SeanWeinstock
- 11 comments
- 0 likes given
- 1 likes received
Bio not provided
@bgoldberg Awesome - published a post yesterday that shares the common tear down philosophy, but comes at it from a slightly different angle. My argument is that e-comm will just take over publishing with inbound marketing because it provides salaries for content creators http://startupyourengines.blogspot.com/2013/04/content-creators-kings-of-marketing.html. I didn't account for certain publishing categories, but I'd love to get your thoughts.
Argued this before on TC, argued to prof here at NYU who's a huge MOOC fan, will argue it now. The major thing is certification. If an employer can have an easy number from a reputable source that indicates a prospective employee has mastered a set of skills, that will go a long way in disrupting the need to grab a college degree from the most prestigious institutions possible. I found the most interesting part of the above the one sentence about regional testing facilities. Who's doing that? How are they making their testing services reputable. Are they interacting with friendly (in the Roberts Rules sense) employers yet, letting those guys know they exist, and figuring out how to better service HR needs? If that's happening, in 13 years, your kids won't be going to college.
I was really hoping you would do more with the historical reference/metaphor. Defenestration of Prague stands head and shoulders abouve any other as my favorite subject in AP Euro, and it precipitated the 300 Years War, which sounds epic. Also, yup, I just spelled abouve with a u, twice. Just felt right given the Euro tone here. Kind of like colour, flavour, etc... I enjoyed the picture though, and otherwise, it was a well written and informative piece. Thanks.
Isn't this basically the same debate that came up with the Apple/Microsoft war in the PC early days? Just that now you have Google playing in the OS marketplace. I'd imagine that lessons learned from that period of time can be pretty instructive. Apple's focus on building it's own, all-inclusive systems have helped it out-pace when a new hardware medium came about where the other guys had to wait on all the various pieces to come together. It seems that we're hitting that early 90's tipping point where hardware builders are getting used to the software they're putting on their devices and are now able to apply economic advantages to take over market share. Either Apple chills out and puts out the next redefining piece of hardware, which Brian Goldberg in his "Steve Jobs was lucky" post was skeptical exists. Or it has to become a software company... Interesting strategic decisions for sure.
@bgoldberg so, you're basically saying that hardware innovation is over for a while and that we're entering a software wave? I can agree with that on the mobile front. Facebook's Nearby I think is the next big breakthrough there, and if we can ever move off the app infrastructure, that'll be huge for development too. But on the hardware front, what about wearables? I'm not sure on my stance there and how Project Glass really differentiates its value. But I'd be interested in hearing your perspective.
Why aren't there more Indian people on the show? Also, the only interesting 'character' is the girl in SF who knows how to make money. She should get a spinoff where she and an Indian co-founder create something relevant, struggle for a few years before hitting their stride and building a real business. After the 5th season we could start monitoring the activities of mafia spin offs funded with vested shares sold on SecondMarket. Too niche?
Kevin, this is a badass piece. It reads like a Swedish thriller novel. If I'm not reading too much into it, I especially like the subtle allusion to the tension existing between Mark Hurd's decision making contrasted with the capabilities of the HP Board. Not that this wasn't the case before, but this article really shows how Pando's stepping up the daily conversational tone. Really well done. Congrats!
@sciencescanner Thanks for the education on regulations - that was something I hadn't taken into account that I should have. I'm unclear on what the burdens are for the crowd vs. burdens on the "advisor." Can you explain?
An argument on regulations might be that, over time, they can be relaxed if the government deems there to be social value in the activity, which, in this case, seems reasonable. A way to make this practice more feasible might be to shift the entire qualifications burden to the "advisor" - making him/her go through some kind of certification process to be in a position to make crowdfunded investment decisions.
On the idea that it's about as easy to pick an investment as it is to pick an advisor, I think that cuts against the fundamental theory of specialization. Additionally, a viable regulatory infrastructure could alleviate the burden on the crowdfunder to understand how kosher an advisor is.
The government has been in the business of protecting the individual consumer and minority shareholder since the advent of corporations. It's probably not too far of a stretch to see the law advance in crowdfunding to offer reasonable protections against fraud if, and this is the BIG IF in this case, the activity of crowdfunding biotech is deemed a socially worthy cause.
The difference between this and typical VC is emotional connection. If you're aiming to crowdfund something like a prostate cancer treatment, chances are, there's some rich dude who has either had it or has it who wants to see it gone. He doesn't necessarily care about the monetary return. Certainly, he's not going to load it up with cash if he doesn't think he can break even, but the standard is far lower than the ROI expectation typical VC carries.
That said, a feasible model might be experts with deep domain knowledge setting up crowd funding portals for specific causes like prostate cancer. They would serve as GPs who would go out and vet companies/research operations both on their fraud and breakeven potentials on behalf of those folks supplying the capital. Those folks would get paid a management fee and might not be as concerned about the Carry given the same emotional pull that motivates people to fund.
Having grown up in San Jose and attended Carnegie Mellon, I've seen everything you're talking about twice - once in a more mature form, again in an up and coming one. Back home, the intertwining of school and startup is celebrated, discussed, and given as a reason for every kid to attend Stanford. At CMU, I remember working at their mobile Decision Sciences lab where we were trying to get people from Pittsburgh to take surveys on the streets. Several people came up to me and talked about how CMU was destroying Pittsburgh because it was taking advantage of favorable taxes and not paying its fair share to the community... Pittsburgh is changing from that clearly old-school perspective to the new one which dictates that the tech talent (and the people shaping it) rule. The city, which, by way of the old-guard would have been like Cleveland or Cincinnati, is emerging rapidly. Could be an interesting case study going forward.
@jackhutton Dude, watch more tv. In the Starz hit show "Boss," Kelsey Grammer plays a corrupt Chicago mayor. In that nugget of mass produced pop culture resides the link to the portrayal of Ed Lee as a similarly corrupt mayor. Btw, Grammer also won a Golden Globe for his portrayal. Might be worth your while. While we're tangentially related to the topic of grammar, I'd suggest revisiting your notions on how to spell "it's" in the context in which you place the word.
We could argue all day about what makes SF awesome, and, in fact, we may end up doing just that. Not having chain stores is an idea (not a super sustainable one), but the fact of the matter is that Manhattan has very few chain stores and has easily better corporate policies. Even though the city boasts an evil, greedy, billionaire mayor, I'd argue from personal experience that homogeneity in population, architecture, and nightlife destination themes is not a concern. Cabs are cheap. Public transit is great (except for the L train and Sunday night B...seriously). Bohemian lifestyles are a key component to the culture. The problem in being anti-big business is that the perspective fails to realize the nature of the socio-capitalist system in which we live. In order to sustain dense population centers, you need dense job providers. Corner stores and other local service providers don't cut it. You need big companies to sustain bohemia. If you're arguing that we should abolish all capitalist scent in our country, that's something different entirely (a strategic argument as opposed to a tactical one), and I'd argue that that perspective fails to take into account the ongoing evolution of the world in which we live.