Deals & Steals – Lynne's Take on Tech

AI Trends for 2024: What’s Old is New Again

There’s a lot of shock and awe in the AI space these days. And lots of money on the table. But through the sturm und drang, some trends are emerging. To level-set, I went back and reread our last published article together, Moving Forward in 2020: Technology Investment in ML, AI, and Big Data (William F Jolitz & Lynne G Jolitz, Cutter Business Journal, 7 April 2020).

Four years ago, AI was at a crossroads. When we looked a traditional value propositions in technology, where one went from a specific technology to a target customer in a high value sector to a broadened sector and use, AI was doing miserably. 70% of companies said their AI projects provided little to no benefit to their company. Only 40% of companies said they had made a significant investment in AI. The frustration lay with “products sold with ill-defined benefits” which led to “unsustainable revenue that plummets when customers become disillusioned from a tactical lack of sales focus”. We stated the key problem was “the startup’s sales focus no longer aligns with the customer’s strategic focus”. In tech speak, they couldn’t figure out what to do with it and got disappointed.

We suggested what we called an “axiomatic” approach: “Instead of moving from technology to key customers with an abstracted TAM (Total Available Market), we must instead quantify AI and ML benefits where they specifically fit within business strategies across segment industries”. We then highlighted three areas to watch: surveillance, entertainment, and whitespace, while also discussing the issues with ad hoc architectures which potentially disrupt the cloud services costs and security. In terms of architectures, there is now more focus on data ownership and control, as well as reducing costs in the cloud. But it’s still very much the same as four years ago for most customers.

But the key prediction where we were literally “on the money” was our analysis of chaotic disruption of the market forwarded and funded by “super angels”. This was how companies like OpenAI spawned and spurred tremendous disruption in a very short timeframe:

“Venture capital (VC) investments in ML/AI fixate on a startup’s ability to obtain go-to-market sales by disintermediating other vendors and to lock-up highly profitable (yet elusive) opportunities. The VC’s intent is startup validation and gauging threats to other vendors’ uncompetitive businesses that will drive the startup’s ability to gain partnerships and revenue shares. However, sometimes, the result is not what VCs would wholly desire but rather more like paralysis with no clear “win” — because the startup only partially engages the customers and does not succeed in displacing other vendors. To force the win, tactical deconstructing/reconstructing of AI/ML solutions around existing layers of edge and cloud platforms as an investment category is akin to desperately reshuffling poker chips on the poker table. This is best avoided. Industry disruption is inherently unstable. Like an ouroboros, it can abruptly turn from obvious low-hanging fruit targets to feeding off earlier successful targets undergoing a state of change.
The potential for radically greater opportunities is more interesting than patiently maintaining course or re-navigating the rough waters to see existing ventures through to a reasonable conclusion. This potential is the realm of super angels, self-funders, and leading edge “winners.” These individuals and groups see no disadvantage to riding a chaotic wave because they’ve gotten accustomed to being so out in front of theirthe self-competition within their newly chosen, ever-shifting “whitespace path.”
However, the traditional VC process is disadvantaged by these groups because venture capitalists’ gut instincts based on the feel of the deal get whipsawed by the loss of bragging rights to ROI, limiting them from getting too far out beyond their headlights. Thus, chaotic disruption is a no-go zone for most. For those who decide to enter these perilous waters, the tendency to share risk across many partners leads to a kind of groupthink at odds with the fast moves and flexibility required of the super angels.

As open source investments demonstrated, it’s a risky business consuming your own potential customers. In the AI chaotic disruption, all potential customers are considered targets: media, artists, writers, businesses.

In consuming the “long tail” of literature, art, whitepapers, business databases, and personal information and opinion on the Internet and then regurgitating it as facsimiles stripped of authorship and authority, companies like OpenAI and Google whipsawed established players. As we have seen, the rush of businesses and consumers to magnify this effect was phenomenal — and dangerous.

The intent was to rapidly drive paniced companies to sign exclusive agreements and become the dominant company in AI for the next half century. If it sound unbelievable, note we now have only a few companies which dominate search, content, and connection due to brand recognition and addictive use. It takes a lot of money to maintain an addition, or establish a new one.

As the investment space is still suppressed due to poor conditions despite all the dry powder, there are a few bright spots. Battery investments continue to spark interest. Climate change companies surge and storm. Crypto was actually legalized by the SEC, because you can’t play with GameStop forever — so it’s time to jump into the big scams, kids. Space investments are, well, vast. AI plays a role in all of these.

