Articles from December 2008

What they might be thinking in Cupertino

[Edit – bugger; I drafted this on Dec 30 (http://twitter.com/JofArnold/statuses/1085661133) and binned it because I though it was a bit lame. Now everyone’s talking about Android! That’ll teach me. I’m back-dating the post so I look clever again.]

First, let me open as I often do, with a disclaimer. Whilst I believe the iPhone is the best consumer device ever invented, and I have a lot of respect for Jobs/Apple, I’m not OSX’s biggest fan. It’s very fast, but I find the user interface to be very cumbersome compared to Ubuntu and XP… the subject of another post some day.

Now that Benjie and I have become iPhone devs 100%, I think a lot about Apple’s future. I want to think they are invulnerable, but it’s dawned on me lately they’ve a serious Achilles Heel and that’s OSX (the desktop version at least).

If I were in Cupertino, I’d be mulling over these following trends;

  • The general public are more aware than ever of non-MS operating systems.
  • Much of Apple’s defensibility is based around perceived leads in UX and quality…
  • … the rest is based on lockdown and halo-effect.
  • Market penetration of advanced mobile phones.
  • Apple’s transition from high-end geek niche to mass-market may mean leaving the fanatics behind.
  • Commodisation of computing hardware through netbooks.
  • Google’s increasing influence with OEMS – eg Chrome.
  • OSX10.6 is looking like a difficult transition for Apple; OpenCL + legacy hardware + 32/64bit + new hardware innovations = trouble.
  • Ubuntu/Canonical.
  • The economy.

Why do I think this means trouble for OSX? Well the key issue is that I don’t feel OSX is defensible any more. On the one hand its drive to becoming a consumer OS makes it less and less attractive to geeks, and on the other its consumer features are both trivial to copy and – let’s face it – a step too far from Windows for some people. What made me realize this is that my granny is happy with Windows and Linux, but struggles with the outcast UX paradigms of OSX. Worst still for Apple, much of the prettiness of OSX is trivial to copy in other ‘nixs or – especially in the case of KDE 4.2 – substantially improve upon.
Now I know what you are thinking – “but linux looks crap”. My answer to you is; “do you really think there are only one/two good OS designers/illustrators in the world”? Not only are OpenSuse and Ubuntu already great user experiences, but with Shuttleworth’s design fund it won’t take long until these free operating systems overtake OSX in the looks front.
Of course, I’m not seriously considering Linux will beat OSX any time soon – that’s crazy talk – but it’s an important piece of the jigsaw and it’s critical in eroding OSX’s perceived value. “But this free operating system looks WAY better”. Ie in consumer eyes “looking good” no longer equals “premium” for OS’s.

No, the real trouble for OSX/Apple is Google – particularly Android.
Google’s business plan is the antithesis of Apple’s. Google is indifferent as to the money OEM’s make on hardware and software – it simply wants to be totally pervasive. Android is an incredible Trojan horse for Google, and one that will see Android as one of the widest-installed operating systems in the next few years. In itself, I don’t see Android harming iPhone sales but it does pose a huge risk to OSX; if Google were to leverage its growing influence with OEMS and the growing ecosystem surrounding Android it could – in principal – turn to netbooks [Edit: And the community have done it for them!]. In the process of doing so it could seriously undermine any attempts Apple may make in this market and thus any opportunity for releasing a profitable netbook (cos you don’t seriously think these netbooks are making their makers serious money, right?). Sure, it won’t be attached to fancy hardware, but when times are hard people will perceive Apple to be well out of their price range. What makes it worse for Apple still is that Android/Linux will be a smaller learning curve, act like the users’ phone, and be attached to such low-price hardware that people will be less scare of change. “But I’m really not sure about paying $2000 to learn this new operating system that really looks no better than the others and all I want is email anyway”.

At the moment Apple has none of these problems, but this is just current circumstance. Apple is in a position where its customer service is sufficiently scaled to make up for the poor quality of its hardware (you heard me! Find me a Macbook Pro that hasn’t broken down within 6 months). Crappy headphones broke again? Don’t worry, Apple will replace them. GPU broke again? Don’t worry, Apple will replace it. The reason I see this as a problem is that Apple is such a premium brand that if/when some serious quality issues crop up (*cough* Nvidia *cough*), their fanatical customers will use their fanaticism in less positive ways.
Why would Apple’s customers turn on them? They haven’t yet. No, they haven’t, and this is because Apple can handle them. But what if OSX 10.6 goes horribly wrong like Vista did? For me, there’s every reason to believe this could happen – even small updates cause consternation in the blogger community and OSX10.6 is a big transition. 10.6 features a huge amount of new code and needs to straddle 32 and 64bit operation. This has never in the history of an operating systems gone well.

So my predictions for this year?

  • iPhone will drive Apple’s sales
  • OSX10.6 will be Apple’s Vista.
  • Their netbook either won’t be released or it will be and it won’t fly off the shelves

Devils advocate on the “VCs will die meme”

VC will not die. There, I’ve said it. Again. This post addresses a number of points raised in a TC.com article which I feel are misleading.

[Edit 2: VC = Venture Capital or Venture Capitalist in this context.]

[Edit 3: This post is in response to this Techcrunch article]

First though, let me open by mentioning a few things which are important background information to this post (and will help you decide if you want to read it further):

  • My degree was in mechanical engineering, not economics.
  • I’ve only been in the web industry since July 2007.
  • I’ve tried, and failed, to raise VC money for a startup.
  • I had a startup until recently.
  • 99% of all the people I know, and drink with, are in startups.

