Bio not provided
UberX and Lyft charge the same (very very nearly) in San Francisco.
Lyft's current promotional pricing has it arguably 10% cheaper, certainly not 30%. Given they are taking 0% of that, it's highly unsustainable for Lyft and something will have to give on rates or driver income or more likely both very soon.
Uber: $3 base, $1.50 mile, $.30 minute, $1 insurance, etc.
Lyft: $2.25 base, $1.35 mile, $.27 minute, $1 insurance, etc.
3 weeks, 4 days ago on Lyft is a black belt in using Uber’s strength against it
I'm just curious... Did you read the S-1 before posting this? Because I've scanned it pretty thoroughly and Boxx doesn't look like a very good business to me. It looks like an OK business that is still growing quickly, but is likely to face pricing pressure and has never come close to making profits...
4 months ago on Will the Box IPO be John the Baptist to Dropbox’s Jesus?
Tim, entertaining and illuminating as always.
4 months, 1 week ago on The gargantuan stupidity of the financial transactions tax
Can you ask Hamish if he might do a guest post?
5 months ago on Follow the photos: The real reason Facebook just paid almost 10% of its market cap for WhatsApp
"The question then becomes, what is the official exchange rate one should use for establishing a “cost basis,” or the starting price used for measuring taxable gains or losses?"
Sorry, but that's not a hard question. You paid for it almost certainly in dollars. That's your cost basis. It doesn't matter what the dollar-BTC rate was at the time.
If you paid in Euro, then all you need to know is the dollar: Euro ratio that day (easy to look up). It makes no difference at all whether 14 different bitcoin exchanges has 14 different rates. You only paid one of those. That's your basis. Shenanigans like trying to cherrypick the best of those won't fly, there's a banking trail on what you paid.
6 months, 4 weeks ago on Bitcoin and the unnecessary ambiguity around taxation
There's a whole lot of inuendo here that comes close to suggesting that the contributor network and the paid-placement stuff are one and the same. They aren't.
There are a lot of contributors. Our quality varies. If we're terrible, no one reads us. If we're good, we have readers. I'm fortunate enough to be in the latter group. I also bend over backwards to maintain a high standard when I'm "doing journalism". But let's be clear, a lot of it is blogging/opinion. That said, so is a lot of Pando. Sarah's piece of Uber wasn't straight up journalism. This piece on Forbes isn't either.
I'm not clear how you can argue readers don't like what Forbes is doing when readers are clearly showing up in record numbers.
7 months ago on The ouroboros is complete: Forbes outsourced contributor outsources journalism to actual journalists
@nilofer @jason_pontin I'm not sure how the Arrington case and the Ellen Pao case are on remotely the same level. I'm not sure how sexual harassment and (possibly) some physical abuse rises remotely to the level of chopping off the heads of your ex-wife and her boyfriend either.
7 months, 1 week ago on John Doerr’s last stand: Can a dramatic shakeup save Kleiner Perkins?
This is a really well done piece, but I wish you'd drop your obsession with who's-whoism. You pay too much attention to the fame of partners, when realistically it has no correlation to the job of being a VC. "...a little-known former member of the Excite@Home mafia named David Sze" "venture up-and-comer Chi-Hua Chien is a stark example... He didn’t have a huge investing or operational track record " In the recommended content below the piece, I see the following, "A16z names its eighth GP and you’ve likely never heard of him" again with the obsession toward fame.
The first two guys bet on the companies others didn't. It doesn't take fame or a track record to do that. It takes savvy, skill and, of course, a bit of luck. The idea that there is some kind of greater success for new VCs associated with being a big-time name flies in the face of what we see. Maybe Reid Hoffman and Marc Andreessen (and Keith Rabois perhaps) ultimately prove that wrong by being the only "newcomers" to make it big in this era. Of course, both were already well known before doing venture. But until then, maybe we can stop damning everyone else.
The only response that would have remotely gotten considering a future rental: "Of course, Carmel, we'll wave all charges on this rental."
They then should've offered you the 25% off on your next one.
To be completely honest, having used FlightCar twice in San Francisco, the operation feels very Mickey Mouse. Your story isn't a little surprising. And the phone call thing has been an issue from the beginning, since the operation is on both coasts. Why they think it's useful to route calls centrally when they are clearly not equipped to deal with it this far in is mind boggling.
