The Latest from TechCrunch |  |
- Shutterfly Buys Tiny Pictures For A Tiny Price
- Let’s Not Let Silicon Valley Become Just Like Hollywood
- WITTC50?: Want me to ignore the ridiculous conflict of interest and write a glowing review of TC50? There’s an app for that
- Interview: Vinod Khosla Is On The Hunt For Great Technologies
- Exclaim Track: Track Twitter Search Terms Over IM In Near Real Time
| Shutterfly Buys Tiny Pictures For A Tiny Price Posted: 13 Sep 2009 01:22 AM PDT
After raising a total of $11.2 million since its founding in 2005, Tiny Pictures sold to Shutterfly on Friday for $1.3 million in cash and another $1.3 million in restricted stock to employees, which has some performance triggers. If you back out the earnout, investors only got back about a tenth of what they put in. Those investors include Mohr Davidow, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and angel investors Reid Hoffman, and Joi Ito. The company’s last venture round was $7 million led by Draper Fisher in February, 2008. But Mohr Davidow, which held preferred shares, might have been the only investor to see any of those proceeds at all. Shutterfly disclosed the acquisition in an SEC filing, which only mentions Mohr Davidow as a recipient of some of the $1.3 million in cash. It also mentions that Nancy J. Schoendorf, a managing partner at Mohr Davidow, sits on the boards of both companies. Although she did not vote on the acquisition, the connection raises the question of whether or not Mohr played a role in bring the deal to Shutterfly in the first place. Tiny Pictures operates Radar, a mobile photo sharing app which never got a lot of traction beyond a core following. The service is actually pretty slick, centered around a photo commenting stream. You snap photos with your mobile phone which instantly is shared with your friends who also have the app. They can then comment on the photos. It sounds simple enough, but the app never achieved a critical mass of users. The service is focused more on sharing life moments through photos with people you actually know than creating a public photo stream. So if you don’t know anyone who uses it, there is little reason to join yourself. The friends-and-family aspect must have appealed to Shutterfly, however, which is based on exactly that type of picture sharing. It already has a rich database of people who like to share photos with one another. Radar helps them extend that to mobile phones in a social and fun way. Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors TechCrunch50 Conference 2009: September 14-15, 2009, San Francisco   |
| Let’s Not Let Silicon Valley Become Just Like Hollywood Posted: 13 Sep 2009 12:54 AM PDT
Olson writes:
He goes on, giving a specific example of one time that he read someone’s script and how it all turned out badly anyway. And, he’s right. Dead on right. Asking a writer to read your script is no different than asking a painter to paint your house for free. Except for one crucial thing – The person isn’t really asking Olson to read his script. What he was really asking for is access to the Hollywood power structure. A way in to a very closed off world. There are direct analogies to Silicon Valley. In Hollywood everyone has a script. In Silicon Valley, everyone has a business plan. And when you don’t know many people here, you start networking to get people to read that business plan, and hopefully introduce you to a few venture capitalists or angel investors. Sometimes those people start with me in their quest to break into Silicon Valley. They are way too early to have a story written about them, but they email in and ask me to look at their business plan and/or an early website and give them my feedback. What they really want are introductions. To possible cofounders. Or investors. Sure, they listen to my opinion, but when they really have the fire in their eye, which all good entrepreneurs have, it doesn’t matter what I say. Nothing will stop them. They just want me to introduce them to the next person who can help them. Usually I can’t take the time to look at these business plans, there is always too much to do in my day job. Sometimes, very rarely, I do. But, like Olson with his scripts, the result is the same whether I spend the time or not. If I don’t look at it I get called a jerk. If I do look at it but don’t help move the idea forward with the right introductions, I get called a jerk. It’s easiest just to ignore the requests. We also see this with TechCrunch50 applications. Every year we get about 1,000 applications from bright eyed, hopeful entrepreneurs. Fifty get in. That’s 950 rejection emails we have to send out. Every year, a certain percentage of the rejected entrepreneurs go varying degrees of ballistic on us. Angry emails, trolling comments, etc. Very occasionally, worse. But some of this is understandable frustration. As Silicon Valley gets bigger, with more strangers, it actually becomes harder to reach the power structure that can make your startup go from a business plan to reality (this is why I’ve written that periodic downturns, which weed out some of the fluffier parts of the startup scene, are such a good thing in our