July 2023 - The Myth of Capitalism by Jonathan Tepper with Denise Hearn

We learn about the fun history of many monopolies and anti-trust! While I can’t recommend this book because its long and poorly written, it does reasonably critique aspects of antitrust and monopoly formation. Its repetitive and so aggressively one-sided that it loses credibility. The fact that the author used to advise and now runs a hedge fund that owns monopoly businesses tells you all you need to know.

Tech Themes

1. Consumer Welfare. Tepper’s fundamental argument is that since the 1980s, driven by Regan’s deregulation push, the government has allowed corporate mergers and abuses of market power, leading to more market concentration, higher prices, greater inequality, worse worker conditions, and stymied innovation. Influenced by the Chicago School’s free market ideas and Robert Bork’s popular 1978 book Antitrust Paradox, the standard for antitrust enforcement morphed from breaking up market-abusing companies to “consumer welfare.” With this shift, antitrust enforcement became: “Does this harm the consumer?” A lot of things do not harm consumers. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, Inc. (1979) is widely regarded as one of the first antitrust cases that shifted the Rule of reason towards consumer welfare. CBS had sued Broadcast Music, alleging that blanket licenses constituted price fixing. Broadcast Music represented copyright holders and would grant licenses to media companies to use artist’s music on air. These deals were negotiated on behalf of many artists, and did not allow CBS to negotiate for selected works. The court sided with BMI because the blanket license process was simpler, lowered transaction costs by reducing the number of negotiations, and allowed broadcasters greater access to works. They even admitted that the blanket license may be a form of price setting, but concluded that it didn’t necessarily harm consumers and was more efficient, so they allowed it. The consumer welfare ideology has recently come under fire around the big tech companies - Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon. Lina Khan, Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wrote a powerful and aptly titled article, Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, highlighting why in her view consumer welfare was not a strong enough stance on antitrust. “This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy.” The note argues that Amazon’s willingness to offer unsustainably low prices and their role as a marketplace platform and a seller on that marketplace allow it crush competition. Google is currently being sued by the Department of Justice over illegal monopolization of adtech and its dominance in the search engine market. The government is attempting to shift antitrust back to a more aggressive approach regarding monopolistic behavior. From a consumer welfare perspective, there is no doubt that all of these companies have created situations that benefit consumers (“free” services, low prices) and hurt competition. The question is: “Is it illegal?”

2. The ACTs - Sherman and Clayton. The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, was the first major federal law aimed at curbing monopolies and promoting competition. The late 19th century, often referred to as the Gilded Age, saw the rise of powerful industrialists like J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose massive corporations threatened to dominate key sectors of the economy. Public outcry over the potential for these monopolies to stifle competition and exploit consumers led to the passage of the Sherman Act. Senator John Sherman, intended the law to protect the public from the negative consequences of concentrated economic power. The Sherman Act broadly prohibited anticompetitive agreements and monopolization, empowering the government to break up monopolies and prevent practices that restrained trade. However, the Sherman Act's broad language left it open to interpretation, and its early enforcement was inconsistent. President Theodore Roosevelt, a proponent of trust-busting, used the Sherman Act to challenge powerful monopolies, such as the Northern Securities Company, a railroad conglomerate controlled by J.P. Morgan. The Supreme Court's decision in the Standard Oil case in 1911 further shaped the interpretation of the Sherman Act, establishing the "rule of reason" as the standard for evaluating antitrust violations. This meant that not all restraints of trade were illegal, only those that were deemed "unreasonable" in their impact on competition. The Clayton Antitrust Act, passed in 1914, was designed to strengthen and clarify the Sherman Act. It specifically targeted practices not explicitly covered by the Sherman Act, such as mergers and acquisitions that could lessen competition, price discrimination, and interlocking directorates. The Clayton Act also sought to protect labor unions, which had been subject to antitrust prosecution under the Sherman Act. The passage of these acts led to a wave of significant antitrust cases. Prominent examples include: United States v. American Tobacco Co. (1911): This case resulted in the breakup of the American Tobacco Company, a dominant force in the tobacco industry, demonstrating the government's commitment to using antitrust laws to dismantle powerful monopolies. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948): This case challenged the vertical integration of the film industry, where major studios controlled production, distribution, and exhibition. The court's decision led to significant changes in the industry's structure. United States v. AT&T Co. (1982): This landmark case resulted in the breakup of AT&T, a telecommunications giant, into smaller, regional companies. This case marked a major victory for antitrust enforcement and had a lasting impact on the telecommunications industry.

3. Microsoft. The Microsoft antitrust case, initiated in October 1998, saw the U.S. government accusing Microsoft of abusing its monopoly power in the personal computer operating systems market. The government, represented by David Boies (yes, Theranos David Boies), argued that Microsoft, led by Bill Gates, had engaged in anti-competitive practices to stifle competition, particularly in the web browser market. Gates was famously deposed and shockingly (not really) came away from the deposition looking like an asshole. The government alleged that Microsoft violated the Sherman Act by: Bundling its Internet Explorer (IE) web browser with its Windows operating system, thereby hindering competing browsers like Netscape Navigator, manipulating application programming interfaces to favor IE, and enforcing restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers, compelling them to include IE with Windows. Judge Thomas Jackson presided over the case at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 1999, he ruled in favor of the government, finding that Microsoft held a monopoly and had acted to maintain it. He ordered Microsoft to be split into two units, one for operating systems and the other for software components. Microsoft appealed the decision. The Appeals Court overturned the breakup order, partly due to Judge Jackson's inappropriate discussions with the media. While upholding the finding of Microsoft's monopolistic practices, the court deemed traditional antitrust analysis unsuitable for software issues. The case was remanded to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and ultimately, a settlement was reached in 2001. The settlement mandated Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and grant a panel access to its systems for compliance monitoring. However, it did not require Microsoft to change its code or bar future software bundling with Windows. This led to criticism that the settlement was inadequate in curbing Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme and Microsoft is doing the exact same bundling strategy again with its Teams app.

Business Themes

1. Monopoly Markets. Tepper lays out all of the markets that he believes are monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly markets. Cable/high speed internet (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Charter (Spectrum)) - pretty much the same, Computer Operating Systems (Microsoft) - pretty much the same but iOS and Linux are probably bigger, Social Networks (Facebook with 75% share). Since then Tiktok, Twitter, Pinterest, and Snap have all put a small dent in Facebook’s share. Search (Google), Milk (Dean Foods), Railroads (BNSF, NSC, CSX, Union Pacific, Kansas City Southern), Seeds (Bayer/Monsanto, Syngenta/ChemChina, Dow/DuPont), Microprocessors (Intel 80%, AMD 20%), Funeral Homes (Service Corporation International) all join the monopoly club. The duopoly club consists of Payment Systems (Visa, Mastercard), Beer (AB Inbev, Heineken), Phone Operating Systems (iOS, Android), Online Advertising (Google, Facebook), Kidney Dialysis (DaVita), and Glasses (Luxottica). The oligopoly club is Credit Reporting Bureaus (Transunion, Experian, FICO), Tax Preparation (H&R Block, Intuit), Airlines (American, Delta, United, Southwest, Alaska), Phone Companies (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T), Banks (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo), Health Insurance (UnitedHealthcare, Centene, Humana, Aetna), Medical Care (HCA, Encompass, Ascension, Universal Health), Group Purchasing Organizations (Vizient, Premier, HealthTrust, Intaler), Pharmacy Benefit Managers (Express Scripts, CVS Caremark, Optum/UnitedHealthcare), Drug Wholesalers (Cencora, McKesson, Cardinal Health), Agriculture (ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus), Media (Walt Disney, Time Warner, CBS, Viacom, NBC Universal, News Corp), Title Insurance (Fidelity National, First American, Stewart, and Old Republic). Since the book was published in 2018, there has been even more consolidation - Canadian Pacific bought Kansas City Southern for $31B, Essilor merged with Luxottica in 2018 in a $49B deal, Sprint merged with T-Mobile in a $26B deal, and CBS and Viacom merged in a $30B deal. Tepper’s anger towards lackadaisical enforcement of antitrust is palpable. He encourages greater antitrust speed and transparency, the unwinding of now clear market consolidating mergers, and the breakup of local monopolies.

2. Conglomeration and De-Conglomeration. Market Concentration. The conglomerate boom, primarily occurring in the 1960s, saw a surge in the formation of large corporations encompassing diverse, often unrelated businesses. This era was fueled by low interest rates and a fluctuating stock market, creating favorable conditions for leveraged buyouts. A key driver of this trend was the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950, which, by prohibiting companies from acquiring their competitors or suppliers, pushed them towards diversification through acquiring businesses in unrelated fields. The prevailing motive was to achieve rapid growth, even if it meant prioritizing revenue growth over profit growth. Conglomerates were seen as a means to mitigate risk through diversification and achieve operational economies of scale. Many conglomerates formed that operated across completely different industries: Gulf and Western (Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster, Sega, Madison Square Garden), ITT (Telephone companies, Avis, Wonder Bread, Hartford Insurance, and Sheraton), and Henry Singleton’s Teledyne. However, the conglomerate era ultimately waned. The government took a more proactive approach to acquisitions in the late 1960s, curbing the aggressive approaches. The FTC sued Proctor & Gamble over its potential acquisition of Clorox and merger guidelines were revised in 1968, setting out more rules against market share and concentration. Rising interest rates in the 1970s strained these sprawling enterprises, forcing them to divest many of their acquisitions. The belief in the inherent efficiency of conglomerates was challenged as businesses increasingly favored specialization over sprawling, unwieldy structures. The concept of synergy, once touted as a key advantage of conglomerates, came under scrutiny. Ultimately, the conglomerate era was marked by performance dilution, value erosion, and the realization that strong performance in one business did not guarantee success in unrelated sectors.

