White God Syndrome Meets China’s Internet Sovereignty

July 8th, 2010

Virtually all westerners, and most western companies, embrace the belief that information should be free. This means that it should freely cross national borders and be accessible by anyone with a browser. In short, as long as it sits on a web server, it should be accessible from anywhere.

Some individuals, such as Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, and Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, have gone so far as to embrace the concept that people should have almost no secrets at all, and that if you do have secrets, you are either backward, or have something bad to hide. Basically, they put forward the view that if you want to hide something, you are old, out-of-date and out-of-fashion, and that you SHOULD embrace openness as the way of the future. Mark Zuckerberg has gone so far as to say that if he had the chance to re-architect Facebook all over again, he would make it completely open, with no privacy controls.

Many in the west, especially libertarians, have embraced this idea without even debating the merits of this argument. People in the IT sector especially are sympathetic to this POV, so much so that it has become a white god. The white god syndrome is the widespread belief is that those in the west have always known what is best for the rest of the world, and that it upholds the precious values of personal liberty and individualism. After all, hasn’t the west been the leader in the struggle for human liberty and progress, fighting two world wars and numerous small wars so that others could be free? Many in the west adhere to this point of view, forgetting to question why accountability in the west is often applied selectively, in spite of all the claims made by its proponents.

If you accept this historical narrative, then anyone, or any government, which dares to object are either ignorant or evil.

Throughout the argument for free flow of information, there is no room left for defining the role of what a government does. There is only 1) information and 2) the rights of the individual to access that information anytime and anywhere.

Because the argument is framed this way, the Chinese government’s claims for Internet sovereignty have been met with derision and even contempt by the western press. The Chinese government’s claim is simple enough: IT companies in China must adhere to PRC laws. Looking at it from the surface, there is nothing revolutionary or different about the PRC claim; other governments, including those in the west, require IT companies to follow the laws of the country they do business in. If there is a difference in China, it has to do with due process, and what the government needs to do in order to obtain data from the IT companies. This is where things get blurry.

The infrastructure for the Internet was built in a way which did not clearly follow national borders. A US IT company may have web servers in Iceland, which now has the most stringent laws protecting data privacy. The data may or may not sit on the company’s own web servers; it could just as easily sit in the cloud, on servers provided by Amazon, Microsoft, Google or Apple, adding yet another layer of abstraction. Just thinking about the legal aspect of this is likely to throw lawyers into a tizzy of billable hours.

In contrast to this, the Chinese government has been very protective of Chinese consumer data. In China, consumer market research is a restricted industry, meaning that non-Chinese market research companies are not allowed to enter the field. In order to enter the industry, most western market research firms need to form joint ventures or partner with multiple Chinese market research firms. While the western market research firms do the analysis, the data is usually kept in the hands of the Chinese market research firms. This way, the data about Chinese consumers is always kept in the hands of the Chinese market research firms, and never leaves China’s borders.

The only exception to this rule comes with regard to personnel files in western multinational corporations. Most US and European firms have centralized HR departments at company headquarters; these include detailed personnel files for all staff and management, regardless of country and location.

Throughout this discussion, it has become very clear that the Chinese government does not adhere to the currently dominant western notion that information should flow freely across borders. This position has been made crystal clear in the showdown between Google and the Chinese government over censorship. I see the Internet sovereignty assertion as the first step in a systematic pushback against the free flow of information argument.

How could the Chinese government push back further? The simplest and most logical argument would be to claim that all personnel and data files on PRC citizens must not leave the PRC’s borders, and giving the security services the right to go to western MNCs’ HR departments to perform data audits to make sure that they are in compliance. Such a move would throw their HR departments into chaos, as it would mean that headquarters would no longer have the personnel files of PRC employees.

If the PRC government were to make this claim, it would effectively claim that it has control over all data about its citizens.

To sum up:

  • There should be a healthy debate about the free flow of information across borders. For too long, this is a position which has been supported without question in the west, and those who have challenged it have been routinely tarred and feathered by the press. This lack of an open debate about this aspect of the white god is not a good thing.
  • The PRC government should clearly state its position on data, and express how far it intends to go. If the government stakes a claim to all PRC citizen’s personnel data, will they extend that to their medical information and later, genetic data, too? Will the individual have any control or recourse over their own data, or will the government always be the final arbiter and decision-maker? The Chinese government should makes its position clear, without resorting to slogans and nationalism.

