Archive for May, 2008

Google IO Notes

Thursday, May 29th, 2008

(This post is a work in progress and probably contains mistyping and perhaps factual errors.)

My brief take:

  • GWT is awesome.  With the new version, the Javascript generated from your Java code will almost universally be better or at least as good as the Javascript you would write.  You also get incredible leverage you get toward targetting different platforms (including iPhone and Android,) and the productivity and satisfaction boost of using advanced development tools that give you refactoring, autocomplete, and no spelling mistakes – features only possible with strongly typed languages like Java.  Lombardi demonstrated a sophisticated process diagram application that they developed 3 times on different platforms (Flash, Dojo, and finally GWT.)  Their experienced conclusion was that you lose nothing by using GWT.  GWT doesn’t really hide anything from you – it just gives you Java and gives you the leverage of virtualizing your Javascript.
  • AppEngine is a great platform, especially for startups since it’s free up to 5 million page views per month.  Here are a few bullets.
    • Learning the AppEngine datastore concepts (e.g. “entity groups”) might be tough for many people, and you need to follow some distributed programing techniques, unfamiliar to most web developers, to build scalable applications.
    • Python is back!  AppEngine is Python only for the forseeable future, so Django – an excellent web framework – is the likely platform for traditional web applications.
    • Serious limitations in the current version:
      • No full text search.  There are some hacks to get close right now, but it’s no Google.  This features is likely to be added.
      • No long running processes.  Your requests are limited to 5 seconds and a smidgen of CPU.
      • No data import or export.  You will need to do everything through requests.
      • No outgoing requests.  You can’t open a socket, but there is supposedly a curl library.
      • 500Gb of storage.  This only should be a limitation for a very few people.  If you have media files, store them on S3.  If you’ve got that much user data, maybe you should work on making money instead of porting your app.
      • No way to exceed the 5 million page quota, although estimated pricing for future versions was revealed at around 10-12 cents per CPU hour.
  • Android is pretty darn cool.  I didn’t spend much time at these presentations, but the demos had some features that put the iPhone to shame.  I loved the pull down status bar.  Touch and pull down and the status bar shows expands to detailed interactive versions of your notifications.
  • New APIs for YouTube, a Google Earth browser plugin, and a number of other presentations were compelling, but were not in my area of interest.

Does craigslist have a Case?

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

Regardless of your opinion of the ethics involved in either party’s conduct, craigslist’s case against Ebay seems to be based entirely on the fact that they feel betrayed.  There is no doubt in my mind that Ebay behaved poorly and manipulatively gained the trust of Craig Newmark and Jim Buckmaster and has been trying to stab them in the back ever since.  However that does not mean that Ebay will lose any rights they may have to acquire more of craigslist.  I’m going to attempt a layman’s analysis.  You guessed it, I’m not a lawyer – I just play one in my blog.

craigslist’s claim is that Ebay backed a cement truck over the feel-good intentions they layed out during “negotiations.”  I put “negotiations” in quotes because it appears as if craigslist had no say in what actually happened, despite the appearance that they were an actor in the talks between the former shareholder and Ebay.  This is apparent because Ebay ultimately purchased an option without the involvement of craigslist, and craigslist executed the option without objection.  At that time, craigslist was not yet comfortable with the acquisition.  Why then would they have gone along with the purchase if they actually had veto rights over the transaction?  It appears that while the former shareholder and craigslist made efforts to have an agreeable sale, that was really just out of the generosity of the former shareholder – a generosity which ultimately ran out when a multi-million dollar check was handed to him.

If I’m wrong and craigslist grudgingly went along with the sale, even with the power to stop it, then Craig and Jim were seriously hoodwinked by far more savvy professional business people.  Perhaps at the time Craig and Jim did not understand how companies, and public companies in particular, work.  Board members and executives turn over rapidly and are pushed around and out by demanding shareholders.  If the people running the show are turning down money because they made some vague oral promises to some company they invested in, shareholders will apply pressure and those executives will change course or be disposed of.  Any feel-good vibe does not mean a thing when transacting with a large company, and you believe any such vague promise at your peril.

Warren Buffet likes the saying “only invest in companies that an idiot could run, because eventually one will.”  A corollary might be, only enter into business transactions where it is still to your advantage if your partner becomes your adversary.

