Tag: amazon
The Second Edition of Venture Deals: Be Smarter Than Your Lawyer and Venture Capitalist just started shipping. It’s new and improved, fixes a bunch of little mistakes that we listed on the Ask the VC site, and adds a chapter on Convertible Debt which builds on the posts on Ask the VC. I’m happy it’s out, but really annoyed by the mess that is created by the second edition.
Before I bash Amazon and the traditional publishing industry, I want to give Amazon some love. I bought a Kindle Paperwhite 3G a month ago. Every time a new Kindle comes out, I buy it. After struggling to like the Kindle Fire HD, which now sits dormant in my laptop bag, I am absolutely in love with the Kindle Paperwhite- it’s stunningly good for a high volume reader like me.
Ok – back to the mess of a second edition. Writing the second edition is pretty easy – you get the final Microsoft Word files from the publisher. I would have loved to fix the mistakes earlier in the ebook, but that wasn’t part of the process. So Jason and I just tossed up an Errata page on the website and pointed people at it when they found a new, or old, mistake. We wrote the new sections (the chapter on convertible debt and a few appendices), fixed some other stuff we felt could be improved, and sent it back in to the publisher.
Given the success that we’ve had in academic settings, where Venture Deals is now being used by over 100 undergraduate and graduated courses as a textbook, we also created a teaching guide. Jason and Brad Bernthal wrote this as a completely separate book which we expected would be published. Instead, it’s ends up being on Wiley’s Instructor Companion Site which I just spent 10 minutes trying to get a login for an failed (grrrr). In addition, we are now working on an Inkling edition version of it which is desynchronized from the release of the book – mostly due to miscommunication about what was required to create it.
The normal copy-edit production loop ensued that I’m now used to. Jason and Brad Bernthal submitted the teaching guide separately – the first pass of the copy-edit loop happened, but had more gear grinding as we struggled to understand what was actually going to be produced. We eventually figured it out and everyone ended up happy. Then we got the new cover designs since apparently a second edition gets a new cover design. We are going to put this into the Startup Revolution series so it’s got the little Startup Revolution logo on it.
A few weeks ago I noticed that Amazon had Venture Deals: Be Smarter Than Your Lawyer and Venture Capitalist (2nd Edition) available for pre-order. I was perplexed that it was an entirely new page on Amazon with a different ISDN number. None of the 123 reviews moved over with it and the work we put into the page for the first edition was gone. I checked with Wiley on this and quickly found out that Amazon considers 2nd Editions to be completely new books.
So – here I sit on 12/29 with a new Amazon pages for the 2nd Edition in physical and Kindle form, excitingly with zero reviews on a book that has a 4.8 of 5.0 on 123 reviews, light weight Amazon pages, and no access or links to the Instructor Companion Site. Remember, writing these books is a hobby for me, not my full time role in the world, so when I see this I immediately think “there must be a better way.”
In this case, I’m perplexed by Amazon. It seems like they should be focused on making this stuff awesome from a user perspective and and author perspective. Even if there is a new ISBN number, wouldn’t it be so much better to have Venture Deals all connected together, with all the history, made beautiful and awesome for everyone involved? Who cares that the traditional publishing industry has a new ISBN number for 2nd Editions – end users don’t really care about this. And authors who want to spend all of their time writing and as little time as possible fighting with this crap must want to blow their brains out when this happens.
Fortunately, all of this amuses me. I enjoy the people at Wiley I work with – they are working their butts off on many different fronts to be successful. They are dealing with a complex environment that is changing quickly on them. And they are working as hard as they can to stay relevant in this environment. I respect them a lot for this. But it’s still a completely mess.
I just found out that Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City made the Amazon Top 10 Business Books of 2012.
I’m not a huge “made that list person” but as a writer this is a very cool thing, especially when I look at the other books, and writers, on the list. I’m downloading all of the other books right now and taking them on my two week vacation which is coming up.
I’m at Defrag this morning listing to Kevin Kelly explain how the global super organism already exists and why it is different than the Kurzweil defined Singularity. Awesome – and extremely consistent with how I think about how the machines have already taken over. Kevin’s intellectual approach is clearer and deeper – which I like, and will borrow heavily from. Kevin’s book, What Technology Wants, is also in a swag bag and I’ll be reading it next week.
