Paul Walsh, the Irish Opportunist

I read a post on TechCrunch today where the author claims that you can’t start a new company unless you can write code. I disagree.

I started my tech career as a computer operator at a bank and later worked at AOL during the mid 90’s where I built my first website in 1996 as the first Technical Account Manager in Europe - my team helped to launch technologies and clients such as AIM, 56K modem speed, Internet Radio, Games, integrate browsers and more. I also built some very complex applications using one of the first ecollaborative technologies in a RAD environment when ecollaboration was a new term in 1999.  Yet, I write this post as a non-coding founder as I don’t have the ability to write a single line of code that’s meaningful to our company. I designed this blog by editing the CSS but that’s the extent of my code writing (exactly, that’s not writing code). Since then, my career has led me down a fantastic path, made up of both technical and non-technical roles across the Internet and mobile industries and later, the mobile web. I’m one of the seven original founders of the W3C Mobile Web Initiative and helped to write some of the compliance specification, yet I don’t posses the ability to write the code for a site that would work on both desktop and mobile browsers.

TechCrunch and many bloggers and indeed investors, believe that you must have a cofounder who can write code. This isn’t true. However, as a founder, you must posses the following:

1. Ability to hire the best coder possible
2. Ability to motivate the coder so they can work to the best of their ability
3. Ability to ensure that the coder is motivated and working in a comfortable environment
4. Ability to measure the performance of the coder, helping them to understand and take advantage of their strengths and feel ok telling you their weaknesses so you can support them
5. Have a backup plan to ensure that another coder can take over should the original coder leave the project at a moments notice to ensure continuity of product development
6. Ability to hire the best coder possible to take over when point 5 comes into play

My most recent experience with MetaCert is relevant too as we are closing a series A round and our investors see the strength of the team, yet the founder doesn’t have the ability to write code. At MetaCert our main coder Kamrul, sadly left us after 5 years of R&D. Everything was backed up and well documented. As a result, there was minimal disruption to the development of our crawling and labeling platform when we hired Paraschos, another awesome coder. What happens if Paraschos leaves? Hopefully he won’t. But if he does, everything is well documented so we would hire another coder to take over. After writing this post I will revisit point 3 to ‘help’ ensure Parschos stays with us until we’ve managed to launch our kids browser for the iPad and beyond.

Giving a title of cofounder to a coder just because you think it’s necessary is all about ego. A non-founding coder run over by a bus as TechCrunch puts it, is equally damaging to a company than if the coder was a founder - it makes absolutely no difference.

Note: if you don’t notice at least one typo you’ll know I’ve hired a ghost writer

Vodafone Mobile Clicks is an international, high profile contest for the best mobile internet startup. The best mobile internet startup is selected by a professional jury in three different jury rounds.

Who can participate:

Vodafone Mobile Clicks 2009 is open to any individual residing in the Netherlands or the UK from the age of 18 years and to Dutch and UK-based start-up companies, businesses, institutions and all other organisations.

More at http://www.vodafonemobileclicks.eu/about/

The competition is open to UK and Netherlands based StartUps only. Great idea. Well, kind of. I know the StartUps must be UK-based, but can someone please tell me why you need to have been personally resident in the UK from the age of 18? What has that to do with anything?

Seems a little dumb, unless I’m missing somthing.

Earlier today I was contacted by a friend at a major international TV broadcaster - looking for a recommendation for a WAP/Mobile Web development company. My recommended supplier will build the platform that will deliver its entire content for a major brand via mobile. It’s a massive project and they only had 2 hours by which time to appoint a supplier. I hope they get more than 2 hours to deliver the brief.