3. Industry Concentration. A central pillar to Tepper’s argument that the capitalism game isn’t being played fairly or appropriately, is that rising industry concentration is worrisome and indicative of a broken market system. He uses the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to discuss levels of industry concentration. According to the Antitrust Division at the DOJ: “The HHI is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the resulting numbers. For example, for a market consisting of four firms with shares of 30, 30, 20, and 20 percent, the HHI is 2,600 (302 + 302 + 202 + 202 = 2,600). The agencies generally consider markets in which the HHI is between 1,000 and 1,800 points to be moderately concentrated, and consider markets in which the HHI is in excess of 1,800 points to be highly concentrated.” The HHI index is relatively straightforward to calculate. It can be a quick test to see if a potential merger creates a more significantly concentrated market. However, it still falls prey to some issues. For example, market definitions are extremely important in antitrust cases and a poorly or narrowly defined market can cause the HHI to look overly concentrated. In the ongoing Kroger-Albertson’s Merger case, the FTC is proposing a somewhat narrow definition of supermarkets, which excludes large supermarket players like Walmart, Costco, Aldi, and Whole Foods. If Whole Foods isn’t a super market, I’m not sure what is. And sure, maybe they narrowly define the market because Kroger and Albertsons serve a particular niche where substitutes are not easily available. Whole Foods may be more expensive, Aldi may have limited assortment, and Costco portion sizes may be too big. However, if you have a market that has Kroger, Walmart, Costco, Aldi, and Whole Foods serving a reasonable size population, I can almost guarantee the prices are likely to remain competitive. In some cases, high industry concentration does not mean monopolistic behavior. However, it can lead to monopolistic or monopsonistic behavior including: higher prices, lower worker’s wages, lower growth, and greater inequality.

   Dig Deeper

• Microsoft Volume II: The Complete History and Strategy of the Ballmer Years

• Lecture Antitrust 1 Rise of Standard Oil | Walter Isaacson

• Anti-Monopoly Timeline

• How Xerox Lost Half its Market Share

• (Anti)Trust Issues: Harvard Law Bulletin

August 2022 - Invention: A Life by James Dyson

This month we dive into an innovation classic by examining the life of of James Dyson and the creation of his world famous vacuum cleaner.

Tech Themes

1. IP. James Dyson believes that entrepreneurs should always retain their creations. He is a staunch advocate for patent protection and rights. When we look back at the history of Dyson, we can understand why. As a young entrepreneur, Dyson created the ball-barrow, the first wheelbarrow that used a single round ball instead of two wheels on each leg. With improved design, the product performed well; however, the board forced Dyson out of his company over a disagreement on managing the company's financial situation. Even worse, the company owned the ball barrow's patent, so James walked away with nothing but hard-earned experience and frustration. He set out to make his cyclonic vacuum and famously succeeded after 5,127 prototypes. Dyson then set out to partner with distribution channels and found Amway, a Michigan-based electronics company. In 1984, the two companies agreed on a partnership, and Dyson sent over specifications, design prototypes, and core company IP. However, shortly after that, they canceled the agreement and sued Dyson for fraud. Even worse, Amway launched an exact copy of Dyson's DC01 and was trying to compete against Dyson in the US. Dyson shot back and sued Amway. Over the next seven years, Dyson would struggle through the US court system, ultimately winning his legal case against Amway. "When you've developed a new technology, or created a radically different product, have beaten the skeptics, established awareness, and battled to create a market for it, to discover a similar product from the company that canceled the licensing agreement is sickening as if you've been punched in the solar plexus. You feel outraged by the personal theft and helpless." Dyson eventually settled with Amway in 1991, recouping all of his legal costs and gaining control of his IP.

2. Testing. Dyson loves testing new products. Every test (and every failure) tells you about your product and how it can be improved. He would often spend hours in his garage making minor adjustments to the cyclonic vacuum, hoping the next time would yield positive results. Over time, Dyson has adapted its testing procedures. While most companies employ some basic tests for defects, Dyson wants its products to fail the tests. Head of Testing Marco Li explains: "Everything we test will fail, in one respect, because the way we test our products we want to make sure it fails. That's the only way we can be sure we know what the limits of our technology are and make sure that what we say on the box isn't the best, but the worst-case scenario." Paradoxically, Dyson finds joy in failing: "It's a never-ending process that is enormously rewarding, and endlessly frustrating. There are countless times an inventor can give up on an idea. By the time I made my 15th prototype, my third child was born. By 2,627, my wife and I were really counting our pennies. By 3,727, my wife was giving art lessons for some extra cash. These were tough times, but each failure brought me closer to solving the problem. It wasn't the final prototype that made the struggle worth it. The process bore the fruit. I just kept at it."

3. Failure and Entrepreneurship. As detailed above, Dyson's first company ended with heartbreak. He describes it: "I was penniless again with no job and no income. I had three adorable children, a large mortgage to pay, and nothing to show for the past five years of toil. I had also lost my inventions. This was a very low moment and deeply worrying for Deirdre and me. It was deeply upsetting, too. My confidence took a big blow, and it would take some years to regain it." Part of being an entrepreneur is holding steadfast to a goal during times like these. Interestingly, an overview of psychological research on entrepreneurship helps us understand why failure and entrepreneurship are so closely linked. It all comes down to reflection. Only upon concrete failures do entrepreneurs enter a state of deep reflection on experiences that created the failure. After some time, the entrepreneur can become more enthusiastic and open with a new perspective on a problem or issue. The secret is getting to failure quite frequently or "Fail, Fast, Forward."

Business Themes

1. Never Listen to Consultants or Projections. Often venture capitalists pressure entrepreneurs into following attractive markets or trends. Dyson hates market research. He correctly points out that those doing market research are often wrong, and it makes no sense to trust someone who isn't in the industry building products and talking to customers constantly. As he puts it: "I was also putting into practice ideas I'd learned directly from Jeremy Fry and indirectly from Alec Issigonis: Don't copy the opposition. Don't worry about market research. Both Jeremy and Alec Issigonis might just as well have said "Follow your own star." And this is indeed what successful entrepreneurs do." You have to think differently than the market and competition to really arrive at a unique and differentiated product.

2. Accidental Success. One unobvious benefit of innovation, testing, trials, and not listening to consultants is "accidental" success. I think of unexpected success as the byproduct of curiosity and hard work. Every every hour you put into a tenuous venture adds a marble to the jar of unintended success. It's only after many hours that the marbles of success spill out. The Dyson Airblade is a clear example of the benefits of unintended innovation. The Dyson team was working on a small vacuum cleaner and had controversially decided to bring motor manufacturing in-house. Similar to Apple, Dyson likes to handle all of its manufacturing in-house, also known as a vertically integrated approach. After years of making motors internally with mixed success, his engineers noticed that one of their motors emitted air in a concentrated line. Although Dyson did not intend to make a hand dryer, it seemed like the perfect application for this new technology. It also was another market dominated by a few players (Excel Dryer, World Dryer) who last innovated a few decades ago. Dyson Airblades are now available all over the world.

3. James Musk and Elon Dyson. The similarities between James Dyson and Elon Musk are striking. Dyson's Dad died from cancer at an early age, which he acknowledges may have propelled his intensity and desire for control as he got older. Elon Musk had a complicated relationship with his Dad and suffered abuse for many years. Dyson was forced out of his ball-barrow company after the board ousted him as CEO. This company was his first venture, and the experience pushed him to assume complete ownership of Dyson after buying out Jeremy Fry in the 1990s. Elon was betrayed by the board of Zip2, his first company, after he took over following a dispute with former CEO Richard Sorkin. Musk was again fired from Paypal after disagreements with Peter Thiel and Max Levchin. Both founders entered markets that had lacked innovation for years, the vacuum industry and the car industry, with premium-priced products that work exceptionally well. Furthermore, these companies (Dyson, Tesla, and SpaceX) employ a unique design that is unlike other products in their respective markets and prioritize environmental benefits with their design. Although from different times and in different fields, I was surprised by how similar Elon and James are; maybe that's just a crazy person thing.

Dig Deeper

• Chapter 1: Early Years from Invention: A Life, by James Dyson - Interview on Youtube

• Dyson unveils its $500 million electric car that was cancelled

• Love Is In The Air: how Dyson’s love affair with airflow technology has withstood the test of time

• Sir James Dyson explains his bladeless fan

• Dyson: James Dyson (2018) - How I Built This with Guy Raz

May 2022 - Play Nice, But Win by Michael Dell and James Kaplan

This month we dive into the history of Dell Computer Corporation, one of the biggest PC and server companies in the world! Michael Dell gives a first-hand perspective of all of Dell’s big successes and failures throughout the years and his intense battle with Carl Icahn, over the biggest management buyout in history.

Tech Themes

1. Be a Tinkerer. When he was in seventh grade, Michael Dell begged his parents to buy an Apple II computer (which costs ~$5,000 in today's dollars). Immediately after the computer arrived, he took the entire thing apart to see exactly how the system worked. After diving deep into each component, Dell started attending Apple user groups. During one, he met a young and tattered Steve Jobs. Dell began tutoring people on the Apple II's components and how they could get the most out of it. When IBM entered the market in 1980 with the 5150 computer, he did the same thing - took it apart, and examined the components. He realized that almost everything IBM made came from other companies (not IBM) and that the total value of its components was well below the IBM price tag. From this simple insight, he had a business. He started fixing up a couple of computers for local business people in Austin. Dell's machines cost less and delivered more performance. The company got so big (50k - 80k revenue per month) that during his freshman year at UT Austin, Dell decided to drop out, much to his parent's dismay. On May 3rd, 1984, Dell incorporated his company and never returned to school.

