A VC

Does This Blog Get More Traffic From Google or Twitter?

I made the assertion last evening in Seattle that this blog gets more traffic from Twitter than Google. Mike Arrington called bullshit on that statement. The interchange is about 1:50 mins into this video:

Fred Wilson at Naked Truth Seattle 2009 from Jason Preston on Vimeo.

Thanks to Jason Preston for capturing and uploading it and sending me a link to the video.

I offered to share my refer logs with Mike and I might as well share them with all of you as well.

These are AVC's refer logs for the past 30 days. It says clearly that Google drives more traffic than Twitter (14.8% to 8.2%). However, some percentage of the direct (direct + avc.blogs.com) visits are coming from third party twitter clients and URL shorteners like bit.ly.

To demonstrate this, here are the refer logs from the same 30 day period one year ago.

Last year, this blog ran at avc.blogs.com and there was no avc.com, so the direct traffic was 22%. Now it is 39%. Some of that increase is simply more people typing in avc.com into their browser. But certainly some of it is traffic coming from third party twitter clients and URL shorteners.

If just 7% of the 17% increase in direct traffic is a result of twitter links that are not being counted as twitter, then it is true that this blog gets more traffic from twitter than google.

I wish I could be more scientific about this. Maybe the bit.ly guys can help. My assertion last night was based on data plus gut instinct. That's not going to be enough to satisfy Arrington I'm afraid.

Comments (View) | Posted July 10, 2009 in Weblogs

Startup Hotbed Inferiority Complex

I spent this week in the startup hotbeds of San Francisco and Seattle. Last night, I participated in a fun event called Naked Truth put together by leading Seattle entrepreneurs.

It was a wide ranging conversation about Internet business models and how to make money on the Net.

But at the end of the night, the 'silicon valley' question came out. A participant in the audience wanted to know if it was crazy not to do his startup in Silicon Valley. This is what I call the startup hotbed insecurity complex. Deep down inside, every entrepreneur working outside of the bay area worries that they are not as competitive and will not be as successful because they are not in Silicon Valley.

Many of the panelists had flown up from the bay area and pointed out how most of the important tech companies have come out of the bay area. Mike Arrington suggested the question wasn't even worth the time we were spending on it.

To which I responded that the idea that you cannot build an important tech company outside of Silicon Valley is 'a crock of shit'. Somehow that line was tweeted numerous times as 'silicon valley is a crock of shit' which I found humorous.

Let's look at the facts. Seattle has produced Microsoft and Amazon. Boston has produced DEC and Lotus. Austin produced Dell. NYC produced Bloomberg and Doubleclick. Europe has produced SAP and Skype. I'm doing this at 5am on my blackberry on the redeye because I can't sleep so my examples are what I can muster at this moment. I could do better with a clear head and an Internet connection.

But the point is this. Not every great tech company comes out of Silicon Valley and you don't have to be there to be a successful entrepreneur. For all the benefits of Silicon Valley, like density of great engineers and VCs, you have negatives like hypercompetition for talent and the creative cost of living in an echo chamber.

Tim O'Reilly sent me a comment via twitter on my most recent freemium post. He said he likes the perl motto "TMTOWTDI" which means "there's more than one way to do it"

When asked to summarize my thoughts on business models at the end of last night's panel, I said "there's more than one way to do it"

And the same is true of locating your startup. You can build a great startup in any of the dozen to two dozen startup hotbeds around the world. Pick a place you want to live and work and possibly raise a family. And then get busy.

Comments (View) | Posted July 10, 2009 in Venture Capital and Technology

Do Windows and Mac Users Read Blogs Differently?

All the talk about Chrome OS got me thinking about operating systems and how different OSes are used by people. Also, a comment on my post yesterday by Scott Shapiro got me to segment this blog reader base by windows and mac users in Google Analytics this morning. I looked at all the visits to this blog year to date by mac users and windows users and then looked at where each set of users come from. The data is interesting and here it is:

The most interesting fact is that 56% of Windows users visit this blog direct or via a google search whereas only 46% of Mac users get here by those two methods.

