BizThoughts

I just came back from a long road trip in Arizona. Seriously long. The rental car started with 22,590 miles on its odometer. We returned it with 24,191 miles. That's 1,601 miles! All over the state of Arizona! Whew!

Armed with free AAA maps, wifi-enabled laptops, and smartphones (yes, we are geeks), we were able to navigate hundreds of miles of city streets and lonely stretches of desert.

But occasionally, we needed to go online for information like weather, hotel reservations, tourist information, etc. In most cases, Google SMS (GOOG) gave us what we needed—especially for weather and specific directions. For other information, a web browser was needed. That's where our smartphone's microbrowsers came in handy.

Then I read Michael Lasky's Wired Magazine article, "Autonet Mobile: Your Own Personal Hotspot, Everywhere You Go":

Once behind the wheel of the Pontiac, I plug the Autonet into the cigarette lighter and within seconds (seconds, not minutes) my PC picks up a full Wi-Fi signal. In a blink I’m checking gmail, and not long after that I download directions to my hotel. Then I look at my watch. The entire process, from initial plug-in to receiving route info, is done in under a minute. I can’t match this performance — even with my iPhone.

Autonet Mobile is, according to their site, a "Wireless Internet Service Provider designed to maintain internet connectivity within the car." Based in Marin County, CA, they offer several service plans, none of which are currently listed. Lasky reports that the plans are expected to range from $80-100/month for unlimited service. As of now, they only seem to be available from Avis for $10.95 per day—and then only from select Avis locations.

The technical details: their wifi router offers access speeds of 600-800Kbps and upload speeds of about 200Kbps within a 100ft radius. Autonet runs over both 3G and 2.5G (EVDO, 1xRTT) cellular data networks, which covers roughly 95% of the US. Also, integrated WEP encryption, MAC address restriction and WAN port restriction is provided. This means you get fairly comprehensive coverage and good security.

Ingeniously, the connection is maintained even as you drive past different cell towers and carriers. Autonet has a tower-to-tower hand-off feature that connects to the tower with the strongest EVDO broadband signal, regardless of carrier. How do they do this? With some cool technology and nondenominational network agreements with Sprint and Verizon.

It sounds like a pretty cool idea, though for my needs (getting information while traveling), a smartphone takes care of all that. Why would I pay extra to be able to use my laptop in a rental car?

Answer is, I probably wouldn't. But what about a new car buyer getting a new car? That's a bit different. Lasky mentioned this intriguing news: "Starting next month, [Autonet Mobile CEO Sterling] Pratz’s vision will take its next step when Autonet hardware and services is offered at Toyota dealerships in Northern California. Not long after that, other (unnamed) car brands and dealerships will begin to offer Autonet Mobile."

In dealerships, huh? So you could conceivably buy a car and get an option for wifi? Interesting idea there. I could see road warriors, traveling salespeople, and perhaps even vacationers on road trips enjoying a feature like this—if the price is right. Right now, all of them have mobile phones that can get them the information they need, albeit in varying degrees of quality and speed.

A wifi-enabled car could also offer enhanced navigation services, aside from weather & traffic, which are already offered by many. Perhaps the navigation screen doubles as a web browser? Or, while it gives you directions to a restaurant, it helps you make a reservation too? Or tourist information like hours of service and historical tidbits?

This indeed seems to be what Autonet Mobile is envisioning. Says Pratz: "Autonet Mobile is focused on the personal hotspot as an in-car entertainment solution, replacing in-car DVD systems that lets five to six users simultaneously access the net from any Wi-Fi enabled device — including iPhones. … We expect a range of holding between five to ten movies or flash games, music, TV shows and so on [in the Autonet Mobile device]."

Interesting stuff! The idea of a wifi-enabled car seems like one of those ideas where, ten years from now, we'll look back and go, "Well, duh! Of course cars have wifi!" It's going to be cool to see where this technology goes.

(BTW, I'm not being paid for this or anything. It just sounded like a cool idea that I wanted to write about.)