This would be best for everyone, especially the Chinese people.

Google China Adds ICP License At Bottom of Search Page, But No One Knows What It Means

July 6th, 2010

In a widely misinterpreted move, Google added an ICP license registration notice at the bottom of the search page in China. Many early followers of the Google China saga interpreted this to mean that Google’s application for a new ICP license had been approved by the Beijing authorities, but later Google confirmed that they had not received new information from the Chinese regulatory authorities, which in Google China’s case is the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

In a late-day move, Google’s PR department has denied that there has been any update from the Chinese authorities. That raises the question: “If there was no update on status from the Chinese authorities, then why did Google China add the ICP license, even though it did not have it before? And why did they do it without winning renewal from the Chinese authorities? Did they consult with the Chinese authorities before added the ICP license to the page?”

The Google China story is rapidly escalating into one of the great mysteries of the universe right up there with the age of the universe, what are the rules of physics if there were no space and no time, what caused the dinosaurs to become extinct, spontaneous human combustion, who was Jack the Ripper, and can the hole in the Gulf of Mexico be plugged?

Link to Forbes.com The China Tracker Articles

June 29th, 2010

I have been spending more time writing for Forbes.com The China Tracker. They have put together an excellent group of writers to write about China, and I’m lucky to be among them. When you have time, they are definitely worth the time to read.

You can access my articles on Forbes.com The China Tracker from this page.

Let the Mapping Wars Begin!

June 25th, 2010

As location-aware applications become more core for mobile services, especially with the launch of the new iPhone 4, location and mapping services become ever more important.

The Chinese government has made clear that non-Chinese owned mapping companies will not be able to provide basic mapping services and AutoNavi is filing for an IPO. Will be interesting to see if AutoNavi tries to get its products/services into mobile phones.

In the meantime, Apple is getting more aggressive about protecting and using the data it collects on iOS 4, and this has caught the attention of US legislators.

In the short term, this will give Hong Kong an advantage for developing these applications, because it is relatively restriction-free, as I mentioned in this article for Forbes.com The China Tracker.

The issues are complicated, and will converge in a way most people are not yet aware of. Will write more about this subject later.

Apple, Adobe, Web Analytics and Megalomania

April 15th, 2010

What is it about social media and web analytics which turns CEOs into control freak megalomaniacs anyway?

Last week, it was Apple’s revision of the SDK agreement with developers barring all cross-compilers from use for developing apps heading for the Apple AppStore and which was first pointed out by John Gruber in this post. Most outsiders see this as targeting Adobe’s Flash platform, and it is rumored that Adobe is now contemplating going legal over the issue.

Last September, Adobe purchased web analytics firm Omniture. This was one of the deals where most peoples’ jaws dropped because Adobe’s flagship product is Creative Suite, which is a suite of applications for publishers and creative types.

Omniture’s products are used by business development types, who want to know where visitors are coming from, what sites/search engines refer them, etc. All of this is achieved through the use of tags embedded in each page’s source code. Whenever a request is made to a page, the tag calls a server and logging in that it has been called, including information about the user’s browser, geographic region, etc. With this data, the bizdev types then tell the designers and creatives how to further improve the content and pages, making everybody rich in the process.

Anyhow, that’s the idea.

What made the Omniture acquisition interesting was that in most company organizations, the bizdev and design/creative types don’t work that closely together, let alone use the same production tools. What Adobe proposed through the Omniture purchase was to bring both groups together in its new CS5 product lineup.

But two days before Adobe launches CS5, Apple releases its new guidelines for app development on the iPhone platform, which is aimed at cross compilers, but hits designers using Flash especially hard. For the record, I don’t like Flash myself, it hurts performance, fires up the fan, and is a general nuisance. As far as I’m concerned, real developers use C or a C-derivative language, not Flash.

