• In Accelerator Wars, the Teacher Becomes the Student

    Dave McClureDave McClure once followed Y Combinator’s moves closely, looking to emulate parts of its structure. Now, the famed, nine-year-old tech accelerator looks to be playing catch-up with Dave McClure.

    This week, for example, Y Combinator announced it would start running its Startup School, a one-day networking event, in New York and London. Y Combinator, which will continue to run its three-month sessions from its headquarters in Mountain View, Ca., is casting a wider net because “if we focus on the U.S., we miss maybe 95 percent of the best founders,” said the outfit’s new president, Sam Altman, at a TechCrunch conference in New York.

    Y Combinator also announced its intentions this year to “get bigger,” with Altman handed the reins by cofounder Paul Graham to grow it. Toward that end, the incubator has recently added six people to its roster of partners, and Altman says Y Combinator’s upcoming class could have upwards of 95 companies, making it the biggest in the program’s history.

    Y Combinator’s new initiatives have received a fair amount of attention. But they look oddly familiar to McClure, founder of the four-year-old venture fund and accelerator program, 500 Startups. Indeed, 500 Startups was premised on the idea that venture investing is far more scalable than widely believed, and that to really nab the best deals, an outfit has to go global.

    Each year, 500 Startups backs roughly 300 startups. Half of them pass through the firm’s three-month-long accelerator program, where they’re hosted at 500 Startup’s offices in San Francisco or Mountain View. (The outfit accepts roughly 30 startups each quarter, alternating between the two places.) 500 Startups also invests in another 150 seed-stage firms outside its accelerator program each year. About 20 percent of all of those companies are international, says McClure; 80 percent are U.S.-based companies, with roughly half coming from the Bay Area.

    Part of what makes 500 Startups work at its scale, seemingly, is that it’s investing in far more than ideas. Most of the startups it funds have a functional prototype. Most have customers at some scale. Some even have million-dollar-per-month revenue run rates

    It also believes in “failing on a budget, and failing quickly,” says McClure. (500 Startups invests a net $75,000 in each of its accelerator companies for a 7 percent stake.) And 500 Startups thinks investing is something that can be taught in little time to other people, who now represent the outfit’s interests around the world, including Brazil, India, Southeast Asia, China, and Mexico. “Some say it takes 10 years to become a great investor. We think it takes 20 decisions,” says McClure.

    We’ll see what happens. 500 Startups has yet to land an Airbnb or Dropbox – companies that have pushed the value of Y Combinator-backed startups into the tens of billions of dollars, at least on paper.

    Then again, 500 Startups is younger and has a promising portfolio, along with several big exits under its belt. Among them: the 3D printing company Makerbot (acquired for roughly $600 $400 million), the social marketing company Wildfire (acquired by Google for $350 million), and the video site Viki (acquired by Japan’s Rakuten for $200 million).

    500 Startups has closed two funds totaling $73 million so far and is now investing out of a third fund that’s targeting $100 million, shows an SEC filing.

    I ask McClure what he thinks of Y Combinator’s newest moves, and he says, laughing: “Welcome to the party, Sam.” But he also notes that, “We’ll have to work harder. We were hoping to have the international stage to ourselves for five years and it now it looks like it might have been four.”

    In the meantime, McClure takes some pleasure in noting that “we were the first out of the gate on a number of things that Y Combinator is just now paying attention to. I’m a huge fan of [Paul Graham] and Y Combinator itself,” he adds. “But I think we probably influenced their strategy.”

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Mike Abbott of Kleiner Perkins on Snapchat, Box, and the Inherent Danger of High Valuations

    Mike Abbott high resMike Abbott has only been a general partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers for two-and-half years, but he’s a grizzled veteran of the startup industry nonetheless. Abbott previously served as Twitter’s VP of Engineering, for example, and as an SVP at Palm. In 2002, he also founded the data virtualization startup Composite Software, which was acquired by Cisco last year for $180 million in cash. (Composite had raised at least $38 million, including from Apax Partners, Palomar Ventures, and Clearstone Venture Partners.)

    Little wonder that Abbott has a pretty strong perspective on many things startup related. The other day, we talked about a few of them, including attractive places to shop right now, why some transition on a startup’s board can be good, and what companies can do about spiraling valuations.

    How would you characterize what you’re looking for right now?

    Predominantly, I spend time [considering] applications that are driven from large data processing . . . And I probably have a little more of a bias toward either design-centric and engineering-centric companies. That sounds generic, I realize, but that’s what I’ve done operationally. So . . looking at novel things around mining email in the enterprise, or what the implications are for sales forecasting, or mining digital health data for consumers or insurance providers.

