Last week, I had the opportunity to visit these cool Boston area startups:
Skyhook wireless, ThingMagic, Pongr and uLocate.
The technophile in me thoroughly enjoyed it while the entrepreneur in me mostly went "Why didn't someone think of this before, it's about time!"
It was fascinating to talk with Michael Sheen and Steve Solari, the CEO and COO of Skyhook. I first heard of Skyhook when Steve Jobs mentioned them in his Macworld keynote last year, with reference to this cool technology that uses wi-fi networks to determine location. When Michael and Steve talked about how it felt to be on the receiving end of a call from Steve Jobs (who said he wanted to work with them!) I got to hear the other side of the story. Very interesting start-up story. I hope to write another post soon with the details.
ThingMagic totally grabbed my imagination. The first iteration of my first start-up was built around the dream of a RFID solution until technical challenges forced me to adapt and switch to another technology. Therefore, when I heard that the technical challenge that had prevented me from building my prototype had been overcome, it was super-exciting to say the least! Hearing Yael Maguire, co-founder and CTO of ThingMagic speak was fascinating. They've partnered with Intel to build their RFID chip and Yael's description of how they solved the challenges of full duplex communication was educational. Having designed and built a prototype for a semi-duplex communication chip, I could appreciate the technical challenges. On the business side, it was interesting (and inspiring!) to hear about yet another start-up that was bootstrapped until very recently, which is when they took in their first round of funding. When ThingMagic CEO Tom Grant (a former VC himself) talked about how they carefully thought about whether or not to accept outside funding and the criteria they used to decide to take in extra money, I found myself nodding in complete agreement. As the founder of a bootstrapped start-up, I couldn't agree more that bootstrapping is the way to go if at all possible and that taking in VC money should be the last resort, not the first, like most first-time entrepreneurs tend to think.
To be continued.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Shai Agassi @ MIT, 12.12.2008
I am blogging live from Shai Agassi's talk @ MIT on December 4, 2008. The Wong auditorium is overflowing and Shai Agassi is a very engaging speaker and a great evangelist. He talks about doing the right moral thing and doing right by coming generations by ridding ourselves of oil dependence.
He offered a lot of statistics on the cost benefits. Two particularly stood out - the cost of the entire infrastructure for electric cars in Israel (when it's all complete) will be $100 billion. This is the cost of oil imports for Israel for 2 months. The cost to implement electric car stations on the freeways between the SF Bay Area and LA on all 3 of the connectors - 101, 5 and Hwy 1 is only $25 million! I am scratching my head - so why are we not doing this?!
Shai is now taking questions.
Someone asked him this question: the electricity Shai wants to power cars with is generated from coal anyway, so why the evangelizing? Agassi responds they are replacing oil, not coal, which only costs 5 cents a hour, with electric technology that costs 6 cents a hour.
Another person asked him why car manufacturers would allow him to offer the option of an exchangeable battery since this is an important source of revenue for car manufacturers? His response is his model solves the mainstream economics problem. This allows the car to be sold for $20,000 instead of $35,000 and therefore wider adoption. Interesting approach.
He was asked how his model accounts for the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources used to charge the car batteries. His response was that the grid controls how many cars can be charged at any given time, and this ensures that energy generated is optimally used. The grid also has capacity to store excess energy. Both better place and utility operators can control the grid to achieve optimal performance.
Someone asked a question that I am sure is on a lot of people's minds. He wanted to know how to join betterplace. Shai's answer was to email jodi.shah@betterplace.com, but not to expect a response right away because they have over 7000 unsolicited emails to get to!
He next got asked about the critical mass aspect of this problem. Whats' the time to payback for this infrastructure investment? Shai splits the problem into 2 parts: charge spots (parking spots with charging facilities) - every 1 of 10 spots roughly needs to be electrified before people think of this as being ubiquitous. Part 2 is the switch station. For Israel, there needs to be 250 to 300 stations. The ratio is 10x of capital expenditure for viability. He didn't quite answer the question, but interesting numbers nonetheless.
