Babbling VC

Highly unoriginal over at the NY Times

Take a look at the following article from Fortune about the "PayPal Mafia" which I blogged a bunch of posts down. Then read this article I found today over on the NY Times site about a supposed, upcoming "Google Mafia". In my opinion, this is not original writing in any sense and the article is totally boring (plus the PayPal guys had much cooler pics of them). Well, I guess we're going to be seeing more of this as the venture market picks up again. Sigh!

2008 Babble

Alright, my turn to dive into the prediction ring. Hey, everyone else is doing it, right?

1.  In 2008, we'll see the most growth in the mobile phone sector in regards to "smartphones". It seems like over the past years, the manufacturers have been focusing on the camera and music functionality in mobile devices. I think 2008 will see the "smart" part of the phone in focus, i.e. web capability, messaging, planning, and contacts management.

2.  Apple will continue to excel in the consumer sector and their stock price will continue going up. This might not sound like a very insightful prediction, but having been to two of the three Apple stores in Manhattan over the course of the past few days, I am quite convinced that demand will continue to grow. With a rumored sub-notebook device coming out and their growth in video and video rental on-line predicted, I think Apple can do very little wrong in the coming year. Further, I presume they will drop some hints as to what the next iPhone will look like, and if they even incorporate half of the missing features, it will be a winner. It most likely won't come out in 2008, but the hype and related excitement will keep Apple in everyone's mind.

3.  HTC will continue on it's growth path. Being the maker of the only truly usable Windows Mobile devices, and white-labeling for so many others, this manufacturer is poised to garner ever more market share. Their devices have topped the "best" lists of many review sites when it comes to smartphones for years now. They will continue to do so in 2008. One thing they have to watch out for is becoming complacent in design. One thing they cannot forget is that the competition at times is much better at executing design than they are.

4.  Wireless LAN will continue expanding. As annoying as hotspots and hotspot usage currently are, we will continue to see ever more access points worldwide. Most public spaces are already hotspots to some extent. I foresee this trend picking up speed in 2008, with more and more hotspots available for free.

5.  Mobile phone tariffs will continue plummeting. At the same time, ever more usage will become based on flat rates. Data will also go primarily to a flat-rate billing structure. In general, the user will simply be incentivized to use their mobile more and more.

6.  Russia as a target for venture money will continue to become increasingly more interesting. The evolution to-date has been slow, but when in Europe, one can sense something. You hear that people are willing to invest their money (and some already have). You're also starting to see exits here and there. I predict Russia is the place to be making bets in 2008 with venture capital.

7.   The GCC (Dubai, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc.) will become ever more relevant as LP's in the private equity sector. Although they are still highly focused on real-estate investment, the savviest of investors from the region are looking for long-term alternatives (highly sophisticated investors in the region have already been in buyout funds for years). Having seen how many new funds are down there chasing the money, I can only presume that the GCC will become stronger and stronger as a "must-pitch" investor group.

8.  We won't see any major revolution in "electric" cars. Whatever the alternative energy source is trying to power the newest car models, we will continue our dependency on good ol' gas. The large manufacturers aren't incentivized yet to go full bore towards alternatives, and the pain-point at the pump hasn't been reached.

9.   Social networks will continue strong. Although they will continue searching for monetization opportunities, I don't foresee them disappearing any time soon. If one does disappear, another on will follow in it's footsteps. We'll see more and more people managing their "on-line life" via a social network platform. I also predict the role of a "friend" will become ever more important. You'll be less likely in the future to add everyone and anyone as a friend. Yet, those friends whom you do add will get more of your attention.

10. Finally, and I think I've predicted this every year, presence will become super important. Location aware devices and your "status" as being available or not will intertwine to make sure that anyone trying to reach you can hunt you down and anyone you are looking for will be a couple "clicks" away. I don't see location based services growing as fast when it comes to advertising. But I do see location combined with your contacts as the area where we'll see ever more killer apps created in 2008.

Of course, I could be totally wrong!

Kids want to be Snipers?

Here's a scary thought: 1% of kids (6 of 600 asked in California) responded they wanted to be snipers (yeah, the guys who secretly and stealthly shoot and kill other people) when they grow up. I'm reading Microtrends by Mark J. Penn at the moment and this is one of the trends described which blew me away. OK, it's California and a pretty small sample spanning a larger age group, but the question was open-ended. They could have responded whatever they wanted to say. That 6 out of 600 would seriously put this as what they want to be when they grow up is a bit disconcerting, no? OK, I've walked out of the Bourne series of films thinking, "cool, assassin sounds like fun", but I wouldn't put it on my goal of "things to do" on my career path. It was a movie people! Someone needs to take a look into this in California, don'tcha think? (By the way, Penn's analysis of this makes it seem much less harmful than I imagine! I mean, are kids out "practicing"?)