7 months, 4 weeks ago on Airport carsharing is cheaper than a rental, but a decidedly un-baller experience
One amazing technique for getting around this "problem" is leaving your perfectly working PS3 plugged in. Fixed.
8 months ago on Sony’s planned obsolescence: Sour grapes or the bitter taste of change?
"Democrats only gained 5 seats"
A second-term incumbent president gained seats for his party. That was basically unprecedented since the invention of Republicans. I'm not sure how you failed to grasp the historical significance of that.
9 months, 2 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115129/record-gop-unpopularity-party-could-rebound-fast
1) Has zero chance of happening. Facebook couldn't possible this off and it has more robust verification. A tax on just being there? No. A tax to promote, fine.
2) Has zero chance of happening. "Hey, thanks for making us rich, Miley. Now, pay." Miley: "Find me on mileycyrus,com and sign up for my new OpenTalk channel, better than lame-ass Twitter."
3) Everyone always talk about this, but it never happens. You know why? Free services gussied up are something not a lot of people will pay for. In Twitter's case, the user base is smaller than a lot of pundits predicted. Maybe 2-4% of people will pay for SuperTwitter, but even that feels high. At $10/month, divide the potential pay base by 100. More like 100,000 than a million.
4) Near zero percent chance of this happening. The 140-character thing is sacrosanct. Breaking it for money breaks Twitter.
5) Twitter doesn't want third-party apps. Have you not gotten the memo?
6) Seems like "make Twitter better and fun" would be a good thing to just do to get more regular uses. Charging for this is a bad idea.
7) Twitter power users charge for the content that's beyond the tweets, not the tweets themselves. I pay for WSJ, not its Twitter stream.
These are ideas but in the end, not particularly likely money makers. Twitter needs to find ways to push engagement so it can "Facebook" the stream, running an ad every 10-15 tweets that engages users over a huge number of users. That's the size of the opportunity. It's not bigger (save for the data selling).
Premium services of any kind are not happening; the content in Twitter is just not rich enough. Cleverly finding ways to get people to engage with "tab 3", aka Discover, so that can become a hotbed of advertiser instead of the backwater of Twitter is the biggest piece of greenfield. Having Twitter on tablets become "Flipboard-y" based on that is intriguing, but still based on the same ad model, one promoted something every 10-15 pieces of content you've already chosen to have.
9 months, 2 weeks ago on 7 ways Twitter could make money (beyond cozying up to TV networks)
How is this "more bad news" for LivingSocial?
LivingSocial is selling off stuff that doesn't make money is good news. Small good news given that LivingSocial also doesn't make money, but it's still good news.
It's bad news for LivingSocial when it finally shuts its doors.
11 months, 1 week ago on More bad news for LivingSocial – its big-ticket Korean acquisition is reportedly up for sale
The "no work from home" thing was a modest-sized layoff Sarah. It was a sledgehammer approach where perhaps a scalpel would've done somewhat better, but it was a layoff.
12 months ago on Baby steps: Mayer’s acquistion spree doesn’t turn Yahoo around, but it starts to solve core problems
"Skeptics looking for nitpicking metrics to suggest signs of weakness were largely out of luck this quarter."
It's pretty easy to nitpick actually. In the year-over-year, desktop ads are DOWN 4% despite a >20% growth in users and the introduction of News Feed ads vs. none a year go. Not to mention Facebook's insistence that the platform is more popular than ever.
Yes, it's more and more mobile. I get it. But once it "matures", ad revenue goes down even with no ad units and that many more users? It would hardly be nitpicking to point out that's ... not... good.
12 months ago on How Facebook bucked the trend of disappointing earnings
I could scarcely agree with you more....
What an odd cycle... Sony's announcement was bad/weird (I posted same at Forbes)... Microsoft's announcement was cool/amazing... Microsoft starts shooting itself in foot... Then other foot... Then Sony come out and says, "Kumbaya"... And it's game over...
Nice piece summarizing it all Nathaniel.
1 year, 1 month ago on From jester to savior: How the Xbox One turned the PlayStation 4 into the white knight of console gaming
The person who views this as a "call option on the next Google" needs their accredited investor card revoked.
1 year, 1 month ago on Why Snapchat’s rumored funding raises the high stakes for LA’s startup ecosystem
Let's agree that California still has some work to do on its budget long term... maybe even a lot of work.
