BoomTown » board

Yahoo's Bartz Shuffles the Exec Deck, Filling Audience and Other Top Slot; Is the Board Next for a Makeover?

Kara Swisher — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:00:16 +0000

Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz is making the most substantive changes in her exec ranks since she did a massive restructuring of its staff in late February, according to sources close to the situation.

“She is continuing to clean the place up,” said one top exec about the moves, which are likely to be announced internally tomorrow.

Among the shifts in management will be filling the slot left by the departure of North American Audience head Jeff Dossett in May.

UPDATE: Sources say Yahoo’s head of mobile, David Ko, will get the job of top Audience exec, although it is not clear if he will have the same portfolio has former media heads at Yahoo.

Since Dossett left, his job has been split between Jimmy Pitaro, who runs Vertical Audience Experiences, and Tim Mayer, who is in charge of Search & Social Applications. They both currently report to U.S. EVP Hilary Schneider.

The job of Audience head is a key role, given that Yahoo’s powerful media properties are among its most valuable assets. In recent months, Yahoo has made some major changes in the way it creates its juggernaut News property.

Also to be filled is the job being done by Corporate Partnership SVP Jim Schinella, who, as BoomTown previously reported, is set to leave at the end of the year.

I could not determine who will take Schinella’s job, inside or out.

Interestingly, Yahoo has yet to name an international head.

Sources said the company had filled the position, using a headhunter, but the London-based media exec candidate backed out at the last minute. That meant Yahoo had to restart its search.

There might also be other top exec changes, all part of Bartz’s consolidation of power at Yahoo. She has named a spate of new top execs from outside, but has also kept some from the regime of former CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang.

These staffing moves have come even as a stream of execs continued to depart the Silicon Valley Internet giant, including, most recently, Mike Walrath, who was SVP of advertising strategy. Walrath had led Right Media, the online ad exchange Yahoo bought for $680 million in 2007.

Walrath was widely expected to leave Yahoo in July, at the completion of his earnout from the acquisition, sources said, so the move was more sudden than expected internally.

Sources noted that Bartz moved Walrath’s departure forward in order to announce a new strategy for Right Media focused on premium publishers and to dump those ad networks and publishers of lesser ilk.

Whether this will stop the competitive onslaught in the ad exchange space is an open question given that Google has entered the fray significantly and that Facebook is widely expected to bolster its efforts.

Lastly, several sources said that there are also likely to be more changes on Yahoo’s board, which has seen the departure of two members recently.

In September, Maggie Wilderotter said she would leave the board by year’s end. And former Yahoo nemesis and investor Carl Icahn left the board in late October.

Whether Yahoo will replace them or keep its current size of 10 directors is not clear.

Also possible, several sources said, would be Bartz taking the chairman title, which is currently held by Roy Bostock. Bostock, along with Yang, played a key role in its botched takeover battle with Microsoft (MSFT).

Bartz finally successfully struck a sweeping search and advertising partnership with the software giant this summer, which is moving closer to being launched.

All Is Forgiven: "It's a Clean Slate," Says Andreessen About Lawsuit-Mad Skype Co-Founders

Kara Swisher — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:28:48 +0000

Silicon Valley legend and now VC Marc Andreessen was making the interview rounds after the settlement between the litigation-addled co-founders of Skype and all the various people they were suing was announced this morning.

He has been tight-lipped until now, due to the morass of lawsuits.

But, as Andreessen told BoomTown in a phone interview about the aggressive legal tactics of Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis that resulted in them finally seizing a stake in the Internet telephony giant by suing him and many other Silicon Valley players:

“We did not take it personally. It’s a clean sheet of paper.”

Well, it is actually a torn, stained and very worn out piece of paper, due to all the various machinations, but bygones!

Andreessen–who knows a thing or two about legal tussles, if you recall Netscape-Microsoft (MSFT)–said the real point is that it is time to focus on the business of Skype rather than fighting over who controls Skype.

“It’s really good to have everyone lined up and rowing in the same direction. We have to capitalize on the opportunity, because Skype is poised for a new wave of growth,” said Andreessen. “They have an amazing head of steam, because the logical way for voice and video communications to be conducted will be over the Web.”

Thus, Zennström and Friis now join the winning buyout group, Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, along with eBay, in owning Skype.

But Index Ventures, which was in, is–as Heidi Klum might say–out!

Under the terms of the agreement, Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis will take a 14 percent stake in the company they founded and then sold to eBay (EBAY), which will include an undisclosed investment by them.

I reported yesterday that the total was 13 percent–10 percent for the rights to key Skype technology held by the co-founders and the option to invest $83 million for three percent more.

In exchange, the pair will give Skype software essential to its operation and drop their various lawsuits against eBay and Skype’s buyers.

As for Zennström and Friis’s egregious use of the courts to grab their 14 percent stake in Skype, litigation they waged after losing their bid to buy Skype back from eBay, Andreessen was being very politic.

“We love working with aggressive founders and are in favor of founders being involved in their companies,” he said. “Great founders are not known for being shy and reserved. Look at Bill Gates. It’s not a question of personality, but of accomplishment.”

Noting that he had not worked with the pair before, Andreessen (pictured here) said, “We have a lot of respect for them. We think they’re geniuses.”

But, I queried, would he have used such tactics?

“It’s not a book club, it’s a super-serious, high-stakes game,” said Andreessen. “I don’t know; I’ve not been in the situation they’re in. If your goal in life is to avoid drama, this is probably the wrong industry for you.”

Perhaps, but I told him that I doubted even a battle-hardened entrepreneur like Andreessen would use the courts in such a manner to achieve business goals.

To each his own, said Andreessen!

“One of our investing mottos is that we invest in strength, not lack of weakness,” he said. “The question is how big is the opportunity.”

And, apparently, it is big enough to overlook all the drama that has gone on.

Andreessen said he expects to be more involved at Skype–which, with his $50 million investment, is the biggest deal in his $300 million fund–than other board members, noting different directors have different roles.

It’s a big board of 23, as I had previously reported. Zennström and Friis are each getting a seat.

“We are going to be helpful,” Andreessen said about his fund’s role at Skype. “We’re a company picker, looking for those that have the greatest potential.”

