Venture Capitalists: the slash-and-burn artists of technology

Posted on by

Eventually the generation that Fred Wilson [of Union Square Ventures] leads will fall behind, as did the one led by John Doerr at Kleiner-Perkins. What they will be replaced with is one that is not only aware of the usability of products, but also has a sense for the flow of open technologies to fuel the ecosystem. These VCs will make side investments in technologies that are not intended to produce an IPO or acquisition, rather are intended to produce a new layer of technology that a whole generation of startups can feed off. At the same time, some percentage of each fund will be plowed into programs designed to generate the next layer after that.

The VCs will tell you that it’s not their business to fund innovation for the sake of innovation. That’s as short-sighted as saying that an oil company wouldn’t invest in exploration or research into new extraction methods. Or if you got good service at a restaurant you wouldn’t leave a 15 percent tip. Of course you don’t have to do either. But if you don’t do some exploration or leave decent tips, you’ll be out of business one day, or get hot coffee spilled in your lap.

I’ve always felt that as long as Moore’s Law is operating, and it shows no sign of letting up, that we aren’t doing our jobs if the tech industry isn’t tracking its growth in a linear fashion. The boom-bust cycle is a product of the lack of vision of the VCs. Or our over-reliance on VCs to lead the investment decisions of the tech industry.

This post by Dave Winer is interesting because of its rarity. Insiders in the technology industry rarely write or talk in public about venture capitalists, probably because they think they might need them some day. Or they believe in appeasement (defined by Winston Churchill as “being nice to a crocodile in the hope that he will eat you last”.) As a result the public has a peculiarly rosy — and misleading — impression of them. There are, of course, good VCs: I know a few. But there are an awful lot of creepy, destructive ones too. One of the lovely stories in Michael Lewis’s great book about Jim Clark concerns Clark’s decision to exclude from the Netscape IPO the VC who had screwed him at Silicon Graphics. The guy committed suicide as a result, and I remember thinking at the time that it looked like a fitting conclusion to a sordid career.

TIJABP

Posted on by

Lovely blog post by Dave Winer.

I’d like to propose a new acronym. TIJABP.

This. Is. Just. A. Blog. Post.

In other words, this is not the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Or the Treaty of Versailles or even legally binding.

It’s not Hey Jude or Beethoven’s 9th.

Not Catcher In The Rye or Annie Hall.

And it’s definitely not the 10th inning of Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. (Yo Mookie!)

It’s just a blog post, so read it that way.

Twas written quickly, by one (busy) person, who then moved on to something else.

After Vermeer

Posted on by


After Vermeer, originally uploaded by jjn1.

I like Vermeer’s work, for several reasons: it reminds me of the time I lived in Holland; I love his use of window lighting; and my former colleague Philip Steadman wrote a convincing book establishing that the ‘photographic’ feel of much of his work arose because Vermeer used a camera obscura. So whenever I see a window shedding interesting light on an interior, I go for it.

Interestingly, David Hockney, in an equally fascinating book went further than Phil, arguing that Vermeer and some other artists probably used lenses as well.

Why the Net matters

Posted on by

From the Pew Internet Survey

Thirty percent of U.S. adults help a loved one with personal needs or household chores, managing finances, arranging for outside services, or visiting regularly to see how they are doing. Most are caring for an adult, such as a parent or spouse, but a small group cares for a child living with a disability or long-term health issue. The population breaks down as follows:

24% of U.S. adults care for an adult
3% of U.S. adults care for a child with significant health issues
3% of U.S. adults care for both an adult and a child
70% of U.S. adults do not currently provide care to a loved one

Eight in ten caregivers (79%) have access to the internet. Of those, 88% look online for health information, outpacing other internet users on every health topic included in our survey, from looking up certain treatments to hospital ratings to end-of-life decisions.