But that said, the idea with Prop 30 -- flawed as it may be -- was a band aid. It's not permanent and voters are not going to re-approve it, nor do I expect they'll be asked. In the meantime, for every anecdote like yours, the startup scene continues to thrive in the Bay Area. And the other place it's doing well is where you are now -- which is the second-highest tax jurisdiction in the nation I believe (thanks to the NYC income tax on top of NYS' fairly substantial tax). So entrepreneurs are flocking to high-tax states / regions.
Maybe tax planning isn't the most important part of deciding where to locate a company?
1 year, 1 month ago on California aspires to mediocrity — It’s almost there
@MichaelWolfe ... almost certainly "will never".
1 year, 2 months ago on Is pretty good really good enough for Facebook?
"That said, university professors who teach Coursera courses told the Wall Street Journal in Februarythat they have no plans to award credit to students who complete MOOCs."
While there may not be true college credit at Coursera. there is something that certainly looks a lot like it -- and someone really ought to tell the folks at Coursera this, because I suspect students are seeing it that way right now. For a fee -- you know, actual money, you get to take many courses in "Signature Track", where they spend a great deal of time (and inconvenience I might add) verifying you are you and aren't cheating. When you finish a Signature Track course (again, for which they took your money), they give you a verified certificate of completion.
I understand that isn't true, transferrable college credit, but it resembles it. A lot.
1 year, 3 months ago on EXPLAINER: Everything you need to know about MOOCs
How is there tyranny of EPS when Amazon isn't required to show any earnings yet is rewarded with a high valuation?
1 year, 3 months ago on Amazon and the tyranny of the EPS
"The question is whether or not an approach that failed in clothing can work for computers."
I think what you're missing is that this hasn't failed at JCP. It's barely even rolled out there.
1 year, 3 months ago on Ron Johnson’s brand-oriented boutiques couldn’t save JC Penney. Is Best Buy any different?
@jessebushkar Good luck with that LivingSocial theory. It's almost certainly worth nothing (not that Groupon is worth legendary amounts, but at least it's in the billions right now).
If anything, it fits the 90-10 theory Andreeseen mentioned.
1 year, 3 months ago on In Silicon Valley, it’s good to be king
I find this more than a little befuddling. I'm a Starbucks regular and I have Square installed on my phone, too. I can't imagine any scenario where I'd forgo my Starbucks rewards to use Square. In fact, outside of Silicon Valley types who worship at the altar of Square (as opposed to those of us who "merely" think it's a great company going far), I don't understand why anyone was excited to begin with.
Starbucks has a smartphone-enabled payment and loyalty card already. Square promised... a smartphone-enabled payment card without any loyalty program benefits. Who was going to be excited about this?
The FastCompany article, in fact, seems to agree: "The problem, ironically, might be that not enough consumers are using Square Wallet. Though Starbucks declined to share Square usage data, at least one study has indicated adoption is low." Most Square Wallet early adopters aren't chumps and yet using Square Wallet instead of a Starbucks card currently makes you a chump. Why would I give up a free drink every 12 just to use Square, which currently offers me absolutely no benefits to speak of. Well, other than potentially an even slower checkout.
1 year, 4 months ago on Barista problems: Why Starbucks isn’t the energy shot Square needed
"If you can’t find 10 people to use your product, you can’t find 100."
Great insight, although tricky to tell with social products. I suspect Pinterest seemed really useless to a lot of people for a long while then suddenly seemed very useful. Even if that assumption isn't quite correct, it's certainly true that the flat part of the growth curve was very flat for a long while before the "hockey stick" phase took off.
You probably kept believing the same would be true of your equipment sharing idea.
1 year, 4 months ago on What can be learned when sharing leads to failing
LivingSocial has been far closer to liquidation than IPO for more than a year. It was when they took the money and it still is.
What I suppose is unfortunate for them is that merging the company with Groupon to recover some investor value looks less likely than ever. The only hope for a no-shutdown scenario remains a buyout by Amazon or Google. But keep in mind, that will be at a price close to the Series G's funding amount not this fantastical $1 billion valuation.
1 year, 4 months ago on Last night LivingSocial’s pneumonia took a turn for the worse
I tried to make sense of the re-filed COI and it's a huge, huge mess. The reality is that the company was borderline bankrupt. This funding is a lifeline, but it hands the company to the people who provided the lifeline.