    I’ve also spent some time looking into the ephemeral content space.

    That’s interesting. Ephemeral content seems afield from your other interests.

    I do office hours at Stanford and every time I meet with a student, I ask what’s on their phone’s home screen and take a peek. And over the last few years, [it’s gone from] students using Facebook to not using Facebook to not having it on their phones to the rise of Snapchat [and the idea that] not having content on your phone is a cool thing.

    What does that mean for Twitter’s prospects? The Atlantic has already pronounced it a dead duck, as you likely know.

    It’s funny, because [reporters] write these articles, then use Twitter to spread the word about them. A number of pieces have said that it’s dying, only to report six months later, “Oh, it’s back!” No one can doubt that Twitter is a meaningful information network that’s changing the world. Is everyone on it? No. And I think the company needs to evolve the product to make it easier for the masses to use. But there isn’t a clear number two, and it’s continuing to grow. I’m very bullish on the company.

    Kleiner has gone through a transition and is a much smaller operation going forward. Have you taken on any of your colleagues’ board seats?

    I haven’t and for the most part, we’ve hoped to have partners stay on those boards on behalf of KP even if they’re [transitioning out of the firm].

    Speaking generally, do you think there’s a particularly good way to transfer board seats?

    We always look at companies and ask if we have the right person on that board to help the company. So there may be changes in the future, depending on [partners’] different strengths and the different stages of a company. When I joined Kleiner, for example, I took over a seat at InMobi, the private ad network, where it happened to be that my background specifically at Twitter was helpful and they were excited. I do think it has to be a conversation between the company and the firm to get the right person.

    There’s been a lot of talk this week about the impact of high valuations when the market turns less hospitable. How sensitive is Kleiner to price, and is that changing in this increasingly unpredictable environment?

    For those of us who saw of this firsthand in 1999 and 2000, you [know that] you have to be cautious when you’re doing this higher-altitude fundraising because the market can change . . . I do think it’s going to be tough for some of these companies that have raised at these upper bounds to weather the storm.

    Does the correction we’re seeing make you nervous?

    It’s not that much of a surprise, I guess. Also, at the early stage, it hasn’t impacted us too much. The venture world lags the public markets by six months typically. I do think for certain companies, there’s a new question being asked, which is: If the economy changes, will this service or product still be in demand. I won’t name any specific companies, but if you have a service that’s in higher demand along with higher disposable incomes when the economy is doing really well, what happens when it changes? I don’t necessarily know that that question would have been asked nine months ago. You could argue that it should have been.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Ted Driscoll on VC Bias in Healthcare Investing

    Ted_Driscoll-200x300pswebTed Driscoll of Claremont Creek Ventures has been embroiled in the world of digital healthcare a lot longer than most of his industry peers. Before becoming a VC nine years ago, Driscoll, who has a PhD in digital imaging from Stanford, spent decades as a founder and executive at five diagnostics and imaging companies. Maybe it’s no wonder then that Driscoll has strong opinions about where investors who are newer to the digital health scene should be focusing their attention.

    You’ve written about confirmation bias and how “humans are good at ignoring stuff they don’t agree with.” Does that apply to healthcare investing, too, in your view?

    I think it’s one of the curses of venture capital. VCs come in with preconceived notions and it causes them to not necessarily look at the world in the future but to look at the past.

    Meaning what, more specifically?

    We’re in the midst of a revolution in medicine and we don’t see it. It’s becoming all digital — not just electronic records being captured and stored but diagnostic decisions that are being based on much larger data sets than doctors can fit in their heads. They need tools that find information in the data and that’s a new thing for doctors. In my memory, the guys who went to med school weren’t the computer science types, but now they need computer familiarity to cope with the huge datasets that confront them.

    And you think VCs aren’t funding enough of those tools?

    My personal opinion is that the most value is created by technologies that can change a doctor’s decision-making. I’m not so interested in things that tell me how many paces I took yesterday; I am interested in the wearable that monitors someone with congestive heart failure and alerts him when he needs to go to hospital. I’m interested in the cheek swab that’s going to tell a doctor that a depressed patient is going to respond to Prozac and not Celexa, so the doctor can make an informed decision rather than rely on trial and error.

    No doubt I’ll miss a Facebook along the way but I’m not seeing healthcare applications for consumers that work that well. Frankly, the many acquaintances of mine with Fitbits or Fuelbands stopped wearing them after three months.

