May 31, 2009

IRCTC Records Rs. 6 Billion worth of transactions in April 2009

Filed under: Misc — Tags: , , , — jeetu @ 10:19 pm

Posted at Pluggd.in

by sinha

IRCTC recorded Rs. 6 billion in the month of April 2009 (increase of ~15% since Jan 2009) out of which Rs. 4.1 billion accounted for successful transactions (for the record, irctc contributes 1/3rd to ecommerce industry)

Credit cards rule the transactions (37%), followed by Debit cards (32%) and Cash cards constituted 20% of the total transaction on the site.

What’s interesting to note is that ICICI payment gateway clocked the max number of transactions among credit cards, followed by HDFC and Citibank.

The debit card transactions is ruled by SBI cards (9.09%), followed by ICICI and HDFC.

Among the cash card services, ITZ cash card constitutes 11.86% of the transaction, followed by DONE and I CASH.

IRCTC  clocked Rs. 5.2Bn in the month of Jan 2009 and has now reached Rs. 6 Billion worth of transaction – speaks of ecommerce viability in India!

Download the April data from here

Must Read: ecommerce in India – challenges & opportunities



» Do check out Indian Startup Directory | Indian VC Directory and Active Startup Discussion Forum

» Lets catch up on Twitter (we conduct a quiz everyday @ 2PM!!)
Advertise @ pluGGd.in


IRCTC Records Rs. 6 Billion worth of transactions in April 2009

Related Posts

  1. Banner Ad Rates for IRCTC..Rs. 5.2 Bn transacted in January
  2. Mobile VAS Conference: IRCTC sold only 921 tickets over mobile
  3. e commerce in india: IRCTC still contributes 1/3rd – Something to worry about?
  4. Airtel launches m-commerce apps – send money to family/friends from your mobile
  5. mChek gets a million user base – Interview with Sanjay Swamy

May 30, 2009

Web 3.0 Concepts Explained in Plain English (Presentations)

Filed under: Misc — Tags: , , , , , , — jeetu @ 4:57 am

Posted at Digital Inspiration Technology Blog

by Amit Agarwal

This slide neatly sums up the main differences between Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0.

web 3.0 vs web 2.0

Web 1.0 – That Geocities & Hotmail era was all about read-only content and static HTML websites. People preferred navigating the web through link directories of Yahoo! and dmoz.

Web 2.0 – This is about user-generated content and the read-write web. People are consuming as well as contributing information through blogs or sites like Flickr, YouTube, Digg, etc. The line dividing a consumer and content publisher is increasingly getting blurred in the Web 2.0 era.

Web 3.0 – This will be about semantic web (or the meaning of data), personalization (e.g. iGoogle), intelligent search and behavioral advertising among other things.

If that sounds confusing, check out some of these excellent presentations that help you understand Web 3.0 in simple English. Each takes a different approach to explain Web 3.0 and the last presentation uses an example of a “postage stamp” to explain the “semantic web”.

Web 3.0 Concepts Explained in Plain English (Presentations) – Published at Digital Inspiration (RSS)

Shared Items – May 30, 2009

Filed under: shared — admin @ 2:37 am

Shared Items – May 30, 2009

Filed under: shared — admin @ 2:37 am
May 29, 2009

Recommendation gadgets for Google Friend Connect, similar to Amazon Page recommender widget?

Filed under: Misc — jeetu @ 12:28 pm

Posted at Social Web Blog

You spend a lot of time creating great content for your site, but are you ever curious about which parts of your website your community likes best? Now you and your visitors can easily find out with the new Recommendation gadgets for Google Friend Connect.


Members can recommend the content they like, anything from a whole page to a single photo, by simply clicking a button. Then you and anyone who visits your site can see what parts of your site are the most popular. The items with the most votes will surface to the top of the list, making it easier for others to find even if it’s buried deep within your site. You can even see which members have recommended a given item and learn more about them.

To learn more about the recommendation gadgets, check out this sample site or watch the video below:

May 28, 2009

Building Your Team Pre-Financing

Filed under: Misc — Tags: — jeetu @ 5:15 pm

Posted at ReadWriteWeb

by Bernard Lunn

This is one post/chapter in a serialized book called Startup 101. For the introduction and table of contents, please click here.

In our 10 Things to Be Clear About Before You Start, we suggested that you decide whether to build a team of partners or fly solo. If you have decided to build a team of partners, even a small team of two, you’ll need to also decide how this partnership will work. Your only currency will be equity in a company that has not been formed and a venture/Web service that is no more than a gleam in the eye.