Someone with 3 hours to kill could probably parse out exactly what valuations would leave people whole beyond the "Series G" folks who did this funding, but it's hard to imagine why anyone would.
Honestly, if you know merchants who are considering running with LivingSocial and you care about them, you should tell them not to. I don't wish the consequences of that on LS employees, but the jig is up here.
1 year, 5 months ago on PrivCo may be wrong, but LivingSocial’s CEO is still sugarcoating this round
"Add to the “emergency” aspect that there are uniquenesses to the daily deals business. If merchants have no confidence that there’s enough incoming money from new deals to pay them what they’re owed, there can effectively be a run on the bank situation"
This is the most important point. Why would any merchant who is paying attention run a deal with LivingSocial even after this round? They are clearly in a situation where bankruptcy remains a very real possibility in the near term. And you can run your deal on Groupon. So why bother with LivingSocial?
As for the CEO's claim about it not being a 4x liquidation preference, he then adds that at $1 billion, they clear it easily. That sounds like, uh, at least 4x? Maybe more... So I don't know what to make of that, but it sure sounds like a gigantic liquidation preference.
You must be the only person who missed the fact the Galaxy Nexus was never banned in the U.S. That case showed, in fact, that a ban is perfectly not possible. It's always appealed immediately and always set aside on appeal. There is simply not any chance at all that Amazon -- a huge multi-billion-dollar company that isn't infringing on anyone's patents -- will be forced to stop selling Kindles because the e-Ink folks might have done so.The remedy here would be for e-Ink to pay a license or disgorge profits, not for the Kindle to leave the market.So, no, the case you cited doesn't prove a ban is possible, In fact, it's one of dozens of examples of even when a ban is "granted" it never goes into effect.
1 year, 5 months ago on Could a patent dispute take the Kindle off the market?
Could a patent dispute take the Kindle off the market? No. It doesn't ever work that way.
Scalable is an interesting word here. By all accounts, all these sites hit a wall after a similar revenue spot on the curve. That's almost the antithesis of scalable.
1 year, 5 months ago on Flash sales are (still) the most scalable e-commerce business model
The future -- and present really -- of vision correction is lasik. This is a non-problem for non-Luddites, although a few admittedly are shut out as they are non-candidates.
1 year, 6 months ago on The future of displays has a problem: Our eyes
You get that Zipcar doesn't really make money and has terrible utilization of fixed assets right?
Sure, Avis could wreck some of what's good about Zipcar. They also can make more cars available in more places, charge lower rates (over time) than Zipcar could muster, offer long-term rentals competitively (Zipcar couldn't), offer one-ways, etc.
This is dangerous territory -- like going out over a frozen lake when you aren't sure how thick the ice is -- but it's an attempt to cross said lake, which Zipcar wasn't going to be able to do on its own. The structure was fundamentally flawed (in a way that, say, Airbnb isn't since most people can live with low utilization of a spare room).
You've been in a snit lately on companies you hate. I wonder if it's getting in the way of seeing that businesses need to make money or else they can't do much "disrupting" of anything.
1 year, 6 months ago on There are just so many reasons to hate the Zipcar/Avis deal
1 year, 7 months ago on The eerie silence about carried interest amid the fiscal cliff hysteria
The first great venture boom occurred in the 1990s when the capital gains tax was -- for a time -- joined at the hip to ordinary income by the 1986 tax reform. When the great firms of Sand Hill Road became great, they did on funds raids when this was true. They did not need a tax advantage to get into the game. They don't need one now.
The very fact you you are sitting here defending the indefensible makes me sad.
"So the NVCA and VCs can argue that an investor is more aligned with the entrepreneur — the two of them both forgo any real return until there’s a big exit and an entrepreneurs’ proceeds are most definitely taxed as capital gains. Why should a VCs’ return on the same effort, risk, and timescale be different?"
Because it's different.
The entrepreneur has no portfolio. He or she is typically all in or nearly all in. The investor isn't. There are dozens of companies (or in the case of someone like Dave McClure hundreds) in the portfolio. The risk profiles of the two resemble one another in no way. Furthermore, the venture capitalist isn't even using his or her own money. The "carried interest" is a vigorish, a take of the profits of the deal, typically 20-30% of the returns generated from the investors' money, above and beyond the management fee.
This resembles the entrepreneur's risk in no way, except that we are talking about the same company.
