Debating the Amazon Kindle

I’m having a fun ole’ debate over the Amazon (AMZN) Kindle right now. It’s taking place in the comments of a previous post between myself and Nicholas Zakas, a published author, seasoned programmer, and all-around intelligent guy.

I like debates. They give me a chance to hone my opinions and positions on various topics. I’ll do my best to defend my position, but more often than not, I’ll learn a new viewpoint that adds to my knowledge of that topic.

My post was about how great the Amazon Kindle was going to be. I likened the Kindle to Apple’s (AAPL) iPod. Nicholas commented that:

The iPod was successful largely because people wanted to replace their large portable CD players with something that could play more…it wasn’t techies that make the iPod the sensation that it was, it was the non-techies.

This implies it was the iPod’s ease-of-use that made it such a commercial success. While I totally agree, I think it was more than just the iPod’s simple & friendly form factor that made it great. It was also:

  1. iPod’s branding and Apple’s great overall brand
  2. The “complete package” that iTunes integration offers to the iPod

He argued that while this is true for iPods, it’s different for books:

There’s something about the tactile relationship between readers and their material that makes it hard to give up. I remember when people predicted that newspapers would go out of circulation when people could get their news online…

True, but the same was once said about records when first CDs came out. There was a time when people predicted the TV would replace the radio. And later, that interactive TV would replace regular TV. I’ve never believed that newspapers would go out of circulation, but I do believe their role will change—and has already changed. It’s no longer the single source of up-to-date news. People primarily go to the TV for that now. (Those that go to the web for up-to-date news are still in the minority, though it’s growing rapidly.)

He also made a comment about the Amazon Kindle falsely gaining a first-mover advantage, though the Kindle isn’t the first e-book reader on the market; there are quite a few already. While he’s probably just not as familiar with the e-book market, we both agree that first-mover advantage isn’t a panacea for success.

To that, he followed up with a simple mathematical point:

Considering you can get great books for under $10 nearly anywhere, what would you do? Buy a $400 machine to output text, or buy 40 books? I love tech as much as the next computer geek, but even I would go for the latter.

Good point. If you’re someone who will only buy forty $10 books, you’ll hardly see any cost-savings benefit in the Amazon Kindle. But if you’re someone like me, who’s been known to spend upwards of $800 on books a year, the Amazon Kindle may be worth it.

But then this goes into the question of target demographics, which Nicholas also pointed out:

Tell me who [the target consumers] are for Kindle? People who read books like books, not just the text. The divergence between book readers and technology couldn’t possibly be greater. People often read books to escape computers and technology.

I can’t disagree with that. As a bookworm myself, I also love the tactile feel of a book. However, I used to love the tactile feel of a CD booklet too. Every time I’d listen to a CD, I’d read the booklet for the lyrics or linear notes. Or maybe just stare at the album cover art. I loved doing that. When MP3s first hit the market, I didn’t see the appeal because they felt so ethereal and amorphous. There wasn’t anything I could hold in my hands.

Then I hit a tipping point and realized that the portability and physical space savings of MP3s offset the benefits of having CD booklets for me. The same went for digital movies and DVDs. Now, I love digitizing all of my media.

What may tip the balance of books to e-books are the younger generations of consumers. They’re already growing up with the Internet, mobile phones, and MMORPGs (with their virtual goods) as everyday items in their lives. It’s foreign for them to imagine a world without technology like that. They also don’t place as much value on CD booklets, DVD boxes, or books in the same way the older generations do—younger generations seem all-to-eager to accept digital media.

Just like newspapers, there will always be a role for books. When you’re chilling in a log cabin or on a beach somewhere, you’ll probably want a good solid book in your hands. But if you’re on a train commuting to work, it may be more desirable to hold a device that will allow you to read any book, newspaper, or blog you want.

Potential Initial Niche Targets

One last thought. If Amazon were to approach the e-book market with Geoffrey Moore’s advice in mind (as he writes in Crossing the Chasm), they could target graduate students as an initial niche. With graduate textbooks costing hundreds of dollars, they may find it more cost-effective and easier to lug around a Kindle rather than seven 5lb textbooks. The price point of the Kindle would have to drop from its current $359.00, however. But that is inevitable as they streamline their production costs.

