After an exchange on Twitter during which I stated my views on the Mosque / Islamic cultural center going up near the New York WTC, he unfollowed and blocked me from following him. After posting this on his blog post regarding the subject:

“Now that you have not only unfollowed me (whatever) but also blocked me (?!) on Twitter, I guess it can only mean that I’m a right-wing extremist that hates Muslims and goes shooting traffic signs on weekends for fun. For the record, I’m not trying to give lessons around religious beliefs, and thus will replace the word “Christian” by “other religions” below. Maybe you will find the words more suitable, or maybe you will say “thank you for the lesson in arrogant other religions superiority”.

Instead of trying to prove a point through whatever means possible, and silencing those who do not think the same way as you do, maybe you should try to do a little fact-checking before you post on a sensitive subject.

Cordoba is a city in Spain which was the symbol of Islamic rule over most of the Iberian peninsula (known as Al-Andalus) between 711 and 1492. It is also marked as the origin of the bulk of Islamic law, having hosted a library with half a million books. Calling this center “Cordoba” has very strong implications as to historic and current claims by a sizable chunk of Muslims.

Al-Andalus was established as an independent emirate, which lasted 780 years until it was taken over in 1492. This emirate is the very reason 192 people died, and over 1000 were injured, in the Madrid train bombings in 2004. Islamic theologists hold the theory that any land that once was Muslim, belongs to Islam forever. Thus, there are Muslims who still claim that most of Spain is in fact their land, and will go to violence to retake it. I fail to see other religions claiming that land occupied in past ages still belongs to them, and taking violent actions to re-claim it.

Recently, during the World Cup, 73 people were killed in a suicide attack in Uganda, for the crime of watching soccer. It is considered un-Islamic by some Muslim extremists. I fail to see similar attacks carried out by suicide bombers of other religions, or other religions prohibiting soccer and other forms of entertainment.

When the 9/11 terrorists crashed the aircraft into the WTC, they were most likely shouting “Allahu Akbar”, meaning “Allah is the Greatest” (it’s safe to assume this as we have seen it on countless terrorist attack videos, pre and post event). They were at least certainly not shouting “my superior being from another religion is the greatest”. They crashed those aircraft, and killed those people, believing they were defending Islam. We can argue all we want about wether they were not really Muslims, as some claim, but the fact is that there are -many- people out there willing to kill and die to defend Islam. And they don’t care what religion you follow, or even if you are agnostic, if you are not Muslim, you are an infidel. Your choice is to convert or die.

Having said all this, I do believe there is a large majority of Muslims who are NOT terrorists, who do NOT condone violence, and who would like to see extremism end. What is sad is that they have to endure the wrath of extremists from other religions who cannot distinguish the facts. What is also sad is that once you take sides, even in the most moderate form, the other side (and I’m looking at you Dave) automatically classifies you as the enemy.

As for your arrogant and insulting comment “you have a lot of brothers!” (it became arrogant and insulting once you put it in context along with your other comments and actions), maybe you can drop by Ten House on Liberty Street and ask the guys there to explain you the concept of brotherhood in the fire service. They lost six guys on 9/11, and had their firehouse destroyed. It was damaged again a few years later, during the Deutsche Bank fire where two firefighters also died. Maybe you can also watch the 9/11 documentary, it also provides a good insight into the meaning of brotherhood in the fire service.”

he has now also banned me from posting comments on his blog. Dave, do you consider yourself open-minded, tolerant and willing to respect and discuss other people’s points of view? Or do you simply live in your own world, where the only reality that counts is what you think and write? I think you should get back down to Earth and shed the prima-donna attitude, frankly. What is more amusing is that I’m reading comments on the blog post that are not much different from what I am saying, I guess I have now been moved to the Dark Side of Dave Winer’s world.

