U2 can be in Facebook

From The Register.

Elevation Partners, the private equity firm backed by bad-backed U2 frontman Bono, has stumped up $120m for just over 0.5 per cent of Facebook.

The deal values the dominant social network at $23bn, and takes Elevation Partners' total stake to 1.5 per cent, having invested $90m at a $9bn valuation last year.

Reports earlier this month claimed Facebook's sales were between $700m and $800m last year, so Bono and friends reckon it's worth about 29 times revenue at the moment. Which is a lot.

The widely-held assumption is that Facebook aims to IPO in the next couple of years, when Elevation Partners and the other private interests who have paid its running costs since 2004 will cash in.

Bono's fund could use a hit. It sank hundreds of millions into Palm's attempted revival, which ended in a fire sale to HP this year…

Sailing by

We come to the North Norfolk coast a lot, for the very good reasons that it’s beautiful, peaceful and within 75 minutes’ drive of where we live. But yesterday morning, bending down to pick up my walking boots prior to setting off, I pulled a muscle in my back and wound up hobbling around with a walking stick. It happens occasionally — often when packing to go on holiday (so I ought to be alert to it by now) — so I just take painkillers, keep moving and wait for it to go away. Which it usually does in about three days.

What it meant, though, was that the long walk we had planned from Burnham Overy Staithe out to the sea wasn’t feasible. But we went there anyway and parked on the Staithe, thinking that we could always read the newspapers and take the air. In the event, I read nothing, but spent a fascinating few hours watching the English merchant-banking classes at play.

It was a truly glorious evening, with a fresh breeze and a cloudless sky. The tide was nearly full when we arrived, and the Staithe, which until then had been mostly slumbering in the sun, had begun to swarm with seafaring (or at any rate dinghy-sailing) life. It was mainly families and kids, wheeling dinghies down to the water, setting up masts and sails, chattering and shouting (and sometimes bickering) before pushing off for an evening’s sailing. Watching the kids reminded me that this is where Horatio Nelson — who was born a few miles away — learned to sail a dinghy at the age of 10.

I once took a dinghy-sailing course, so I know what a deceptively difficult art it is to harness the wind to propel such a flimsy craft in a desired direction. I was hopeless at it, which meant that I was able to view the scene with a sympathetic but marginally informed eye. Some of the solo sailors were wonderful to watch — intuitively coaxing the last ft-lb of thrust from the wind, pushing their tiny craft to the edge of capsizing, leaning far out and waiting until the last possible moment before coming about. There’s a marvellous rhythm to expert dinghy-sailing, but it’s entirely intuitive — which is why it’s probably best learned at the age of ten rather than at the age of 50 (as in my case).

To reach the sea — or even Brancaster Harbour — from Burnham Overy Staithe you have to sail up the creek. For a dinghy sailor this means not just tacking to and fro across a narrow winding stretch of water, but also zig-zagging round the larger boats that are moored to buoys in the creek. And dodging incoming boats as well. So, as the creek filled up with more and more sailors anxious to catch an evening’s sailing, the opportunities for ignominious collisions increased dramatically.

And yet, there were surprisingly few mishaps. One pair of chaps in their mid-twenties were clearly not up to the challenge posed by their gleaming new Laser dinghy, and suffered a humiliating capsize or two. Later, we saw them being towed back to base by an obliging chap in a big, old-fashioned fishing boat. A middle-aged couple — she portly and confidently bossy in a classic English upper-middle-class way; he tall and thin with a military bearing and the kind of moustache one only used to see in the Blues and Royals — bickered noisily as they endeavoured to rig out their ancient boat; eventually the husband pushed the boat out and left his wife to it. She turned out to be a modestly competent sailor and disappeared from view.

