R.I.P. Good Times: The Startup Bubble May Be Coming to an End in 2012(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
R.I.P. Good Times: The Startup Bubble May Be Coming to an End in 2012
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/26/josh-kopelman-i-think-2012-will-look-more-like-2008-than-2011/
15 comments
All this cash floating around also seems to lead to startups sucking up all the best talent. Do coding geniuses really need to be working on photo-sharing apps, as opposed to, say, rocket programming?
I'm not sure your counterfactual is well-chosen. Round these parts (UK), bright physicists/engineers/compscis seem to mainly end up in finance, trying to stay on the right side of zero-sum-game financial jiggery-pokery.
Photo sharing may not be the best possible outlet for their talents, but at least it has some social value.
I'm not sure your counterfactual is well-chosen. Round these parts (UK), bright physicists/engineers/compscis seem to mainly end up in finance, trying to stay on the right side of zero-sum-game financial jiggery-pokery.
Photo sharing may not be the best possible outlet for their talents, but at least it has some social value.
"One of the things he told me is that a recession is the best time to start a business: the table is cleared and the posers don't want to work hard to make it. More room for the truly dedicated."
We've been in recession for years now, just not specifically in SV, where most of this stuff takes place. But people latch on to it, and many people think they're "starting a business in a recession" right now.
We've been in recession for years now, just not specifically in SV, where most of this stuff takes place. But people latch on to it, and many people think they're "starting a business in a recession" right now.
I'm in Sweden so my knowledge of the situation comes from inferring a general Zeitgeist via online reading on this and other sites. So take my remarks with a few grams of salt.
That's interesting btw, care to tell me a bit more?
That's interesting btw, care to tell me a bit more?
Not sure what to add... ???
The "start a business in a recession" is common guidance/wisdom. It seems to make some sense - it'll weed out the people who aren't truly interested in starting a business, because it'll be harder than in 'normal' economic times.
The difference is, for web/tech startups, it's probably easier now to get started, insomuch as the cost of starting something is far less than it was 5 years ago, and there's more money being invested in small web startups than a few years ago. So... lower costs to startup, more money being invested, and we see more of these happening.
However, people think they're "starting a business in a recession" because the general economy is in recession. The "web/tech startup" economy is not in recession - seemingly quite the opposite, really.
In a year or two when the startup money stops flowing so easily, we'll be in 'startup recession' territory, and that's where the "start a business in a recession" wisdom will be tested, but I suspect not as many people will put it to the test.
The "start a business in a recession" is common guidance/wisdom. It seems to make some sense - it'll weed out the people who aren't truly interested in starting a business, because it'll be harder than in 'normal' economic times.
The difference is, for web/tech startups, it's probably easier now to get started, insomuch as the cost of starting something is far less than it was 5 years ago, and there's more money being invested in small web startups than a few years ago. So... lower costs to startup, more money being invested, and we see more of these happening.
However, people think they're "starting a business in a recession" because the general economy is in recession. The "web/tech startup" economy is not in recession - seemingly quite the opposite, really.
In a year or two when the startup money stops flowing so easily, we'll be in 'startup recession' territory, and that's where the "start a business in a recession" wisdom will be tested, but I suspect not as many people will put it to the test.
Thanks. I am satisfied.
"""All this cash floating around also seems to lead to startups sucking up all the best talent. Do coding geniuses really need to be working on photo-sharing apps, as opposed to, say, rocket programming?"""
Good point. But for all the "how to hire the best" articles moving around related to startups, I don't see many "coding geniuses" there, and have yet to see a significant contribution to OSS or CompSci coming from a "social" startup.
Mostly fresh-out-of-college, no-real-world-experience, lets-use-what's-shiny types...
Someone like Brad Fitzpatrick runs circles around these guys.
Good point. But for all the "how to hire the best" articles moving around related to startups, I don't see many "coding geniuses" there, and have yet to see a significant contribution to OSS or CompSci coming from a "social" startup.
Mostly fresh-out-of-college, no-real-world-experience, lets-use-what's-shiny types...
Someone like Brad Fitzpatrick runs circles around these guys.
The problem, in part, is that VCs want naive, unfettered young people. The VC model has sort of evolved into a kind of talent betting pool.
