
Here's an analyst report on the still private company prepared by Global Silicon Valley Partners.
While 'researching' Second Life, a young member of my household commented that it was not as much fun as Stardoll. If you have not yet heard, or played with Stardoll, check out the site comparison below:
Per the site " Stardoll is the largest online community for girls who love fashion, shopping, decorating, creativity, and making new friends from around the world. Members create their own MeDoll avatar, go shopping, dress up, decorate their suite, express themselves creatively and socialize with each other."
Though the site clearly does not have the graphic quality, nor depth of SecondLife, it is good enough to build a rabid following of 7-17 year olds and two years ago attracted a $6mm investment from Index Ventures and Sequoia.
In my household, I have seen a steady progression from Webkinz to Club Penguin, followed by Stardoll, which leads to Miss Bimbo.
Second Life is probably the best known property for folk of my generation. With IBM as a visible member of its community, it's just fine for folk like me to 'research' the site.
Here's an analyst report on the still private company prepared by Global Silicon Valley Partners.
While 'researching' Second Life, a young member of my household commented that it was not as much fun as Stardoll. If you have not yet heard, or played with Stardoll, check out the site comparison below:
Per the site " Stardoll is the largest online community for girls who love fashion, shopping, decorating, creativity, and making new friends from around the world. Members create their own MeDoll avatar, go shopping, dress up, decorate their suite, express themselves creatively and socialize with each other."
Though the site clearly does not have the graphic quality, nor depth of SecondLife, it is good enough to build a rabid following of 7-17 year olds and two years ago attracted a $6mm investment from Index Ventures and Sequoia.
In my household, I have seen a steady progression from Webkinz to Club Penguin, followed by Stardoll, which leads to Miss Bimbo.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
A bite out of the Apple?
One of the attractive, and sticky applications that endears Blackberry owners to their devices is Blackberry Messenger Manager (BBM). It's essentially an instant message application for your smart phone that facilitates texting.
A new version of BBM was just 'leaked' (messenger 5.0) and looks like a significant enhancement. It adds location management to the application, group chat, and facilitates adding new contacts through a neat 'bar code' feature which is integrated with the camera.
To me, the core strength of the BBerry is around its communication (mail and messenger) attributes. This upgrade cements the appeal for current owners, and those interested in having a device maximized for communications. For others, who seek a mobile internet experience, the iPhone just can't be beat.
Here's a nice tutorial on YouTube, posted by Moe Step:
A new version of BBM was just 'leaked' (messenger 5.0) and looks like a significant enhancement. It adds location management to the application, group chat, and facilitates adding new contacts through a neat 'bar code' feature which is integrated with the camera.
To me, the core strength of the BBerry is around its communication (mail and messenger) attributes. This upgrade cements the appeal for current owners, and those interested in having a device maximized for communications. For others, who seek a mobile internet experience, the iPhone just can't be beat.
Here's a nice tutorial on YouTube, posted by Moe Step:
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Open Source
The WSJ published a fine article about the success Peter Fenton of Benchmark (formerly Accel) has had in concentrating on, and exiting, Open Source investments. I am a huge believer that Enterprise prices are on a steady downward pricing curve and that 'best of breed' vendors are suffering from the slings and arrows of open source (maintenance based) pricing, AND pricing bundles from integrated vendors that takes away, or minimizes ASP's for these independent vendors. While terribly painful for these focused vendors (and their investors), it's good for customers.
Here's some of the quotes that I really enjoyed (and agree with):
When praising open-source many venture investors tout the low-cost product development that comes from a project’s community. But for Fenton, that’s overstated - the real advantage he says is the distribution model.
Rather than “expensive sales efforts and negotiations with the upper management to get the most money possible,” the people that will be using the software can easily download and try the product. This helps the best products proliferate and weeds out the underperformers.
