Perhaps not in this incarnation – remember the first iPod? But the concept is very, very important for two reasons:
- It’s the first computing device that’s social in the real world. The iPhone is something that one person uses at a time. The Laptop screen faces you – two people using it at one time is awkward. iPad style devices can be shared in the real world – imagine laying it flat and playing multiplayer games facing each other, or watching a movie together, or even showing someone a web page – far easier than on any other device.
- It runs the iPhone OS. Why do users need to know what a file system is? Or map the interactions of a moving block of plastic onto a screen (mice)? Or worry about memory management? Or multiple levels of trash-delete? Or the concept of multiple, mounted volumes? Or which network you’re connected to?
Basically, the iPad is (a) usable by the other 5.5 Billion humans, and (b) it can enhance real, physical human interactions. These two facts alone make it a worthy successor to the iPod and iPhone. Steve isn’t ready to start filling niche markets just yet. He’s still looking to rule the world.
Y Combinator* is the new Graduate School.
In some ways, it’s better:
- You pay to go to graduate school. YC pays you.
- After school, you get a job. After YC, you create jobs.
- You repeat the works of the greats in school. YC expects you to do original work.
- In school, you are graded on an arbitrary scale by arbitrary people. After YC, you are graded by the real world.
Some day, most schools in most disciplines will be like this.
* – Of course, “Y Combinator” is a generic term for Techstars, I/O Ventures, SeedCamp, Capital Factory, Founders Institute, and all of the other similar pre-angel incubators.
For years I didn’t believe this. I thought that you could take advantage of the benefits of Boston, Seattle, NY, Austin – cheaper talent, no echo chamber, local Universities, etc.. But I give up. I found myself telling an entrepreneur why he had to be in Silicon Valley if he wanted to succeed. Most of my points are about Consumer Internet businesses…
I won’t belabor the obvious reasons – the Investors are here, the best engineers and entrepreneurs self-select and come here, Stanford and Berkeley, yadda yadda.
Instead, here are some points that you may not have considered:
- Especially on the Consumer Internet, modern businesses are becoming winner-take-all (thanks to leverage and network effects). Therefore, if you’re 10% better than the competition, you win, likely the whole market. You need every possible edge…
- All of the companies that you need to partner with are out here. Business development doesn’t happen in formal meetings. It happens in informal coffees, parties, and relationships.
- If you are here, your network will be using all of the latest tools – Twitter, Foursquare, Quora, Nexus One, etc., before other networks in other cities will. These networks hit critical mass here earlier and are thus more valuable to the early adopters here. You’ll have a 3-month+ head start on people outside to see what’s coming next. Imagine trying to design next year’s clothing without firsthand immersion in this year’s fashion, in Milan or Paris.
Sure, it’s possible to build a great Consumer Internet business starting out somewhere else, but given that these are winner-take-all businesses, do you want to start out that far behind the curve?
More of a warning so you know where not to go, I suppose…
I’ll be on a panel at the “Future of Funding” event in San Mateo on February 18th.
More information here:
The Growth of Small Firms
February 18, 2010
Description: There are an increasing number of venture capital firms with smaller and smaller fund sizes. These firms are starting to see some interesting returns, while remaining popular with entrepreneurs. What is working? What is not? This panel will explore how some of the small firms are investing and looking for big wins.
- Moderator: Matt Marshall, CEO and Editor, VentureBeat
- Mike Maples Jr., Managing Partner, Maples Investments
- Rob Hayes, Partner, First Round Capital
- Reid Hoffman, Partner, Greylock Partners
If you’d like to attend and if we know each other, please contact me and I might be able to obtain a discounted pass for you.
I have a new post on picking a co-founder, up here:
I was at dinner the other night with a group of entrepreneurs. One told the story of a 27-year-old whiz kid whose company will likely exit for $500M – $1B – the business now being less than two years old. You can imagine the effect that this had on the brilliant, hardworking 35+ entrepreneurs in the group, who have had their share of hits, but not at that magnitude and not that quickly.