Andreessen, ever the diplomat, made sure to add that that also means doing business with Index, the member of his Skype consortium that departed as Friis and Zennström (pictured here) entered, due to stark tensions between the two sides.

“I have a lot of respect for [Index partners Danny Rimer and Mike Volpi] and expect to work with them a lot in the future,” said Andreessen. “In fact, I am talking to them today about two other deals.”

In other words, in Silicon Valley, the big wheel just keeps on turning.

I Love the Smell of Settlement in the Morning: Skype Founders Set to Get 10 Percent, Option to Buy Three Percent More and Two Board Seats

Kara Swisher — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:38:16 +0000

According to several sources close to the situation, barring any unforeseen delay, a deal to settle the Skype imbroglio is likely to be announced around the time the markets open tomorrow.

[UPDATE: The paperwork is taking longer than expected, so sit tight, said sources.]

While the massive agreement–which will settle three aggressive lawsuits lobbed by Skype co-founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis at a wide range of prominent Silicon Valley players–is not yet officially signed, sources said lawyers are apparently putting the finishing touches on the paperwork and have signature papers completed by both sides to be able to wrap it up quickly.

So, while nothing is ever over until it is over, it looks like it is over.

Sources also said that as part of the deal to end the legal madness, Zennström and Friis will get 10 percent of Skype back for rights to key software technology they control, an option to pay $83 million for another three percent of the Internet telephony service and two seats on the 23-member board.

Also, BoomTown has learned that a partridge in a pear tree will be thrown in to guarantee a lasting peace.

All kidding aside, the settlement is proof that squeaky wheels–especially if they hire the combative litigators of Skadden Arps–get the grease.

As has been previously reported, one of the investors in the consortium that won the bidding to buy 65 percent of Skype from eBay (EBAY)–which itself had bought it in 2005 from Zennström and Friis–has withdrawn its investment and involvement as part of the settlement.

That would be London-based Index Ventures, which was a smaller player in the group with–ironically–a three percent stake.

Nonetheless, Index had an outsized fight going on with Zennström and Friis.

That’s due to their ire, aimed at Index’s Mike Volpi, who was CEO of Joost, the failed online video site the pair founded.

After Zennström and Friis lost their own bid to buy back Skype, they quickly sued Index and Volpi via tech companies they control, Joltid and Joost, in Delaware.

The pair alleged that Volpi used confidential information gleaned from his time as Joost CEO to unfairly help the winning consortium acquire Skype.

The lawsuit was particularly vindictive, using embarrassing emails and making pointed accusations about Volpi plotting all kinds of nefarious schemes, like Lady Macbeth on steroids, on his way out of Joost.

I am not sure what law one can break for wanting to leave a job or how much damage one can do to an already failing business, but that did not stop Zennström and Friis from trying to pin some specious accusations on Volpi.

(I wouldn’t have been surprised if they had accused Volpi of being responsible for Balloon Boy.)

But such legal attacks obviously worked, making Index loath to stay in an economically less attractive deal with lessened influence over Skype.

And eBay and the other investors obviously wanted closure, so they could get on with the work of turbocharging Skype.

The fighting between Index and the Skype founders was just one part of the legal morass.

Zennström and Friis had already been in a battle over software licensing issues with eBay in London courts.

They also filed suit again in California against Skype and eBay for copyright violations.

For good measure, the pair added the winning buyout group, including Index, Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, in that lawsuit.

(In legalese–and in honor of the Yankees winning the World Series tonight–such massive lawsuit-making is called covering all your bases!)

Of course, Volpi and Index fired back in court filings and both sides armed themselves with powerful PR guns.

Presumably, those same mouthpieces–who have been slagging the other side for weeks–will now be at the ready with honeyed tales of reconciliation tomorrow.

Call me cynical, but we’ll see how long that lasts.

“[Zennström and Friis] got what they wanted by using Volpi as a pawn and the lawsuits as a club,” said one person close to the situation. “Everyone is moving on, but not everyone is going to forget what they did to get what they wanted.”

Sphere Leader Has Exited AOL–But Staying on as "Special" Venture Advisor

Kara Swisher — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:30:28 +0000

Tony Conrad, CEO and co-founder of Sphere–the contextually relevant content engine AOL bought in the spring of 2008 for upward of $25 million–left the Time Warner (TWX) online unit last month, several sources have told BoomTown in recent weeks.

But, in an effort by AOL’s CEO Tim Armstrong to hold onto entrepreneurial talent, Conrad (pictured above) has agreed to become “Special Advisor” to its AOL Ventures Unit, headed by Jon Brod.

Conrad, who also works as a partner at San Francisco venture firm True Ventures, is also apparently looking to launch a new start-up.

These many moves have now been confirmed by a blog post–obtained by BoomTown–set to be published by Conrad at Sphere, which has recently changed its name to Surphace (a goofy moniker that still makes me weep, and not for joy).

Titled, “Next,” the post will also be appearing on the True Ventures site.

In it, Conrad outlined the changes and also gave big thanks all around.

You can read the whole thing below. In the post, Conrad noted that “I also find myself with a burning need to start another company…[and] I’ve decided that I need to move on from Sphere to figure it out.”

Sphere was founded in 2005 and raised about $4.25 million from many investors, some of which included Radar Partners, Trident Capital and well-known Web players Scott Kurnit and Will Hearst.

Conrad, who was involved with Webmail and RSS aggregator Oddpost (acquired by Yahoo in 2004), is also on the board of Automattic/WordPress, the blog publishing system this site uses.

This kind of history gives him a lot of Silicon Valley cred to help AOL, which also recently hired former Yahoo (YHOO) exec Brad Garlinghouse to run its communications arm and be its “CEO of Silicon Valley.”

Both will be working with Brod, who came to AOL via its acquisition of hyperlocal community news start-up Patch Media.

Brod has previously worked closely with Armstrong, who was a major Patch investor.

All these players will have their hands full trying to push AOL’s reputation among entrepreneurs, which is–how can I put it delicately?–pretty nonexistent.

But boosting innovation will be key to success as AOL prepares to spin off from Time Warner later in the year.

And that was not exactly helped by its recently released slate of board picks, who are a little light on fast-paced, Web 2.0 entrepreneurial skills.