Me apena decir adiós a series como Cálico Electrónico, que en sus inicios nos hizo contactar con Albert sobre la posibilidad de que nos creasen un video animado de introducción a Whisher – aunque al final no se hizo por cambios sustanciales en nuestra página web. El cierre de Nikodemo & Co. viene forzado por no encontrar financiación que pudiese sostener el proyecto, que todavía tenía resultados económicamente negativos – aunque positivos en cuanto al público y lo social. Albert se queja de la falta de “riesgo” en la ecuación “capital riesgo”, aunque quizás el primer error fue la elección de las fuentes de financiación. El capital riesgo (en adelante, VC, como en los contratos) puro, tal y como se entiende en el mundo de los emprendedores, es desgraciadamente muy escaso en España. Me vienen a la cabeza unos pocos fondos, como Nauta, Debaeque, Adara, o Perennius. Más abundantes son los “business angels”, que son como un VC pero sin un garrote tan gordo para cuando van mal las cosas. Por debajo de aquí tenemos ya a los innumerables fondos, créditos, ayudas, viveros, parques tecnológicos, y pseudo-VCs. Los más preocupantes son éstos últimos, ya que en los primeros casos las cosas están bién claras desde el principio. Cuando accedes a un préstamo tipo NEOTEC, los términos son claros:

La empresa devolverá la ayuda a CDTI según vaya generando cash-flow positivo. Para ello, la empresa se compromete a facilitar a CDTI anualmente las cuentas anuales cerradas. La cuota anual de devolución será de hasta un 20% del cash-flow positivo generado hasta la amortización total del crédito.

Es decir, no corres riesgo. Si la empresa no llega a afianzarse, no tienes que hipotecar o vender la casa e irte a vivir debajo de un puente para devolver préstamos. el CDTI también se blinda un poco en cuanto a su riesgo de esta forma:

CDTI anticipa a la empresa, a la firma del contrato que regula la ayuda NEOTEC, entre el 40 y el 60% de la ayuda aprobada. El resto se entregará a la empresa a la finalización y justificación técnica y económica del proyecto-plan de empresa aprobado.

Si tus cuentas no dan resultado, el CDTI habrá perdido un máximo del 60%, de a su vez el 70% del coste total del proyecto, que es lo que otorgan. Otros tipos de ayudas oficiales se rigen por términos similares, y se convierten en una buena opción de capital semilla. El único problema es el arduo proceso de solicitud y trámite, que en ocasiones, puede alargarse meses, demasiado para una startup. Para solucionar en parte este problema, han aparecido una serie de empresas que se dedican a asesorar a startups en el proceso, a cambio de cuotas mensuales y/o porcentajes del capital conseguido – también otro tema para tratar en otro momento.

Los pseudo-VCs, o el nacimiento de una nueva palabreja en el mundo de los emprendedores.

El gran problema de los pseudo-VCs es que actúan como si tratasen con capital riesgo, cuando en realidad ofrecen créditos blandos convertibles. El gran riesgo de éstos créditos es que son como una enorme espada de Damocles que se balancea sobre la cabeza del emprendedor. El pseudo-VC se reserva el derecho a exigir la devolución del crédito en el momento que considere oportuno, y no en el momento en que la empresa sea “cash-flow positive”, ni tampoco con una restricción en cuanto al porcentaje de “cash-flow” destinado a la devolución. Por otra parte, también pueden convertir el crédito en participaciones en la empresa, en términos que pueden poner a los fundadores en minoría sin capacidad de recurso. El ejemplo de pseudo-VC en el caso de Nikodemo es Caixa Capital Risc, que se posiciona como VC, pero que en realidad tienen sus intereses bancarios en la retaguardia. Los bancos y cajas son la cosa más contraria al riesgo del mundo mundial, y por definición, no deberían ‘vender’ capital riesgo.

Los condicionantes que imponen los pseudo-VCs pueden también condicionar seriamente las posibilidades de financiación por parte de VC real en etapas de crecimiento y necesidad de financiación de la empresa. Imaginemos por un minuto que somos un VC, y se nos presenta una empresa con un éxito razonable, y que cumple con la mayoría de objetivos marcados en el plan de negocio. Analizando la estructura de la empresa, nos damos cuenta que han recibido 500.000€ de un pseudo-VC. La empresa nos pide 1M€ sobre una valuación de 2M€. En el momento del cierre de la operación, el crédito del pseudo-VC representa un 25% del valor de la empresa “pre-money”, y tras el cierre, representará casi un 17%. En condiciones normales, el préstamo se devolvería en el momento oportuno, sin afectar la composición de porcentajes de los socios. En cambio, con un pseudo-VC de por medio, existe la posibilidad de que los socios se diluyan un 17% en cualquier momento. Para el VC que pone el millón de Euros, esto representa ‘perder’ unos 170.000€ de golpe. Pocos VCs van a invertir en una startup con un riesgo así. Como dicen, “new money, new rules”.