In New York for the holidays...Posting will be light!

I'm out of town for a couple weeks trying to get some rest. Yup, in the wrong city for that, but I'm a glutton for punishment.

*foto illustration by Tom Krieger..cool pics: http://fotoillustration.de/uber/

Don't be "crazy"! Business advice for the Spears Family

This is so well written and hits on a simple point. If you want to keep your customer, DON'T BE CRAZY. Yes, it's related to our favority freak family out there, the Spears, but still. I've seen so many businesses make mistakes where your customer has no choice but to think you are crazy. This has them running for the hills quickly!

via FastCompany:

Entrepreneurship: Britney's Sister Gets Pregnant

Britney Spears' 16 year old sister, a Nickelodeon actress named Jamie-Lynn, is pregnant. Here's why you should care: the sisters, and their mother (who was slated for a book deal) are a textbook case of How To Ruin Your Personal Brand, and watching their deconstruction has become a fascinating look at a case study in mismanagement.

Photo: Michael Buckner/Getty Images

The three Spears women are, doubtless, entrepreneurs of an unusual stripe; all entertainers are. But no matter the niche, startup owners have to be almost myopic about preserving the integrity and reliability of their brand. Lose the trust and regard of your customers, and any further efforts your business makes will be laughably disregarded. Here's how the Louisianan Ladies have royally screwed up a multi-million dollar franchise.

The Pregnancy: For Jamie-Lynn alone, getting pregnant was probably an unwise decision (or mistake, depending on the circumstances). The producers of the network show she starts on, "Zoey 101," won't be too amenable to writing in a teen pregnancy to the kid-oriented script. The show was set to resume filming in February, but since Hollywood waits for no one, you can bet Jamie-Lynn is out of a job.

But consider her pregnancy in the context of her mother and her sister, and the bigger picture of brand bone-headedness comes into view. The Spears matriarch, Lynne, had been in the midst of negotiating a book deal about the challenge of raising two successful, high-profile girls. It was supposed to come out on Mother's Day under the title "Pop Culture Mom: A Real Story of Fame and Family in a Tabloid World." According to Us Magazine, it was summarized as a parenting book with a number of "faith elements to it." Unsurprisingly, the book deal has been indefinitely delayed.

The Disunity: When questioned about her younger daughter's indiscretions, Lynne Spears reportedly told MTV: "I didn't believe it because Jamie Lynn's always been so conscientious. She's never late for her curfew. I was in shock. I mean, this is my 16-year-old baby." This is not crisis-management language.

"Wait," you might be saying; "this is a family we're talking about, not a business." Yes, it is a family. But when you run a family business, it becomes both, and needs to be treated as such. Lynne's reaction smacks of inattentive parenting and cluelessness -- did she not know her daughter was sexually active? Did her daughter fail to inform her before the press did? That kind of dissonance between reality and illusion ("my 16-year-old baby") doesn't speak well for her aptitude as a mother or a career adviser. For those that think she shouldn't be held to the standard of the latter position, remember that she once managed both her daughters, and was the driving parent behind their entry into show business as children.

The Craziness: Taken in isolation, Jamie-Lynn's pregnancy shoots her mother's book deal in the foot. But in the scheme of Britney's two-year long descent into ostensible insanity, it reeks of the unmistakable scent of family craziness. And that is exactly the kind of nuttiness that can sink even a juggernaut business like Britney's.

Consider a nearly analogous situation: the Simpson family (Jessica and Ashlee, not Homer and Marge). Jessica Simpson's father, also her manager for a period of her career, is a bonafied lunatic who is on record with numerous lascivious comments about his own daughter's sexual appeal and breast size. He also has an infamous temper. His younger daughter, Ashlee, has made a fool of herself on at least two occasions, botching live performances with a lip-synching disaster on SNL and a boo-earning performance at the Superbowl. Even so, Jessica and Ashlee have continued to keep their professional heads above water, because their imperfections look like a product of circumstance and bad luck, not a product of familial insanity. That's mostly a product of Jessica's even keel in public, and her consistent work as an artist (even if the term "artist" is arguably misapplied).

Compare that to Lynne Spears and her daughters, and you see a different breed of disasters: the self-imposed kind. Britney's numerous quick divorces, legal battles, careless parenting, drug and alcohol addiction all made her most recent album's negative reviews a foregone conclusion. To be a successful artist, and more broadly, entrepreneur, there has to be at least the illusion of composure and confidence behind the scene. Once that disappears, the quality of the product ceases to be the issue, because no one wants to buy anything from a crazy person.