    You note that doctors loath to adopt new technologies. How, or when, do we get past that hurdle?

    Doctors are quite aware of malpractice issues, so they tend to not want to change until they know something is going to work and not have unexpected side effects. Another issue is the way reimbursement works. Certain tests might be valuable, but because a doctor knows he or she won’t be reimbursed until the following year [they might hesitate to use that test] or else exaggerate the patient’s condition to ensure they’re reimbursed for the treatment [more quickly]. Our reimbursement system is total anarchy, with different practices across every state. Is there a reimbursement code for this? Does Medicare reimburse that? Worse, it changes from year to year.

    The good news: as the medical community begins to understand this whole world of information under the surface that can help them, and lots of tests are getting approved [by the FDA], that information is getting back to reimbursers, and they’re coming around. Five years ago, I wouldn’t have invested in a genetic test. Now, I have.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Inside Mithril, Part Two

    Mithril.logoOn Tuesday, StrictlyVC took readers inside 22-month-old Mithril Capital Management, a well-known but little-understood investment firm cofounded by longtime friends and colleagues Peter Thiel and Ajay Royan.

    As we’d sat down with Royan for more than an hour at Mithril’s San Francisco offices, we had some additional notes from our chat we thought you might find interesting. They’ve been edited for length.

    You worked with Peter at his hedge fund, Clarium Capital Management, as well as at Mithril. What makes your partnership work?

    We’ve worked together so long that he’s a fantastic foil to my thinking. And after all these years, if Peter is excited about something and I think differently, he’s very open to good feedback. So we have good discussions [and] independent views and there’s enough shared experience and shared principles that we can have a quick, high-resolution conversation about things in depth.

    Mithril has made seven investments to date, most of them eight-figure investments, including in a San Francisco-based security software company called Lookout. Do you take board seats with these investments?

    It’s at the request of the company. My view is [you want to offer] high availability and low interference. You want the check writing to be the most dramatic thing that you do, which is contra to what you hear in the Valley these days. You should be very helpful — and we are, whenever we’re asked, including with sophisticated financial strategy. But companies are staying private longer these days, so they’re encountering operational issues and capital management issues that venture-backed companies didn’t encounter 10 years ago, and that’s where we’re most helpful. But that is not formal governance; that’s really about a good relationship with founders.

    You’ve said that with Mithril’s first, current fund, you ended up with a more standard fund structure, though you really wanted to form a corporation. Will you pursue a different structure the next time around?

    No, [what we have] is a standard default that works for everyone. Our LPs in the first fund — we were careful in who we ended up working with. About a fifth of the capital is principal capital, so that was meaningful. We ended up working with a lot of family money – so, larger family endowments [as opposed to institutional capital] and sovereigns, as well. But in most of these cases, if we look at our LP base, it’s almost all direct investors, it’s people who are looking at us as a partner in Silicon Valley to understand what’s going on in the technology space, to be invested in it, so it changes the character and complexion of it.

    What’s your view on valuations? Is Mithril at all price sensitive?

    Entry price is really important. But you want to enter on a basis where you can hold over the long term. Almost every investment we’ve made has been a non-auction process. Even if there was an auction going on, it’s usually gotten sidetracked in favor of having a conversation with Mithril because [we’re typically] investing at an inflection point in a company’s business. Take Lookout for example. It’s known for its anti-virus protection for phones. But because it’s protecting 50 million devices . . . it now has a network of phones using applications like a neighborhood watch. And you can extrapolate information from this network and understand where the threats are coming from across different artificial silos. It’s not just AT&T or T-Mobile’s phones. It’s not phones owned by GE employees or your family members. So its historic business is still valid and growing fast, but there’s a whole other S-curve starting, and that’s what we’re underwriting. It was almost like a new Series A for a company that’s already a $500 million to $600 million company.

    You believe there’s still too little tech investing, and that the world needs more firms like yours and Andreessen Horowitz and Khosla Ventures. Why?

    From an investor point of view, there’s just very little going on [on] a relative numbers basis. It might not feel that way sitting in San Francisco or counting the number of words associated with technology in the newspapers today relative to 10 years ago. But on a global basis, you look at real estate investment and you look at power plants and real assets . . . and [tech investment] is just minuscule compared with the money that goes into these other asset classes. The fact that so little capital has generated so much value in such a short time has made it have an outsize effect in people’s minds. If you look at the Fortune 500 by revenue, there are a lot of industrial companies; if you rank it by profits, it’s remarkably tech heavy. I think the whole world is just beginning to understand what that means.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Roger Lee of Battery Ventures: This Ain’t No Bubble

    Roger LeeRoger Lee has some specific ideas about what’s going on in the market these days. For example, the longtime general partner at Battery Ventures thinks the “entire enterprise stack is getting rewritten right now” and that there’s “a trillion dollars up for grabs.” One major driver of the trend, he notes, is the “consumerization of IT. Part of the success of Box and Dropbox and Zendesk is their embrace of consumer design. I’d guess that from day one, they had designers on their founding team, whereas if you looked at an enterprise software company ten years ago, a designer was, like, your 55th employee.”