community). Those of us in a position to help entrepreneurs need to do more of it. We need to take more time out of our day to read that business plan, and help make connections. Even when it comes at the cost of our day job, and even when there is nothing in it for us. In the past we’ve tried various projects to try to scale this. In the future, we’ll try new things until we get it right. One idea – a once-a-month open demo day at techcrunch where unknown startups can come and show their stuff, or just talk about their idea, to TechCrunch writers. It would be trivial to livestream and archive these events. And who knows, someone may make a crucial connection. But this is a two way street. Budding entrepreneurs, trying to break down the walls that separate them from your angel funding, need to grow up. Most of the time people don’t have the time to help you, and you shouldn’t aim hate at them for it. Instead, try a different angle or a different person. A simple thing – learn to read body language and don’t approach people at the wrong time (like right after they leave a stage and are surrounded by a dozen other people). Choose your moment. If your strategies don’t work, try something new. Dozens of startups have given up trying to get through my hated inbox and have instead reached out to other TechCrunch writers, and many of those have ended up with great connections to angel investors, potential partners, or future employees. But don’t assume someone is a jerk just because they won’t paint your house for free. Or read your business plan. Good luck, and remember that a lot of people want you to win, even when they don’t have the time to help you do it. p.s. – I often find myself on the other side of this type of thing, trying to get someone’s attention for a story or to speak at one of our events or whatever. I try to never take offense at an unreturned phone call or email, or blame the person if they don’t have time to speak at one of our conferences. Instead, I try to think of ways to reverse the situation, so in the future it’s them calling me to write about their company, or to speak at our conference. It doesn’t always work, but it’s more productive than festering and spreading hate. Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware. TechCrunch50 Conference 2009: September 14-15, 2009, San Francisco |
| Posted: 12 Sep 2009 05:33 PM PDT
I’m sorry – you’ll have to forgive my cynicism, it’s just that I have to prove to you that I haven’t gone native. You see, one of the main reasons I was hired by TechCrunch was for my traffic-driving habit of hurling faeces at unsuspecting industry conferences. Conferences like Jeff Pulver’s inexorably ill-planned 140 Characters in New York or Loic LeMeur’s très froid ‘Le‘ in Paris – both of which saw the sharp end of my tongue when I was at the Guardian. I learned there that no-one cares when I talk about interesting start-ups or noteworthy trends – but when I textually assault a hard-working event organiser, the page impressions flow like gravy. And so you can imagine how worried I felt when I realised that the very first major conference to come along after I moved to TechCrunch would be the one that pays my wages. For weeks friends have been responding to my protests of impartiality with wry looks and knowing chuckles. “Sure,” they said, “even if the wifi’s shit, the venue’s freezing and there’s no food, you’ll still have to say nice things. Arrington’s not going to let you publish a hatchet job about his cash cow. The man is a renowned megalomaniac; worse than Stalin and Kim Jong-il added together.” “Don’t be ridiculous,” I argued back, “that’s just propaganda put about by jealous rivals at lesser blogs. Arrington hired me for my fierce independence, not just because he wanted to make sure I’d toe the line when it came to the most important event on his calendar. No one would be that cynical.” Right? Well, we’ll find out soon enough. In a bold journalistic experiment, this week’s column is split into several installments, of which this is the first. The others will be filed on Monday and Tuesday, live from the conference hall, or from whichever after-party or fringe event I find myself at when my deadline hits. I’ll be working overtime to bring you a true and complete picture of the event, so if you spot a hyper-focussed figure, hunched away from the main throng, obsessively pecking away at a laptop when he should be drinking and having fun, that’ll be me. (Or possibly Gabe Rivera; you’ll know for sure by the shoes.) My original plan was to use this first installment as a prologue, to preview some of the companies that will be launching on Monday and Tuesday and suggesting which pitches you should definitely check out. I wouldn’t give too much away, of course, but hopefully I’d give you an idea of the 50 amazingly revolutionary products that will be competing for the $50k grand prize, plus $4.7bn in advertising credits, 3.76m Beenz and a share in the fortune of the late Dr Clement Okon of Nigeria. There are just two problems with this plan. Firstly, with the exception of Penn and Teller, I have absolutely no idea what start-ups will be pitching. Really. In the interests