Undergraduate students could be a viable initial niche as well, though more research would need to be done since many undergraduates just purchase used textbooks to save money. If a cheaper Kindle could tap into this market, the purchasers may actually be the students’ parents.

Another initial niche could be any profession that requires access to large volumes of books at any given time, such as lawyers. Imagine the mountains of books a lawyer has to go through. Now imagine being able to search through all of that easily through a single handheld device. Not bad, huh?

This is easier said than done, of course. There are lots of tricky book publisher contracts to negotiate. Without the necessary content, these niches are impossible to reach. But still, it’s not hard to imagine these users wanting a device like the Amazon Kindle, yea?

High Hopes for the Amazon Kindle

Remember your first iPod? Remember the first song you purchased from Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes Store? Remember the 100th song?

I got a chance to check out Amazon’s (AMZN) Kindle this past weekend. It was almost like seeing an iPod for the first time. I couldn’t stop drooling and fawning over all the buttons and controls.

Much has been written about the Kindle already. Some extol its features, like being able to carry lots of books cheaply, having good battery life, and having audiobook integration. Others slam it for it’s poor design and lack of social network (Um, really? You want a social network on an e-book reader? If anything, that’s a P3 feature and shouldn’t be part of a v1 product). It’s interesting to note that many of the Kindle’s original critics have changed their minds after using it for a while.

Rob Tillotson of The Gadgeteer has a deep & thorough review, Daniel Turner of Technology Review offers a good overview of its technical guts, and Mike Elgan of Macworld lists some great tips & tricks of the Kindle. These include how you can surf the web using its basic web browser (called, appropriately, “Basic Web”), download free e-books, get answers from a free human-powered search engine called Kindle NowNow, make the battery last even longer, read RSS feeds for free, etc.

My reaction? I just went out and purchased some AMZN stock. It’s currently floating around the same price it had when the Kindle debuted on Nov. 19, 2007. It closed at 79.18 that day; today, it’s been bouncing between 77.43 and 78.85, down from a high of 84.39 last Monday. But I don’t care about that. I’m long AMZN. I’m betting that the Kindle will be to Amazon what the iPod was to Apple—and we all know how good the iPod was to Apple!

Here’s why I’m long on Amazon:

UPDATED 5/24/2008: I added #9 to this list.

  1. I am exactly the kind of early adopter customer Amazon wants. Although I didn’t rush out to buy a Kindle (and am not going to anytime soon), as soon as the second or third version is released, I will. They’re working on their second version right now, a source in Amazon tells me (and it sounds pretty good!), so it shouldn’t be long before v3 is ready and relatively bug-free. And when I purchase a Kindle, I’m going buy lots of e-books. I’m a voracious reader and am always buying new books. Since Amazon’s strategy is to profit from e-book sales and not Kindle sales (the Kindle is a loss leader), attracting book-hungry customers like me is going to be so money.

  2. I travel often and always carry a book or three with me. That often adds extra weight that, well, just sucks. Since I usually try to travel light, carrying one Kindle versus three books sounds totally awesome. I can see other travelers wanting the same benefits. The business traveler niche could have great potential for Amazon, especially if business users are able to load their business documents onto the Kindle and peruse them during their flights.

  3. I’m a bit of a digital pack-rat. Or just a big a geek, I dunno. I once had over 600 CDs. Then, to live more efficiently and have less material belongings, I burned them all into MP3s. I did the same with my DVDs. All that extra shelf space allowed my book collection to grow like crazy. Now imagine if I could digitize all of my books. How cool would that be. All of the media I’d own would be digital, portable, and easily searchable (told you I’m a big geek). That would be cool.

  4. This is only a v1 product and already it’s gotten a huge positive reaction. Most v1 products suck. The first generation of iPods sucked. But with Apple’s branding & slick design and iTunes’ ease of use & practical prices, it took over the market and surged as each new version was released. Kindle 1.0 was cool, 2.0 and higher can only get better.