    Battery — which is currently investing a $900 million fund and writing checks that range from $500,000 to $60 million – also believes in doubling down when the opportunity calls for it. For example, Battery made big bets on both on Angie’s List, the site for local service providers, and Groupon, the daily deals phenomenon, that paid of “very, very well,” for the firm, says Lee. (Battery invested $50 million in Angie’s List and $60 million in Groupon, both of which are now publicly traded.)

    Maybe it’s no wonder then that Lee thinks the recent string of outsize bets by firms like T. Rowe Price and Tiger Global Management – bets that have everyone from reporters to hedge fund manager David Einhorn fretting about a second tech bubble – are “actually pretty rational.” We talked about it last week over coffee in San Francisco’s SoMa neighborhood.

    Battery has a long history of investing in growth-stage companies. What do you make of the flood of mutual fund and other late-stage money pouring into the industry? Good? Bad?

    I’m not sure if it’s good or bad, but I’m not surprised. The markets are so much bigger now, and the opportunity to create multibillion dollar companies much more present today than historically.

    When you’ve seen these huge funding rounds in the past, people have laughed at them. Think of Yuri Milner’s investment in Facebook six or seven years ago at a $10 billion valuation. People thought he was crazy. When we did the Groupon investment, people thought it was crazy. Well, lo and behold, both turned out to be great investments.

    Another good example: When T. Rowe Price [first] invested in Twitter [in 2009], that was probably a relatively risky investment for it to make because Twitter was still a relatively immature company. But if you look at where Twitter is today, it’s probably a 25 or 30x return [for T. Rowe] and makes [its New Horizons’s fund manager] Henry Ellenbogen look incredibly smart that he was so early.

    It’s important for people to recognize that the opportunities in these markets dwarf what has historically been available to investors. So it makes sense for pubic market investors– be it Tiger Global or someone else – to try and cherry pick which companies in an era 10 years ago would probably already be public and that, once they are [public], [will] have a chance to become multibillion dollar companies because they’re selling into markets measured in the billions.

    What do you make of these shorter periods between fundings? Eventbrite, for example, raised two enormous rounds less than a year apart from the same investors.

    Investors’ job is to allocate capital, and when they see a chance to allocate capital to a winner – to double down because they think the risk-adjusted return is better than their alternatives — it’s a very rational decision. So that’s what they do. They’re always looking at their portfolio and looking at the alternatives and saying, “We’ve got X amount of money to put to work. Where do we think we can generate the biggest return?” Sometimes they put a dollar in, they watch it for six or nine months, see that a company is doing great, then decide they want even more exposure to it. It’s the same way they operate in the public markets.

    You have no concerns about the market?

    I really focus on each company at a time. Is any one company overvalued relative to where it should be? That’s a very company specific discussion. In terms of the broader market, I could argue both sides frankly. With certain companies, the opportunities are so large that we’re underinvesting in them.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Inside Mysterious Mithril Capital

    Ajay RoyanOne of the best-known things about Mithril Capital Management is that it is named after a fictional metal from J. R. R. Tolkien’s fantasy writings. Put another way, the 22-month-old investment firm, cofounded by influential investor Peter Thiel and his longtime colleague Ajay Royan, remains mostly a mystery, even to those in San Francisco, where it’s based.

    That’s probably because local investors don’t see much of the firm, suggests Royan, sitting in a modern conference room at the firm’s well-appointed offices in the Presidio, where roughly a dozen people — principals to vice presidents who’ve worked for one of Thiel’s past companies — are trying to create a kind of modern-day Berkshire Hathaway.

    More specifically, Mithril is assembling a highly concentrated portfolio of companies that most in Silicon Valley have never heard of, let alone would ever fund. (Think underwater robots in Toulouse, France, and a Boston-based technology company that’s enabling travelers to book train tickets the same way for every rail line.) It’s going long on these companies, too. When the firm raised $540 million for its debut fund, it turned not to institutional investors but “larger family endowments and sovereigns,” who agreed to let Royan and Thiel lock up their money for as long as 12 years. The pair, who personally contributed up to a fifth of the fund’s capital, told investors they wanted the option to wait out markets if necessary.