So, keeping someone like Conrad in the AOL tent is a good move, especially since several similar execs at start-ups bought by the online giant have left.

They include Michael Jones of Userplane, who is now COO of News Corp. (NWS) social networking unit MySpace, as well as many others.

Here is a video interview I did with Conrad in mid-2007 (which also includes a visit with GigaOm’s Om Malik):

[ See post to watch video ]

And here is Conrad’s blog post:

Next

It’s been almost five years since Martin Remy, Steve Neiker, Toni Schneider and I started working on Sphere. For me, it’s around 10% of a life. And it’s a time when I find myself thinking a lot about a particular question: What do I want to do next?

In 2005, I had the good fortune of being on the founding team of Sphere and joining True Ventures simultaneously. I always thought that I’d eventually focus all of my attention on one or the other, but both were too much fun and I guess I’m selfish in that way. As time passed, I went deeper into each role and I never got around to choosing one or the other. It worked out nicely. True is on its second fund and Sphere had a successful sale to AOL in 2008. Most importantly, Sphere’s business and team are both thriving within AOL. While I’m proud of my contributions to both, the heroes in this equation are Martin, Steve, Toni, Shea DiDonna, Braughm Ricke, Om Malik, Puneet Agarwal, John Burke, Phil Black, Jon Callaghan, Marty Moe, Bill Wilson and AOL–they trusted and empowered me to pursue both. I am extremely grateful.

As I’ve thought through the question of what’s next, I’ve realized that I love the complementary perspectives acquired from building a company as an entrepreneur and investor. They are symbiotic roles and it’s really hard to say which has influenced me more. While my role at True as a Venture Partner will continue to deepen (because there is nothing more rewarding than working with people you admire and trust), I also find myself with a burning need to start another company. I’ve discovered my formula and doing both makes me happiest.

As for my next company, I’m not sure what the answer to that question is, but I’ve decided that I need to move on from Sphere (now Surphace) to figure it out. This may feel like old news as I’ve been working to make myself obsolete as Josh Guttman transitioned into the CEO role. My decision is easy as I know that Surphace is in excellent hands. I wouldn’t feel comfortable leaving if I didn’t believe that Josh was the right leader for the business today. He’s a natural leader and has a strategy for the future that I believe is going to accelerate growth for Surphace and AOL. I couldn’t be more pleased for Josh and excited for the Surphace team.

As for my thoughts about Surphace and AOL’s future, I’m more optimistic than ever. We joined AOL at an opportune time. AOL is doing what great, sustainable businesses do every so often – they’re reinventing themselves. As the business model of the oldest and one of the biggest Internet businesses evolves, Sphere/Surphace has become an important piece of their strategy to reach across and engage the web. In the past year, we’ve had an insiders’ view into how AOL’s new leadership team has moved aggressively to engage their audience (new vertical focused websites; a focus on engagement and not page-views for page-views sake; hiring leading journalistic talent when others downsized; acquisitions in the local content space; shorter development cycles with an emphasis on release, iterate and release). There is nothing like winning and the AOL publishing business is winning. As a result, I’m pleased to also announce that I’ve agreed to serve as a Special Advisor to AOL Ventures as they reinvent themselves. I am thrilled at this opportunity to evolve my relationship.

I want to give a huge thanks to the people who’ve made the last few years what they were: my family tops the list, an entrepreneur is only as good as their support system and this is my secret sauce. My co-founders, Martin and Steve, who trusted me to play a role in helping them get the tech they invented the exposure it deserved. Toni and Phil who taught me about generosity at a moment when I was able to learn. Matt Mullenweg who opened up my thinking of how a start-up operates. Marty and Bill who have been consistently supportive since Day One–I can’t underscore enough how much I appreciate the manner in which they’ve empowered us to thrive in an appropriately independent environment. They have treated me (and the Sphere team) with enormous respect for which I am both thankful and flattered. The original Sphere team, the current Surphace team who have embraced AOL. Our investors and advisors who supported and helped shape our vision. The True team and entrepreneurs who have taught me about sacrifice, vision, execution and the value of pursuing your dreams–and, of course, Lewis Dvorkin, Kevin Lockland and Bill who paid us the nicest compliment of all in offering to acquire our company and then doing so.

It’s been a thrilling, at times difficult, always rewarding and lucky ride I’ve been on. Thanks to all.

Not With a Bang, but a Whimper: Icahn Leaves Yahoo Board (Plus His Entire Letter)

Kara Swisher — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:00:00 +0000

Carl Icahn, the activist billionaire investor who made such a noisy fuss in his quest to force management and other changes at Yahoo, is taking a much quieter leave from the Internet giant’s board.

He apparently has told the Yahoo (YHOO) board that “there was not a need at this time for an activist investor” and that he has a lot of other companies he invests in to focus on.

That’s true, of course, given a spate of troubled investments that Icahn is dealing with.

But here’s BoomTown’s quickie analysis: Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz completely ignores him.

In fact, Bartz often has gone out of her way to take little gibes at Icahn since she got the top job in January, whether it’s to say he called her too much or that he could try to fire her if he did not like the job she was doing.

For example, she just dissed him publicly in a piece in Forbes, tossing off a saucy insult:

“Icahn is just another shareholder. What’s he going to do, fire me?”

But Yahoo was cordial to Icahn as he departed, even if a lot of people at the company who had battled him were likely thinking: “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!”

“Carl has been an important member of our Board and has helped us through some significant transitions,” said the Yahoo statement. We are all grateful for his active role shaping the future of Yahoo! and wish him well in all his endeavors.”

Icahn in the second board member to leave under Bartz’s tenure.

Frontier Communications (FTR) CEO Maggie Wilderotter announced in late September that she was stepping down from the board by year’s end.

It will be interesting to see who–if anyone–will comes on board as a director and, of course, if there are more departures. After the departures of Wilderotter and Icahn, there will be 10 directors.

(Here is BoomTown’s No. 1 pick still in that regard.)

In taking his leave, Icahn praised the recent search and online advertising deal Bartz struck with Microsoft (MSFT), noting that it will “provide great long-term benefits, the potential of which many still do not understand.”

Nice final toss to try to spike the stock, Carl! But the MicroHoo deal, which has yet to be approved by regulators, was likely cold comfort for him.