Next question was whether better place had any plans for airplanes. Answer is no, not at the moment, since it's hard to switch batteries midair!
The talk just ended to a big round of applause. It was 1 hour well spent this evening!
He offered a lot of statistics on the cost benefits. Two particularly stood out - the cost of the entire infrastructure for electric cars in Israel (when it's all complete) will be $100 billion. This is the cost of oil imports for Israel for 2 months. The cost to implement electric car stations on the freeways between the SF Bay Area and LA on all 3 of the connectors - 101, 5 and Hwy 1 is only $25 million! I am scratching my head - so why are we not doing this?!
Shai is now taking questions.
Someone asked him this question: the electricity Shai wants to power cars with is generated from coal anyway, so why the evangelizing? Agassi responds they are replacing oil, not coal, which only costs 5 cents a hour, with electric technology that costs 6 cents a hour.
Another person asked him why car manufacturers would allow him to offer the option of an exchangeable battery since this is an important source of revenue for car manufacturers? His response is his model solves the mainstream economics problem. This allows the car to be sold for $20,000 instead of $35,000 and therefore wider adoption. Interesting approach.
He was asked how his model accounts for the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources used to charge the car batteries. His response was that the grid controls how many cars can be charged at any given time, and this ensures that energy generated is optimally used. The grid also has capacity to store excess energy. Both better place and utility operators can control the grid to achieve optimal performance.
Someone asked a question that I am sure is on a lot of people's minds. He wanted to know how to join betterplace. Shai's answer was to email jodi.shah@betterplace.com, but not to expect a response right away because they have over 7000 unsolicited emails to get to!
He next got asked about the critical mass aspect of this problem. Whats' the time to payback for this infrastructure investment? Shai splits the problem into 2 parts: charge spots (parking spots with charging facilities) - every 1 of 10 spots roughly needs to be electrified before people think of this as being ubiquitous. Part 2 is the switch station. For Israel, there needs to be 250 to 300 stations. The ratio is 10x of capital expenditure for viability. He didn't quite answer the question, but interesting numbers nonetheless.
Next question was whether better place had any plans for airplanes. Answer is no, not at the moment, since it's hard to switch batteries midair!
The talk just ended to a big round of applause. It was 1 hour well spent this evening!
Friday, November 28, 2008
The entrepreneurial culture in Silicon Valley
I was reading "Closing the innovation gap" by Judy Estrin and came across this gem that describes brilliantly why being an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley is different:
An acceptance of failure as a necessary stepping-stone to success is an integral part of the culture of Silicon Valley. As a partner at Kleiner Perkins, one of the Valley’s major VC firms, Kevin Compton met with industry leaders from other countries who were visiting the Valley in hopes of learning the secrets of its entrepreneurial magic. He would try to communicate the Valley gestalt with a story. “You’re getting ready for your country’s version of Thanksgiving dinner with the family. You’re 32 years old, you have kids, and you’re going to your in-laws’ for dinner,” says Compton. “After working at your version of IBM for ten years, everything was going great. But all of a sudden you left that job to go to a high-profile start-up that raised a whole bunch of money, and completely flamed out 18 months later. I would ask these guys, ‘Do you go to the family dinner?’ They would usually say no. And I would tell them that in Silicon Valley, not only do you go to dinner, but your brother-in-law comes up and gives you a high-five saying, ‘I wish I had the courage to do that.’ As a risk-taker, you got his attention. That’s in our DNA.”
Having been an entrepreneur in the valley, I can vouch for the accuracy of this assertion. I will go one step further and say my brother-in-law will likely follow up with a question about what were the biggest lessons I learned, and I will respond with here's what I am doing differently with my next start-up as a result of what I learned from my mistakes... the real failure is only when I don't pick myself up to move on and make NEW mistakes.