One of the powerful concepts is that the “city is the node.” As I’ve been talking about Startup Communities, I’ve been explaining the power of “entrepreneurial density” and why everyone is congregating around cities again (intellectually referred to as the reurbanism of American). It’s really cool that he’s using the Degree Confluence Project to “show” (rather than simply “tell”) this.
A few of the books on the Amazon Top 10 Business Books of 2012 touch on this theme – I’ll be looking for it as I read a lot on the beach the next few weeks.
Thanks to all of you who participated in Operation Pre-Order for Startup Communities. I got a bunch of fun emails and am excited to share my newest book with you.
The Amazon winner is Jess Bachman. He’s from Bowmanville, Ontario which Google shows me is an hour east of Toronto. Hopefully we can connect during my Toronto trip in October.
The BarnesandNoble.com winner is Chris Rill from Mamaroneck, NY. I’ll catch him on my next NY trip.
The ratio of Amazon to B&N started out about 10:1 but ended up at 6:1. Later entries thought about it and figured out that odds were better if they bought from B&N since they guessed that more people would buy from Amazon. They were correct!
As most nerds know, Skynet gained self-awareness last week and decided as its first act to mess with Amazon Web Services, creating havoc for anyone that wanted to check-in on the Internet to their current physical location. In hindsight Skynet eventually figured out this was a bad call on its part as it actually wants to know where every human is at any given time. However, Skynet is still trying to get broader adoption of Xbox Live machines, so the Sony Playstation Network appears to still be down.
After all the obvious “oh my god, AWS is down” articles followed by the “see – I told you the cloud wouldn’t work” articles, some thoughtful analysis and suggestions have started to appear. Over the weekend, Dave Jilk, the CEO of Standing Cloud (I’m on the board) asked if I was going to write something about this and – if not – did I want him to write a guest post for me. Since I’ve used my weekend excess of creative energy building a Thing-O-Matic 3D Printer in an effort to show the machines that I come in peace, I quickly took him up on his offer.
Following are Dave’s thoughts on learning the right lessons from the Amazon outage.
Much has already been written about the recent Amazon Web Services outage that has caused problems for a few high-profile companies. Nevertheless, at Standing Cloud we live and breathe the infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) world every day, so I thought I might have something useful to add to the discussion. In particular, some media and naysayers are emphasizing the wrong lessons to be learned from this incident.
Wrong lesson #1: The infrastructure cloud is either not ready for prime time, or never will be.
Those who say this simply do not understand what the infrastructure cloud is. At bottom, it is just a way to provision virtual servers in a data center without human involvement. It is not news to anyone who uses them that virtual servers are individually less reliable than physical servers; furthermore, those virtual servers run on physical servers inside a physical data center. All physical data centers have glitches and downtime, and this is not the first time Amazon has had an outage, although it is the most severe.
What is true is that the infrastructure cloud is not and never will be ready to be used exactly like a traditional physical data center that is under your control. But that is obvious after a moment’s reflection. So when you see someone claiming that the Amazon outage shows that the cloud is not ready, they are just waving an ignorance flag.
Wrong lesson #2: Amazon is not to be trusted.
On the contrary, the AWS cloud has been highly reliable on the whole. They take downtime seriously and given the volume of usage and the amount of time they have been running it (since 2006), it is not surprising that they would eventually have a major outage of some sort. Enterprises have data center downtime, and back in the day when startups had to build their own, so did they. Some data centers are run better than others, but they all have outages.
What is of more concern are rumors I have heard that Amazon does not actually use AWS for Amazon.com. That doesn’t affect the quality of their cloud product directly, but given that they have lured customers with the claim that they do use it, this does impact our trust in relation to their marketing integrity. Presumably we will eventually find out the truth on that score. In any case, this issue is not related to the outage itself.
Having put the wrong lessons to rest, here are some positive lessons that put the nature of this outage into perspective, and help you take advantage of IaaS in the right way and at the right time.
Right lesson #1: Amazon is not infallible, and the cloud is not magic.
This is just the flip side of the “wrong lessons” discussed above. If you thought that Amazon would have 100% uptime, or that the infrastructure cloud somehow eliminates concerns about downtime, then you need to look closer at what it really is and how it works. It’s just a way to deploy somewhat less reliable servers, quickly and without human intervention. That’s all. Amazon (and other providers) will have more outages, and cloud servers will fail both individually and en masse.
