Archive for the ‘business’ Category

Technology and Changing the World: Trends roundup – March 29, 2008

Saturday, March 29th, 2008

This post consists of my “value-added” thoughts on David Kirkpatrick’s article on Fortune here.

Since I love all things technology and passionately believe that it wields the power to change the world, these numbers are just plain interesting to me. I’ve overlayed on the data some general technology trends on Web 2.0 startups, venture capital, microfinance and poverty, all cleverly slapped into one big fat blog post. Why? Because they’re all inter-connected, and I haven’t written anything all this week (been so darn busy lately!) Off we go.

Indonesia:
- 1 in 100 owns a PC
- 1 in 1,000 has broadband Internet
- 63 million cell phone subscribers, representing 27% of the population (of 234 million)
- Annual cell phone subscription growth rate: 36%

India:
- 166 million cell phone users
- Last year’s cell phone subscription growth rate was 84.5%

Switzerland:
- The Swiss have 85.1 PCs per 100 persons, beating the United States at 80.3 PCs per 100 persons

Global PC penetration is 12.9 for every 100 people. Room for growth? You bet. Many of PC owners are obviously in well developed countries, and not poor countries with lots of people. OLPC‘s efforts to reach the billions at the BoP will move the needle here, if they succeed. Not forgetting the “middle” market, more of those who are neither rich nor poor will also buy computers and get on the internet. (Better start loading up on some PC stocks!) But wait, am I sure that the middle-class is not going to get poorer and not buy computers? Well the stats from Hans Rosling’s TED talk show that the overall trend here is that the world is slowly digging itself out of poverty, and I take comfort in that. Actually, read on below as I describe another trend that supports that.

Now, for some cell phone stats:

United States:
- 77.4 subscribers per 100 people
- Everywhere in Europe (except Turkey) exceeds penetration in US. Italy is at a whopping 135.1 cellphone subscribers per 100 persons.
- Hong Kong beats the US in penetration too, at 135.3

The global average is 41.6 per 100 people.

Cellphone usage growth in fast growing markets last year*:
- Peru: 57%
- Vietnam: 114%
- Pakistan: 170%
- Ukraine: 185%

*numbers might be fuzzy, but they show a general trend

What’s also important to note about this upward trend in adoption is that mobile phones were the crucial piece that first enabled the poor in Bangladesh to get out of poverty (see section on Village Phone). Women built business models around it and turned it into a source of income. These days, mobile phones are also playing another role in microfinance: enabling the transfer of money and information over, well, mobile phones! In poor countries, a brick-and-mortar bank branches with ATMs are hard to come by (ditto for computers and broadband), so mobile phones are serving this unmet need, facilitating microfinance and thus helping reduce poverty.

Other interesting stats:
- 1.3 billion of global population connected to the Internet, compound annual growth of 20.3% for past 8 years.
- Internet ad spending of $40 billion is only 6.6% of global total of $605 billion and is growing at 33%. (Ha, I should double down on this little company while I can!)

Data from 2008 Global Internet Snapshot compiled by Imran Khan, senior analyst at JP Morgan. (hmm, can anyone get me access to that full report?)

That’s why medium and big tech companies can weather the unfavorable US economy trend by going abroad. Fruit trees in your backyard not yielding? Then go after the greener pastures outside of your backyard too. It’s called diversifying. That’s the other thing I love about software is that it’s not a physical object–a computer scientist can create value with merely a laptop (and some coffee!) The cost of making that first software copy is the most expensive, then every other subsequent copy ad infinitum is basically free. This is just the nature of information economics, and has obviously served Microsoft very well. Actually, tiny tech startups can do this too — by leveraging the distribution power of this thing they call the internets.
(more…)

Pricing information itself as a product

Friday, March 14th, 2008

Have you ever tried looking up stock prices online? Let’s say we look up the ticker symbol GOOG on Yahoo! Finance:

yhooticker

Hmm. It says, “Quotes delayed for <ticker symbol>. Get streaming real-time quotes – FREE TRIAL”. And this is the same ticker symbol on MSN Money:

msnticker

Quotes on MSN Money are delayed 15 minutes. Now how about we just look up Google’s stock price on well, Google themselves! This is Google Finance:

googticker

15 minute stock quote delay. Ever wonder why that is?

It’s a pricing strategy. The product here is information–the price of the stock quote. They segmented their customers into those who are casual surfers (who may or may not care about investing) from those who are serious stock traders (stock prices accurate up to the nearest millisecond is critical!). The perceived value of the same piece of information is different to each consumer.

If you suffered from some life-threatening disease and have a week left to live, how much you would pay for information of a possible cure? (note: I said “possible” cure) I’m sure you would sell off everything you have for that information, maybe even taking on a loan. Now if I told you that I have information for a verified cure, but you don’t have the disease, how much would you pay for the information now? None.

This is pretty much the same thing. Companies that are in the business of selling information, are always looking for ways to generate a bigger return from their “product”, and this is one of them — by extracting more money from people who are willing to pay the price.
(more…)

The Daily Wrap from VentureWire, 22 Feb 08

Friday, February 22nd, 2008

My favourite Silicon Valley tech reporter has been taking jabs at techies and VC’s alike about lofty valuations or anything that even remotely spells b-u-b-b-l-e — which although it may seem like she is constantly crying wolf, I think she serves as a good check in place to remind us of why the tech bubble happened, lest we get all sugar high and repeat our mistakes again.

Needless to say, I was grinned when I read this on VentureWire this morning.

Valuations of start-up companies in 2007 dipped for the first time in several years, suggesting that a correction may be in the works amid an economic slowdown.The median pre-money valuation for start-ups across all sectors was $16 million, down from $18 million in 2006, according to data released today from Dow Jones VentureSource.

The sagging numbers weren’t pinned to one industry, as valuations fell across the board. Information technology start-ups saw pre-money valuations fall to $15 million from $18.8 million. Health-care valuations dropped slightly to $19 million from $20 million, while the retail and consumer group showed the biggest decline, with valuations ringing in at $10.5 million versus $15 million in 2006.

2007 was a year of caution,” said Sandy Miller, a general partner at late-stage firm Institutional Venture Partners. “The first half of the year was bullish, but the second half was cautious. [Venture capital] may be the least impacted part of the [current downturn in] the economy, but nobody leaves unscathed.”

Several investors said that certain sectors of the VC landscape – such as Web 2.0 and clean technology – remain overheated, and the downturn in valuations is more of a natural correction than a sign of impending doom.

No tech bubble, hurray :) It’s ok, Kara. You can put your pitchfork down now.

Or maybe not :D

The 3 kinds of (competitive advantage) data

Thursday, February 14th, 2008

I learned some interesting financial jargon today.

Competitive advantage, referred to in financial markets as alpha, only comes when you have information that others do not. (An earlier speaker, Eric Christiansen of Barclay Global Investors, made clear that people like him think of three types of data: data that everyone has that gives you no advantage, data that you need to know because it gives you no advantage but not knowing can really hurt you, and finally, data that only you have, and can (briefly) take advantage of.)

Interesting food for thought. I’m going to chew on this for a while, especially #2. What about me that I don’t know about, that other people can see, that can hurt me? (a.k.a. your blind spot)

Randy Komisar

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

Randy Komisar, when asked in an interview about how he would ever make his mark at VC firm like Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers when they have a track record of investment home runs like Google says,

It’s a high bar, there’s no question about it. But I don’t feel competitive against that. I mean I think that the goal for me is to help create great talent in great companies, and what I’m hoping that in the process, they create wealth and opportunities for others. That being said, trying to measure up against something like Google as an investment return, that would just make you anxious. I don’t feel very competitive with that. I just hope that I continue to do good work and contribute.

I think that’s great advice. It’s so easy to fall into the trap of benchmarking yourself against a rare one time astronomical success. It only makes you more anxious and cloud your judgement in decision making, spinning you into an uncontrolled perpetual fall downwards. The negative energy just feeds back into the system and snowballs.

I think I have fell into that trap of focusing on the wrong thing. I think the reason why I fell for that is because I am very competitive. It’s only natural that when I see someone doing better than me, that I only want to do even better–to win. I’m not a life-is-a-zero-sum game guy, but I am competitive.

I think the other reason is because sometimes I care too much about what other people think of me. And it is so easy for external parties to view you from the outside and say, “Why can’t he accomplish this feat? Someone else has already done it, and therefore it’s possible. If he can’t do it, then he must be a loser”. It’s easy to benchmark others against the best. Not so funny when others benchmark you the same way.

That’s exactly what happened in that interview. The interviewer asked Randy a question that same line of external judgement: “how do you think you are going to beat the record?” In my opinion, Randy’s answer was perfect, “Look, I know it’s difficult, but I don’t ask myself that every time I go to work, or in every investment decision I mae. I focus on what’s important really here: contributing, creating wealth and opportunities to the best I can” I think I would have bombed that test. I would have said something that displays my naivete like, “oh, that’s nothing–I’ll beat it.” Sounds Dilbert-ish.

Towards the end of the interview, Randy was asked what his recommendation was for people who starting out and looking for a profession. The interviewer asked if he would recommend his own career trajectory he took, for instance. Randy says,

You should question authority, question convention, question other people’s expectations. We live in a day and time when all things are possible for people who have the raw intelligence, energy, and dedication to reinvent things. And that includes reinventing themselves. The shame of it is when smart people conform to conventional expectations and miss out on the opportunities to live a creative life. Within that confine, almost anything can be a great profession and can be a good and purposeful life’s work. But first and foremost, it’s gotta be important to you.

Randy Komisar one of the mentors at the Stanford Technology Ventures Program.