These stories are getting more commonplace. It seems that the entrepreneurs who “hit” these days are doing it more quickly, making more money, and doing it at a younger age. Back in the 70s, it took a decade plus to build a company and $10M, even in today’s dollars, was a big victory for an individual. Up until the late 90s dot-com boom, even though these stories existed, they were less common and took longer.
The storyteller explained that this 27-year-old is more brilliant and more hard-working than the previous entrepreneurs he’s seen.
That can’t be it. There are only so many hours in the day, and the entrepreneurs of yesteryear worked just as hard as the entrepreneurs of today. And the ones who came before were just as brilliant. Human intelligence has not evolved that dramatically in 10-20 years.
Rather, I posit that the amount of leverage available to a modern Internet entrepreneur is far, far greater than was available to entrepreneurs of previous generations. The number of entrants has dramatically increased as well. The overall hit rate might be lower, but the ones who win, win bigger and faster thanks to the leverage.
Gone are server farms, telesales and support, marcom material, tradeshow booths, direct sales forces, licensed software, mountains of code, reseller agreements, plane tickets, hotel rooms, printing CDs, voicemail systems, and so on and so forth.
Modern Internet entrepreneurship starts with a few engineers working for nothing and carrying latops and cellphones. They coordinate with Skype and GTalk and wikis and bug tracking sytems. The company itself is snapped together with outsourced HR, cookie-cutter incorporation, and outsourced finance / payroll. Marketing is done virally, or through SEO, or SEM. Customer service is handled via the community and forums. PR and outreach through tweets and blogging. Payments come via Paypal. Ads are served up by third-party ad networks. Storage goes on Amazon. Computation scales via Amazon, Softlayer or Rackspace. Code is built upon stacks of open source, SaaS, and $10/month services.
What used to cost $1M-$2M to set up, now costs $10K. What used to cost $5M to build, now costs $250K. What used to cost $20M to go to market now costs $1M.
But the upside hasn’t gone down. It has gone *up.* The 3 billionth person will be online shortly. They can all use the product. Network effects are stronger than ever, and some businesses become natural monopolies very quickly. Most web products have no marginal cost of replication, so adding a new customer is pure profit.
Less labor required. Less capital required. Less cost to scale. Larger markets. Cheaper marketing. No cost to ship more product.
No, people aren’t getting any smarter or harder-working. But the amount of leverage is obscene. The hits – Yahoo!, EBay, Google, Skype, MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, are each arriving faster than the previous one did. And the leverage is increasing, not decreasing.
The returns to scale for being smart, young, skilled, and high-energy have gone up tremendously, and that has profound implications for society. The smart are getting richer.
Update: An insightful comment on Hacker News: Basically, the Internet is a wide and deep place. The depth creates a few huge winners and the breadth creates a large number of small winners (who would have been losers in the old system, but due to the above-mentioned low costs, can still win). What’s missing is the traditionally fat middle. We’ve gone from a normally distributed set of outcomes, to a power-law distribution. The median is a small fraction of the mean. This is bad news for anyone who has built their business predicated on their achieving mean outcomes. That includes mid-stage VC funds, moderately-capitalized companies (traditionally speaking), and societies that care about “equal” outcomes.
Remember when mainframes did all of the computing? And workstations were dumb terminals docked to the mainframes? The terminals had less power, but were more “mobile.”
Then everyone got a desktop. And the desktop is where you did most of your computing. And you carried around your underpowered laptop, which had to be synced with your desktop, or docked to a big screen, keyboard and mouse to be usable. The laptop had less power, but it was more mobile than the desktop.
Now most early adopters have a laptop as their main computer. And are carrying around their underpowered smartphone, which has to be synced with their laptop on a regular basis. The smartphone has less power, but well, it’s more mobile.
We’ll dock our smartphones to our laptops for a while. But, if we can extrapolate from the history of computing, the laptop is headed for the dustbin.
Which means that Apple will be ok. Google will be ok. But if Windows Mobile is any indicator, Microsoft is in deep, deep trouble.