Archive

The May Report: 5/9/2012: My info. about SOBCon is that boisterous, bombastic, blowhard blogger Chris Brogan broke down (possibly a full blown nervous) after break up (divorce), according to his…


The May Report: 5/9/2012: My info. about SOBCon is that boisterous, bombastic, blowhard blogger Chris Brogan broke down (possibly a full blown nervous) after break up (divorce), according to his begetter (dad); and Steve Hall of http://www.adrants.com/ reported privately that his blog traffic is way down; 3 key speakers at Techweek revealed; At the ITA, someone should be getting the axe — Dorothy Radke, Sarah Habansky, Fred Hoch?; Mobcart https://mobcart.co/ raised $100K from angels, including from Orlando Saez of the State of Illinois; not every firm moving into the reserved space at 1871 has 2-5 people — some have 12 or 15 people but just 2 or 3 desks at 1871, and Song Lyrics http://www.songlyrics.com/news/category/news-roundup/ (I hope that URL is correct), has 30 programmers in India; another firm I talked to, www.kboomgames.com, has developers in Quinxado, China; at the Efoora bankruptcy hearing, Trustee Catherine Stege revealed that Efoora has just $190,000 left in the bank, so with the extra $50,000 from Subhash Varshney and Applied Biomedical, they’d have $240,000 and that’s before legal fees eat away at it; btw, Rich Fogel, the lawyer at Shaw Gussis who assisted receiver Ira Bodenstein with the receivership, fielded many calls and handled many issues without billing for it; and there are Efoora investors who want to write off their investment and close the books — at least that’s part of Stege’s argument, and Fogel confirmed to me that he has gotten many such calls; at one point Judge Goldgar snapped at Stephen J. Browm, a lawyer for www.srcattorneys.com and the objector (Doug Jaeger) to the trustee’s motion, “What did you expect Ms. Stege to do, travel around to find competitors, buyers, and investors?”; my gut feeling is that despite the glaring lack of 3rd party, independent evaluation and verification of Varshney’s claims and the impeachment of his testimony, the judge will probably back the idea that there are limited prospects for mass production of the glucose meter in a saturated market — in statistics, they call it regression toward the mean, so if Efoora is the outlier, then Judge Goldgar and Trustee Stege may not have the patience for it

Editor and publisher: Ron May, ron@192.168.1.100/tmr, ronaldmay@aol.com,www.192.168.1.100/tmr, 773-525-3944.

If you missed an article, go here:
www.tmronline.com/A55951/tmrarticles.nsf/vwFullNewsletter
______________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Scoop section:

– Three key speakers scheduled for Techweek 2012; Wait, did I read that in Crain’s, the Trib, the Sun-Times, Technori, Tech Cocktail, TINC Mag, Tech.li?
– JJL Technologies leaving Illinois
– Infographic: Groupon’s SEC Troubles
– Just 12 cards Ron collected out of about 200 at the 1871 Grand opening festivities on May 2, 2012
– Dan Lyne, World Business Chicago, Winner of the 13th Annual ITA CityLIGHTS Award — I didn’t even know who the nominees for this award were, and neither did Phil Tadros!, one of the nominees; my info. is that a number of nominees did not know they were nominated, regardless of the category, one of them being Dee Daniels of Digital Diva 2.0; we all know the marketing and educating done by the ITA has been horrid, but they do try to sell tickets as always, which is the raison d’etre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison_d’%C3%AAtre for the awards anyway as we all know; Dorothy Radke and Sarah Habansky, what is it that you do again?
– Phil Tadros: Had no clue that he was nominated, so Freddie, who gets the axe for that?
– A disgruntled Yahoo shareholder questioned the qualifications and integrity of recently hired CEO Scott Thompson after exposing a misrepresentation about the executive’s education
– Third Point squeezes Yahoo again to oust CEO Scott Thompson
– Penn State Will Pay Two PR Firms $2.5 Million To Help School “Rebuild Trust”
– Cutting Edge Technologies Lead Nominations for American Technology Awards
– Forbes: The 2012 list of the top 100 investors
– Forbes: Top Gripes Of The Midas List, 2012 Edition
– Forbes: 2011′s Top Tech Investors
– Forbes: Eric Jackson: Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years
– Forecast Losses at Oprah’s OWN approach a staggering $330m as industry insiders predict it will be axed within the year

[Editor's note: May here. A source close to the dean of the business school at Loyola seems to think they may be interested in space at 1871, so it can be catching.

My 85 year old mom, now a subscriber to TMR, who plays Scrabble on her iPad, knows more than she realizes. She told me that she knew Maurice Sendak's cousin when we lived in Columbia, MO in the early 1960s and that Sendak was gay, a hot topic on this day of all days. :-)

I looked it up in Wikipedia and it was revealed about 8 years ago, but my mom knew it circa 1963, 40 years earlier! In those days, such things were not generally discussed, especially in places like Columbia, MO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Sendak
"Sendak mentioned in a September 2008 article in The New York Times that he was gay and had lived with his partner, psychoanalyst Dr. Eugene Glynn, for 50 years before Glynn’s death in May 2007. Revealing that he never told his parents, he said, "All I wanted was to be straight so my parents could be happy. They never, never, never knew."[13] Sendak’s relationship with Glynn had been mentioned by other writers before (e.g., Tony Kushner in 2003).[14] In Glynn’s 2007 New York Times obituary, Sendak was listed as Glynn’s ‘partner of fifty years’.”]
__________________________
The Scoop section:
________________________
Three key speakers scheduled for Techweek 2012; Wait, did I read that in Crain’s, the Trib, the Sun-Times, Technori, Tech Cocktail, TINC Mag, Tech.li?

Subject: Re: Arabella, I’m trying to get 3 reports out today. Can you send the speaker list?
Date: 5/9/2012 4:13:56 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: arabella@techweek.com
To: RONALDMAY@aol.com

–Howard Tullman, President & CEO, Tribeca Flashpoint Academy
–Casey Neistat, HBO & YouTube Filmmaker
–Michael Small, CEO, GoGo, Inc.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:38 PM, <RONALDMAY@aol.com> wrote:

Arabella Santiago | Executive Director
Techweek | 222 W Hubbard St., Suite 200 | Chicago, IL 60654 | o 312.624.9214 | m 415.378.2344

www.techweek.com/conference | @thetechweek | www.facebook.com/techweek
___________________________
JJL Technologies leaving Illinois

JJL Technologies leaving Illinois
Inbox
x

Walter W. Sloan wwsloan@jjltech.com
2:42 PM (47 minutes ago)
to me
from: Walter W. Sloan wwsloan@jjltech.com
to: Ron May <ron@192.168.1.100/tmr>
date: Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:42 PM
subject: JJL Technologies leaving Illinois
: Important mainly because of the words in the message.
Ron,

After fifteen years in Illinois, JJL Technologies LLC (http://www.jjltech.com/) is moving out of its facility in Morton Grove. As a result, the company has office, electronic, and manufacturing equipment for sale, all in very good condition. If any of your readers may be interested in seeing a list of what is available, please have them contact me. Thanks, Ron.

Best regards,

Walt Sloan
_______________________
Walter W. Sloan
Vice President of Operations
JJL Technologies LLC
8121 Austin Avenue
Morton Grove, IL 60053
USA
1-847-470-8915 x109
1-847-470-8936 Fax
wwsloan@jjltech.com
www.jjltech.com
_________________________________
Infographic: Groupon’s SEC Troubles

Infographic: Groupon’s SEC Troubles
Inbox
x

Muhammad Saleem msaleem@gmail.com via dme3ds1.com
May 7 (2 days ago)
to me
Images are not displayed. Display images below – Always display images from msaleem@gmail.com
Hi Ron,
With the SEC’s recent probe into Groupon, we decided to take a closer look at Groupon’s troubled history. We also decided to illustrate more simply the SEC’s problem with Groupon so it’s easy for everyone to understand. Please take a look at the resulting infographic and please feel free to share with your readers on The May Report.
Sincerely,
Mu.
P.S. If you have any questions at all, please feel free to email me!