  5. A medical student I know took a look at the Kindle and said that if all of his medical textbooks were offered on the Kindle, he’d buy it in a heartbeat. First of all, medical textbooks are huge. HUGE. And medical students have to carry two to four of these heavy things at once. Second, medical textbooks are expensive, especially for starving students. With e-books being cheaper than regular books, a student could easily make up the cost of the Kindle over the course of his/her education. This could be a huge market for them, and the smart folks at Amazon know this.

  6. Amazon has to maintain physical warehouses to store all the books they sell. E-books don’t require expensive warehouses; they just require a database on a server farm somewhere, which is infinitely cheaper. This means Amazon could potentially sell more products (e-books) while not incurring any additional costs. I like them mathematics.

  7. If Amazon can execute its Kindle & e-book strategy well, it certainly could go the way Apple’s iPod & iTunes strategy went. According to a Nov. 19, 2007 article from Aaron Pressman of Business Week, “Apple shares (AAPL) stood at $9.51 (adjusted for a split) the day before the launch. I don’t need to tell you where they are today. Ok, I will: $166.” Not a bad return, I’d say.

  8. I’m not the only one who expects great things from Kindle. Citigroup Analyst Mark Mahaney “expects Amazon to generate between $400 million and $750 million in revenue from the Kindle by 2010, or 1% – 3% of Amazon’s total revenue,” writes Michael Arrington of TechCrunch. “If Amazon executes right with its Kindle product and marketing strategy, the iPod analogy for the Kindle won’t be too far stretched,” Mahaney is quoted as saying. Cool!

  9. Part of iPod’s success came from the ease of use of getting more MP3s. Just as the iTunes Store made it very easy to download MP3s, the Kindle Store makes it very easy to download e-books for the Kindle. And even better, the Kindle Store is easier than iTunes because you can directly access it via the Kindle (no need for a computer at all).

I can’t wait for the day I can look back and remember my first Kindle, my first e-book, and my 100th e-book. And also, a great big ROI on AMZN!

Online Competitive Analysis Services

Not knowing your competition is like not knowing who you’re fighting in World of Warcraft. Is it Alliance? Horde? Night Elves? Blood Elves? Goblins? Oh my!

When analyzing your competition, you’re assessing their strengths and weakness. Your analysis should include direct and indirect competitors as well; any alternate method of solving the same problem your product or service solves is a competitor, even if it’s not a formal business entity. Online Marketing Software and Marketing Experiments Journal both have nice primers on doing competitive analyzes.

For web-based businesses, there a fair number of online competitive analysis services out there. Some are free, some require subscriptions. Here are a bunch that I’ve come across.

Free Online Competitive Analysis Services

Alexa

One of the more popular services out there, Alexa ranks websites against each other based on traffic. Additionally, it provides data on rank trends (up or down), download speed, reach, page views per user, visitor origins, related links, and in some cases, business information like number of employees, annual revenue, and business contacts.

Alexa gathers its data from users who’ve downloaded the Alexa Toolbar. There is some controversy over this method as some websites have gamed Alexa’s rankings in the past. Also, it only provides this data at the domain name level; data for sub-domains and directories not offered.

For a general idea of popularity trends, this can be a useful service. Just give the Alexa ranks some margin of error.

Compete

Compete is also a traffic ranking service like Alexa, though it offers slightly different data. It aims to provide the number of unique visitors to a website, in addition to time spent, pages per visit, and top search keywords driving traffic to the website. Compete also makes it very easy to compare several sites at once.

Compete gathers its data by recruiting users, much like Nielsen Ratings did for US television viewers. These users come from the Compete Toolbar, ISPs, and opt-in panels. Its number of unique visitors metric isn’t accurate, it’s an approximation; use your traffic analysis tools for a more accurate number. Also, Compete only provides data for US users; non-US users are not counted.

Like Alexa, Compete can be useful for general popularity trends and comparisons.

Quantcast

One of the newer traffic ranking services on the block, Quantcast also provides demographics data, such as gender, age, household income, ethnicity, head of household education, and children in household. This data is all from US users only.

Quantcast gathers its data through research panels (essentially, anonymous surveys) and beacon tracking on websites which need to be installed by website owners themselves. Their demographic data is obtained from their research panels, which they acknowledge isn’t entirely accurate.

Like all online traffic ranking services, Quantcast can be useful for general demographic information, but assume some margin of error.