The Real Scandal of Mitt Romney and Bain

Posted on by

I really don’t understand the US. I mean to say, here’s a rich, inventive country stuffed full of innovative and smart folks. And yet the best it can do by way of a presidential challenger is a hypocritical creep like Mitt Romney. Now, serious folks tell me that he might even beat Obama, despite the astonishing contradictions and evasions in his account of himself. This nice New Yorker blog post by James Surowiecki ponders the recent revelations which suggest that Romney didn’t part company with Bain, the private equity firm that made him rich, when he claimed he did.

What Romney’s career shows, after all, is that once you’re at the top, you can keep being called C.E.O. even if you’re not even working at the company. You can get paid a hundred grand a year—chump change for Romney, to be sure, but twice the U.S. median income—while doing, by your own account, nothing at all for the company. You can build up an I.R.A. worth tens of millions of dollars when the maximum annual contribution is four thousand dollars. (Henry Blodget suggests here that Romney’s ownership of Bain Capital shares may explain how that I.R.A. could have legally gotten so big.) And, above all, if you manage a private-equity firm, you can reap the benefit of the carried-interest tax loophole and pay a much lower tax rate on your income than the vast majority of Americans, and you can continue to reap the benefit of that loophole even after you stop working for the firm. None of these things is illegal, but none of them are things that ordinary Americans can benefit from, and that’s the real scandal of Romney’s career at Bain.

Osama bin Laden meets Thomas Hobbes

Posted on by

This morning’s Observer column.

Every time I go through airport security nowadays the thought that comes to mind – as I take off my shoes and belt, unpack my laptop and display my toothpaste in a transparent plastic bag – is that Osama bin Laden won hands down. The same thought pops up when taking a photograph outside the London Stock Exchange – or inside an airport or a railway station – and a uniformed jobsworth appears from nowhere to inform me that photography is “not allowed, sir”. And it also comes to mind whenever the home secretary opens her mouth on the subject of the draft communications data bill, aka the snoopers charter. Terrorism – or the perceived threat of it – has turned democracies into paranoid armed camps in which the state feels justified in assuming that every citizen is a potential terrorist.

The intrusiveness and ubiquity of state surveillance is already shocking. But we ain’t seen nothing yet – the technology is just getting into its stride…

Holy Smoke!

Posted on by

Today’s International Herald Tribune has nice piece by Ralph Blumenthal based on a visit to Le Thor, the village in Provence where Pierre Salinger, JFK’s Press Secretary, made his home. Concludes with this story, which will touch the heart of every cigar smoker:

Here in Le Thor, Mr. Salinger’s penchant for fine wine and cigars is fondly recalled. A centerpiece of the museum is a large wooden cigar box, all that remains of a gift that Nikita Khrushchev presented Mr. Salinger during a visit to Moscow in 1962. The 150 cigars had come from Fidel Castro and violated the newly installed embargo. President Kennedy was aghast, directing Mr. Salinger to surrender the cigars so Customs could destroy them.

Years later, Mr. Salinger reflected ruefully that he could have done that himself, “one by one.”

Sigh. In the Summer of 1968 I took an impoverished elderly friend to dinner at l’Epicure, a lovely French restaurant (now sadly gone) in Greek Street in Soho. After dessert, I asked my guest if he would like a cigar. His face lit up: yes, he said, very much. So I summoned the waiter and said we’d like to see a selection of his better cigars. He went off and whispered to his boss, when then approached us and, bending down, asked me in a confidential tone “Would either of you be an American gentleman, Sir?”. “Certainly not!” I replied indignantly. He smiled, bowed and withdrew, returning a few moment later with… a box of Cohibas. Bliss!

Too Much Email? Try this

Posted on by

Quentin’s two tips for those who are overwhelmed by email.

Don’t have it on all the time, and for God’s sake don’t let it ping or beep at you whenever a message comes in. That way madness lies. For your loved ones as well as for you. I tend to check my emails in the morning and in the evening. Occasionally in the middle of the day…but don’t count on it.