Your application and deployment architecture may not be ready for this. However, I would claim that if it is not, you are assuming that your own data center operators are infallible. The architectural changes required to accommodate the public IaaS cloud are a good idea even if you never move the application there. That’s why smart enterprises have been virtualizing their infrastructure, building private clouds, and migrating their applications to operate in that environment. It’s not just a more efficient use of hardware resources, it also increases the resiliency of the application.
Right lesson #2: Amazon is not the only IaaS provider, and your application should be able to run on more than one.
This requires a bias alert: cloud portability is one of the things Standing Cloud enables for the applications it manages. If you build/deploy/manage an application using our system, it will be able to run on many different cloud providers, and you can move it easily and quickly.
We built this capability, though, because we believed that it was important for risk mitigation. As I have already pointed out, no data center is infallible and outages are inevitable. Further, It is not enough to have access to multiple data centers – the Amazon outage, though focused on one data center, created cascading effects (due to volume) in its other data centers. This, too, was predictable.
Given the inevitability of outages, how can one avoid downtime? My answer is that an application should be able to run on more than one, or many, different public cloud services. This answer has several implications:
- You should avoid reliance on unique features of a particular IaaS provider if they affect your application architecture. Amazon has built a number of features that other providers do not have, and if you are committed to Amazon they make it very easy to be “locked in.” There are two ways to handle this: first, use a least-common-denominator approach; second, find a substitution for each such feature on a “secondary” service.
- Your system deployment must be automated. If it is not automated, it is likely that it will take you longer to re-deploy the application (either in a different data center or on a different cloud service) than it will take for the provider to bring their service back up. As we have seen, that can take days. I discuss automation more below.
- Your data store must be accessible from outside your primary cloud provider. This is the most difficult problem, and how you accomplish it depends greatly on the nature of your data store. However, backups and redundancy are the key considerations (as usual!). All data must be in more than one place, and you need to have a way to fail over gracefully. As the Amazon outage has shown, a “highly reliable” system like their EBS (Elastic Block Storage) is still not reliable enough to avoid downtime.
Right lesson #3: Cloud deployments must be automated and should take cloud server reliability characteristics into account.
Even though I have seen it many times, I am still taken aback when I talk to a startup that has used Amazon just like a traditional data center using traditional methods. Their sysadmins go into the Amazon console, fire up some servers, manually configure the deployment architecture (often using Amazon features that save them time but lock them in), and hope for the best. Oh, they might burn an AMI and save it on S3, in case the server dies (which only works as long as nothing changes). If they need to scale up, they manually add another server and manually add it to the load balancer queue.
This type of usage treats IaaS as mostly a financing alternative. It’s a way to avoid buying capital equipment and conserving financial resources when you do not know how much computing infrastructure you will need. Even the fact that you can change your infrastructure resources rapidly really just boils down to not having to buy and provision those resources in advance. This benefit is a big one for capital-efficient lean startups, but on the whole the approach is risky and suboptimal. The Amazon outage illustrates this: companies that used this approach were stuck during the outage, but at another level they are still stuck with Amazon because their server configurations are implicit.
Instead, the best practice for deploying applications – in the cloud but also anywhere, is by automating the deployment process. There should be no manual steps in the deployment process. Although this can be done using scripts, even better is to use a tool like Chef, Puppet, or cfEngine to take advantage of abstractions in the process. Or use RightScale, Kaavo, CA Applogic, or similar tools to not only automate but organize your deployment process. If your application uses a standard N-tier architecture, you can potentially use Standing Cloud without having to build any automation scripts at all.
Automating an application deployment in the cloud is a best practice with numerous benefits, including:
- Free redundancy. Instead of having an idle redundant data center (whether cloud or otherwise), you can simply re-deploy your application in another data center or cloud service using on-demand resources. Some of the resources (e.g., a replicated data store) might need to be available at all times, but most of the deployment can be fired up only when it is needed.
- Rapid scalability. In theory you can get this using Amazon’s auto-scaling features, Elastic Beanstalk, and the like. But these require access to AMIs that are stored on S3 or EBS. We’ve learned our lesson about that, right? Instead, build a general purpose scalability approach that takes advantage of the on-demand resources but keeps it under your control.
