<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for bmagierski</title><link xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="http://api.friendfeed.com/2008/03#sup" href="http://disqus.com/sup/all.sup#usercomments-8954caf4" type="application/json"/><link>http://disqus.com/people/bmagierski/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:06:21 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Email</title><link>http://andrewmcafee.org/2009/10/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-email/#comment-19702729</link><description>Andy - great post and I mostly agree with you, but also agree with Susan (itsinsider above) that we should not just bow to email b/c the existing leadership defaults to it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I agree with Daniel P above that email needs to be embraced as part of e2.0. In fact, taking it a step further, those that figure out how to effectively embrace email will enable e2.0 to flourish. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I see two important uses for email - (1) It can be a UI into e2.0 (for some it will be THE UI), and again agree with Daniel that embedded links and media will be critical; being the UI means support for post and reply functionality via email. and (2) it should be an effective notification vehicle (which it is in any viable e2.0 technology today already).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;BTW - took you up on connecting on Google Wave ... looking forward to Wave's promise.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bmagierski</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:06:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Venture capitalists hammer entrepreneurs: Valuations lowest in five years</title><link>http://deals.venturebeat.com/2009/08/07/venture-capitalists-hammer-entrepreneurs-valuations-lowest-in-five-years/#comment-14787544</link><description>@inforarbitrage and @max ... great points. Yes, it is about getting the right amount of capital to grow the business and ensuring the team that is charged with growing it is incentivized properly. The structuring of the round takes this into account while establishing pricing and terms to attract the investor to put in the right amount of capital. Complex, but necessary.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bmagierski</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:29:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: links for 2008-12-29</title><link>http://brian.magierski.com/2008/12/29/links-for-2008-12-29/#comment-4810721</link><description>Great to see you both here commenting on my lazy blogging .... del.icio.us auto posts of my links!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Indeed it's deja vu all over again with Wall St.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bmagierski</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:26:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: links for 2008-11-24</title><link>http://brian.magierski.com/2008/11/24/links-for-2008-11-24/#comment-3998306</link><description>Doh! Thanks, didn't notice that ... popped up on Google Alerts...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bmagierski</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:47:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Social Enterprise Software discussion buzzing last week</title><link>http://brian.magierski.com/2008/05/03/social-enterprise-software-discussion-buzzing-last-week/#comment-418613</link><description>Thanks Oliver - great comment. I agree that IBM page is not impressive in&lt;br&gt;the least, and the timeframe question for the big players is the real&lt;br&gt;question. All have a placeholder for sure because they have to, but many&lt;br&gt;lack commitment - in the ham &amp; eggs analogy, they are the eggs. This&lt;br&gt;includes Sharepoint despite the civil defense force you mention. The&lt;br&gt;Sharepoint story seems to their typical play - rather than just have a&lt;br&gt;placeholder, they deliberately seed something inside their customers into&lt;br&gt;which will grow whatever needs to grow to dominate that part of the customer&lt;br&gt;infrastructure over whatever timeframe it takes them to figure it out.&lt;br&gt;I agree with your comment - we are seeing the natural evolution in market&lt;br&gt;development in play here - from Education to Custom Solution development to&lt;br&gt;more packaged Applications / Solutions. We're probably in between the&lt;br&gt;Education and Custom Solution development stage, with collaborative&lt;br&gt;processes now being defined in some enterprises / industries, and custom&lt;br&gt;solutions being developed on these infrastructure toolsets - wikis, blogs,&lt;br&gt;forums, social nets, Sharepoint : ) - and single sign-on.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Dennis is probably right, these infrastructure players get consolidated into&lt;br&gt;the infrastructure. Alongside that, new application / social enterprise apps&lt;br&gt;providers will emerge building the next generation apps leveraging this web&lt;br&gt;middleware. All in all, a fun time to be in the market.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bmagierski</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 19:34:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: We Need A New Path To Liquidity</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2008/04/we-need-a-new-p.html#comment-320913</link><description>Fred - who are jon &amp; ross, and what firm did they start?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Jeff - interesting thought. The acquisition corp would seem to need to have an underlying platform for simplifying the connective tissue between the various services it buys (single sign on, etc) but maybe not much more than that to start. The earn-outs are key for sure, or some other dividend paying ownership structure in the service purchased.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bmagierski</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:14:35 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>