It would have been a good argument, until you try to use the capture current photo image on the iphone and then realize it wont work on the ipod touch. Or the compass features (for augmented reality) and find out you are out of luck on older iphones.
The statement is misleading, because it does not provide the revenue splits. My assumption is that the Zoho side of the business (web 2.0) is responsible for less than 10% of that money, if that.
Also its easy for a particular part of the business to be the fastest growing business if it starts out close to zero.
I'm not trying to put down what Zoho has accomplished (brand awareness in a crowded field, as well as competing with the big boys), but merely point out that people should not assume that they are making a ton of money on their web 2.0 stuff.
(Of course, it would have been funny if the interviewer had put the standard movie disclaimer --
No chairs were harmed in the making of this interview).
I dont understand why you would call this a business that doesnt have much meaning. Hes basically a more modern version of newspapers, and magazines. They hire editors, and content producers, pick topics of interest, and make money off of advertising.
So from my perspective hes just a smaller scale Rupert Murdoch.
Too many newspapers today are just publishing tons of stuff from the wire and then writing one or two local fluff stories to go along with the local sports scores and grandma's bragbook.
I think that you would have a tough time charging batteries like this, primarily because a cylindrical surface will have very little direct (normal to its surface) sunlight. Most of your solar cell surface seems to be either in the shadow, or at a pretty weak angle. It would be far more effective to have a foldable umbrella like thing that you open up and point at the sun.
I think you need to do a little bit more research before picking one of the above. Rather than pick one now, it would be better to spend a little bit of time building up some sort of a business plan (not something to show VC's but just for internal clarity).
Of the three, the 3rd option seems to make most sense to me. The things one would look for are:
1. Customer pain point. Of the three, the third is the most clear. For the other two, its not clear as to who the customer is, or even what pain point you are solving.
2. Your capability to compete (niche markets would be better). 1 and 3 seem better than 2 in this regard..
3. Cash flow/bootstrap options: 2 and 3 seem to be better, although you may end up paying for agents sitting on the bench before business builds up. 1 is the least attractive since its unclear who will pay for this initially.
4. Competition -- 1 has the least, 2 the most. However it might be better to have some competition, since (often) lack of any competition indicates lack of a market.