Si, en el título también menciona WebTV…

No tengo muy claro que el modelo de WebTV (y que conste que tomo el término de forma un tanto liberal, para que se entienda a lo que me refiero) pueda llegar a funcionar con los modelos de ingresos actuales, que son, básicamente, la publicidad. Tal y como reconoce Gonzalo Martín en su blog, tener ingresos suficientes de publicidad exige unos volúmenes de tráfico muy elevados. Véase como ejemplo YouTube, que todavía pierde dinero y no sabe exactamente cómo monetizar más allá de los anuncios in-line. Otros medios como la prensa intentan los anuncios pre-roll, aunque desconozco su éxito. No creo que sea muy elevado ya que todos otorgan una pequeña ‘x’ que permite saltarse el anuncio. En mi opinión, desde que empezó el mundillo Web 2.0, la publicidad se tendría que haber considerado como un extra, que en caso de ser sustancial, bienvenido, pero en caso de no existir, no tuviese como resultado la muerte de la startup. En los años que duró Whisher, me cansé de preguntar a otros emprendedores “y cuál es el modelo de negocio?”, siendo la respuesta incontables veces “la publicidad”. Me imagino que de ser más realistas con las cifras, muchos proyectos ni siquiera se hubiesen lanzado. Hemos pasado de la exuberancia irracional de las punto-com a la estupidez irracional de la Web 2.0.

La primera víctima sonada del ajuste en las startups WebTV fue Mobuzz. Acabó de la peor manera, con denuncias y sentencias favorables a los empleados para poder cobrar sus últimos sueldos e indemnizaciones (con resultado de que la empresa y sus representantes se encuentran en paradero desconocido). Sonada, porque murió tras una intensa campaña de marketing viral destinada a sacarla del agujero, que generó ríos de tinta a favor y en contra. Lo que pocos se pararon a pensar es si el modelo encajaba dentro del mercado, es decir, si existía mercado de pago suficiente para sustentar a la empresa. Buscando referencias al caso Mobuzz, he encontrado una web curiosa, Fiasco Awards 2010, donde Mobuzz es una de las pretendientes. Lo curioso es que votaron el iPad como ganador, cuando está batiendo récords de ventas…pero eso es, de nuevo, otra historia.

Tal y como también menciona Albert en su comentario al post de Gonzalo, las empresas de WebTV sufren de una competencia por parte de una serie de receptores de ayudas públicas a fondo perdido, como es la industria del cine. Cierto, pero es un factor a tener en cuenta cuando realizas tu plan de empresa – hay competencia que tenga fondos y/o recursos ilimitados? Voy a luchar en un campo de batalla neutral, o tengo una parte de posibles acuerdos ‘amañada’ de antemano? A mí me ha pasado el perder un contrato público contra alguien que presupuestaba ocho veces más que el resto, sin ninguna otra explicación lógica que la del maletín. Es algo a tener muy en cuenta.

En cualquier caso, como emprendedor, deseo mucha suerte a todos los que estáis luchando día a día por llevar adelante vuestros sueños, independientemente de lo que digan los demás (o casi!). Eso es lo que realmente hace que el ser humano progrese, de otra forma, seguiríamos en una cueva.

The need for speed

The SIM card that your mobile phone is wearing is defined by a set of standards, mostly by GSM 11.11 [PDF] and ETSI TS 102 221 [PDF]. The ISO/IEC 7816-3 standard also defines some of the commands and procedures used by SIM cards.