    Of course, Berkshire Hathaway’s founder Warren Buffett famously doesn’t invest in technology. But Royan, who speaks in elegant paragraphs peppered with scholarly references, says that’s a product of timing. Tech was a “boom and bust” industry once, not a long-term bet. Today, he says, “If you ran the Warren Buffett gambit in 2014 de novo, you’d probably only be doing technology-driven investing, because that’s where you build [today’s] lasting franchises.”

    StrictlyVC talked with Royan last week; here’s some of that chat, edited for length:

    You were born in India, raised in Abu Dhabi and graduated from Yale – a degree in political economy in hand — by age 20. What did you want to do, and how did you wind up working alongside Peter Thiel?

    I wanted to be an industrial designer; I wanted to be an entrepreneur. And I became aware of Peter through mutual friends around a friend’s wedding in New York. At the time, he’d recently sold PayPal to eBay and was thinking about [starting his hedge firm] Clarium [Capital Management] and our initial conversations were around my joining him as an entrepreneur in residence and starting a company.

    And you did, eventually becoming a managing director at Clarium. Why leave to co-found Mithril with Thiel in 2012? What was the impetus?

    With a hedge fund, people can invest whenever they want but they can also redeem whenever they want; it doesn’t matter how successful you are. And a big macro event like the 2008 financial crisis created a [system-wide need for liquidity] precisely when, because you have convictions and a view of the future, you wanted to invest more. That led to a conversation about permanent capital and longer-term investing.

    What was the initial idea?

    The initial idea was to have permanent capital, for it to almost be like a corporation that would go public 15 years down the line, and Peter and I would happily lock up our own capital for that period. [But] that turned out to be a very radical proposal. People were like, “Whoa.” [Laughs.] So we ended up defaulting to a more standard fund structure. But we asked for people to be thoughtful about how to make it a long term fund, so it has almost a six-year investment period [so we can wait out frothy markets if we want]. It’s also . . . almost a 12-year fund, so when we talk with entrepreneurs, we can say [that while] we started in 2012, we can have a view inside this balance sheet all the way to 2024.

    You’ve made seven bets so far, in very disparate types of companies. One of them is C2F0, a collaborative cash flow optimization company in Kansas City that tries unlocking capital trapped in trade relationships. What kind of process led you to the company?

    There was this question-asking process basically saying: Are there things other than credit underwriting that make sense in an economy where it’s hard to mobilize capital? Who’s thinking about this? And our team ran a screen and we looked at companies in the space; we looked to see if they were working with good investors and whether they had a technology DNA, because you do have a lot of financial people who think about stuff like this, but we didn’t want a transactional business. We didn’t want to do an exchange on Wall Street.

    How many companies do you talk with, who at the firm ultimately decides what Mithril will fund, and what size checks is the firm writing?

    I think we’ve [funded] less than 1 percent of what we’ve looked at in the last 20 months . . . The investment committee is Peter and myself [because] we want to be able to make decisions quickly . . . And we make investments between $20 million and $100 million-plus in size.

    Have you written a $100 million check?

    We have a $100 million exposure, including reserves, to a company, already [though I can’t say which]. It’s not in stealth, but we haven’t announced the investment at the company’s request. But we do have about 20 percent of the fund committed to a single name at this point.

    (We’ll be running more of our interview with Royan this week, readers, so stay tuned.)

  • Same Companies, Different Impressions

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAVenture capitalists are a lucky lot. Their work is prestigious, the pay can be exceptional, and they’re educated daily by smart entrepreneurs.

    One job hazard, however, is missed opportunities. For example, many in Silicon Valley passed on Uber, one of the fastest-growing companies on the planet. (To his credit, Uber’s hard-charging CEO, Travis Kalanick, appears to have talked to everyone before the company raised its first round.)

    You might wonder now how so many investors missed Uber’s potential, but the reality is that finding the Next New Thing is a lot harder than it looks. Indeed, last week at the “demo day” of the incubator program AngelPad in San Francisco, one could find many savvy investors making radically different calculations about the same companies.

    PeopleGoal, a New York-based startup whose performance management software aims to wring the best out of employees, captured the attention of Josh Breinlinger, a venture partner at Sigma West who was among the earliest employees of the freelance marketplace ODesk. “That’s one of two that really stood out to me,” he said after the companies’ presentations.