WAP and Mobile Web are areas close to my heart, as some of you will know - in fact, one of my blog posts on the subject attracted comments that exceeded 17,000 word count from companies such as Google, dotMobi, Microsoft and Opera. So, you’d expect me to rattle off a couple of companies right away, right? No. My mind went completely blank and I couldn’t think of one provider, even though I know lots. So, I sent a message on twitter and emailed Mobile Monday - I did explain that I could only recommend a company I knew. Within minutes I received a direct message (DM) from Tom Hume via Twitter. I know Tom and was delighted to recommend Future Platforms. Tom would have been one of my first choices, if not my first, had I thought about him without the gentle nudge.

Not a bad reason to be on Twitter? That project alone is likely to pay for all of Tom’s time on Twitter. I get asked to recommend agencies and individuals all the time - Twitter is always my first port of call if I need to make an announcement. Isn’t that use case alone, enough to spend a little time on Twitter?

Follow me on Twitter if you want to be driven insane by the noise.

[Update: 5th August 2008. I don't actually think dotMobi would try to buy their way. My title was a little unfair. Perhaps it should have had the words naive or inexperience in there]

I wrote a post recently about how dotMobi is purposely confusing people into thinking that .mobi is right and .com is wrong when it comes to promoting your mobile-friendly Web site. But now they’re stepping up their game. Read on…

When hosting industry awards, one of the most important tasks is to ensure that they are open, inclusive, transparent, fair and above all, independent. By independent I mean free from influence by outside contributors such as sponsors and media partners.

So, why aren’t the Mobile Web Europe awards called the dotMobi Awards? I know why, because then it wouldn’t look independent. Instead, dotMobi has paid for sponsorship, promotion bags and they are on the judging panel and worse still, they mandate the use of their guidelines and their domain name as part of the entry criterion.

Do these look like independent awards to you?

Criteria for submission:

1. Sites must be built on the .mobi domain; redirects to sites built on other naming conventions via a .mobi domain are not allowed.
2. Sites must score at least 4 out of 5 on the free http://ready.mobi testing tool. ready.mobi evaluates mobile readiness using industry best practices and standards
3. Site must meet dotMobi compliance requirements, which are outlined in the dotMobi Mobile Web Developer’s Guide, available at http://dev.mobi.
4. Sites should follow best practices as outlined in the dotMobi Mobile Web Developer’s Guide, available at dev.mobi .
5. Members of the judging panel and their company’s are unable to submit entries to the awards

I love point 5, because anything else would look corrupt LOL.

As if it’s not bad enough having the partner/sponsor’s own staff on the judging panel, it’s non other than Vance Hedderel, Director, PR and Communications, dotMobi

I wouldn’t have believed it without seeing it with my own eyes. Thanks to Alfie and Pat for highlighting this on Twitter.

As long as I’m Chair and the support of the Executive, The British Interactive Media Association (BIMA) will never support dotMobi until it gets it’s act together. BIMA members are made up of dotMobi’s audience - i.e. the agencies (not to mention the upcoming graduates and future students) that build the mobile-friendly Web sites.

Helen Keegan also thinks they should be renamed. Helen also points out that there are only 3 women speaking for the entire 3 day conference. What rock do these people live under?

What do you think?

I was unable to attend a dotMobi presentation entitled “Avoiding the Top 10 Mistakes in Mobile Web Marketing” at the Hospital recently. So, I was delighted to receive an email from the Director of PR and Communications to acknowledge my absence with the presentation slides attached. Great communications and follow-up to an event.

I very much enjoyed reading the presentation and it referenced some good statistics along with useful tips.

Useful statistics referenced in the presentation

Among smartphone users in the US, mobile browsing has increased 89% year over year, and page views have increased 127%.

The world market for mobile marketing and advertising is expected to grow to an expected $24 billion by 2013 (vs. $2B billion in 2007) Among 5,398 North American consumers queried by Forrester in 4Q07, 48% said they wish they could look up things online when they’re on the go, but 58% said the mobile Web fails to meeting their needs - moreover, 60% said their mobile device screens are too small for activities outside of making calls and sending text messages.

I was surprised by their hard-sell approach on slide 17, entitled “MISTAKE 4: using a .com name for a .mobi experience”.

