Disqus - Latest Comments for chrism

Re: Twine, explosively growing, is an early success

Chris Morrison — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:38:39 -0000

Thanks for your many comments, although one might wish they were a bit less aggressive. They do contain some valid points. Since this one is aimed at me:

The shortcomings of Twine have been well chewed over, and are there to judge for anyone who goes to twine.com. I think the general consensus before its launch was that the shortcomings were enough of an impediment that it would take Twine's traffic a long time to grow. That doesn't appear to be the case, which is what interested me, and what the story is about.

You're right that Twine's numbers conflict with some Compete numbers. Most notably, Compete shows higher traffic to Twine than Twine itself records, but a lower time spent on the site by visitors. I'd tend to put more faith in Twine's numbers; internals are usually more accurate, especially for smaller sites. And yes, Twine is still quite small.

I think the comparison to banks with toxic assets is a bit of a stretch, but I suppose I should be thankful Godwin's Law hasn't made an appearance yet.

Re: Twine, explosively growing, is an early success

Chris Morrison — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:07:03 -0000

Hey Greg. I hesitate to reply to other comments in here, as they've grown out of control while I was concentrating on other things. Thanks for your thoughts, though.

Those stats also caught my eye. I think any service that's growing quickly would tend to have a much higher % of single-time visitors. VentureBeat is a bit more mature; we've built up our return audience, but we're not shooting up 50 percent month over month, either.

I think the stat is meaningless at this point. The question is whether the traffic trend will continue, and if so, whether a significant number of those people will stick over time. If others agree with your evaluation of the design (that it's bad), the answer will probably be no, unfortunately.

Re: Twine, explosively growing, is an early success

Chris Morrison — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:31:18 -0000

Left out January on Compete because it was what I had at the time -- I first looked at this some days back. The data Twine gave me looked as if the growth in unique users continued at about the same pace in Jan.

I believe they told me users are averaging 9-12 minutes per visit (without looking at my notes; it was in that range). So there's engagement. Not sure on stickiness.

Re: Sleazy measures for sad times: VC-backed Cash4Gold attracts complaints

Chris Morrison — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:43:30 -0000

Thanks Daniel, I didn't catch that one.

Re: News flash: Nobody gives a damn about global warming

Chris Morrison — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:32:46 -0000

You're right about the implications, and that is how renewable energy is being sold right now in the USA.

Of course, you could make similar arguments about any number of things. A huge spending boost in education or health, for example, would have some obvious benefits and employ lots of people. We could spend the money building out ubiquitous high-speed broadband, which would provide just as many jobs and, arguably, a bigger economic boost more quickly.

I think global warming (or climate change, take your pick) is the vital linchpin to the clean energy argument. Pull it out, and the story might not sell anymore.

Re: News flash: Nobody gives a damn about global warming

Chris Morrison — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:11:04 -0000

I think over a longer period you'd see a definite rising trend of interest. If you said "global warming" ten years ago, relatively few people would have known what you were talking about.

It also occurs to me that the long-term trend could still be a steady rise, with a premature spike in interest due to Hurricane Katrina and some other natural disasters.

Re: Solar panels pose an environmental hazard, claims report

Chris Morrison — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:09:53 -0000

Have you been reading my AP guide, Peter?

Thanks, I'll fix that one.

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:36:34 -0000

I'd imagine it just shows they don't think EEStor and similar claims are real, not that they don't think at all.

If there was a 1-2 year window when only existing EV producers could use EEStor ultracaps, would it matter? Manufacturing capacity also takes a long time to scale up, especially for a small company. I think the majors would catch up just fine. EEStor would also need a runway to build up speed after proving they have the good stuff.

I'm probably a pessimist, but I expect EEStor to eventually roll out something that is very useful, but not mind-blowing. If Weir's claims about the discharge rate are true, I may eat my words (link below).
http://cleantech.com/news/3...

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:05:27 -0000

Your point is very valid. Actually more of the Euro-style electric cars planned shorter ranges. They'll just need to pass Federal standards for import.

Mayor Newsom just passed an electric vehicle rental bill in San Francisco. Who knows, that might work out too.

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:59:32 -0000

I should be careful how I word things, eh? The internet was essentially a zero, in terms of the sites and content that we have today, a decade ago. Yes, the backbone technologies have been in development longer.

Maxwell Tech and others have super / ultra capacitors on the market, even in electric vehicles. But it's EEStor's magical technology that I was specifically referring to.

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:53:14 -0000

Thanks Robert; I appreciate the return comment. I wasn't referring to you as rude. I more had the fellow who called me an idiot in mind.

As for Zap, I pointed out that the company has products and sells them. But you're right, I did discount the first Zap comment. I also live close enough to Zap, and as it happens, I've never heard anything good about them from anyone I did know the actual identity of. I also got an unpleasant eyeful of their operating practices when I covered OTCBB stocks, several years back. Wired certainly didn't get that part of their article wrong.