I'm an entrepreneur. I'm friends with investors. I actually believe we should slash marginal rates down and remove all differential taxation as we did in 1986. It was the closest we came to an intelligent tax code since the U.S. instituted an income tax.
But we're not there. Instead we load the code with preferences. Few of them make much sense. The only ones we "need" to preserve are those without which we'd literally have dislocation affects. For example, an overnight removal of the mortgage break would likely hurt high-priced real-estate markets in devastating ways so removing it overnight is a terrible idea even if dealing with it over time is almost certainly a good one.
The idea that the carried interest break needs to exist for any purpose at all or that venture capital in the long run might dry up without it is patently silly. Venture capital ebbs and flows with fund returns, not whether partners get somewhat rich or really rich. It just doesn't work that way. It never has and it never will.
@jholyhead I love Sarah's writing -- and from what I can tell, her personality -- but these things of "I'm experiencing this therefore a lot of people are..." tend to go too far. Most of us travelling on Virgin don't have kids with us (whether or not we have them at all). The idea that a group of people Sarah's age are really the customers of an entire airline, all are suddenly having kids, and all are suddenly being alienated isn't really correct.
I get her frustration. But as someone who doesn't usually travel with kids, well, as I said elsewhere, I'm not especially upset that the short security line has become kid unfriendly. Oh, and I'm the guy who will entertain your kid on the plane for half an hour. It's not like I hate your kids; I just guess I resent them getting my earned privileges.
1 year, 7 months ago on Virgin America’s business flounders as it doubles down on party planes
@wjackson Right, and as I said in my comments, their frequent-flyer earning methods ensure that you pretty much don't earn anything. It's very weird.
Virgin America has an incomprehensibly bad frequent-flyer program. It takes about twice as long to earn a free ticket as on legacy airlines. They aren't really rewarding loyalty; they are selling a better product and telling you to like it or leave. Honestly, mathing out free tickets on Virgin, I long ago concluded that the reason to fly them is not to ever expect to fly them for free. I have more freebies left on American -- which I haven't flown on in years -- than I will likely ever earn on Virgin, which is my preferred carrier.
A slightly child-unfriendly policy sounds about right to me. Most travelers with children are a nightmare and I don't get why they should get privileged screening over me. I'm not unsympathetic to the challenges of travelling with kids; I get that it's hard. But the perks of frequent travelling are the short line. Once the short line is filled with every family with kids, it's not the short line. It's the really long, slow line.
What's strange about your story, however, is that SFO doesn't use the TSA -- it's one of a small handful of U.S. airports with private contractors. You've concluded Virgin is lying to you and that they are ordering these contractors to do their bidding. Isn't it possible that this non-TSA group -- which is probably about the only time you ever encounter non-TSA screeners -- has decided of its own volition to do what Virgin wants? In other words, that fits your passive aggressive theory, but it also is kind of the market working. Virgin suggests, the private company surveys the situation and follows what it thinks >most< travelers would like.
Here's the entire list of non-TSA airports:
Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport (STS); Dawson Community Airport (GDV); Frank Wiley Field (MLS); Greater Rochester International (ROC); Havre City County Airport (HVR); Jackson Hole (JAC); Joe Foss Field (FSD); Kansas City International (MCI); Key West International Airport (EYW); L.M. Clayton Airport (OLF); Lewistown Municipal Airport (LWT); Roswell International Air Center (ROW); San Francisco International (SFO); Sidney Richland Regional (SDY); Tupelo Regional (TUP); Wokal Field (GGW)
@DaveMcClure It's as if you could have seen this coming when you named your fund "500 Startups". :)
1 year, 7 months ago on The Series A crunch is hitting now. Have we even noticed?
People travel 0-3 times a year. The number of those trips that require inspiration is 0-1 for most people.
The tech investor set confused their own business-travel behavior with reality and presumed you could build a habit around services like these. You can't. And if you can't build a habit around it, you don't have a winner. The only reason TripAdvisor works is massive scale/brand. (And good for them, by the way; I'm a fan.)
1 year, 7 months ago on The travel startup fallout is here. Will anyone survive?
I just don't buy this argument; it's quite honestly facile.
People >have< in fact paid for the content for years. Who cares if they were paying for the paper, the delivery trucks and the vehicles? That's not what they think they paid for. They think they paid for "The Washington Post" or "The New York Times." In fact, to the extent that the NYT paywall is "working", it's because people are willing to give the NYT money for what it offers.