Need to set up your business entity? Fortunately there are a number of online services to help you with this now. Quite a number, in fact.

How can you chose the right online business incorporation service then?

Here's what I did. First, I found a bunch of them through simple Google (GOOG) searches. Then I decided to sort them by their Alexa rankings. (I also did a quick comparison against their Compete rankings.)

Why? Because I wasn't able to find any articles comparing these services to help me make an informed decision. Therefore, I figured a basic popularity rating is better than nothing. Maybe a service that's popular would have slightly better offerings and customer service—or at least have enough customers to teach them how to run a quality business.

Is that really true? Hardly, but eh, it was better than nothing.

The search results and rankings produced this list:

1. Incorporate.com
2. MyCorporation
3. BizFilings
4. DirectIncorporation
5. IncNow.com
6. Active Filings
7. DelawareInc.com
8. IncorporateTime.com
9. Form-A-Corp
10. The Incorporation Company

The top four sites ranked high on both Alexa and Compete. Below that and the rankings were quite different. This list is sorted by Alexa rankings only.

Then I looked at the top six. I originally examined just the top four, but decided to go +2 for more variety. Scientific? Hardly.

Incorporate.com

For a Delaware LLC, prices range from $99 - $199 with what appears to be a limited-time discount, or $149 - $399 normally.

MyCorporation

Since this is owned by Intuit (INTU)—creator of Quicken, QuickBooks, and TurboTax—I assume they have a fair amount of business knowledge. For a Delaware LLC, prices range from $288 - $488.

BizFilings

Advertised heavily in entrepreneurial publications, they offer a lot of useful articles and tips on business incorporation. For a Delaware LLC, prices range from $99 - 329.

DirectIncorporation

Though their site isn't much to look at, they seem to have quite a few free extras. For any state and entity type, prices range from $139 - 288.

IncNow.com

They also own the domain name corporation.com, so they could be ranking high simply because of effective SEO. These guys only offer business incorporation services for Delaware. For any entity type, prices range from $189 - $598.

Active Filings

Also not much to look at, they seem to be on the more expensive side. For a Delaware LLC, prices range from $289 - $589.

It would seem to me that MyCorporation, BizFilings, or DirectIncorporation seem to be as good a pick as any. Disclaimer: I am involved with businesses that have used BizFilings and DirectIncorporation. Since MyCorporation is from Intuit, I'd consider using them too, though they're a bit pricey. Incorporate.com could be a fair budget choice as well.

Another disclaimer: There are obvious problems with this method of selecting an online business incorporation service. For one, this favors sites that have good SEO resources. There could be a great service that's not listed on the Google search results. This also doesn't compare actual quality factors—or define what those quality factors are. Unfortunately, business incorporation isn't a common multiple-use service, so few people would be in a position to do an in-depth comparison. However, if anyone has any anecdotes or experiences about these services, I'd love to hear about them. Perhaps this could be the start of such a comparison.

UPDATE 3/14/2008: Corrected entries for Incorporate.com and IncNow.com. Removed my error in stating that corporation.com redirects to incorporate.com; it actually redirects to incnow.com. Thanks for the correction, Frank!

A buddy of mine just started home-brewing his own beer. "It's easy!" he said. "And tastes great!"

His love for this hobby got me thinking. And thirsty. So after a few beers myself, an article from Entrepreneur Magazine bubbled to my mind: "The 2008 Hot List". It lists their picks for the hottest industries in 2008. One of the picks is craft beer.

Ask industry experts what's brewing and you'll get a stout response: craft beer. The volume of craft beer sold in the first half of 2007 rose 11 percent compared to the same period in 2006, and dollar growth increased 14 percent, according to the Brewers Association. "People like the taste of hand-crafted beers that deliver unexpected flavors," says Keith Villa, a brewmaster at Coors.

