Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Silicon Valley’s unicorn monoculture

Silicon Valley’s obsession with finding the next tech unicorns could be its weakness.

What happens in Silicon Valley when your startup doesn’t fit into the current hot ‘unicorn’ categories?

I recently spoke to one female founder about her business and why she chose to setup on the US East Coast rather than follow the popular path of establishing a San Francisco base. Her answer shows the obsessions Silicon Valley investors have and why the Bay Area model may not be right for all companies.

Originally we planned to set up in the Bay area. That’s what you do right? So our company’s registered office was in Palo Alto and then I started plans to have three of my staff and myself relocate to San Francisco. I took onboard some Silicon Valley Advisors and this was a pretty horrific experience that taught me a lot. Here is my experience of trying to set up in the Bay Area then not. This is my cautionary tale to other Aussie Start Ups.

The Valley comes with a certain formula that gets beaten into you. Here’s how it goes:

A Start Up must:

Be in the Bay Area

Have had an MVP in market

Be an incorporated US company, preferably a Delaware company if you want US VC investment

Have a Run Rate (annual revenue) of $3-5million dollars in order to attract investment

Not be enterprise software

Be a SaaS company like Atlassian with a similar business model

Have a product that is inexpensive where clients can self-install and there is no professional services or servicing required

I found the Silicon Valley Advisors I dealt with to be arrogant, formulaic and could not see potential outside of the standard Unicorn-creating formula. So I realized the Bay Area was not going to be a good fit for My business. Additionally I figured that none of our clients were actually based in the Bay Area and I needed to be near them. As a FinTech company the logical thing was for us to go to where our clients were so that we could constantly listen to them. Listen to their problems, understand their business, build relationships, have them help us figure out what our product should be and pay us

So we moved to NYC and set up on office in Chelsea. From NYC it takes only a couple of hours to get to Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Columbus, Chicago, even Texas to be with clients.

Also the investment discussions are much more ‘normal’ and investors are respectful of me as the CEO and Founder and my background and potential to build a significant, revenue led and profitable large software company. They are backing me and value that I am experienced. Not once has age or gender come up. In fact to be fair, probably the opposite. Being a woman over 40 seems to be appealing to East Coast clients and investors.

The founder’s experience also betrays a herd mentality among the Silicon Valley investors, something that may be a weakness for the industry and the region. It certainly indicates the dominant business model may be very fragile as markets turn against tech unicorns.

Reaping the security dividend

Digital disruption is driving boards and executives into realising the value and importance of cyber security, Cisco claims.

Boards and executives have finally got the message about security John Stewart, Chief Security and Trust Officer at Cisco.

For most of the computer era security has been seen as an inhibiter to innovation and speed to market, but now with most businesses finding they face a three year time frame to transform in face of digital disruption Stewart says corporate managments now see security of their products as being a valued feature.

Stewart bases his view on an online survey, Cybersecurity as a Growth Advantage, where Cisco polled 1,014 senior executives with extensive cybersecurity responsibilities in 10 countries and 11 in-depth interviews with senior executives and cybersecurity experts.

From this, Cisco found a third of businesses now sees security as being a competitive advantage.

Digital disruption drives the shift

Stewart puts this down to boards and senior executives realising how widespread digital disruption is, “it’s highly unlikely Weight Watchers saw the disruption coming from Fitbit,” he muses. “In fact it’s hard to see how anyone could have seen that coming.”

As a consequence of these widespread and often unexpected disruptions, corporate leaders are trying to shore up their existing positions against unforeseen competitors by shifting to digital platforms as quickly as they can.

“We have to do digital and if we are going to do digital we have to have strong cybersecurity controls,” says Stewart in explaining why cybersecurity is an important part of this strategy.

Security as a cornerstone

“By making cybersecurity a cornerstone of their businesses, security-led digital organizations are able to innovate faster and more effectively, because they have significantly greater confidence in the security of their digital capabilities,” Stewart says.

Certainly managers are worried about the risks of going digital with Cisco reporting many businesses have put projects on hold due to concerns about security risks, “a lack of cybersecurity strategy can cripple innovation and slow business, because it can hinder development of digital offerings and business models.”