2. Lower Prices and Better Service - a Powerful Combination. Dell Computer Corporation was the original DTC business. Rather than selling in big box retail stores, Dell carried out orders via mail request. When the internet became prominent in the late 90s, Dell started taking orders online. After his insight that the cost of components was significantly lower than the selling price, he flew to the far east to meet his suppliers. He started placing big deals and getting better and better prices. This strategy is the classic low-end disruption pattern that we learned about in Clayton Christensen's, The Innovator's Dilemma – a lowered-priced competitor that offers better service, customizability starts to crush the competition. Christensen is important to note that the internet itself was a sustaining innovation to Dell, but very disruptive to the market as a whole: "Usually, the technology simply is an enabler of the disruptive business model. For example, is the Internet a disruptive technology? You can't say that. If you bring it to Dell, it's a sustaining technology to what Dell's business model was in 1996. It made their processes work better; it helped them meet Dell's customers' needs at lower cost. But when you bring the very same Internet to Compaq, it is very disruptive [to the company's then dealer-only sales model]. So how do we treat that? We praise [CEO Michael] Dell, and we fire Eckhard Pfeiffer [Compaq's former CEO]. In reality, those two managers are probably equally competent." If competitors lowered prices, Dell could find better components and continually lower prices. Dell's strategy led to many departures from the personal PC market – IBM left, HP acquired Compaq in a disastrous deal for HP, and many others never made it back.

3. Layoffs, Crises, and Opportunities. Dell IPO'd in 1988 and joined the Fortune 500 in 1991 as they hit $800m in sales for the year. So you would think the company would be humming when it hit $2B in sales in 1993, right? Wrong. Everything was breaking. When a company scales that quickly, it doesn't have time to create processes and systems. Personnel issues began to happen more frequently. As Dell recalls, the head of sales had a drinking problem, and the head of HR had a stripper girlfriend on the payroll. The company was late to market with notebooks, and it had to institute a recall on its notebooks which could catch fire in some instances. During that time, Dell hired Bain to do an internal report about how it should change its processes for its new scale – Kevin Rollins of the Bain team knew the business super well and thought incredibly strategically. After the Bain assignment, Rollins joined the company as Vice-chairman, ultimately becoming CEO for a brief period in 2004. One of his first recommendations was to cease its experiment selling through department stores and to stay DTC-focused. During the internet bubble, Dell faced another crisis – its stock had risen precipitously for many years, but once the bubble burst, in a matter of months, it fell from $50 to $17 a share. The company missed its earnings estimates for five quarters in a row and had to do two layoffs – one with 1,700 people and another with 4,000. During this time, an internal poll showed that 50% of Dell team members would leave if another company paid them the same rate. Dell realized that the values statement he had written in 1988 was no longer resonating and needed updating – he refreshed the value statement and focused the company on its role in the global IT economy. Dell understands that you should never waste a great crisis, and always find the opportunity for growth and improvement when things aren't going well.

Business Themes

1. Carl Icahn and Dell. No one in business represents a corporate nemesis quite like Carl Icahn. Icahn was born in Rockaway, NY, and earned his tuition money at Princeton playing poker against the rich kids. Icahn is an activist investor and popularized the field of activist investing with some big, bold battles against companies in the early 1980s. Icahn got his start in 1968 by purchasing a seat on the New York Stock Exchange. He completed his first major takeover attempt in 1978, and the rest was history. Icahn takes an intense stance against companies, typically around big mergers, acquisitions, or divestitures. He 1) buys up a lot of shares, like 5-10% of a company, 2) accuses the company and usually the management of incompetence or a lousy strategy 3) argues for some action - a sale of a division, a change in management, a special dividend 4) sues the company in a variety of ways around shareholder negligence 5) sends letters to shareholders and the company detailing his findings/claims 6) puts up a new slate of board members at the company 7) waits to profit or gets paid to go away (also called greenmail). Icahn used these exact tactics when he took on Michael Dell. Icahn issued several scathing letters about Dell, criticizing the company's poor performance, highlighting Michael Dell's obvious conflicts of interest as CEO, and demanding the special committee evaluate the deal fairly. Icahn normally makes money when he gets involved, and he is essentially a gnat that doesn't go away until he makes money one way or another. After the fight, Icahn still made a profit of 10s of millions, and his fight with Dell was just beginning.

2. Take Privates and Transformation. Michael Dell had thought a couple of times about taking the company private when he was approached by Egon Durban of Silver Lake Partners, a large tech private equity firm. Dell and Zender went on a walk in Hawaii and worked out what a transaction might be. The issue with Dell at that time was that the PC market was under siege. People thought tablets were the future, and their questions found confirmation in the PC market's declining volumes. Dell had spent $14B on an acquisition spree, acquiring a string of enterprise software companies, including Quest Software, SonicWall, Boomi, Secureworks, and more, as it redirected its strategy. But these companies had yet to kick into gear, and most of Dell's business was still PCs and servers. The stock price had fallen about 45% since Michael Dell had rejoined as CEO in 2007. Dell had thought about taking the company private a couple of other times, but now seemed like a great time - they needed to transform, and fast. Enacting a transformation in the public markets is tough because wall street focuses on quarter-to-quarter metrics over long-term vision. He first considered the idea in June 2012 when talking with the then largest shareholder Southeastern Asset Management. After letting the idea percolate, Dell held discussions with Silver Lake and KKR. Silver Lake and Dell submitted a bid at $12.70, then $12.90, then $13.25, then $13.60, then $13.65. On February 4th, 2013, the special committee accepted Silver Lake's offer. On March 5th, Carl Icahn entered the fray, saying he owned about $1b of shares. Icahn submitted a half proposal suggesting the company pay a one-time special dividend, he would acquire a substantial part of the stock and it would remain public, under different leadership. On July 18th, the special committee delayed a vote on the acquisition because it became clear that Dell couldn't get enough of the "majority of the minority" votes needed to close the acquisition. A few weeks later, Silver Lake and Dell raised their bid to $13.75 (the original asking price of the committee), and the committee agreed to remove the voting standard, allowing the SL/Dell combo to win the deal. After various lawsuits, Icahn gave up in September 2013, when it became clear he had no strategy to convince shareholders to his side. It was an absolute whirlwind of a deal process, and Dell escaped with his company.

3. Big Deals. After Dell went private, Michael Dell and Egon Durban started scouring the world for enticing tech acquisitions. They closed on a small $1.4B storage acquisition, which reaffirmed Michael Dell's interest in the storage market. After the deal, Dell reconsidered something that almost happened in 2008/09 – a merger with EMC. EMC was the premier enterprise storage company with a dominant market share. On top of that, EMC owned VMware, a software company that had successfully virtualized the x86 architecture so servers could run multiple operating systems simultaneously. Throughout 2008 and 2009, Dell and EMC had deeply considered a merger – to the point that its boards held joint discussions about integration plans and deal price. The boards scrapped the deal during the financial crisis, and in the ensuing years, EMC grew and grew. By 2014 it was a $59B public company and the largest company in Massachusetts. In mid-2014, Dell started to consider the idea. He pondered the strategic and competitive implications of the deal everywhere he went. Little did he know that he was already late to the party – it later came out that both HP and Cisco had looked at acquiring EMC in 2013. HP got down to the wire, with the deal being championed by Meg Whitman, as a way to move past the Autonomy debacle and board room in-fighting. HP had a handshake agreement to merge with EMC in a 1:1 deal, but at the last minute, HP re-traded and demanded a more advantageous split (i.e. HP would own 55% of the combined company) and EMC said no. When EMC then turned to Dell, Whitman slammed the deal. While the only remaining competitor of size was Dell, there was still a question of how they could finance the deal, especially as a private company. Dell's ultimate package was a pretty crazy mix of considerations: Dell issued a tracking stock related specifically to Dell's business, it then took out some $40b in loans against its newly acquired VMWare equity and the cash flow of Dell's underlying business, Michael Dell and Silver lake also put in an additional $5B of equity capital. After Silver Lake and Dell determined the financing structure, Dell faced a grueling interrogation session in front of the EMC board as final approval for the deal. The deal was announced on October 12th, 2015, and it closed a year later. By all measures, it appears the deal was a success – the company has undergone a complete transformation – shedding some acquired assets, spinning off VMWare, and going public again by acquiring its own tracking stock. Michael Dell took some huge risks - taking his company private and completing the biggest tech merger in history. It seems to have paid off handsomely.

Dig Deeper

• Michael Dell, Dell Technologies | Dell Technologies World 2022

• Steve Jobs hammers Michael Dell (1997)

• Michael Dell interview - 7/23/1991

• Background of the Merger - the full SEC timeline of the EMC-Dell Merger

• Carl Icahn's First Ever Interview | 1985

January 2022 - Seven Powers by Hamilton Helmer

This month we dove into a classic technology strategy book. The book covers seven major Powers a company can have that offer both a benefit and a barrier to competition. Helmer covers the majority of the book through the lens of different case studies including his favorite company, Netflix.

Tech Themes

1. Power. After years as a consultant at BCG and decades investing in the public market, Helmer distilled all successful business strategies to seven individual Powers. A Power offers a company a re-inforcing benefit while also providing a barrier to potential competition. This is the epitome of an enduring business model in Helmer's mind. Power describes a company's strength relative to a specific competitor, and Powers focus on a single business unit rather than throughout a business. This makes sense: Apple may have a scale economies Power from its iPhone install base relative to Samsung, but it may not have Power in its AppleTV originals segment relative to Netflix. The seven types of Powers are: Scale Economies, Network Economies, Counter-Positioning, Switching Costs, Branding, Cornered Resources, and Process Power.