Muhammad Saleem
http://muhammadsaleem.com
(312) – 576 – 1575
msaleem@gmail.com
_________________________________
Just 12 cards Ron collected out of about 200 at the 1871 Grand opening festivities on May 2, 2012

1. Sharon Schneider
Founder and CEO
Good Karma Clothing for Kids
www.goodkarma.co
sharon@goodkarma.co
office: 224-735-3387
cell: 224-422-8799
2. Ella Life
ella@venuecricket.com
www.venuecricket.com
312-772-2522
They have 4 people and match organizers with event space
3. Joe Flesh came here from Boston.
It’s a social services location site for Chicago.
We talked at 1871.
http://www.purplebinder.com/
joe@purplebinder.com
617-910-7317
4. These guys appear to be at Tech Nexus.
Pere Marc Rigo
CEO and Founder
www.provenhires.com
w. 312-650-9655
m. 215-316-6955
rigo@provenhires.com
5. Simcha Kanter
www.topcollrague.com
w. 312-239-3637
m. 312-394-0588
simcha@topcolleague.com
They’re in beta.
WHERE TOP TALENT AND INNOVATIVE COMPANIES MEET
UNPARALLELED TALENT
Our invite-only network of top talent from the world’s leading companies is looking for their next opportunity at a more innovative, more agile company. That’s you.

FIND TOP TALENT. FAST.
You don’t have time to waste contacting talent that isn’t interested. On Top Colleague, every candidate you receive has already expressed interest in your company.
PAY WHEN YOU HIRE
Why spend your budget on expensive database subscriptions or job posting fees? With Top Colleague, you only pay when you hire.
6. Well, whaduya know, a company from the Evanston incubator!
I don’t know if they’re moving to 1871.
Phil Dziedzic, Cop-founder, marketing and design
phil@sweetperk.com
847-345-8686
Our mission is to build an effective digital marketing platform for small businesses

The team met in January of 2011 as part of the NUvention: Web entrepreneurial course at Northwestern University. We launched our first LiveLocal™ app, Passport to Downtown Evanston, in June of that year, and incorporated shortly thereafter.

Working out of the Northwestern Incubator in Evanston, we built and launched six additional mobile apps on the LiveLocal™ platform, representing over 15,000 users and 1700 small businesses.

In April 2012, we joined the 1871 community and moved our offices to the Merchandise Mart Plaza downtown Chicago!

While building a strong customer base with LiveLocal™, we identified the need for a simple, private feedback system for businesses and began working on the prototype for Salt™. We continue to learn about the ideal customer for Salt™ and are adding to its functionality.
Send us feedback, we want to hear from you!

Use Salt™ by texting to: 520-366-8174 or email us at support [at] sweetperk.com

7. Eli Rosenberg

Business Development

eli@getfoodgenius.com
312-451-7366
www.getfoodgenius.com
8. Harlan Karp
Partner
www.parkonect.com
harlan@parkonect.com
1319 S. State St., Suite B
312-431-0777
c: 312-607-2222
Note that they’re South of Roosevelt Road and I believe that SpotHero uses them.
9. Dan Salcedo
Chief A-Z Officer
dan@mobcart.co
832-443-5038
http://mobcart.co
He’ll be at 1871.
10. Robert Brown
Founder
rbrown@bitbend.com
http://www.bitbend.com/
312-798-9794
M: 708-834-3178
They appear to be in private beta.
11. Timoty Dernick
Project Manager
tdernick@kboomgames.com
847-313-9204
5 people here
Founder is Dan Amdur
CEO, Steve Gradman
www.kboomgames.com
They also have Chinese developers in Quinxado
12. Daniel X. O’Neil
Executive Director
www.smartchicagocollaborative.org
doneil@cct.org
M: 773-960-6045
O: 312-565-2867
Founders
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
City of Chicago
The Chicago Community Trust

Daniel X. O’Neil

Daniel X. O’Neil is the Executive Director of the Smart Chicago Collaborative. Complete bio here.

Concepción Prado

Concepción Prado has served as a consultant to Smart Chicago in 2011.
.
Christian Greer
Christian Greer is Program Director for Learning Networks. He works closely with the Hive Network and other education programs.
.
Advisory Committee
The Smart Chicago Collaborative is guided by its Advisory Committee, made up of leaders from its founding partners.
Terry Mazany
Terry Mazany is president and chief executive officer for The Chicago Community Trust. Complete bio.
Julia Stasch

Julia Stasch is Vice President of U.S. Programs of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Complete bio here.
John Tolva

John Tolva is the Chief Technology Officer of the City of Chicago. Read complete bio here.
________________________________
Dan Lyne, World Business Chicago, Winner of the 13th Annual ITA CityLIGHTS Award — I didn’t even know who the nominees for this award were, and neither did Phil Tadros!, one of the nominees; my info. is that a number of nominees did not know they were nominated, regardless of the category, one of them being Dee Daniels of Digital Diva 2.0; we all know the marketing and educating done by the ITA has been horrid, but they do try to sell tickets as always, which is the raison d’etre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison_d’%C3%AAtre for the awards anyway as we all know; Dorothy Radke and Sarah Habansky, what is it that you do again?

Dan Lyne, World Business Chicago, Winner of the 13th Annual ITA CityLIGHTS Award
Inbox
x

Bruce Montgomery tatvshow@yahoo.com
May 6 (3 days ago)
to me, Ron
Dan Lyne, World Business Chicago, Winner of the 13th Annual ITA CityLIGHTS Award
Technology Thought Leader Recognized as Illinois Technology Association (ITA) CityLIGHTS Award Winner
CHICAGO, IL, May 04, 2012 (www.twitter.com/techaccesstv) — The Illinois Technology Association (ITA) is honored to announce the winner of the 2012 ITA CityLIGHTS Award.
The 2012 CityLIGHTS Award winner is: Dan Lyne, Director, Technology Development, World Business Chicago.
Dan leads technology initiatives for World Business Chicago. For more than a decade, Dan has been a devoted champion of the Chicago tech scene both home and abroad, as the principal public/private liaison for corporate technology and entrepreneurial leadership. His impact has been felt by all members of the technology community whether they realized it or not.
The CityLIGHTS Award is presented to an individual or business that actively and consistently supports the growth of the Illinois technology industry through demonstrated collaborative involvement, bringing a spotlight on the community.
“On behalf of the Illinois Technology Association and the ITA board of directors, we extend our congratulations to Dan Lyne, the 2012 CityLIGHTS Award recipient,” said Fred Hoch, ITA president. “Dan’s personal initiative to push the growth of the local technology industry to the forefront of the national scene can be felt throughout our community. With Dan’s leadership and support, we look forward to the continued growth of the Illinois technology industry.”
The CityLIGHTS Award winner is determined by the Board of Directors of the ITA. Dan joins an illustrious group of leaders who continue to support the local community, including Howard Tullman, 2011; Jack Noonan, 2010; and Linda Darragh, 2009.
Finalists for the 13th Annual CityLIGHTS Award included winner Dan Lyne, World Business Chicago, Matt Moog, ViewPoints Network, The Mayor’s Office, Dennis Roberson, Illinois Institute of Technology, and Phil Tadros, Doejo.
The ITA CityLIGHTS Awards Gala will be held on May 10, 2012 in the Great Hall at Chicago’s Union Station. To sponsor, purchase a table or tickets to the event, visit www.illinoistech.org . The Gala is an opportunity for the industry to connect, socialize, and celebrate the continued success of the technology industry in Illinois and the growing importance of this economic sector. The winners of the remaining awards categories will be announced at the Gala on May 10.
About the ITA The Illinois Technology Association (ITA) is the driving force behind the growth of Illinois’ vibrant technology industry. Providing programs and services focused on development, visibility, and talent attraction, ITA accelerates the growth of member company’s businesses. ITA brings growth-stage industry companies together, leveraging the connections and experiences of the community to increase the overall success rate of the local industry. Championing the development and application of technologies and leveraging its transformative nature, ITA is an invaluable resource for growing companies.
Contact the ITA at headquarters@illinoistech.org, follow the discussion on Twitter at @itabuzz, and visit www.illinoistech.org to find out more about how ITA supports the growth of the local industry.

Bruce Eric Montgomery
Founder, Producer & Host
Technology Access Television
200 S. Wacker Drive, 15th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606-5865
(312) 725-8601
tatvshow@yahoo.com
www.TechAccessTV.com
www.twitter.com/TechAccessTV
www.facebook.com/TechAccessTV
www.YouTube.com/TechAccessTV
__________________________
Phil Tadros: Had no clue that he was nominated, so Freddie, who gets the axe for that?

Phil Tadros: Had no clue that he was nominated, so Freddie, who gets the axe for that?
Subject: Re: Phil, you were a finalist, so congrats! But I never saw the list of nominees.
Date: 5/6/2012 6:05:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: phil@doejo.com
To: RONALDMAY@aol.com
Yea I have no clue, was shocked and excited to see me and my team on the list.