of impartiality – and laziness – I’ve kept well away from TechCrunch HQ, where I understand frantic last minute preparations are underway to make sure this year’s event is the best ever. MG is charging his iPhones, Arrington is practicing his cynical stage-stare, Lacy is ironing her ‘I *heart* Brazil t-shirt, Daniel Brusilovsky and the interns are doing all the actual work – that kind of thing. But I’m staying behind my Chinese wall. Until yesterday I hadn’t even bothered checking that the venue was the same as last year, or confirming that I actually had a ticket. (It is. I have.) The second problem is that I strongly suspect this year’s companies will fall into the category of evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Which is probably a good thing. The market being what it is, it makes a lot of sense to play safe: develop something that users and investors can easily get on board with, make some revenue, keep up repayments on your home, ride out the storm. The fact that last year’s winner, Yammer, was an evolution (’clone’ is such an impolite word) of Twitter is a case in point, and it wouldn’t suprise me if the selection panel have chosen similar kinds of businesses this year. Which is great for those who value tried and tested ideas and solid business models but terrible news for a columnist who gets off on mocking the sick and jeering the lame. But, then again, I could be completely wrong. I mean, if this year’s selection really does err on the side of caution, how does one explain Penn and Teller? These are hardly men renowned for safe ideas; the last time I saw Teller thinking inside a box, Penn poured in a swarm of bees and did something decidedly innovative with a can of gasoline. So perhaps their presence is a hint that this year’s event will be one filled with ridiculously bold ideas, chosen to inject a much-needed shot of adrenaline in the arm of an industry flirting with the doldrums. And yet that possibility doesn’t quite feel right either. No, actually, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that Penn and Teller’s attendance is indicative of a much more cynical plot altogether. Just consider the evidence: a few weeks ago when Arrington asked for my bio for CrunchBase, I mentioned the odd factoid that I used to be a magician. Four weeks later and – lo! – Penn and Teller, the magicians’ magicians, are slated to pitch at TechCrunch50. Coincidence? I hardly think so. A far more likely explanation is that my friends were right about Arrington all along. The poor man really is so desperate to ensure that my TechCrunch50 review is positive that he’s selected each of the participating companies based purely on how likely they are to appeal to me, and me alone. The other 1999 attendees be damned, all that matters is getting my journalistic thumbs up. It’s an audacious plan. And you know what? It might just work. Especially if he’s chosen such me-focussed companies as…
Exciting products, all, as I’m sure you’ll agree. And each absolutely guaranteed to get a much-needed positive review from me next week. Perfect! See you all on Monday! I’ll be the cold, hungry one in the corner, swearing about the fucking wifi. Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily. TechCrunch50 Conference 2009: September 14-15, 2009, San Francisco |
| Interview: Vinod Khosla Is On The Hunt For Great Technologies Posted: 12 Sep 2009 01:31 PM PDT
In venture capital, Vinod Khosla likes to go his own way, which is why he’s been so successful. He was the founding CEO of Sun Microsystems, and then moved to venture capital and became a star partner at Kleiner Perkins, where he backed Juniper Networks, Cerent (sold to Cisco for $7 billion) and NexGen (sold to AMD and formed the basis for its challenge to Intel). About five years ago, after becoming a billionaire, he left Kleiner and started Khosla Ventures to invest his own money. He was mostly drawn to clean tech at a time before it was popular, but still kept his hand in Web and other tech startups (Aliph|Jawbone, iSkoot, RingCentral, Tapulous, iLike, Slide, Xobni). Khosla Ventures already has more than 50 companies in its portfolio (see slides below). Earlier this month, Khosla raised $1.1 billion for two new funds, taking money from outside investors for the first time. I spoke with Khosla on the phone about his new fund, his approach to investing, clean tech and more. He compares Web startups to water startups, dismisses entrepreneurs who think about exits before building value, and contends that cleantech companies can command as high margins as hardware or software companies. “It’s a business strategy decision,” he explains.” In the interview, Khosla talks about his investments in Aliph, RingCentral, eASIC, iSkoot, and Xobni. In terms of what he’s looking for, he declares “we love material science.” And in his seed fund, in particular, he says, “We’re not looking for completeness in things. We're not looking for business plans. We are not looking for meeting every fiduciary requirement of an investor. We are looking for great technical ideas and great technologists.” The 25-minute interview and full transcript are below. I’ve bolded parts for emphasis.