An acceptance of failure as a necessary stepping-stone to success is an integral part of the culture of Silicon Valley. As a partner at Kleiner Perkins, one of the Valley’s major VC firms, Kevin Compton met with industry leaders from other countries who were visiting the Valley in hopes of learning the secrets of its entrepreneurial magic. He would try to communicate the Valley gestalt with a story. “You’re getting ready for your country’s version of Thanksgiving dinner with the family. You’re 32 years old, you have kids, and you’re going to your in-laws’ for dinner,” says Compton. “After working at your version of IBM for ten years, everything was going great. But all of a sudden you left that job to go to a high-profile start-up that raised a whole bunch of money, and completely flamed out 18 months later. I would ask these guys, ‘Do you go to the family dinner?’ They would usually say no. And I would tell them that in Silicon Valley, not only do you go to dinner, but your brother-in-law comes up and gives you a high-five saying, ‘I wish I had the courage to do that.’ As a risk-taker, you got his attention. That’s in our DNA.”
Having been an entrepreneur in the valley, I can vouch for the accuracy of this assertion. I will go one step further and say my brother-in-law will likely follow up with a question about what were the biggest lessons I learned, and I will respond with here's what I am doing differently with my next start-up as a result of what I learned from my mistakes... the real failure is only when I don't pick myself up to move on and make NEW mistakes.
Friday, November 14, 2008
CSAIL @ MIT
I was in geek paradise this afternoon, and reveled in it. I visited CSAIL and the coolness of the cutting edge research that's going on at building 34 (I am @ MIT after all, of course I share a love for numbers with my fellow engineers :) took my breath away. The CSAIL lab is my Mecca - I became an engineer because I wanted to build robots and intelligent machines. It was good to be in my element after a long time, and it struck me how much I missed engineering and building cool things. The last time I built something really cool was when I designed a Lego Mindstorms robot to collect the dirty coffee mugs my room mate would leave strewn around our apartment. My co-bot (coffee-robot) would collect all the dirty mugs and move them to a spot I'd marked on the kitchen floor with reflective tape. Seems like a lifetime ago.
We visited Russ Tedrake's lab and saw autonomous flying robots and little dog. Robot locomotion has come such a long way since I was in grad school in 1998. I was incredibly impressed with Little Dog's obstacle detection and circumvention mechanisms. It left me longing to pursue a PhD @ CSAIL after the MBA.. I suspect I would be very happy if I became a lifer at MIT, the place just inspires me.
How any of this relates to entrepreneurship - I wonder if there are formal channels available to commercialize the research that comes out of CSAIL. I intend to find out. Stay tuned for the answer.
We visited Russ Tedrake's lab and saw autonomous flying robots and little dog. Robot locomotion has come such a long way since I was in grad school in 1998. I was incredibly impressed with Little Dog's obstacle detection and circumvention mechanisms. It left me longing to pursue a PhD @ CSAIL after the MBA.. I suspect I would be very happy if I became a lifer at MIT, the place just inspires me.
How any of this relates to entrepreneurship - I wonder if there are formal channels available to commercialize the research that comes out of CSAIL. I intend to find out. Stay tuned for the answer.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
MIT 100K Elevator Pitch Competition results
Some good news: I placed second in the Mobile Track at the MIT 100K Elevator Pitch Competition last week with my start-up "MoJoe"! My brain was completely fried by Saturday AM thanks to the midterms that preceded the event, so the results were a pleasant surprise. Unfortunately, only the first place winner was allowed to proceed to the finals from the Mobile track and the BioTech track owing to the fewer number of contestants, so I was unable to pitch in the finals.
Looking forward to doing better at the upcoming Executive Summary Competition!
A huge shout-out and "Thank you!" to all my classmates and friends who encouraged me to pitch, and not give up!
Looking forward to doing better at the upcoming Executive Summary Competition!