Having a well-received product not only results in plenty of downloads, users and developers, it also makes the sales process that much easier. With SpringSource, “anyone the company sold to was already using the product,”
The success of open source, coupled with the aggressive pricing of integrated vendors (CA, Oracle et al) is mostly killing the business model of the best of breed vendors offering limited product suites. Unless these vendors offer real technology innovation, as opposed to products based on business process innovation, it will be quite hard for them to realize returns that will justify the capital investment necessary to build the IP and a direct sales/service organization to support it.
From an investors point of view, the opportunity cost of investing in an Enterprise software company that requires a direct salesforce, a dedicated R&D team, plus a 24/7 support organization pales in comparison to internet enabled alternatives. As my buddy Elad once said "Stay away from businesses that fight technology trends", and embrace the one's that are ahead of the wave.
Here's some of the quotes that I really enjoyed (and agree with):
When praising open-source many venture investors tout the low-cost product development that comes from a project’s community. But for Fenton, that’s overstated - the real advantage he says is the distribution model.
Rather than “expensive sales efforts and negotiations with the upper management to get the most money possible,” the people that will be using the software can easily download and try the product. This helps the best products proliferate and weeds out the underperformers.
Having a well-received product not only results in plenty of downloads, users and developers, it also makes the sales process that much easier. With SpringSource, “anyone the company sold to was already using the product,”
The success of open source, coupled with the aggressive pricing of integrated vendors (CA, Oracle et al) is mostly killing the business model of the best of breed vendors offering limited product suites. Unless these vendors offer real technology innovation, as opposed to products based on business process innovation, it will be quite hard for them to realize returns that will justify the capital investment necessary to build the IP and a direct sales/service organization to support it.
From an investors point of view, the opportunity cost of investing in an Enterprise software company that requires a direct salesforce, a dedicated R&D team, plus a 24/7 support organization pales in comparison to internet enabled alternatives. As my buddy Elad once said "Stay away from businesses that fight technology trends", and embrace the one's that are ahead of the wave.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Stop making sense
I've been thinking about two high profile, yet unrelated transactions that took place in the past 30 days in the Internet. The Yahoo/MSFT licensing deal and now the Facebook/Friendfeed acquisition. Here's my thoughts:
Yahoo/MSFT
As a Yahoo shareholder I was initially quite disappointed with the terms of the transaction. Like many others, I hoped for much more. However, the reality is that Yahoo search was a depreciating asset. The operation did not have the vision to change the playing field (e.g. Wolfram Alpha), was mired in a distant second market share position, and despite the most public display of being for sale, had no other visible bidders. I believe the management/board team has rightly decided to do a final harvest of the fruits of the 'last war' and clear the decks for the next battle(s). Too bad there was not a 'boat-full of upfront cash, but this outcome is more a reflection of the market value, rather than lack of trying to maximize, or will to do a transaction.
Realistically, the company is way too far behind in the current market 'sweet spot', namely real-time and social. Let alone invisible in exploring, let alone taking early market stakes, in other emerging markets. Hopefully, with the search transaction now behind them and a rebuilt management team at the helm, the team can focus on building going forward value for shareholders by bringing together innovation and its audience reach.
Facebook/Friendfeed
I am a believer that when markets develop, initially best of breed vendors take early leads. Later, firms which combine their initial market share, with a product vision which expands their offerings to serve more needs for their customers, emerge/remain market forces. In the last couple of days, Facebook has aggressively signaled its intent to expand its service through incorporating real-time, adding more user requested social features, and introducing an alpha version of Facebook lite. These are important and timely additions as they simultaneously fend off competition from below (Twitter), and from established vendors who will surely mount spirited counter attacks (Yahoo, MSFT etc).
I suspect the M&A market will shortly heat up for a select few of the innovative social vendors and their shareholders.