Icahn sank large sums of money in Yahoo with hopes of a big score via the hostile takeover attempt by Microsoft at a price upward of $30 a share.

After that deal tanked, Icahn has seen his stake decline in value.

He sold 16 percent of his Yahoo shares in late August, leaving him with a 4.5 percent stake, or about 63 million shares.

It is also not clear today if Icahn intends to unload more of the stock.

In 2008, he couldn’t buy enough, scooping up the stock at much higher prices.

After mounting a proxy fight–including the lobbing of a series of poison-pen letters–against former CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang and his management team, Icahn got board seats for himself and two others (John Chapple and Frank Biondi) in July of 2008.

As Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski put it perfectly then:

“Having so persuasively argued that Carl Icahn is a doddering Luddite with no articulated plan for Yahoo other than the company’s sale to Microsoft, Yahoo has taken the logical next step and appointed the activist shareholder to its board of directors.”

At the time of the fighting, Yahoo used a quote from Icahn to insult him: “It’s hard to understand these technology companies.”

In a way, that is a pretty accurate description of Icahn’s long wrangle with the Silicon Valley icon.

And, while some might not agree with my take, this is the way the Yahoo world ends for Icahn: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Here is Icahn’s entire letter to the Yahoo board:

To the Yahoo! Board of Directors:

I am hereby tendering my resignation as a director of Yahoo! to take effect immediately.

When I joined the Board, the company was in a state of turmoil. In the period since then, we have all worked together to achieve much for the Company, most notably bringing Carol on to be the CEO and then consummating the search deal with Microsoft. I am proud to have played a role in both these decisions. Carol is doing a great job and I believe the Microsoft transaction will provide great long term benefits, the potential of which many still do not understand.

I don’t believe that it is necessary at this time to have an activist on the Board of Yahoo! and currently, my attention is focused on other matters. As a result, I do not presently have the time that is necessary to devote to the business and affairs of Yahoo! required if a board member is to fulfill his fiduciary duties to the shareholders

Again, I want to thank the members of the Board for acting so responsibly during my tenure. I look forward to maintaining my relationship with each of you.

Sincerely,

Carl Icahn

Yahoo Loses Board Member: Wilderotter to Resign

Kara Swisher — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:12:12 +0000

Maggie Wilderotter, a Yahoo director who was once under consideration to be its CEO, has told the company she intends to resign from the board at the end of the year.

She has served on the Yahoo (YHOO) board since mid-2007, during its most tumultuous period ever.

Wilderotter (pictured here)–whom BoomTown just had a lovely chat with at a conference–is CEO of Frontier Communications (FTR), a large telecom services company.

She is also a former Microsoft (MSFT) exec, has been president and CEO of Wink Communications and has held a number of jobs at AT&T (T).

Said Yahoo in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

“On September 23, 2009, Mrs. Maggie Wilderotter notified Yahoo! Inc. (the “Company”) that she intends to resign from the Company’s Board of Directors on December 31, 2009. Mrs. Wilderotter is resigning to focus more on other responsibilities and not due to any disagreement with the Company on any matter related to the Company’s operations, policies or practices.”

Hmm, interesting that they had to underscore that!

(Also, I could think of a lot less worthy Yahoo board members than the talented Wilderotter who should be going.)

Wilderotter’s departure means Yahoo will only have one women on the board of the Silicon Valley Internet giant–CEO Carol Bartz.

AOL Readies Board Picks for Spinoff–While Holding Off Search Suitors (Plus, BoomTown Director Choices!)

Kara Swisher — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:01:35 +0000

According to sources close to the situation, AOL has been busy selecting the board for the company, which is still set to spin itself off by year’s end–even as it slows down a decision on a new search deal with either current partner Google or a more emboldened Microsoft.

AOL is using Spencer Stuart in the search for directors, led by well-known headhunter Jim Citrin, sources said, and the company has already settled on several outside candidates.

The final board is likely to have about 10 members, and up to a dozen.

At least one of those seats will go to CEO Tim Armstrong, with one or two more claimed by its current corporate owner, Time Warner (TWX).

AOL and Time Warner made their own wish list of potential directors earlier this year, but some people are also lobbying the company to join the board.

BoomTown is working on discovering all those names, but sources added that the candidates being looked at are a mix of personalities culled from the media, advertising and Web worlds.

Among the key attributes: More presumably fast-forward and innovative Silicon Valley types that can help burnish AOL’s tarnished tech cred.

Here are some of my picks:

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Guitar Hero CEO Dan Rosensweig, WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg (actually, AOL should buy the start-up), eBay (EBAY) CEO John Donahoe, LinkedIn Chairman Reid Hoffman or CEO Jeff Weiner, Juniper Networks (JNPR) CEO Kevin Johnson, Netflix (NFLX) CEO Reed Hastings, and former AOL iconic exec Ted Leonsis.

And, just for fun, News Corp. (NWS) digital don (and ousted former AOL head) Jon Miller or former Yahoo President Sue Decker.

(I might also add former AOL exec, Netscape co-founder and all-around entrepreneur Marc Andreessen, but if he joins another tech/Web board, he is going to get splinters.)

That’s because Armstrong has set a strategy centered around the turbocharging of online content, powered by a more flexible platform and paid for by goosing AOL’s graphical advertising business.

This puts the online icon–once a powerhouse and now not so much, having operated inside Time Warner since its merger early in this decade–in more serious competition with Yahoo (YHOO).

Yahoo now dominates content on the Web, with powerful news, sports and finance sites, and has recently been trying to reinvigorate its brand. This week, it launched a new marketing campaign with the motto, “It’s Y!ou.”

Yahoo also recently struck a search technology and advertising partnership with Microsoft (MSFT), which has now aimed its efforts at AOL.

According to sources, Microsoft execs have been aggressively courting AOL to switch its search business from Google (GOOG).

The search behemoth has long been AOL’s partner in what sources at both companies said has been a productive and lucrative relationship.

Armstrong is also a former top exec at Google, which many at the company hope will further cement its chances.

And while the renewal of that deal does not officially need to be struck until late next year, sources add that Google has already prepared and offered what it considers an attractive new deal for AOL.