The only reason I think I’m qualified to write this post is that I count amongst my good friends a number of VCs who’ve taken time to explain the industry to me over numerous beers/breakfasts. [Eternally grateful, btw; you know who you are ;-) ]

So, on to the opinions:

Successful web companies are expensive (features aren’t)

Bedroom successes like HotOrNOt – and TC.com for that matter – tend to give the impression that anyone with wordpress and EC2 can make a multi-million dollar web company in minutes. There are some occasions where this can happen, but as witnessed by the endless stream of tiny web companies that come and go, this is a rarity and not the norm. The key reason is that margins in web apps tend to be quite small (eg ads), so to start making serious cash you need scale.

Unfortunately, scaling isn’t just about having the latest elastic-cloud infrastructure; it’s much more about brand, design, advertising and marketing… and that is where things start to get seriously expensive. For example, Netflix is reputed to spend >$1m pcm on marketing alone!

A web app is not a company. It’s a feature. Don’t forget that.

“But I’ll grow it organically”. WRONG. WRONG WRONG!!!

Or rather “Perhaps, but unlikely”. But I understand where you got that notion from and I admit I was duped at first also; it’s all this talk about things “going viral” isn’t it? Well, sorry to disappoint but it just isn’t true for most people. Build it and they probably won’t come.

Let’s suppose you build a really awesome web service/app that could appeal to 1 in 100 people in the entire world – a huge potential market of 70m users. That means you need to speak to 100 people before you stand a chance of even one of them telling someone else about it. And they will have to tell another 100 and so on. The problem is, most people outside of the web community communicate with <50 people on a regular basis so the maths are against you.

All the while you are doing this slow ramp-up, someone else is going to borrow $Xm VC money, get a serious campaign together and obliterate you by seeding their brand in front of millions of individuals.  They’ll also have the money to hire the staff necessary to support such success.

And let’s not even consider the notion that by the time you’ve organically grown your startup to the point you can start making money, the world will have moved on.

Other fish

Sometimes I wonder if web tech people bury their heads in the sand a little too much when it comes to things outside their industry. If that’s you then I have a newsflash: early stage web tech is not – and hasn’t been for a long time – the pillar of many VC portfolios. I know the tech industry think it’s the be-all and end-all because they always seem surprised when big firms like 3i pull out of early-stage.

VC is all about investing large sums of money at high risk (which means new markets usually) for ridiculously high returns.  The fact that the technology side of web tech has been commoditised and ubiquitous means that in the most part the web is no long as hot as it was 5-10 years ago. What’s hot now is greentech – and there VCs are like pigs in shit; high startup costs, high risk, massive returns.  VCs haven’t died – they’ve just moved on to pastures new.

Ok, so I’ll build my startup without VCs

Most people (I can list the exceptions – there aren’t many) shouldn’t build a business on the assumption of funding ANYWAY – in any market conditions. I admit I’ve made this mistake and it was the reason why we closed our first startup this year; the business wasn’t predicted to breakeven for a long time and required two rounds of VC money to be interesting. And let’s face it, how many VCs in the UK were going to fund something that risky when they didn’t understand the business and we were a bunch of first-timers.

But never mind the scarcity of money – you all know you are going to be shafted if you get funding early-stage, right? Simple rule: don’t take money when you need it. If VCs are approaching YOU for a slice of the action, then it might be worth considering what they have to offer because you know you can refuse any bum deals.

Sour grapes

I lept from my previous job into the tech industry because I saw a lot of incredible startup exits and wanted a piece of the action. It helps to be honest about these things. I wanted to be rich. But right from the start I knew my experience, knowledge and plain odds were against me so I spent a long time getting to know the market and the people. I also joined/founded a startup fairly early in my web career so as to see what it was like on the frontline.

As I see it, the audiences of many tech blogs consist of a lot of people like me, but where I think many of them differ is in the sour grapes department. I get the impression that many people feel it’s some sort of RIGHT that they sell their niche app to Google for billions. By virtue of being denied success they have an in-built desire to dismiss the opportunies/success of others… and what better symbol of success in the web industry is there – second to an exit – than raising VC money.

By dissing VC’s, they are secretly saying “fuck you for not making me successful”. And probably a little bit of “but I’ll take your money if you have some, please”

Finally, it’s entrepreneurship!

Most of what’s above is my naive interpretation of the world around me. But there’s a powerful force behind all this which guarantees there will always be VC – and that, dear reader, is entrepreneurship… or perhaps it’s capitalism, to be more brutal about it.

If I’ve branded and targetted this blog well enough you are probably a founder of a startup – or at least involved in one. So you’ll know all about how you saw an opportunity and invested in it with your intellectual (and possibly financial) capital. When dissing the VC model, consider: Why didn’t anyone else do it? Why did you choose that particular thing? Would you choose something else if only you had more money or more skills?

The fact you are able to start a startup is because you have something that someone else doesn’t – and you are leveraging that gap. Angel investors work on a similar principle, only they also bring lots of money; they use the fact that they have money, when others don’t, to take opportunities that might not be available to them otherwise. They are, in effect, also entrepreneurs in the same way entrepreneurs are investors.

But what of people or organizations with vast amounts of money? Well, they have another layer of resource; people. These groups/individuals split their large sums of money amongst smaller groups who can invest it for them – which in a crude sense is how VCs work.

So as for VCs dying, I think that’s highly unlikely. Provided there are people with large sums of money to invest, there will also be experts who will step in and help them. What do you think? Comment me!

[Edit: in case you skipped to the end, I do indirectly make the point that I don't expect web startups to find raising VC easy. The writing has been on the wall for early-stage VC for a long time]