But banning it!!!??? I believe that apps developed on Flash will probably sell less well in the AppStore, and that the smart Flash developers will say “Hmm, maybe I should start developing using Objective-C and Cocoa frameworks so that I can squeeze that last bit of performance out of OpenGL, etc.” Isn’t wholesale banning a bit much? Why not just let the market deal with the issue?

Now Apple has come out with a new zinger for the new iAd network: developers are not allowed to collect user analytics inside their own applications, while Apple is allowed to insert ads into applications. What does this mean if you are a developer?

  • Apple may insert other ads, even your competitor’s ads into your app, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
  • You cannot collect download and usage data so that you can improve sales of future versions of your app, but Apple can, and they will not share that data with you.

So if you are a smart app developer, what do you do? I’d say that you’d have to put on a business hat, and ask yourself:

  • Do I want broad coverage of a new app to test the waters and see if this app sticks? If so, sell on the App Store.
  • Is my app more narrowly targeted, and has more functionality? Then build a web version of it, and optimize it for the iPhone, iPad and Android platforms.

The most important idea behind the platform concept is that it needs to be fair to all players. The AppStore started great, but now it’s showing wear and tear. And that wear and tear is coming from business decisions by Steve Jobs.

Basically, Apple is showing that it wants to be the ultimate ad planner and ad buyer for mobile digital. But good ad planners and buyers don’t compete with their customers. That’s the most basic rule.

Through this action, Steve Jobs is going not only after Adobe’s Flash platform, but it’s Omniture web analytics acquisition too.

Steve, I thought you were a Buddhist? How about taking up golf and getting in touch with your softer side?

Does China Fit Into the Long Tail Scenario?

April 14th, 2010

Bill Bishop, who is based in Beijing, recently published a very good article and checklist focused on western Internet companies which want to enter the China market on his blog Digicha.com, which is titled Do You Have What It Takes to Do Business in China? In the article, he lists three factors as being most important:

  • Invest in Experience
  • Prepare for Regulatory Complexity
  • Expect Copycats

His three factors, in my opinion, hit the nail on the head. So how does this affect the average US Internet company which wants to make it in the world’s largest single Internet market (listed by number of users)?

When it comes to investing in experience, most US companies choose someone of Chinese extraction who has worked in the US, not knowing that for the most part, the average ABC (American-born Chinese) knows as little about the Chinese market as any man off the street in the US. Even someone from the PRC who has lived in the US for more than 5 years may not know much about the Chinese market, even though they speak the language, because the market has changed so much so quickly. In the meantime, local Chinese companies have prospered, making mistakes, but the smart ones have learned from their mistakes, getting tougher, stronger and more competitive along the way.

Advantage: local Chinese companies

China is going through a period of regulatory change, and in most cases, Beijing is demanding that the provinces hand back many regulatory decision-making powers that were given to them over the past 30 years of reforms. If you are interested in the macro discussion about this in China, I’d suggest that you read more on GE Anderson’s blog; he goes into considerable discussion about this under-reported discussion.

What this means for the western company coming into China is that you might get caught by regulatory decisions and changes from Beijing, even though you hire expensive consultants to help you navigate your way through this maze. This is not to say that the system is biased against westerners; even leading Chinese companies such as Netease have made major mis-steps in dealing with a changing and opaque regulatory environment.

Advantge: Nobody

When it comes to copycats; they are all over the place in China when it comes to the Internet. US lawyers who specialize in IP love to paint vivid pictures of how awful this situation is in China in order to scare their clients into paying large legal fees to get IP rights protection. Any company would be unwise not to make a certain investment, but they would also be wrong to go overboard.

This is because success in China it is all about executing and learning quickly. To give an example which most Americans are familiar with, it would be like the browser war between Microsoft and Netscape in the late nineties. Netscape came out with the first browser, Mosaic (which soon became Communicator), then some time later, Microsoft introduced Internet Explorer. Netscape sued Microsoft, at which point the legal gears started turning. But by the time the legal system had run its course, Netscape was no longer around as a company, having been bought and absorbed by AOL, which had merged into Time Warner. From a legal standpoint, Microsoft lost the battle, but it didn’t matter, because Netscape was no longer there to collect on its winnings.