2. Invention. While Powers are somewhat easy to spot (scale economies of Google's search algorithm), creating them is anything but easy. So what underlies every one of the seven Powers? Invention. Helmer pulls invention through the lens of industry Dynamics - external competitive conditions and the forward march of technology create opportunities to pursue new business models, processes, brands, and products. Companies must leverage their resources to craft Powers through trial and error, rather than an upfront conscious decision to pursue something by design. I view this almost as an extension of Clayton Christensen's Resource-Processes-Values (RPV) framework we discussed in July 2020. Companies can find a route to Power through these resources and the crafting process. For Netflix, the route was streaming, but the actual Power came from a strong push into exclusive and original content. The streaming business opened up Netflix's subscriber base, and the content decision provided the ability to amortize great content across its growing subscriber base.

3. Power Progressions. Powers become available at different points in business progression. This makes sense - what drives a company forward in an unpenetrated market is different from what keeps it going during steady-state - Snowflake's competitive dynamics are different than Nestle's. Helmer defines three stages to a company: Origination, Takeoff, and Stability. These stages mirror the dynamics of S-Curves, which we discussed in our July 2021 book. During the Origination stage, companies can benefit from Cornered Resources and Counter-Positioning. Helmer uses the Pixar management team as an example of Cornered Resources during the Origination phase of 3D animated movies. The company had Steve Jobs (product visionary), John Lasseter (story-teller creative), and Ed Catmull (operations and technology leader). During the early days of the industry, these were the only people that knew how to operate a digital film studio. Another Cornered Resource example might be a company finding a new oil well. Before the company starts drilling, it is the only one that can own that asset. An example of Origination Counter-Positioning might be TSMC when they first launched. At that time, it was standard industry perception that semiconductor companies had to be integrated design manufacturers (IDM) - they had to do everything in-house. TSMC was launched as solely a fabrication facility that companies could use to gain extra manufacturing capacity or try out new designs. This gave them great Counter-Positioning relative to the IDM's and they were dismissed as a non-threat. The Takeoff period offers Network Economies, Scale Economies, and Switching Cost Powers. This phase is the growth phase of businesses. Snowflake currently benefits from Switching Cost dynamics - once you use Snowflake, it's unlikely you'll want to use other data warehouse providers because that process involves data replication and additional costs. Scale economies can be seen in businesses that amortize high costs over their user base, like Amazon. Amazon invests in distribution centers at a significant scale, which improves customer experience, which helps them get more customers - the flywheel repeats, allowing Amazon to continually invest in more distribution centers, further building its scale. Network economies show in social media businesses like Bytedance/TikTok. Users make content that attracts more users; incremental users join the platform because there is so much content to "gain" by joining the platform. Like scale economies, it's almost impossible to go build a competitor because a new company would have to recruit all users from the other platform, which would cost tons of money. The Stability phase offers Branding and Process Power. Branding is hard to generate, but the advantage grows with time. Consider luxury goods providers like LVMH; the older, the more exclusive the brand, the more it's desired, and every day it gets older and becomes more desired. A business can create Process Power by refining and improving operations to such a high degree that it becomes difficult to replicate. Classic examples of Process Power are TSMC's innovative 3-5nm processes today and Toyota's Production System. Toyota has even allowed competitors to tour its factory, but no competitor has replicated its operational efficiency.

Business Themes

1. Sneak Attack. I've always been surprised by businesses that seemingly "come out of nowhere." In Helmer's eyes, this stems from Counter-Positioning. He tells the story of Vanguard, which was started by Jack Bogle in 1976. "You could charitably describe the reception as enthusiastic: only $11M trickled in from investors. Soon after the launch, [Noble Laureate Paul] Samuelson himself lauded the effort in his column for Newsweek, but with little result: the fund had only reached $17M by mid-1977. Vanguard's operating model depended on others for distribution, and brokers, in particular, were put off by a product that predicated on the notion that they provided no value in helping their clients choose which active funds to select." But Vanguard had something that active managers didn't: low fees and consistency. Vanguard's funds performed like the indices and cost much less than active funds. No longer were individuals underperforming the market and paying advisors to pick actively managed funds. Furthermore, Vanguard continually invested all profits back into its funds, so it looked like it wasn't making money while it grew its assets under management. It's so hard to spot these sneak attacks while they are happening. But one that might be happening right now is Cloudflare relative to AWS. Cloudflare launched its low-cost R2 service (a play on Amazon's famous S3 storage technology). Cloudflare is offering a cheaper product at a much lower cost and is leveraging its large installed base with its CDN product to get people in the door. It's unclear whether this will offer Power over AWS because it's confusing what the barrier might be other than some relating to switching costs. However, there will likely be reluctance on AWS's part to cut prices because of its scale and public company growth targets.

2. A New Valuation Formula. Helmer offers a very unique take on the traditional DCF valuation approach. Investors have long suggested the value of any business was equal to the present value of its future discounted cash flows. In contrast to the traditional approach of summing up a firm's cash flows and discounting it, Helmer takes a look at all of the cash flows subject to the industry in which firms compete. In this formula (shown above), M0 represents the current market size, g the discounted market growth factor, s the long-term market share of the company, and m the long-term differential margin (net profit margin over that needed to cover the cost of capital). More simply, a company is worth it's Market Scale (Mo x g) x its Power (s x m). This implies that a company is worth the portion of the industry's profits it collects over time. This formula helps consider Power progression relative to industry dynamics and company stage. In the Origination stage, an industry's profits may be small but growing very quickly. If we think that a competitor in the industry can achieve an actual Power, it will likely gain a large portion of the long-term market. Thus, watching market share dynamics unfold can tell us about the potential for a route to Power and the ability for a company to achieve a superior value to its near-term cash flows.

3. Collateral Damage. If companies are aware of these Powers and how other companies can achieve them, how can companies not take proactive action to avoid being on the losing end of a Power struggle? Helmer lays out what he calls Collateral Damage, or the unwillingness of a competitor to find the right path to navigating the damage caused by a competitor's Power. His point is actually very nuanced - it's not the incumbent's unwillingness to invest in the same type of solution as the competitor (although that happens). The incumbent's business gets trashed as collateral damage by the new entrant. The incumbent can respond to the challenger by investing in the new innovation. But where counter-positioning really takes hold is if the incumbent recognizes the attractiveness of the business model/innovation but is stymied from investing. Why would a business leader choose not to invest in something attractive? In the case of Vanguard competitor Fidelity, any move into passive funds could cause steep cannibalization of their revenue. So in response, a CEO might decide to just keep their existing business and "milk" all of its cash flow. In addition, how could Fidelity invest in a business that completely undermined their actively managed mutual fund business? Often CEOs will have a negative bias toward the competing business model despite the positive NPV of an investment in the new business. Just think how long it took SAP to start selling Cloud subscriptions compared to its on-premise license/maintenance model. Lastly, a CEO might not invest in the promising new business model if they are worried about job security. This is the classic example of the principal-agent problem we discussed in June. Would you invest in a new, unproven business model if you faced a declining stock price and calls for your resignation? In addition, annual CEO compensation is frequently tagged to stock price performance and growth targets. The easiest way to achieve near-term stock price appreciation and growth targets is staying with what has worked in the past (and M&A!). Its the path of least resistance! Counter-positioning and collateral damage are nuanced and difficult to spot, but the complex emotions and issues become obvious over time.

Dig Deeper

• The 7 Powers with Hamilton Helmer & Jeff Lawson (CEO of Twilio)

• Hamilton Helmer Discusses 7Powers with Acquired Podcast

• Vanguard Founder Jack Bogle's '90s Interview Shows His Investing Philosophy

• Bernard Arnault, Chairman and CEO of LVMH | The Brave Ones

• S-curves in Innovation

December 2021 - Trillion Dollar Coach: The Leadership Playbook of Silicon Valley's Bill Campbell by Eric Schmidt, Jonathan Rosenberg, and Alan Eagle

This month we read a book about famous CEO and executive coach, Bill Campbell. Bill had an unusual background for a silicon valley legend: he was a losing college football coach at Columbia. Despite a late start to his technology career, Bill’s timeless leadership principles and focus on people are helpful for any leader at any size company.

Tech Themes

1. Product First. After a short time at Kodak, Bill realized the criticality of supporting product and engineering. As a football coach, he was not intimately familiar with the intricacies of photographic film. Still, Campbell understood that the engineers ultimately determined the company's fate. After a few months at Kodak, Bill did something that no one else ever thought of - he went into the engineering lab and started talking to the engineers. He told them that Fuji was hot on Kodak's heels and that the company should try to make a new type of film that might thwart some competitive pressure. The engineers were excited to hear feedback on their products and learn more about other aspects of the business. After a few months of gestation, the engineering team produced a new type of film: "This was not how things worked at Kodak. Marketing guys didn't go talk to engineers, especially the engineers in the research lab. But Bill didn't know that, or if he did, he didn't particularly care. So he went over to the building that housed the labs, introduced himself around, and challenged them to come up with something better than Fuji's latest. That challenge helped start the ball rolling on the film that eventually launched as Kodacolor 200, a major product for Kodak and a film that was empirically better than Fuji's. Score one for the marketing guy and his team!" Campbell understood that product was the heart of any technology company, and he sought to empower product leaders whenever he had a chance.