Ah, unexpected flavors, eh? That got me thinking some more, and drinking some more. Both go hand-in-hand wonderfully. *burp* This also warmed up my appetite and led me to California cuisine, also known as pan-Asian or fusion cuisine. It's the eclectic yet sublime art of fusing dishes, ingredients, and cooking styles from around the world. According to Wikipedia, such a restaurant may include items such as: sake cocktails, salads with crisp nori toppings & a miso-cilantro vinaigrette dressing, and rock shrimp dumplings. Yum!

To top off a meal like that, my mind then wandered to chocolates (naturally). And more specifically, to fusion gourmet chocolates. As another Entrepreneur Magazine article showed, chocolates can be just as expressive as food. Take Vosges-Haut Chocolat, for instance. Founder Katrina Markoff, a student of the Parisian culinary institute Le Cordon Bleu, studied street food in Southeast Asia and Australia for nine months and came up with decadent concoctions such as chocolate with coconut milk and curry. And just recently, a friend introduced me to the Oakland, CA-based Cosmic Chocolate, another gourmet chocolatier with an eclectic range of ingredients such as chai spices, green tea, ginger syrup, basil, and chili. While some of these may sound like you'd definitely need a beer afterwards, I've tried some and they were surprisingly delicious!

So why not do the same with craft beer? Why not start a microbrewery specializing in a fusion of Asian-influenced flavors? Like a spicy wasabi beer? Or one with hints of chai and lychee? There are already beers brewed with chocolate, cherries, oranges, and lemons flavors. Why not mango, kiwi, coconut, or even curry? There's a whole palette to choose from. Miso, soy sauce, ginger, garlic, black bean, red bean… Heck, you could just raid the kitchen Chez Panisse for a long list of ideas!

Okay, maybe this idea will turn some of your stomachs. But hey, if Jones Soda can make a Turkey & Gravy Soda, why couldn't some innovative new microbrewery create a Teriyaki Beer?

Now for some Friday Fun. You've gotta see this video brilliantly-done mash-up of the cute & quirky Lindsay Campbell from Wallstrip (CBS). It's off the hizook!

(The insane mastermind behind this is Wallstrip shooter/editor Terrence Elenteny. Awesome job dude!)

This just in from Caroline McCarthy of Webware: "Report: Facebook threatens to ban Gawker's Denton"!

So here's what went down. Just this past Tuesday, Nick Denton, founder of the blog network Gawker Media, published the article "Emily Brill: The Second Generation", where he featured some very unflattering screenshots taken from a Facebook member's profile page. This is after Denton "took over as managing editor of Gawker.com this month after several staff departures," reports McCarthy.

The victim is 25-year-old Emily Brill, daughter of Steven Brill, the founder of CourtTV (I mean truTV), American Lawyer Magazine, and numerous other companies. The screenshots included a set of photos comparing Emily in a bikini against an older college photo where she was "significantly heavier," adds McCarthy.

Sam Gustin of Portfolio.com writes in his article "Blogger Bullying Draws a Website Warning" that Denton "has violated Facebook's terms of use… and the social network's honchos are not amused."

Facebook's Terms of Use make it clear that, "Except for your own User Content, you may not upload or republish Site Content on any Internet, Intranet or Extranet site or incorporate the information in any other database or compilation, and any other use of the Site Content is strictly prohibited."

This could result in Denton being banned from Facebook.

Not surprisingly, this isn't the first time information from someone's Facebook profile has been used against them. Back in August 2007, Lucy Morrow Caldwell of Slate Magazine published the article "Daddy Dearest: Rudy Giuliani's daughter is supporting Barack Obama". Since both Caldwell and the 17-year-old Caroline Giuliani are both part of the Harvard network, Caldwell was able to see that Giuliani listed her political view as "liberal" and joined the Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." She has since withdrawn from the group.

Also, back in October 2007, Owen Thomas of Valleywag published the article "Confirmed: Facebook and Microsoft flacks make friends before deal announcement" after noticing that Brandee Barker, head of PR at Facebook, added Adam Sohn, head of marketing PR at Microsoft (MSFT), as a friend. "Just buddies?" wrote Thomas. "I think not. But I'm sure writing up the press release announcing Microsoft's investment and ad deal will make them fast friends, indeed."