Sponsor

Create a Small, Balanced Team

Here is the advice of Naval Ravikant, serial entrepreneur and angel investor. His advice is directed at other angel investors, but that is a good context in which to look at this as an entrepreneur:

  • “Invest in teams of two to three founders. Five is unstable, one is too hard.
  • The best combination is one founder who can sell and one founder who can build.
  • The team matters more in enterprise deals, traction matters more in consumer deals”

There is a reason why people talk about “putting the band together” and “rock stars” in this context. Solo artists can do great (think Bob Dylan), and when they get some success, they can bring in session musicians (contractors). But the history of pop music is more about the great combos: Lennon and McCartney, Simon and Garfunkel, Jagger and Richards. Those bands may have had four people in them, and the other two members in each may have been talented and driven, but it was clear who the stars were.

One Leader Might Emerge

But business is different from music. A great band like the Rolling Stones ends up becoming a corporation, but the skill-sets are different. Typically in a business, one founder emerges as the leader and CEO. Think Bill Gates rather than Paul Allen.

There are instances of two partners staying together and really building a big business together. Hewlett and Packard are great examples of this. But this is unusual because it does not fit the need of a company to have a CEO/leader who is recognized as such by employees, customers, and investors.

This is why drawing up some kind of buy/sell agreement is a good idea. You don’t even need a lawyer. Download the terms from the Internet. As long as the terms are mutual, nobody will get screwed. The buy/sell agreement simply acknowledges the fact that people change: their needs and motivations change. You might be the one who wants to get out of the partnership and move on. Or you might be the one who buys your partner out. Either should be possible.

But don’t get too hung up on the buy/sell agreement. Plenty of founding partners cross that bridge when they get to it. It is a bit messier doing it that way, but something can usually be worked out.

Dividing Up Something that Does Not Exist

We’ll cover the basics of creating a legal entity in a later chapter. Most ventures start without being incorporated. You may have heard legendary stories of founders getting a check from an angel first and then having to set up a company and create a bank account.

If the founding team is of two people, it’s pretty simple. If you have three or more, you will need to define the founders’ agreement one way or another. Here are four options:

  1. Purely verbal. “We’re all buddies and understand each other, right?”
  2. Each of you hires a lawyer and lets them hammer away at each other on your nickel. Hm, now where’s that nickel?
  3. Document what you have verbally agreed on via email exchanges, and the next time you’re all together, print it out and sign it.
  4. Download a legal template, put in the terms you have agreed on, and sign it, possibly after getting one hour of legal advice from a buddy at law school.

Somewhere between three and four partners is recommended. Even buddies can misunderstand each other. When there is nothing to fight over, there are no fights. But when it looks like the venture might take off, greed sometimes kicks in, and one founder develops a case of “selective amnesia” regarding something that was verbally agreed on. Even an email record prevents that danger.

The reason to be careful about the legal agreement between the founders is that it helps with the next stage of your startup: bringing in external investors.

Get Your Due Diligence Ducks in a Row

The earliest-stage investor will be looking at just the team and the website. That’s it. If your site sucks, sorry. If one of you has a criminal record, whoops. In other words, due diligence (the step after the term sheet and before the contract and cash in bank) is simple.

There is one show-stopper you want to avoid. Anybody who has worked on the website or helped with the venture in any way should sign something that acknowledges the venture’s Intellectual Property (IP). If someone comes out of the woodwork and says, “They stole that from me,” most investors will be scared off.

You can and should do this even before you form a legal entity. You simply want what in the old days was called a “paper trail,” and is now an “email trail,” which records what was agreed on. This trail could include:

  • The two to three founders saying that each of them owns X amount of Newco (your to-be-established company) and assigning all of their IP related to this venture to Newco.
  • A buddy who writes some super code just because they’re a friend confirms that they have no financial expectation and assigns all of their IP related to this venture to Newco.
  • Somebody who provides a service in return for equity and assigns all of their IP related to this venture to Newco.

Paying with Equity

You may not be able to pay in cash for the things you need done. So, you could agree to pay in equity. Don’t do this as a percentage. Use a formula along these lines:

  1. What cash rate would this person normally charge? Check that this is normal for the market.
  2. Agree to pay twice that amount in equity. The doubling is to cover the risk that they never see anything.
  3. Convert the cash into equity at the valuation of the first round.

Don’t treat this person or vendor like an investor or partner. They are not. They do not know how to evaluate the venture, so don’t waste your time trying. They are a vendor whose payment is being deferred. KISS.

Note: a long-term adviser is a special case that we’ll deal with in the next chapter.

Vesting

This comes down to the actual term sheet with the first investor(s), which is covered in a later chapter. But this item is worth considering at the beginning. When somebody invests in a founding team, they invest in the work that the team will do in future. So they want to invest your founding shares over time.

You can haggle about vesting some founding shares from the start if you have already built a lot and gotten some traction. But this is really “at the margin.” Don’t obsess over it.