Wild.
Philip Tadros
708.655.6753
doejo.com
On May 6, 2012, at 6:03 PM, “RONALDMAY@aol.com” <RONALDMAY@aol.com> wrote:

Finalists for the 13th Annual CityLIGHTS Award included winner Dan Lyne, World Business Chicago, Matt Moog, ViewPoints Network, The Mayor’s Office, Dennis Roberson, Illinois Institute of Technology, and Phil Tadros, Doejo.
_________________________________
A disgruntled Yahoo shareholder questioned the qualifications and integrity of recently hired CEO Scott Thompson after exposing a misrepresentation about the executive’s education

A disgruntled Yahoo shareholder questioned the qualifications and integrity of recently hired CEO Scott Thompson after exposing a misrepresentation about the executive’s education.
The fabrication confirmed Thursday by Yahoo Inc. gives New York hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb more artillery as he tries to topple a board of directors favored by Thompson, who became CEO of the troubled Internet company four months ago.
Loeb, whose fund Third Point owns a 5.8 percent stake in Yahoo, gained more leverage when he discovered Thompson doesn’t have a bachelor’s degree in computer science from a small college in Easton, Mass., as Yahoo stated in a regulatory filing last week.
Thompson only has an accounting degree from Stonehill College, an accomplishment that Yahoo also listed in the filing. The accounting degree was the only listed in Thompson’s resume last year by eBay Inc. when he was still running that company’s PayPal payment service.
Yahoo confirmed Thompson’s credentials had been exaggerated in the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and brushed it off as an “inadvertent error.”
But Loeb pounced on the misinformation as a violation of Yahoo’s code of ethics and called for an independent investigation to determine whether Thompson had misled the company’s board about his technology credentials. He also cited the mix-up as an example of Yahoo’s poor corporate governance.
“If Mr. Thompson embellished his academic credentials we think that it 1) undermines his credibility as a technology expert and 2) reflects poorly on the character of the CEO who has been tasked with leading Yahoo at this critical juncture,” Loeb wrote in a letter to Yahoo’s board on Thursday. “Now more than ever Yahoo investors need a trustworthy CEO.”
In the past, other companies have suspended or fired executives who were caught lying on their resumes.
Yahoo hired Thompson to reverse years of financial lethargy at the company that set in even as more advertising has shifted to the Internet. The funk has weighed on Yahoo’s stock, which has been hovering between $10 and $20 for most of the last three years. Yahoo shares fell 27 cents to close at $15.40 on Thursday. That’s well below the $33 per share that stockholders could have gotten in May 2008 if the board had accepted a takeover offer from Microsoft Corp.
The company stood behind Thompson in its statement. “This in no way alters that fact that Mr. Thompson is a highly qualified executive with a successful track record leading large consumer technology companies,” Yahoo said. “Under Mr. Thompson’s leadership, Yahoo Is moving forward to grow the company and drive shareholder value.”
Tensions between Loeb and Thompson have been escalating since late March when Yahoo appointed three new directors to its board. In doing so, Yahoo snubbed Loeb, who had been lobbying for a board seat along with three allies who he believes have the skills necessary to help Yahoo rebound from its long-running struggles. At the time Thompson made it clear that he and the Yahoo committee overseeing the search for new directors had concluded Loeb wasn’t the best candidate.
Loeb is waging a campaign to persuade Yahoo’s shareholders to elect him and his allies to the board at the company’s annual meeting. The date of that meeting still hasn’t been scheduled.
Thompson so far has mostly cut costs to boost Yahoo’s profits. Last month, he laid off about 2,000 employees, or 14 percent of the workforce, in the biggest payroll purge in Yahoo’s 17-year history and disclosed plans to close about 50 Yahoo services that haven’t been attracting enough users or generating enough revenue. He also made modest progress on other financial fronts as Yahoo registered its first year-over-year increase in quarterly net revenue since 2008 during the three months ending in March.
Even though he doesn’t have a computer science degree, Thompson has a background in technology. He served as PayPal’s chief technology officer for three years before being promoted to the payment service’s president in 2008.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2113898,00.html#ixzz1tuDAcQsQ
_________________________________
Third Point squeezes Yahoo again to oust CEO Scott Thompson

http://marketday.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11618079-third-point-squeezes-yahoo-again-to-oust-ceo-scott-thompson?lite
Third Point squeezes Yahoo again to oust CEO Scott Thompson
Phil Mccarten / Reuters

Daniel Loeb, CEO of Third Point LLC, has again called for Yahoo’s board to oust CEO Scott Thompson over what he says are ethical breaches.
By Patrick Rizzo
Saying that “we take no joy in witnessing this carnage,” activist investor Daniel Loeb repeated his demand Wednesday that Yahoo dump CEO Scott Thompson over discrepancies in his academic record and replace him with an interim CEO.
“It appears very clear to us – and to many corporate governance experts, Yahoo! employees, and fellow Yahoo! shareholders – that Mr. Thompson’s fantasy degree was in no way an ‘inadvertent error,’ ” Loeb said in a letter from his Third Point LLC hedge fund addressed to Yahoo’s board of directors.
“Third Point has over $1 billion invested in Yahoo! and we take no joy in witnessing this carnage,” the letter said.
Third Point, which owns 5.8 percent of Yahoo’s shares, set off a firestorm last week by revealing that Thompson, who is only a few months into his tenure, had fudged his academic credentials on securities filings, saying that he had a degree in computer science when he did not.
Since then, Thompson has apologized for the ruckus caused by what the company called an “inadvertent error,” and announced that director Patti S. Hart, who led the search committee that landed Thompson the job, will not stand for re-election.
The board also reportedly is conducting an internal review of the matter.
But Loeb was having none of that.
“It seems farcical to us that the Board will most likely spend more time deliberating over whether Mr. Thompson should be fired than it did properly vetting whether he should have been hired. The necessary investigation into whether certain senior executives and Board Members knew of Mr. Thompson’s deceptions before hiring him should not delay decisive action over his ethical breaches,” Loeb said in the letter.
____________________________
Penn State Will Pay Two PR Firms $2.5 Million To Help School “Rebuild Trust”

http://deadspin.com/5905132/penn-state-will-pay-two-pr-firms-25-million-to-help-school-rebuild-trust
Penn State Will Pay Two PR Firms $2.5 Million To Help School “Rebuild Trust”

Penn State had hired the PR firm Ketchum on Nov. 6, just one day after two of its administrators were charged with lying to a grand jury about Jerry Sandusky’s alleged child sex abuse. Here we are five months later, and the university is still working assiduously to repair its image, this time by replacing Ketchum with two firms, Edelman and La Torre Communications, at a cost of $2.5 million for the next 12 months. Here’s Penn State president Rodney Erickson, in a statement announcing the move:
“Earlier this year, I announced five promises to guide Penn State in recovery from our recent crisis and rebuild trust with the Penn State community. Retaining these communications firms puts us more firmly on the path toward accountability, openness and preserving our reputation as one of the world’s leading research universities.”

That announcement was made on Penn State’s website today—the same day a State College newspaper also reported that a group of Penn State students have begun a campaign to send letters of support to Sandusky’s alleged victims. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
____________________________
Cutting Edge Technologies Lead Nominations for American Technology Awards

Subject: Cutting Edge Technologies Lead Nominations for American Technology Awards
Date: 5/9/2012 10:28:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: ed.longanecker@techamerica.org
To: Midwest@techamerica.org
Congrats to all the nominated companies, including Illinois based member company crowdSpring!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2012
Cutting Edge Technologies Lead Nominations for American Technology Awards
TechAmerica Foundation Announces Finalists For “Best Of” Awards Recognizing Technology Products and Services Across the Technology Industry

Washington, DC – The TechAmerica Foundation today announced the finalists for the 2012 American Technology Awards, the” awards recognize technology products and services across the technology industry.
“The caliber of this year’s nominees was incredible. Our judges had their work cut out for them in coming up with these outstanding finalists, who represent the best of technology in their categories,” said Jennifer Kerber, President of the TechAmerica Foundation. “What a great indicator of how the tech sector is growing and innovating.”
The awards, also known as the “Termans” in honor of the widely credited father of Silicon Valley, are awarded on the basis of a thorough evaluation by industry experts and technology leaders. The awards will be presented at the TechAmerica Foundation’s Technology and Government Dinner to be held on June 13, 2012 at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.
Kevin Johnson, CEO of Juniper Networks (NYSE: JNPR) will also be honored during the dinner with the American Technology Awards Corporate Leadership Award and Department of Homeland Security Chief Information Officer, Richard Spires will be recognized as the Government Technology Executive of the Year.
And the finalists are:
Aerospace & Defense
· Honeywell Aerospace — Low Emissions HTF7000
· Quantum3D – ExpeditionDI
· Universal Synaptics Corporation — Intermittent Fault Detection & Isolation System (IFDIS)