In essence, a slow-speed startup sequence is performed after the initial card reset, at a preset speed of 9600bps. Yes, bits per second – you may start to infer where I’m getting at. After this sequence, the host is free to clock the SIM card up to 10MHz, which at the defined baud rate of c3/327, C3 being the clock frequency, means it can achieve a top speed of 30581bps. Or 30kbps.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but bog-standard 3G being offered at 3.6Mbps. Sagem claims they can deliver this to a WiFi chipset on the SIM card…over a 30kbps bus. Somehow, I don’t buy it – and maybe that’s why they wouldn’t show any actual SIMFi cards, and only performed demos on closed terminals. And I bet they used a Sagem phone, and not a Nokia 6110.

InterChip USB to the rescue

IC-USB is an addendum to USB forum’s USB 2.0 specification, which enables USB communication between embedded chipsets at high(ish) speeds, using low power, short distance links. Wikipedia cites the maximum link length at 10cm. Gemalto provides a presentation [PDF] that has some plain-language information on the new card format, and what it can do. Finally, this GSMA document [PDF] provides some background information on the implementation of advanced functionality into new-generation SIM cards. It talks about minimum bus speeds of 200kbps. For the purpose of IC-USB, high speed means 12Mbps, which is respectable for what SIMFi tries to achieve.

Contacts? We don’t need no stinkin’ contacts!

This is what a normal SIM card reader looks like (there are many variations), as found on all phones in the market today:

Note that it has six contacts. The new IC-USB and UICC-ME protocols call for eight contacts on the SIM card, in order to fully accommodate the bus requirements. To put it bluntly, this means that the SIMFi will NOT be compatible with any existing mobile phone, and will only be compatible with phones sporting the new card reader and IC-USB protocol. I imagine Sagem made a phone specifically to work with the SIMFi for demos, but the claims that “In practical terms, this means that you’re able to turn virtually any phone (or “classic handsets,” as the company calls them) into a WiFi hotspot” (Engadget) are wildly over-stated.

If you need to get in touch, you can use any of the social tabs on the top right side of the blog.

Enjoy!

Grabbing a coffee I noticed something new on the receipt:

At last, WiFi at my local Starbucks! It’s a shame that it comes a few months late, but welcome nevertheless. It seems that if you own a VIPS card you get double time, up to 90 minutes. The launch was confirmed by BT via Twitter (nice to see they are on top of things!). All they need now is some nice PR material at the stores to show people that WiFi is available, and how to get online.

[Update] I tested the connection on my iPhone today, and there are a few things that need fixing:

- The WISPr code is not fully recognized by the iPhone, and thus you are shown the hotspot’s default landing page.

- Once you have the landing page, you need to tap through to ‘other operators’ so that you can login with the provided BT credentials.

- The BT login page is not mobile-formatted, which makes it a pain to navigate in order to login, even on the iPhone.

- There should be only a password for the free session, having such complex username/password combination is going to put some people off (“where’s the damn forward slash on this phone?!”).

Ideally, BT OpenZone should recognize mobile Safari, and present either a formatted landing page, or suitable WISPr code for the iPhone’s built-in authentication software to kick in. Otherwise, the WiFi connectivity is superb!

Thanks to ifixit.com, we can appreciate that the underside of the Magic Mouse sports a grid of 10 x 13 sensor pads from the logo towards the top of the mouse, and two final rows at the very top, one with 8 sensors and the other with 6:

This gives the mouse the potential to detect one or two fingers placed on it, and the individual motion of each finger, anywhere on the mouse’s usable surface. So, I propose the following gestures. To middle-click (third button), simply place two fingers on the mouse, and click with both at the same time, thus:

To open Exposé or Spaces, place the right finger on the mouse, and scroll up or down with the left finger:

It’s actually quite ergonomic, try it on your mouse, and if you like it, send the suggestion to Apple – if anyone finds a form specific to the Magic Mouse, let me know, otherwise the link points to iMac feedback (as it comes with one). And yes, the images above are taken from Apple’s page and badly photoshopped, my apologies!