I don't have much critical to say about most other electric car companies. They're just in a bad spot, mostly due to credit problems. There are a few dark horses, like Miles Automotive, which it slipped my mind to mention -- they've impressed me so far, and seem to be on schedule.

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:59:37 -0000

If you could point out where I've been incorrect in my condescending answers to the (rather rude) comments, I would appreciate it.

And for the record, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an electric-based transportation system to begin developing. It will just be a bit more difficult than suddenly switching off the gas and onto batteries.

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:17:24 -0000

You are misinformed.

From the Associated Press in 2007:
"Clifford's company bought rights to EEStor's technology in August 2005 and expects EEStor to start shipping the battery replacement later this year for use in ZENN Motor's short-range, low-speed vehicles."
http://www.foxnews.com/stor...

From Business 2.0 in 2008:
""To call it a battery discredits it," says Ian Clifford, the CEO of Toronto-based electric car company Feel Good Cars, which plans to incorporate EEStor's technology in vehicles by 2008."
http://money.cnn.com/2006/0...

While you're studying up, I'd also recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/Manne...

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:06:41 -0000

Thanks Alex. I will make a note above.

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:43:21 -0000

How very odd that you appear to have commented from Santa Rosa, also the home city of Zap. Of course, we live in a wonderful world of coincidences.

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:32:10 -0000

A 100 mile range isn't considered suitable for a mass market electric vehicle.

And those NiMH batteries will set you back over $10,000. Those RAV4 buyers weren't the poorest folks on the planet.

Re: Electric cars disappointed in 2008 — and 2009 won’t be different

Chris Morrison — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:23:12 -0000

I sense a customer in the making.

The promise of Tesla, to me, is that it could become a major car manufacturer someday. If there's a Roadster but no Model S, that doesn't happen. If the Model S appears too late, it probably doesn't happen.

The failure was not securing financing, whether that was Tesla's fault or not.

Re: If the New York Times dies, does the news die?

Chris Morrison — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:52:37 -0000

Sounds like you're an advocate, at least in part, of how Rupert Murdoch is remaking the Wall Street Journal.

I agree that short and timely are important for news. But for a big outlet, the differentiator is often going to be longer, more in-depth items. I'm getting the sense the NYT has turned off a lot of people by choosing the wrong in-depth stories.

Re: If the New York Times dies, does the news die?

Chris Morrison — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:45:58 -0000

I love the Economist, but it's a weekly magazine (despite their insistence on being a newspaper) with a very different audience, and different needs. Where it thrives on a million subscribers, the NYT withers.

I'd tend to agree with your view of which type of news is worth more. Maybe one of the problems the Times has is that although they do maintain very high quality standards, it's hard to pick the gems out of the same-old reporting.

Re: Roundup: Dell underperformance, Tesla’s tough times, FCC blues and more

Chris Morrison — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:02:28 -0000

Well, they were "outed" as having been fired.. ahem.

I'll fix that, thanks ;)

Re: Solar Red hopes to put solar installation through another transformation

Chris Morrison — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:05:52 -0000

I asked about Enphase, specifically. No direct answer, but I think that may end up being their initial supplier.

On the other hand, there will be other micro-inverters to choose from soon.

Re: Africa joining the electric car craze, with Optimal Energy’s Joule

Chris Morrison — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:04:45 -0000

Unfortunately those things actually don't provide too much power. Regenerative braking is the best, and it's pretty much standard for hybrids and full EVs now.

Solar panels are the worst. They'll only get a few miles of driving from a full day sitting in strong sunlight. That's why some manufacturers are using them for auxiliary systems like the air conditioning.

Re: Africa joining the electric car craze, with Optimal Energy’s Joule

Chris Morrison — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:19:41 -0000

They're each different business models. In this case I think it's just a psychological ploy. The price is the same either way, they're just making the battery seem distinct from the car.

But the fact that it's a ploy doesn't mean it won't be effective. I do think it's useful to split the cost out and show that the car's price is high because of the battery, which in turn offers fuel savings.

Re: California to set up a $1B electric car network

Chris Morrison — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:57:39 -0000

This network will be in PG&E's territory. That means natural gas is the biggest source, followed by nuclear, hydroelectric and then other renewables. Not much coal in the mix.

Of course, the actual electricity the charging network uses could be weighted more heavily toward one source or another, if they want to put the planning work into it to do so (plus some extra money).

Re: SolFocus provides numbers for its concentrating photovoltaics — should conventional solar worry?

Chris Morrison — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:29:06 -0000

You could be right, but I was talking to her in the context of an average price / efficiency solar panel, as you might have noticed.

I doubt they're at grid parity, cost-wise. Photovoltaics aren't, CPV isn't, typically even thin film and solar thermal aren't, so the question is which of the four are competitive with each other, and what the installation cost and payback time is. If installation cost for CPV is hovering just over regular PV, but efficiencies are much higher, that suggests payback time is shorter, no?