The craigslist motion is an interesting read, but it feels more like an appeal to good taste than a legal proceeding.  Based on that feeling, and a lack of substantial concrete violations, my intuition is that they have a weak legal case and are therefore making their case to the public.  They will succeed in temporarily getting Ebay off the board, stopping the deceptive advertising, recovering some damages, and perhaps limiting some shareholder request rights, but any economically valuable shareholder rights are unlikely to be terminated.  My sense is some powerful shareholder options are the real target here, but the private nature of the companies leave that unclear.  I have positive, but mixed feelings about craigslist and the way it is operated, but like Craig and Jim, I think an Ebay acquisition would be detrimental to the public.  Unfortunately, unless there are antitrust issues (which are extremely difficult to prove,) public interest is not the basis for decisions in these sorts of civil proceedings.

Links:

Pennsylvania alcohol – Live free and or die in PA

Tuesday, May 20th, 2008

In Pennsylvania:

  • you can’t buy wine or liquor in a beer store
  • you can only buy wine and liquor in a state run monopoly shop
  • there are beer stores (they call them distributor shops,) but you can’t buy less than a case (24) of beer in a beer store
  • if you want a six pack, you can only get it “take out” in a bar, at a hefty margin

Before I start ranting about what an imposition on freedom this is, I’ll say this has some pretty interesting (but unintended) positive effects.  First, lots of people go to bars since it’s such a pain to get beer otherwise, and you might as well sit down and drink it instead of take the $1 discount you usually get for taking the beer home.  Second, there are these tiny little box bars in random places in quiet suburban neighborhoods that basically serve as beer corner stores.  These spots are a neat community development.  As often happens, good things come from bad things.  Great relationships, realizations, and renewed communities can rise out of natural disasters.  Of course, that doesn’t get me praying for typhoons.

Americans often like to connect economic freedom with political and personal freedom.  When Russia and China open their economies, they will ultimately be forced to open their political system – or so the theory went 20 years ago.  We know it’s not that simple now, but let’s take a look these Pennsylvania liquor laws for an interesting contrast.

You can buy beer, baijiu (Chinese rice vodka-ish drink,) and cigarettes (not to mention beetlenut and bootleg DVDs) on literally any corner in China.  You can open your beer in the store, walk down the street, wave to a policeman, and take the subway – all sipping your beverage.  Not that I’m a lush, but that sounds like freedom to me.  Economic freedom means anyone can sell me beer in any reasonable location.  Personal freedom means I can take that beer and drink it where I want to, as long as I don’t get wasted and start bothering people.  Political freedom means nobody wants to take that right away from me.  The first time you walk down a street with a beer in your hand on a lazy Sunday afternoon, you feel slightly awkward but oddly liberated by this simple pleasure.  By the time you get back to the “land of the free,” you start wondering where you feel more free – totalitarian China or the USA.

Why is the law in PA so insane?  I’m guessing it’s a decendent of the temperance movement.  Now, as with most laws, there is an entrenched economic interest rolling in dough that will fight tooth and nail to stop rational reforms.  According to my favorite source of mostly accurate data, Wikipedia, the state run liquor stores rake in $1.6 billion, while the state’s other hand happily collects an 18% liquor tax and 6% sales tax on top of that staggering number.   Of course the state liquor board is a monopoly, so it does not pass their volume discounts or efficiencies of scale to consumers.  In fact, stores in neighboring states that don’t get volume discounts sell to consumers for up to 40% cheaper, but it’s illegal to bring those to PA.

Well, it’s taxes so it goes to running state services, you say.  Sure, but you can be certain that so much money flowing through such a draconian institution does not go untapped by those in the know.

Other entrenched interests include the “beer distributors” which are those stores where you can only buy 24 packs.   They’ve got a nice monopoly on reasonably priced beer sales, and consumers are forced to buy from them in quantity.  Bars also make a nice business selling one-zies and siz-packs to those not looking to throw a superbowl party, but who want to sit down with a beer and watch the hockey game.

What’s worse, the county where Pittsburgh resides adds an additional 10% tax on liquor.  Boy do these taxes add up!   That money is supposed to fund the Port Authority which operates the public transportation system.  Let’s see what we are getting for that money on the bus system, which is all I’ve used at this point:

  •  Zoned pricing
  • $2.00 starting rate for a ride one way on one bus
  • $2.50 for a ride with a one time use transfer – if you ride three buses, it’s $2.50 + $2.00

and compare that to San Francisco, the second most expensive housing market in the country (Pittsburgh is the fourth cheapest)

  • $1.50 for unlimited bus rides for 1.5 hours

Conclusion?  There’s something very, very fishy going on in Pennsylvania liquor industry.  There is clearly a lot of money at stake, and nothing pisses me off more than mobsters raking in cash at the expense of my freedom.