Clean Tech/Green Tech
· Silver Spring Networks — Gen4 Networking Technology
· Retroficiency — Virtual Energy Assessment
· Image Microsystems – MICROSTRATE
· SWITCH Lighting — SWITCH100
· Sempra U.S. Gas & Power — Copper Mountain Solar 1
Cloud Computing / Software as a Service
· Corent Technology — SaaS-Transfomer™ (a.k.a. Multi-tenant Server™)
· Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. (GCE) — GCE SMART Cloud for Big Data and Analytics
· ScaleXtreme — ScaleXtreme Xpress
· Virtela Technology Services Incorporated — Cloud-based Mobile Device Management Service

Consumer Electronics / Computers & Peripherals
· 3D Systems – Cube
· Brother International Corporation — Entrepreneur Pro PR1000e
· HP — The HP t410 Smart Zero Client All-in-One
· Lantronix — xPrintServer

Cyber Security & Authentication
· CSID — Global ID Protector
· KOBIL USA — mIDentity App Security Toolkit
· RSA — RSA NetWitness Live
Health & Medical Technologies
· Bluetooth SIG — Bluetooth v 4.0 with low energy technology
· Freedom Innovations — Plie 2.0 MPC Knee
· Masimo Corporation — 2012 Radical-7
· SynCardia Systems, Inc. — Freedom® portable driver

Internet Services & E-Commerce
· Clarabridge, Inc. – Clarabridge
· crowdSPRING, LLC — crowdSPRING.com
· Infor — Infor10 CRM Enterprise Email Advisor
· REI Systems — Data.gov

Semiconductors & Electronic Components
· NeuroSky — CardioChip 1
· Tilera Corporation — TILE-Gx Processor
· TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. — TRITIUM Duo™ Family of Dual-Band Power Amplifier Duplexers

Server & Storage Technology
· SoftLayer Technologies — Flex Images and Object Storage
· Alacritech — ANX 1500 NFS Acceleration Appliance
· EMC Corporation — VNX Unified Storage
Smart Grid & Smart Instruments
· FreeWave Technologies — FGR2-PE Industrial Grade 900 MHz Long Range Ethernet Radio
· Opower – Opower
· Silver Spring Networks — Gen4 Networking Technology

Software
· IBM — Watson
· Raritan Inc. — dcTrack DCIM Software
· Cadence Design Systems, Inc. — Cadence Virtual System Platform

Technology Manufacturing
· 3D Systems – Cube
· IQMS – RTStation
· Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. — Polaris 9300 Series

Telecommunications
· Actelis Networks, Inc. — Actelis BBA
· ADTRAN, Inc. — Optical Networking Edge (ONE)
· Radisys — MPX-12000
· Shared Spectrum Company — Spectrum Sensing Toolbox – SST
###
About TechAmerica Foundation
TechAmerica Foundation educates industry executives, policy makers and opinion leaders on the promise of technological innovation to advance prosperity, security and the general welfare. Launched in 1981, the Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan affiliate of TechAmerica, which is the leading voice and resource for the U.S. technology industry. The Foundation disseminates award-winning industry, policy and market research covering topics such as U.S. competitiveness in a global economy, innovation in government, and other areas of national interest. It also organizes conferences and seminars to explore pertinent issues with government and industry representatives and to share the Foundation’s findings. Learn more about TechAmerica Foundation at www.techamericafoundation.org.
Ed Longanecker
Senior Vice President
TechAmerica
630-282-4332
________________________________
Forbes: The 2012 list of the top 100 investors

http://www.forbes.com/lists/midas/2012/midas-list-top-tech-investors_list.html
America’s Fastest Growing Tech Companies
30 Under 30
Forbes 400 Richest Americans
Most Powerful Women
The World’s Billionaires
The World’s Leading Public Companies
The World’s Most Powerful People

Rank

Name

Firm

The Big Deal
1
Jim Breyer
Accel Partners
Facebook
2

Marc Andreessen
Andreessen Horowitz
Skype
3

Reid Hoffman
Greylock Partners
LinkedIn
4

David Sze
Greylock Partners
Facebook
5

Peter Fenton
Benchmark Capital
Twitter
6

Josh Kopelman
First Round Capital
Linkedin
7

Paul Madera
Meritech Capital Partners
Facebook
8

Peter Thiel
Founders Fund
Facebook
9

Kevin Efrusy
Accel Partners
Facebook
10

Jeremy Levine
Bessemer Venture Partners
Yelp
11

Todd Chaffee
Institutional Venture Partners
Twitter
12

John Doerr
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Twitter
13

Michael Moritz
Sequoia Capital
Green Dot
14

Scott Sandell
New Enterprise Associates
Fusion-io
15

Ron Conway
SV Angel
Facebook
16

Sandy Miller
Institutional Venture Partners
Zynga
17

Harry Weller
New Enterprise Associates
Groupon
18

Douglas Leone
Sequoia Capital
Rackspace
19

Jeff Brody
Redpoint Ventures
HomeAway
20

Fred Wilson
Union Square Ventures
Zynga
21

Ben Horowitz
Andreessen Horowitz
Skype
22

Jay Hoag
Technology Crossover Ventures
Facebook
23

Peter Barris
New Enterprise Associates
Groupon
24

Neil Shen
Sequoia Capital China
Qihoo 360 Technology
25

Aneel Bhusri
Greylock Partners
Workday
26

Bing Gordon
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Zynga
27

Andrew Yan
SAIF Partners
Giant Interactive Group
28

Rob Chandra
Bessemer Venture Partners
Mellanox Technologies
29

Yuri Milner
Digital Sky Technologies
Facebook
30

Jim Goetz
Sequoia Capital
Jive Software
31

George Zachary
Charles River Ventures
Twitter
32

Mike Maples
FLOODGATE
Twitter
33

Sameer Gandhi
Accel Partners
Quidsi
34

Vinod Khosla
Khosla Ventures
SKS Microfinance
35

Suyang Zhang
IDG Accel
Tudou Holdings
36

Neeraj Agrawal
Battery Ventures
Bazaarvoice
37

Ben Nye
Bain Capital Ventures
LinkedIn
38

Bryan Roberts
Venrock
Athenahealth
39

Danny Rimer
Index Ventures
MySQL
40

Roger Lee
Battery Ventures
Groupon
41

Chase Coleman
Tiger Global
Facebook
42

Mary Meeker
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Groupon
43

John Walecka
Redpoint Ventures
Fortinet
44

Bruce Dunlevie
Benchmark Capital
ServiceSource
45

Rob Ward
Meritech Capital Partners
Fortinet
46

Navin Chaddha
Mayfield Fund
MakeMyTrip
47

Bob Goodman
Bessemer Venture Partners
Millennial Media
48

Dongliang Lin
IDG Accel
Dangdang
49

Ray Rothrock
Venrock
Imperva
50

David Yuan
Technology Crossover Ventures
Renren
51

Steve Anderson
Baseline Ventures
Instagram
52

Ross Jaffe
Versant Ventures
Acclarent
53

Rich Levandov
Avalon Ventures
Zynga
54

Tim Chang
Mayfield Fund
Playdom
55

Chris Sacca
Lowercase Capital
Twitter
56

David Weiden
Khosla Ventures
Opsware
57

Bijan Sabet
Spark Capital
Twitter
58

Ping Li
Accel Partners
Cloudera
59

Kevin Harvey
Benchmark Capital
MySQL
60

David Chao
DCM
Renren
61

Roelof Botha
Sequoia Capital
Square
62

Greg Gretsch
Sigma Partners
EqualLogic
63

Antoine Papiernik
Sofinnova Partners
CoreValve
64

William Ford
General Atlantic
NYSE
65

Stephen Jurvetson
Draper Fisher Jurvetson
Tesla
66

Thomas Ng
GGV Capital
Alibaba
67

Brian Ascher
Venrock
Vocera
68

Matt Cohler
Benchmark Capital
Instagram
69

Glenn Solomon
GGV Capital
Pandora
70

Bruce Golden
Accel Partners
Qlik Technologies
71

Ted Schlein
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Jive Software
72