If you're sophisticated enough to have a proven track record, you're probably also more sophisticated about retaining equity and control.
If you're sophisticated enough to have a proven track record, you're probably also more sophisticated about retaining equity and control.
Rocket programming? Really?
Regardless, one persons useless website is often another person's invaluable tool. Not to say there isn't a lot of waste out there, but I doubt everyone getting hard to work on "rocket programming" will solve that problem. We'd just have a lot of crappy "rocket programs".
Regardless, one persons useless website is often another person's invaluable tool. Not to say there isn't a lot of waste out there, but I doubt everyone getting hard to work on "rocket programming" will solve that problem. We'd just have a lot of crappy "rocket programs".
Folks have been predicting this throughout 2010 as well as 2011. The arguments are generally devoid of data, i.e., "based on what we see".
First, let me say, there will eventually be a decrease in funding levels primarily because the VC asset class is raising less money and since they can only invest what's in their bank accounts, it has to come down. When will that happen? Not sure.
Here's some thoughts based on data we collect.
- 2011 is shaping up to be banner year for VCs ($30B+ invested) - Seed investments whether by VCs, VCs & angels or just angels are growing like mad
If you think of investing as a funnel, i.e., more seed stage companies get funded than Series A than Series B, etc, it def looks like the funnel has gotten a bit fat up top, i.e. a lot more seed deals than Series A, B, etc money down the pipeline.
So if anything, the Seed thing has been overdone. At the same time, many of those Seed companies can become real businesses on just the Seed round, i.e., SaaS companies (just look at UserVoice's second small round raise as a case study). Or these companies get acquired for $20-$50 million. Which is not a great return for a mega-VC who only care about billion dollar opportunities, but can be quite good for a micro-VC. I'd imagine Dave McClure and others like 500Startups would be happy hitting those all day long.
That said, there is an overabundance of seed backed companies and many of these will be orphaned and die. That's not a bad thing. It's the market working.
At the same time, there are a lot more investors at the Seed stage and a lot more can pile in so the trend might continue for a while as everyone hopes to fund the next Facebook, Pinterest, Quora, etc (pick your soup du jour). This is only natural as there are a lot more folks who can invest at the $1 million level than the $10 or $100 million level.
As to whether later rounds will decrease in # and a bubble exists, that can really only happen when the buyers (investors) decide not to pay crazy valuations. I'm not sure what the 'forcing mechanism' will be that will drive this. There is not a long list of public internet companies that will set the "real price" for these companies and cause a correction. So without the forcing mechanism, it comes down to investors agreeing that valuations in private markets are too high. Not sure there is anything out there that would cause an across-the-board shift like that. Of course, some investors might get more conservative but there looks to be no dearth of cowboys investing right now.
Finally, this could all change if the stock market and general economy go into a tailspin. If I could predict that with any precision (or if anyone could), we're in the wrong business.
Some links for those interested in some data -
Startup Cash Crunch? Hardly - http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/venture-capital/startup-cash-...
VC on track for $30B in 2011 - http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/venture-capital/quarterly-ven...
First, let me say, there will eventually be a decrease in funding levels primarily because the VC asset class is raising less money and since they can only invest what's in their bank accounts, it has to come down. When will that happen? Not sure.
Here's some thoughts based on data we collect.
- 2011 is shaping up to be banner year for VCs ($30B+ invested) - Seed investments whether by VCs, VCs & angels or just angels are growing like mad
If you think of investing as a funnel, i.e., more seed stage companies get funded than Series A than Series B, etc, it def looks like the funnel has gotten a bit fat up top, i.e. a lot more seed deals than Series A, B, etc money down the pipeline.
So if anything, the Seed thing has been overdone. At the same time, many of those Seed companies can become real businesses on just the Seed round, i.e., SaaS companies (just look at UserVoice's second small round raise as a case study). Or these companies get acquired for $20-$50 million. Which is not a great return for a mega-VC who only care about billion dollar opportunities, but can be quite good for a micro-VC. I'd imagine Dave McClure and others like 500Startups would be happy hitting those all day long.
That said, there is an overabundance of seed backed companies and many of these will be orphaned and die. That's not a bad thing. It's the market working.