You also need this protection with your partners. Say you have a team of three founding partners, each with 33% of founders’ stock. You don’t want one of them to leave just after funding comes from another venture, or to go off to play music, or whatever. All three of you need that same protection. Build your own partner vesting schedule, typically four years, and present this to the investor(s). They will appreciate that you have thought this through and that your interests are aligned.

Discuss

05/27/09 PHD comic: ‘OMG! ROTFL!!’

Filed under: Misc — jeetu @ 6:56 am

Posted at PHD Comics

Piled Higher
& Deeper
by Jorge
Cham
www.phdcomics.com
title:
“OMG! ROTFL!!” – originally published
5/27/2009

For the latest news in PHD Comics, CLICK HERE!

Shared Items – May 28, 2009

Filed under: shared — admin @ 12:20 am
May 27, 2009

Amazon Meet SAP – SAP Meet Amazon!

Filed under: Misc — jeetu @ 6:31 pm

Amazon Meet SAP – SAP Meet Amazon!

Only the biggest companies with the biggest IT budgets use SAP and they use it to run their businesses, both internal and customer facing. SAP supports a wide range of client protocols, from HTML to Flex to Adobe Interactive Forms, but the core UI is still the venerable SAPGUI for Windows, now at version 7.10. Until now, CapCal has only supported HTML and Flex, but going into beta this week is CapCal for SAPGUI, which of course means CapCal for SAPGUI on the Amazon Cloud (another first in case anyone is counting).

Many SAP customers have thousands of employees and hundreds of thousands if not millions of customers themselves. So let’s say a company has 30,000 employees and all of them have access to one or more SAP applications (HR, sales orders, invoices, inventory, etc). How do they know when they implement a new patch or upgrade that their performance or scalability was not impacted?

They don’t, except for running relatively small load tests in the lab on a single server with a tool like HP LoadRunner. Ask HP what it would cost to do a single 30,000 user load test with the SAP protocol and let me know what they say, will you?

If the answer is less than $100,000 I will be very surprised, plus the number of computers that the LoadRunner agent would have to be installed on would be somewhere between 200 and 300. So just the prep work and setup could take a week or two if not more. As far as I know, nothing above 2,000 simultaneous users has ever been done – PLEASE correct me if I am wrong! That in itself would take 20 to 30 computers at least.

The CapCal Blog now has a sister edition on the SAP Developer Network and we’ll be posting the links here on the main blog as well. So please check back for the latest on CapCal Cloudburst for SAP!

OpenSocial’s Failed Promise: Only 0.7% of Apps Have Crossed Networks (Updated)

Filed under: Misc — Tags: — jeetu @ 3:03 pm

Posted at ReadWriteWeb

by Marshall Kirkpatrick

When the Google-led OpenSocial campaign launched in October 2007 it aimed to give developers a common environment that application publishers could publish widgets to with one set of code, deployable across Google sites, MySpace, Hi5 and numerous other social networks.

A directory of OpenSocial Apps launched today and the reality is even further from that goal than we expected. Out of 12,456 apps listed, only 83 are running on two or more “containers.” That’s 0.7% or one out of every 1500. Update: See this reply below from Google’s Kevin Marks. Marks says that cross-network presence was counted manually and is actually larger than it appears in the directory.

Sponsor

opensocialdirector.jpg

OpenSocial was intended to help everyone else keep up with the huge success of the Facebook platform. If there’s one clear market leader, everyone else has a common interest in creating a standard that will help scale the market opportunity on their platforms vs. what Facebook can offer. It hasn’t worked out that way, though.

Outside observers hoped that OpenSocial would allow for user data to be transmitted from one site to another. People thought this was the coming of Data Portability, though OpenSocial advocates quickly said that wasn’t the intent. It was just for apps to port, not user data. There is a lot of innovation going on in OpenSocial – it’s a shame the platform isn’t better appreciated.

Below: I discuss OpenSocial in March of last year on G4TV, forced to break the host’s heart about data portability!

Why hasn’t cross-network development happened though? There are a few theories. The most common is that though there is a common bed of code across all the different social network containers, each of them is also tweaked just enough that it’s not that easy to “write once.” When that became apparent, OpenSocial advocates started saying that the standard still made it a lot easier to develop for multiple networks. So if not “write once, deploy everywhere” then perhaps it was “write once and then take a lot less time to write for elsewhere than you’d have to otherwise.”

Clearly developers haven’t taken advantage of that opportunity.

Google’s Kevin Marks, one of the leading public faces for OpenSocial, told us today that there are serious cultural differences between the networks and that this could help explain why there hasn’t been more cross pollination. One look through the directory makes it clear though that while the countless “hot bikini girl” apps may not translate from MySpace to LinkedIn well, all the other networks have their own isolated versions of many of the same insipid apps.

The most viable explanation could be that Facebook is in fact the only game in town for the most sophisticated developers. That’s a real shame, because it’s never good for innovation for there to be only one game in town.

Discuss

Older Posts »