Now, China is like that, except the market is changing much faster. And when it comes to execution, the Chinese companies can make the changes faster because they don’t have to explain their changes to someone in Mountain View or New York who has never worked outside the US in their whole careers.

Advantage: Chinese companies

At this point, you may be thinking that it would be wrong, even insane, for a western company to enter the China market. That is not my point. Instead, I would argue that most western management teams get overly enamored of the huge promise of the Chinese market, and in the process, overlook what it takes to succeed in ANY market. And, I would like to point out that because of changes in the technology and business ecosystem, there are more opportunities than ever everywhere, not just in China, and the initial investment costs required to test the waters are much lower.

The platform I have found most engaging is the iPhone business ecosystem, which I have been enthusiastic about since the very beginning in March 2008. Since I wrote that article more than two years ago, the iPhone and AppStore have turned into a thriving market all over the world. A few individual developers and software companies have become successful, even wealthy, over this market, which now includes 50 million iPhone users worldwide, and if you include iPod touch owners who also buy apps, now total 85 million.

When I look at this market, I see the long tail which Chris Anderson first talked about. When Anderson spoke about the long tail, he was talking about companies getting more and more of their revenue from small customers, and moving away from the 20/80 rule, which dictated that 80% of business comes from 20% of customers. When western marketers look at China, they see $ signs in their eyes, and think of money flowing into their bank accounts on a daily, even hourly, basis. To a large extent, the Chinese government wants to perpetuate this view; it serves to attract foreign investment into China. But in reality, there has been no western Internet company which has made it big in China. In this respect, the reality of China has never lived up to its promise.

However, I believe that there is a change and opportunity underway for the long tail to finally come to China, in the form of the iPhone platform. (The Android platform is in a state of flux because of Google’s recent troubles with the Chinese government; the three government-owned carriers don’t seem to be know what to do.) In China, the iPhone is sold and distributed through the China Unicom network.

So let’s say you are in the software business, and you want to build your presence in China. You have two choices:

  • You can go the traditional route which Bill Bishop outlined and which many other companies have taken, including Google.
  • You can build games and apps in Chinese, which are distributed through the AppStore, relying on Apple as your channel. But along the way, you can learn about each individual market at very little cost. And you can do this ANYWHERE.

If you go the first route, you may or may not succeed, and you will have spent millions in the process. If we look at what has already happened, the odds are against you.

If you go the second route, you may or may not succeed, but your costs are much lower, and you will learn a lot about what Chinese like, and maybe even make a little money in the process. Then you can decide how much you want to commit to the China market.

Maybe it’s time to look at things a new way.

You decide.

Will the Apple Tablet Do for Print What App Store Did for Apps, iTunes for Music?

January 5th, 2010

While there has been much heated discussion in recent days about what Apple plans to announce on January 27, almost all of the comments, some of which are very good and offer intelligent insightful analysis, focus on what Apple is famous for, the front-end user experience.

In this article, I would like to focus on what I think is just as important but talked about much less, the business angle for the Apple Tablet. Beginning with the iPod, while Apple focused on changing the consumer digital experience, it has worked just as hard on changing broken business models, starting with the music industry. In 2001, when the iPod was first launched, many people listened to their music on recordable CDs and CD players. The music industry’s major labels had fought and won against Napster, but the digitally savvy were distributing songs and music for free on the Internet.

Then Apple updated iTunes, and continuously added more power and features, first on the Macintosh platform for its loyal user base, then when it had reached a degree of stability, pushing out to the dominant Windows platform. At the same time, Steve Jobs negotiated with the music labels to get them to accept music sales for .99 per single song. There was strong initial resistance to this because the labels were used to selling CDs, and even though CD sales were falling, they stubbornly stuck to this model. That is, until reality stepped in, and someone had to point out the obvious, after which one broke rank and reached a deal with Apple. Then the others fell in line.

Before the iPhone, there was the same problem with applications on mobile phones. Except in this industry, the role of the music labels was replaced by the carriers. As Steve Jobs himself said (paraphrasing him here); they found an industry which was broken and didn’t make sense, and Apple’s engineers came up with a new solution combining a phone, a computer, and gaming device all into one elegant solution based on OS X technology with the Apple interface. The result has been the iPhone which has become popular, breaking sales records worldwide.