1. Real-time navigation availability depends on the type of license map data is served under, as I explained in a post a few months ago. The map data served by Google to Apple for use on the iPhone does not allow real-time, turn-by-turn navigation, thus, it is cheap and much less money flows from Apple to Google for it. This is explicitly referenced in the iPhone SDK’s licensing terms. Google must be paying a premium on the data it serves on the Android GPS app for this kind of use.
2. A real-time navigation system depends on constant availability of maps, which means online devices, such as an Android phone running Google’s app, must have perfect wireless coverage, in terms of both connectivity and bandwidth, and we know this is next to impossible. A comment on Erick’s post suggests Google caches map data when the route is created, which would be fine…if people followed the route perfectly. Many times, this is impossible for a number of reasons, such as bad routing, roadworks, or heavy traffic. All of these require re-routing, so Google, and any online system, would need to cache also every possible deviation and re-routing from the original path, which is impossible. There is a reason why TomTom’s iPhone app comes loaded with several hundred megabytes of map data.
3. The GPS chipset on mobile devices is not well-suited for high-rate position updates. This is evident if you use TomTom’s iPhone app, and is also evident as TomTom includes a separate GPS chipset in their iPhone car kit, for “…the most accurate positioning“. Since position update rate means battery consumption, and a phone has a ton of battery-consuming electronics on its own, the GPS typically provides less frequent updates than a dedicated GPS device.
4. Dedicated GPS units are best at taking you from A to B, re-routing you within a couple of seconds if you deviate, and showing you the location of speed traps safety cameras and other points of interest (POI). As you go up the price ladder, you are provided with additional functionality, such as voice commands, phone connectivity for hands-free audio and real-time traffic data. On this particular point, I totally agree with Matt Burns on his CrunchGear post, who says of GPS makers: “They are in the habit of producing 78 different versions of the same GPS. Each model steps you up $20 and adds another feature“. But I digress. With such a model, of charging for map updates, or for safety cameras, would they not also be charging for POI data if it was of any real use in vehicle navigation? Like updates to the “Restaurants” category? No, the issue here is that POIs are the least used feature in GPS navigators, and the makers know this. You may occasionally look for the nearest gas station, but that’s about it. If you want to eat something, you will ask around at your destination, or will have looked up options before the trip, but very very rarely do people go looking for stuff on their GPS devices. It’s true that Google makes it a lot easier to access this kind of information, and puts it right there on your face, but nothing will beat a dedicated service such as Yelp, or a dedicated app such as Bliquo (shameless plug for my good friend David Douek, who works there now, hope it helps your SEO at tiny bit!).
5. You can pick up a dedicated GPS unit for almost what you will spend on car mounts and cig-lighter adapter cables. They have faster routing, better planning capabilities, no need for wireless connectivity, and a much better audio output than any mobile phone.
6. You are supposed to be looking at the road while the GPS guides you by voice instructions, not at the GPS screen while it provides you with fancy data and/or graphics. Once you safely stop to look at the GPS, there are much better ways to present useful data, such as POIs, than Google’s interface. Many countries are looking into forcing GPS manufacturers into blanking the screen while the vehicle is moving in order to further prevent distractions to the driver.
7. TomTom, as an example, can add natural voice route requests to their higher-end units via software updates. Some already feature dictated destination input, but its use is clunky and not very useful right now – I bet we will see improvements soon. All it takes is the licensing of a proper speech-recognition engine. Google doesn’t have any major competitive advantage here, other than being the first to implement an (allegedly pending actual reviews) good functionality.
8. TomTom owns Tele Atlas, and Nokia owns NAVTEQ, which combined provide a huge chunk of the map data used by Google Maps. I love you Fake Steve, but you’re wrong on this one – GPS makers are fine, and they know it. Unless Google is planning on re-creating all the map data on their own of course, which is discussed extensively on this post by James Fee, but this would only mean Google would be free from other providers, not crush them.
9. Erick argues that “…the future of mobile apps are Web apps”. I think this is a huge over-simplification – the future of some mobile apps are apps that pull some or all of their data from the web. I regularly use an iPhone app that provides emergency response information on hazardous material (HazMat) incidents – I would be screwed if I had to depend on cellular coverage and a web service for this! We all saw how long Apple’s hard stance on iPhone web apps lasted, and the App Store just broke the 100.000 approved app barrier, so I rest my case.
10. Further from the GPS-centric topic, I’ll question wether Google really developed the Mail and Search functionalities of the iPhone – AFAIK, these are implementations of Mail and Spotlight respectively, can anyone confirm this one?