It's the execution that counts!
Oon YeohPublished: Apr 19, 2011 12:47 PM | Updated: Apr 19, 2011 12:59 PM
It’s often said that ideas are a dime a dozen and that execution is everything. But is that really true? To assess that, one only has to look at the case of Facebook, which is constantly being sued by others who claim substantial ownership over the site.
It’s often said that ideas are a dime a dozen and that execution is everything. But is that really true? To assess that, one only has to look at the case of Facebook, which is constantly being sued by others who claim substantial ownership over the site.
Indeed, Facebook has a very complicated ownership history. This article in Mashable tries to map out this mess and gives you a broad overview of the situation to date.
The case of Eduardo Saverin, who helped fund the new site in 2003 (US$15,000 for a 30 percent stake), has been settled. Today, his reduced 5 percent stake is estimated to be worth about US$2.5 billion. For the settlement he agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement and there is no more contention on his part.
The case of Paul Ceglia is the latest one. He claims that in return for a US$1,000 investment, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 agreed to give him 50 percent of the company. As proof he has offered copies of some old e-mails. Facebook claims the e-mails are fake. This case has just erupted and is probably heading to court.
Then, there is the curious case of the Harvard twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who had hired Zuckerberg to develop a social networking site for their university. They claim Zuckerberg took their idea and created Facebook instead.
Their case is interesting because it was settled in 2008, with the twins getting US$170 million in Facebook shares. That’s no chump change but they aren’t satisfied and now say that Zuckerberg deceived them on the true value of the company at the time. Although an appeals court has ruled against them, the twins are not giving up and are now seeking a rehearing before a larger group of judges.
The Saverin and Ceglia cases are somewhat similar in that their claim for ownership has to do with their initial funding for the start up. The Winklevoss case is more interesting as it concerns whose idea it was in the first place.
Whether Zuckerberg came up with the idea for Facebook on his own or whether he got it from the Winklevoss twins is a subject of contention and debate. But what is not in doubt is that Facebook is what it is today because of Zuckerberg and gang.
So is Facebook worth an estimated US$75 billion because it was someone’s original brilliant idea or is it because someone executed the idea well?
It’s hard to argue for the former. Back when Facebook started, other social networking sites were already in existence, namely Friendster, which was quite a big deal at the time. There was also a site called Ryze.com, which was set up to link people professionally. Both are now shadows of their former selves, having been replaced by Facebook and LinkedIn, respectively.
Even as late as 2008, which was when I first started seriously looking at Facebook, as a researcher at Telenor , the features of the site were still very rudimentary. There was hardly anything new compared to other social networking sites that had emerged by then.
The edge over its rivals
One thing I did notice was that Facebook had a much cleaner interface than say Friendster or MySpace. Another significant difference was that people on Facebook used real names and pictures. This was not always the case with Friendster or MySpace, both of which had a bit of a fantasy element to them.
I believe it was those two key features: Cleaner interface and real identities that gave Facebook the edge over its rivals. And then it built upon its lead by continually refining and improving on its offerings. But it didn't really introduce anything earth-shatteringly new. This is true today.
Look at Facebook Places, its geo-location-based service. Foursquare was there before it. How about Facebook Deals? Ever heard of Groupon? Facebook’s revamped Groups is now a collaboration platform. Groove Networks was there long before it. And so on.
“There's nothing new under the sun” may be a cliché saying but it’s so true, especially in the world of IT. If you want to launch a successful website or a product even - it’s not so much about coming up with something new but something better.
Is the iPad a brand new idea? Tablets had been around for years before Apple launched its version. And what’s so special about the iPhone - a touchscreen? Come on, that’s been around for a long time too. What Apple did was launch superior products, with cleaner, sleeker, sexier interfaces, hardware and software.
This is not to say good ideas are unimportant. They are but they are also plentiful and are hardly sufficient in a highly competitive tech landscape. What you need is to take a good idea and to execute it well. Which is always easier said than done.
OON YEOH is managing editor of AsiaReach Media. You can follow him at www.twitter.com/oonyeoh.
Indeed, Facebook has a very complicated ownership history. This article in Mashable tries to map out this mess and gives you a broad overview of the situation to date.
The case of Eduardo Saverin, who helped fund the new site in 2003 (US$15,000 for a 30 percent stake), has been settled. Today, his reduced 5 percent stake is estimated to be worth about US$2.5 billion. For the settlement he agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement and there is no more contention on his part.
The case of Paul Ceglia is the latest one. He claims that in return for a US$1,000 investment, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 agreed to give him 50 percent of the company. As proof he has offered copies of some old e-mails. Facebook claims the e-mails are fake. This case has just erupted and is probably heading to court.Then, there is the curious case of the Harvard twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who had hired Zuckerberg to develop a social networking site for their university. They claim Zuckerberg took their idea and created Facebook instead.
Their case is interesting because it was settled in 2008, with the twins getting US$170 million in Facebook shares. That’s no chump change but they aren’t satisfied and now say that Zuckerberg deceived them on the true value of the company at the time. Although an appeals court has ruled against them, the twins are not giving up and are now seeking a rehearing before a larger group of judges.
The Saverin and Ceglia cases are somewhat similar in that their claim for ownership has to do with their initial funding for the start up. The Winklevoss case is more interesting as it concerns whose idea it was in the first place.
Whether Zuckerberg came up with the idea for Facebook on his own or whether he got it from the Winklevoss twins is a subject of contention and debate. But what is not in doubt is that Facebook is what it is today because of Zuckerberg and gang.
So is Facebook worth an estimated US$75 billion because it was someone’s original brilliant idea or is it because someone executed the idea well?
It’s hard to argue for the former. Back when Facebook started, other social networking sites were already in existence, namely Friendster, which was quite a big deal at the time. There was also a site called Ryze.com, which was set up to link people professionally. Both are now shadows of their former selves, having been replaced by Facebook and LinkedIn, respectively.
Even as late as 2008, which was when I first started seriously looking at Facebook, as a researcher at Telenor , the features of the site were still very rudimentary. There was hardly anything new compared to other social networking sites that had emerged by then.
The edge over its rivals
One thing I did notice was that Facebook had a much cleaner interface than say Friendster or MySpace. Another significant difference was that people on Facebook used real names and pictures. This was not always the case with Friendster or MySpace, both of which had a bit of a fantasy element to them.
I believe it was those two key features: Cleaner interface and real identities that gave Facebook the edge over its rivals. And then it built upon its lead by continually refining and improving on its offerings. But it didn't really introduce anything earth-shatteringly new. This is true today.
Look at Facebook Places, its geo-location-based service. Foursquare was there before it. How about Facebook Deals? Ever heard of Groupon? Facebook’s revamped Groups is now a collaboration platform. Groove Networks was there long before it. And so on.
“There's nothing new under the sun” may be a cliché saying but it’s so true, especially in the world of IT. If you want to launch a successful website or a product even - it’s not so much about coming up with something new but something better.
Is the iPad a brand new idea? Tablets had been around for years before Apple launched its version. And what’s so special about the iPhone - a touchscreen? Come on, that’s been around for a long time too. What Apple did was launch superior products, with cleaner, sleeker, sexier interfaces, hardware and software. This is not to say good ideas are unimportant. They are but they are also plentiful and are hardly sufficient in a highly competitive tech landscape. What you need is to take a good idea and to execute it well. Which is always easier said than done.
OON YEOH is managing editor of AsiaReach Media. You can follow him at www.twitter.com/oonyeoh.
View Comments0