Monthly Archive for February, 2007

Grand Champeenions

Just this past weekend, Matt and I were talking about Ned Stewart’s band, Grand Champeen.  Matt had noted he was going to go see them at South by Southwest and I said, you know, they’re still going strong.  I said something to the effect of, “They’re the next ‘Yo La Tengo’,” by which I meant they’d toiled for a long time now and they were due to break out.  Matt, full music snobbery in effect, actually agreed that might be a possibility.

And, then, I get an e-mail from Dave just this morning, linking to an article about the band on MSNBC.  Pretty damn cool, actually.  Go Ned!  And download the album at iTunes or buy it at Virgin or get from the dude who made illegal copies and works outside your building (okay, maybe not that last option).

I Think Geffen Is Exactly Right and Romney Is the New Kerry

It’s a Times Select article, but Dowd has a quote from David Geffen in her column today that I think is spot on, with perhaps the esteemed producer of Dream Girls’ assertion that whoever is the nominee from the Republican Party will win or his assertion that the Clintons are evil.  I think, though, that he’s captured the sentiment of the zeitgeist.

Whoever is the nominee is going to win, so the stakes are very high. Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.  Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.

For what it’s worth, Obama and Hillary are having a real fight over Geffen.  Fineman’s got a good take.

In the other party, and continuing my reliance on the uber-liberal Newsweek, this portrayal of Mitt left a bad, bad taste in my mouth.  Read it here.

A good example of what I’m talking about:

Romney’s campaign aides like to stress that he is a “turnaround” artist. They are referring to Romney’s great success at salvaging failing companies as a venture capitalist in the 1980s and ’90s and his near-miraculous rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City from scandal and debt. The label carries the promise that Romney could reverse the fortunes of the GOP and the nation after the Bush years. But Romney’s turnaround on the burning social issues of gay rights, stem-cell research and abortion has raised questions about the candidate’s sincerity—a dangerous doubt at a time when voters seem to crave authenticity. In Massachusetts, as an unsuccessful Senate candidate in 1994 and in his winning race to become governor in 2002, Romney cast himself as liberal-to-moderate on social issues. But as Romney aims for the conservative Republican votes he will need to secure the presidential nomination, he has emerged as staunchly pro-life and anti-gay marriage. Was he, his critics ask, pretending then? Or is he pretending now?

Is Romney our new Kerry?   I think he might be.  Read this exchange from the Newsweek article.  It feels like Kerry’s “Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian” moment to me: disingenuous and opportunistic.

As a candidate, he can appear slightly overproduced, a little too smooth for the hurly-burly of the hustings. Lately, Romney has been courting the evangelical vote, key to winning Republican primaries. He knows that some evangelicals regard his religion, Mormonism, as heresy (according to the National Journal, more than a quarter of self-identified evangelicals tell pollsters that they won’t vote for a Mormon). So last week, at a lackluster rally in the Bible belt of South Carolina where maybe 300 people half-filled an auditorium, Romney was trying, a bit unctuously, to show his down-home piety. As the crowd trickled out, Romney, his voice still at full decibel from his stump speech, grabbed the hand of state Rep. Bob Leach, a Baptist. “This man,” proclaimed Romney, “his prayers bring down the power of the Lord!”

Since when does a senior partner at a turnaround firm (Bain, for chrissakes) and the governor of Massachussettes, no less, proclaim anything.  I don’t think he does, unless he’s faking.  I’m not saying Romney’s not religious, but he’s not an evangelical Christian, either.

The Emporer Has No Clothes?

Am I the only one fascinated by the business world’s seeming willingness to believe that Google will succeed at whatever it tries? The company has just announced it will launch a corporate-targeted office suite, a la Microsoft, with word processing, e-mail and the like, clearly timed to compete with Vista and the release of Office 2007. The reaction is typical:

While Google’s latest foray into the corporate software market seems unlikely to topple the status quo right away, AMR Research analyst Jim Murphy said it’s only a matter of time before the Mountain View-based company becomes a major player.

“This is just the beginning,” Murphy said. “The real impact of what Google is trying to do probably won’t be evident for another five years.”

But in a fascinating article about Google’s attempt to digitize the world’s books–an effort many others, inlcuding the Library of Congress, have been working on for years, by the way–the New Yorker interviewed people who pointed out that not everything Google does turns to gold.

“Google didn’t get video search right—YouTube did,” Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School, said. “Google didn’t get blog search right—technorati.com did.”

And that’s the point. Google, which is so often praised for its product development process, has actually failed to launch a truly successful product aside from Search. As Business Week pointed out last year, Google’s IM service is a distant 10th to Microsoft’s, Google Finance is only the 40th most-visited financial news website, and Gmail is used by only one-quarter the number of people who use Yahoo and MSN e-mail. They claim to be aiming for a 20-40% success rate with new products, but so far only one, Google Maps, has taken off. So why the assumption that they can successfully enter the corporate office suite market?

They have no experience making sales at a B2B, enterprise level, no experience intergating with firm’s firewall and privacy issues (a huge issue for this kind of software, especially if it’s web based), and no experience integrating with network work flows. That’s not to say it won’t be a great product or that it won’t make some strides, but let’s not assume out of the gate that Google will win at everything it tries. In fact, the assumption at this point should be that it will fail.

Search continues to grow at 30 to 40% a year, giving it a huge amount of cash with which to invest in new products, so maybe someday something will hit, but right now this is a company incredibly dependent on one product. Or, as Chris would put it: Tiny little ads.

Sorry, but the man’s delusional. There’s no other explanation.