A huge shout-out and "Thank you!" to all my classmates and friends who encouraged me to pitch, and not give up!
Last week, several of us at MIT Sloan had the opportunity to hear about the cool research done at MIT about founding technology based enterprises from Professor Edward Roberts, the Founder and Chair of the MIT Entrepreneurship Center. We were offered a glimpse of the results of many years of research spanning hundreds of Technology companies, and the findings were fascinating.
Successful founders had the following traits:
- They became successful over their lifetime. Genetic predisposition had nothing to do with it. In other words, successful entrepreneurs are made, not born.
- They typically have a high need to achieve, and a moderate need for power. Professor Roberts made the point that people with a high need for power do not succeed in enabling and benefiting from the talents and insights of those around them, effectively holding the organization back and sometimes driving it into the ground.
- They partner with other co-founders. When the original founder does not have sales and marketing expertise, they seek out co-founders with that expertise.
- More the number of co-founders, higher the probability of success. His research studied companies with up to four co-founders. There was not enough data points to conclude about the effectiveness of companies with five or more co-founders.
Successful start-ups shared the following traits:
- They possessed a high degree of advanced technology transfer.
- They were product oriented.
- They had strong marketing orientation and practices, always putting customers first.
- They all possessed a focused growth strategy
For the super successful companies, later stage strategies included:
- A strategic product/business focus
- Strengthened market orientation
- Overcoming new problems
- Personally avoiding fatal "founder's diseases"
One other point that struck me which Professor Roberts made was that VCs on a start-up's board have mixed interests. Their focus is the company's exit strategy. For people who want to build great companies and help entrepreneurs build these companies, this is a painful and incompatible mindset.
He left us with a lot of food for thought, and speaking for myself, very curious and excited about what else the research uncovered.
Successful founders had the following traits:
- They became successful over their lifetime. Genetic predisposition had nothing to do with it. In other words, successful entrepreneurs are made, not born.
- They typically have a high need to achieve, and a moderate need for power. Professor Roberts made the point that people with a high need for power do not succeed in enabling and benefiting from the talents and insights of those around them, effectively holding the organization back and sometimes driving it into the ground.
- They partner with other co-founders. When the original founder does not have sales and marketing expertise, they seek out co-founders with that expertise.
- More the number of co-founders, higher the probability of success. His research studied companies with up to four co-founders. There was not enough data points to conclude about the effectiveness of companies with five or more co-founders.
Successful start-ups shared the following traits:
- They possessed a high degree of advanced technology transfer.
- They were product oriented.
- They had strong marketing orientation and practices, always putting customers first.
- They all possessed a focused growth strategy
For the super successful companies, later stage strategies included:
- A strategic product/business focus
- Strengthened market orientation
- Overcoming new problems
- Personally avoiding fatal "founder's diseases"
One other point that struck me which Professor Roberts made was that VCs on a start-up's board have mixed interests. Their focus is the company's exit strategy. For people who want to build great companies and help entrepreneurs build these companies, this is a painful and incompatible mindset.
He left us with a lot of food for thought, and speaking for myself, very curious and excited about what else the research uncovered.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sage advice for tough times
This showed up in my inbox today. I thought it was sage advice for tough times.
Alan Patricof, founder and managing director of New York venture capital firm Greycroft Partners LLC and an éminence grisea of the U.S. investment community, sent us a statement today urging restraint in how bloggers and members of the media characterize the "contagion" roiling global financial markets.