At the same time, there are a lot more investors at the Seed stage and a lot more can pile in so the trend might continue for a while as everyone hopes to fund the next Facebook, Pinterest, Quora, etc (pick your soup du jour). This is only natural as there are a lot more folks who can invest at the $1 million level than the $10 or $100 million level.
As to whether later rounds will decrease in # and a bubble exists, that can really only happen when the buyers (investors) decide not to pay crazy valuations. I'm not sure what the 'forcing mechanism' will be that will drive this. There is not a long list of public internet companies that will set the "real price" for these companies and cause a correction. So without the forcing mechanism, it comes down to investors agreeing that valuations in private markets are too high. Not sure there is anything out there that would cause an across-the-board shift like that. Of course, some investors might get more conservative but there looks to be no dearth of cowboys investing right now.
Finally, this could all change if the stock market and general economy go into a tailspin. If I could predict that with any precision (or if anyone could), we're in the wrong business.
Some links for those interested in some data -
Startup Cash Crunch? Hardly - http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/venture-capital/startup-cash-...
VC on track for $30B in 2011 - http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/venture-capital/quarterly-ven...
Another thing to consider are the built-to-flips. We never had that in the .com era. Where companies where built with the expectation that they would be bought out by a larger player. That eco-system is enjoyed by all parties in it. The large players are actively encouraging this form of company and are purchasing the ones that rise to the top. This means that public exits do not have to be the only strategy for a company and creates a secondary market of purchases therefore offloading some of the risk that a company in the end must become profitable or be able to exit via public funds. The dynamics of the market have changed and many that are claiming a bubble look at the market with the same dynamics that the .com bust had. It's hard not to do, given that it was pretty traumatic for everyone involved but there are different forces at work today and the market has become more resilient. I think it will eventually bubble, but I personally think there is runway left. I am more concerned about the capital flight from the Euro and it trying to find a place to nest than I am with any of the news out of the Vally.
"""Folks have been predicting this throughout 2010 as well as 2011. The arguments are generally devoid of data, i.e., "based on what we see"."""
Actually, "what we see" is the very definition of EMPIRICAL DATA.
What you probably wanted to say was "devoid of any theory" etc. But no theory has yet untangled the economic prediction thing --too many parameters.
A little manual pruning of the empirical data by someone with experience in the trenches is better than some vague theory or a bunch of stats.
Actually, "what we see" is the very definition of EMPIRICAL DATA.
What you probably wanted to say was "devoid of any theory" etc. But no theory has yet untangled the economic prediction thing --too many parameters.
A little manual pruning of the empirical data by someone with experience in the trenches is better than some vague theory or a bunch of stats.
I don't disagree with you (fully), but unfortunately, hand-wavy predictions about a bubble appear to be the norm. If someone is predicting a bubble, share the empirical data points that led you to that conclusion.
I'm probably just an egotist, but I really think that any drying up of the venture capital is really just going to hurt venture capitalists.
An engineer -- here's the egotism coming -- is a money machine. She may be more effective working together with other force multipliers (marketeers, venture capitalists, a good CEO), but fundamentally a good engineer creates value all by herself. If the VC isn't along for the ride, less value may be created less quickly, but the engineer is still going to get hers and the VC not.
I can think of one example of an engineer who just didn't seek funding and created a whole bunch of value (notch); does anyone know of a good example of a startup which was forced to bootstrap without significant funding (on account of a burst VC bubble) and survived to stick it to 'em?
An engineer -- here's the egotism coming -- is a money machine. She may be more effective working together with other force multipliers (marketeers, venture capitalists, a good CEO), but fundamentally a good engineer creates value all by herself. If the VC isn't along for the ride, less value may be created less quickly, but the engineer is still going to get hers and the VC not.
I can think of one example of an engineer who just didn't seek funding and created a whole bunch of value (notch); does anyone know of a good example of a startup which was forced to bootstrap without significant funding (on account of a burst VC bubble) and survived to stick it to 'em?
does anyone know of a good example of a startup which was forced to bootstrap without significant funding (on account of a burst VC bubble) and survived to stick it to 'em?
I don't know. We started up in the shadow of the dot com bust, so there was not really any funding available for ecommerce companies. That said, we never actively sought any VC money, so it's incorrect to say we are an example of what you're seeking.