    Hiveary, an infrastructure monitoring platform, and TapFwd, a big data mobile ad platform, were more interesting to Niko Bonatsos, a principal at General Catalyst Partners who said he liked the technology behind both, as well as that both seemed like they were addressing “real problems in hot markets.” Of Hiveary, in particular, Bonatsos said, “If you talk to enterprise [software developers and IT departments who collaborate to speed the deployment of new applications and services], they will describe that they need a solution for this problem.”

    Meanwhile, Paintzen, a marketplace for home and office painting, stood out the most to Manu Kumar, the founder of the seed-stage venture firm K9 Ventures, one of the earliest investors in the ride-share service Lyft. “It just feels like an industry that’s ripe for disruption,” said Kumar, who especially liked the team’s argument that it can eventually expand into other verticals, including flooring, cabinets, and windows. “If they can go after those other areas, they can scale,” said Kumar.

    Breinlinger made the same point separately. “If Paintzen can do the same thing they’ve done for painting for other home services, I think it becomes really interesting,” he said.

    But Bonatsos was less impressed with Paintzen. “It sounds interesting. They make [arranging a paint job] very easy. I don’t know how big the market is, though. It’s one and done; it’s not frequency. How often do you paint your house?”

    Asked about the other verticals that Paintzen wants to pursue, Bonatsos said that “to me, that’s not a good sign” that Paintzen is pursuing a big-enough market from the get-go. “The numbers [the founders] gave out – [a] $10 billion [market] for painting in the top metro areas. Well, let’s say they capture $1 billion out of the $10 billion, and their piece is 30 percent. It’s a $300 million market for them. That’s interesting,” said Bonatsos, “But it’s not like, ‘Oh, my God.’”

    (For a full tearsheet of AngelPad’s newest batch of startups, click here.)

  • MobileIron Founder Tae Hea Nahm on the Korea Connection

    south-korea-mapTae Hea Nahm, a founding managing director of the early-stage firm Storm Ventures, was born in Seoul, Korea, and he still spends at least one week in the country every quarter. He goes to attend startup board meetings. He visits with Samsung and with some of Storm’s LPs, including Korea Telecom. Nahm, who has also cofounded four mobile companies — including MobileIron, which filed to go public yesterday — also seeks out new ideas on these trips. We talked yesterday about what he sees.

    You’re in Korea more often than most U.S VCs, I’d imagine.

    Well, I’m Korean, so visiting is relatively easy for me. It also helps me with my mobile investments in the U.S. People who invest in digital advertising look at startups in Silicon ValIey and New York; I feel that Silicon Valley and Korea are naturally synergistic in the same way when your primary [focus] is in on mobile.

    Where do you look for trends?

    I like to ride the subway in Seoul to get an idea of what people do. In New York, for example, most people are listening to music on their mobile devices or maybe reading a Kindle or something because connectivity on the subway is very poor. In Seoul, about a quarter of people on the subway are streaming a drama or sports show on their iPads or Galaxy Notes because they have the Internet infrastructure to do it.

    Mobile video is really going to take off here, too. It’s why a huge investment is being made by Samsung and Apple to create higher resolution displays. It’s why, on the other side, content video providers like Amazon and YouTube and Netflix expect more people to watch their content over mobile devices. It’s also why one company we started in Korea that optimizes your mobile video session across multiple wireless networks is doing very well.

    Other than gaming, where else has Korea gotten a jump on the U.S.?

    An example I saw and didn’t take advantage of are credit card readers. Many years ago, a taxi driver who picked me up basically scanned and processed my credit card with a cellular reader that was like a bigger form of Square. Kakao, the messaging platform, also took off must faster in Korea than messaging took off here in the U.S. In that case, it was mostly driven by cost. In the U.S., the savings of using free messaging here is less compelling than in Europe or Korea. But it also just fits in with human nature.

    How hard is it to separate out what’s an early indicator of a big trend, versus something that might be popular specifically because of the culture?

    It can be difficult. I email with my wife a lot, but in Korea, a husband and wife would rarely email each other; dating back at least 10 years, they’d text each other because email is considered slow and formal whereas texting is faster and spontaneous. There, I felt like texting was more cultural, and my initial assumption was incorrect.

    Are so-called ephemeral apps interesting to the Korean market?

    Yes. There’s a company in Korea, Between, that allows you basically to just create a private social network between two individuals, and either individual can terminate the whole conversation and all the content stored. It’s like a private communication locker, versus a Snapchat, where it’s just a private message.

    Would you try to bring it to the U.S or incubate something similar? You’ve incubated several companies here in the past.