Interview Transcript Mr. SCHONFELD: Well thanks for taking the time to speak to me. You just recently raised a pretty large fund or actually a couple of funds, right, $1.1 billion for two new funds. And I believe this is the first time you really took outside money. Can you talk a little bit about that whole fund-raising process and why you decided to reach to outside investors? Mr. KHOSLA: I think my general feeling is the scale of the opportunity we see is pretty large. You know, when I started doing things on my own, I was figuring – remember it was a very nascent market. And there was a lot that was unknown about the renewable marketplace in 2004, early 2003 when I was planning on it. The world does change for the better. Much larger opportunity set and it probably requires, you know – there’s more opportunity than I would have thought five years ago. Mr. SCHONFELD: Right. Now, you have been really focusing on this area specifically for five years. While still, you're still making an investment in more traditional web companies and the type of technology companies you’ve been investing in for years. But can you just tell me a little about the difference in the dynamics between the companies that are renewable energy companies versus the companies that our readers probably are more familiar with, web companies and hardware and even chip companies. Mr. KHOSLA: Yeah, still… Mr. SCHONFELD: There seems to be a disconnect, even in the Valley, between the cultures of these two types of tech companies. Mr. KHOSLA: You know, I find that a pretty narrow view on behalf of people who sort of repeat that, I’ll call it a platitude for now. In the following sense, if you look at a venture firm like Kleiner Perkins and look at their portfolio, I would guess that 20 percent of the portfolio —and this is before renewables—ends up in things that are purely capital-intensive like biotech. 20 percent ends up in really capital-intensive stuff like biotech. 20 percent ends up in capital-light things like a Web start-up, let's say, taking less than $30 million. So, 20 percent will take less than 30, 20 percent will take more than 300. And then the remaining 60 percent ends up in the middle taking, oh, you know, the bulk of the portfolio in venture takes between $30 million and $75 million or a hundred million. I think the profile in renewables will look exactly the same. And so, if you’re a broad-based venture firm and you do biotech and you do some of the capital-intensive projects, your renewable portfolio will not look that different. Not everything in the world is building power plants or build biofuel facilities. There are plenty of things that are in the middle. So if you’re doing LED lighting, it is just like a chip start-up. If you’re doing a new air-conditioner, it’s like a small equipment start-up, or telecom gear start-up. If you’re doing water, it’s like a Web start-up, at least the ones we’ve done. Mr. SCHONFELD: How is a water startup like a Web company? Mr. KHOSLA: Well, for 15, 20 million dollars, they’ll have products in the marketplace and be able to be cash flow positive. Less than $25 million, I would guess, because they’re making membranes. Then you make a membrane, they put it into existing systems. Now, they could have a capital-intensive model and build a desalination plant but they’re not going to. They’re going to build a membrane that goes into existing desalination plants. And so, it’s a very simple model and in all those – in almost all these cases that opportunity exists. Even in the extensive biofuels area, where you'd think it’d be very capital-intensive, you know, it’s easy to cut deals like LS9 announced one with Proctor & Gamble. That’s publicly announced. You can look that up, and make sure it is capital-light. There are companies that are pursuing licensing strategies that are also relatively capital-light. MR. SCHONFELD: Already you have what, about 50 companies in your Khosla Ventures portfolio, somewhere around there? MR. KHOSLA: More than that. I don’t know the exact count but yes, more. Well above 50. MR. SCHONFELD: So the new fund will be used for follow-on investments to the existing portfolio as well as new ventures or is it – or the existing portfolio is already taken care of with the capital allocated to the previous funds? MR. KHOSLA: Well, both of the funds will be new investments. But there are provisions for existing portfolio companies to get in, you know, we’re not going into the details but the bulk of the funds will be new investments. MR. SCHONFELD: And do you see going forward the mix being pretty much the same? It seems like it’s two thirds clean tech and one third more traditional tech. MR. KHOSLA: Yeah. We do expect the mix in the future to look similar to the mix we’ve had in the past. MR. SCHONFELD: Let’s take both of these techs one at a time. So, the Clean Tech companies are – are these located all over the place? Are these Silicon Valley companies and what’s your criteria for investing in these companies? I mean, at first glance a lot of these companies seem like material science companies or companies that other investors maybe wouldn’t even look at or would pass on because it’s not – it’s not a familiar model to