I don't know. We started up in the shadow of the dot com bust, so there was not really any funding available for ecommerce companies. That said, we never actively sought any VC money, so it's incorrect to say we are an example of what you're seeking.
Most engineers are male, why do you use 'she'? Also it distracts from your other points.
Because someone would argue the opposite (that engineering needs to be more welcoming to females) if saalweachter used he instead.
Technically in most Latin languages the generic gender is masculine. So it is, in fact, awkward when she is used for the same purpose. Sure it can be used to make a statement "between the lines", but that is what makes it so distracting.
Gender inequality in engineering isn't going to be solved by replacing 'he' with 'she'.
Gender inequality in engineering isn't going to be solved by replacing 'he' with 'she'.
Opinion, not fact. It's not awkward to me. And we would be better off if we didn't worry about which word to use.
[deleted]
better question is, why do you find it so distracting?
Because it's like he is trying to advocate feminism in the middle of his other points.
While somewhat out of style, "she" is often used as a universal gender neutral pronoun. To me, it's far less distracting to read than "he/she" or "(s)he." I personally prefer the singular "they" as a gender neutral pronoun, but some people think it's improper English.
Either way, I don't think that using "she" as a gender neutral pronoun can be considered distracting advocacy of feminism.
Either way, I don't think that using "she" as a gender neutral pronoun can be considered distracting advocacy of feminism.
As far as I can tell that was never in style.
Historically man and he have been used a universal gender neutral pronouns. In most latin languages this is spelled out clearly as proper grammar (e.g., French). In English it has been left ambiguous. That said, one clearly is making the conscious choice to swim against the tide when specifically using 'she' for this purpose, so it's going to distract some people. Though I agree far less than he/she and (s)he.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English
Historically man and he have been used a universal gender neutral pronouns. In most latin languages this is spelled out clearly as proper grammar (e.g., French). In English it has been left ambiguous. That said, one clearly is making the conscious choice to swim against the tide when specifically using 'she' for this purpose, so it's going to distract some people. Though I agree far less than he/she and (s)he.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English
By that logic, every time that you use the word "he" when referring to a human of unspecified gender, you're advocating masculinism.
So we went from "DOOOM!" in 2008 to funding grilled cheese and daily deals in 2011 and now back to "DOOOM!" in 2012, bouncing between the throttle and the brakes faster than most startups can even prove out their thesis? This seems like an opportunity for a contrarian VC betting against the others, dodging the irrational exuberance but getting better terms when founders need the money badly.
It's part of the built to flip mentality of the VC world. Look @ Groupon for godsake. The sustainability of its business model is dubious, but they still rushed the IPO, so they could flip it to ma & pa. But ma & pa aren't buying, so Investment Bank clients that got in during the roadshow are unloading en mass, and has sunk the share price below the IPO price, despite the low float.
web VCs fund companies they believe they can flip. It's also why they are biased towards late stage funding, since they have a higher chance of flipping over their positions.
web VCs fund companies they believe they can flip. It's also why they are biased towards late stage funding, since they have a higher chance of flipping over their positions.
It's a pendulum cycle. Boom & bust cycles always are.
What happens is a couple people strike it rich, then a bunch of followers try to do the same thing, it may work for a little while but not for long, and when the stupidest, most inefficient people have got in on the act, there's no money left for them AND they do things that end up looking terribly ridiculous. After all that, even the smart players have thrown in lots of money and/or time, they look at how much they spent and go "hmmmm, that's a lot, better calm down." Then there's a bust.
By "smart" and "dumb" I am referring to: investors, buyers, and founders. The labels apply to them all. VCs don't have infinite money. The two or three companies who do the most acquisitions also do not have an unlimited appetite or money, and they also tend to shut down or wreck most of what they buy.
So at that critical point, everybody lays low for a little while. Then they forget, and start all over again.
Nobody remembers that this is exactly what happened the last time.
What happens is a couple people strike it rich, then a bunch of followers try to do the same thing, it may work for a little while but not for long, and when the stupidest, most inefficient people have got in on the act, there's no money left for them AND they do things that end up looking terribly ridiculous. After all that, even the smart players have thrown in lots of money and/or time, they look at how much they spent and go "hmmmm, that's a lot, better calm down." Then there's a bust.