Rory O’Driscoll
Scale Venture Partners
ExactTarget
73

James Slavet
Greylock Partners
Groupon
74

Tom Banahan
Tenaya Capital
MarkLogic
75

Izhar Armony
Charles River Ventures
RPX Corp.
76

Ruby Lu
DCM
Dangdang
77

Chris Schaepe
Lightspeed Venture Partners
Fusion-io
78

James Barrett
New Enterprise Associates
Pharmion
79

Steve Harrick
Institutional Venture Partners
MySQL
80

Jeffery Horing
Insight Venture Partners
SolarWinds
81

Byron Deeter
Bessemer Venture Partners
Cornerstone OnDemand
82

Tom Dyal
Redpoint Ventures
NextG Networks
83

Rich Wong
Accel Partners
Admob
84

Erhai Liu
Legend Capital
Renren
85

Michael Krupka
Bain Capital Ventures
Liberty Dialysis
86

Jonathan Silverstein
Orbimed
Enobia
87

Warren Weiss
Foundation Capital
Silver Spring Networks
88

David Cowan
Bessemer Venture Partners
LinkedIn
89

Jeremy Liew
Lightspeed Venture Partners
Playdom
90

Gordon Ritter
Emergence Capital
Veeva Systems
91

Sean Dalton
Highland Capital Partners
Starent Networks
92

Theresia Gouw Ranzetta
Accel Partners
Imperva
93

Fred Harman
Oak Investment Partners
Huffington Post
94

Jenny Lee
GGV Capital
21Vianet
95

Ajay Agarwal
Bain Capital Ventures
Kiva Systems
96

Asheem Chandna
Greylock Partners
Palo Alto Networks
97

Adele Oliva
Quaker Partners
Ascent Healthcare Solutions Inc.
98

David Hornik
August Capital
Splunk
99

Subrata Mitra
Accel India
Flipkart
100

Richard Liu
Morningside
Duowan/YY
______________________________________
Forbes: Top Gripes Of The Midas List, 2012 Edition

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/05/09/top-gripes-of-the-midas-list-2012-edition/
Tomio Geron, Forbes Staff
Covering social, start-ups and venture capital.

Follow on Forbes(218)

Tech
05/09/2012 @ 12:43AM |230 views
Top Gripes Of The Midas List, 2012 Edition

The Midas List always has its critics. This year is no exception. When you have a list of the top 100 tech investors in a competitive industry, there’s bound to be disagreement about who made it and who didn’t. Here are the top gripes about FORBES’ 2102 Midas List.
1. Fred Wilson was ranked too low. (Griper: Om Malik, others) Fred Wilson has made great investments in companies such as Zynga, Twitter and Etsy. Our data-driven formula, which ranks him number 20 in the world, reflects how well he’s done. Many in the top 20 have multiple large exits to their credit and are, like Wilson, great investors. So the question is who Wilson should be ranked higher than? Malik, a venture partner at True Ventures, argues that Wilson should be ranked above others such as Kleiner Perkins’ John Doerr, because Doerr invested later in Twitter than Wilson. But the reason for Doerr’s ranking has to do not just with Twitter but also with other companies such as Groupon, Square, Tellme and Bloom Energy. In the past, Doerr invested in Amazon, Netscape, Sun and Google (though those don’t count in the current rankings). You’re free to argue that Wilson should be ranked higher than Doerr, or that #20 is not high enough to be considered a “top VC in the world.”
2. Late stage investors are getting too much credit. (Gripers: Malik, Dan Primack) This criticism has been made against the rankings of Marc Andreessen, Mary Meeker and others. The fact is, the Midas List rankings reflect the state of the venture industry today. Venture-backed startups are staying private much longer than in the past and late-stage investors are making more money as a result. For example, Andreessen Horowitz, a multi-stage firm, jumped on opportunities with companies such as Skype, Twitter, Zynga and Groupon. You could argue that the Skype deal, which returned 3 to 4x over 18 months, wasn’t a traditional “venture return,” but if you talk to any of their LPs, they’ll tell you they are quite happy with the deal. In other words, they’re making money, albeit in a different way. Another sign of LP satisfaction: the $2.7 billion they’ve raised from investors since 2009. Regarding Meeker, she’s been working closely with companies such as Square, Twitter, Groupon, Spotify and LegalZoom. These companies say she’s added real value in a relatively short period of time.
In addition, saying Andreessen’s return on Skype wasn’t a “venture return” belies the fact that for many top tier venture firms, late stage is now a big part of their strategy. Accel, Greylock, Kleiner Perkins, Union Square and other early stage firms have raised growth funds or allocated significant funds to growth investing. Other firms focus specifically on growth investing, such as Institutional Venture Partners and Meritech Capital Partners, and have done well. So yes, growth investors are not doing traditional venture investing. They’re not making, say, 1000x as they would from an early Facebook or Google investment. But they are sending real returns to their LPs–definitely more than mediocre early stage funds are.
3. You don’t take into account cost basis or ownership. Actually we do take into account cost basis and ownership. We take into account at which round the venture firm invested in the startup. However, we don’t always know exactly how much each firm owns in private companies or at what valuation they invested, because the firms don’t always provide that data. In certain cases we obtain data in other ways. When we do have it, we take it into account. In an ideal world, we would know exactly how much each firm made from each investment. But we have a proxy for that based on when venture firms invested in companies. And typically when the companies go public or as they get bigger, we get more and more information about the firms’ stakes in the companies.

Tech’s 100 Best InvestorsMeet the moneymen getting rich in Silicon Valley.
4. You don’t consider life science or healthcare investing. There are five life sciences investors on the list. One reason for the arguably low number is the recent challenges in realizing large exits for life science investors. The other main reason is that our methodology gives credit to VCs when there is an IPO or M&A. With some exceptions, we don’t give credit for a company that has already gone public and then is acquired by another company. We give credit to VCs for the original IPO, not the subsequent acquisition. (For example, Pharmasset was acquired in 2011 for $11 billion but had already gone public in 2007.) While holding the company’s stock for a significant period of time is a real strategy for some life sciences investors because of the specifics of the industry, we didn’t track whether and how much venture investors hold a stock for years after an IPO.
A last word: some have suggested we should devote more resources or spend more time working on this project. The formula for creating the Midas rankings is based on hard data of the value of IPOs and M&As of venture-backed companies since 2007, as well as the valuations of private companies, based on Dow Jone VentureSource data. We’ve then spent months evaluating the deals, investors and firms for the rankings. Our partners, TrueBridge Capital Partners, also vetted the data, as have our other LP sources. Despite its flaws, I believe the list is the best ranking out there of venture investors, except perhaps the actual spreadsheets that LPs have on their computers.
______________________________
Forbes: 2011′s Top Tech Investors

http://www.forbes.com/lists/midas/2011/midas-list-techs-top-investors.html
2011′s Top Tech Investors
View complete listMethodologyIn partnership with TrueBridge Capital Partners
The 10 Savviest Financiers Of Silicon Valley
Atop this year’s Midas List of technology’s best investors is once again Accel Partner’s Jim Breyer, with Greylock’s Reid Hoffman (left) holding steady at number three. They head our definitive roster of the best-performing moneymen fueling a bull market for hot young companies. Continue
Edited By Tomio Geron05.02.12
Andreessen Horowitz: Venture Capital’s New Bad Boys
Fast Tech 25: Ranking Today’s Best Growth Stocks
Reid Hoffman and Peter Thiel On The Secrets Of Great Social Networks
SPONSORED BY

FORBES VIDEO
Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman Share Stanford Memories
Marc Andreessen: On Building His VC Dream Team
David Sze On Choosing The Next Facebook
Steve Anderson: One Man, $100 Million
Peter Fenton On Disrupting The Enterprise
Harry Weller’s Next Big Ideas After Groupon
Rank
Name
Firm
The Big Deal
1
Jim Breyer
Accel Partners Facebook
2
Marc Andreessen
Andreessen Horowitz Skype
3
Reid Hoffman
Greylock Partners LinkedIn
4
David Sze
Greylock Partners Facebook
5
Peter Fenton
Benchmark Capital Twitter
6
Josh Kopelman
First Round Capital Linkedin
7
Paul Madera
Meritech Capital Partners Facebook
8
Peter Thiel
Founders Fund Facebook
9
Kevin Efrusy
Accel Partners Facebook
10
Jeremy Levine
Bessemer Venture Partners Yelp