Patricof, who also formed the private equity firm that would become buyout giant Apax Partners, specifically addresses the flurry of reports this week that Silicon Valley venture firm Sequoia Capital Partners had summoned its portfolio company executives to warn of the impact of the ongoing financial crisis. While advising emerging companies to closely monitor costs and to be realistic in their near-term growth forecasts, he also says this is "not a time to panic, cut off all investment in the future, and burrow into a dark hole." -- Alain Sherter
Following is the full text of Patricof's statement:
The comments made by the partners of Sequoia Capital at their recently held 'CEO Summit' have been widely covered by leaks to numerous bloggers. These bloggers have disseminated the details and spread the contagion of the sentiments to the public at large, unfortunately running the risk that the words become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Without challenging the comments, which expressed a heightened degree of doom and gloom for the economic prospects of young start-up companies particularly, I do think it calls for a somewhat more restrained response on the outlook and required action before throwing the baby out with the bath water. Certainly, we are going through a period of enormous economic and political uncertainty. The loss of confidence, primarily in our financial system, as a result of the excess of the past five to ten years (if not longer - we may never know how long some of the flawed
practices have been going on) is one of the leading contributors. We are also at the moment looking for leadership on the political front, and both because of very low public support for the President and because we are in the midst of a heated election for his successor, we have no real voice of authority to provide some guidance,
reassurance, and inspirational confidence that the bus has a driver who knows where he is going.
Nevertheless, aside from an over-inflated housing boom that had to collapse sooner or later and a complicated financial system that arose in part to fuel this engine, the basic economy was in reasonable shape, with GNP growth and productivity gains supporting a solid, if not vibrant outlook (I know the automotive industry is also
going through bad times but it no longer pervades the economy as once conveyed in the expression, "As GM goes, so goes the nation.")
Advances in technology are allowing companies to make goods and provide services faster and cheaper. The wireless revolution and the Internet have made the dissemination of information easier and more pervasive for the entire world and brought significant benefits to every phase of our economy. That is not going to stop, although it may temporarily slow down. In these difficult times, there will be
winners as well as losers (and the former may be fewer in number for a while).
The point is, the financial problems are being addressed, if not a bit belatedly, and some international mechanism will be found in short order for some coordinated policy that will restore order and confidence to the system.
Most young companies, with which we are specifically concerned, are financed with equity capital. That has its positives and negatives; on the one hand, debt is a very small factor in the capital structure of most small companies so loan foreclosures and the interest rate burden are not of prime concern. On the other hand, equity capital,
which is provided by private investors, requires confidence in future prospects for reaching profitability and creating a strong market value. Certainly under current conditions it is hard to engender such confidence although history has demonstrated that it is in times like these that great opportunities are created. I have always said, "The best time to invest is when the drums are beating, not when the trumpets are blaring!"
This is surely a time for companies to pay meticulous attention to detail, particularly their cost structure. It is a time to be realistic in their near-term assumptions for revenue growth and take nothing for granted. Raising additional capital to support operations is of course critical, as it is at any time, but this is particularly a time for young companies to be extra cautious in developing pragmatic assumptions of their needs and in focusing on the amount and not necessarily the cost of that capital.
This is not a time to panic, cut off all investment in the future, and burrow into a dark hole. Take a page from the packaged goods industry that the time to gain market share is during tough times when your competitors are weaker in responding. And while this may feel more directly related to portfolio companies, we as a venture industry should not retreat either. It is our strong belief that we can and will continue to make sound investments in excellent opportunities. It is as good a time as ever to start a company with sound fundamentals.
So my point is to heed the caution of the Sequoia comments but to use them only as a strong message to reexamine all cost elements and growth plans and use this opportunity to assure that you are a survivor. Find a way to use this moment to gain your greater share of the market by providing a solution that is needed by others to
improve their prospects in the difficult environment ahead. Tighten your belt and live within your means. Although the timing makes this message seem more prescient, it is a philosophy that works for successful companies at all times and at all stages; it is simply put, good business. This is not a time for heroes!
Alan Patricof, founder and managing director of New York venture capital firm Greycroft Partners LLC and an éminence grisea of the U.S. investment community, sent us a statement today urging restraint in how bloggers and members of the media characterize the "contagion" roiling global financial markets.