But because of the chaotic disruption strategy that our billionaires strategized in Silicon Valley, AI now has the attention of everyone, from governments and military and NGOs to plain ordinary users. It doesn’t matter if AI is “lazy”. Even the IMF is jumping in.

Will AI benefit humanity? That’s out of my paygrade. William and I saw it had unique potential in many areas in 2020. That’s still true in 2024. I hope the chaotic disruption doesn’t prevent us from seeing some real benefits for the better.

Fun Friday: I Welcome our AI Overlords, Don’t You?

As the layoffs of the old continue here in Silicon Valley, the investment community and Big Tech ™ rush headlong into the wonderful world of AI. Every company and every startup now sees that brass ring ready to anoint the Overlords of AI ™ (pending I assume).

Elon Musk, annoyed with his not-good-enough OpenAI involvement, is simultaneously railing against the perils of AI and announcing a new AI company called xAI — which will apparently tell us how the real world works with an exploration of “the true nature of the universe”. Heh.

I guess the Earth and the Solar System aren’t enough anymore. Nor is the Milky way galaxy with everything within the Perseus and Scutum-Centaurus arms. Nope, now we’ve got to include the Hubble picture of all galaxies to get the maximum pitch potential. I guess the TAM is huge enough for even the most greedy investor. I think…

Meanwhile, ChatGPT application growth has finally started to slow down, as people rush to the new Threads app launched as a competitor to Twitter. Yes, folks, the dumbest site in all the Milky Way has been duped by Meta (the Facebook fellows) as an add-on to their Instagram app.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a site in need of boosting must be in want of a cloned competitor. In other words, the quickest path to development is usually to rip and piggyback open source code onto something else and cross your fingers as you go live. It may not be ready, but it will be running, kinda.

Meanwhile, OpenAI is being investigated by the FTC for its propensity to unleash “hallucinating” AIs on the world, leading to rampant lies and misleading statements. They’re also annoyed that the AIs were trained on copyrighted works, but honestly I think that’s an afterthought as no one cared when source code attribution was deleted and content aggregators like Google News allowed one to find the article that didn’t require payment before. Why now? Maybe it just makes the filing more “human”.

The term hallucinating is a fascinating one for a piece of software, n’est-ce pas? It allows the company to elide responsibility for their software producing rotten results by implying the software is just some kind of person with a disability who should be treated with kindness and not legal threats. It also distances the company from this AI “person”, as person’s are only responsible for themselves and no one else.

This is, in sum, a very weird attempt to extend the ragged edges of Section 230 of the communications act to AIs where the AI software developer has no influence nor liability for what the AI actually says.

If you recall, the act states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

The legal shield was passed to allow individuals to comment and post items on websites like Facebook and Twitter — and even blogs like mine if I so desire — with no liability to the provider of the service for the words said. People say dumb things, goes the thought, so why punish the website operator? This little sentence made the Internet providers rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

By acting like the AI itself is just providing information, and the developers and propagators of the information are just providers of an interactive computer service, they distance themselves from the liability of these acts.

So of course, everyone in Silicon Valley and beyond wants to extend it to AIs. Investors. Big Tech. Even Elon Musk.

That’s where the money is.

Sedate Sunday: Silicon Valley and Post-Cold War Innovation

I came across this essay on Silicon Valley’s ascendency. It’s a bit wordy in some places and only abstractly relates to Silicon Valley. But who can resist an article that merges IPR, Gramsci, Silicon Valley investment, and Bretton-Woods.

I was amused, no matter how romantized some of the the assumptions. Come on, we all know that communism was really just another form of kleptocracy in disguise, just like Prosperity Gospel, unbridled capitalism, and all the other scams. It’s the human condition writ large.

Scams work by promising people things they don’t merit nor deserve in return for becoming their trolls, fan-boys, minions, and various minor demons. At least Maxwell’s demons did some undeniably important work, but most of these lesser types from the Stygian Depths reject pile don’t want to work (hence the “merit” stuff I menioned), nor are they part of the in-group (hence the “deserve” part). They’re also non-too-bright as a rule. But they are useful in aiding the ascent to substantial power and wealth, primarily by flooding the airwaves and empty streets with bellowing monsters, which in turn is covered by a lazy press corp as a meaningful “event” which should be taken seriously by “those in charge”.

Technology has certainly brought down the costs of this well-established mechanism. You don’t have to print pamphlets to get attention. You can even more cheaply motivate the mob using facebook ads targeted to any feeble-minded demographic, or pull off in-your-face twitter placement with a word from the Big Twit himself.