Rank
Name
Firm
The Big Deal
11
Todd Chaffee
Institutional Venture Partners Twitter
12
John Doerr
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Twitter
13
Michael Moritz
Sequoia Capital Green Dot
14
Scott Sandell
New Enterprise Associates Fusion-io
15
Ron Conway
SV Angel Facebook
16
Sandy Miller
Institutional Venture Partners Zynga
17
Harry Weller
New Enterprise Associates Groupon
18
Douglas Leone
Sequoia Capital Rackspace
19
Jeff Brody
Redpoint Ventures HomeAway
20
Fred Wilson
Union Square Ventures Zynga
The Big Deal
21
Ben Horowitz
Andreessen Horowitz Skype
22
Jay Hoag
Technology Crossover Ventures Facebook
23
Peter Barris
New Enterprise Associates Groupon
24
Neil Shen
Sequoia Capital China Qihoo 360 Technology
25
Aneel Bhusri
Greylock Partners Workday
26
Bing Gordon
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Zynga
27
Andrew Yan
SAIF Partners Giant Interactive Group
28
Rob Chandra
Bessemer Venture Partners Mellanox Technologies
29
Yuri Milner
Digital Sky Technologies Facebook
30
Jim Goetz
Sequoia Capital Jive Software
The Big Deal
31
George Zachary
Charles River Ventures Twitter
32
Mike Maples
FLOODGATE Twitter
33
Sameer Gandhi
Accel Partners Quidsi
34
Vinod Khosla
Khosla Ventures SKS Microfinance
35
Suyang Zhang
IDG Accel Tudou Holdings
36
Neeraj Agrawal
Battery Ventures Bazaarvoice
37
Ben Nye
Bain Capital Ventures LinkedIn
38
Bryan Roberts
Venrock Athenahealth
39
Danny Rimer
Index Ventures MySQL
40
Roger Lee
Battery Ventures Groupon
The Big Deal
41
Chase Coleman
Tiger Global Facebook
42
Mary Meeker
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Groupon
43
John Walecka
Redpoint Ventures Fortinet
44
Bruce Dunlevie
Benchmark Capital ServiceSource
45
Rob Ward
Meritech Capital Partners Fortinet
46
Navin Chaddha
Mayfield Fund MakeMyTrip
47
Bob Goodman
Bessemer Venture Partners Millennial Media
48
Dongliang Lin
IDG Accel Dangdang
49
Ray Rothrock
Venrock Imperva
50
David Yuan
Technology Crossover Ventures Renren
The Big Deal
51
Steve Anderson
Baseline Ventures Instagram
52
Ross Jaffe
Versant Ventures Acclarent
53
Rich Levandov
Avalon Ventures Zynga
54
Tim Chang
Mayfield Fund Playdom
55
Chris Sacca
Lowercase Capital Twitter
56
David Weiden
Khosla Ventures Opsware
57
Bijan Sabet
Spark Capital Twitter
58
Ping Li
Accel Partners Cloudera
59
Kevin Harvey
Benchmark Capital MySQL
60
David Chao
DCM Renren
Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman Share Stanford Memories
Marc Andreessen: On Building His VC Dream Team
David Sze On Choosing The Next Facebook
Steve Anderson: One Man, $100 Million
Peter Fenton On Disrupting The Enterprise
Harry Weller’s Next Big Ideas After Groupon

The Big Deal
61
Roelof Botha
Sequoia Capital Square
62
Greg Gretsch
Sigma Partners EqualLogic
63
Antoine Papiernik
Sofinnova Partners CoreValve
64
William Ford
General Atlantic NYSE
65
Stephen Jurvetson
Draper Fisher Jurvetson Tesla
66
Thomas Ng
GGV Capital Alibaba
67
Brian Ascher
Venrock Vocera
68
Matt Cohler
Benchmark Capital Instagram
69
Glenn Solomon
GGV Capital Pandora
70
Bruce Golden
Accel Partners Qlik Technologies
71
Ted Schlein
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Jive Software
72
Rory O’Driscoll
Scale Venture Partners ExactTarget
73
James Slavet
Greylock Partners Groupon
74
Tom Banahan
Tenaya Capital MarkLogic
75
Izhar Armony
Charles River Ventures RPX Corp.
76
Ruby Lu
DCM Dangdang
77
Chris Schaepe
Lightspeed Venture Partners Fusion-io
78
James Barrett
New Enterprise Associates Pharmion
79
Steve Harrick
Institutional Venture Partners MySQL
80
Jeffery Horing
Insight Venture Partners SolarWinds
The Big Deal
81
Byron Deeter
Bessemer Venture Partners Cornerstone OnDemand
82
Tom Dyal
Redpoint Ventures NextG Networks
83
Rich Wong
Accel Partners Admob
84
Erhai Liu
Legend Capital Renren
85
Michael Krupka
Bain Capital Ventures Liberty Dialysis
86
Jonathan Silverstein
Orbimed Enobia
87
Warren Weiss
Foundation Capital Silver Spring Networks
88
David Cowan
Bessemer Venture Partners LinkedIn
89
Jeremy Liew
Lightspeed Venture Partners Playdom
90
Gordon Ritter
Emergence Capital Veeva Systems
The Big Deal
91
Sean Dalton
Highland Capital Partners Starent Networks
92
Theresia Gouw Ranzetta
Accel Partners Imperva
93
Fred Harman
Oak Investment Partners Huffington Post
94
Jenny Lee
GGV Capital 21Vianet
95
Ajay Agarwal
Bain Capital Ventures Kiva Systems
96
Asheem Chandna
Greylock Partners Palo Alto Networks
97
Adele Oliva
Quaker Partners Ascent Healthcare Solutions Inc.
98
David Hornik
August Capital Splunk
99
Subrata Mitra
Accel India Flipkart
100
Richard Liu
Morningside Ventures Duowan/YY
_____________________________
Forbes: Eric Jackson: Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/04/30/heres-why-google-and-facebook-might-completely-disappear-in-the-next-5-years/

Eric Jackson, Contributor
I cover the business of technology

Follow on Forbes(680)

Investing
|
4/30/2012 @ 11:53AM |825,102 views
Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years
336 comments, 81 called-out
+ Comment now
David Wilkins
In presentations about the origins of social, I’ve actually cited Amazon as *the* starting point – at least from a populist perspective. The idea that we c [...]
A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
We think of Google and Facebook as Web gorillas. They’ll be around forever. Yet, with the rate that the tech world is moving these days, there are good reasons to think both might be gone completely in 5 – 8 years. Not bankrupt gone, but MySpace gone. And there’s some academic theory to back up that view, along with casual observations from recent history.
When I was a PhD student 15 years ago, I studied with Don Hambrick who is a scholar known for a career showing the effects of management teams and directors (for good and for ill) on their organizations’ strategies and performance. One of the central tenets of this school of thought on organizations is that senior teams and directors have an outsized influence on organizational outcomes. What’s more, their backgrounds (including education and career paths) have a big effect on how they see the world, various competitive situations and the choices they make.
Google and Facebook Dead in 5 Years? Fat Chance! George AndersContributor
10 Reasons Why Facebook Bought Instagram Kashmir HillForbes Staff
Why Best Buy is Going out of Business…Gradually Larry DownesContributor
Internet Freak-out Over Google’s Privacy Policy Proves That No One Reads Privacy Policies Kashmir HillForbes Staff
There’s another school of thought which takes the opposite view called population ecology or organizational ecology which put forward that managers don’t really matter all that much. This view grew out of sociologists who’d taken to study organizations in the 1970s. They assert that organizational outcomes have much more to do with industry effects than who the CEO is and the choices he or she makes. They study birth and death rates of populations of organizations, as well as the effects of age, competition and resources in the surrounding environment on an organization’s birth and death rate. Most of these organizational ecology scholars come out of the University of California at Berkeley.
As a graduate student, I didn’t have much time for this ecology line of thinking. I believed in the power of the individual executive to overcome all challenges in the external environment. We can always point to dynamic CEOs as case studies, even though the sociologists would say those are the equivalent of celebrating the smarts of lottery winners.
As I age and watch what’s happening in the world of Internet and mobile, I can’t stop thinking of these ecologists though.
More and more in the Internet space, it seems that your long-term viability as a company is dependent on when you were born.
Think of the differences between generations and when we talk about how the Baby Boomers behave differently from Gen X’ers and additional differences with the Millennials. Each generation is perceived to see the world in a very unique way that translates into their buying decisions and countless other habits.
In the tech Internet world, we’ve really had 3 generations:
•Web 1.0 (companies founded from 1994 – 2001, including Netscape, Yahoo! (YHOO), AOL (AOL), Google (GOOG), Amazon (AMZN) and eBay (EBAY)),
•Web 2.0 or Social (companies founded from 2002 – 2009, including Facebook (FB), LinkedIn (LNKD), and Groupon (GRPN)),
•and now Mobile (from 2010 – present, including Instagram).
With each succeeding generation in tech the Internet, it seems the prior generation can’t quite wrap its head around the subtle changes that the next generation brings. Web 1.0 companies did a great job of aggregating data and presenting it in an easy to digest portal fashion. Google did a good job organizing the chaos of the Web better than AltaVista, Excite, Lycos and all the other search engines that preceded it. Amazon did a great job of centralizing the chaos of e-commerce shopping and putting all you needed in one place.
When Web 2.0 companies began to emerge, they seemed to gravitate to the importance of social connections. MySpace built a network of people with a passion for music initially. Facebook got college students. LinkedIn got the white collar professionals. Digg, Reddit, and StumbleUpon showed how users could generate content themselves and make the overall community more valuable.
Yet, Web 1.0 companies never really seemed to be able to grasp the importance of building a social community and tapping into the backgrounds of those users. Even when it seems painfully obvious to everyone, there just doesn’t seem to be the capacity of these older companies to shift to a new paradigm. Why has Amazon done so little in social? And Google? Even as they pour billions at the problem, their primary business model which made them successful in the first place seems to override their expansion into some new way of thinking.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/04/30/heres-why-google-and-facebook-might-completely-disappear-in-the-next-5-years/2/