The End Result: In a perfect world, each of the Spears' indiscretions would handicap only their own careers. But they reinforce each other, compounding the knot of incompetence and rendering each of their brands' values -- and their common brand -- increasingly devoid in value. Rarely does celebrity news have too much to teach the business world, but in this case, take some heed: no one operates in a vacuum, especially a family. And personal life and business are rarely as divorced as anyone would like. Take it from Lynne Spears: keep tabs on your business partners now, and avoid disaster later.

Maybe "On Drugs" the Valley will be cool!

Somehow I just don't believe it to be true. There is no way the Valley is this "hip"!

As seen on Valleywag:

Why don't you publish more stories about the drug culture in the Valley? You do know that everyone who's anyone is on drugs. Mostly OC-80 pain killers, since they are the expensive $40/pill drug and much better than cocaine. Haven't you seen what goes on at parties? I don't know how to explain it as a previous addict (I haven't had pills in 6+ months), but you can spot everyone else like you a mile away, and even now my conversations turn to drugs.

I recently did contract work for a company and the last person I interviewed with and I knew a common person, suddenly we made a drug joke, and pretty soon we both were on the same page, it's like a secret club, and I got the contract.

You have no idea (or maybe you do) the amount of prescription painkillers flowing in Silicon Valley. If you think that Hollywood has drug problems, the Valley is way, way worse. It's just that people keep it much more secret.

I can't even remember all the times I've been at some of the top 10 companies in the valley snorting OC with somebody who's on the board of a big company. It's sad really, I don't know how to explain it. After having spent two years addicted to OC and spending $100k+ and being a well functioning addict, I feel sorry for people who are on pills. It just makes me crazy somedays to know that everyone says drugs are bad, but EVERYONE who runs the world is on them....

Cars, Phones, and Driving

I caught the following over on Jeff's blog:

The UK is Insane

Posted on December 20, 2007
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment

I read news from the UK and shake my head at how far off the rails that country has gone. Take this example of the latest nanny state initiative, equating using a cell phone while driving with driving while intoxicated. Actually, it’s considered worse than DUI because drinking and driving is not illegal, as in the U.S. it becomes illegal when your blood alcohol level exceeds a threshold, but under these new rules, any use of a cell phone while driving would be illegal.

[UPDATE to clarify, when I read this post I realized I made a mistake in presenting my logic. I said “is considered worse than DUI” but what I should have said is that is “worse than drinking and driving” because DUI is always a criminal offense. Drinking and driving is not criminal, the subset of people who drive after drinking enough to be legally intoxicated are breaking the law.]

I would challenge anyone to consider the facts first, while mobile phone usage has skyrocketed over the last decade, highway fatality statistics have been flat since 1986, well actually they rose slightly in 2006 but that was due to pedestrian and motorcycle fatalities increasing. While proponents of these laws will say any number above zero is unacceptable, it is unreasonable to believe that zero is actually achievable and elevating inherently non-dangerous behavior to criminal, as is the situation in the UK where cell phone use while driving is more prosecutable than drinking and driving, devalues the efforts to curtail behaviors that are dangerous and criminal.

It is a good suggestion, and in many cases the law, to use a handsfree device while driving and this is a reasonable public safety measure. I have a bluetooth setup in my car and couldn’t imagine not using it, not only does it free my hands to focus on driving, but it’s more convenient to use than a handset. To criminalize any cell phone use while driving is just insane.

Motorists caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving could be jailed for two years under tough new guidelines issued today by prosecutors. [From Drivers who use mobile phones face jail - Telegraph]

I was going to simply reply as a commenter but I thought it was worth a post as this is something I am truly passionate about. Below is what I was going to originally comment somewhat extended into a full post:

Jeff, I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't believe this is a situation where statiscal evidence plays much of a role. It also isn't simply a problem in the UK alone and isn't just a regulatory issue. I feel based on my experience while driving in multiple geographies that a good proportion of people don't belong on the road behind the wheel at all. They are distracted enough by breathing to be good drivers. Add a phone conversation to the equation and you have rolling timebombs enroute. I also have experienced so many more situations where I had near-misses due to someone clearly either talking on a handset or via bluetooth (visible by the earpiece....it's tough to discern whether someone has a bluetooth set-up in the car with mics, etc.) Either they swerved into my lane or nearly hit me when they missed lights, etc. As a pedestrian I've also noticed I've had many more near-misses in recent years as phone usage while driving has gone up (very clearly evident most when in NYC). Finally, as a driver here in Germany, I am dealing with much higher speeds when on the Autobahn. The risk of someone swerving into my lane or changing a lane without seeing me is multiplied when someone is carrying on a conversation and at higher speeds, the damage is exponential. I am legally allowed to drive this fast and only do see when I feel it is safe. It is highly likely that the faster I go, the more focused I am on driving. It's exactly the opposite for someone on the phone.

