Category Archives: Business

Has Silicon Valley Stopped Solving Problems?

That is the claim of Dan Lyons in the recent Newsweek, wherein he claims that the trend of consumer internet companies (Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, etc.) making gobs of money by doing essentially shallow things will draw engineers and entrepreneurs away from solving the hard problems that have traditionally driven Silicon Valley.

Erick Schonfeld at TechCrunch disagrees, saying that Facebook and its ilk aren’t shallow and are also technically hard, since they have to scale to support so many users.  Most of Schonfeld’s article is, quite frankly, dumb (I mean seriously, using anti-virus software, which solves a real and burdensome problem, to show that internet companies are useful too, is nuts. And saying that Twitter’s many-to-many communication is a bigger tech achievement than the telephone network…dude, do you even know anything about technology?), but I appreciate his viewpoint and that of the many comments his article generated (as usual with comments, they are split between wisdom and inanity).

It won’t surprise regular readers of Thoughtbasket to learn that I come down somewhere between these two poles. I wrote a post on this very topic recently, riffing off a former Gartner analyst who said pretty much exactly what Gross said. Yes, Facebook makes people happy, and some of the technology required to build it to scale might help build other products. But it’s basically a toy, and the technology isn’t that innovative. More importantly, it sure isn’t curing cancer or solving the energy problem.

It’s OK for fun products to do well; Facebook and Zynga make tons of money because people love using them. But Lyons makes a good point: the wealth and attention being lavished on these fun products could lead smart people to build ever-shallower products (hello Foursquare) instead of solving big and important problems. Silicon Valley is a big place, and there seem to be a lot of entrepreneurs attacking all sorts of problems, but the tendency of the press (particularly TechCrunch) to focus on consumer internet companies as if they were the only things of note in Silicon Valley adds to the problem Lyons describes.

Virtual Companies Also Unfocused Companies?

One of the hot new trends in Silicon Valley is the “virtual” company: a firm where everyone works from home, only coming together for the occasional meeting at Starbucks. This can be a great thing, part of the lean startup trend. Obviously, saving money on rent and furniture and the like allows a company to get farther along before it needs to raise capital.

However there are also special challenges for virtual companies. I am consulting for two of them now, and I’m seeing some of these challenges first hand. These challenges primarily stem from the difficulty in communicating at a virtual company. With employees spread out, communication is usually via email or IM. These are mediums that tend to promote brief, sometimes inconsistent, communications.

Sometimes when “discussing” an issue with my clients there will be 15 or 20 emails, each only 1 or 2 lines long, with multiple people chiming in, often with their missives crossing each other, and thus not incorporating other thoughts and comments. It can be difficult in this environment to drive toward a conclusion, particularly if you want any kind of consensus. Ideas and concepts are more likely to fall through the cracks. Email can be super efficient, don’t get me wrong, but it can also make group communication less effective than it would be if everyone were together in same space.

A possible consequence of this sort of fragmented communication is that it makes solving difficult problems more difficult. A virtual company is likely to be better at solving problems a single person can tackle than at solving problems requiring cohesive group effort. Based on my consulting experiences, this is true whether the problem is technical or business oriented.

Technology can help mitigate these communications challenges. Skype and other services provide free conference calls, so you can at least communicate in real time. Web conferencing and virtual whiteboards can replicate meetings, and project management software can help ensure that everything gets done on schedule. But if the management of the virtual company isn’t aware of the communication difficulties and does nothing to address them, the company is likely to generate fragmented products or strategies.

Alaska Loves Federal Money

Yesterday I posted about how Alaska politicians talk a big game about wanting the federal government to leave them alone, but in reality they suck down more federal money than any other state. Having just spent a week in Alaska, I brought some photographic evidence of our biggest state’s big appetite for taxpayer money.

Here is the beginning of a beautifully built and maintained trail at the Mendenhall Glacier outside Juneau. You can see that construction of the trail, which must have employed several people to cut brush and grade the path, was paid for by the federal stimulus package. As for the big Bob Marley joint depicted on the sign….it’s unclear if federal dollars paid for that.

Trail paid for by US taxpayers

In Gustavus, a small town which is the gateway to Glacier Bay, a brand new $20 million dock is being built with federal stimulus dollars. I spoke with the owner of my hotel and with the pilot of my whale watching boat, and both said that the dock was completely unnecessary. But it was employing a whole bunch of skilled laborers, so many that they had to come in from Juneau, since Gustavus didn’t have that many construction workers.

The new dock at Gustavus

Here is a photo of all the pickups and SUVs owned by the people working on the dock. Again, these are local workers being paid with US taxpayer dollars.

Construction worker trucks

I have no problem with stimulus dollars paying people to build paths and docks; that is how a government stimulus package works. The government injects money into the system to boost employment and spending.  My problem is with a state that talks about how it doesn’t believe in the stimulus or in federal help at all while it continues to take as much federal money as it can.

Voters are Ill-informed; Politicians are Hypocrites

The NY Times recently ran an article about Alaska, which attracted my attention since I was planning a vacation to that giant state (in fact, I am drafting this entry on my flight to Anchorage). But this article wasn’t about fishing, or the awesome glaciers, or how to avoid being eaten by bears. No, this article was about the irony of Alaska being the home of such anti-government fervor (Sarah Palin’s small government views are pretty representative of her home state) while at the same time being the largest recipient of federal stimulus money.

For example, Alaska state representative Carl Gatto called to roll back the federal government’s “entire socialistic experiment in federal hegemony.” Yet he also celebrated that “for every $1 we give them in taxes for highways, they give us back $5.76.”  Jay Ramras, another state rep, embodied the dichotomy in a single quote: “If you want to feed us federal money like it’s a narcotic and make the state into a junkie of the U.S. Treasury, O.K.,” he allows. “But we would like to be an Emersonian Alaska and just get control of our resources.”

Of course, Alaska is not alone in this irony. There is a strong correlation between conservative states talking a big game about “government out of our business” while sucking aggressively at the federal teat. This map shows how red states take more than they give, and this chart shows traditionally republican states leading the way in receiving more federal dollars than they pay in taxes. And here is a brand new map from the NY Times based on census data.

So how do we explain this paradox? I suppose it could simply be the essential greed of humanity, people feeling that they are justified in taking as much as they can while giving as little as possible. Or it could be a canny political move, trying to drain the coffers of the government in order to force it to shrink, sort of a “starve the beast” movement at the grass roots level. But I don’t think either of those explanations fly. I think, instead, that the average voter doesn’t even make the connection between small government and services provided, between taxes paid and resources received. When voters say “don’t tax me” while taking a bridge paid by other citizen’s taxes, they don’t see the irony because they don’t even realize that taxes are what pay for bridges. See this piece by James Kwak on how the whole tax & service thing works, and this piece by David Sirota on how American voters seem to lack the ability to remember what policies worked or didn’t work in the past.

The politicians, on the other hand, who vote for these policies, like Carl Gatto and Jay Ramras from the NY Times article, or Ted Stevens, a major obtainer of federal dollars for the state, should actually understand how taxes and services are related. I mean, they are professional legislators, and this is a basic part of government budgeting. They are not ignorant, like the voters; they’re just hypocritical, saying and doing whatever they must to get reelected. They recognize the irony in calling for lower taxes while trumpeting the bacon they bring home from Washington…they just don’t care. They use that irony to cynically take advantage of the electorate’s lack of understanding, and it gets them elected year after year.

I just returned from a week in Alaska, where I saw this phenomenon in action multiple times. There will be follow-on posts on this topic.

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.

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.