2. Silicon Valley Moments. Sometimes you look back at a person's career and wonder how they managed to be at the center of several critical points in tech history. Bill was a magnet to big moments. After six unsuccessful years as coach of Columbia's football team, Bill joined an ad agency and eventually made his way to the marketing department at Kodak. At the time, Kodak was a blockbuster success and lauded as one of the top companies in the world. However, the writing was on the wall, film was getting cheaper and cheaper, and digital was on the rise. After a few years, Bill was recruited to Apple by John Sculley. Bill joined in 1983 as VP of Marketing, just two years before Steve Jobs would famously leave the company. Bill was incessant that management try to keep Jobs. Steve would not forget his loyalty, and upon his return, Jobs named Campbell a director of Apple in 1997. Bill became CEO of Claris, an Apple software division that functioned as a separate company. In 1990, when Apple signaled it would not spin Claris off into a separate company, Bill left with the rest of management. After a stint at Intuit, Bill became a CEO coach to several Silicon Valley luminaries, including Eric Schmidt, Steve Jobs, Shellye Archambeau, Brad Smith, John Donahoe, Sheryl Sandberg, Jeff Bezos, and more. Bill helped recruit Sandberg and current CFO Ruth Porat to Google. Bill was a serial networker who stood at the center of silicon valley.

3. Failure and Success. Following his departure from Claris/Apple, Bill founded Go Corporation, one of the first mobile computers. The company raised a ton of venture capital for the time ($75m) before an eventual fire-sale to AT&T. The idea of a mobile computer was compelling, but the company faced stiff competition from Microsoft and Apple's Newton. Beyond competition, the original handheld devices lacked very basic features (easy internet, storage, network and email capabilities) that would be eventually be included in Apple's iPhone. Sales across the industry were a disappointment, and AT&T eventually shut down the acquired Go Corp. After the failure of Go. Corporation, Bill was unsure what to do. John Doerr, the famous leader of Kleiner Perkins, introduced Bill to Intuit founder Scott Cook. Cook was considering retirement and looking for a replacement. Bill met with Cook, but Cook remained unimpressed. It was only after a second meeting where Bill shared his philosophy on management and his focus on people that Cook considered Campbell for the job. Bill joined Intuit as CEO and went on to lead the company until 1998, after which he became Chairman of the board, a position he held until 2016. Within a year of Campbell joining, Microsoft agreed to purchase the company for $1.5b. However, the Justice Department raised flags about the acquisition, and Microsoft called off the deal in 1995. Campbell continued to lead the company to almost $600M of revenue. When he retired from the board in 2016, the company was worth $30B.

Business Themes

1. Your People Make You a Leader. Campbell believed that people were the most crucial ingredient in any successful business. Leadership, therefore, was of utmost importance to Bill. Campbell lived by a maxim passed by former colleague Donna Dubinsky: "If you're a great manager, your people will make you a leader. They acclaim that, not you." In an exchange with a struggling leader, Bill added to this wisdom: "You have demanded respect, rather than having it accrue to you. You need to project humility, a selflessness, that projects that you care about the company and about people." The humility Campbell speaks about is what John Collins called Level 5 leadership (covered in our April 2020 book, Good to Great). Research has shown that humble leaders can lead to higher performing teams, better flexibility, and better collaboration.

2. Teams Need Coaches. Campbell loved to build community. Every year he would plan a trip to the super bowl, where he would find a bar and set down roots. He'd get to know the employees, and after a few days, he was a regular at the bar. He understood how important it was to build teams and establish a community that engendered trust and psychological safety. Every team needs a good coach, and Campbell understood how to motivate individuals, give authentic feedback, and handle interpersonal conflicts. "Bill Campbell was a coach of teams. He built them, shaped them, put the right players in the right positions (and removed the wrong players from the wrong positions), cheered them on, and kicked them in their collective butt when they were underperforming. He knew, as he often said, that 'you can't get anything done without a team.'" After a former colleague left to set up a new private equity firm, Bill checked out the website and called him up to tell him it sucked. As part of this feedback style, Bill always prioritized feedback in the moment: "An important component of providing candid feedback is not to wait. 'A coach coaches in the moment,' Scott Cook says. 'It's more real and more authentic, but so many leaders shy away from that.' Many managers wait until performance reviews to provide feedback, which is often too little, too late."

3. Get the Little Things Right. Campbell understood that every interaction was a chance to connect, help, and coach. As a result, he thought deeply about maximizing the value out of every meeting: "Bill took great care in preparing for one-on-one meetings. Remember, he believed the most important thing a manager does is to help people be more effective and to grow and develop, and the 1:1 is the best opportunity to accomplish that." Meetings with Campbell frequently started with family and life discussions and would move back and forth between business and the meaning of life - deep sessions that made people think, reconsider what they were doing and come back energized for more. He also was not shy about addressing issues and problems: "There was one situation we had a few years ago where two different product leaders were arguing about which team should manage a particular group of products. For a while, this was treated as a technical discussion, where data and logic would eventually determine which way to go. But that didn't happen, the problem festered, and tensions rose. Who was in control? This is when Bill got involved. There had to be a difficult meeting where one exec would win and the other would lose. Bill made the meeting happen; he spotted a fundamental tension that was not getting resolved and forced the issue. He didn't have a clear opinion on how to resolve the matter, on which team the product belonged, he simply knew we had to decide one way or another, now. It was one of the most heated meetings we've had, but it had to happen." Bill extended this practice to email where he perfected concise and effective team communication. On top of 1:1's, meetings, and emails, Campbell stayed on top of messages: ""Later, when he was coach to people all over the valley, he spent evenings returning the calls of people who had left messages throughout the day. When you left Bill a voice mail, you always got a call back." Bill was a master of communication and a coach to everyone he met.

Dig Deeper

• Intuit founder Scott Cook on Bill Campbell

• A Conversation between Brad Smith (Intuit CEO) and Bill Campbell

• A Bill Campbell Reading List

• Silicon Valley mourns its ‘coach,’ former Intuit CEO Bill Campbell

• CHM Live | Trillion Dollar Coach: The Leadership Playbook of Silicon Valley’s Bill Campbell

August 2021 - Hit Refresh by Satya Nadella, with Greg Shaw and Jill Tracie Nichols

This month we look at how Satya Nadella reignited Microsoft’s fire and attacked new spaces with a growth mindset. The book is loaded with excellent management philosophy and complex Microsoft history.

Tech Themes

1. Bing: The Other Search Engine. After starting at Microsoft as an engineer and rising through the ranks to lead Microsoft Dynamics (its CRM product), Nadella was handpicked to lead the re-launch of a brand new search engine, Microsoft Bing. Bing was one of Microsoft’s first “born-in-the-cloud” businesses and Nadella quickly recognized four core areas of focus: distributed systems, consumer product design, understanding the economics, of two-sided marketplaces, and AI. Microsoft had a troubled history with search engines and wanted to go big quickly, submitting an offer to buy Yahoo for $45B in February of 2008. Microsoft was rebuffed and thus Nadella found himself launching Search Checkpoint #1 in September of 2008 ahead of a June 2009 Bing launch. What are the odds that Microsoft’s future CEO would have early cloud, distributed systems, and advanced AI leadership experience? It was an almost prescient combination!

2. Red Dog to Azure. Microsoft started working on the cloud two years after Amazon launched AWS. In 2008, veteran software architects Ray Ozzie and Dave Cutler created a secret team inside Microsoft known as Red Dog, which was focused on building a cloud infrastructure product. Red Dog was stationed under Microsoft’s Servers and Tools business unit (STB), with products such as Windows Server and Microsoft’s powerful RDBMS, SQL Server. In 2010, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer asked Nadella to lead the STB business unit and set the vision for their then single-digit millions cloud infrastructure business. It was a precarious situation: “The server and tools business was at the peak of its commercial success and yet it was missing the future. The organizing was deeply divided over the importance of the cloud business. There was constant tension between diverging forces.” How did Nadella resolve this tension? It was simple - he made choices and rallied his team around those decisions. He focused the team on hybrid cloud, data, and ML capabilities where Microsoft could take advantage of its on-premise, large enterprise heritage while providing an on-ramp for customers eager to make the shift to the cloud. Microsoft has since surged to an estimated 20% worldwide market share making it one of the biggest and fastest-growing products in the world!

3. Re-Mixed Reality. Microsoft’s gaming portfolio is impressive: Xbox, Mojang (aka Minecraft), Zenimax Media (Maker of Fallout, Wolfenstein, and DOOM). Microsoft also owns the Hololens, a virtual reality headset that competes with Facebook’s Oculus. Many believe the future computing generations will take place in virtual reality, augmented, or mixed reality. Nadella doesn’t mince words - he believes that the future will not be in virtual reality (as Facebook is betting) but rather in mixed reality, a combination of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality, where the user experiences an augmented experience but still maintains some semblance of the outside world. Nadella lays out the benefits: “HoloLens provides access to mixed reality in which the users can navigate both their current location - interact with people in the same room - and a remote environment while also manipulating holograms and other digital objects.” Virtual reality blocks out the outside world, but that can be an overwhelming experience and impractical particularly for enterprise users of AR/VR/MR technologies. One of the big users of the HoloLens is the US Army, which recently signed a rumored $22B deal with Microsoft. It is still early days, but the future needs a new medium of computing and it might just be mixed reality!

Business Themes

1. Leading with Empathy. Satya Nadella’s life changed with the birth of his son. “The arrival of our son, Zain, in August 1996 had been a watershed moment in Anu’s and my life together. His suffering from asphyxia in utero had changed our lives in ways we had not anticipated. We came to understand life as something that cannot always be solved in the manner we want. Instead, we had to learn to cope. When Zain came home from the intensive care unit, Anu internalized this understanding immediately. There were multiple therapies to be administered to him every day, not to mention quite a few surgeries he needed that called for strenuous follow-up care after nerve-racking ICU stays…My son’s condition requires that I draw daily upon the very same passion for ideas and empathy that I learned from my parents.” Nadella reiterates the importance of empathy throughout the book, and rightly so, empathy is viewed as the most important leadership skill, according to recent research. How does one increase empathy? It’s actually quite simple - talk to people! Satya understands this: “It is impossible to be an empathetic leader sitting in an office behind a computer screen all day. An empathetic leader needs to be out in the world, meeting people where they live, and seeing how the technology we create affects their daily activities.” Leadership requires empathy - hopefully, we see more of it from big technology soon!