But, much to Google’s chagrin, with a focus on the spinoff and preparations for some more cost-cutting in the months ahead, AOL has decided not to accept it yet and is not likely to anytime soon.

While hedging the situation in a recent video interview with MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka, Armstrong has also recently met with Microsoft execs, sources said, who have discussed a number of partnership options with him, including a tighter relationship with its MSN content properties.

“There’s no need to rush, especially since there is already a lot on AOL’s plate,” said one source close to the situation. “And, since it has options, AOL is going to take time considering them.”

(For more on Armstrong’s thinking, here’s a link to another video interview I did with Armstrong while both of us were in Germany today, in which he talked about the ad market and AOL’s strategy, but was cagey about being more specific.)

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Joost a Little Misunderstanding Between Friends? Actually a Knee-Capping–but Please Enjoy the Video From Better Days!

Kara Swisher — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:00:57 +0000

Revenge is a dish best served cold–except, of course, when one decides to serve it piping hot.

And that’s just what part of one of the losing sides of the $2 billion deal to buy Skype from eBay (EBAY) is doing in an unusual attack on Michelangelo Volpi, a well-known tech exec in Silicon Valley.

You see, until recently, Volpi was CEO of Joost, arriving at the much-hyped online video start-up to great fanfare in mid-2007.

But the London-based Joost never quite caught fire and began layoffs and contraction this summer.

As part of that development, Volpi then went to Index Ventures, a venture firm also based in London.

And, in one of Volpi’s first deals, Index was one of the smaller players on the winning side of the deal to buy Skype, putting up $75 million.

But also vying for the prize were the Internet telephony service’s founders, Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, who had hooked up with a group of private equity investors.

To complicate things further, the innovative and entrepreneurial pair also own a company called Joltid, which has licensed key technology for Skype to eBay.

It gets better! Joltid and eBay have been fighting in court over that agreement, bickering back and forth about whether eBay violated the terms of that deal or not.

Finally, in the past few days, in what is obviously a related move, Joost said that it had dumped Volpi as a director and as chairman, a job he had retained when he left for Index in July.

Said the company in a statement:

“Mr. Volpi was removed from the board of directors and from his position as chairman of Joost by shareholder vote. The company and its board of directors is conducting an investigation into Mr. Volpi’s actions during his tenure as CEO and as chairman.”

Volpi had no comment.

BoomTown does: It looks like a lame attempt at kneecapping him to me, as part of a larger rumble!

But, for many, this comes as a surprise, since it had been thought that Volpi–a former dealmaker with Cisco (CSCO)–would play the role of a peacemaker in the eBay-Joltid fighting.

Actually, according to numerous sources, Volpi had also struggled with Zennström and Friis when he ran Joost, and there is no love lost among them.

In fact, here’s a glimpse of that tension in a video interview BoomTown did with Volpi a year ago in London, when I visited its office there.

It took place just after Joost was forced to rejigger itself to gain momentum (which never happened).

“Restarting a start-up is definitely not easy,” said Volpi in the interview.

As it turned out, that was the least of his worries.

Here’s the video:

[ See post to watch video ]

I-Cahn't Quit You (Without Losing a Bundle in Yahoo Shares)

Kara Swisher — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:50:45 +0000

Champagne wishes and caviar dreams are now but a memory for billionaire shareholder-activist Carl Icahn, who lost about $125 million today by selling off 16 percent of his ever-losing stake in Yahoo.

The sale of 12.7 million shares at just under $15 a piece is a far cry from the hopes that the famously prickly Icahn had when he started his quest to bring about change and riches for himself by investing in the stock of the turmoil-plagued Internet giant in 2008.

Icahn went far in waging a proxy fight for control of the Yahoo (YHOO) board.

He got on the board all right, along with nabbing two other seats, but that’s about all he got.

No $40-billion-plus sale to Microsoft (MSFT), a much lesser search deal and yet another troubled investment for Icahn in a year of troubled investments.

As it turned out, he came to Silicon Valley, he saw, he did not conquer.

Nonetheless, Icahn still has a 4.5 percent stake in Yahoo, or about 63 million shares.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Icahn said the move was to balance his portfolio, but that he still was bullish on Yahoo, its recent search deal with Microsoft and Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz.

Which is also rich, given that she just dissed him again publicly in a piece in Forbes, tossing off a saucy insult:

“Icahn is just another shareholder. What’s he going to do, fire me?”

Well, in a tiny little step today, he kind of did that to Yahoo.

Sale of iLike to MySpace–$13.5 Million in Cash, $6 Million for Talent Retention–Delayed Over Tax Issues (Really!)…Plus, the List of Other Suitors!

Kara Swisher — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:25:06 +0000

The board of iLike planned a meeting earlier tonight to go over a buyout offer by MySpace, several sources close to the situation said. But it was suddenly canceled because of some thorny tax implications related to the talent-retention part of the deal to purchase the social music start-up.

This does not mean the pending acquisition is in jeopardy, sources said, and it could be on track to be signed as early as today, barring any more complications.

That is what both iLike and MySpace execs are hoping, said sources, one of whom described the outstanding issues as a “technicality.”

What’s also been unclear is the actual price the social networking giant is paying for iLike, which has been reported as about $20 million.

In fact, only $13.5 million will be paid upfront in cash, with about $8 million of that money likely going to one of its major shareholders, Ticketmaster Entertainment (TKTM), due to its preferred shares.

Another $6 million has been promised by MySpace in forward payments to retain some key employees–including iLike co-founders and twin brothers Ali and Hadi Partovi.

Although those employees can remain in Seattle, where iLike has its HQ, they must stay employed at Beverly Hills, Calif.-based MySpace for two and a half years to get their money.

It’s that talent part of the deal that caused the Partovis to cancel the iLike board meeting, which they explained to key investors was necessary due to some confusion over how the money paid to these employees would be taxed.

A person briefed on the issue said that if it was taxed as compensation, it would have a much higher tax rate than if it were considered long-term capital gains.

The Partovis said in the email that they were working on the problem with their advisers on the sale, Allen & Co., as well as with lawyers and accountants.

Tax snafus in the middle of a sale are not exactly the way the entrepreneurial Partovis envisioned it was going to go for iLike (see my various video interview related to iLike below) when they created the compelling music sharing and recommendation service in 2006.