    I’ve started companies like Airespace [acquired by Cisco for $450 million in 2005] where I was the founding CEO and hired the first 24 employees, and MobileIron, where I hired the first three founders. At the same time, we don’t want the reputation of ripping off entrepreneurs’ ideas, so we don’t just form clones.

    Also, the problem in [recreating an idea] is whether the founders you hire will really be passionate about the idea. Passion for their idea is what makes entrepreneurs so special. If I have the belief and desire and the executive team doesn’t have it, it doesn’t work.

    There must also be major differences in the way things are marketed. What are some of the biggest ways the markets in Korea and the U.S. continue to differ?

    Korea is a very small homogenous country, so if five people believe something, everyone will believe it, whereas because the U.S. is so big and diverse that word of mouth is much less powerful. Westeners also like things that are more realistic; Asians like things that are more cartoonish.

    And Koreans like tutorials; they like to go through manuals to teach themselves how to become power users. Americans hate them. They like to push buttons and get results. I don’t know if Apple brainwashed them or understood them, but American users don’t want to read anything.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Orphaned Entrepreneurs

    left-behind-dvd-front-coverWhen the news broke that Jonathan Teo and Justin Caldbeck were leaving their respective venture firms to create a new firm called Binary, their peers cheered them on, maybe wondering if they might also spin off on their own someday. After all, Teo and Caldbeck are just the latest in a growing string of investors — Tim Connors, Aileen Lee and Kent Goldman among them — to fly the coop.

    For Siqi Chen, though, the development presented worrying questions. Chen is a serial entrepreneur who sold his company Serious Games to Zynga in 2010 and today runs Heyday, a two-year-old startup that puts out a personal journal iPhone app. To date, Heyday has attracted $5.5 million from top funds, among them General Catalyst Partners. The concern for Chen was that Teo — Heyday’s board member — was now leaving General Catalyst. Who would be Heyday’s advocate at the firm?

    Chen soon learned he needn’t fret: Teo could remain on his board, General Catalyst told him. But Chen knows that plenty of entrepreneurs lose cherished board members in such transitions and that for them, a venture industry in flux isn’t always good news. We chatted about these orphaned entrepreneurs yesterday afternoon. Our conversation has been edited for length.

    How did you meet Jonathan Teo?

    I met him through an introduction. [After Serious Games was acquired by Zynga], I worked with Andy Tian, who was GM of Zynga’s China business, for about a year. After I left, Jonathan asked Andy to introduce him to interesting ex-Zynga people and Andy gave him my name. He tried our demo in 2012 and continued to use it and give us really useful feedback, and he finally made us an offer we couldn’t refuse.

    So he was one of your earliest champions.

    Definitely. A firm like Andreessen Horowitz can double down on traction. Then there are VCs who can smell something at the most nascent stages, before they gain traction. Jonathan has a really intuitive consumer nose. He sourced Twitter and Instagram [while a principal earlier in his career] at Benchmark. He also sourced Snapchat [for General Catalyst] and made a personal investment in the company. If you look at his track record, he’s made very few investments, and they’ve been spot on. He identifies opportunities early and [pursues them] aggressively, which is increasingly rare in institutional VC.

    Has he been as active on your board as he was before leaving General Catalyst?

    Yes. He’s still affiliated with General Catalyst in the role of venture advisor … and though he’s been gone for a few months now, and he still comes to every board meeting and is just as involved as before.

    What happens if they eventually transition him away from the company? It is General Catalyst’s board seat.

    We’ve received reassurances on both sides, so for the foreseeable future, he’ll be on our board. But it’s never easy; I can’t imagine any entrepreneur saying [that having a board member replaced] is a good thing. When entrepreneurs pitch VCs, part of [the allure] is the brand. But a large part of your decision is around the partner you’ll be working with. If that person leaves, it’s a big blow. I think any employee who has had a manager be fired or leave knows that feeling, and it’s an even bigger issue if you’re working with investors. You’re losing your biggest fan.

    Do you think there can be repercussions beyond personal disappointment?

    All things being equal, I think it can be a little harder for a venture firm to follow on [and invest more in a company whose lead investor has left], which can create signaling issues. It all depends on a company’s traction.

    What kind of courtesy would you expect a venture firm to give an entrepreneur who will be losing his or her board member? How much notice is fair, and should the entrepreneur have a say in who their new director will be?

    I’d expect at least two quarters of notice. [A change like that] could affect your fundraising plans or your timing.

    As for other expectations, I’m not sure there are any norms or expectations that a founder can interview the rest of the partners. But I’d want a say in it. I’d want it to be a conversation, at a minimum.