2. Frenemies. One of the first things that Satya Nadella did after taking over the CEO role from Steve Ballmer in 2014 was reach out to Tim Cook. Apple and Microsoft had always had a love-hate relationship. In 1997, Microsoft saved Apple shortly after Steve Jobs returned by investing $150M in the company so that Apple could stave off potential bankruptcy. However, in 2014, Nadella called on Apple: “I decided we needed to get Office everywhere, including iOS and Android…I wanted unambiguously to declare, both internally and externally, that the strategy would be to center our innovation agenda around users’ needs and not simply their device.” Microsoft had tried to become a phone company with Windows Mobile in 2000, tried again with Windows Phone in 2010, and tried even harder at Windows Phone in 2013 with a $7.2B acquisition of Nokia’s mobile phone unit. Although Nadella voted ‘No’ on the deal before becoming CEO, he was forced to manage the company through a total write-off of the acquisition and the elimination of eighteen thousand jobs. So how could Nadella catch up to the mobile wave? “For me, partnerships - particularly with competitors - have to be about strengthening a company’s core businesses, which ultimately centers on creating additional value for the customer…We have to face reality. When we have a great product like Bing, Office, or Cortana but someone else has created a strong market position with their service or device, we can’t just sit on the sidelines. We have to find smart ways to partners so that our products can become available on each other's popular platforms.” Nobody knows platforms like Microsoft; Bill Gates wrote the definition of a platform: “A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it.” Nadella got over his predecessor’s worry and hatred of the competition to bring Microsoft’s software to other platforms to strengthen both of their leadership positions.

3. Regulation and Technology. Nadella devotes an entire chapter to the idea of trust in the digital age. Using three case studies - North Korea’s attack on Sony’s servers, Edward Snowden’s leaked documents (that were held on Microsoft’s servers), and the FBI’s lawsuit against Apple to unlock an iPhone that might contain criminal information - Nadella calls for increased(!) regulation, particularly around digital technology. Satya uses a simple equation for trust: “Empathy + Shared values + Safety and Reliability = Trust over time.” Don’t you love it when a company that the government sued over anti-trust practices calls on the government to develop better laws! You’d love it even more if you saw how they used the same tactics to launch Microsoft Teams! Regulation in technology has been a hot topic recently, and Nadella is right to call on the government to create new laws for our digital world: “We do not believe that courts should seek to resolve issues of twenty-first-century technology relying on law that was written in the era of the adding machine.” He goes further to suggest potential remedies, including an efficient system for government access to corporate data, stronger privacy protections, globalized digital evidence sharing, and transparency of corporate and government data. I imagine the trend will be toward more regulation, especially with the passage of recent data laws like GDPR or CCPA, but I’m not sure we will see any real sweeping changes.

Dig Deeper

• “Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast” - How Satya Nadella Rebooted Microsoft

• Satya Nadella Interview at Stanford Business School (2019)

• Microsoft is Rolling out a New Framework to its Leaders - Business Insider

• Satya Nadella email to employees on first day as CEO

• HoloLens Mixed Reality Demonstration

June 2021 - Letters to the Nomad Partnership 2001-2013 (Nick Sleep's and Qais Zakaria's Investor Letters)

This month we review a unique source of information - mysterious fund manager Nick Sleep’s investment letters. Sleep had an extremely successful run and identified several very interesting companies and characteristics of those companies which made for great investments. He was early to uncover Amazon, Costco, and others - riding their stocks into the stratosphere over the last 20 years. These letters cover the internet bubble, the 08/09 crisis, and all types of interesting businesses across the world.

The full letters can be found here

Tech Themes

1. Scale Benefits Shared. Nick Sleep’s favored business model is what he calls Scale Benefits Shared. The idea is straight forward and appears across industries. Geico, Amazon, and Costco all have this business model. Its simple - companies start with low prices and spend only on the most important things. Over time as the company scales (more insured drivers, more online orders, more stores) they pass on the benefits of scale to the customer with even further lower prices. The consumer then buys more with the low-cost provider. This has a devastating effect on competition - it forces companies to exit the industry because the one sharing the scale benefits has to become hyper-efficient to continue to make the business model work. “In the case of Costco scale efficiency gains are passed back to the consumer in order to drive further revenue growth. That way customers at one of the first Costco stores (outside Seattle) benefit from the firm’s expansion (into say Ohio) as they also gain from the decline in supplier prices. This keeps the old stores growing too. The point is that having shared the cost savings, the customer reciprocates, with the result that revenues per foot of retailing space at Costco exceed that at the next highest rival (WalMart’s Sam’s Club) by about fifty percent.” Jeff Bezos was also very focused on this, his 2006 annual letter highlighted as much: “Our judgment is that relentlessly returning efficiency improvements and scale economies to customers in the form of lower prices creates a virtuous cycle that leads over the long-term to a much larger dollar amount of free cash flow, and thereby to a much more valuable Amazon.com. We have made similar judgments around Free Super Saver Shipping and Amazon Prime, both of which are expensive in the short term and – we believe – important and valuable in the long term.” So what companies today are returning scale efficiencies with customers? One recent example is Snowflake - which is a super expensive solution but is at least posturing correctly in favor of this model - the recent earnings call highlighted that they had figured out a better way to store data, resulting in a storage price decrease for customers. Fivetran’s recent cloud data warehouse comparison showed Snowflake was both cheaper and faster than competitors Redshift and Bigquery - a good spot to be in! Another example of this might be Cloudflare - they are lower cost than any other CDN in the market and have millions of free customers. Improvements made to the core security+CDN engine, threat graph, and POP locations result in better performance for all of their free users, which leads to more free users, more threats, vulnerabilities, and location/network demands - a very virtuous cycle!

2. The Miracle of Compound Growth & Its Obviousness. While appreciated in some circles, compounding is revered by Warren Buffett and Nick Sleep - it’s a miracle worth celebrating every day. Sleep takes this idea one step further, after discussing how the average hold period of stocks has fallen significantly over the past few decades: “The fund management industry has it that owning shares for a long time is futile as the future is unknowable and what is known is discounted. We respectfully disagree. Indeed, the evidence may suggest that investors rarely appropriately value truly great companies.” This is quite a natural phenomenon as well - when Google IPO’d in 2004 for a whopping $23bn, were investors really valuing the company appropriately? Were Visa ($18Bn valuation, largest US IPO in history) and Mastercard ($5.3Bn valuation) being valued appropriately? Even big companies like Apple in 2016 valued at $600Bn were arguably not valued appropriately. Hindsight is obvious, but the durability of compounding in great businesses is truly a myth to behold. That’s why Sleep and Zakaria wound down the partnership in 2014, opting to return LP money and only own Berkshire, Costco, and Amazon for the next decade (so far that’s been a great decision!). While frequently cited as a key investing principle, compounding in technology, experiences, art, and life are rarely discussed, maybe because they are too obvious. Examples of compounding (re-investing interest/dividends and waiting) abound: Moore’s Law, Picasso’s art training, Satya Nadella’s experience running Bing and Azure before becoming CEO, and Beatles playing clubs for years before breaking on the scene. Compounding is a universal law that applies to so much!

3. Information Overload. Sleep makes a very important but subtle point toward the end of his letters about the importance of reflective thinking:

   BBC Interviewer: “David Attenborough, you visited the North and South Poles, you witnessed all of life in-between from the canopies of the tropical rainforest to giant earthworms in Australia, it must be true, must it not, and it is a quite staggering thought, that you have seen more of the world than anybody else who has ever lived?”

   David Attenborough: “Well…I suppose so…but then on the other hand it is fairly salutary to remember that perhaps the greatest naturalist that ever lived and had more effect on our thinking than anybody, Charles Darwin, only spent four years travelling and the rest of the time thinking.”

   Sleep: “Oh! David Attenborough’s modesty is delightful but notice also, if you will, the model of behaviour he observed in Charles Darwin: study intensely, go away, and really think.”

   There is no doubt that the information age has ushered in a new normal for daily data flow and news. New information is constant and people have the ability to be up to date on everything, all the time. While there are benefits to an always-on world, the pace of information flow can be overwhelming and cause companies and individuals to lose sight of important strategic decisions. Bill Gates famously took a “think week” each year where he would lock himself in a cabin with no internet connection and scan over hundreds of investment proposals from Microsoft employees. A Harvard study showed that reflection can even improve job performance. Sometimes the constant data flow can be a distraction from what might be a very obvious decision given a set of circumstances. Remember to take some time to think!

Business Themes

1. Psychological Mistakes. Sleep touches on several different psychological problems and challenges within investing and business, including the role of Social Proof in decision making. Social proof occurs when individuals look to others to determine how to behave in a given situation. A classic example of Social Proof comes from an experiment done by Psychologist, Stanley Milgram, in which he had groups of people stare up at the sky on a crowded street corner in New York City. When five people were standing and looking up (as opposed to a single person), many more people also stopped to look up, driven by the group behavior. This principle shows up all the time in business and is a major proponent in financial bubbles. People see others making successful investments at high valuations and that drives them to do the same. It can also drive product and strategic decisions - companies launching dot-com names in the 90’s to drive their stock price up, companies launching corporate venture arms in rising markets, companies today deciding they need a down-market “product-led growth” engine. As famed investor Stan Druckenmiller notes, its hard to sit idly by while others (who may be less informed) crush certain types of investments: “I bought $6 billion worth of tech stocks, and in six weeks I had lost $3 billion in that one play. You asked me what I learned. I didn’t learn anything. I already knew that I wasn’t supposed to do that. I was just an emotional basketcase and I couldn’t help myself. So maybe I learned not to do it again, but I already knew that.”