Gradually, the creek quietened as the flotilla made its way to the sea. In the distance one could see upwards of a dozen white or red triangles sailing back and forth round the harbour. In a couple of hours they would be back and the Staithe would be busy again — with tired and hungry children, and sailors who’d had the kind of enjoyment they dream about in the long winter evenings. But for us it was time for supper: we were booked in at the hotel for 8pm. As we drove away I reflected that while we might not have had the walk that we had planned this morning, we had been reminded of the value of simple pleasures: the sound a boat makes as it cuts through the water with nothing to propel it other than the wind; the satisfaction of feeling the sheet tauten as the sail fills; and the beauty of this strange, flat, unforgettable place where Nelson learned to sail.

Open data and the live tube map

This morning’s Observer column.

For me, the most arresting image of the week was not the photograph of General Stanley McChrystal, looking drawn and ascetic in combat fatigues, en route to his dismissal by his commander-in-chief, but a map of central London showing the underground system. On each line can be seen little yellow blobs. Blink and you discover that each blob has moved a fraction. You can see it for yourself at traintimes.org.uk:81/map/tube/.

The yellow blobs are, of course, tube trains. The fact that they're moving across the map indicates that this is, as near as dammit, real-time information about their positions on the network. And it's public data: you can sit at your computer in San Francisco or Accra and know how the trains on the Central line are doing just now.

How you react to this provides a litmus test for determining where you are on the technology spectrum…

Lunching out

On two consecutive days this week I was working in London. On one of them I followed in the footsteps of Phileas Fogg (and indeed of Trollope’s hero Phineas Finn) and lunched at the Reform Club in Pall Mall. I was there as the guest of an historian friend, an American academic who uses the club as his London base when he’s in England. I wore my Garrick tie in the hope that it might annoy the Head Porter, but of course he was alert to the trick and allowed not a flicker of contempt to cloud his features.

The Reform is a palatial building, allegedly modelled on the Farnese Palace in Rome. Unlike many clubs, it has a lovely garden, with large, stately trees under which we sat having a drink before lunch, marvelling at the existence of such a peaceful oasis right in the heart of a major city. But then being an oasis was always part of the ‘gentleman’s club’ ethos. These places were designed as (male) refuges from women and real life. In Miss Potter, the biopic of Beatrix Potter’s life, for example, it’s to the Reform that her (independently wealthy) father repairs every day instead of going to his office.

Somebody told me once that the main qualification for being elected to the club was that one accepted the principles of the 1832 Reform Act — the statute that gave political representation to the cities that had sprung up during the Industrial Revolution and extended the franchise to about one in six adult males. Not exactly a demanding requirement. It was one of the first of the Pall Mall clubs to admit women as members. On my last visit, some years ago, I looked at the ‘new members’ list as I was going in and discovered that Mrs Stella Rimington, then the boss of MI5, had just been elected. When researching a New Statesman profile in 1972, I sought an interview with Lord Balogh, who had been Harold Wilson’s Economic Adviser in the 1960s. Balogh insisted on the interview being conducted in the Reform, but omitted to offer any refreshment.

The Reform is also famous for a recipe — Lamb Cutlets Reform.

We had lamb, needless to say. And as I munched contentedly I remembered a line from P.G. Wodehouse. “To attract attention in the dining room of the Senior Conservative Club between the hours of one and two-thirty”, he wrote in Something Fresh, “you have to be a mutton-chop, not an Earl”.

The Quagmire

Hindsight, they say, is the only exact science. The trouble is that we need it now. The news that Obama had fired General McChrystal while keeping the policy that the general was trying to implement sent me scurrying to locate my copy of Barbara Tuchman’s March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. Why? Because it reviews the story of the US’s adventure in Vietnam with the benefit of hindsight, and in the process makes plain the futility and stupidity of the enterprise. And I’m thinking that US policy in Afghanistan has all the same hallmarks, and yet we’re locked into the doomed enterprise much as Lyndon Johnson was in the 1960s.

