via Mark Cuban

The first thing that dawned on me as I thought about this was simple, yet scary. I cant remember the last time I bought a CD Player of any kind, nor can i think of a reason why I would. Sure, my PCs have one, but its rare I use it for music. If the music industry is going to rebound, rather than trying to find ways to sell more CDs, they have to either find a reason for people to start buying CD players again, and I cant think of a single reason why anyone would, or the industry has to quickly as possible find a way to get rid of music CDs. Their ongoing dependency is creating an imbalance that drags them further away from turning their business around.

Hear hear!

If people are not buying CD players, then there wont be a CD industry anymore. Music download (DRM or not) is the future, embrace it or die!

I attended Geekout, a pre-event for Nexus 2007.

Andreas and Nathan shared some of the interesting companies that they are watching, e.g. Twitter but what impressed me most are the local companies that was showcased.

1. Xid Technologies – a company specialized in face recognition that developed a technology to allow you to take 2D image and turn them into a 3D avatar and animate it and further allows you to superimpose that 3D avatar into a movie.

2. Muvee – a company that makes those cool movie-making software (muvee) that is embedded on Nokia/Sony/Samsung phones that is doing a p2p photo-sharing software with pretty amazing special effects.

3. Genometri – a company that has a technology that take a product design (in 3D) and generate multiple variations. Great technology but going through the technology chasm adoption problem.

4. Radixs – a mobile application company that develops Velvet Puffin, a web 2.0 applications so-said IM meets social networking. Fantastic idea that have a lot of potential and a lots of room for improvements.

I always enjoy conversation with smart people. So when Jerry Michalski say he will be in Singapore, I grab the chance to have dinner with him. It become even more fun Andreas Weigend join us later. (Cory Ondrejka was also in town but he couldnt make it for dinner tonight). Together with some locals, Ming Yeow, Vivek Singh, Shaun Lee, dinner was a blast.

Topics went from US politics to local politics, from US to China and, from technology to business, crazy to fantastic ideas. So many ideas to blog about, so little time.

Anyway, let me share one portion. Shaun asked us what we think of Social Network and I replied with this idea.

The problem of Social Network is not the lack of it but there are so many to join. Each of them have its specific functions (or none at all) yet nothing do exactly what we need. So what would really be nice is if someone could create a Social Network that is just a platform but have open APIs that allows to plugin and expand the capability.

You want to build a social network for vacation, or you think you can do better than Linkedin, why build a whole platform and getting all the users to sign up again? Do that ontop of a common Social Network platform.

Beside able to create multiples social network and customize functionality, the open platform could allows plenty of innovation. For example, a email spam-filter based on how many degrees the sender is from you; or a addressbook that updates itself via the common Social Network platform.

This common Social Network platform is waiting to be build. The question is who is going to do it. While all agrees that it is probably easier for one of the existing Social Network (friendster, orkut, linkedin etc) to open up than for someone starting from scratch, Jerry added “they probably wont open up since they put too much value on the database”.

Crazy idea waiting for someone to do it :-)

This Business Idea is release under the condition “No need for permission nor do I ask for anything in return”. Good luck!

My second child 庄燊磊 (Seng Shern Ley), born on 14th March 6:50am. Both mother and son are safely back at home now.

His big sister falls in love with him. :-)

Recently, a friend told me that I sound “anti-business” when dealing with my volunteer/non-profit work. Perhaps writing entry like this (just an example) make me sound like I am against businessman who makes money.

In my last 10+ years, I work in all sort of environment, academic research, non-profit, volunteer public interest, non-government and also the other side, government and yes business. I went from one end to the other end. To say I am anti-business make it as if I dont like money, and believe me, I love free economy and I love money.

I am also involved in many collaborations on opposite ends, government with non-government and profit with non-profit. Projects often needs multilateral partners to succeed so such collaborations are not only unavoidable but important. I don’t see anything wrong either. I often find myself one side or the other.

Projects are successful only if partners in the collaborations feels they are in a win-win situation. A non-profit/government side achieving what it set out to do while on the other side a for-profit company, well, makes money. If the for-profit party don’t make money, then it is just charity/donation, not a partnership.

But when I represent non-profit/volunteer/public interest, I apply a different ideological approach as compared when I am representing my company or business.

In business, I do anything to close the deal (within legal limits of cos), so long it makes money for the company. But when I am on the other side, then the goal, the process and the outcome of the project takes precedence over money. What I would not do is compromising the interest I am representing over money.

The key is to have an open and transparent process to met the project goal with an outcome that serve the public interest AND at the same time allowing the company involved to make money.

Last week, I attended Unconference organized by the local Entrepreneur27. Others like Kevin has covered the event so I won’t but I share some thoughts instead.

Unconference (and also BarCamp a few weeks before) is unique in many ways. It is close to what you get in the typical “cool” or “geek” event in the Silicon Valley. Very loose and informal, but always have great fun meeting people and listen to speakers talking about their thoughts, cool companies and what they are doing. This is a sharp contrast to the other tech conference in Singapore which is usually pretty boring.

More importantly, it is organized by grassroots and not by some in ivory tower up there thinking it is cool to have such event in Singapore. It is put together by students and recent graduates who sincerely believe that such event would be useful (and it is). Many of them spend a 12-18 months in Bay Area thanks to the EDB programme so they are trying to bring the culture back to Singapore.

Now, some may criticize that these events are badly organized or with weak content. While those are true to a certain extend, but bear in mind that these kind of events are non-existence in Singapore before. Regardless, I am sure (a) it will only get better and (b) there will always be complains, however well-run it is.