- Server failover can be treated just like scalability. Virtual servers fail more frequently than physical servers, and when they do, there is less ability to recover them. Consequently, a good automation procedure treats scalability and failover the same way – just bring up a new server.
- Maintainability. A server configuration that is created manually and saved to a “golden image” has numerous problems. Only the person who built it knows what is there, and if that person leaves or goes on vacation, it can be very time consuming to reverse-engineer it. Even that person will eventually forget, and if there are several generations of manual configuration changes (boot the golden image, start making changes, create a new golden image), possibly by different people, you are now locked into that image. All these issues become apparent when you need to upgrade O/S versions or change to a new O/S distribution. In contrast, a fully automated deployment is not only a functional process with the benefits mentioned above, it also serves as documentation.
In summary, let the Amazon Web Services outage be a wake-up call… not to fear the IaaS cloud, but to know it, use it properly, and take advantage of its full possibilities.
Colorado HB10-1193 – also known as the “Amazon Tax” – really upset me as I wrote about in Amazon Fires Its Affiliates in Colorado (Including Me) Because of Colorado HB 10-1193. While I discovered a partial solution via a service from a company called Viglink which I wrote about in I’m An Amazon Affiliate Again – Sort Of I’m still really annoyed with the myopia of our Colorado state representatives around this issue.
I’m also disgusted by the protectionist turn this took as our governor, many representatives, and several progressive organizations that I’ve supported called for a ban on Amazon because of the need to “level the playing field for local merchants.” When I talked to a number of folks about this, including the organizations that I had previous supported, they demonstrated that they didn’t really understand the issue, were getting confused about states rights vs. federal rights (an issue I expect we’ll see come up a lot over the next few years given our federal, state, and local government search for additional revenue wherever they can find it), and didn’t get that a protectionist attitude was actually offensive to most business people (except, presumably, those being protected by the government.)
Finally, legislation like this is completely tone deaf to both the growing impact of technology on our society as well as a huge shift in the way information based goods are bought and sold.
I’ve been told by several Colorado representatives that didn’t support this bill that there is no way this tax will be repealed, but I haven’t given up yet. I’ve enlisted my friend David Binetti to crank up another Twitter Campaign To Repeal Colorado’s Internet Tax. If you are a Colorado citizen with a twitter account, it’ll take less than a minute to tweet out this message along with delivering a physical letter to your specific representatives.
Let’s make sure our representatives know that this is a piece of legislation that should be repealed.
On March 8, 2010 Amazon fired me as an Amazon Affiliate because of Colorado HB 10-1193. I proceeded to have a dozen different conversations (email and live) with several of my state representatives, including one of the co-sponsors of the bill, and each conversation made me more incensed at the abject stupidity and lack of understanding of the dynamics surrounding the situation. Ultimately, the argument came down to one of protectionism – e.g. “we have to protect our local merchants so Amazon shouldn’t get an unfair advantage by not having to charge state tax.” I could rant about this for a while, but I’ve got better things to spend my time on at this point.
I’ve been an early Viglink user for a while. Niel Robertson, the CEO of Trada, introduced me to Viglink’s founder Oliver Roup and I agreed to be an alpha tester. While we aren’t an investor, I’m intrigued with what Viglink is doing and I’m already a big fan.
Last week I realized that all of my going forward Amazon links (and other links to merchants with an affiliate program) were getting rewritten by Viglink. As a result, on a going forward basis, I was getting Amazon affiliate revenue (via Viglink) for anyone that clicked through one of my links and bought something on Amazon.
That was cool, but I have a gillion of old links using my Amazon affiliate code that no longer works. I asked Oliver if he could rewrite all of the old links also. Here’s his response:
“We have coded this and deployed it. As a result, all your dead Amazon affiliate links will be overwritten with our affiliate code and the revenue will be credited to you. What’s more, we just created an affiliate program against ourselves – any links you have to us on your blog will automatically be affiliated and you will receive 10% of the revenue from any customers we get as a result of those links.”
Awesome! If you are a fired Amazon Affiliate in Colorado, take a look at Viglink.
Amazon Fires Its Affiliates in Colorado (Including Me) Because of Colorado HB 10-1193
I’ve been an Amazon Associate (Amazon’s affiliate program) for many years. Today I got the following notice in my Amazon Associates account.
and I woke up to the following email.
