JamesCurrier
- 12 comments
- 0 likes given
- 10 likes received
Bio not provided
Very funny, Bryan! Closer to reality than anyone wants to admit about how valuations are arrived at....
Kevin, thoughtful piece, well articulated. As the one of the three original investor in GoodReads, I can tell you that this discussion came up a lot during the merger process. Otis's vision to transform how we read is still in play, and Amazon wants that to happen, too. Sometimes good intentions are squashed unintentionally, but it feels like Amazon has the right approach. If it didn't, I suspect deal wouldn't have happened. Amazon's motivations are many but they include building more great products on the cutting edge, continuing to own the brand of books in consumers minds, adding more social to the reading experience, and bringing a passionate community closer to them. They are a strong and passionate company on a mission. The GR team had a similar mission, and network effect going. My bet right now is it's going to work out great for the GR community and for Kindle users.
Jiff Inc. in Palo Alto is building just such a platform. Aetna's CarePass is another.
I don't think we'd want LP's investing directly into startups... they would choose less accurately than current VC's, not being close enough to the ground or studied enough in markets or technologies make the right calls. What would be more effective would be a more distributed way for LP's to invest behind people are are studied enough, whether they are institutional VC's or not. A more transparent, fluid, distributed market, vs the concentrated and somewhat ponderous market we have today. It's coming soon, and we're going to like it. :-)
Francisco, love your writing. This post falls in the category of "we should all make a cultural change, and then thing will be better." Not my favorite category. To move it out of that category, maybe the next step is to ask what environmental conditions might be causing that goal shift?... or are people just more lazy and selfish than they used to be in the good old days. Maybe product cycles have shortened significantly, increasing uncertainty and shifting the general calculus on the sell vs carry-on decision. Maybe there are a lot more companies targeting these markets (by an order of magnitude or more), which also increases the uncertainty. Maybe the same number of big companies are being created per time period, but there are just many more small exits being created too, so it looks like a shift to short term thinking, but isn't. Maybe the amounts of money being slung around are so life changing for the entrepreneur, compared to 30 years ago, the calculus to sell is irresistible. I don't know, but I'd love to hear you write about your insights at that level.
Michael, Poshmark is the leader in this space by a long shot. https://poshmark.com http://www.crunchbase.com/company/poshmark
Great article, Sarah. You and Michael Carney are doing a great job of walking through the perhaps thorny and emotional discussion of what makes a tech ecosystem work or not. We can all feel the positive energy and momentum coming from LA and NYC... and on the one hand, there's something to be said for just cheering it on. What's to be gained from limiting confidence, belief and enthusiasm? On the other hand, there are certain realities that should probably be discussed. I see you trying to strike that balance. Clearly, there will be more geographies coming up that will face similar patterns and challenges... parts of Europe and Asia for instance ... so these discussions will continue (and repeat) for many years to come.
Great article, Hamish. A classic Pando piece.
I would bet that Pinterest has a high "N factor", meaning a Novelty Factor. It's an excellent new interface, but I can see 40% of the people using it today tiring of it within 24 months. What Yahoo needs is a company with a true network effect -- without a high N Factor -- so it survives acquisition. Maybe one that, like YouTube, is needing a longer runway to reach its potential. I haven't thought about it much, but Square might be a good candidate. $4B. Maybe also grab Yelp, for another $2B. Perhaps, going after local and transactions puts Yahoo in position to grab the long tail of ad dollars in addition to the fat part of the tail it gets now. Local is still to be cracked, and with mobile taking over, it's going to be cracked in the next 36 months. Having those two network effect businesses plus Yahoo's existing products for local businesses, email groups, etc could make them the go-to company that many thought Groupon would be. Just a thought.
Farhad, I have to hand it to you. You grasp and articulate the situation better than anyone I've read. Samsung's execution was excellent given the circumstances. They're still in the game, and now get a chance to innovate on their own. Just as Google did http://oogalabs.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/love-to-the-innovators-part-1-infoseek-bill-gross-and-yahoo/ and just as FB did http://oogalabs.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/love-to-the-innovators-2-incircle-invented-facebook-didnt-they/
Nice post, Francisco. Those interested in this line of thinking should check out John Seely Brown's lectures and writings on the subject. http://www.johnseelybrown.com/ If you're REALLy interested, you can contact me about it and we should talk it through.
Sam and Liam are great entrepreneurs, and they've hit a vein with this product. They are definitely an important team to watch in the education space. And they're good guys...