According to Cisco’s findings, seventy-one percent of executives said that concerns over cybersecurity are impeding innovation in their organizations. Thirty-nine percent of executives stated that they had halted mission-critical initiatives due to cybersecurity issues.

Encouraging moves

While the possibility that corporate leaders are taking cyber security seriously is encouraging, that change is yet to be seen in the marketplace, particularly in the consumer Internet of Things market where being first trumps security, design considerations or even basic safety.

The real test for how important cybersecurity really is remains in the marketplace — will customers pay more for secure products?

One sense that in Cisco’s marketplace of enterprise customers where security failures could have expensive, embarrassing and possibly catastrophic consequences, customers will pay more for trustworthy devices. In the consumer field it may well be different.

Probably the most important finding from Cisco’s survey is that businesses are now understanding security has to be designed into products and processes rather than being bolted on as an after thought. If that is true, then we have come a long way.

Japan looks to startups

Japan’s efforts to encourage startups is a pointer to the rest of the world’s economic future

Can Japan reinvigorate its startup community? A story in the Wall Street Journal describes some of the attempts to encourage entrepreneurs in an economy that has been stagnant for a quarter century.

In many ways Japan is a prototype for the modern global economy, just as the Japanese tried to stimulate their economy following their 1989 bust by pumping money into their deeply corrupt construction industry , so too has the rest of the world tried a similar strategy with the banking system after the 2008 crisis.

The results in both cases been the same stagnation as the money is wasted on non productive schemes and speculation rather than investment in job and wealth creating businesses and innovations.

Now the Japanese are looking to a bottom up stimulus to their economy which challenges the country’s social norms where getting a ‘safe job’ with a large corporation is seen as the best prospect for young people.

While this is a change from the accepted wisdom, the entrepreneurial model really isn’t that strange for the Japanese with a range of successful technology companies started by post World War II entrepreneurs ranging from Sony to Softbank.

The Japanese model though may not be suited to the Silicon Valley venture capital model and this is where it’s dangerous to make comparisons with what works in San Jose, Tel Aviv or Shoreditch.

Japan’s strengths in industrial engineering may well make its businesses well suited for the Internet of Things the Wall Street Journal article quotes serial entrepreneur Taizo Son as suggesting. Interestingly, the 43 year old serial entrepreneur is the youngest brother of SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son.

Another area where Japan is a glimpse of the future is in the aging population and it may well be that harnessing the abilities of older entrepreneurs is another area where the country can either show the way to success or what not to do with an older, stagnant economy.

In many ways Japan is a pointer to where the world is heading. How they manage the early twenty-first century will be a lesson for the rest of us.

ABC Nightlife – is the smarthome worth the trouble?

This month’s ABC Nightlife show will look at whether the smarthome is really worth the trouble

Is the smart home worth the trouble? We live in an age of connected smoke alarms, kettles and even egg trays. For this month’s ABC Nightlife we’ll ask if these devices add to our lives or just make things more complex.

Earlier this month Google announced it would down their Evolv home automation platform leaving hundreds of users stuck with useless devices. So what happens to smart gadgets when they are disconnected from the Internet? We’ll also look at the new folding phone and just what a dire state the Australian telecoms industry is in.

Some of the questions we’ll cover include;

What was Google’s Evolv system?
Disabling the devices is a bit dramatic, why have they done that?
Do customers have any recourse?
Is this a risk with all connected devices?
What about connected cars, could they be turned off?
My computer needs updating, what about these devices?
What happens when the internet is disconnected, will my internet fridge work?
Samsung showed off a new folding phone last week. What exactly is it?
When will we see it on the market?
The Annual CommsDay conference was held last week in Sydney. Is there any good news for Aussie consumers?
Is the National Broadband Network looking any better?
How is the global telecommunications industry looking, can we expect anything exciting?

Join us

Tune in on your local ABC radio station from 10pm Australian Eastern Summer time or listen online at www.abc.net.au/nightlife.