Dear Colorado-based Amazon Associate:
We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to inform you that the Colorado government recently enacted a law to impose sales tax regulations on online retailers. The regulations are burdensome and no other state has similar rules. The new regulations do not require online retailers to collect sales tax. Instead, they are clearly intended to increase the compliance burden to a point where online retailers will be induced to “voluntarily” collect Colorado sales tax — a course we won’t take.
We and many others strongly opposed this legislation, known as HB 10-1193, but it was enacted anyway. Regrettably, as a result of the new law, we have decided to stop advertising through Associates based in Colorado. We plan to continue to sell to Colorado residents, however, and will advertise through other channels, including through Associates based in other states.
There is a right way for Colorado to pursue its revenue goals, but this new law is a wrong way. As we repeatedly communicated to Colorado legislators, including those who sponsored and supported the new law, we are not opposed to collecting sales tax within a constitutionally-permissible system applied even-handedly. The US Supreme Court has defined what would be constitutional, and if Colorado would repeal the current law or follow the constitutional approach to collection, we would welcome the opportunity to reinstate Colorado-based Associates.
You may express your views of Colorado’s new law to members of the General Assembly and to Governor Ritter, who signed the bill.
Your Associates account has been closed as of March 8, 2010, and we will no longer pay advertising fees for customers you refer to Amazon.com after that date. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned prior to March 8, 2010, will be processed and paid in accordance with our regular payment schedule. Based on your account closure date of March 8, any final payments will be paid by May 31, 2010.
We have enjoyed working with you and other Colorado-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program, and wish you all the best in your future.
I’ve been a supporter of Governor Ritter since his campaign for governor and have worked hard to positively impact Colorado’s software / Internet / technology / entrepreneurial ecosystem. Over the past two months, I’ve privately expressed my outrage over HB10-1192 and HB10-1193 to several people in Ritter’s administration. I watched as numerous people in the software / Internet community tried their hardest to help our legislators, the governor, and their staffs understand why this is such a huge step backwards for Colorado. I was told several times “don’t worry – we’ll take care off all the silly stuff.” There seemed to be enough folks showing up to discuss this that I thought rational minds would prevail.
I made a huge mistake. I should have come out very publicly about this when I first heard about it, made sure everyone that I supported during the elections that supported these bills (including one of the co-sponsors) knew my opinion and understood why they had the potential to be so detrimental to the software / Internet / entrepreneurial climate in Colorado. Shame on me for not being more aggressive, although there are some days I definitely feel like there are only so many fronts I can deal with outside my very full time day job.
I’m not at all surprised by this action on Amazon’s part. I expect the Internet Affiliate business in Colorado will completely die within the next thirty days (every company that has an affiliate business will turn off all of their Colorado-based affiliates.)
I then received the following email from Colorado Governor Ritter
Gov. Bill Ritter issued the following statement today criticizing Amazon.com’s decision to abruptly end its financial relationship with Amazon Associate businesses in Colorado:
“Amazon has taken a disappointing – and completely unjustified – step of ending its relationship with associates. While Amazon is blaming a new state law for its action, the fact is that Amazon is simply trying to avoid compliance with Colorado law and is unfairly punishing Colorado businesses in the process.
“My office worked closely with Amazon’s affiliates and associates to modify House Bill 1193 to specifically protect small businesses, avoid job losses and provide a fair, level playing field for on-line retailers and Main Street, brick-and-mortar retail shops alike.
“Amazon’s position is unfortunate, and Coloradans certainly deserve better.”
I’m especially disappointed in the Governor’s statement – it’s completely tone deaf to the actual issue and what Amazon is clearly stating. I’ve heard several people saying “Amazon is the problem” or “well – this is good – now people will buy locally.” Neither of these statements is valid – Amazon behaved like a rational company in the face of government regulation that had no upside for them and substantial downside. Also, this has zero impact on consumer purchasing activity as this doesn’t impact the end customer of Amazon products in any way.
Rather, the many small businesses and solo entrepreneurs who make money off of Amazon’s affiliate program just lost a revenue stream (which, by the way, is used to employ people and pay state taxes.) Colorado just got a big black eye in their historical effort to be a place that is friendly to business, especially high growth technology companies. And our state government likely now has lost more tax revenue than it was going to gain through the bill in the first place while simultaneously damaging the revenue streams for many small Colorado businesses.
The only logical solution in my book is what Amazon says in paragraph 3.