Honestly, it makes me long for the good old days of board room shenagins when William and I pitched hard tech companies. And yes, they were just as misogynistic, narrow-minded, and assholish then as now. That hasn’t changed.

It’s just back then there were still rivals, rules, and relationships to manage in the SV investment side. So William and I had a fighting chance. And fight we did. Sometimes…sometimes we made a success — before anyone caught on. Those were amazing times.

Now writers view startups as some kind of historical media retcon — a rather odd combination of Highlander, Fawlty Towers, and The Big Bang Theory (no women allowed, folks, unlike real life). William, who handled acquisitions for Tandem at one point, also had a fondness for Barbarians at the Gate, but that’s East Coast, not West Coast. And despite what folks will tell you, all those hagiographic movies about SV are so ridiculous and boring I just don’t bother.

But historical fiction about SV will continue to be popular, especially with a polisci or econ twist. So go ahead, and imbibe this one, especially the amusing views of open source development and startups:

“Within even the very early culture of Silicon Valley, a distinctive tension could be discerned between the “hacker ethic”—with its commitment to entirely free and open information, born as it was in a university laboratory—and the entrepreneurial drive to protect intellectual property. This was not a superficial short-term contradiction, but a defining productive tension that continues to animate the entire domain of networked and computer-driven social and economic relationships.”
Gilbert and Williams, How Silicon Valley Conquered the Post-Cold War Consensus

On to one of my personal pet peeves — there was no hacker ethic as described by the authors back when we were putting together various technologies for the Internet and Berkeley Unix prior to the early 2000s. The very concept of a hacker having any ethics is so laughable I wonder that any reputable journalist can type the words without gagging. We were in it for the fun, the money, and kicking over apple carts. Anything else someone tells you is a sales pitch.

Not to say there weren’t hackers back then. Of course there were. John Draper, aka Captain Crunch, was one such example. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, one could still get access to all the telecommunications and tech docs in public libraries and, with a bit of cleverness and elbow grease, hack pay phone, computers, and all sorts of primitive networks. Security was an afterthought in those days. Security is still an afterthought now. However, it wasn’t all fun and games. John was always followed around by men in suits and shiny black shoes at conferences, William noted.

Even 386BSD, which through Dr. Dobbs Journal articles and releases birthed the open source operating system (even Linux used the article’s 386 source code supplied with every issue), was based on a very different viewpoint from the present-day common viewpoint of everything “free”. Berkeley Unix had been licensed for over a decade, yet the vast majority of works which encompassed it were not proprietary. It was inevitable that eventually those code remnants would be removed and replaced.

Yes, the copyleft and RMS were talked about a lot back then with the long-awaited HERD OS expected to roll over everything in the universe and then Marxism would prevail! Gosh, I can barely type that while laughing. And yes, they really did believe they were some kind of Second Coming of the Open Source Proletariat before Bernie Sanders came along and stole their thunder.

This invested belief in the copyleft actually allowed Berkeley and us to work quietly. Frankly, no one expected Berkeley to finally get around to removing most of the old version 6 Unix detritus.

Even William’s and my prior company, Symmetric Computer Systems, contributed code on disk drive management. And William and I contributed the source code for the 386 port, making Berkeley Unix actually usable.

During this time, I really enjoyed writing the Source Code Secrets: Virtual Memory book with William, based on the virtual memory system from CMU. The CMU Mach project provided the key in a new approach to a virtual memory system, permitting the jettisoning of the old industrious evaluation virtual memory system of a decade prior. It’s a nice piece of work that is much underappreciated.

And of course, when the unencumbered incomplete release was made public, we got creative and wrote entirely new modules to fill in the missing pieces for the releases.

But working on open source and working on proprietary intellectual property is not antagonistic as the author would state. One of my proudest moments was getting my patents granted for InterProphet’s low-latency protocol processing mechanism and term memory.

The key is understanding what you owe to others and what you owe to yourself.

Berkeley Unix was a long-term project that collected the works of many people. Berkeley handled the release mechanics and integration. Sometimes they did new work, but not always. It was research, mostly paid for by the government. And that means you and me.

William and I did the port to the 386, contributed code, wrote published articles, and devised new work as a research project. While we received no funding from Berkeley, we did have a lot of fun.