This almost led to Thomas being banned from Facebook too, his insiders told him.

What's this mean for you and I? Well, for one, don't post any naked photos of yourself on Facebook, or anywhere else online for that matter. "Well, duh Mike, that's a no-brainer," you say? Sorry kids, practicing safe Facebooking still means you could catch a case of public crabs. (Only abstinence is the true protection, but what's the fun in that?) Let me explain.

1. Someone else could upload photos of you

   And if that person tags you in the photos, the photo is now linked to you. Fortunately, you can remove your tag from photos (and videos too). Whew.

2. Strangers may be able to see your profile

   McCarthy notes that it's not clear whether Denton and Brill are friends on Facebook, but since both are members of the New York regional network, there's a chance he could have seen her profile without being directly connected. For instance, if someone pokes you, you can see their profile. So if you poke back, they can see your profile. Fortunately, you can control what they see by altering your Poke, Message and Friend Request Settings.

3. Strangers could see your photos if they have your album's URL

   According to Thomas, Facebook privacy is an illusion. Someone gave him the exact URL to a photo album of Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg, despite not being directly connected to him. This allowed Thomas (and any of us) to view the entire album. Unfortunately, there's no way to counter this at the moment, though I'm guessing Facebook's engineers are working on this.

How does Denton feel about being banned from a potentially plump source of stories? As Peter Kafka of Silicon Alley Insider writes in "Nick Denton's Gawker Takes On Scientologists, Facebook, Wins":

Denton tells us he doesn't care if Facebook boots him off the social network: "I was getting bored of Facebook, anyway." (Note to Gawker Media employees: Yes, we know Denton forced you all to join Facebook last spring. We don't know whether this means you're off the hook, though.)

And for the curious stalkers out there, sorry to dash your hopes, but "perhaps due to the Gawker incident, Emily Brill's Facebook profile is no longer publicly searchable," says McCarthy. Which is for the best; this Paris-Hilton-esque spotlight must've been Hell for her.

Hello, my name is Mike and I'm a Scrabuholic.

Yes, I'm one of them. I'm one of those people who logs on to Facebook everyday just to play Scrabulous. While I only have six games going (as opposed to hundreds by true hardcore Scrabuholics), it's become quite an addiction. And I know I'm not alone.

Which is why I'm sad to hear that Hasbro (HAS), creator of the board game Scrabble, is trying to shut down Scrabulous. Hearing this makes me a sad panda.

In his article, "Will someone please start a Facebook group to save Scrabulous?" Josh Quittner of Fortune Magazine writes:

I can't tell if Hasbro… is the smartest company in the world or the dumbest. Over 100 million sets of the game have been sold in 121 countries, in 29 different languages, according to everyone's favorite source. What a cash cow. …

But all good things must come to an end, which is bad news for Scrabulous fans, and even worse for the [Scrabulous creators]: Hasbro's trying to shut the site down. "They sent a notice to Facebook about two weeks ago," Jayant confirmed to me. "The lawyers are working on it." …

As a tech writer and life-long student of what passes for Internet economics, I'm baffled. Is Hasbro just a stupid Potato Head? Or is this a brilliant game of Stratego?

Jayant, of course, is part of the duo that created Scrabulous, along with his brother Rajat Agarwalla. They were just two rabid Scrabble fans who used to play on Quadplex until it started charging its users. "I'm not sure why Hasbro actually picked on this" Jayant added as he pointed out all the other free online Scrabble clones out there (like gazillions!).

"Because, dude, you're the best," added Quittner. Dawww.

These two brothers first built a site called Scrabulous in 2006 that earned about 600,000 registered users in a year. So when Facebook opened up its platform, the brothers launched their Facebook app in June 2007. Six months later, they earned about 2.3 million users. Holy Scrabble Batman! It's currently the most popular Facebook game out there too (check it out under the "Most Active Users" tab).