It would be all too easy to say that the success of the iPhone is based on device and user experience alone. That would take an oversimplified view of what Apple has been doing since the iPod: it creates new devices which at the same time, create new business ecosystems which increase and diversify the revenue streams for Apple, while making things easier for publishers. The design sexiness means that the new device can sell for a premium price which Steve Jobs (and his shareholders) love, while the backend store and ecosystem builds out, becoming an important distribution point for Apple services and locking in publishers.

I accurately predicted this with the launch of the AppStore for the apps which users can download/buy for their iPhones, giving them the power to customize their phones with their own selection of application software. For developers, the model, while not perfect, is simple to understand: developers set the sales price, and Apple takes 30% for hosting and billing while the developers keep the remaining 70%. The result has been outstanding sales success, even beyond what Apple predicted.

Looking at the book publishing industry today, it is a broken business model. From the author’s point of view, while writing a book is hard enough, the business side is even worse. First of all, in the US, one must find an agent and complete a draft and book proposal. The agent then shops the book to publishers, and then negotiates a deal with the book publisher, which usually involves the agent taking 10-20%. The publisher then may pay an advance (becoming increasingly rare), and then the author is paid a portion based on royalties for the books sold, which is usually 5-10%. The book publisher makes sure that the book is edited and makes its way into the book distribution system (dominated by 2-3 players) which gets it into book stores. However, the author is largely responsible for promotion. To make things even worse, bookstores in the US don’t really buy books; they sell on consignment. This means that they can return unsold books to the publisher, and get a refund, which cuts back even more on how much the author gets.

When you figure all this in, it’s amazing that there are any authors who make money at all! Now, let’s say that you are writing a book on a fast-changing field. In my case, my main subject is China and technology, both of which are fast-changing fields. By the time you go through the whole book publishing process and your book hits the shelves, everything has changed! Information which was current 18 months ago has been completely superseded by changes in Chinese government policy, changes in business conditions and changes in technology.

Please tell me: “How can an industry get more broken that that?” No wonder smart people are choosing to get their information from the Internet in preference to books!

If I were Steve Jobs, I would look at this and say: “If I have a good device which offers superb user experience, leverages off the current Mac user base (which now includes iPhone users), and ties in on the back end with a new business ecosystem which gradually sweeps aside the current broken publishing ecosystem, we might have something.”

Now, in order to make the Apple Tablet a real success, it has to have certain functionality which will not cannibalize iPhone and Mac notebook sales. This is why it’s point of attack will have to be on books, magazines and the publishing industry. It will offer developer tools for Apple’s digital publishing solution. Already there is talk about Apple’s new SDK for this new platform.

My prediction is that this new SDK will make it apparent why Apple has not been friendly about offering Adobe’s Flash access to the iPhone, since Apple’s solution will offer much of the same feature set as Adobe Flash, but will be more tightly bundled in on the front and back ends to the device and to the store. (Steve Jobs likes closed ecosystems where he controls the whole experience.) Tough times for Adobe’s Flash and Microsoft’s Silverlight: all dressed up and nowhere to go.

So what about Amazon’s Kindle, which have already outsold print books in distribution this past Christmas? Ironically, the Kindle will help Tablet sales since many Mac users have held back on buying a non-Apple device, waiting for Apple to come up with their solution. When they see the Apple Tablet, this pent-up demand will be released, because the Apple UI design and interface will offer something to them which the Kindle, in its current iteration lacks. Amazon will get a new competitor for online electronic distribution, which will cut into their Kindle sales and profits.

Speaking to a few book publishers (yes, they still exist), I have heard complaints that they are not able to make money on their Kindle editions; print distribution is still more profitable with them, even though sales are tracking down. Apple and Steve Jobs don’t have to do much to bring them aboard. My prediction is that the business model will be like the App Store offering for developers: “You set the final sales prices, we take a percentage on each sale.”