    (Update:  Teo was in touch this morning with some thoughts about Chen’s interpretation of his track record:

    I would like to give credit where credit is due, and with regards to Twitter and Instagram, though I was instrumental in getting those deals done … Peter [Fenton] and Matt [Cohler] had as much to do with finessing my thinking there as I did in bringing the deals into play.

    And with Snapchat, though I did source the deal that was done, the origination of the opportunity was from a wonderful associate (he’s now a principal) Niko Bonatsos at [General Catalyst], who in my opinion is one of the guys with the most hustle in the VC industry I’ve come across. If credit is due, I would not have gotten the chance to have my early conviction were it not for him.)

  • Bubba Murarka: “We’re Underinvested as an Industry in Android”

    bubba_lifestyle_001DFJ’s newest managing director, Bubba Murarka, knows a thing or two about mobile. He has numerous bets on mobile companies, both personal and professional; he blogs and closely follows the writings of top mobile analysts, including Horace Dediu; and, oh, yeah, he was the first product manager at Facebook to get behind Android. (StrictlyVC previously wrote about Murarka’s background, including his seven years at Microsoft, here.)

    If you want to know about mobile trends, in short, you could do worse than talk with Murarka, which we did last week. Some outtakes from that conversation follow.

    You’ve written that it’s no longer about iOS versus Android but which Android “versions” and “flavors” startups should get behind. Do you think the best days of the iOS are behind it?

    There are two different ways to frame it – that it’s a zero sum game and only iOS or Android can win, or that both are important parts of the mobile ecosystem. I subscribe to the latter. But we’re underinvested as an industry in the Android portion of the ecosystem. Four out of five phones sold have Android on them. It’s an insanely big switch, and Android will be leaping to more and more types of devices. Google announced [last] week its new wearable platform. That means all wearables could conceivably run Android. Google announced at CES the Open Automotive Alliance, so they are porting the Android to the car. You can imagine over time that Android will be the defacto, default OS for everything. And in that world, you need to start — as a venture industry and startup community — making more bets on Android.

    What’s the hold-up?

    I think it’s harder in the Bay Area. I can count the number of Android phones I see carried in a day by entrepreneurs – it’s usually none. And I think it’s hard to imagine something that you don’t use every day. I do think there’s an underrepresented opportunity that startups are beginning to go after, but I’d say it’s still way less than 50 percent, which, to me, would seem reasonable.

    You have a giant phone. Is this the future of smartphones? As importantly, where do you carry it?

    I have a man purse. [Laughs]. No, it fits in my pocket. I have an Android phone and an iOS phone and got the [Samsung Galaxy] Note [to see how I’d use it]. And since getting it, I’m using my iPad a lot less because I don’t mind watching video on it.

    If you look at where data consumption happens on mobile, more than 50 percent is video, so in that world, this bigger screen makes a lot of sense. [Taking into account] socioeconomic situations in other countries, where maybe they can’t afford to buy a phone and a tablet but one device, this also starts to make a lot more sense. You also get really crazy [good] battery life.

    You’ve written about subscription opportunities over smart phones. What do you see coming?

    Right now, people are pretty much subscribing to either storage or to music. I think communication apps are probably [going to become bigger and more capable of charging subscribers, too] like WhatsApp’s 99 cent [per year] model.

    It wouldn’t surprise me to see others like game companies adopt that same kind of subscription model. So instead of offering in-app purchases, [they could] start to offer a dollar-per-month unlimited in-app purchasing. That creates a much more sustainable, predictable model. What happens if you just give everything to a user for 99 cents a month?

    What about mobile multitasking? Do you see opportunities for startups to make that easier to do?

    Android actually allows it. I can use two apps at the same time on my Note, though it’s a little clunky. There are rumors already about iOS 8 having some inner-app communication functionality, too, so I think there will be new ways to do it.

    An opportunity I see specifically isn’t for a company to build an app themselves but rather to build their app to be embedded in other apps. Like, it would be interesting to me if Microsoft never shipped Office for iPad or iOS devices but rather shipped the Office Document Viewer; all of sudden, every app [would have] access to viewing and editing [in] a Microsoft Office doc, so now you [could] multitask within an application.

    If you think about common problems that every app needs to solve, an interesting company is Layer [a communications platform that can be added to any mobile app by adding fewer than 10 lines of code]. It doesn’t have its own standalone messaging app; it’s messaging for other apps, all happening in the context of other apps. And that’s intensely powerful.

StrictlyVC on Twitter