That 10% difference is offset by a much higher percentage of visits from Mac users coming from links on Twitter, Google Reader, Hacker News, Techmeme, Facebook, FriendFeed, Disqus, and several other services.

There are a few services that weight heavier with Windows users, like delicious, stumbleupon, and Yahoo Search (which is barely used by Mac users).

This community is a leading edge geek community so it's dangerous to make too much of this data. But I think it is safe to say that Mac users are more likely to jump on new services like Twitter and FriendFeed more quickly than Windows users. And it is also true that tech news junkies who hang out at places like Hacker News and Techmeme are more likely to be Mac users than the average news junkie.

The Twitter data is particularly interesting to me. Over 10% of Mac visits to this blog come from Twitter, whereas that number is only 5% for Windows users. That's a big difference and I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. I wonder if Twitter's user base skews Mac way more than the Internet as a whole?

Thoughts?

Comments (View) | Posted July 9, 2009 in Venture Capital and Technology

Does Anyone Use Chrome?

The news that Google is turning its Chrome browser into a full blown linux-based operating system for netbooks has the tech industry buzzing. There's so much to like about this story; Google vs Microsoft, Google vs Apple, the rise of netbooks, the browser as an OS, freeconomics at work in the OS market, etc, etc.

I'm not going to add much to the discussion, particularly almost a full day after the news hit and literally hundreds of blog posts later. But I did enjoy Fake Steve Jobs' rant even though it was toungue in cheek. Fake Steve lists eight reasons why Chrome OS is "no big deal" including this one:

Well that got me thinking if I knew anyone who uses Chrome, and I immediately thought of this community here at AVC. Well guess what, 9% of you all use Chrome. Chrome comes in fourth in this community after Firefox at roughly 50%, IE and Safari basically tied at 18%, and Chrome almost gets double digits. Here's the exact numbers for the past 30 days:

Of course these numbers come from Google Analytics, but I trust Google not to mess around with this stuff.

What's even more interesting is to go back just three years and look at what the browser market share in this community was.

IE had 63%
Firefox had 28%
Safari had 6%

So in just three years, this community's use of IE has gone from 63% to 18%, Firefox has gone from 28% to almost 50%, and Safari has tripled from 6% to 18%.

So Chrome may be under 10% right now, but in three years, it could easily be the leading browser in this community. Browsers apparently don't command that much loyalty and switching costs are low. That said, I'm not moving to Chrome unless I can take my Firefox extensions with me.

Comments (View) | Posted July 8, 2009 in Web/Tech

Is The Exclusive Deal Between Apple and AT&T Anticompetitive?

Yes, of course it is. And the Justice Department should be looking into these exclusive agreements. But the administration should go much farther than a Justice Department review.

Mobile phone companies should be required by law to sell an unlocked version of their phones at a price that is equal to the locked price plus whatever subsidy is being paid by the carrier that sells a locked version.

I don't know exactly what that unlocked price would be for the iPhone, but today AT&T and Apple sell the iPhone 3GS for $199 (16gb). I believe the AT&T subsidy is about $200 per phone. So Apple should be required by law to sell an unlocked GSM iPhone for $399.

I've been a T-Mobile customer for over ten years and I never sign a plan with them. I buy my blackberries at full retail value and never get the subsidy. That's because I don't believe phones should come with obligations to use a certain carrier (and I've used the same carrier for over 10 years).

Most people will gladly take the subsidy and buy the locked phone. AT&T will still be able to buy market share through a partnership with Apple. But there is a small (and growing) market of people like me who will pay a premium for an unlocked phone. And the government should let that market grow and flourish. It's in the long term interest of the mobile tech business here in this country.

Just like it is the law of the land that phone numbers are portable from carrier to carrier, it should be the law of the land that phones should be portable from carrier to carrier. Anything else is anti-competitive.

Comments (View) | Posted July 7, 2009 in Web/Tech