2. Incentives, Psychology, and Ownership Mindset. Incentives are incredibly powerful in business and its surprisingly difficult to get people to do the right thing. Sleep spends a lot of time on incentives and the so-called Principal-Agent Conflict. Often times the Principal (Owner, Boss, Purchaser, etc.) may employ an Agent (Employee, Contractor, Service) to accomplish something. However the goals and priorities of the principal may not align with that agent. As an example, when your car breaks down and you need to go to a local mechanic to fix it, you (the principal) want to find someone to fix the car as well and as cheaply as possible. However, the agent (the mechanic) may be incentivized to create the biggest bill possible to drive business for their garage. Here we see the potential for misaligned incentives. After 5 years of really strong investment results, Sleep and Zakaria noticed a misaligned incentive of their own: “Which brings me to the subject of the existing performance fee. Eagle-eyed investors will not have failed but notice the near 200 basis point difference between gross and net performance this year, reflecting the performance fee earned. We are in this position because performance for all investors is in excess of 6% per annum compounded. But given historic performance, that may be the case for a very long time. Indeed, we are so far ahead of the hurdle that if the Partnership now earned pass-book rates of return, say 5% per annum, we would continue to “earn” 20% performance fees (1% of assets) for thirty years, that is, until the hurdle caught up with actual results. During those thirty years, which would see me through to retirement, we would have added no value over the money market rates you can earn yourself, but we would still have been paid a “performance fee”. We are only in this position because we have done so well, and one could argue that contractually we have earned the right by dint of performance, but just look at the conflicts!” They could have invested in treasury bonds and collected a performance fee for years to come but they knew that was unfair to limited partners. So the duo created a resetting fee structure, that allowed LPs to claw back performance fees if Nomad did not exceed the 6% hurdle rate for a given year. This kept the pair focused on driving continued strong results through the life of the partnership.

3. Discovery & Pace. Nick Sleep and Qais Zakaria looked for interesting companies in interesting situations. Their pace is simply astounding: “When Zak and I trawled through the detritus of the stock market these last eighteen months (around a thousand annual reports read and three hundred companies interviewed)…” Sleep and Zakaria put up numbers: 55 annual reports per month (~2 per day), 17 companies interviewed per month (meeting every other day)! That is so much reading. Its partially unsurprising that after a while they started to be able to find things in the annual reports that piqued their interest. Not only did they find retrospectively obvious gems like Amazon and Costco, they also looked all around the world for mispricings and interesting opportunities. One of their successful international investments took place in Zimbabwe, where they noticed significant mispricing involving the Harare Stock Exchange, which opened in 1896 but only started allowing foreign investment in 1993. While Nomad certainly made its name on the Scaled efficiencies shared investment model, Zimbabwe offered Sleep and Zakaria to prioritize their second model: “We have little more than a handful of distinct investment models, which overlap to some extent, and Zimcem is a good example of a second model namely, ‘deep discount to replacement cost with latent pricing power.’” Zimcem was the country’s second-largest cement producer, which traded at a massive discount to replacement cost due to terrible business conditions (inflation growing faster than the price of cement). Not only did Sleep find a weird, mispriced asset, he also employed a unique way of acquiring shares to further increase his margin of safety. “The official exchange rate at the time of writing is Z$9,100 to the U$1. The unofficial, street rate is around Z$17,000 to the U$1. In other words, the Central Bank values its own currency at over twice the price set by the public with the effect that money entering the country via the Central Bank buys approximately half as much as at the street rate. Fortunately, there is an alternative to the Central Bank for foreign investors, which is to purchase Old Mutual shares in Johannesburg, re-register the same shares in Harare and then sell the shares in Harare. This we have done.“ By doing this, Nomad was able to purchase shares at a discounted exchange rate (they would also face the exchange rate on sale, so not entirely increasing the margin of safety). The weird and off the beaten path investments and companies can offer rich rewards to those who are patient. This was the approach Warren Buffett employed early on in his career, until he started focusing on “wonderful businesses” at Charlie Munger’s recommendation.

Dig Deeper

• Overview of Several Scale Economies Shared Businesses

• Investor Masterclass Learnings from Nick Sleep

• Warren Buffett & Berkshire’s Compounding

• Jim Sinegal (Costco Founder / CEO) - Provost Lecture Series Spring 2017

• Robert Cialdini - Mastering the Seven Principles of Influence and Persuasion

March 2021 - Payments Systems in the U.S. by Carol Coye Benson, Scott Loftesness, and Russ Jones

This month we dive into the fintech space for the first time! Glenbrook Partners is a famous payments consulting company. This classic book describes the history and current state of the many financial systems we use every day. While the book is a bit dated and reads like a textbook, it throws in some great real-world observations and provides a great foundation for any payments novice!

Tech Themes

1. Mapping Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Networks. The major credit and debit card providers (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, China UnionPay, and Discover) all compete for the same spots in customer wallets but have unique and differing backgrounds and mechanics. The first credit card on the scene was the BankAmericard in the late 1950’s. As it took off, Bank of America started licensing the technology all across the US and created National BankAmericard Inc. (NBI) to facilitate its card program. NBI merged with its international counterpart (IBANCO) to form Visa in the mid-1970’s. Another group of California banks had created the Interbank Card Association (ICA) to compete with Visa and in 1979 renamed itself Mastercard. Both organizations remained owned by the banks until their IPO’s in 2006 (Mastercard) and 2008 (Visa). Both of these companies are known as open-loop networks, that is they work with any bank and require banks to sign up customers and merchants. As the bank points out, “This structure allows the two end parties to transact with each other without having direct relationships with each other’s banks.” This convenient feature of open-loop payments systems means that they can scale incredibly quickly. Any time a bank signs up a new customer or merchant, they immediately have access to the network of all other banks on the Mastercard / Visa network. In contrast to open-loop systems, American Express and Discover operate largely closed-loop systems, where they enroll each merchant and customer individually. Because of this onerous task of finding and signing up every single consumer/merchant, Amex and Discover cannot scale to nearly the size of Visa/Mastercard. However, there is no bank intermediation and the networks get total access to all transaction data, making them a go-to solution for things like loyalty programs, where a merchant may want to leverage data to target specific brand benefits at a customer. Open-loop systems like Apple Pay (its tied to your bank account) and closed-loop systems like Starbuck’s purchasing app (funds are pre-loaded and can only be redeemed at Starbucks) can be found everywhere. Even Snowflake, the data warehouse provider and subject of last month’s TBOTM is a closed-loop payments network. Customers buy Snowflake credits up-front, which can only be used to redeem Snowflake compute services. In contrast, AWS and other cloud’s are beginning to offer more open-loop style networks, where AWS credits can be redeemed against non-AWS software. Side note - these credit systems and odd-pricing structures deliberately mislead customers and obfuscate actual costs, allowing the cloud companies to better control gross margins and revenue growth. It’s fascinating to view the world through this open-loop / closed-loop dynamic.

2. New Kids on the Block - What are Stripe, Adyen, and Marqeta? Stripe recently raised at a minuscule valuation of $95B, making it the highest valued private startup (ever?!). Marqeta, its API/card-issuing counterpart, is prepping a 2021 IPO that may value it at $10B. Adyen, a Dutch public company is worth close to $60B (Visa is worth $440B for comparison). Stripe and Marqeta are API-based payment service providers, which allow businesses to easily accept online payments and issue debit and credit cards for a variety of use cases. Adyen is a merchant account provider, which means it actually maintains the merchant account used to run a company’s business - this often comes with enormous scale benefits and reduced costs, which is why large customers like Nike have opted for Adyen. This merchant account clearing process can take quite a while which is why Stripe is focused on SMB’s - a business can sign up as a Stripe customer and almost immediately begin accepting online payments on the internet. Stripe and Marqeta’s API’s allow a seamless integration into payment checkout flows. On top of this basic but highly now simplified use case, Stripe and Marqeta (and Adyen) allow companies to issue debit and credit cards for all sorts of use cases. This is creating an absolute BOOM in fintech, as companies seek to try new and innovative ways of issuing credit/debit cards - such as expense management, banking-as-a-service, and buy-now-pay-later. Why is this now such a big thing when Stripe, Adyen, and Marqeta were all created before 2011? In 2016, Visa launched its first developer API’s which allowed companies like Stripe, Adyen, and Marqeta to become licensed Visa card issuers - now any merchant could issue their own branded Visa card. That is why Andreessen Horowitz’s fintech partner Angela Strange proclaimed: “Every company will be a fintech company.” (this is also clearly some VC marketing)! Mastercard followed suit in 2019, launching its open API called the Mastercard Innovation Engine. The big networks decided to support innovation - Visa is an investor in Stripe and Marqeta, AmEx is an investor in Stripe, and Mastercard is an investor in Marqeta. Surprisingly, no network providers are investors in Adyen. Fintech innovation has always seen that the upstarts re-write the incumbents (Visa and Mastercard are bigger than the banks with much better business models) - will the same happen here?