Now, we can have a good discussion of whether the Post can replicate the NYT's success and a really good conversation about how screwed up the NYT's digital strategy is. NYT is so busy getting its digital subs to spend money on the web, and the phone, and the tablet when they should be giving you all three for one price -- and encouraging everyone onto the tablet. Why? Because there they can sell ads that will deliver advertisers value that most approximates what the physical paper version offers. Obviously, the digital versions can also be better in some way. The web page versions are typically terrible web ads and sadly that seems hopeless at this point. The tablet's formatting control offers a chance to re-invent that experience.
But the bottom line is that CPMs onscreen are a tiny fraction of what print offers -- unless you're Google's search-engine pages --- and so the idea that ignoring people's willingness to pay is automatically a bad idea seems odd.
It's also absurd to say that because ATD sometimes scoops WSJ that you can compare the news operations in any way. Maybe the WaPo can fire 100 reporters and not suck. But can it fire 400 and be the WaPo? Of course not. And yet it can't make money in the model you propose without doing so.
1 year, 7 months ago on Old media’s problems are the costs not the lack of paywalls
My goodness, this is good.
1 year, 8 months ago on HP, Autonomy, and the perils of spinning facts
"First, they’re based on the assumption that 30 percent of Best Buy’s customers take them up on the price matching offer"
Yeah, that's off by a factor of 5-10. Nothing to see here, let's move along.
1 year, 8 months ago on Best Buy’s Amazon price match is a $400M all-in bet it can’t win
@Thomas Krafft from Netflix, it's too much to ask, yes. They refuse to offer you movies to buy -- or for that matter to rent from more current release windows.
1 year, 9 months ago on Netflix must ponder its endgame strategy
This business plan will most assuredly fail. Could we <be< more needlessly complex? I'm probably not the only one who found it offensive that I needed to print out my Fandango stuff (fixed by the way) to use an online service. This makes that seem elegant.
But hey, at least it relies on what has always been a terrible model: Get consumers to pay in advance for a product you hope they won't use but guarantee that your "best" customers will be your least profitable by overusing it. This has that in spades.
1 year, 9 months ago on In Attempt To Get Bums Back on Seats, MoviePass Launches an “Offline Netflix”
You're kidding, right? I mean let's get past the part we agree on: Groupon is no Square killer. In fact, every tech article that says, "X is a killer of why is just plain wrong." Rarely does anything >kill> anything else outright.
But pretending that lack of clarity is somehow a problem? Let's compare:
* Split fees for Amex and Visa/MC -- almost every merchant already has this by the way, Sarah
* Different fees for keyed in vs. swiped -- everyone does this ==> SEE BELOW
* Higher fees if you don't run a Groupon
* Almost always a cheaper alternative than Square for merchants with tickets above $8
* Pay 2.75% per charge if swiped
* If you type in the card information manually, fee is 3.5% + 15¢. ==> OMG, that's almost as clear as Groupon
* Or, pay a flat fee of $275 per month, which is better if you charge more than $10,000 per month, worse if you don't, and really amazing if you charge about $20,000 per month, after which it gets progressively similar to the original 2.75% per charge if swiped
* A better deal than Groupon if you reliably charge between $15,000 and $20,000 per month.
Again, Groupon is not killing Square. Not a chance. But the idea that one is clearer than the other? Let's say maybe Square is ever so slightly clearer for some people. Sort of. This whole "flat fee" thing could easily be looked at as an attempt by Square to raise fees on unsuspecting merchants rather than something user friendly. And the idea that the Groupon scheme is complex because the sales rep says, "If you run a Groupon, we slash all your fees", well that's just silly.
Neither company is charging terminal fees, statement fees, minimum fees, or the bogus fees that too many in the merchant-card business live on. It should also be noted that Square's blended Amex pricing is something that Amex has fought successfully before --at PayPal -- and will likely try to fight again.
1 year, 10 months ago on Groupon Taking on Square? Don’t Make Me Laugh
I'm sorry you are so certain no one values the bundling done by existing magazines. Some of us still do.
1 year, 11 months ago on A Bold Step for the Future of Magazines? A Review of Next Issue for iPad
So @eringriffith any more thoughts on this? Yahoo now reports the number correctly based on Facebook's own share count (i.e. they have lowered the market cap since the Q2 release -- not based on share price, but on share count). Google is still using some older share number whose origin I can't trace. Only Marketwatch sticks with a number that I can't possibly fathom the basis for.