InterProphet, in contrast, was a 1997 startup focused on improvements in latency in networking using a dataflow architecture. Our innovations were funded, we had employees and an office, and we built the prototype and production boards. We developed the drivers and support software. We paid for really expensive proprietary chip design tools.

And we filed patents and held trade secrets. Intellectual property protection was a given in this work. (A bit of advice here: If your engineers decide to deal with bugs in their software by sending source code to the vendor, put a stop to it immediately. It causes no end of problems later.)

We had an obligation to the investors at InterProphet. And we kept our deals with that company. Just as William and I did with Symmetric Computer Systems back in the 1980s. Technology innovation was valued — at least enough so we could get another startup off the ground. It required due diligence and careful maintenance.

The mistake in many “historical” analysis of Silicon Valley innovation lies in conflating the technology innovation of the pre-2000 era with the non-innovative “free stuff” of the post-2000 period. Investment strategies were completely different. Business structures were different. Even financial structures pre and post IPO changed markedly. They’re not comparable.

There is nothing “free” in using FaceBook, or Twitter, or Google News, or Apple Maps, or a plethora of other websites. And that is by design.

These websites and applications are intended to go “viral”. They must lure in an unsophisticated customer and make the site “sticky” so they can be tracked. Gosh darn, that’s all it was and is about. No innovation required. In fact, invention and innovation were derided. As John Doerr noted back then, it was “renovation, not innovation” that was king.

And as the author notes, anything related to manufacturing was sent off to China. No more chip investments. No more hardware investments. No more of that “risky” tech innovation. It had all been done.

I don’t usually call out specific VCs from that time, but John Doerr and Kleiner deserve it for singlehandedly killing an entire generation of technology with a cynical investment strategy. Special mention goes to Google, Apple, and Intel for corralling open source operating system innovation to maintain their profits.

So John and KPCB, and the tech monopolies as runner-ups — I salute you.

People went hunting for content to populate those websites. Youtube for example grabbed the few popular short videos circulating on the web and put them on the site just to appear like it was being used — until it was used through relentless press.

Customer acquisition dollars were high. A flip was six months.

Content was available in many ways. As the printed press conglomerates strove to grab eyeballs, they inadvertently gave their content away while cratering their traditional print advertising dollars. Aggregators glommed onto that content, manipulating the views towards paid ads and “curated” experiences. Video and music content was pirated as well, but entertainment media executives had been down this road many times before, and hit hard with copyright lawsuits.

Databases of many kinds were publicly available as well, from geolocal map data to astronomy datasets. With that richness of information, the sky was the limit for people putting a front-end on the information. And so it is today.

I remember when Amazon was first funded as a bookstore. I bought a book — a Harry Harrison Stainless Steel Rat book I recall. One of the VCs back then gave me the dark side sell at an investment event: It was all about knowing what you look at, what you want, what you need. And putting that in front of you so you buy it. And Amazon takes a cut all the way to the bank. Privacy? Who cares.

It took Amazon six years to a quarterly profit.

Think about that. Six years losing money. When a VC starts demanding quarterly profits, dig up Amazon’s pro formas.

Fun Friday: Back to the Old New Tech Lifestyle

As I sit in William’s and my office in Los Gatos, I’m struck with how empty everything feels. The aux offices nearby are now empty as the call of the wild beckons folks back to the non-performing real estate that leaves many CEOs fuming. People who once revelled in the glories of a non-commute day now struggle to drive the crowded freeways and fight to park near the lobby entrance, grab a quick drab coffee from the machine, and stagger to a shared table “desk”. Just like in the Before Time.

As I always told the kids, “Traffic is the most important thing is Siicon Valley”.

Does this upset me? Not really. I no longer have to hear the bellowing of the sales guy wafting through the walls. Nobody builds offices to be sound-proof. My relaxing music sounds so much nicer when I don’t have to crank it up to compensate, or put on noise-cancelling headphones.

But for those who worked at home, the demands of working in an office must be quite a struggle. Startup types do their “zero to one” juggling pitch act in any place that will suffice, whether it is a coffee shop, a conference room, a beach, or even, dare I say it, at home. Obtaining an office to work is actually a milestone funding achievement – not a given.

Hence, I am at our office today, surrounded by memorabilia, computer and software and writings, seeking inspiration!

Well, perhaps inspiration should step aside for the moment. Let’s take a bit to check the weak pulse of venture and startups.

As we move out of the “spend money for anything online” phase of a cloistered culture in the grips of the pandemic, major companies responded by 1) laying off all of their excess employees hired to keep other major companies from hiring those same people they just laid off and 2) forcing everyone back to the office to listen to the CEO tell them how useless they were when they were stuck at home working.