As for Google, they seem to be focusing most of their efforts on the Google Android platform, which will make inroads this year. This year, Google won’t be able to do much in the publishing field, and if and when Google does enter this field to compete with Apple, they need to undo much of the bad feeling with authors and publishers over copyright which started with Google Books to the point where a Chinese author has sued Google! (Hmmm… What’s wrong with this picture?) This will give Apple at least a two-year lead over Google in this field and Google will have to fight a tough uphill battle when it comes in.

About this time, Apple will be getting into the advertising field. I mean, who is still impressed with small text box ads on their web page, and doesn’t find them at least a little annoying, even though they may be relevant? My guess is that Steve Jobs is thinking about applying some magic sauce to make them better, sexier both for advertisers and content syndicators, and in the process, getting more revenue, and a new revenue stream, for Apple. I find it hard to believe that Apple is investing so much in a new data center without new revenue streams. My guess is that it will include advertising, and if correct, then Google will be on the defensive. It may take the form of a free service Apple TV with ads, and subscription form without ads.

No wonder Steve Jobs is feeling extremely happy, life just keeps getting better and better.

Remembering the 5/12 Earthquake Victims

May 12th, 2009

It has been a long time since I last posted, for which I apologize. I won’t insult your intelligence by offering some excuses, but I will try to get back on a more regular schedule. I thank you for your understanding. If you would like to follow an unadulterated distilled real-time version of my thoughts, then I’d encourage you to follow me at twitter.com/pdenlinger

Today is the first year anniversary of the May 12 earthquake which killed an estimated 100,000, mostly in Sichuan, and causing untold damage and suffering. It also awakened the Chinese government and people to the suffering of ordinary Chinese in a way which did not happen before. I don’t have anything to add which I have not already said in the previous year, so I will offer a few links which I wrote last year.

    • The Brave New World of Deglobalization

    January 4th, 2009

    In previous articles, I have voiced some of my criticisms and predictions re globalization here, here, here, and here. Unfortunately, it is becoming clearer by the day that globalization was largely a fraud where Americans could endlessly consume and Chinese factories could endlessly manufacture without any adherence to economic fundamentals and creating a false and bloated version of prosperity and rising living standards. The brilliant minds of Wall Street came up with “risk management strategies” (irony alert) so that derivatives could endlessly build a never-ending Ponzi scheme which would go on forever and ever.

    We are now entering a very painful period of unwinding of what economist Niall Ferguson called “Chimerica”. Now, China and America are entering a dangerous period of deglobalization, where they have come to the realization that after the bubble pops and the deleveraging begins, their interests are really quite different. Instead of China and America being two sides of the same economic coin, they need to play or pander to their own constituencies. The blame game will begin.

    And their native constituencies are confused, hurt and angry. But they are not nearly as angry now as they will be in the near future when they have figured out what has happened to their wealth. When that happens, there will be hell to pay, and there will be blood in the streets.

    The reason for this is because the leveraging which occurred is simply too big and too complicated. Taking all the bad leveraging out of the system and replacing it with cash and credit liquidity is like trying to rebuild the engines of an aircraft in flight. It cannot be done. This means that there can only be a crash.

    The bright side is that crashes can be managed. You can go into a death spiral which is impossible to pull out of, but a smart pilot will look for a stretch of land and try to glide in for a crash landing. So far, the political leadership worldwide is pursuing policies which more closely follow the former path of the death spiral. This is because everyone is acting in what they perceive in their own interests, instead of keeping their heads and thinking through what needs to be done. It is a deadly panic move.

    The problem is that we are now entering a phase where the crisis has spread from subprime mortgages, to derivatives, and then on to currencies. In the beginning the patient suffered from a lack of credit liquidity (constipation), so the central banks are going to provide liquidity (the enema). This did not work, and the patient has become bloated. There is the very real chance that this will eventually cause runaway inflation (dysentery) and the patient will then die of dehydration. When this happens, the currency becomes worthless and society falls apart until a new dictator imposes his will on the society, as Hitler did at the end of the Weimar Republic in Germany. In China’s case, runaway inflation led to the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek’s loss of support in the cities, and directly contributed to the establishment of the People’s Republic.

    Sounds really really really bad, doesn’t it? That’s because it is.

    But there are survival and prosperity strategies. I will talk about them in 2009. But you will have to be really really tough.