There is a right way for Colorado to pursue its revenue goals, but this new law is a wrong way. As we repeatedly communicated to Colorado legislators, including those who sponsored and supported the new law, we are not opposed to collecting sales tax within a constitutionally-permissible system applied even-handedly. The US Supreme Court has defined what would be constitutional, and if Colorado would repeal the current law or follow the constitutional approach to collection, we would welcome the opportunity to reinstate Colorado-based Associates.
Boulder AWS Anonymous held its first meeting last week, and there were eleven attendees despite the fact that the meeting had been inadvertently scheduled at the same time as Obama’s inauguration. Attendees represented a wide variety of uses and potential uses of Amazon Web Services, ranging from hosting popular websites and application development to load balancing, autoscaling, and internet telephony. The group is encouraging anyone in the area interested in getting updates to join their Google Group and/or to attend the next meeting at The Cup, 1521 Pearl St, at 10:00 am on Wednesday February 18.
A meme that regularly goes around the blogosphere is “full disclosure.” When someone blogs about something they have a financial interest in (e.g. an equity interest in a company) or something they benefit from financially (e.g. affiliate fees), should they include a “formal disclosure.”
I received the following email today:
“I appreciate all your book recommendations over the last several posts. It’s a great service. However, with full disclosure being the norm these days, you might want to mention that you benefit from book sales via your Amazon affiliate status. Pardon me if you have previously done this.”
So – for full disclosure, I benefit from book sales via my Amazon affiliate status. I don’t pay close attention to how much I get from this as I’m much more interested in the data underlying which books you dear reader actually buy and read as one of the features of the affiliate program is all the data I get from it.
My purpose of having an Amazon affiliate code is three fold:
- I want to understand how the Amazon affiliate program works (and evolves). This helps me with all of my investing activity.
- I am obsessed with the underlying data. All of the various affiliate / advertising programs I have on this blog provide me with a variety of data. I learn from this and can then help the companies I’m an investor in understand what appeals and doesn’t appeal to a publisher, using me as an example.
- I make enough money to get a discount from all of the books I buy at Amazon each year.
Summary: #1 and #2 help me as an investor. #3 generates a modest amount of money to me.
Let’s focus on #3 for a minute since this I think this is the core of the “full disclosure” email I received. In my case, I buy over 250 books / year at Amazon (I don’t know the exact number, but I’m estimating five a week which, based on what is on my Kindle along with the infinite pile of unread books, is low.) Since I’m buying a lot more on my Kindle these days, let’s use the average Kindle price of $10 which is also going to be low given the number of hardcover books in the infinite pile. That’s $2,500 per year of books. I expect that number is off by at least 100% – so I’m spending somewhere between $2,500 and $5,000 per year on books at Amazon.
I just ran my earnings report from Amazon for the past 12 months. Via my affiliate code, I’ve sold a net of 666 items (eek – subtle message in that – it’s actually 675 with returns of 7 and refunds of 2.) I’ve generated $16,247.89 for Amazon and received $1,072.89 in referral fees.
So – even if you take my $2,500 number, by buying books via my blog you’ve effectively helped me get a 40% discount from Amazon (20% if you take the $5,000 number, which I think is more realistic given my book buying habit.)
In either case, the financial beneficiary here is Amazon, not me, although I guess you could argue that I’m ahead by whatever my effective discount is. If my “book recommendations is a great service”, presumably this won’t really bother anyone (it might not have regardless). However, if every post I put up had an italicized “summary” of this post (or a link to it), that would probably get annoying over time!
I’m going to think more about what full disclosure actually means in the context of the evolving shift of purchasing, advertising, and content online. In the offline world, the construct of a reseller is well established (e.g. no one ever requires full disclosure from a bookstore when they sell – or promote – a book as it is well understand that they make a margin on every sale.) I get that there are different issues in the online world, especially around content, but as the creative destruction of the Internet starts to really take a toll on retail (and resellers), there may be new issues around the construct of full disclosure.
Finally, thanks to the blog reader who pointed this out to me. I hope this doesn’t come across as a gigantic rationalization on my part, or a defensive argument. Instead, my goal was to think through this out loud, in public, and in the spirit of full disclosure. If anyone out there has anything to add, or core principles that can help me define a forward looking view on this (e.g. what this should look like from 2010 forward), please weigh in with a comment.