By "smart" and "dumb" I am referring to: investors, buyers, and founders. The labels apply to them all. VCs don't have infinite money. The two or three companies who do the most acquisitions also do not have an unlimited appetite or money, and they also tend to shut down or wreck most of what they buy.
So at that critical point, everybody lays low for a little while. Then they forget, and start all over again.
Nobody remembers that this is exactly what happened the last time.
The number of seed-stage fundings is outpacing series A fundings.
Can someone explain to me how this could possibly ever not be the case? Even if 99% of seed-funded companies go on to raise a series A, that's still "seed-stage fundings outpacing series A fundings".
Maybe I'm not understanding what Schonfeld wrote here?
Can someone explain to me how this could possibly ever not be the case? Even if 99% of seed-funded companies go on to raise a series A, that's still "seed-stage fundings outpacing series A fundings".
Maybe I'm not understanding what Schonfeld wrote here?
I think he means that more money is spent on seed-stage deals than on Series A deals.
With seed deals being much smaller than Series A deals that definitely has implications (e.g. there probably will not be enough money around to get a Series A for all those Seed funded startups that get to that next stage)
With seed deals being much smaller than Series A deals that definitely has implications (e.g. there probably will not be enough money around to get a Series A for all those Seed funded startups that get to that next stage)
Maybe it's just getting cheaper to build and maybe monetizing is getting easier too, so it's possible that companies are profitable much earlier and don't need a series a?
This is a good hypothesis but I see two problems with it. !) I've almost never seen a case where a company could raise a decent Series A and has chosen not to. Theres a lot of validation and peer pressure towards doing so. 2) Just because you are profitable does not mean you have the money needed to fuel growth. Lots of profitable companies raise Series A. Its actually the preferred way for founders to do it.
Ah, if the word "number" was supposed to be "total value" that would definitely indicate a problem.
STATEMENT
RIP Good Times! DOOOOM! GLOOOM! The Skies Are Falling!
I Need an Excuse to Knock Down Your Valuations and Terms!Or maybe that new "X" sharing app that does nothing new doesn't need $ 2million in seed funding
Perhaps, but alternatively, there has been a huge influx of startups lately. There is probably credence to the view that many of those startups have had heavily inflated valuations - that can't go on indefinitely.
Reading the comments below, it completely sounds like the Housing Bubble discussions between 2004 and 2008. You had the doomsayers saying for years that "house prices are too expensive, there's going to be a crash" and the momentum chasers saying "no, this time it's different, there's not enough land, house prices are here to stay."
In the comments, you have the same sentiment of "It's too frothy, there has to be a pullback", or "There won't be a pullback, this time it's different than 2008."
After surviving the dotcom crash and the 2008 financial crash, it definitely seems like we are headed towards a global recession in 2012. No matter what path we take, whether Europe can save itself or not, the best case scenario is going to be a sharp pullback in European economic output. Worst case is that the euro falls apart and the entire global financial system is rocked. My guess is that Germany won't allow this to happen because they will suffer disproportionately, so they will allow the issuing of Eurobonds.
So that being said, economic growth will slowdown worldwide. I think the US is the best place to be, given its sluggish-but-not-catastrophic growth.
BUT it's not the US's GDP that matters, it's the investments of American rich people that matters in terms of funding VCs. If rich people take a hit because a majority of their investments get whacked, then they will stop investing in venture funding. There's a pretty strong correlation between VC funding and the stock market. Already the markets are down pretty hard since they topped in June. If you remember the dotcom boom, it was during a massive bull market in the stock market. As well, after the crash of 2008, the nadir of the markets being March 2009, there's been almost a doubling of the stock market since then, so by 2011 lots of rich people got very, very rich and are willing to spread out their investments.
However, since June, the US markets are down 15%. The German market is down almost 30%, Chinese markets down 23%, Indian markets down 22%, Brazil down 25%. There are a lot of rich people around the world that don't feel as rich as they used to. If this trend continues and spills over to 2012, these rich people will definitely pullback on discretionary investments, the top of them being venture funding. So if you want a gauge on how VCs will behaving, I'm personally going to be looking at the stock market to see how it's going to behave.
In the comments, you have the same sentiment of "It's too frothy, there has to be a pullback", or "There won't be a pullback, this time it's different than 2008."