After only a few years, the innovative start-up claims it has 50 million registered users overall.

A lot of that growth was due to iLike quickly becoming one of the most popular widgets on social networking sites like Facebook, where it has also been the top music application, with 10 million active monthly users.

The Partovis–who once were close with execs at Facebook (see my party video below), particularly founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg–placed great faith in its growth lifting all Web 2.0 boats.

It did not turn out that way, though, especially from the important financial point of view, and iLike scrambled to diversify.

The iLike service recently began offering a music downloading service, for example, as well as other such features, all of which would be attractive to the music-centric focus at MySpace.

Once an Internet sensation, MySpace has been struggling to restructure itself after losing momentum and buzz in recent years, as well as a huge advertising revenue drop in its most recent quarter.

Its owner, News Corp. (NWS), replaced its founders with new management four months ago, including former Facebook exec Owen Van Natta as CEO.

After making major staff layoffs and rejiggering management, Van Natta and his new team have been working on an overhaul of the MySpace product and seem to be refocusing it to become a global music and entertainment service.

MySpace also has a joint venture with major music labels, MySpace Music, which has been trying to attract consumers and build a viable business. Sources said MySpace Music could also buy into the iLike deal or simply license its technology to improve its features.

Thus, purchasing iLike would fit in well with MySpace’s overall plans.

And iLike has also been in need of a fix itself.

For all its popularity, especially on Facebook, it has moved slowly toward profitabilty, and its $17 million in funding has been dwindling, as has its viability as a standalone company.

Back in more frothy Web 2.0 days, iLike’s generous funding gave it a valuation of more than $50 million, which has also lost steam over time and as the economy has worsened.

In the last quarter of fiscal 2008, for example, Ticketmaster wrote down its $13 million investment by $6 million.

Tensions between its execs and iLike have gotten worse over time, although some thought at one time that Ticketmaster would buy iLike.

No longer, which is why the founders turned to Allen & Co., as MediaMemo reported as far back as November, to find another big investor or buyer.

Wrote Peter Kafka: “Delivering free music on the Web has so far proven to be a high-cost, low-revenue endeavor…”

So, the New York deal-making firm ginned up a small group of suitors, which included Facebook, Activision Blizzard (ATVI) and Microsoft (MSFT), as well as MySpace.

Of the three, Activision was most serious, with interest in integrating iLike’s community and technology tools with its Guitar Hero franchise.

But Activision never actually made a formal bid, said sources.

Both Microsoft and Facebook also considered the purchase, but sources said they would only offer stock in a deal. But iLike wanted cash in the deal.

The Partovis were also was wary about working at either place.

Both Partovis, for example, had worked at Microsoft (Ali after selling it LinkExchange in 1998 for $265 million; Hadi several times, once following Microsoft’s acquisition of Tellme Networks, which he co-founded).

As it has turned out, in its short life, iLike’s last, best alternative is apparently MySpace.

“Look, iLike has been shopped around for a while, and while the team and technology are great, it only has one choice and that’s to be sold,” said one person involved in the various scenarios. “The question for the buyer then is whether it was worth it to pay up or just move on and do it ourselves.”

So until the bean counters settle this IRS nightmare, here is my video interview with Hadi Partovi about a year ago at iLike’s HQ in the Capitol Hill section of Seattle, when times were a little more hopeful:

[ See post to watch video ]

And here is a very dark and very shaky video I did when iLike threw a fete in Silicon Valley to celebrate its start-up two years ago and to send some appreciation in Facebook’s direction–it is so dated that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, who is in the video, is still at Google (GOOG).

(Full Disclosure: News Corp. also owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

Ex-Google Exec Singh Cassidy Getting Dressed for Success by Joining J. Crew Board?

Kara Swisher — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:53:21 +0000

Oh, it’s the middle of August, so why not report this little tidbit: Former Google exec Sukhinder Singh Cassidy has been appointed to the board of the J. Crew Group, the well-known New York-based specialty retailer.

She is now a CEO-in-Residence at Accel Partners in Palo Alto, Calif., after leaving her longtime job at Google (GOOG), where she was president of its Asia-Pacific and Latin American operations.

Previous to her stint at the search giant, Singh Cassidy was at Yodlee, an online banking start-up, which was backed by Accel–along with stints at Amazon (AMZN) and OpenTV (OPTV).

She was also one of Google’s more visible execs and highest-ranking women leaders.

So, of course, BoomTown is more interested in where the 39-year-old Singh Cassidy will land next as a top exec at a Silicon Valley Web operation.

But, until then, here’s the official press release about her new director job at J. Crew (JCG):

NEW YORK, Aug. 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/–J. Crew Group, Inc. (the “Company”) (NYSE: JCG) today announced that Sukhinder Singh Cassidy had been appointed to its Board of Directors, effective August 14, 2009. In addition, Jonathan Coslet, has advised the Company of his intention to resign from the Board of Directors, effective August 14, 2009 in order to focus on his responsibilities at TPG Capital L.P.

Ms. Singh Cassidy, 39, is CEO-in-residence at Accel Partners, a global venture and growth equity firm, since April 2009. Prior to that, Ms. Singh Cassidy was a global Vice-President of Sales and Operations for Google, Inc., and from 2005 to 2009 she was Google’s President for Asia-Pacific & Latin America Operations. From 2003 to 2005, she was Google’s General Manager of Local Search, Video and Print Partnerships.

Millard Drexler, J.Crew’s Chairman and CEO said, “We are pleased to welcome Sukhinder to our Board. Her experience with new media and internet strategy make her a great fit for our Board of Directors and for J.Crew. We also want to thank Jonathan for his many contributions and support over the years.”

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Amazon Buys Netflix? Microsoft Is a Much Better Guess as a Potential Acquirer.

Kara Swisher — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:37:13 +0000

Yesterday, shares of Netflix got their semiregular rocket boost–with its stock up more than five percent to close at just over $42–from rumors that Amazon was interested in buying Netflix.

Oh, it’s a seemingly dreamy match–the top online retailer snapping up the upstart U.S. mail-order DVD movie and television show service.