We’d love to hear your views so join the conversation with your on-air questions, ideas or comments; phone in on 1300 800 222 within Australia or +61 2 8333 1000 from outside Australia.

You can SMS Nightlife’s talkback on 19922702, or through twitter to @paulwallbank using the #abcnightlife hashtag or visit the Nightlife Facebook page.

When a CEO meets the Internet of Things

Life changes when you become the CEO says Bill Wagner of LogMeIn

Life changes when you become the chief executive says Bill Wagner, the CEO and President at remote access company LogMeIn. “I now spend thirty percent of my time with investors,” he says

Wagner, previously the company’s Chief Operating Officer, took over the leadership at LogMeIn last September after founder Michael Simon stepped down.

The company is in the midst of a major change as Simon steered the company toward the Internet of Things in response to the shift away from desktop personal computing that had been the business’ core market.

LogMeIn’s IoT strategy is around being a trusted platform for controlling the myriad household, CEcommercial and industrial devices that want to connect to the internet, with Wagner only seeing AWS as being their main competitors that has seen a range of companies entering in the last few years.

“I don’t think IoT will be a wave, it’s more like a rising tide,” Wagner says.

Wagner is one of the IoT’s enthusiasts citing applications ranging from the insurance sector through to connected clothing as being potential markets, although industrial application may be the earliest adopters of LogMeIn’s services. “The more industrial the industry, the more mature is M2M to IoT adoption,” he observes.

That adoption though is tempered by the presence of industry groups where Wagner maintains LogMeIn’s hostility towards slower moving associations such as the Industrial Internet Alliance and proprietary platforms like Google Nest.

An advantage Wagner sees in his taking over as LogMeIn’s Chief Executive Officer is his experience with the company, “I don’t know how externally recruited CEOs manage it,” he observes.

With LogMeIn facing a continued transition into uncertain markets, the company needs a steady vision. It may be that internal recruitment is an important strategic move.

The benefits of an unsexy business

Being a startup in an unsexy industry can have its advantages believes Zerto founder Ziv Kedem

Being a startup in an unsexy industry can have its advantages believes one founder, particularly when your only competitors are sales and marketing focused corporates that struggle to innovate or execute on new ideas.

“There are some advantages of being in a non-sexy industry,” says Ziv Kedem, co-founder and CEO of Israeli company Zerto, “It means there are not too many people doing it and not too many can convince VCs this is a multi billion dollar market.”

Kedem was speaking to Decoding the New Economy during his recent visit to Sydney about Zerto, a disaster recovery software company – a distinctly unsexy business – which is his second startup following the sale of his first, Kashya, to storage giant EMC in 2006.

The advantage with being non-sexy is often the only competitors are large corporations, a prospect that doesn’t phase Kedem. “If the competition is only coming from the large vendors then there won’t be any innovation there,” he smiles.

Sales and marketing focus

Kedem’s view is many large companies are focused on sales and marketing, which means they don’t have the skills or the motivation to execute business plans in new sectors.

In many respects this echoes the experience of Seth Godin who expected Google becoming a competitor to his Knol business would be the fledgling company’s death knell. Instead Knol survived and Google’s notoriously poor attention settle upon another shiny, sexy industry to disrupt.

The problem for those non-sexy industries is raising investor money as the presence of a Google, Microsoft or Amazon in the market tends to scare VCs, private equity firms or retail investors away.

Crowdfunding downsides

Unlike his compatriot, John Medved, Kedem doesn’t see crowdfunding as a way around an investment drought as smaller investors are attracted to the ‘sexier’ businesses as well and raising the substantial amounts necessary for enterprise ventures is difficult on those platforms.

When a startup can find an investor, Kedem recommends not being shy about raising funds. “It’s rare to meet someone who raised too much,” he states.

Kedem also recommends investing in the team and looking for skills that the company will need in the future, not just today. Talking, to everyone from investors to customers to peers, is also important and he believes this is why Silicon Valley and Israel are so successful as technology hubs.