One comparison in particular strikes me. Tuchman points out that the more enfeebled, corrupt and incompetent the regime in South Vietnam became, the more influence it exerted on its superpower patron. Spool forward to Afghanistan and we have the Karzai administration — corrupt, incompetent and feeble — more or less holding the US government to ransom. Karzai stole the presidential election, and yet was endorsed by Obama and Gordon Brown. There are 100,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan fighting what they all recognise as a futile, unwinnable war. A steady stream of bodybags returns to the US and to RAF Brize Norton ever week (1,000 to the US, 300 to the UK) We have a fresh, new administration in Britain which is cheerily engaged in a root-and-branch examination of public spending, and yet there’s not a hint that an adventure that must be costing £100 million a week should be re-assessed. Instead David Cameron goes to Afghanistan, is photographed with Karzai and solemnly restates his administration’s resolute commitment to the whole doomed charade. And back in London almost nobody (except for the columnist Simon Jenkins) seems willing to ask the question that needs to be asked: what the f*** are we doing there?

But it was the same in the 1960s. There were a few voices in Washington who asked awkward questions, but in the main there was no public debate about the wisdom — never mind the ethics or the feasability — of the war in Southeast Asia. And so the killing continued until — eventually — the US bowed to the inevitable and scuttled.

Now Obama has fired a general but kept the war. Worse still, he has appointed a successor to McChrystal who, like General Westmoreland in Vietnam, is going to prolong the US commitment indefinitely. Andrew Sullivan has a wonderful column this week about the implications of appointing General Petraeus, “the real Pope of counter-insurgency”, to lead the war in Afghanistan. Here’s a sample:

Obama’s gamble on somehow turning the vast expanse of that ungovernable “nation” into a stable polity dedicated to fighting Jihadist terror is now as big as Bush’s in Iraq – and as quixotic. It is also, in my view, as irrational a deployment of resources and young lives that America cannot afford and that cannot succeed. It really is Vietnam – along with the crazier and crazier rationales for continuing it. But it is now re-starting in earnest ten years in, dwarfing Vietnam in scope and longevity.

One suspects there is simply no stopping this war machine, just as there is no stopping the entitlement and spending machine. Perhaps McChrystal would have tried to wind things up by next year – but his frustration was clearly fueled by the growing recognition that he could not do so unless he surrendered much of the country to the Taliban again. So now we have the real kool-aid drinker, Petraeus, who will refuse to concede the impossibility of success in Afghanistan just as he still retains the absurd notion that the surge in Iraq somehow worked in reconciling the sectarian divides that still prevent Iraq from having a working government. I find this doubling down in Afghanistan as Iraq itself threatens to spiral out of control the kind of reasoning that only Washington can approve of.

This much we also know: Obama will run for re-election with far more troops in Afghanistan than Bush ever had – and a war and occupation stretching for ever into the future, with no realistic chance of success. Make no mistake: this is an imperialism of self-defense, a commitment to civilize even the least tractable culture on earth because Americans are too afraid of the consequences of withdrawal. And its deepest irony is that continuing this struggle will actually increase and multiply the terror threats we face – as it becomes once again a recruitment tool for Jihadists the world over.

This is a war based on fear, premised on a contradiction, and doomed to carry on against reason and resources for the rest of our lives.

All of which seems to me to be spot on. We don’t need to wait for hindsight to realise the absurdity of what we’ve got ourselves into. The Americans will have to answer for themselves. But the UK is — theoretically — still a sovereign state: so why isn’t there a serious debate about it here? Now.

App Creep and the case for the mobile browser

The problem with Apps (well, one problem with Apps) is that they’re largely impulse-buy items. The result is predictable: you wind up with having to wade through screen after screen until you find the one you want. And in doing so you pass lots that you don’t use much — or haven’t actually used at all. Hence the new syndrome: Apps creep. Kevin Kelleher has written a thoughtful piece about this.

By app creep, I mean the collecting (and then forgetting) of software programs. It isn’t new. But on mobile phones, the less popular apps are more visible, even a nuisance –- you frequently flip past pages of them searching for the one you need. It’s less of a problem on laptops and desktops, in part, because of the centrality of the web browsers on those devices. On a smartphone, I use a browser well less than a quarter of the time. But sooner than later, that will change, because as more and more companies offer services on the mobile web, the mobile browser will play a bigger role. Thanks to the advent of HTML5, browsers and apps will learn to live with each other.