Patricof, who also formed the private equity firm that would become buyout giant Apax Partners, specifically addresses the flurry of reports this week that Silicon Valley venture firm Sequoia Capital Partners had summoned its portfolio company executives to warn of the impact of the ongoing financial crisis. While advising emerging companies to closely monitor costs and to be realistic in their near-term growth forecasts, he also says this is "not a time to panic, cut off all investment in the future, and burrow into a dark hole." -- Alain Sherter
Following is the full text of Patricof's statement:
The comments made by the partners of Sequoia Capital at their recently held 'CEO Summit' have been widely covered by leaks to numerous bloggers. These bloggers have disseminated the details and spread the contagion of the sentiments to the public at large, unfortunately running the risk that the words become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Without challenging the comments, which expressed a heightened degree of doom and gloom for the economic prospects of young start-up companies particularly, I do think it calls for a somewhat more restrained response on the outlook and required action before throwing the baby out with the bath water. Certainly, we are going through a period of enormous economic and political uncertainty. The loss of confidence, primarily in our financial system, as a result of the excess of the past five to ten years (if not longer - we may never know how long some of the flawed
practices have been going on) is one of the leading contributors. We are also at the moment looking for leadership on the political front, and both because of very low public support for the President and because we are in the midst of a heated election for his successor, we have no real voice of authority to provide some guidance,
reassurance, and inspirational confidence that the bus has a driver who knows where he is going.
Nevertheless, aside from an over-inflated housing boom that had to collapse sooner or later and a complicated financial system that arose in part to fuel this engine, the basic economy was in reasonable shape, with GNP growth and productivity gains supporting a solid, if not vibrant outlook (I know the automotive industry is also
going through bad times but it no longer pervades the economy as once conveyed in the expression, "As GM goes, so goes the nation.")
Advances in technology are allowing companies to make goods and provide services faster and cheaper. The wireless revolution and the Internet have made the dissemination of information easier and more pervasive for the entire world and brought significant benefits to every phase of our economy. That is not going to stop, although it may temporarily slow down. In these difficult times, there will be
winners as well as losers (and the former may be fewer in number for a while).
The point is, the financial problems are being addressed, if not a bit belatedly, and some international mechanism will be found in short order for some coordinated policy that will restore order and confidence to the system.
Most young companies, with which we are specifically concerned, are financed with equity capital. That has its positives and negatives; on the one hand, debt is a very small factor in the capital structure of most small companies so loan foreclosures and the interest rate burden are not of prime concern. On the other hand, equity capital,
which is provided by private investors, requires confidence in future prospects for reaching profitability and creating a strong market value. Certainly under current conditions it is hard to engender such confidence although history has demonstrated that it is in times like these that great opportunities are created. I have always said, "The best time to invest is when the drums are beating, not when the trumpets are blaring!"
This is surely a time for companies to pay meticulous attention to detail, particularly their cost structure. It is a time to be realistic in their near-term assumptions for revenue growth and take nothing for granted. Raising additional capital to support operations is of course critical, as it is at any time, but this is particularly a time for young companies to be extra cautious in developing pragmatic assumptions of their needs and in focusing on the amount and not necessarily the cost of that capital.
This is not a time to panic, cut off all investment in the future, and burrow into a dark hole. Take a page from the packaged goods industry that the time to gain market share is during tough times when your competitors are weaker in responding. And while this may feel more directly related to portfolio companies, we as a venture industry should not retreat either. It is our strong belief that we can and will continue to make sound investments in excellent opportunities. It is as good a time as ever to start a company with sound fundamentals.
So my point is to heed the caution of the Sequoia comments but to use them only as a strong message to reexamine all cost elements and growth plans and use this opportunity to assure that you are a survivor. Find a way to use this moment to gain your greater share of the market by providing a solution that is needed by others to
improve their prospects in the difficult environment ahead. Tighten your belt and live within your means. Although the timing makes this message seem more prescient, it is a philosophy that works for successful companies at all times and at all stages; it is simply put, good business. This is not a time for heroes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)