Believing in yourself

The most important aspect for an entrepreneur is self belief says Kedem, particularly when raising funds. “You’re doing the investor a favour when you go to them,” he says.

Ultimately that self belief is probably what everyone in business needs, particularly when facing a huge competitor.

Regardless of how unsexy your business is, believing it addresses a problem that people will pay to solve, may well be its greatest asset.

London’s black cabs fight back against Uber

Can London’s black cabs fight back against Uber

Like many cities’ incumbent taxi industries, London’s iconic black cabs are suffering from the ris of Uber.

Now a consortium of operators, drivers groups and the manufacturer of black cabs have devised an action plan to attract Londoners back to their services.

The proposals include fast Wi-Fi, better integration with tube and bus services, access to bus lanes and – depressingly – tighter restrictions on more lightly regulated minicabs.

London’s black cabs are unique in having high standards for both driver and vehicles which results in them being ludicrously expensive, the reason why many locals use minicabs.

Those high standards though should be an advantage against Uber, however some of the tight regulation and the industry’s culture put the black cabs at a disadvantage.

Uber’s supporter and advocates of the gig economy would, correctly, cite the black cabs raising their game as the main benefit of disrupting the market although the advantage of ignoring many of the rules that apply to the incumbents is a big advantage as well.

Londoners will be happy with the improved services, but for the black cabs this is a fight for protecting their industry against a worldwide disruption. Regulations will probably not be enough to protect them.

Interesting times as the global steel glut bites

The global steel glut marks the start of interesting economic times

For all the talk of digital disruption, who would have thought the old fashioned steel industry would be the industry causing the greatest upheaval in today’s economy?

Globally the steel industry is in trouble. In China, the UK and Australia steelmakers are facing a painful time as chronic overcapacity bites.

Beyond the immediate domestic problems of having a major part of its manufacturing industry shut down, Australia faces an added problem as the nation’s economic policies were based on a never ending Chinese demand for iron ore and coal.

OECD “Excess Capacity in the Global Steel Industry" (2015) — OECD “Excess Capacity in the Global Steel Industry” (2015)

The impending collapse of Bohai steel shows the Chinese industrial boom is now in the past and the onus on Beijing’s rulers is to stimulate a domestic services economy.

For the UK, the collapse of their steel industry adds further uncertainty to a nation that’s already putting its global role at stake with the referendum to move out of the European Union.

Should Britain turn away from Europe, they will need to find some compelling reasons to be competitive in the global economy. Fantasies of some sort of Anglo-centric Commonwealth of Nations won’t be enough to sustain the Little Englanders and their high cost of living.

In fact, the British problems of high costs and decades of underinvestment are common across the English speaking world – although Canada, New Zealand and Australia are particularly at risk in the current economic climate given their dependency on commodities and Chinese markets.

That Chinese curse of may you live in interesting times is proving true again, we are about to enter a fascinating economic period. Our business and political leaders, along with our resilience, are about to be tested. The steel industry is the first test.

Government in a digital era

What is the future of governments in the digital world

Governments are struggling with the new channels of communication and the structures that will manage our societies are far from certain.

Last night the University of New South Wales’ School of Computer Science and Engineering in Sydney held a panel discussion about Digital citizens and the future of government. The group looked at how the open government movement is progressing and how public servants and politicians are dealing with a data driven world.

The panel featured Dominic Campbell, the founder of the UK’s FutureGov who are currently advising the Australian Digital Transformation office; Penny Webb-Smart, the Executive Director of Service Reform for the NSW Government’s clumsily named Department of Finance, Services and Innovation and Amelia Loye, a social scientist who worked on Australia’s first Action Plan for Open Government.

Centralising decision making

One key question for the panel was how governments use data which gives rise to two views. The prevalent view is information systems tend to centralise power – something that has been a feature of the last two centuries – while access to information is a democratising forces that hands control back to individuals and local communities.

Amelia made the point in some respects we’re already at the point where individuals can take control, “the tools for participatory government are already available, we have to start looking at – and talking about – how to use them,” she said.