Eric Jackson, Contributor
I cover the business of technology

Follow on Forbes(680)
Investing
4/30/2012 @ 11:53AM |825,231 views
Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years
336 comments, 81 called-out
+ Comment now
Page 2 of 2
Mobile companies born since 2010 have a very different view of the world. These companies – and Instagram is the most topical example at the moment – view the mobile smartphone as the primary (and oftentimes exclusive) platform for their application. They don’t even think of launching via a web site. They assume, over time, people will use their mobile applications almost entirely instead of websites.
We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead.
Web 1.0 and 2.0 companies still seem unsure how to adapt to this new paradigm. Facebook is the triumphant winner of social companies. It will go public in a few weeks and probably hit $140 billion in market capitalization. Yet, it loses money in mobile and has rather simple iPhone and iPad versions of its desktop experience. It is just trying to figure out how to make money on the web – as it only had $3.7 billion in revenues in 2011 and its revenues actually decelerated in Q1 of this year relative to Q4 of last year. It has no idea how it will make money in mobile.
Google and Facebook Dead in 5 Years? Fat Chance! George AndersContributor
10 Reasons Why Facebook Bought Instagram Kashmir HillForbes Staff
Why Best Buy is Going out of Business…Gradually Larry DownesContributor
Internet Freak-out Over Google’s Privacy Policy Proves That No One Reads Privacy Policies Kashmir HillForbes Staff
The failed history of Web 1.0 companies adapting to the world of social suggests that Facebook will be as woeful at adapting to social mobile as Google has been with its “ghost town” Google+ initiative last year.
The organizational ecologists talked about the “liability of obsolescence” which is a growing mismatch between an organization’s inherent product strategy and its operating environment over time. This probably is a good explanation for what we’re seeing in the tech world today.
Are companies like Google, Amazon, and Yahoo! obsolete? They’re still growing. They still have enormous audiences. They also have very talented managers.
But with each new paradigm shift (first to social, now to mobile, and next to whatever else), the older generations get increasingly out of touch and likely closer to their significant decline. What’s more, the tech world in which we live in seems to be speeding up. Tim Cook had an interesting line about the velocity of change in his earnings call last week:

through the last quarter, I should say, which is just 2 years after we shipped the initial iPad, we’ve sold 67 million. And to put that in some context, it took us 24 years to sell that many Macs and 5 years for that many iPods and over 3 years for that many iPhones. And we were extremely happy with the trajectory on all of those products. And so I think iPad, it’s a profound product.

Yahoo is already a shell of its 2000 self. There is increasing chatter (including from me) about how Google’s facing a painful multiple contraction, once its desktop search business (still accounting for the vast majority of its revenues and profits) starts to fall off a cliff as users dramatically drop traditional search for new ways of getting information they want in a mobile world. Is Amazon destined to decline? There seem to be no signs of it today and people will still need to buy stuff in a mobile world, but the new mobile platform will certainly open the possibilities for new entrants that Amazon can’t even imagine today.
Facebook is also probably facing a tough road ahead as this shift to mobile happens. As Hamish McKenzie said last week, “I suspect that Facebook will try to address that issue [of the shift to mobile] by breaking up its various features into separate apps or HTML5 sites: one for messaging, one for the news feed, one for photos, and, perhaps, one for an address book. But that fragments the core product, probably to its detriment.”
Considering how long Facebook dragged its feet to get into mobile in the first place, the data suggests they will be exactly as slow to change as Google was to social. Does the Instagram acquisition change that? Not really, in my view. It shows they’re really fearful of being displaced by a mobile upstart. However, why would bolting on a mobile app to a Web 2.0 platform (and a very good one at that) change any of the underlying dynamics we’re discussing here? I doubt it.
What about Apple? Where does it fit in to this classification scheme?
Apple is really a hardware company, so it’s difficult to put it into a bucket related to web apps. It certainly seemed very Web 1.0 with its Ping social application. Yet it’s succeeded in mobile from making the best hardware and software ecosystem for apps to proliferate on. In some ways, as long as it has a successful iOS platform, it doesn’t care which Web 1.0, 2.0 and mobile companies fail or succeed on top of it. Maybe that’s why so many non-mobile companies seem to want to emulate Apple. Google bought Motorola Mobility (MMI) to get into the hardware business. Facebook and Baidu (BIDU) are rumored to be launching their own mobile OS.
The bottom line is that the next 5 – 8 years could be incredibly dynamic. It’s possible that both Google and Facebook could be shells of their current selves – or gone entirely.
They will have all the money in the world to try and adapt to the shift to mobile but history suggests they won’t be able to successfully do it. I often hear Google bulls point to the market share of Android or Eric Schmidt’s hypothesis that Google could one day charge all Android subscribers $10 a month for value-added services as proof of future profits. Yet, where are all the great social success stories by Web 1.0 companies? I imagine we’ll see as many great examples of social companies jumping horses mid-race to become great mobile companies.
It’s a lot easier to start asking Siri for information instead of typing search terms into a box compared to thousands of enterprises ceasing to upgrade to the next version of Windows. Google’s 76% market share. Facebook’s 900 million monthly users. They just aren’t as sticky as they seem.
And does anyone think the pace of change is going to increase in the next 5 years versus the last? That we’re going to see fewer innovations, fewer start-ups trying more stuff on cheaper and more powerful processing power? In all likelihood, we could have an entirely new way of gathering information and interacting with ads in a new mobile world than what we’re currently used to today.
The Googles and Facebooks of tomorrow might not even exist today. And several Web 1.0 and 2.0 companies might be completely wiped off the map by then.
Fortunes will be made by those who adapt to and invest in this complete greenfield.
Those who own the future are going to be the ones who create it. It’s all up for grabs. Web monopolies are not as sticky as the monopolies of old.
[Long YHOO and AAPL]
___________________________________
Forecast Losses at Oprah’s OWN approach a staggering $330m as industry insiders predict it will be axed within the year

