Why Facebook and not Mars colonies

Why we got Facebook and not Mars colonies - Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch: " . . . But “even during the years when VCs were most risk-happy, they preferred investments that required little capital and offered an exit within eight to 10 years.” Truth is, “VCs have never funded the development of technologies that are meant to solve big problems,” says Pontin, in a direct challenge to Silicon Valley’s so-called Big Problems syndrome. And that forces him back to the core question raised by Buzz Aldrin, Peter Thiel and every high-tech investor interested in quarterly profits and big payoffs: “Putting aside the personal-computer revolution, if we once did big things but do so no longer, then what changed?” Pontin does a brilliant job diagnosing five key Big Problem macrotrends: 1. More important public policy alternatives, like investing on Earth  . . . Seriously, is Silicon Valley’s Big Problem a real problem? Or did their high-tech geniuses make it up? Pontin says “sometimes we choose not to solve big technological problems. We could travel to Mars if we wished. NASA has the outline of a plan,” and “if the agency received more money ... humans could walk on the Red Planet sometime in the 2030s.” But “we won’t, because there are, everyone feels, more useful things to do on Earth. . . . ”

more news below

Follow @vcexp

App Developers - managing risk and reward

App Developers: Here’s How to Get Paid Properly | MIT Technology Review: " . . . This is the role that VC’s play for at least a subset of apps: they invest in a portfolio of potential winners with the understanding that many will fail, some will produce solid returns, and - hopefuly - one or two will be huge hits. However, venture is just a piece of the solution, and a highly imperfect one. First, VC’s need to be convinced of the possibility of a home run, something most apps just can’t plausibly offer. Second, VC interest in the consumer app space has cooled, at least for now. So Yglesias’ question is still a good one. How do we manage risk in the hit-driven app business? It’s possible that crowdfunding could play a role. Creating a market for apps that gain traction but don’t amount to businesses will help get some developers paid, but doesn’t fully address the question of risk. But there’s a much more practical if unsexy answer that’s already put into practice. Mobile developers can band together to make a good living producing apps for third parties while devoting some time and revenue to a variety of original apps. Though the Times story does mention developers subsidizing their work with freelance income, it dismisses this tactic as draining critical resources from original development. But I think that’s too pessimistic. There’s a parallel here with Google’s 20% rule, where employees are encouraged to spend a sizeable portion of their time on projects of their own choosing. And, rather than one or two developers doing some freelance, the more developers that band together, the broader the portfolio can become. If the firm’s apps fail, well, that’s what the contract work is for. If they hit, the team captures the upside. Less risk, still plenty of reward. . . . "


more news below

Follow @vcexp