After surviving the dotcom crash and the 2008 financial crash, it definitely seems like we are headed towards a global recession in 2012. No matter what path we take, whether Europe can save itself or not, the best case scenario is going to be a sharp pullback in European economic output. Worst case is that the euro falls apart and the entire global financial system is rocked. My guess is that Germany won't allow this to happen because they will suffer disproportionately, so they will allow the issuing of Eurobonds.
So that being said, economic growth will slowdown worldwide. I think the US is the best place to be, given its sluggish-but-not-catastrophic growth.
BUT it's not the US's GDP that matters, it's the investments of American rich people that matters in terms of funding VCs. If rich people take a hit because a majority of their investments get whacked, then they will stop investing in venture funding. There's a pretty strong correlation between VC funding and the stock market. Already the markets are down pretty hard since they topped in June. If you remember the dotcom boom, it was during a massive bull market in the stock market. As well, after the crash of 2008, the nadir of the markets being March 2009, there's been almost a doubling of the stock market since then, so by 2011 lots of rich people got very, very rich and are willing to spread out their investments.
However, since June, the US markets are down 15%. The German market is down almost 30%, Chinese markets down 23%, Indian markets down 22%, Brazil down 25%. There are a lot of rich people around the world that don't feel as rich as they used to. If this trend continues and spills over to 2012, these rich people will definitely pullback on discretionary investments, the top of them being venture funding. So if you want a gauge on how VCs will behaving, I'm personally going to be looking at the stock market to see how it's going to behave.
"The number of seed-stage fundings is outpacing series A fundings."
That is always the case, just as it is always the case that series A fundings outpace IPOs.
That is always the case, just as it is always the case that series A fundings outpace IPOs.
I hope so because that means that it's the best time to do a startup!
This is not a bubble, I think a lot of people are yelling fire because they want to cool the market, but this is no where near a bubble. When the stupidest ideas are being funded after a meeting with 2 guys and a sketch pad, with no product and no company, then we are in a bubble. Wait until the Euro collapses and all that capital flight happens, then we may see a real bubble like the one we saw in the .com boom or worse the kind of money that hit the housing boom.
I think the wise people in the Vally see the capital influx coming and are trying to cool the sector to ducks some of that capital. We have already killed the goose that laid the golden egg once before, I think we are just trying to ensure that we are not to attractive to the stupid money.
There are fewer and fewer places for it to run to and tech is one of the last bastions, but it cannot sustain the kind of fiat capital that has been created, we are too weak in our recovery from the last exuberance. That being said, this is not a bubble, it can and has gotten a lot crazier than this. This is what healthy was before the bubble.
I think the wise people in the Vally see the capital influx coming and are trying to cool the sector to ducks some of that capital. We have already killed the goose that laid the golden egg once before, I think we are just trying to ensure that we are not to attractive to the stupid money.
There are fewer and fewer places for it to run to and tech is one of the last bastions, but it cannot sustain the kind of fiat capital that has been created, we are too weak in our recovery from the last exuberance. That being said, this is not a bubble, it can and has gotten a lot crazier than this. This is what healthy was before the bubble.
"ideas are being funded after a meeting with 2 guys and a sketch pad, with no product and no company, then we are in a bubble"
Unfortunately from a few interviews I went on in SV a few months ago, more than a couple of times this scenario was bragged about by the founders when asking how they started. It was a huge turn off to me but I guess it impresses other candidates. (Ironically though one of those companies was a small social games company that just got acquired.)
Unfortunately from a few interviews I went on in SV a few months ago, more than a couple of times this scenario was bragged about by the founders when asking how they started. It was a huge turn off to me but I guess it impresses other candidates. (Ironically though one of those companies was a small social games company that just got acquired.)
What I have learned from share market is that when people predicts the future, that prediction is always accounted for in the present. Therefore things don't go up or down when that time arrives.
Unless of course when the prediction itself changes. And that's when things start to move again -- not in the future, but at present.
Unless of course when the prediction itself changes. And that's when things start to move again -- not in the future, but at present.
I submitted an article from 2004 that gives some context to the start of the latest boom: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3282354
So, where will the next bubble be?
Probably automation in the physical world. Watch for the gold rush when the first commercial self-driving cars roll off the assembly line.