In like kind, investment in the wacko side dropped like an anvil. Crypto currency was shown to be a fraud (is anyone shocked?). Blockchain is too narrow for application. Gaming is hit and miss, usually miss. The gig economy is a bust. And whatever happened to Meta?

So now venture is hyping AI. Again. Yes. Again.

In lockstep, startups are all adding their AI gambits to their existing offerings to look mod and rock their asses. Sigh. It’s a living.

So where do we stand. Easy. We have 1) M&A in the doldrums, 2) down rounds and the potential for clawbacks, and 3) VCs on the defensive. Let’s take these one at a time.

M&A:

As VCs closed their wallets, they hoped that continued hype would propel their less favored dead dogs into the eager arms of corporate strategy guys. (Note — William actually handled strategy and new ventures for Tandem in the old days, so I heard about this a lot, every day). Well, these guys aren’t quite as stupid as they thought. A bunch of desperate sounding VCs selling a high discount startup (hey, it’s 50% cheaper than last time!) wasn’t enough to move the acquisition forward. Frankly, these deals take time and are usually lined up well before one needs funding as their “Plan B”.

At the same time, while venture was eager to deal, corporations looked at their bottom line and didn’t like what they saw. Stock prices are depressed, or at the very least not increasing dramatically. Integrating new companies into the fold is a costly investment in people and technology. And last and not least, the random pivots by VCs from one unicorn technology to a completely different unicorn technology has heads spinning and disrupt the acquisition process.

In an effort to preserve the appearance of astronomically priced unicorn startups, venture has grasped the tail of the AI GoogleBull while Microsoft NoPilot yaws and ChatGTFO hallucinates. It is a strange summer, even for Silicon Valley.

Already the tech journo crowd is side-eying all this sturm und drang. They’re starting to whisper that all this stuff is passe. After all, when you start to have ignorant Texas Aggie profs flunking students because he heard about AI taking over writing essays, you know the jig is up.

Down Rounds, Discounts and Clawbacks:

Let’s face it, startup valuations have always been, shall we say, invented? Created? Innovated? OK, yes we look at the upside potential. That’s because in zero-to-one that’s all you have — Potential. And potential can mean nothing — or it can mean everything.

But we also had to demonstrate a product, market, path to profitability, and an exit strategy.

Guess what? This is where the tech innovators and the con-men (like poor little rich boy Sammy Bankrupt-Fried) and con-women (Orange is the New Black Liz Holmes) separate, if not actively scuttle away.

Building a prototype and product is hard. Convincing customers to pay for it is extra hard. Making enough money to actually not need investment is super hard. And finding a means to transition beyond the startup mode, whether through acquisition, IPO or just plain good sales is excrutiatingly hard. So it’s no surprise that most unicorns skipped all that other stuff and got lots of money when money was basically free.

Now that things are hard, VCs are looking at all those other pesky hard things. And most startups funded in different conditions can’t step up and evolve. The end result is a lot of startups will not get further funding. They just aren’t worth it, valuation-wise.

While some of the fatter venture unicorns are pitched as promising M&A opportunities (see above), many others will shrivel and starve. The ones that pivot to some kind of revenue and profitability with real customers may survive, while those that restructure to some kind of “NewCo Tech Opp” (cough, AI, cough) may squeak by with fresh funding.

As venture partners and their Limiteds get increasingly disappointed in their portfolios, anticipate clawback. It’s never pretty, but it will happen.

VCs on the Defensive:

It’s only common sense that as returns nosedived, folks would start looking for someone to blame. And VCs are in the thick of it.

This lovely little article from Crunchbase is an excellent example of forensic analysis of successful investments. On this Fun Friday, I leave you with these thoughts from that article:

“What’s concerning with our sample of the largest IPOs of the past 10 years, however, is the absence of any real star performers among the big names. None are even above their first-day prices, let alone returning a multiple to their IPO investors.

It’s even more worrisome when one looks at how much capital has been going into startup investment. Over the past 10 years, investors have plowed more than $1.4 trillion (!) into seed through late-stage and pre-IPO financings.

At the peak, in 2021, a whopping $329.5 billion went into North American startup investments across all stages, per Crunchbase data. That — to put it in context — is more than the total recent valuation of all 20 of the biggest IPOs in our sample set.