But the speculation completely ignored the giant price needed to buy the Silicon Valley-based Netflix (NFLX)–well above its current $2.43 billion market cap, to be sure–which would be a big chunk of Amazon’s $35 billion valuation.

And it also leaves out the nearly impossible tax problem Amazon (AMZN) would acquire if it ever bought Netflix, given that Netflix has many U.S. distribution locations for its subscription rental business. Amazon does not like paying state taxes and avoids them carefully.

Instead, those interested in seeing the independent company in the embrace of a larger one might want to consider a more suitable and very interested candidate: Microsoft.

Neither Microsoft (MSFT) nor Netflix will comment about such a hookup.

But several sources close to Microsoft told BoomTown that that the partnership between Netflix and Xbox Live to allow users to watch movies and TV episodes on the Xbox 360 device–struck exactly one year ago today–is going like gangbusters, with one saying it was “en fuego.”

Very loosely translated: On fire.

So much so, several sources said, that Robbie Bach–who is president of Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices division, which includes the Xbox business–has been meeting with Netflix CEO and co-founder Reed Hastings (pictured) in recent weeks about what else the pair can do together to expand its current partnership.

The deal already in place between them is a hit, according to sources at both companies.

It gave Netflix access to 12 million Xbox members and handed Microsoft what has turned out to be a very popular application and an unusually successful joint effort.

While an acquisition would be a much bigger move, some at the software giant think it would necessarily be such a bad one for Microsoft, which has long been seeking to forge better ties in the entertainment arena.

Many of Microsoft’s major Hollywood forays over the years have been duds. So, stronger ties with Netflix–even a more robust partnership, at the very least–would give it a more definitive video strategy most think it lacks.

Its archrival, Google (GOOG), has been trying–with similarly lackluster impact–to accomplish the same results via its pricey and money-losing YouTube unit.

But Netflix–which has an office in Beverly Hills, as well as Los Gatos, Calif.–has much better relationships with the industry there, mostly because it has become such a big buyer of DVDs as it has grown its business (see charts below of subscriber and revenue growth; click on them to make them larger).

In addition, it has added more subscribers than ever in the last year and is solidly profitable, mostly due to sending consumers all those DVDs in little red envelopes.

And while a lot of execs at Hollywood studios that Netflix does business with have been wary–and told me so in no uncertain terms on my recent visit to Los Angeles–about its entry into the digital video delivery business, they have also been thrilled with the checks that Netflix has been writing them since it was founded more than a decade ago.

But, it is that main DVD business that Hastings, in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal recently, has said is “doomed.”

Noted the article:

“As soon as four years from now, [Hastings] predicts, the business that generates most of Netflix’s revenue today will begin to decline, as DVDs delivered by mail steadily lose ground to movies sent straight over the Internet. So Mr. Hastings, who co-founded the company, is quickly trying to shift Netflix’s business–seeking to make more videos available online and cutting deals with electronics makers so consumers can play those movies on television sets.”

With Internet video still in its infancy–and barely in gestation in terms of any viable business model–Netflix might indeed need help, especially since Hollywood has been slow to give it rights to more movies for online distribution.

That will be increasingly troublesome, given that digital delivery is the way consumers are headed. According to the Journal story, over 20 percent of Netflix members now use the streaming service.

But it only has about 12,000 titles–mostly older films–licensed on its online service, compared to 100,000 DVD rental titles.

That’s because, for now, much more powerful pay channels usually win out over Netflix in these online video distribution wars, which also include Amazon and Apple (AAPL), along with many others.

Thus, even with a strong and unusually long-term executive bench, the close-knit Netflix will still be facing a major battle in moving in a direction it must head in sooner than later

Such an epic journey could be easier for Netflix with a powerful ally like Microsoft.

One more interesting link would make such a relationship even smoother: Hastings is also on the board of Microsoft, having joined in 2007.

So, the savvy and innovative entrepreneur–well-known for his close-to-the-vest dealmaking and eager to not miss a key turn for his company–might very well decide to keep friends very close.

Yahoo and Microsoft: Breaking (And Making) Up Is Hard to Do

Kara Swisher — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:44:10 +0000

Oh, they’re still talking. Except when they’re not. And, then, they are.

Such has been the course of discussions Yahoo and Microsoft continue to be engaged in about a possible partnership deal around search and online advertising.

“It runs hot, then cold, then hot, then who knows,” said one person close to the situation.

It’s kind of like a digital version of the romantic travails of Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson, minus the paparazzi and screaming matches in trendy clubs.

(Spokespeople for both companies declined to comment on any talks. Curiously, both joked separately that they would prefer to be the Lohan character in my sick metaphor because she was so “unpredictable,” which is good in business–until I pointed out that was just another word for an addiction-challenged lunatic.)

But I digress!

The temperature now, after talking to a dozen sources with knowledge of the situation?

Warmer than two weeks ago–with one of Microsoft’s principal dealmakers on the case–Charlie Songhurst–down in Silicon Valley where Yahoo is located, focused solely on the talks and making progress with them.

When last we checked in, Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had a little private tete-a-tete about the deal, when both were attending the seventh D: All Things Digital conference in Southern California in late May.

That meeting, as well as meetings between other top Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) execs in attendance, went well enough.

Bartz and Ballmer also both acknowledged discussions in onstage interviews at D7, with Bartz even boldly stating that she was open to the deal if good and reliable data and “big boatloads of money” were forthcoming from Ballmer.

(You can see the video of her saying that here, while Ballmer is less colorful here.)

Well, that ship has not yet sailed, with the two sides–whose history together is tumultuous–still niggling over price and control issues.

Thus, talks in the weeks after languished, especially in the wake of Microsoft’s launch of its new Bing search service and Bartz’s focus on beefing up Yahoo management and marketing.

And while Ballmer has consistently said that Microsoft was open to a deal, Bartz has since made a variety of public statements related to it, many in conflict with previous statements.

It is an indication of the push-me-pull-you tone of the talks, which began in March.

When last asked about Microsoft by a stockholder at the Yahoo annual meeting in late June, Bartz said she had nothing to say about any deal and said it would be said publicly only after any such deal was struck.

Setting expectations is probably a good idea, since all the back and forth underscores a very real debate by both sides about whether joining together will benefit them both or not.