Competitious

Competitious is a new offering that aggregates the data from traffic ranking services into one location. So far, it only pulls ranking data from Alexa. It also provides a way to compare features across competitors and store news clippings. Your analyzes are saved as “projects” and multiple people can be added to a project.

Although its offerings aren’t very comprehensive yet, Competitious has a lot of potential for being a hub for your online competitive analyzes. I’m anxious to see what features they add next.

SearchStatus

Not really a full-fledged service, SearchStatus is an extension for the Firefox web browser. It provides a quick snapshot of any website’s Google PageRank, Alexa Rank, and Compete Rank. There are also a lot of other features, such as showing nofollow links, number of links, meta tags, a whois report, the robots.txt file, keyword density, back links, pages indexed in popular search engines, and other SEO-relevant information.

All of this data is freely available. This extension simply aggregates all of it onto your web browser. It’s an extremely handy tool and very popular among SEO specialists.

Paid Online Competitive Analysis Services

comScore

One of the most widely-cited sources, comScore is the Nielsen Ratings of the Internet. It provides traffic rank data in addition to typical marketing metrics such as engagement, reach, frequency, demographics, and daypart reporting. Many journalists and bloggers use comScore’s numbers as a gauge of market share.

comScore gathers its data from users who’ve opted in and downloaded their usage tracking software. Since self-selected populations can be biased, comScore adjusts the data using weights to make sure that different demographics are adequately represented.

comScore is fairly expensive and probably out of reach for most small-to-medium sized businesses. The free traffic ranking services like Alexa, Compete, and Quantcast can provide adequate competitive data for now.

Andiamo Systems

Andiamo Systems is a new service that aims to provide a measurement of a business’s word-of-mouth reach. It does this by collecting mentions from blogs, forums, review sites, message boards, PR newswires, news, and other web sites. A lot of your customers could be sharing their opinions about your products & services online right now, good or bad. This service acts like a targeted search engine to aggregate all of those opinions for you.

Pricing is set on a monthly basis and increases as you get more mentions, starting at $79 for up to 50 mentions. This scale makes Andiamo more affordable for small businesses. A 14-day free trial is offered.

Not every mention out there is equally important, but this new service could provide an effective way to monitor a tiny negative word before it explodes into a PR nightmare.

Watch360

Watch360 is a new service that keeps an eye on your competitors’ websites and reports every little change they make. It’s a way to monitor announcements and new product offerings from your competitors on a daily basis.

Pricing is on a monthly or yearly basis and increases as you monitor more companies, starting at $29.95/month for 10 companies. The top pricing tier, $99.95/month, allows you to monitor an unlimited amount of companies. A free trial report is offered for one company.

Assuming that your competitors update their website and blog regularly, this new service could give you the information you need to react to their moves.

Ever use any of these free or paid services? If so, what did you think? And do you know of any others that are also good?

Top 10 Mistakes that Entrepreneurs Make

Entrepreneur Week at Stanford University Just so I could relive my college days, I attended Stanford’s Conference on Entrepreneurship yesterday. The conference was just a one-day event within Stanford’s Entrepreneurship Week from February 22 – 29. (You have one more day left!)

One of the sessions I attended was Professor Jeff Pfeffer’s “Top Ten Mistakes that Entrepreneurs Make”. Pfeffer is a professor of Organizational Behavior in the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. Judging from the packed classroom, he’s also a popular professor. With good reason too, it seemed. His lecture was pretty funny and engaging, with stories and personal anecdotes sprinkled throughout.

Though I jotted down a ton of chicken scratch, I was able to get Pfeffer’s top ten mistakes that entrepreneurs make:

  1. Too much CEO ego.
  2. Too little regard for the self-esteem needs of others.
  3. Too much time, attention, & emphasis on “strategy” & analysis, and not enough time on “execution.”
  4. Too little emphasis on the importance of people & culture.
  5. Too much belief in the saving grace of “miracle” technologies & “big brains,” particularly in high-tech fields.
  6. Too much emphasis on budgets & financial controls; not enough attention to customer satisfaction and employee attraction & engagement
  7. Not enough attention to and knowledge of competition & competitors, including tracking their sales & market share
  8. Too much emphasis on individual performance and too little attention to context & situation within which that individual performance occurs.
  9. Excessive reliance on financial incentives for alignment, motivation, & communication.
  10. Not enough consideration of or attention to underlying assumptions & feedback effects.