So an obvious thought for most people in the web industry is: Why doesn't Hasbro just purchase the Scrabulous Facebook app? Perhaps they are… "We're trying to work out some kind of deal," Jayant added. TechCrunch also picked up this story ("Hasbro Tries To Shut Down Scrabulous") and one commenter suggested that "just acquiring the app might be cheaper (AND strategically [more] meaningful) than throwing their lawyers at this."

What would Scrabulous be worth if it was for sale? Jayant said it makes "over $25,000 a month." Adonomics, an open analytics and advertising platform for Facebook, values Scrabulous at just under $3M. Hmmm.

So say Hasbro purchased Scrabulous. They'd get a major presence on Facebook, some marketing exposure (especially among Facebook users) and a new revenue stream—though it would be a tiny one, compared to their other profit makers, like Cranium or Monopoly.

And what's the potential downside for them? As another TechCrunch commenter wrote, "Sure, buying them would be an option, but then in some ways you're rewarding people for stealing trademarks and brand names." That would certainly set a precedent in the industry for other potential copycats hoping to score big by selling out. Hasbro may not even have the operational capacity or knowledge to support Facebook apps either. They have their Flash-based Monkeybar TV HasbroGames, but it may not have been built in-house. Also, perhaps they simply doesn't see the gains in marketing and revenue worth the risks of buying Scrabulous.

Being Scrabuholic that I am really makes me hope they don't shut down Scrabulous. Though if they did, they'd free me of my addiction and give me back oodles of free time. But then, I wouldn't have Scrabulous. And that would make me a sad panda.

Remember the long bet between Dave Winer and Martin Martin Nisenholtz of the New York Times?

In a Google search of five keywords or phrases representing the top five news stories of 2007, weblogs will rank higher than the New York Times' Web site.

Rogers Cadenhead of Workbench tallied the results and discovered that he was sorta right. For 2007's top stories, some blogs did rank higher than newspapers in a Google search.

Read/WriteWeb took a look at this and correctly hinted that the test isn't an accurate conclusion of the popularity of blogs vs newspapers—it's really a test on the SEO effectiveness of the two groups of sites. And the blogs in these results are more search engine-friendly than the newspaper websites. (Also, this test doesn't measure how many people read the actual printed newspapers.)

This made me wonder. What would the newspaper (and magazine) websites have to do to increase their SEO?

• Use proper heading tags (H1, H2…) for article headlines and subtitles
• Improve the URLs by replacing those cryptic numbers they oftentimes use the article headline
• Don't require user authentication, or create a non-signed-in blurb of the article, though that's not as SEO-friendly
• Archive all previous articles publically, perhaps with a disclaimer that it's an old article (some news sites delete old stories)
• Update the Google sitemap regularly (some do this already)
• Encourage links to the article by adding related content or features to important articles that add value
• Include a link back to the web article in the emailed version
• Use web standards markup so search engines have less code to crawl and index
• Create an RSS feed for all articles & articles by category (most do this already, though I've seen a few who don't)

Pardon this rant, but I just need to get this off my chest. You know what bugs me? When ads show 1-800 numbers made up of words to represent the numbers. Such as 1-800-FLOWERS or 1-800-PLUMBER.

Now, I know why such numbers exist. It's much easier for a customer to remember a phone number with a catchy word than a string of random numbers. That totally makes sense because the dialpads of phones list letters with each number.

But: Not all new phones have such dialpads. Many smart phones don't. My phone doesn't. And every time I have to dial a 1-800 number + word, I have to dig up a phone with a traditional dialpad. A few times, I've just given up and called a competitor.

I'm sure I'm not the only person with this problem too. Just about every smart phone owner has this problem, and if these people make up your target audience, you're as good as Boo.com: dead.

There's an obvious solution to this problem though. Include the corresponding numbers with your word in the ad. Duh.

Whew, I feel much better now that this is off my chest. Now go fix your ads!