Yahoo/MSFT
As a Yahoo shareholder I was initially quite disappointed with the terms of the transaction. Like many others, I hoped for much more. However, the reality is that Yahoo search was a depreciating asset. The operation did not have the vision to change the playing field (e.g. Wolfram Alpha), was mired in a distant second market share position, and despite the most public display of being for sale, had no other visible bidders. I believe the management/board team has rightly decided to do a final harvest of the fruits of the 'last war' and clear the decks for the next battle(s). Too bad there was not a 'boat-full of upfront cash, but this outcome is more a reflection of the market value, rather than lack of trying to maximize, or will to do a transaction.
Realistically, the company is way too far behind in the current market 'sweet spot', namely real-time and social. Let alone invisible in exploring, let alone taking early market stakes, in other emerging markets. Hopefully, with the search transaction now behind them and a rebuilt management team at the helm, the team can focus on building going forward value for shareholders by bringing together innovation and its audience reach.
Facebook/Friendfeed
I am a believer that when markets develop, initially best of breed vendors take early leads. Later, firms which combine their initial market share, with a product vision which expands their offerings to serve more needs for their customers, emerge/remain market forces. In the last couple of days, Facebook has aggressively signaled its intent to expand its service through incorporating real-time, adding more user requested social features, and introducing an alpha version of Facebook lite. These are important and timely additions as they simultaneously fend off competition from below (Twitter), and from established vendors who will surely mount spirited counter attacks (Yahoo, MSFT etc).
I suspect the M&A market will shortly heat up for a select few of the innovative social vendors and their shareholders.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Marc Andreessen
Marc Andreessen (Netscape and Opsware, Ning and Andreessen Horwitz) at his irreverent best:
On newspapers- "stop the presses, how many years of pain do you want to take"
Facebook- 175mm active users, no brand advertising preferring organic growth
iPhone- A central platform for developers to build mobile applications "it was like beamed in from the future"
Qik- He's an investor...any phone with a video camera can stream video live to the web
Venture Capital- We are going to invest in many early stage software companies, with a small amount of initial capital ($200k-$1mm), when successful he'll invest more deeply. Harnessing capital efficiency which the web brings.
Twitter- He bet on the entrepreneur while he was with Odeo, when it was failing, he saw an opportunity that became Twitter. He returned the money raised for Odeo and invited the investors to join him in Twitter.
Kindle- Is representative of the new era of publishing. It's a new form factor 'web pads' that will be a precursor for a generation of similar devices (as a Kindle owner, I agree, and can't wait for a similar sized iPod/iPhone).
On newspapers- "stop the presses, how many years of pain do you want to take"
Facebook- 175mm active users, no brand advertising preferring organic growth
iPhone- A central platform for developers to build mobile applications "it was like beamed in from the future"
Qik- He's an investor...any phone with a video camera can stream video live to the web
Venture Capital- We are going to invest in many early stage software companies, with a small amount of initial capital ($200k-$1mm), when successful he'll invest more deeply. Harnessing capital efficiency which the web brings.
Twitter- He bet on the entrepreneur while he was with Odeo, when it was failing, he saw an opportunity that became Twitter. He returned the money raised for Odeo and invited the investors to join him in Twitter.
Kindle- Is representative of the new era of publishing. It's a new form factor 'web pads' that will be a precursor for a generation of similar devices (as a Kindle owner, I agree, and can't wait for a similar sized iPod/iPhone).
Monday, August 3, 2009
ATT is getting 'engaged' on the FCC iPhone matter
Per Seeking Alpha:
Update: AT&T responded to this post with the following statements:
AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it.
Customers can use any compatible GSM phone on our network, not just the ones we’ve approved and sell. And they also can use apps we don’t approve. We don’t approve iPhone applications.
So, it would seem that Apple are the folk that rejected the GOOG Voice application. Though, the company who 'gains' the most by this rejection is ATT (hard to see the upside for Apple, unless the rejection was formally done by Apple, at the behest of ATT). It's great the FCC is getting into this and one or both of these organizations will, hopefully, change their evil ways.