This is just a quick recap; he had a ton more information. I hope he doesn’t mind my posting these notes. I would guess not, since attending his lectures is an experience mere notes could never convey.

If you attended Entrepreneurship Week too, what did you think of the other sessions?

How to Negotiate: Tips for Yahoo!

This had me howling like a crazed hyena. By Shpigler the Shark, whose motto is, “Listen to me and you’ll get far in business and life! Trust me.”

  • Tip #1: Discuss each part of the company separately
  • Tip #2: Use the iPhone strategy
  • Tip #3: Show him that he has no other option
  • Tip #4: Use the right body language
  • Tip #5: Be cool when you talk about numbers
  • Tip #6: Shpigler is always here for you

Will Yahoo Say “Not!” to Microsoft?

Microsoft + Yahoo! I’m sure you’ve heard the rumors by now:

After a series of meetings over the past week, Yahoo’s board determined that the $31 per share offer “massively undervalues” Yahoo, [a person familiar with the situation] said. It also doesn’t account for the risks Yahoo would be taking by entering into an agreement that might be overturned by regulators…

Yahoo’s board believes that Microsoft’s is trying to take advantage of the recent weakness in the company’s share price to “steal” the company. The decision to reject the offer signals that Yahoo’s board is digging in its heels for what could be a long takeover battle. The company is unlikely to consider any offer below $40 per share, the person said.

$40/share, eh? If you go the route of splitting Yahoo! (YHOO) into itty bitty pieces, one analysis pegs the sum of Yahoo!’s parts as $38/share. From that analysis, $40/share sounds like a fair premium.

The question on everyone’s mind, however, isn’t whether or not the price is fair. It’s whether Yahoo! is trying to up Microsoft’s (MSFT) bid, or defend itself from being absorbed by the Borg.

On one hand, you have Peter Kafka of Silicon Valley Insider writing:

This is a smart move. It will be interesting to see whether Yahoo’s letter to Microsoft contains the same $40 language, as this would obviously make the message not a “rejection” of the bid but merely a price negotiation. We suspect Yahoo won’t put the $40 language in the letter, but in any event, they have just countered Microsoft’s bid.

(His colleague Henry Blodget, agrees with his own in-depth analysis.)

And on the other hand, you have Kara Swisher of All Things Digital writing:

But Yahoo is going to need a lot more than Google if it really wants to stay independent, as I believe it actually does. While some will call this a negotiating tactic to get Microsoft to give it a few more dollars above its $31 a share offer, it is not simply that.

Yahoo’s top execs and now its board are making a swing-for-the-fences effort to keep it out of Microsoft’s hands.

(Even the Wall Street Journal article that first broke this rumor mentions that “Yahoo has taken ‘poison pill’ provisions to prevent an unwanted takeover.”)

Wow! What a battle!

My personal prediction?

Yahoo’s got Sue Decker, an up-and-coming executive (or perhaps, CEO?), and a new CTO, Aristotle “Ari” Balogh. Yahoo’s got a lot of major shareholders, especially institutional holders, to appease. And Yahoo’s got Jerry Yang, whom I’m guessing wants to say “Not!” to Microsoft.

That’s a mixed bag, at best. So perhaps a compromise will emerge. Gazing into my crystal ball, I see Jerry’s sagging shoulders as the Board agrees that even though they’d prefer not to sell to Microsoft, they’re going to ultimately do so, if they can get a good enough premium. Hey, everyone’s got their price. Especially major institutional holders.

In other words, when you’re a public company, you have to share ownership with lots of other entities (people and organizations) who are providing you with their financial power. In exchange for that financial power is some degree of control. So even if you disagree with those entities, if enough of them band together, they have the power to decide your fate.

(I know, I can be a cynical bastard sometimes.)

UPDATED 2/13/2008: Here’s another analysis that arrives at a somewhat similar conclusion, though the author says so much more eloquently than I.