them, right? So, you’ve invested in a lot of technology companies. Obviously, the problems they’re trying to address are large, but in terms of the actual business model and economic models of these companies, where’s the leverage? MR. KHOSLA: Well, you know, first because it’s a diverse area and there’s no one business model. There will be a range of business models that will be used and will make sense and just like any other tech start-up, these companies are run by entrepreneurs who are pretty damned adaptive. You know, they’ll move pretty quick and adapt to whatever the environment says. MR. KHOSLA: If the market changes, the money is available or the money is tight, they adapt to that. These things entrepreneurs do all the time. You saw that in the dot-com thing. There were people who could use a hundred million in the dot-com, and people who could adapt and go back to running on a million dollars a year. We saw that in dot-com companies and I think the same is going to be true in this space. And because the space is so large you'll see a lot of diversity in the range of business models. I forgot the first part of your question. MR. SCHONFELD: I can rephrase it. What are you looking for when you’re going to make investments in this area, what are the key… Mr. KHOSLA: To your question, we love material science. We love serious technology innovations and there is a strong bias towards large technology innovations that are sort of disruptive to the current market. And that is very much a charter of what we are doing and we don’t mind larger technology risks especially in the smaller seed fund, which is really geared towards science experiments, which other people generally, as you say, won’t do. The main fund will look like any venture fund and we’ll invest like any other. We'll do seed, A and B and C investments. And there the risks probably will be a little less of the speculative stuff the seed fund might do. And I agree with you, there will be fewer people in the domain of the seed fund but the seed fund will do things that take a million dollars here, our $2 million there to roll out a really radical technology idea. And then it becomes a regular business plan. In that stage, in the seed fund, we’re not looking for completeness in things. We're not looking for business plans. We are not looking for meeting every fiduciary requirement of an investor. We are looking for great technical ideas and great technologists and yes, lots of PhDs in hard-core science disciplines. Or just wild ideas that sort of have huge upside potential and sometimes may not need a radical technology breakthrough. So Xobni, which we did in e-mail , is an example of something that would be—in IT that fits into the seed fund because it’s a wild idea to do e-mail in this day and age. It has gotten great traction. So, that’s what we are looking for in the seed fund. In the main fund, we look for more complete management teams and more complete technology. Mr. SCHONFELD: But for Xobni, that seems at first like the opposite of what you’d be looking for because a lot of people might think that e-mail is done although obviously, it has a lot of problems. Mr. KHOSLA: Well, in fact I would say most people wouldn't invest in e-mail because they think e-mail is done. In that case, it was an idea that we thought compelling and without going into the details, users have adopted it and used it enough to prove to us that it is compelling. And so all I’m saying is, we will do non-technology IT stuff in the seed area. We've just done another seed that I won’t mention but it’s not renewable but green, it’s just a great idea in a completely wild space that most VCs wouldn't even think of touching. But it’s a regular technology start-up. And hey, great, so we are open minded on what we are looking for. On the green side, generally it should focus on the technology, technologist, a breakthrough innovation, not just a minor iteration. Mr. SCHONFELD: Looking at your portfolio, overall which of the companies are the most mature? Have you had any, have there been any exits from the portfolios so far or - Mr. KHOSLA: You know, we’ve had some – we’ve had a couple of sales and I don’t know which ones we’ve talked about publicly. They’ve been OK, good returns. So, you know, on average sort of a few times our money. Nothing I’d call a home run today but in terms of maturity, obviously, Aliph or Jawbone is a pretty exciting start-up for us. You know, a couple of, sort of nine digit revenues and cash flow positive and all the things you’d look for in a mature company. And you know, and so, eASIC is doing pretty well in semiconductors, we’re happy with that. Let's see, iSkoot is doing really well in the mobile space. I’m trying to pick different areas. You’ take something like RingCentral. It doesn’t need any more money or financing, it is relatively mature recurring revenue business – not really worried but you know, we could sell it tomorrow. We have not been in a rush to sell it. We don’t care about exits as much. We care about building fundamental value. So, in that sense we are a little bit different than other investors. Our focus is not on exit. In fact if you talk to any of my entrepreneurs, I’m generally saying don’t sell