Bottom line is that if you purchase a device (phone, computer, tablet etc), you should be the one who decides what should go on it. Perhaps, ATT/Apple should read the GOOG 'ten things Google has found to be true'.
If pressed for time, 'Don't be evil' should suffice.
Update: AT&T responded to this post with the following statements:
AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it.
Customers can use any compatible GSM phone on our network, not just the ones we’ve approved and sell. And they also can use apps we don’t approve. We don’t approve iPhone applications.
So, it would seem that Apple are the folk that rejected the GOOG Voice application. Though, the company who 'gains' the most by this rejection is ATT (hard to see the upside for Apple, unless the rejection was formally done by Apple, at the behest of ATT). It's great the FCC is getting into this and one or both of these organizations will, hopefully, change their evil ways.
Bottom line is that if you purchase a device (phone, computer, tablet etc), you should be the one who decides what should go on it. Perhaps, ATT/Apple should read the GOOG 'ten things Google has found to be true'.
If pressed for time, 'Don't be evil' should suffice.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Copy of FCC letters...
Courtesy of Techcrunch
FCC Letter to Apple
July 31, 2009
Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President
Worldwide Government Affairs
Apple Inc.
901 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
RE: Google Voice and related iPhone applications
Dear Ms. Novelli:
Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.
To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.
1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.
2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?
3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?
6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?
Request for Confidential Treatment. If Apple requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
FCC Letter to Google
July 31, 2009
Richard S. Whitt, Esq.
Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
Google Inc.
1101 New York Avenue, NW, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005
RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application
Dear Mr. Whitt:
Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.
To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.
1. Please provide a description of the proposed Google Voice application for iPhone. What are the key features, and how does it operate (over a voice or data network, etc.)?
2. What explanation was given (if any) for Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application (and for any other Google applications for iPhone that have been rejected, such as Google Latitude)? Please describe any communications between Google and AT&T or Apple on this topic and a summary of any meetings or discussion.
3. Has Apple approved any Google applications for the Apple App Store? If so, what services do they provide, and, in Google’s opinion, are they similar to any Apple/AT&T-provided applications?
4. Does Google have any other proposed applications pending with Apple, and if so, what services do they provide?
5. Are there other mechanisms by which an iPhone user will be able to access either some or all of the features of Google Voice? If so, please explain how and to what extent iPhone users can utilize Google Voice despite the fact that it is not available through Apple’s App Store.
6. Please provide a description of the standards for considering and approving applications with respect to Google’s Android platform. What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?
Request for Confidential Treatment. If Google requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
FCC Letter to AT&T
July 31, 2009
James W. Cicconi
Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs
AT&T Services, Inc.
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application
Dear Mr. Cicconi:
Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.
To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.
1. What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple’s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications? What role, if any, does AT&T play in consideration of iPhone applications generally? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or in any non-contractual understanding between the companies) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
2. Did Apple consult with AT&T in the process of deciding to reject the Google Voice application? If so, please describe any communications between AT&T and Apple or Google on this topic, including the parties involved and a summary of any meetings or discussions.
3. Please explain AT&T’s understanding of any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol applications that are currently used on the AT&T network, either via the iPhone or via handsets other than the iPhone.
4. To AT&T’s knowledge, what other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone? Which of these applications were designed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network? What was AT&T’s role in considering whether such applications would be approved or rejected?
5. Please detail any conditions included in AT&T’s agreements or contracts with Apple for the iPhone related to the certification of applications or any particular application’s ability to use AT&T’s 3G network.
6. Are there any terms in AT&T’s customer agreements that limit customer usage of certain third-party applications? If so, please indicate how consumers are informed of such limitations and whether such limitations are posted on the iTunes website as well. In general, what is AT&T’s role in certifying applications on devices that run over AT&T’s 3G network? What, if any, applications require AT&T’s approval to be added to a device? Are there any differences between AT&T’s treatment of the iPhone and other devices used on its 3G network?