To make good on that level of investment, startup backers will need not just hits but grand slams. Their recent batting averages indicate that’s unlikely to happen.“

Fun Friday – If a Sequoia Falls in an Angry Forest of Limiteds, Does it Care? Martian Craters and the Lives of Eels!

Firstly and most importantly, there is a fascinating article about the eels returning to the Sargasso Sea to reproduce in Smithsonian Magazine that I highly recommend reading. Eels have played a part in literature, myth and cuisine for eons, but little is yet known about their life cycle. I wonder how they feel, after living so many years in brackish shoreline and fresh waters, making the long journey back to the salty sea to spawn and die? Do they miss it? Do they want to leave? What do they dream?

From the deep seas to the starry skies, one can learn a bit about crater counting to determine (roughly) geologic events. This technique, first devised for lunar geology, can with caveats be applied to Mars. So what are you waiting for? Count those craters!

Finally, out in Silicon Valley venture land, the crypto fallout continues, with one of the most powerful and ruthless venture firms on Sand Hill Road diving into the foxhole. According to Bloomberg, “Sequoia Capital wrote down the full value of its $214 million investment in FTX only weeks after hailing the founder of the embattled cryptocurrency exchange as a “legend” with a “savior complex.”” Ouch!

This especially must bite all the other investors who in June 2021 let Sequoia lead them down the merry path of a $1B investment round. How times, and valuations, change.

Since then, while man-child Mr. Bankrupt, er, Bankman-Fried, who obstensibly ran FTX and is incidentally the spawn of law professors from Stanford — an investment fund that also runs a university — has been running around begging understanding of his plight, Sequoia decided to handle this disgrace by sacrificing one of their lesser lights to the Gods of Mammon — even though poor Divya Gupta wasn’t even at Sequoia when they led that fateful round in 2021. Heck, he hardly had the chance to get his feet moist, as it were, before things collapsed. Ah well, at least they don’t make them walk the plank anymore (I think).

Partner Alfred Lin, Mr. FTX is Swell, had the pleasant duty of apologizing to their Limited for this debacle, whining that they really really really did their diligence (snort) and that they were misled (hahahaha).

Sure, it’s absolutely commonplace for a little venture firm like Sequoia to not have the resources to conduct proper due diligence of an investment opportunity and its founder, ignore the paperwork, and glad-hand other venture firms using the “Trust me, we’re the smart money” mantra to get everyone else to dive in – NOT.

But they are saying now that they have learned their lesson: “Moving forward, Sequoia partners said they would be more cautious about making substantial investments in companies whose founders they did not have a longstanding relationship with for investments made out of its global growth and expansion funds.”

I guess Stanford is no longer welcome at the Christmas party.

Happy Holidays!

2018 Tech IPOs: Is Enterprise a Game-Changer?

Jon Swartz’s recent piece in Barrons asks “Is This the Year Tech IPOs Stage a Comeback?” Prior year IPOs did not meet expectations, with consumer companies like Snap and Blue Apron the poster children for a miserable performance.

But the speculation among the smart money is that 2018 tech IPOs will surge, and they’ll be driven by enterprise companies.

So, is enterprise the game changer for tech IPOs in 2018?

Continue reading 2018 Tech IPOs: Is Enterprise a Game-Changer?

Apple Store “Bait and Switch” IPhone Battery Gambit: Apple Giveth and Taketh Away

Beware the Apple Store “bait and switch” iPhone battery gambit. We faced this yesterday in Los Gatos, CA where they tried to claim a working iPhone 6s with a good screen / original owner was not eligible for their $29 battery replacement at the appointment because it had a slight bow in the frame.

Now, by this point everyone likely has some flaw in their old iPhone, whether it is a slightly dinged frame from being dropped to a minute crack or scratch under the frame. It’s normal wear and tear. And they likely didn’t have a problem replacing the battery before the discount was announced and replacements were more costly and infrequent. But now, it’s an issue.

They did offer to sell an iPhone 6s for close to $300! This is a terrible price. Don’t go for it. This is what they mean by bait and switch.

Continue reading Apple Store “Bait and Switch” IPhone Battery Gambit: Apple Giveth and Taketh Away

Of Virtualization and IPOs

VMWare is the little company that could. When it was launched in the late 1990’s, the “smart money” wouldn’t touch it. It wasn’t just that it was open source – a big “loser” badge at that time. It wasn’t just that it was founded in part by a husband-wife team who had established business (Tandem, SGI,…) and academic credentials (UCB, Stanford, MIT,…) – an even bigger “loser” badge that still persists in some dark corners. It’s biggest damnation by old-line investment was that virtualization was a trite idea. I heard this myself frequently from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, during the time I was working with 386BSD and InterProphet, and I pitched a similar idea to Tandem’s CEO back in 1996. It was the next obvious step – at least to a technologist.