The possible pluses are clear: Huge technology cost-savings and cash for Yahoo and another weapon to fight archrival Google (GOOG) for Microsoft.

Sources said Bartz had been getting a lot of pressure to do a deal from Yahoo board member Carl Icahn, whom she has managed to isolate, even as she has gained total control over the company.

She is also under less immediate scrutiny, sources said, since the cost-savings related to a series of layoffs at the company have given Yahoo some financial breathing room. Still, it can ill-afford a search arms war.

Yahoo, as well as Microsoft, will report its quarterly earnings next week and both are expected to show continued weakness, due to the economy.

Still, the stock of both companies has also improved a lot since the beginning of the year, with Yahoo shares up 23 percent and Microsoft’s up 19.5 percent.

As for Microsoft, the company has also become more confident with the early success of Bing, which has garnered good reviews and improvements in market share in surveys.

Sources at the company maintain that the improvement–via innovation and a huge marketing spend–has given Microsoft a bit of leverage against Yahoo, although the bets are still out on exactly how much sustained share Bing can garner.

In a blog post today, for example, Yusuf Mehdi, Microsoft SVP of the Online Audience Business Group (really, that is his actual title), touted Bing’s success after just a month:

“We saw 8 percent growth in unique users to Bing.com in June, which is an important indicator that you are trying Bing and the word is spreading….We have a long term view, and we are committed to steady progress over the years to come.”

Does that mean these two crazy kids will probably not get together in the end? Well, like LiLo and Sam, they seem to be trying, but striking a lasting partnership is not as easy as it looks.

And, until the companies decide to unite or part for sure, please enjoy this delightful video trailer for “The Parent Trap,” a time when Lohan was adorable and much, much less–like a possible Yahoo-Microsoft deal–complicated:

Facebookers Start Cashing Out Up to 20 Percent of Shares With New $100 Million Investment

Kara Swisher — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:55:17 +0000

[UPDATED: With news that employees can sell up to 20 percent of their shares.]

According to sources close to the situation, current and former employees of Facebook are now going to be able to sell up to 20 percent of their common shares.

It is part of a $100 million add-on investment in the social networking company by the Russian investors who recently put $200 million into the company for preferred shares.

That investment a month ago by Digital Sky Technologies was valued at $10 billion, since those shares have various special rights, depending on what was negotiated.

The new tender offer by DST values the company at $6.5 billion for the common shares, or $14.77 a share. The last common share valuation of the company was around $4 billion.

The move has been expected for Facebook employees since DST made its first investment.

It will allow them to monetize shares, since the company is not likely to go public for at least a year or more.

Employees have 20 days to decide to take the offer or not and can only sell up to 20 percent of their stock–in other words, they cannot cash out completely.

“I can afford a down payment on a house now,” said one longtime employee, who is typical of many. “But not a really big house.”

But the top leadership of Facebook, such as CEO Mark Zuckerberg or COO Sheryl Sandberg, are not eligible to sell shares.

Facebook confirmed the DST investment, with a statement from Zuckerberg:

“While individuals must make their own decisions about participating in this program, I’m pleased that the price DST is offering is much greater than the price originally considered last fall. This is recognition of Facebook’s growth and progress towards making the world more open and connected.”

If fully accepted by those employees eligible, it will give DST 1.54 percent more of Facebook, for a total of 3.5 percent of the company.

That makes DST–based in London and Moscow–one of the bigger Facebook investors, with a stake larger than one owned by Microsoft (MSFT).

The software giant invested $250 million in Facebook for preferred shares in 2007, but the valuation was then $15 billion. That huge figure was due to a competing bid from archrival Google (GOOG) at the time.

In any case, neither DST nor Microsoft got a board seat or “special observer rights” in return for its money.

Here’s a video interview I did with one of DST’s top execs, Alexander Tamas, along with Sandberg, right after it made its first investment in May, while both were attending the seventh D: All Things Digital conference:

[ See post to watch video ]

AOL Mulls Director Choices for New Board of Spinoff

Kara Swisher — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:30:33 +0000

It’s not often these days that you get any kind of public offering in the market for tech companies–so a lot of people in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are looking at the fall spinoff of AOL very carefully.

That’s because, even though AOL is widely considered to be an also-ran by Silicon Valley (same as it ever was, actually, even at the height of its power in the late 1990s), many are very interested in serving on its board.

According to many sources, exactly who will be on what will likely be a 10-12 member board of directors for the company is up for grabs, once it decouples from owner Time Warner (TWX).

Thus, AOL, with Time Warner’s top execs’ involvement, sources said, has compiled a list of about 70 possible candidates–picked, suggested and self-nominated–and is now proceeding to vet them and begin the process of asking people to serve.

It should not be a tough sell. After all, despite its recent struggles, AOL remains one of the major Internet sites, with massive traffic, several well-known products and a large advertising business.

In addition, people seem inclined to see what kind of overhaul new CEO and Chairman Tim Armstrong can pull off and whether the former Google (GOOG) exec can work some magic.

He’s been formulating plans for what stays and what goes in the company as he tries to shine up the apple–or put lipstick on the pig, depending on your perspective–for investor consumption.

That includes keeping the access business, which many thought would be sold off, and putting many of the companies it has recently acquired–including its pricey Bebo social networking site–in a separate ventures unit, which will try to attract outside investment or sell off assets.

The strategy will focus AOL on several key areas, including media, local, “scaled” advertising and communications.

The jury is out on how successful Armstrong will be at innovating at AOL. But with almost zero IPO action and little prospect of any in the near future, it’s about the only such game in town as it moves to what is likely to be an October spinoff.

To help Armstrong sort through the choices, BoomTown is now compiling a suggestion list of fancy names I would recommend, and will do another post on that next, along with a general idea of what stays and what goes.

Until then, here are the broad outlines of what AOL needs to look for in a board:

One media mogul, one consumer electronics exec, one entrepreneur, one publishing exec, one Time Warner exec, one social networking exec, one advertising exec, one entertainment/Hollywood exec, one telecom/mobile exec, one consumer brand exec, one Internet mogul, and, of course, Armstrong.

And, as a definite requirement, given that there are way too many on way too many Internet company boards: No venture capitalists need apply.