It is the first of many to come. And I am really glad to see this happening.

I have a few lunches with a few people the last two weeks. Somehow, the topics always come back to Web 2.0 in Singapore, either entrepreneurs thinking to start one, investors looking for one or media policy makers.

Sadly, I don’t think Singapore is ready for Web 2.0. Here are three reasons.

1) Singapore do not have the talents.

A decade ago, when I was programming and running my own MUD, like all owners of MUD back then, I thought of starting a graphic MUD (now known as MMORPG). It is sexy and obviously the next big idea (hint: Warcraft :). I look around see if I can form a team, lots of people interested but no computer graphic folks. I can’t even find one who do 2D computer drawings, not to mention 3D modeling. It is not until a few years later that courses was offered but by then, I was on my next venture.

Thats what happening to Web 2.0 right now. Web 2.0, particularly AJAX, pushes the limited of what you can do with Javascripts and HTML. We really don’t have sufficient AJAX talents in the market. I am not saying there is none (there are some self-starter) but they arent enough to go around.

2) Singapore thinks (and is) too small

Singapore is small, 4 millions people on a tiny island. With just over 1 million people online, any Singapore Web 2.0 community is going to be even smaller. As such, entrepreneurs measure successful very small, ie a successful community if you have thousands or tens of thousands people. Sadly, the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of people so being small is no good.

Thus, any commercial viable Web 2.0 venture must think beyond Singapore, offering something that is “borderless” (to use a term from Jack Welch). The world is your playground but in that space, you would also have to compete with the best in the world.

3) Singapore has no funding for Web 2.0

No, I am not referring to the government. I am pointing fingers at the startup angels, venture capitalists, the investment community in general.

Most money in Singapore is Old Money, money made from property and constructions, from trading – import and export, and from services etc. As such, Singapore investors like business that has solid cash flows, ideally return on investment on 6 months or less. That’s what they used to.

Singapore has very little New Money. There is no Tim Draper who would rather fund “a big vision … that is going to change the world”. We have VCs but there is no Sequioa Capital or Kleiner Perkins kind of VCs who would invests millions in a cash-burning company with little revenue only to be sold to Google for US$1.6b.

Making investment in Web 2.0 defy financial logic. It requires a someone who would say “I don’t know how these guys going to make money but boy, it sound cool and fun. And they remind me of me so what the hell, why not?”. That would normally come from someone who makes (a lot of) money in a similar fashion.

Yes, there are Singapore investors who does that. I met some myself. But the amount they would do for “fun” is sadly too small (20-50k) for a serious Web 2.0 taking on the world.

Thanks to the article on Digital Life yesterday, I received numerous email inquiries about me giving away FONs. If you come to here looking for FON, I am sorry to inform you that that was a few months back and I don’t have any FON left. However, I might be able to get some more later but it will cost me money. So if you don’t mind paying for it, drop me an email at james@seng.sg and I will add you to the list.

Do take note that sharing your wifi might not be illegal but it is likely to be against the terms and conditions of your providers. For example, Singtel has this clauses “Each SingNet BroadBand account is valid for a single user, who applies with a residential line, to login to a single connection session, and not for multiple concurrent logins. If multiple concurrent logins are detected, SingNet reserves the right to impose a fee on the user for each multiple session login at prevailing monthly subscription rates.”

The story started because Hian Hou needed a quote on a story on WiFi mooching a few weeks back and while we chat on the phone, I mentioned FON to him.

Seriously, I couldn’t believe we still talking over mooching. I just saw another rebuttal on the papers today again. You know what? I know “everyone” do it (mooching) but that does not make it alright.

Mooching is like trespassing in real life. You see that nice patch of grass with a “private property sign”, no gates, open space. The shortest way to your destination is to walk across the grass. Do you walk across it? Most people would but if the owner see you, he can haul you to court for trespassing. Thats the for wireless network. The laws protect private citizen property and space. It is ridiculous to expect the laws to state otherwise, regardless of the social norm.

We walk across the grass and if we are catch, we apologies and that normally settles it. Anyone asked why the kid was haul all the way to court? He could have say sorry when the owner catch him. The investigation officer could have mediate it before it goes on to prosecution. The prosecutor could have stop it before it goes to court. But no, it went all the way to court. So why did the owner insist going all the way? What pissed him off so much? And no, I dont think it is over a few bits and bytes.

Finally catch the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore. My wife and me just watch “The Day After Tomorrow” a couple of weeks ago again so much we were drawing parallel comparison between the two movie.

Making it more interesting is that we just watch Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Environmental Hysteria, which present the ugly side of the debate.

But in the end, I think Al Gore wins :) As you can see on the right hand side bar, I have given my pledge.

I will change all my lights to energy saving and the next car I buy will definitely be a hybrid car.

“The Future of Learning” Manifesto is a great read even if you are not an educator.

For the educators, this definitely rings a bell: “I could memorize your facts, but I got Google for that…Are you teaching me to think? Or just to take notes?”

“Playing Small Does Not Serve the World…You’ve got one choice. Play big or stay home. Serve the world or be forgotten.” is an great advise for all alike.

For the parents (and all those who wishes to censors all the “bad things” on the net): “Today you worry about filters and predators and firewalls and the MySpace boogeymen. Okay, I want to be safe. And I appreciate you wanting me to be safe. I just don’t want to live in a locked box in the process.”

Last but not the least, for the technologists, a reminder that Email is dying: “How about we stop talking all giddy-like about the technology. For us, it’s not about the box. Not even about the iPod in pink or black. And it’s definitely not about the email (psst: we don’t email ‘cept when old people need help).”