I know your argument above was more about the regulation and enforcement of this regulation as oppossed to whether it is safe or not to talk on the phone while driving. Unfortunately, we see what the minimal fines have done in this regard. People don't care and continue to talk on the phone while driving, just as dangerous as they were before it was banned to use a handset (not hands-free) in most geographies. I believe the move in the UK with such strict regulation is simply to make a point. Everyone cried foul about the city's congestion tax but look at the effect. Less people are driving into London's center and are switiching over to public transport. It was probably more than people would have liked, but it had the necessary effect. People tend to only pay attention when it really hurts and I for one am willing to deal with the "pain" of not talking on the phone while driving. I truly would feel safer if I knew others also weren't on the phone. Is it good for the "State" to go this far? No; Does it at times work? Yes; Would people "police" themselves in this regard? No; Is this something I would fight against? No; Are there many other things which the "State" does or wants to do which I would fight against? Yes

Germany's Auto Industry Cries Foul

Via eubusiness.com, comes the following:

Germany blasts EU car emissions proposals

19 December 2007, 16:13 CET

(BERLIN) - Chancellor Angela Merkel and the powerful German auto industry slammed a proposal by the European Commission Wednesday to impose heavy fines on car-makers that fail to meet emissions targets.

They argued that the measures would unfairly burden German auto manufacturers, a major component of Europe's biggest economy.

"This is industrial policy at Germany's expense," Merkel fumed after a meeting with leaders of major international lending institutions.

"It is senseless to impose a penalty that bears no relation to the actual cost of carbon dioxide emissions."

The German Automobile Manufacturers Federation (VDA) also demanded "major changes" to the proposals, arguing that they put a disproportionate burden on makers of bigger cars.

"With the current proposal... neither the cause of environmental protection nor economic reason is being served," VDA president Matthias Wissmann said. "European environmental policy must not be set at the expense of a few manufacturers."

A government spokesman said earlier that the emissions plan would backfire.

"It would hinder innovation in the automobile industry, threaten jobs and fail to be an effective instrument for climate protection," he said.

The penalties muted by the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, would start in 2012 at 20 euros (28.8 dollars) per gramme of carbon dioxide over a target and climb to 95 euros in 2015.

Each auto-maker selling cars in Europe would have specific targets assigned to it with the aim of cutting CO2 emissions to a European average of 130 grammes per kilometre travelled for new cars.

Parts and fuel-makers will be tasked with shaving a further 10 grammes off the average with improvements to gearboxes and air-conditioning systems, tyre-pressure monitoring and the use of more biofuels.

The combined efforts are aimed at cutting average emissions by a quarter, to 120 grammes per kilometre on average from about 160 currently.

Countries such as Germany and Sweden which make big petrol-guzzling cars have fiercely opposed the plans. Major supporters include France, Italy, Spain and Romania, whose auto industries make smaller more fuel-efficient cars.

Merkel, who championed climate protection during her presidencies of the Group of Eight industrialised nations this year and the EU in the first half, said Germany shared the 120-grammes per kilometre goal.

"But the way proposed to get there is not economical," she said.

The Commission proposal still has to be approved by the European Parliament and the EU's 27 member states before it can come into force.

Somehow I don't see this ending soon. Of course the German auto industry will cry foul about this. They (like the US auto industry) missed the boat on producing more compact, fuel-efficient models and milked the current and previous demand for larger cars without making any plans for the future. I find the spin on this as being economically prohibitive complete bullshit. Of course it will "hurt", but how do you plan on making changes without it hurting at all?

Why you should be worried about your family and friends!

They are checking you out! According to a Pew Internet report (via Valleywag), 53 percent of adult internet users are using search engines to find out what their loved ones, friends and business colleagues are doing. On the other hand, only 9 percent actually use search engines to figure out what dates or potential romantic interests are doiing. I would have thought it was completey the other way around. I'm not in the Internet dating game, but I sure would throw a potential date's name into Google before heading out the door. I really don't care much about what my colleagues are doing nor do I have the time to stalk their online activity. I'll admit though that I do every now and again throw my name into Google to see what comes up. Kinda scary how much one can find out about you just by doing this. Don't forget to also search for pics. You'll be surprised what comes up sometimes.

Sometimes a cool gimmick and a bit of technology truly works! Sorry Ladies!

As seen on the Coolhunter, a very cool (and super simple) way of adding a bit of tech to stale, old billboards to catch peoples' attention.