Given the tremendous success of this IPO, you might ask “How could they have missed this one?”. Technology, like fashion, goes through phases, and sometimes smart people get so hung up on fashion they miss the trend line change from computer as a calculating device to computer as an organizing device (and vice-versa). If a computer is a calculating device, you want the most cycles. If it’s an organizing device, you want to spend time adding stuff, not managing stuff. A bit processor, like blit-bit processing for graphics, the more concrete, discrete and obvious the instructions executed at the bottom level, the more goodness you get out of the machine. A symbol processor, like parsing language or voice recognition built out of abstraction, is not as deterministic by the nature of the function desired, so capacity to process symbols and the benefit it provides overrides performance.

This happened with virtualization. At that time overfunded Internet companies (remember Egghead, for example, anyone?) and their backers absolutely believed that the most important technical issue was to build a site industriously out of C++ code to maximize performance. They didn’t believe sites based on scripting languages would be powerful or scalable enough for their millions of customers. They underestimated the demand for rapid creation and deployment of new features. Now everyone uses scripting languages like Perl, Python and PHP (we use Python on all our sites for example) – it’s faster and easier. VMWare realized that people allocated servers for containers of scripted sites when performance was impacted, and it didn’t make any difference if it was virtual or real. As reducing power demands becomes a “hot” button topic, virtualization will be increasingly used in datacenter and networking applications.

Fun Friday – Internet FSBOs, Business YouTubes

A few items on the Internet front. For years realtors have been hammering customers that selling their home with them gives the buyer a 16%+ sales advantage. This has made Internet-based FSBO sites a queasy deal for somebody’s biggest investment / nest egg. So a bet on who got the best deal from their home sales between a couple of bored economics profs at Northwestern (one used a realtor, the other did a FSBO) resulted in a detailed analysis of a successful (20% of the market) Internet FSBO site versus realtor sales in Madison. And guess what – the Internet site did just as good at the end of the transaction (considering size, locale, and so forth) as the realtor-mediated transactions. The FSBO site did take longer, but that may simply be due to the reluctance of buyer’s agents to show any FSBO houses – a problem that may disappear as buyers demand to see houses they see on the Internet. The future is starting to look more rosy for Internet-based realty businesses.

Business Week has decided to launch a “VC” video pitch competition, where desperate entrepreneurs line up to convince cynical readers their ideas, like Frosted Flakes, are “Grreat” (thank you Tony the Tiger). Those ideas that survive the slings and arrows of ridicule (likely those so stupid or so obtuse nobody can understand them) undergo a final beauty contest via a biz plan competition for the princely sum of $500,000 “from a VC firm to invest in the proposed business”.

No word as to what serious VC would put half a million on a business by public acclamation, but I’d place my money on a series of Sanjaya-inspired hair salons. Wow, think of the possibilities.

I’ve been involved in a number of biz plan competitions over the years (along with real meetings with real investors), both as a participant and a reviewer. I’ve done video pitches. I’ve developed video pitch technology for CEOs. And I’ve watched other CEOs do video pitches. And while the views were great (they were restricted to VCs invited by the CEO – business plans are actually very valuable), nobody believed Internet video would ever “catch on” enough to matter. Amazing the difference one Sequoia with one YouTube can make!

Don’t believe this? Think that everybody knew YouTube would be a success before 2006? To illustrate, I once decided to enter the Berkeley Haas business plan competition in 2004 with an interesting Internet video startup idea I had while I was working with the physics department on our alumni greeting card video project. It seemed a good idea at the time. People were watching, the system worked, and it was easy and fun. And I made sure to run the business plan by some pros in the Valley. I do my homework.

So it was a straightforward business plan to evaluate – good customers, good technology, and good numbers. A no-brainer, really. I looked forward to seeing how Haas dealt with it – remember, I’ve participated in and co-founded a number of venture-backed companies over the years, so I’m no novice. But did they evaluate the business? No! When I got back the comments, I got things like “They have some TAM numbers from an analyst. But…they really haven’t done a good job in showing the SAM” (nobody had, and nobody could). “Their exec summary is 3pp long. In general, I tell people I won’t look at anything over 2pp” (such terrible food and such small portions). And finally, “regardless of their domain experience, etc., I would never back this team. I will NEVER back a team where it appears that the founders are husband and wife or domestic partners. We did it once; it was a painful lesson”. I always wondered if this last comment was their usual fallback ploy for businesses presented by African-Americans or Jews or single women – funny how you don’t hear they won’t invest in white / Indian / Asian guys because they “did it once” and it failed. It’s hard to fight prejudice.