Without going into the technicalities of Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of ‘One Web’, as I could almost write a book on my interpretation and I don’t want to subject you to such an epic, their statement is completely wrong, technically speaking.

Is it wrong to use a .com (or any other) domain for a site which works on a desktop computer and mobile phone, or any other device? No, of course it isn’t. Nor is it wrong to use a .com for a site which has been created specifically for mobile phones. In fact, it is desirable in my opinion, to only use one domain as to not confuse users with multiple domains for multiple devices.

It is desirable for your Web site to automatically detect the device being used to access the site and then render the content according to the capabilities of that device. So, when a visitor uses a desktop computer they get a desktop experience and when they use an N95 they get a site which is user friendly on that particular phone. If you’re really good, your site will take into consideration, the additional capabilities that a phone has over a computer, such as GPS, SMS, MMS, voice…

Technically speaking, it is not necessary to differentiate using different domains. dotMobi is a marketing vehicle for its investors (namely Nokia, Samsung, Vodafone and others) and they’re in the business of selling domains - that’s why they say it’s wrong to use .com. But in my opinion, that’s unprofessional. You shouldn’t slag off the competition. Moreover, dotMobi is confusing people. dotMobi is not a standards body. It is a non-profit organisation in the business of selling domains.

According to it’s very first press release (which I can no longer find), it was setup to encourage developers to build mobile-friendly Web sites for the provision of encouraging consumers to buy more high-end devices to access said mobile Web - thereby also increasing the amount of data consumed - which obviously generates more revenue. In other words, set up a non-profit organisation under the guise of helping industry when in fact, it’s setup to generate more revenue for their profit making companies. It’s a bit like Google Android, which comes with Google applications pre-installed each time. Oh, a bit like Microsoft’s OS pre-installed on computers, but without the ‘non-profit, community-loving cloak’.

Sorry, back to dotMobi - that was the plan before they probably realised how flawed it was with companies such as MAXroam demonstrating to operators, what they should have done years ago; offer customers value for money instead of ripping them off with ridiculously high roaming charges. The iPhone is almost forcing operators to provide unlimited data tariffs and handset vendors are being encouraged to stop providing 3 features per model - just put it all in one device! Google Android should encourage operators and vendors to actually collaborate like real stake holders in the same industry. Crap. I’ve gone off-topic again.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it was wrong to setup dotMobi, we all need to ensure our shareholders are happy. What’s wrong, is the confusion that has been caused and the fact that dotMobi does little to help the situation.

It’s not wrong to use a .mobi domain for sites which are specifically created for mobile phones either, irrespective of how much I dislike the idea. Although some would argue it is.

Some people may wish to use a .mobi domain for mobile friendly Web sites. That’s their choice. It is no more, or less appropriate than say, .org for non-profit associations. Take the BIMA Web site for example - it makes sense to use http://bima.org but unfortunately it has been taken by another organisation. That’s why it uses http://bima.co.uk. Is that wrong? Of course not. However, it is wrong according to the dotMobi presentation. That’s what is wrong in my opinion - it’s sending out the wrong message to the industry behind closed doors, as I’m almost certain dotMobi wouldn’t dare to make such a bold statement on a W3C Mobile Web Initiative mailing list.

Going off-topic slightly, something I never do, the presentation stated that dotMobi generates $10m annually. I suggest they revise that statement because being given a $10M annual budget (as of Year 1) for marketing, is not the same as generating revenue.

My advice to Web site owners and the agencies building their sites: stick with .com or whatever domain you already have. Then, when it comes to adjusting the site to work better on mobile phones, follow best practice design guidelines.

Check out the W3C Mobile Web Initiative Best Practices to find best practice design guidelines for mobile Web development. This is particularly useful if you haven’t designed for small screens before. It’s not particularly useful if you’re a WAP developer, as you’re more inclined to stick to WML based sites.

Disclaimer: Segala is one of the original Founding Sponsors of the MWI.