I'm pretty darn excited for an automated car to drive me to work and then go back to my garage. Or to drive me home after too much to drink at the bar. Or to take me between major cities at like 200 MPH on robo-freeways.
I am intrigued and wish to know more of your ideas.
What are some ideas for automation of the physical word? I am always looking to feed my creativity algorithms with new domains.
What are some ideas for automation of the physical word? I am always looking to feed my creativity algorithms with new domains.
Everything will feel like it's missing an AI when you see cars driving themselves everywhere you look. I can see the general shape of it (lots of automation), but it's hard to say what it'll look like.
I try to keep speculation to a minimum because most specific predictions of the future end up being wrong even if the rough idea is right.
The best I can come up with is automated bicycle messengers, but that's as likely as any idea I could come up with.
I try to keep speculation to a minimum because most specific predictions of the future end up being wrong even if the rough idea is right.
The best I can come up with is automated bicycle messengers, but that's as likely as any idea I could come up with.
Tell me more about the general shape then :)
I made a blog post out of it: http://journal.mkronline.com/2011/11/27/the-coming-automatio...
For sure. I'd pay $1000 for a machine that perfectly ironed my shirts. I hate ironing
This bubble prediction babble is a good example of the saying "a broken clock is right twice a day"
Bubble pundits have to accept the fact that they will not be able to predict the bursting of a bubble. Assuming there is one.
Even the title says "I think"
Bubble pundits have to accept the fact that they will not be able to predict the bursting of a bubble. Assuming there is one.
Even the title says "I think"
You mean the world doesn't need tons of teams of young geeks working with RoR, Closure, Mongo, Mustache and other wonderful technologies to solve non existing "social" problems? I'm shocked!
(Addendum: I'm starting to think that having a startup is the "I'm gonna be a film star/hip hop singer/rock guitarist" equivalent for the geek youth).
(Addendum: I'm starting to think that having a startup is the "I'm gonna be a film star/hip hop singer/rock guitarist" equivalent for the geek youth).
You are being provocative, ok. But there is plenty of space for start up innovation in many sectors, just not any more social apps, agreed on that.
What are those other sectors?
Not an insult btw. I genuinely want to know.
Not an insult btw. I genuinely want to know.
Well, how about medicine, biology, finance and banking, industrial production, logistics, printing, transportation, etc, just off of the top of my head?
There are tons of stuff to do a startup on besides some social gimmick.
There are tons of stuff to do a startup on besides some social gimmick.
Cool. The reason I ask is because I am always trying to come up with ideas (see http://ideashower.posterous.com) but I feel I keep circling around a few domains when I brainstorm ideas. I could do well to expand my vision.
If you have any ideas in those areas please do share :)
If you have any ideas in those areas please do share :)
As dextorious pointed out, there can be many ideas. You should focus on something where you have some domain knowledge. Said that, pricing may be a cool idea, I wrote a thesis on price differentials across countries, if you want to share that, let me know.
For me, I am starting with something really small, yet really difficult for me being a beginner: pivot tables on the top of a database. There are some reason I am doing it, but mainly it is because excel is really slow with what I call 'small data' and it also has strange row limits. Also, I want to provide an easy way to build pivot tables on the server side, so people don't have to send excel files around.
Project is here: https://github.com/kfk/proj00. It is really just a scratch.
For me, I am starting with something really small, yet really difficult for me being a beginner: pivot tables on the top of a database. There are some reason I am doing it, but mainly it is because excel is really slow with what I call 'small data' and it also has strange row limits. Also, I want to provide an easy way to build pivot tables on the server side, so people don't have to send excel files around.
Project is here: https://github.com/kfk/proj00. It is really just a scratch.
pivot tables on the top of a database
That's interesting. As far as I can tell, pivot tables were a hack that MS added to Excel in response to Lotus Improv, which was an early 90s attempt at a higher-level spreadsheet that Steve Jobs raved about for years. Perhaps you can restore them to their original glory.
because excel is really slow with what I call 'small data' and it also has strange row limits
Can you elaborate? What do you call 'small data'? And what are the strange row limits?
I'm interested in these things because I work in an Excel-related space, which I would be happy to discuss offline (email in profile).