Jerry Yang’s Big Decision

Me and Jerry Yang I don’t envy the decision he has to make. Jerry Yang, I mean.

I’ve been closely following the news of Microsoft’s (MSFT) bid for Yahoo! (YHOO), since I’m an ex-Yahoo! and still have a lot of friends & colleagues there. While endlessly discussing and analyzing this news, I began to wonder what must be going through Jerry’s mind.

Let’s take a step into Jerry’s shoes. Back in college, all the geeks were in a tizzy over Mosaic and this thing called the World Wide Web. So, along with your buddy David Filo, you create a master index of sorts called “Jerry’s Guide to the World Wide Web”. Suddenly, the Web opens its academic doors to allow in commerce and corporations and capitalism, oh my. You decide to incorporate—and the next thing you know, you’re surfing on a peak of $475/share and are one of the world’s richest people. Your momma sure proud of you now!

Then the wave crashes. Your surfboard topples over. You struggle to stay afloat while younger surfers enter the fray, doing much better than you are. So you bring in an experienced lifeguard. Never mind that he’s never surfed before; you figure that since he knows how to swim, he’ll be able get you back onto the surfboard.

Okay, enough with the analogies. Back into Jerry’s shoes. Present day. The company you built and raised from scratch is hurting a bit. You’re still making tons of cash, but the media and the stock market are hammering you hard. And worse—some of your top talent is leaving because of that.

Then a major competitor comes knocking at your door again (they’ve done this before). Except this time, they make their bid public, hoping to win the support of your shareholders. Reports from the media (like MarketWatch and Forbes) warn that such an acquisition would not be easy on either company. Your employees, advertisers, and partners are all concerned and shouting, “What’s going to happen to me?”

So you grab your favorite bottle of scotch, sit by the shore, and wonder:

  • “If I sell my company to Microsoft, will they lay off half of my friends & colleagues and put my company through painful months of transitions, while combining our collective talents, expertise, and financial resources to put us back on top of the market again?”
  • “Or, if I don’t sell my company, will my shareholders revolt as my stock price drops amidst my already planned lay offs and talent drain, while remaining tenacious and using our remaining resources & leadership to put us back on top of the market again?”

Not an enviable position to be in. There are pros and cons to every side of this story. Every constituent has his/her own concerns. Whatever decision he makes, he’s going to hurt somebody.

Personally, I think Jerry wants to say “No” to Microsoft. I think he still has hope for Yahoo!. He’s seen it through the dot-bomb and I think he’s willing to see it through this economic downturn as well. He’s a true Yahoo!, with purple blood and a bang (!) in his heart.

But he’s a smart enough guy to know he’s got to think this through and do what’s best for his company, his shareholders, and his customers. I think he’ll ultimately be realistic about his decision, whatever it will be.

I don’t envy him. And Jerry, I hope you’re drinking some good scotch there.

Microsoft Wants to Buy Yahoo!

Microsoft + Yahoo! Wow! (Which apparently has been the reaction all over the blogosphere.) Microsoft (MSFT) just made a bid to purchase Yahoo! (YHOO) at $31/share, or about $44.6 billion in cash and stock.

This has been in the rumor mill for some time now, once even jumping the price of YHOO to around $33. Now that Microsoft has made a public bid, the price has been hovering between $27-29. Some analysts expect that this is only the first bid by Microsoft, and that they may raise their bid $3-4 to sweeten the deal.

“It’s unusual to put your best bid out the first time,” said Tom Burnett, the Director of Research for the merger research firm Wall Street Access. He also added that the possibility of a Democrat winning the US presidential election could make the acquisition tricky. “A lot of this is driven by the political impact of the Dems going into the White House, and being more vigorous. The Dems have a history of being more aggressive and anti-big business.” This means Microsoft may have to sweeten the deal soon.

Oh, and here’s an interesting take on Microsoft’s bid, by Peter Van Dijck (found via the comments of A VC). Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land also has a good analysis of the bid, including a mention of Yahoo!’s response: “[The] Board of Directors will evaluate this proposal carefully and promptly in the context of Yahoo!’s strategic plans and pursue the best course of action to maximize long-term value for shareholders.”

This could be a real historical moment, at least in the Internet world. Wow indeed!