7. Please list the services/applications that AT&T provides for the iPhone, and whether there any similar, competing iPhone applications offered by other providers in Apple’s App Store.
8. Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of the Google Voice application? Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of other applications that have been rejected for the iPhone?
9. Please explain whether, on AT&T’s network, consumers’ access to and usage of Google Voice is disabled on the iPhone but permitted on other handsets, including Research in Motion’s BlackBerry devices.
Request for Confidential Treatment. If AT&T requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission
FCC Letter to Apple
July 31, 2009
Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President
Worldwide Government Affairs
Apple Inc.
901 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
RE: Google Voice and related iPhone applications
Dear Ms. Novelli:
Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.
To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.
1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.
2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?
3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?
6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?
Request for Confidential Treatment. If Apple requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
FCC Letter to Google
July 31, 2009
Richard S. Whitt, Esq.
Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
Google Inc.
1101 New York Avenue, NW, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005
RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application
Dear Mr. Whitt:
Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.
To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.
1. Please provide a description of the proposed Google Voice application for iPhone. What are the key features, and how does it operate (over a voice or data network, etc.)?
2. What explanation was given (if any) for Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application (and for any other Google applications for iPhone that have been rejected, such as Google Latitude)? Please describe any communications between Google and AT&T or Apple on this topic and a summary of any meetings or discussion.
3. Has Apple approved any Google applications for the Apple App Store? If so, what services do they provide, and, in Google’s opinion, are they similar to any Apple/AT&T-provided applications?
4. Does Google have any other proposed applications pending with Apple, and if so, what services do they provide?
5. Are there other mechanisms by which an iPhone user will be able to access either some or all of the features of Google Voice? If so, please explain how and to what extent iPhone users can utilize Google Voice despite the fact that it is not available through Apple’s App Store.
6. Please provide a description of the standards for considering and approving applications with respect to Google’s Android platform. What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?
Request for Confidential Treatment. If Google requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
FCC Letter to AT&T
July 31, 2009
James W. Cicconi
Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs
AT&T Services, Inc.
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application
Dear Mr. Cicconi:
Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.
To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.
1. What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple’s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications? What role, if any, does AT&T play in consideration of iPhone applications generally? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or in any non-contractual understanding between the companies) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
2. Did Apple consult with AT&T in the process of deciding to reject the Google Voice application? If so, please describe any communications between AT&T and Apple or Google on this topic, including the parties involved and a summary of any meetings or discussions.
3. Please explain AT&T’s understanding of any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol applications that are currently used on the AT&T network, either via the iPhone or via handsets other than the iPhone.
4. To AT&T’s knowledge, what other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone? Which of these applications were designed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network? What was AT&T’s role in considering whether such applications would be approved or rejected?
5. Please detail any conditions included in AT&T’s agreements or contracts with Apple for the iPhone related to the certification of applications or any particular application’s ability to use AT&T’s 3G network.
6. Are there any terms in AT&T’s customer agreements that limit customer usage of certain third-party applications? If so, please indicate how consumers are informed of such limitations and whether such limitations are posted on the iTunes website as well. In general, what is AT&T’s role in certifying applications on devices that run over AT&T’s 3G network? What, if any, applications require AT&T’s approval to be added to a device? Are there any differences between AT&T’s treatment of the iPhone and other devices used on its 3G network?
7. Please list the services/applications that AT&T provides for the iPhone, and whether there any similar, competing iPhone applications offered by other providers in Apple’s App Store.
8. Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of the Google Voice application? Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of other applications that have been rejected for the iPhone?
9. Please explain whether, on AT&T’s network, consumers’ access to and usage of Google Voice is disabled on the iPhone but permitted on other handsets, including Research in Motion’s BlackBerry devices.
Request for Confidential Treatment. If AT&T requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission
FCC inquiry into GOOG Voice's elimination from App Store
I can only applaud the continued weakening of the carrier hegemony. Here's the CNN synopsis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)