Incidentally, I e-mailed Facebook IR and got no reply. Not sure what to make of that since it's material public information. I guess they get a lot of e-mail, though, so maybe I haven't waited long enough yet.
1 year, 11 months ago on Facebook’s Biggest Challenge? Upending All of Advertising
"*Facebook’s market cap, by the way, is $73 billion, NOT the $57 billion some are reporting. Google and Yahoo Finance have the share count wrong, but MarketWatch has it right. "
Not according to Facebook it isn't. You can take any variant of the numbers you want from their current earnings release and you never get anything remotely resembling $73 billion (or even that less the drop in the share price). They report the fully diluted share count at 1.879 billion shares, implying a market cap of more like $45 billion. If you actually divide the loss of $157 million by .08/share, you get a slightly higher number, suggesting that count is real and that Google and Yahoo are over-reporting the number, not wildly under-reporting it.
Where are you coming up with another nearly billion shares than Facebook itself believes exists?
@KenG Normally, I'd be seething at the first comment on an article like this, needing to point out a half-dozen inaccuracies and explaining why the commenting "just doesn't get it. Instead, all I can do is credit Ken for nailing it pretty much exactly. The future of electric cars is very bright, but the road is long. Rube Goldberg solutions like getting your entire -- tiny -- battery swapped out are going to make no sense when 400- and 500-mile range is ubiquitous and affordable. And before people explain how "that's never going to happen"... all you have to do is take the existing trends and extrapolate them out 20 years or so. If by some chance one of the discontinuous innovations >does< reach market, this will happen far, far sooner.
2 years ago on Better Place, Tesla, and the Mainstreaming of Electric Cars
@pimbres HBO likes the MSO/satellite model. They liked bundled channels. They are owned by a major seller of multiple channels. They have no interest in disrupting the current situation until or unless they have no choice. There is no way they make more money in any short-run scenario by unbundling.
2 years ago on HBO’s Distribution Strategy: It’s All About the Timing
@davemackey Yes, the waste producing the electricity is far, far less than that produced by gasoline-powered vehicles. This is true unless all the electricity comes from coal, which is rare even in much of America and getting rarer. And yes, the prices will equal out to those of gas-powered cars eventually, but it will take a while.
2 years, 1 month ago on Square Co-Founder Jim McKelvey Smuggles Us Into an Emerald Electric Van Test Drive
David, your friend Sarah says, "Don't take millions upon millions of dollars". Are you quite sure about this friendship? :)
2 years, 1 month ago on Don’t Sell, David! Why Yammer Is Different Than Skype or Instagram
"Kessler understands the reality today, but in ten years when we’ve passed the tipping point, HBO’s model won’t work. Eventually, cord cutters will be the majority..."
Let's not pretend that in 10 years cord cutters are going to be the majority. I recognize you didn't actually say they will, but the above could be read that way. And it would be wrong. Very wrong. Now, 20 years? That's another matter.
2 years, 2 months ago on HBO Is Doing Exactly What It Should Be Doing
Sarah, as always, you are thoughtful in your analysis.
That said, it strains the analogy to claim that Hennessy as LP in a venture fund is comparable to your venture investors in Pando.. He's an indirect investor in every sense (and let's be clear, there are still potential conflicts of interest here) in an investment fund that he cannot influence in any important way at all. It's not like KP or Sequoia needs his money to close their next fund. Yes, there are "sniff test" issues with the president of Stanford currying favor with VCs and vice versa.
In your case -- and, of course, you know this but it bears repeating -- people are afraid that the amount and vector of your coverage will be directed toward the favored companies of your investors. While you have a fine cross section of those, they cumulatively represent only a small slice of venture/angel investing in the Valley, let alone the rest of the country. We value your opinions because we see them as yours -- not something bought and paid for -- and the relationship between Pando and the investors is something that can't help but color how we read your blog.
Anyway, I don't mean this as criticism, but more as observation. If the New Yorker was willing to even give credence to the notion that the guy running Stanford might have conflicts of interest, surely you can understand that in your case, that appearance is magnified many times over. Stay vigilant.
2 years, 2 months ago on Stanford, Silicon Valley, and John Hennessy’s Real Legacy