the company when other investors want to sell. I'd much rather focus on building long-term value in building companies rather than worrying about exists. In fact, here is the thing, if a business plan talks about exits in the first two or three pages, I throw it out of the basket because I think, culturally it’s the wrong kind of entrepreneur for us. I literally if they talk, or mention exits in the first, say, in the executive summary or the first three pages of a business plan, it's two strikes against them right there because I’m not interested in people where exit is top of mind. We care about building companies and building values. And that’s sort of the kind of culture we're trying to do at Khosla Ventures. Mr. SCHONFELD: Right, so, what advice would you have for entrepreneurs who you know are looking at different options? I mean, when is the right time to sell and when is the right time to keep going? Mr. KHOSLA: You know, we could sell Aliph today. We could keep the cash flow positive company going. I'd rather take it towards an IPO. RingCentral is cash flow positive, going, you know, over a 100,000 small businesses as customers. We could sell it today but I still think, there’s time to generate value. It depends on what’s going on internally. If there’s good growth prospects and more value to be built then you go build that value instead of trying to get an exit. Wide Orbit is cash flow breakeven and sort of mature. You'd call it a mature company by venture standards, we're not interested in, you know, getting out. Now having said that, if somebody comes with a great offer, we’ll always look at it. You know, we’re not opposed to exits. All I’m saying is it’s not the first thing we worry about. We worry about building value and building companies. Mr. SCHONFELD: Right. And so what should entrepreneurs take from the fact that you were able to raise this $1.1 billion fund which I think is – it’s two funds but it was a sort of a single raise, right? Which I think is the biggest in several years. Is that just because you’re Vinod Khosla or do you see something – you see some - Mr. KHOSLA: You know, I think the message is there are plenty of me-too two investors and there's good investors around and money from – new money for that kind of thing is tight. But if you’re trying to do something different like we are, then investors, limited partners are willing to put up the money for it. I mean, and there’s definitely, we're very active with new investors. We’re looking for ventures and our LPs just want us to take the risk for a file I just talked to you about. And there is appetite for risk. Mr. SCHONFELD: Do you think that we’re going to be seeing more money flowing into venture capital? There’s been a big debate as whether there's been a reset or not, you know, for investments going to venture capital and you know, just the whole financial crisis and how that impacted limited partners and how big institutions, you know, are rethinking their allocation to venture as an asset class. Is this an anomaly or - Mr. KHOSLA: You know, my bet is big institutions will continue investing in venture capital but they’ll be more selective. But I don’t think, you know, frankly, we could have raised a lot more money if we wanted to if we had the people to put it to work. So I do think big institutional investors will continue to fund venture capital, but they will be much more selective and not every venture capital group will get follow-on funding. You know, it’s not too loose in my view and I think that’s going to change, and that’s a good thing. Mr. SCHONFELD: And what’s your view of the IPO window? Will that ever really open up again or are there fundamental structural phenomena that is keeping it down not just the economy, but you know, everything from Sarbanes-Oxley to - Mr. KHOSLA: I am pretty sure it will open up again. When is a little hard to predict and that’s why larger funds and deeper pockets are better for both venture funds and for entrepreneurs. I mean, today if I were an entrepreneur, I’d be very careful about only going with people with deep pockets. Because it matters. Now much more than it did before. Mr. SCHONFELD: So if you’re giving advice to – if I’m an entrepreneur looking for different areas to go into and assuming that I can pull together a team with the required expertise, you know, what’s the counter-intuitive sort of space to go into right now? I would even say Cleantech, there’s a lot of startups out there . . . Mr. KHOSLA: You know, my advice to entrepreneurs is to go into the area of their expertise. Mr. SCHONFELD: What’s the company that you would invest in in a second, but you haven’t really found it yet? What’s the problem that isn’t being solved by the companies that you’ve looked at that needs solving? Mr. KHOSLA: Well, for example, storage for electricity is not a problem that has been solved. So, it is not a problem that has been solved. Mr. SCHONFELD: For portable storage, for large… Mr. KHOSLA: Well, both portable and stationary storage is not a problem that’s been solved. There’s lots of opportunities in bio materials so you know, in information technology there is, like low power is still a big deal. And so it’s hard to sort of single