That conversation certainly isn’t happening at the moment despite the odd blurting of fine words from ministers and public servants and while in some areas government data is being freed up, in others it’s increasingly being hoarded for political purposes or due to ill thought out privatisations.

Commercial in confidence

Private sector data is another problem for the open data movement as many of the functions carried out by governments are outsourced to companies which generally reluctant to share information with the public. This leaves communities with an incomplete picture of the data affecting them.

The main unanswered question in the discussion was the relationship between local and central governments, the panel’s consensus was central government would become more dominant and in the Australian context the states would become irrelevant. This however may not be true.

Centralised government is by no means a given, as the prevailing corporatist ideologies of Western governments strive to cut services it’s likely communities are going to increasingly find ways of delivering those services independent of national bureaucracies and politicians in capital cities.

Cumbersome central governments

Another unspoken aspect was the increasing cumbersome nature of central government. In fast moving economies it’s hard for the decision making structures based in capital cities to quickly react to societal and political changes. National governments may simply be too big to manage the data flows coming into them.

The main conclusion out of the evening’s discussion is there is great uncertainty about the structure of government in the digital era.

Uncertainty over how governments will be shaped by today’s changes isn’t surprising, increased communications and the change in public finances radically altered the role of government last century – the wars and economic downturns of the first third of the century saw the introduction of central government income taxes which central power in capital cities.

Changing communications

Similarly mass media communications, the radio and television, dramatically changed the politician’s role and how citizens interacted with government.

One great mistake today is many of our political, public service and business leaders think the current models are inviolate and fixed when in actual fact they are dynamic systems which are evolving with technology.

Governments are a reflection of the societies and economies they lead. Just as both the economy and society are changing so too will the structures of the public service and politics. We may not recognise some of those changes until well after they’ve happened.

Telecommunication’s lost tribes

In a changing world, telecommunications executives are struggling to find a clear and profitable vision for their businesses.

This week saw Australia’s telecommunications industry gather for the annual Comms Day Summit at Sydney’s Westin Hotel.

A constant in the telco industry is change and new technology – few industries have had to reinvent themselves in the same telephone companies have had to over the last 30 years.

For telcos, that period of change has been immensely profitable as the switch to mobile networks proved to be a river of gold for the industry as consumers enthusiastically moved away from fixed line networks and into lucrative products like SMS services.

Missing the passion

So it was notable how the Comms Day summit was missing a sense of excitement or vision about the approaching opportunities such as 5G networks, the Internet of Things and other new markets. Much of the conversations were mainly focused on the dysfunctional Australian industry and the flawed regulations that got it to where it is.

As an Australian event it’s not surprising that much of the focus would be on domestic failings – thirty years of misguided policy, political opportunism and schoolboy ideologies have left the nation facing the prospect of the “world’s most expensive broadband” in the words of Megaport founder Bevan Slattery – however the stasis in the telecoms sector betrays a far deeper uncertainty in the global industry.

That uncertainty was on show at this year’s Mobile World Congress in Barcelona where most of the conference’s buzz was around virtual reality headsets and connected cars, areas where telecommunications providers are, at best, a ‘dumb pipe’.

We are not a utility

Being relegated to being a ‘mere utility’ is the fear of every telecommunications executive, which is why they spend so much on abortive Pay-TV, online and sports rights acquisitions. In the Australian context, Telstra’s acquisition of PacNet and Slattery’s own East Asian ventures are possibly the most interesting developments in the local industry yet they were barely mentioned at the Comms Day event.

While the Comms Day Summit told us much about the insular nature of modern Australian business – and the depressing mess three decades of poor regulation has left the local telecommunication industry – the bigger message is the global communications industry is struggling in a world of commoditised bandwidth where the opportunities to make huge profits is not immediately obvious.

It’s hard to see how telcos can be completely disrupted in the way media companies have been given how regulated their markets are – although the same was being said of the taxi industry five years ago – but it is clear their managements are struggling to find new business models.

Open sourcing the IoT

Increasingly it appears open source software is the way to avoid IoT vendor lock in

With vendors shutting down connected devices and restricting data feeds, customers demanding open source software and open standards may be essential to safeguard against companies misusing their power over the IoT.

