Monthly Archives: August 2010

More on Mobile Check-ins

With Big Kahuna Facebook launching its own check-in service yesterday, the commentariat is chiming in. Here is a nice article from Wade Roush noting that A) Facebook wins, and B) it wins because it’s useful, rather than a novelty. You know I love posts that agree with mine!

Do Angel Investors Make Technology Shallow?

Just two days ago I wrote about super angels potentially crowding out VCs in the funding of technology companies, and I noted that this dynamic was mostly relevant to consumer internet companies rather than hardware companies. And I didn’t even mention biotech, medical device or energy companies, most of which take far more capital than even the superest of angels could provide.

Now, lo and behold, a former Gartner analyst comes out with an article about how Silicon Valley is too focused on consumer internet, on “the glitz and the superficial,” rather than on solving big problems, like medical and environmental ones. He notes that the new innovators in those areas are big companies, who are focusing their R&D budgets on these big problems with big markets, rather than entrepreneurs, who are focusing their energies on figuring out the best way to get you to “check in” at your local bar.

On Super Angels and Lean Startups

Both the Wall Street Journal and TechCrunch recently wrote articles about the new breed of “super angels” in Silicon Valley, individuals who are aggressively investing in technology startups, often in amounts large enough that they are starting to squeeze out traditional venture capitalists.

TechCrunch states that this movement is enabled by the rise of the “lean startup,” in which companies use new technologies to reduce their costs:

“But the last several years have seen the rise of the cheap startup. Internet startups can use open source software and new scripting languages to ship products fast and cheap.”

That’s true, but only for a certain segment of technology companies. Sure, consumer internet companies can leverage these new technologies and launch without gobs of capital, but much of the technology world doesn’t have that luxury. Any company that produces hardware is in a different situation. Chips, devices, networking appliances – these guys all need just as much capital as they ever did. And even folks working on software for the enterprise are still somewhat tied to the old ways of building products.

TechCrunch tends to see Silicon Valley as consisting solely of web startups fueled by former Googlers, but there are still entrepreneurs out there working on traditional products. So before you start writing the obituary for venture capital, remember that consumer internet may be fun and sexy, but there are plenty of technology companies that still need the sorts of resources only large funds can provide.

Mobile Check In: Fad or Function?

If you follow the technology business at all, you know that one of the hot new trends is “checking in,” whereby you use an application on your smartphone to tell the world, or at least your friends, where you are. Using the now free wifi at your local Starbucks? Check in. Just ordered a Manhattan at the hip new bar? Check in from there. You can see where your friends are, and vice versa, and if you check in frequently enough, you may get special status.

There are a jillion companies offering these applications now, each with annoying names reminiscent of the dot com boom of a decade ago: Loopt, Whrrl, Gowalla, Foursquare (now with Snoop Dogg on the service!) and Check.in to aggregate them all. Plus big players are expected to enter the business: Yelp already has, Google is circling, and Facebook is the 800 pound gorilla everyone fears, with rumors that they are buying Hot Potato.

The question is whether any of these services will be more than just another fad briefly embraced by fedora-wearing technorati hipsters in SF, NY and Austin. Being “mayor” of the local pub only goes so far. Knowing where your friends are is nice, but email and text can do that. For checking in to have legs, it needs to add actual value beyond its current novelty. Getting discounts from the bars and restaurants where you check in frequently – now that is valuable. Assistance in meeting members of the opposite sex (or same sex…however you roll) is valuable.

Clear and tangible benefits need to be provided, and in a way that can’t be gamed; bars won’t participate if they are getting scammed for free drinks. All the check in players are working on this – they aren’t stupid – but nobody has hit on a winning formula yet. In the meantime, when you read the breathless press about this amazing new capability, remember that it’s not a business yet. Or, appreciate the savagery of Time magazine, which called Foursquare “just another tool tapping into a generation of narcissism.”

Michael Kinsley Takes on Laffer

Regular Thoughtbasket readers know how I mock the Laffer Curve, a flawed theory that tax-cutting fiends use in order to claim that reducing marginal tax rates will actually increase government revenue as it unleashes a flood of investment and entrepreneurship. See my mockery here and here, for example.

So of course I was heartened to see Michael Kinsley at The Atlantic take up the cause.  Enjoy his mockery here.

Slate Magazine vs. Sarah Palin

I had pretty much forgotten about Sarah Palin, or started to ignore the news items about her, and I had assumed that maybe she was holed up learning about policy or facts. But then Slate runs an article trying to analyze how she might come up with some of the wacky stuff  she says.  I read a quote like the one below, and it’s hard to see the issue as one of policy differences:

“Oil and coal? Of course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. … So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here.”

I’m sorry, but regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, that makes no sense. Take Newt Gingrich: he is deeply conservative and I deeply disagree with him, but that guy could talk for a week straight and he would never say anything as idiotic as the Palin quote above. I want to be generous and assume that Palin isn’t stupid; that she just uses folksy idioms and is slightly misinformed. But I read what she says, I hear about the “refudiates”  and that generosity is hard to find. Can someone help me solve this conundrum?

The Taliban as a Desert Gang

Here is a great article in Foreign Policy that compares Afghanistan’s Taliban movement to the Bloods and Crips and other urban gangs here in the US. The author notes similar structures and similar motivations, and then discusses successful methods that urban police departments have used to reduce gang violence, and how they could be applicable in the deserts of Afghanistan.

Interesting fact: as part of counterinsurgency training, US Marines from Camp Pendleton are embedding with Los Angeles cops to see anti-gang policing in action.

Extra shout out: for the headline Straight Outta Kandahar.

Piling on Google

Om Malik has a great post today on Google’s utter inability to compete in the social media world, as evidenced this week by the company shutting down Google Wave, which was a complete flop, and the sad purchase of Slide for $200 million.

I recently posted about the risk that Google’s culture poses to its future success, and Malik makes the same point, noting that Google simply doesn’t have social media in its DNA. He says that algorithms can’t factor in empathy, which is another way of saying that hiring only engineers doesn’t guarantee future success.