Obama was the Pinnacle of the Oprah Era
ronaldmay@aol.com
x

Brian Connolly
May 8 (2 days ago)
to RONALDMAY
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140773/Oprahs-OWN-network-Losses-approach-330m-amid-predictions-axed-year.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wednesday, May 09 2012 9PM 6°F 12AM 7°F 5-Day Forecast Losses at Oprah’s OWN approach a staggering $330m as industry insiders predict it will be axed within the year
By Rachel Quigley
PUBLISHED: 08:40 EST, 7 May 2012 | UPDATED: 10:59 EST, 8 May 2012
Comments (187) Share
The losses at Oprah Winfrey’s troubled cable channel are approaching a staggering $330 million, according to a report over the weekend.
Industry insiders believe the channel – the Oprah Winfrey network (OWN) – will not last another year unless they come up with a hit show and make a dramatic turnaround.
Though ratings have seen a slight insurgence thanks to interview program Oprah’s Next Chapter, it has stumbled since the get go with ratings of just 308,000 daily.
From left: Christina Norman, CEO of OWN, Oprah Winfrey, Chairman of OWN and David Zaslav, President and CEO of Discovery Communications, toast the moment of launch in January 2011
Fall from grace: In July last year Oprah tweeted this picture of herself in her new office, a far cry from the opulent surroundings she is used to
Glamour: This is the kind of luxury (and professional hair and makeup) Oprah used to have when her talk show was on the air
It is believed shows which do not feature the chat show queen herself are not popular with viewers.
Discovery, which partnered with Winfrey to launch the network and has been underwriting its costs, has invested nearly $600 million in it since 2008, according to an extensive report in Businessweek magazine.
Axed: Rosie O’Donnell and Oprah allegedly fell out when her shows was axed after just six months
Since it started on the air in January 2011, it may have lost as much as $330million, according to the magazine.
David Zaslav, the chief executive officer of Discovery Communications who talked Oprah into the idea of OWN, is famously impatient with money-losing operations within his company and insiders say he will not put up with the aiing network’s losses for much longer.
Winfrey appeared before advertisers two weeks ago to ask for more time, telling them: ‘I am in the climb of my life. I am climbing Kilimanjaro.’
Although she doesn’t risk losing a lot of money from the channel’s failings, Oprah’s reputation is at stake.
Over her 39-year career, The Oprah Winfrey Show had as many as 12.5 million viewers. O, The Oprah Magazine had more than two million subscribers. And her Internet site, Oprah.com, draws more than three million unique visitors a month.
Her image as the most successful TV star of her generation is on the line.
E-mails to OWN and Oprah’s production company, Harpo, were not returned yesterday.
In March it was announced that Rosie O’ Donnell’s talk show The Rosie Show had been axed by the network after only six months.
It debuted with 500,000 viewers but within days fell to half of that.
More…Warren Buffett shows he’s winning cancer battle as 81-year-old billionaire enjoys sing-a-long with stunning cheerleaders ahead of key company meeting
Maybe you should talk about it… Billionaire Oprah Winfrey steps out looking rough around the edges
The TV stars both released statements, with Rosie saying she ‘wished the show was able to attract more viewers.’
OPRAH WINFREY’S FAILURES
Oprah.com attracted 5.1million unique users in January 2011 when her daytime chat show was still being aired. But by July it was half that number at 2.4million, according to figures from comScore.
OWN premiered on January 1, 2011, to an average of 505,000 viewers. One month later ratings plummeted to an average of just 135,000 with only 30 per cent of those viewers in the targeted demographic of women ages 25 to 54.
The Rosie Show debuted on OWN with 497,000 viewers.Within a week the ratings plummeted to 200,000 per episode.
She added in a statement: ‘I loved working with Oprah in the amazing city of Chicago. I was welcomed with open arms and will never forget the kindness of all I encountered.’
In a statement, Oprah Winfrey said: ‘I thank Rosie from the bottom of my heart for joining me on this journey. She has been an incredible partner, working to deliver the best possible show every single day.
‘As I have learned in the last 15 months, a new network launch is always a challenge and ratings grow over time as you continue to gather an audience.’
However, just a week after they released these statements, it was reported the pair were not even on speaking terms because Rosie was unhappy with the way the press release was worded announcing her show was being unceremoniously dumped.
In February, the media mogul came under fire after she made a controversial bid to resuscitate ratings on Twitter.
Competing for viewers on the same night as this year’s Grammy Awards, she took to the micro-blogging site to ask her 9.2million followers: ‘Every 1 who can please turn to OWN especially if u have a Nielsen box.’
Ratings fail: The Rosie Show started off with 500,000 viewers but within days this had dropped by 50 per cent
The tweet was deleted, Ms Winfrey said, ‘at the request of Nielsen’, which prohibits clients from attempting to influence ratings.
A backlash of comments followed, with several Twitter users accusing the mogul of ‘being desperate’.
MOST READ NEWSPrevious 1 2 3 Next How unpopular can Obama get? Texas INMATE gets 40 per cent… Confusion over Canada’s new $20 dollar bill which features… Woman, 22, given two life sentences for allowing professor,… Thousands of pills filled with powdered human baby flesh… ‘I should get the flag – not her’: Battle between two wives… Man, 22, who ‘stabbed husband, wife, and unborn child to… David Cameron was ‘so close to Rebekah Brooks he texted her… Teacher, 28, ‘had sex with her virgin student, 16, in… ‘Brutal’ driver who put woman in a coma by punching her in… ‘What they did to me was evil. They ripped away all my… Is that it? All over in 15 minutes… Queen’s Speech sets… Rest in piste: The weird and wonderful coffins that… Share this article: Facebook Twitter Google+ Messenger LinkedIn Digg it Newsvine Fark Nowpublic Reddit Print article Email article Add your comments Comments (187)Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have not been moderated.
Newest Oldest Best rated Worst rated View all Oprah. Big hit with the wimmen. During the day. Now, pandering to a ‘real audience’ at all hours – not so much. Same formula doesn’t work. And why the hell would ANYONE hire a proven loser like Rosie O’donnell? Answer: ego. Oprah’s success was based on ego. Now, her failure will also be . Such is karma.
- scott mcneebus, canandaigua, ny, 09/5/2012 02:21
Click to rate Rating (0) Report abuse
Well have you ever watched it?????? BOOOOORRRRRIIIIINNNNNGGGGG is the only way I can describe that network. Sweetie Pies?? Does anyone really watch that show? Some of the crime shows they have on there are ok. Undercover Bosses??? No thanks! And her own Oprah’s last chapter or whatever it’s called??? Not interested.
- Shelley, NC, USA, 09/5/2012 00:15
Click to rate Rating (0) Report abuse
Oprah has been So political for a long time. She has Pandered so much to Barrack & Michelle. Back in ’08 she was sickening. I wonder if She ever Investigated BO’s Real Background. I’d bet not. Some people can’t be taken at their Word. Some people lack what is known as CHARACTER. HONESTY
- Bobgood1, Indianapolis, In USA, 08/5/2012 19:59
Click to rate Rating (0) Report abuse
It’s Obama’s fault!
- Beckwith, Boston, MA, USA, 08/5/2012 19:10
Click to rate Rating (0) Report abuse
Oprah over reached and while she might have been good for an hour in the afternoon, not me but clearly to some people, her name and her views were not enough to draw people to the entwork. It’s problem is it is in no way distinguished or different. Maybe if oprah had kept her show going and shifted it over she might have brought viewers with her but as it is-it’s doomed.
- Paul , Lansdale, PA USA, 08/5/2012 18:13
Click to rate Rating (0) Report abuse
Clearly, no one wants to watch the Obama network.
- Dave, Atlanta, Georgia, 08/5/2012 16:34
Click to rate Rating 6 Report abuse
“Is it only one person responding or are there that many hateful, mean spirited, and uneducated folks out there?” Neither. Democrats for Hillary Clinton AND Republicans are disgusted that Oprah endorsed Obama. He was a lying empty suit but she shoved him down our throats anyway. She made it more difficult for Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, than they already had it battling the misogyny coming from Obama’s stupid minions. And yet women across America helped put that gas-bag on top. She betrayed us. We get ONE vote in the U.S., and we don’t appreciate bobble-headed racebaiters, like Oprah, tainting the vote with her ridiculous-sized influence. THAT is why you see the comments here, and THAT is why her empire is tanking. SURPRISE! Not everyone who hates Obama’s guts is a Republican!
- That’s me, in the center, 08/5/2012 16:11
Click to rate Rating 16 Report abuse
When will these sychophants realize they need to keep their politics to themselves. She is getting what she deserves!!!!!!
- rick, dallas texas, 08/5/2012 16:07
Click to rate Rating 10 Report abuse
She lost her audience because of her overt political bias. You can’t be a host of a show for a non-political audience and then suddenly come out as a hyper-partisan and expect that there be no consequences. It’s the old saying: “You can’t antagonize and influence at the same time.” Oprah is learning an expensive lesson.
- george, hollywood, ca, 08/5/2012 16:06
Click to rate Rating 16 Report abuse
I think I see a conspiracy brewing. Whenever there is an article that can in some way bash President Obama we see dozens, if not hundreds, of responses that sound so much the same they could have been written by the same person. Is it only one person responding or are there that many hateful, mean spirited, and uneducated folks out there?
- simpy_put, Las Vegas, NV, 08/5/2012 15:59

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140773/Oprahs-OWN-network-Losses-approach-330m-amid-predictions-axed-year.html#ixzz1uPJZQQwP
______________________________
END OF REPORT


Leave a Comment