In the meantime, while there may be 200,000 apps for the iPhone and 50,000 for Android phones, but iPhone users have on average just 37 apps installed and Android owners, 22, according to the latest figures from Nielsen. Of course, not all apps connect users to the web, but many of those that don’t contain content that can easily be found online.

Eventually, a spot on the home screens of smartphones will become like beachfront property in Monte Carlo –- highly coveted real estate. Most non-elite developers will find it easier to reach a mobile audience through the browser. But for now, the lion’s share of them are ignoring the browser in favor of native apps, which -– unless they’re a featured or best-selling app in an app store -– often languish in obscurity…

Why the YouTube-Viacom ruling is good news

From The Atlantic Wire.

For three years, media and legal observers have been anticipating the outcome of Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit against Google's video site, YouTube. Viacom, which owns MTV, Paramount Pictures and programs such as South Park and The Daily Show, alleged that YouTube willingly exploited its copyrighted content. Google, on the other hand, maintained that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act relieves it from checking user-generated material before it's posted.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton ruled in favor of Google, saying that when YouTube received "specific notice that a particular item infringed a copyright, they swiftly removed it." While Viacom promises to appeal the ruling, its prospects don't look promising. Web enthusiasts and legal experts, meanwhile, are musing about what this means for the Web at large.

At the moment, these views are:

  • The judgment “reinforces the pro-sharing ethos of the Web”
  • It “ensures YouTube’s long-term survival” by easing Google’s caution about where it places ads on the service
  • It “loosens the rules on content-hosting sites”. (Er, except in Italy, perhaps)
  • It represents a major setback for media companies
  • All true. The big story is that while Viacom may be big, Google is bigger. There’s a new 800-lb gorilla on the block.

    General McChrystal: history repeats itself

    Well, well. So the top US General in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington, where his fate hangs in the balance. He should, of course, be fired by Obama. According to an article in Rolling Stone, it seems that McChrystal and his aides spoke critically of nearly every member of the president’s national security team, saying Obama appeared “uncomfortable and intimidated” during his first meeting with the general, and dismissing Vice President Joe Biden as “Bite Me.” Big mistake, as Fabio Capello might say.

    For a long time now, the US president that Obama has most reminded me of is Harry Truman (IMHO the most under-rated president of modern times). He was also faced with an insubordinate general, Douglas MacArthur, and on April 11, 1951 fired him.

    “With deep regret [said the White House statement] I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government and of the United Nations in matters pertaining to his official duties. In view of the specific responsibilities imposed upon me by the Constitution of the United States and the added responsibility which has been entrusted to me by the United Nations, I have decided that I must make a change of command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his commands and have designated Lt. Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway as his successor.

    Full and vigorous debate on matters of national policy is a vital element in the constitutional system of our free democracy. It is fundamental, however, that military commanders must be governed by the policies and directives issued to them in the manner provided by our laws and Constitution. In time of crisis, this consideration is particularly compelling.”

    Later, in an article in Time magazine, Truman wrote:

    “I fired him because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the President. I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.”

    Maybe it’s something about generals with “Mc” (or “Mac”) in their names?

    Pain: illiteracy posing as cant

    As I write, Westminster reporters are wittering mindlessly about the Chancellor’s emergency budget. All the talk is about “pain”, how it’s going to be inflicted and upon whom, and what the reactions to this ‘pain’ will be.

    This is not just cant; it’s also illiterate. The Web version of the Encyclopedia Britannica defines pain as:

    “A complex experience consisting of a physiological (bodily) response to a noxious stimulus followed by an affective (emotional) response to that event. Pain is a warning mechanism that helps to protect an organism by influencing it to withdraw from harmful stimuli. It is primarily associated with injury or the threat of injury, to bodily tissues”.

    The Chancellor may have lots of powers. But the infliction of pain isn’t one of them.