Email isn’t instant messaging. If people need an immediate reply they should be using some other technology to contact you. And one of the best ways to ensure you get more email is to keep responding to it promptly! Besides, I often read emails in a spare minute on my phone, when replying isn’t really practical.

You know it makes sense.

How to reboot the economy (and fix some other problems on the way)

Posted on by

I’m no economist (nor an Hungarian either, as Tony Benn once observed, in an age when Harold Wilson’s two main economic advisers were Tommy Balogh and Nicholas Kaldor), but I can’t help noticing that there’s a very strong correlation between economic activity and the housing market.

Every time someone buys a house, for example, in addition to the work the transaction provides for professionals (surveyors, estate agents, valuers, lawyers) there’s also work for plumbers, electricians, builders and DIY stores as the new owners set about imposing their personalities on their new dwelling. As homeowners embark on renovations or upgrades, finding an experienced electrician near me becomes a vital step in ensuring that all electrical work is completed safely and efficiently. Whether it’s installing new lighting fixtures, upgrading outlets, or rewiring spaces to accommodate modern technology, a skilled electrician plays a crucial role in helping homeowners achieve their vision. This collaboration not only enhances the functionality of the home but also adds value, ensuring that the electrical systems are reliable and up to code.

You can see this multiplier effect in action in any location (e.g. London, Cambridge) where the housing market is still buoyant. But you don’t see much of it in, say, Liverpool or other northern cities, which are indeed mired in recession. It’s not rocket science, therefore, to infer that one practical way of getting the economy moving again might be to loosen up the housing market by encouraging — indeed subsidising — housebuilding, and by tackling the structural deficiencies that is making houses so outrageously unaffordable for large swathes of the working population — including most couples in their twenties and thirties. Just as I was thinking this, I stumbled on a very thoughtful post by Tim Harford, who is an economist, and an insightful one at that. Tim had been going round asking economists what should be done to reboot the economy. The answer, they told him, is that the government has to find a way to get more houses built.

Could a house-building splurge make a difference? Surely. The UK has recently been building a little over 100,000 new homes a year, but the country is acquiring more than 200,000 new households annually, largely as a result of its internal demography, but with net immigration also playing a part. The shortfall has been substantial for many years; there is no reason to expect the UK couldn’t find a use for 300,000 or even 400,000 new houses a year for the next few years – and that means, very roughly, a million new jobs in construction, the entire number of unemployed people under the age of 25. Building houses is an occupation that could plausibly play a substantial role in creating useful jobs and stimulating demand for several years. How, then, to make it happen? The chief obstacle to house building in the UK is the planning system, which, 65 years ago, did away with the idea that if you owned land, you could build on it, and replaced it with a system where planning permission was required. Permission to build houses is severely rationed, and such rationing can be seen clearly in the gap between the value of agricultural land without planning permission (a few thousand pounds a hectare) and the value of such land once permission has been granted (a few million). The difficulty is that local authorities have the ability to grant planning permission but have little incentive to do so, because it tends to be unpopular with existing voters. The huge windfall from winning planning permission falls to whoever has managed to speculate on land and navigate the tangle of planning rules. These serve as nice barriers to entry for existing developers, while driving up the price of building land and so driving down the size of new homes. Tim Leunig, chief economist at CentreForum, a think-tank, has proposed a two-part system of land auctions to get around this problem. Local authorities would buy land at auction, grant planning permission on it and then sell the land on to developers – with some strings attached, if they so choose. The profits would be enormous, and enjoyed by existing residents in the form of lower taxes or better public services. This isn’t the only way to liberalise planning, but it retains local control and democratic accountability – while dramatically increasing the incentive to develop. The Department for Communities and Local Government said last year it would “pilot elements of the land auctions models, starting with public sector land”. That is like practising a dinner party with a doll’s tea set. The government has been in office since 2010; the financial crisis is five years old. A bit of urgency wouldn’t hurt.