out areas and I see opportunities and interest, in business trends in almost every area. Mr. SCHONFELD: Right. So what are your feelings about your first company, Sun Microsystems, being acquired? Mr. KHOSLA: You know, I don’t want to - I think it’s better Oracle acquired it and stayed in the Silicon Valley culture than, say, IBM acquiring it. But frankly, you know, that was a long time ago for me. Mr. SCHONFELD: Where do these new cleantech companies fall? Are they closer to – do they look more like an industrial company when they mature or do they look closer to, you know, a hardware company or do any of these have software-type margins and how is that possible? Mr. KHOSLA: Yes, it’s possible. You know, in each case, it’s a business strategy decision. I generally disagree with most of the very high margin opportunities. Why? Because it’s a business strategy tradeoff: the lower the margin you take, the faster you grow. Yes, a Juniper can do 65% margin, but I tried really hard to convince them to go with 50 percent. Actually, it just increases market penetration faster. And so what are you trying to achieve? And there are times where . . . take somebody like Infinera. I haven't been on the board for a couple of years so my data is old. But we had a tradeoff between getting 10% margin on the chassis and 80% margin on the cards, or getting 30, 40, 50 percent margin on the total thing. And one was immediate revenue and margin, and the other was locking in lots of chassis with customers at low margin and then they kept buying line cards from you for ten years. It’s a business strategy question and it worked very well for Infinera. So I think this is a red herring. Every one of our companies has the opportunity to go after niche markets or a large market. And the larger the market, the more aggressive you have to be. Mr. SCHONFELD: OK, great. Mr. KHOSLA: OK. Mr. SCHONFELD: Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate you taking time on your schedule to talk to us. Mr. KHOSLA: Great. Thanks a lot.
Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware. TechCrunch50 Conference 2009: September 14-15, 2009, San Francisco This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Exclaim Track: Track Twitter Search Terms Over IM In Near Real Time Posted: 12 Sep 2009 10:04 AM PDT
Exclaim Track is a very simple service. It’s Twitter track over IM. Right now, it works with Google Talk (via Jabber), and all you have to do is follow exclaimtrack@appspot.com. Once that name is on your contact list, simply IM it with “track <keyword>” and it will IM you all Twitter mentions of the term you put in. But here’s why Exclaim Track is really great: It’s so simple to both track and un-track items. For example, today is the Michigan/Notre Dame football game. I can’t watch it because I’m stuck at the office doing work for TechCrunch50 (hope to see you there Monday and Tuesday). I want to know what people are saying about the game, but don’t want to keep reloading Twitter Search, so instead I set up an Exclaim Track query, and now I’m getting pinged every time something comes up. After the game is over, I won’t care about the search anymore, so I simply type “remove <keyword>” and it’s gone. You can also easily turn notifications on or off simply by IMing “on” or “off” to the Exlcaim Track IM account. That’s great if you want to mute notifications, but don’t necessarily want to remove a term. Also, you can search multiple terms at the same time, so removing all of them to quite the service might be a pain, without the “off” command. Exclaim Track is a part of Excla.im, a service which allows you to update your Twitter status via IM. The developer, Harper Reed, set up this new tracking feature using the Pubsubhubbub real-time pinging service and Superfeedr, which does real-time feed parsing. He simply used Google’s App Engine for the messaging and hosting aspects, so the service actually costs him nothing to run. One small downside to Exclaim Track is that when you first start tracking a keyword, it will find most of the recent mentions of the term that are available in Twitter Search. This means you’ll get a punch of non-real-time information. But once this runs through (usually just seconds or minutes), you’ll start to see new results pop-up in near real time. “Near” is an important thing to note, it’s not quite real time, but it’s usually pretty close, usually under a minute of the mention on Twitter. Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors TechCrunch50 Conference 2009: September 14-15, 2009, San Francisco |
I came across a post written earlier this week by A History of Violence screenwriter Josh Olson titled
Huzzah! It’s that time again! Time for 
Twitter Search is great, but you have to be on Twitter’s site or one of the third-party apps to use it. This requires an active approach; you must enter terms and load or reload the results to get what you want. That’s why Twitter’s old “track” feature was so great, it would ping you every time a keyword you were searching for came up. Unfortunately, as growth exploded, Twitter had to axe the feature. But third | You are subscribed to email updates from TechCrunch To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment