Archive for the ‘things to ponder about’ Category

Economic doom and gloom – but the greatest will arise from these ashes

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

With this week’s bloodbath in the stock market epitomized by headlines from BusinessWeek like “The Sky Falls on Wall Street“, famed angel investor Ron Conway and big name VCs like Sequoia warning portfolio company CEOs of the huge iceberg immediately ahead, what are  entrepreneurs to do to keep spirits up and look alive?

I found this post dated last January by Will Price, CEO of Widgetbox particularly insightful. Some excerpts below.

Times are bleak, but the sky is darkest before dawn. Great companies that succeed in adapting to this harsh weather will be one of the strongest built:

If I take the last downturn as my guide, I can say with confidence that venture investors would be well suited to continue to invest right through the downturn – in 2002 and 2003 terrific companies were formed and funded at very reasonable valuations and with business models that reflected the demand for capital efficiency and economic viability.

Like Occam’s Razor, recessions whittle away unnecessary and non-value-added businesses and the capital, purchase order, and resource scarcity inherent in downturns forges companies of real substance and durability.

[...]

However, history suggests that capital efficient companies solving well-characterized pain points will continue to be great investments. Valuations, input costs (labor, rent, services) will fall, and future returns will show that 2008 and 2009 were great years to do start-ups. Similarly, in early 2009, as the consumer start-up market finds itself cut off from funding, it will be pay to make bold and brave investments in the consumer space.

Entrepreneurs building a business during these times should well, focus on the business fundamentals. You can’t control the weather, but you can control how you build your business. Given the weather, a solid foundation is must. That means a real product that solves a real problem that real people would want to dive into their wallets to pay you:

None of us can predict the markets or future valuations, we all, however, can understand fundamentals. Businesses that solve real pain points with disruptive technology, a huge value/price advantage, and a scalable business model will work – the kiss of death, however, will be getting the capital structure ahead of those very same fundamentals. Failure is often a function of too much capital and too high prices suddenly running into economic expectations that are materially reduced with respect to market size, market growth, and trading multiples.

On going back to the fundamentals of a solid business:

None of us can predict the markets or future valuations, we all, however, can understand fundamentals. Businesses that solve real pain points with disruptive technology, a huge value/price advantage, and a scalable business model will work – the kiss of death, however, will be getting the capital structure ahead of those very same fundamentals. Failure is often a function of too much capital and too high prices suddenly running into economic expectations that are materially reduced with respect to market size, market growth, and trading multiples.

I agree with the general assessment of this statement, although Twitter isn’t exactly the perfect example to illustrate this point. Granted, if you are broke, you better focus on doing things to get out of being broke, but if you have a truckload of cash and being profitable is a “nice to have” .. then oh well, you can do whatever you want on your own time.

At least from what I understand anyway, Evan Williams already made a bunch from his Blogger/Pyra Labs acquisition and is in no hurry to make more money. As for Twitter investors, they aren’t either. Twitter is funded from Odeo’s funding; the latter company has already been written off as “dead” – and unlike VCs, angels don’t have fiduciary duties and thus don’t have to “go after” that money.

Ron Conway himself once said that the lack of fiduciary duty makes him more productive and thus has no interest in moving to becoming a VC. Super angel investing is just fine ;)

What is the American Dream again?

Sunday, September 21st, 2008

I’ve been light on my blog posts lately, been busy and am recovering from a gut-wrenching time, although I won’t detail that here (and please don’t ask), but suffice to say I’ve been thinking a lot. A lot. One of the things I have asked myself: What is the American Dream again?

In its essence, The American Dream refers to the opportunity for achieving greater material prosperity and a decent standard of living based on one’s ability and work ethic, as well as the hope that one’s children will receive a good education so they, too, can aspire to a good job and standard of living. The term was coined by historian James Truslow Adams, when he wrote:

“The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.

Ahh .. the essence of meritocracy — something my mentor Anita believes in (herself an immigrant), something I believe in (myself an immigrant).

I found that from Irving Wladawsky-Berger’s blog this morning, as I was catching up on my RSS feeds. Read his full post for his thoughts on the knowledge economy, and how the US really needs to innovate to remain ahead — or slip behind others, as we watch the US presidential election slowly degenerate into a culture war.

Meritocracy is a system of a government or another organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability (merit), rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege (oligarchy), cronyism, the will of the people (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power. In a meritocracy, society rewards (by wealth, position, and social status) those who demonstrated talent and competence, demonstrated through past actions or by competition.

Although lately, I’m starting to wonder if the American Dream still is .. in America? In light of all the anti-immigrant protests (whether outright or underhanded), both Republican and Democratic candidates essentially shying away from the thorny issue of immigration, I really question America’s ability to (a) attract and, (b) retain foreign talent.

For the uninitiated, the contribution of foreign talent to America is well documented (and well quantified, if you want hard stats).

And now, contrast all of the above with all the anti-immigration debates, and headlines like, “U.S. immigration policy discourages foreign-born entrepreneurs” and “U.S. Immigration Policy Hinders Entrepreneurship

Irving writes, “A recurrent message in my blog has been the critical importance of human capital – that is, the stock of skills and knowledge that enables individuals to produce economic value.  Talented, well educated individuals are more needed than ever in our global, highly competitive, knowledge economy.  Countries and regions endowed with that kind of human capital will be in a much better position to cope with, adjust to and thrive in our fast-changing, emergent world.”

Why is America making it so hard for immigrants? Is it still worth it for immigrants? Has America forgot what it means to be American?

Other points of interest, from Wikipedia:

The distance between success and failure, is _that_ tiny

Monday, September 8th, 2008

“The distance is measured the same way no matter which where you look at it from, top-down or bottom-up. The distance between success and failure, is that tiny. You just don’t know it. The guys who have been complete and utter failures at their startups, could have been just 3 days away from being superstars. they just didn’t know it, that they could have just dug in and walked one more mile, and made it.”
— Shai Agassi, at his talk at Stanford titled “The Physics of Startups

Oracle’s 20% price hike (rock) + Slumping economy (hard place) = where do you go?

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

A snip from an interview with Red Hat’s new chief exec:

Q: What’s your biggest surprise since starting at Red Hat?

A: I think I finally get the joke. I was a senior exec and, like every other senior exec, I had a huge IT budget. Mine was as large as Red Hat’s revenues last year. You sit there and say: “Why are my IT costs going up, but I’m getting less and less functionality?”

Every IT professional says the same thing: “My lights-on costs are going up. But — wait a minute — I bought a laptop, and it cost me half as much as it did three years ago, and my costs are going up?” I get the joke now.

If you look at the S&P 500, seven of the top 20 companies are tech and, other than Google, they’re not high-growth. But they’re just printing money because switching costs are so high. There’s this incredible amount of residual goodwill to Red Hat because we’re seen as an alternative to that. Oracle announced a 20-something percent price increase just as the economy starts heading south. How can you do that unless you’re pretty sure nobody can switch? High switching costs led to infrastructure cost creep. Once you get hooked, you can’t get off.

I chuckled as I read this. The switching cost problem sounds like the case between AT&T and Bell Atlantic in the 1980′s, which I coincidentally just recently blogged about recently.

Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.
— George Santayana, in his book The Life of Reason.

I think the comment about Oracle’s 20+% price increase is certainly good news for on-demand SaaS/cloud computing players – to disrupt the market. As companies start tightening their belts, the pay-per-drink model would inevitably look a lot more enticing.

Even when placed between a rock and a hard place (between the US economic slump and technology behemoths’ Oracle-style price increases), the numbers show that companies still can’t afford to cut back on technology spending. Technology is a business competitive advantage.

According to research firm Gartner, “It can be hard for a business to stay ahead if its technology is falling behind. That is one reason that despite an uncertain economy, worldwide information technology spending is on track to reach $3.4 trillion in 2008 — an 8 percent increase over 2007.”

PC sales (especially laptops) are surprisingly stronger than expected, according to S&P’s Equity Research. “The latest evidence came from the Aug. 19 earnings report from Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), which said unit shipments of PCs rose 20% from a year ago”

The bottom line is that businesses can’t afford to be without technology. And with such pricing pressures, online business apps are just much easier on the wallet. $50 per user/year for Google Apps, or $350 user/year MS Office.

Granted, Enterprise Web 2.0 still has a long way to go to fill the shoes of traditional on-premise apps, but I am confident that more innovation will come (I certainly plan on being a part of that innovation!), and SaaS/cloud computing/Enterprise Web 2.0′s benefits will be too good to ignore – and eventually, its benefits would exceed those from the traditional legacy on-premise apps.

From CNNMoney/Fortune: Merrill Lynch estimates that online business applications will grow to a $95 billion market within five years. The market for online office software is “wide open,” said Guy Creese, an IT analyst with the Burton Group.

“My lights-on costs are going up. But — wait a minute — I bought a laptop, and it cost me half as much as it did three years ago, and my costs are going up?”

Yeah. It doesn’t make sense.

A laundry list of business problems (opportunity)

Sunday, July 20th, 2008

“Every problem is an opportunity, and the bigger the problem, the bigger the opportunity. No one will pay you to solve a non-problem.”
Vinod Khosla, on big problems and big opportunities.

The one thing I’ve come to admire about Paul Graham (using “Paul Graham” as a synonym for Y Combinator itself), is that he’s turned into quite a force to be reckoned with – aligning, match-making problems with teams and solutions, cranking up accomplishment cycles. Seems to me that these days, he has access to all sorts of real-world business problems, and conveniently enough he also practically has an army of technology entrepreneurs ready to take a bite out of any gauntlet that he throws down.

I love that quote from Vinod Khosla above, and I’m always on the look for problems, because I see them as unmet needs, and I love disruption – David vs. Goliath style take-on-the-incumbent fights. PG has recently written up on ideas for startups that he’d like to fund, so reading this list was definitely a must for opportunity-seekers, and you know what .. even if it’s not a problem that you can see yourself solving, it’s good to be aware of the problems out there in your adjacent industry.

I find #6 interesting:

More variants of CRM. This is a form of enterprise software, but I’m mentioning it explicitly because it seems like this area has such potential. CRM (“Customer Relationship Management”) means all sorts of different things, but a lot of the current embodiments don’t seem much more than mailing list managers. It should be possible to make interactions with customers much higher-res.

When I think CRM, I think of Salesforce.com, simply because well, who doesn’t associate CRM with Salesforce? ;) What I really like about Salesforce.com is how they have opened up their platform for 3rd party developers via AppExchange. Why is this such an important strategic move?

They realize that now that they are a huge company serving a huge customer base, there’s bound to be a subset of their customers whose needs are either over-served or under-served, and thus these customers will be ripe to be poached by smaller and more agile startups. Thus, the bigger Salesforce gets, it’s only a matter of time before their core market gets nibbled from say, the low end, .. which would force Salesforce.com to then shift focus on the higher end of the spectrum (and keep going higher) until the nibblers now become this real threat of displacing the incumbent.

Thus, by opening up their platform to innovation, they can capture the “long-tail” of features needed by their customer base and actually meet them. Imagine you are running some obscure business in a very niche vertical. You need CRM, but you also need this 1 extra feature very specific to your business. You now have the option to installing the “addon” to meet your needs. Other (most) companies who don’t care about this addon don’t need to install it.

What Salesforce.com has also effectively done here is allowed their SaaS bread-and-butter be customized specifically to each customer! This is powerful, because most people think that SaaS is just a web app, and because it’s served from the same web server to all customers, customization is difficult.

Software customization/personalization is also way to segment your market and extract more value from the different segments. And all of this, for free to Salesforce.com because they don’t even need to hire developers to build stuff — the platform is open to any 3rd developer. In short, AppExchange is one of Salesforce.com’s competitive advantage that builds network effects over time (like eBay), further solidifying their dominance on the market.

The iPhone too, has a developer app market place. And this too, will be a powerful force to be reckoned with by iPhone competitors over time.

Back to what PG was saying, “It should be possible to make interactions with customers much higher-res.” I wonder what he means by that exactly, but then again he did say that this list was intentionally vague. I can at the very minimum at least conclude that he sees an opportunity for innovation in CRM, which I do too :)

Paul Graham’s list of problems: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html