After the inept evaluation and overt bigotry I received at the hands of Haas biz school, I resolved only to talk to real professional VCs who could afford the time to actually read a 3pp exec summary and understand the business. In other words, don’t go this route if you really care about your business. Do the hard work of developing the relationships instead, or get someone in the biz who can.

Don’t hold your breath to see all these cool startup ideas anytime soon – Business Week is still shopping around for someone to build the site for them. Knowing mags as well as I do, it won’t be a lucrative deal for the site designer.

Fun Friday – Electric Sportscars and Commodity Chips

From prototype electric sports cars to commodity chips, a few items of interest to round out the week.

Yesterday the much-hyped Tesla Motors Roadster prototype was seductively displayed outside of PARC, courtesy of JB Straubel, Tesla Motors CTO. While the motor was buttoned-down and just out-of-reach, the leather seats were quite accessible and comfortable and the light carbon-composite body with aluminum frame attractive and shapely. The TM salesman was carefully positioned with a towel to wipe off any drool and greasy fingerprints from careless admirers.

One of the primary objections to all-electric cars is that they require new battery technologies which are untested on a massive scale and can result in unpredictable and costly liability suits. Even Li-ion batteries have had their share of “combustible” announcements, like when Sony manufacturing standards slipped as laptops went up in flames.

Tesla Motors decided that the benefits of a standardized Li-ion commodity battery (the 18650) outweighed the risk, and developed a fault-tolerant battery architecture that isolates each battery in 6800 individual metal cells with microprocessor-mediated power management and monitoring. As batteries fail, capacity reduces safely over time.

With $30M in orders already on the books (the first 100 orders at $100,000 up-front, and follow-on orders at $50,000 up-front) and plans for a plant in New Mexico, Tesla Motors may be the first car company in 50 years to introduce a new car well under the half-billion dollar cost estimate that is routinely bandied about by modern car companies. Of course, if you want one you’ve got to wait in line. It isn’t a touring car (consider a 200 mile limit), and it won’t fit a trunk. It does fit a couple of golf clubs, but I’d rather take an overnight bag and a guitar and drive to Santa Barbara.

Here’s a quiz for our hardware guys. How long does it take to get delivery on a little 8-bit commodity processor sample for development from the manufacturer? A few days? A week? As Don Adams of “Get Smart” liked to say, “Would you believe six months?” Yes, six months. That’s the delivery time one engineer recently complained he got for an Infineon 8 bit Microcontroller (PLCC – 84). He set out the call pleading with people to tell him why a common part in appliance products with volumes of millions would be so hard to obtain in a timely way.

Like a Zen Koan, the answer to the question is the question. Because it’s a common commodity part. Infineon ships this little chip in volume with six month advance orders because there is no reason to do it any other way at the low cost per piece. So if your little company wants it too, but you’re not going for a million volume order, the manufacturer will think you’re getting “too good a deal” piggybacking off of everybody else’s big order because they made it so cheap. Want it fast? Go to Frys and pay retail.

We once did this at Symmetric Computer Systems with DRAM during the memory wars of the 1980’s. When 1mbit DRAM rose from $12 to $40 in a day, we went to Frys and bought every single piece they had at $19 to make shipment to the NSA. The next day, their price went up to about $50. About the same time, Apple’s CEO Scully went off on vacation and left CFO Debi Coleman minding the store. When the DRAM crisis hit, she and the other Apple execs went on a buying binge. The resulting oversupply nearly killed that company. It was very funny.

Buying retail isn’t the solution for every chip. Little guys are in the pole position for exotic or new parts, and manys the time I’ve had field service engineers sit in my office pushing their cool new I/O or multicore products. My philosophy is always go for the low end of the exotic parts for tests because the sales and FAEs hand them out to our eager design engineers like jellybeans. Then sell them on how your hot new innovative cutting-edge state-of-the-art startup is going to use their high-end product still on their drawing boards to drive both our sales. That’s something they’re never going to hear from the 8-bit chip big guys. And that’s how a smart small company deals with a big guy — even Intel or Infineon. Have a good weekend.