That's interesting. As far as I can tell, pivot tables were a hack that MS added to Excel in response to Lotus Improv, which was an early 90s attempt at a higher-level spreadsheet that Steve Jobs raved about for years. Perhaps you can restore them to their original glory.
because excel is really slow with what I call 'small data' and it also has strange row limits
Can you elaborate? What do you call 'small data'? And what are the strange row limits?
I'm interested in these things because I work in an Excel-related space, which I would be happy to discuss offline (email in profile).
1 = Yes, that's exactly what I think we need here. A perfect example is the "data frame" concept in R (that you can implement as a list of tables in other languages). Excel doesn't have decent high level abstractions of your data, that forces the user to do a lot of boiler plate work that can be extremely time consuming and dangerous (as the more more manual work, the more mistakes).
2 = Excel 2003 limits (still used in my company): http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/excel-specifica.... Especially when you make deep analysis (first 10 customers of segment B, low margin products, lost due to low margin products, pricing, etc.), you hit the limit and you are forced to do bad things (like using 12 columns instead than 2 to represent 12 months).
3 = As 'small data' I just mean all those data people use in companies. Usually those are the result of extracting data using a business warehouse system (ie cognos) or financial data submitted by entities (ie 30/40 files from different parts of the world of PnLs to consolidate...) or KPIs, or... you get the idea...
p.s. I will be sending you an email later today. It would be really great to discuss those concepts.
2 = Excel 2003 limits (still used in my company): http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/excel-specifica.... Especially when you make deep analysis (first 10 customers of segment B, low margin products, lost due to low margin products, pricing, etc.), you hit the limit and you are forced to do bad things (like using 12 columns instead than 2 to represent 12 months).
3 = As 'small data' I just mean all those data people use in companies. Usually those are the result of extracting data using a business warehouse system (ie cognos) or financial data submitted by entities (ie 30/40 files from different parts of the world of PnLs to consolidate...) or KPIs, or... you get the idea...
p.s. I will be sending you an email later today. It would be really great to discuss those concepts.
Please do. I look forward to it.
Yes, contact me!
I agree about all those other sectors.
It's just I'm tired of seeing all those "social" startup stories, and the thousands of posts in the intertubes typically from some aforementioned startup employee/founder using all the half-baked or ill-suited technologies du jour, and posting something better suited for Comp Sci 101 as a huge discovery.
That's what I deserve for scouting all over for some relevant Python/Ruby/Web dev etc articles, I guess.
(disclosure: I work in a startup, but one developing, gasp an actual product (!), sold to the customer etc, employing several PHD guys to code in good ole C and implement new hardcore algorithms for our class of problems.).
It's just I'm tired of seeing all those "social" startup stories, and the thousands of posts in the intertubes typically from some aforementioned startup employee/founder using all the half-baked or ill-suited technologies du jour, and posting something better suited for Comp Sci 101 as a huge discovery.
That's what I deserve for scouting all over for some relevant Python/Ruby/Web dev etc articles, I guess.
(disclosure: I work in a startup, but one developing, gasp an actual product (!), sold to the customer etc, employing several PHD guys to code in good ole C and implement new hardcore algorithms for our class of problems.).
Agreed, I also somehow see a big distance between the start up community and the real world. The term "big data" is an amazing example of this. Everybody speaks about "big data", yet companies are left dealing with "middle data" with old painful spreadsheets.
Everybody writes about listening the "customer". Yet, as you also imply, nobody seems to really care. I work in finance/controlling and yet I never managed to have a discussion about the domain problems of my field with those start up people, maybe there is a problem right there...
p.s. can you put a link at your start up?
Everybody writes about listening the "customer". Yet, as you also imply, nobody seems to really care. I work in finance/controlling and yet I never managed to have a discussion about the domain problems of my field with those start up people, maybe there is a problem right there...
p.s. can you put a link at your start up?
Is it just me, or is money being thrown at a lot of crap these days? As long as it has a cutesy name and is based in the Valley, it gets bukkaked with millions of dollars by eager investors.
All this cash floating around also seems to lead to startups sucking up all the best talent. Do coding geniuses really need to be working on photo-sharing apps, as opposed to, say, rocket programming?
I did an interview with Danish madman and super-entrepreneur Morten Lund once. One of the things he told me is that a recession is the best time to start a business: the table is cleared and the posers don't want to work hard to make it. More room for the truly dedicated.