Last night I had dinner with a group of executives from US telco CenturyLink. During the the evening, conversation turned to the use of US and Chinese routers and the risks of government mandated backdoors in both countries’ equipment.

My thought during that conversation is concerns about software backdoors are a compelling argument for these devices to run open source software, making it harder – although not impossible – for hidden nasties harder to be built into systems.

Google Nest becomes evil

Overnight that argument for open source became stronger in my mind with the news Google Nest were to shut down the Revolv home automation hubs the company bought two years ago.

Google aren’t just stopping support for these devices, they are going to render them useless to their owners. It’s a remarkable move that undermines any confidence customers can have in Google’s hardware offerings.

While Revolv isn’t the first and will be far from the last Internet of Things device to be abandoned by its vendor, its fate indicates the importance of keeping as much of the ecosystem as open as possible – the less vendor lock there is, the less hostage you are to rapacious manufactures.

Locked out of the subscription economy

As we’ve seen with Amazon in the past, the ‘subscription economy opens users to the risk they can be locked out of their data or purchased apps. Now we’re seeing how vendors can lock users out of the products entirely.

With connected cars and homes now becoming common, this is something that should concern buyers. As we see everything from door locks to smoke detectors and kettles being connected to the Internet of Things, the risk of being at the mercy of an unreasonable vendor or malfunctioning software becomes greater.

At least with an open source model, it’s easier to build workarounds when faced with an uncooperative supplier and, in a world full of poorly designed IoT products, it’s possible for the community to review the software and understand its bugs.

The security aspect of open platforms is also critical for the IoT as we’re already seeing a plethora of unpatched devices where vendors have long lost interest in supporting the older products.

Open interoperation

More importantly, open platforms make it easier for devices to work together, something that is critical in connected buildings or industries. At the moment the IoT is a mish mash of competing standards and formats.

Over time it won’t be surprising to see the market demanding more open source applications and data feeds – indeed we’re seeing this happen with artificial intelligence platforms – the proprietary model brings in too many risks and makes the IoT far more complex.

While open source software won’t solve problems such as APIs and data feeds being closed or changed, it does give more power back to users and communities. It’s not hard to understand why vendors though would resist these moves.

Can diversity defeat vendor lock in?

Ericsson’s Esmeralda Swartz believes device diversity will beat vendor’s attempts to lock customers onto their IoT plaforms

Does the sheer range of vendors selling connected products mean the Internet of Things cannot be siloed? Esmeralda Swartz, VP of Marketing Enterprise and Cloud at Ericsson, believes the flood of devices entering the market place will keep IoT standards open.

Swartz spoke to Decoding the New Economy during her Sydney visit last month where she laid out Ericsson’s vision of the connected city.

One of the aspects marking Swartz’s and Ericsson’s view of the smartcity evolution is that for a connected community to succeed is that there needs to be a mix of large corporations, startups, community groups and government agencies working together.

That view is different from most smartcity advocates’ views which are either top down with the technologies being implemented by governments or bottom up with adoption being driven by startups.

Community groups are usually overlooked in the smartcity discussion so it’s refreshing, and possibly more democratic, to hear them being included in the conversation.

One area that isn’t missed in the smartcity discussion is security, something Swartz agrees with.

“With the IoT the attack surface expands exponentially,” Swartz says. “Security needs to be built into every layer at both the application and device levels.”

Along with privacy, standards are the other issue challenging the smartcities movement and Swartz is more relaxed saying, “the diversity of devices means it is hard to achieve vendor lock-in.”

“The nature of all these things that can be connected means you can’t connect all the layers without the connections being open.”

As we’re seeing in everything from cars to smart rice cookers, the race is on to lock consumers, businesses and communities into platforms. Many of the vendors are creating their own platforms to lock customers into their walled gardens.

If Swartz is right, then the market will defeat the vendors’ attempts to lock users onto their platform. That does seem though to be high risk for customers who may find themselves stuck in the grip of one standard or company.