3. Building a High Availability System. Do Mastercard and Visa have the highest availability needs of any system? Obviously, people are angry when Slack or Google Cloud goes down, but think about how many people are affected when Visa or Mastercard goes down? In 2018, a UK hardware failure prompted a five-hour outage at Visa: “Disgruntled customers at supermarkets, petrol stations and abroad vented their frustrations on social media when there was little information from the financial services firm. Bank transactions were also hit.” High availability is a measure of system uptime: “Availability is often expressed as a percentage indicating how much uptime is expected from a particular system or component in a given period of time, where a value of 100% would indicate that the system never fails. For instance, a system that guarantees 99% of availability in a period of one year can have up to 3.65 days of downtime (1%).” According to Statista, Visa handles ~185B transactions per year (a cool 6,000 per second), while UnionPay comes in second with 131B and Mastercard in third with 108B. For the last twelve months end June 30, 2020, Visa processed $8.7T in payments volume which means that the average transaction was ~$47. At 6,000 transactions per second, Visa loses $282,000 in payment volume every second it’s down. Mastercard and Visa have always been historically very cagey about disclosing data center operations (the only article I could find is from 2013) though they control their own operations much like other technology giants. “One of the keys to the [Visa] network's performance, Quinlan says, is capacity. And Visa has lots of it. Its two data centers--which are mirror images of each other and can operate interchangeably--are configured to process as many as 30,000 simultaneous transactions, or nearly three times as much as they've ever been asked to handle. Inside the pods, 376 servers, 277 switches, 85 routers, and 42 firewalls--all connected by 3,000 miles of cable--hum around the clock, enabling transactions around the globe in near real-time and keeping Visa's business running.” The data infrastructure challenges that payments systems are subjected to are massive and yet they all seem to perform very well. I’d love to learn more about how they do it!

Business Themes

1. What is interchange and why does it exist? BigCommerce has a great simple definition for interchange: “Interchange fees are transaction fees that the merchant's bank account must pay whenever a customer uses a credit/debit card to make a purchase from their store. The fees are paid to the card-issuing bank to cover handling costs, fraud and bad debt costs and the risk involved in approving the payment.” What is crazy about interchange is that it is not the banks, but the networks (Mastercard, Visa, China UnionPay) that set interchange rates. On top of that, the networks set the rates but receive no revenue from interchange itself. As the book points out: “Since the card netork’s issuing customers are the recipients of interchange fees, the level of interchange that a network sets is an important element in the network’s competitive position. A higher level of interchange on one network’s card products naturally makes that network’s card products more attractive to card issuers.” The incentives here are wild - the card issuers (banks) want higher interchange because they receive the interchange from the merchant’s bank in a transaction, the card networks want more card issuing customers and offering higher interchange rates better positions them in competitive battles. The merchant is left worse off by higher interchange rates, as the merchant bank almost always passes this fee on to the merchant itself ($100 received via credit card turns out to only be $97 when it gets to their bank account because of fees). Visa and Mastercard have different interchange rates for every type of transaction and acceptance method - making it a complicated nightmare to actually understand their fees. The networks and their issuers may claim that increased interchange fees allow banks to invest more in fraud protection, risk management, and handling costs, but there is no way to verify this claim. This has caused a crazy war between merchants, the card networks, and the card issuers.

2. Why is Jamie Dimon so pissed about fintechs? In a recent interview, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, recently called fintechs “examples of unfair competition.” Dimon is angry about the famous (or infamous) Durbin Amendment, which was a last-minute addition included in the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The Durbin amendment attempted to cap the interchange amount that could be charged by banks and tier the interchange rates based on the assets of the bank. In theory, capping the rates would mean that merchants paid less in fees, and the merchant would pass these lower fees onto the consumer by giving them lower prices thus spurring demand. The tiering would mean banks with >$10B in assets under management would make less in interchange fees, leveling the playing field for smaller banks and credit unions. “The regulated [bank with >$10B in assets] debit fee is 0.05% + $0.21, while the unregulated is 1.60% + $0.05. Before the Durbin Amendment the fee was 1.190% + $0.10.” While this did lower debit card interchange, a few unintended consequences resulted: 1. Regulators expected that banks would make substantially less revenue, however, they failed to recognize that banks might increase other fees to offset this lost revenue stream: “Banks have cut back on offering rewards for their debit cards. Banks have also started charging more for their checking accounts or they require a larger monthly balance.” In addition, many smaller banks couldn’t recoup the lost revenue amount, leading to many bankruptcies and consolidation. 2. Because a flat rate fee was introduced regardless of transaction size, smaller merchants were charged more in interchange than the prior system (which was pro-rated based on $ amount). “One problem with the Durbin Amendment is that it didn’t take small transactions into account,” said Ellen Cunningham, processing expert at CardFellow.com. “On a small transaction, 22 cents is a bigger bite than on a larger transaction. Convenience stores, coffee shops and others with smaller sales benefited from the original system, with a lower per-transaction fee even if it came with a higher percentage.” These small retailers ended up raising prices in some instances to combat these additional fees - causing the law to have the opposite effect of lowering costs to consumers. Dimon is angry that this law has allowed fintech companies to start charging higher prices for debit card transactions. As shown above, smaller banks earn a substantial amount more in interchange fees. These smaller banks are moving quickly to partner with fintechs, which now power hundreds of millions of dollars in account balances and Dimon believes they are not spending enough attention on anti-money laundering and fraud practices. In addition, fintech’s are making money in suspect ways - Chime makes 21% of its revenue through high out-of-network ATM fees, and cash advance companies like Dave, Branch, and Earnin’ are offering what amount to pay-day loans to customers.

3. Mastercard and Visa: A history of regulation. Visa and Mastercard have been the subject of many regulatory battles over the years. The US Justice Department announced in March that it would be investigating Visa over online debit-card practices. In 1996, Visa and Mastercard were sued by merchants and settled for $3B. In 1998, the Department of Justice won a case against Visa and Mastercard for not allowing issuing banks to work with other card networks like AmEx and Discover. In 2009, Mastercard and Visa were sued by the European Union and forced to reduce debit card swipe fees by 0.2%. In 2012, Mastercard and Visa were sued for price-fixing fees and were forced to pay $6.25B in a settlement. The networks have been sued by the US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, ATM Operators, Intuit, Starbucks, Amazon, Walmart, and many more. Each time they have been forced to modify fees and practices to ensure competition. However, this has also re-inforced their dominance as the biggest payment networks which is why no competitors have been established since the creation of the networks in the 1970’s. Also, leave it to the banks to establish a revenue source that is so good that it is almost entirely undefeatable by legislation. When, if ever, will Visa and Mastercard not be dominant payments companies?

Dig Deeper

• American Banker: Big banks, Big Tech face-off over swipe fees

• Stripe Sessions 2019 | The future of payments

• China's growth cements UnionPay as world's largest card scheme

• THE DAY THE CREDIT CARD WAS BORN by Joe Nocera (Washington Post)

• Mine Safety Disclosure’s 2019 Visa Investment Case

• FineMeValue’s Payments Overview

January 2021 - Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages by Carlota Perez

This month we read Carlota Perez’s understudied book covering the history of technology breakthroughs and revolutions. This book marries the role of financing and technology breakthrough so seamlessly in an easy to digest narrative style.

Tech Themes

1. The 5 Technology Revolutions. Perez identifies the five major technological revolutions: The Industrial Revolution (1771-1829), The Age of Steam and Railways (1829-1873), The Age of Steel, Electricity and Heavy Engineering (1875-1918), The Age of Oil, the Automobile and Mass Production (1908-1974), and The Age of Information and Telecommunications (1971-Today). When looking back at these individual revolutions, one can recognize how powerful it is to view the world and technology in these incredibly long waves. Many of these periods lasted for over fifty years while their geographic dispersion and economic effects fully came to fruition. These new technologies fundamentally alter society - when it becomes clear that the revolution is happening, many people jump on the bandwagon. As Perez puts it, “The great clusters of talent come forth after the evolution is visible and because it is visible.” Each revolution produces a myriad of change in society. The industrial revolution popularized factory production, railways created national markets, electricity created the power to build steel buildings, oil and cars created mass markets and assembly lines, and the microprocessor and internet created amazing companies like Amazon and Airbnb.

2. The Phases of Technology Revolution. After a decently long gestation period during which the old revolution has permeated across the world, the new revolution normally starts with a big bang, some discovery or breakthrough (like the transistor or steam engine) that fundamentally pushed society into a new wave of innovation. Coupled with these big bangs, is re-defined infrastructure from the prior eras - as an example, the Telegraph and phone wires were created along the initial railways, as they allowed significant distance of uninterrupted space to build on. Another example is electricity - initially, homes were wired to serve lightbulbs, it was only many years later that great home appliances came into use. This initial period of application discovery is called the Irruption phase. The increasing interest in forming businesses causes a Frenzy period like the Railway Mania or the Dot-com Boom, where everyone thinks they can get rich quick by starting a business around the new revolution. As the first 20-30 years of a revolution play themselves out, there grows a strong divide between those who were part of the revolution and those who were not; there is an economic, social, and regulatory mismatch between the old guard and the new revolution. After an uprising (like the populism we have seen recently) and bubble collapse (Check your crystal ball), regulatory changes typically foster a harmonious future for the technology. Following these changes, we enter the Synergy phase, where technology can fully flourish due to accommodating and clear regulation. This Synergy phase propagates outward across all countries until even the lagging adopters have started the adoption process. At this point the cycle enters into Maturity, waiting for the next big advance to start the whole process over again.

3. Where are we in the cycle today? We tweeted at Carlota Perez to answer this question AND SHE RESPONDED! My question to Perez was: With the recent wave of massive, transformational innovation like the public cloud providers, and the iPhone, are we still in the Age of Information? These technological waves are often 50-60 years and yet we’ve arguably been in the same age for quite a while. This wave started in 1971, exactly 50 years ago, with Intel and the creation of the microprocessor. Are we in the Frenzy phase with record amounts of investment capital, an enormous demand for early stage companies, and new financial innovations like Affirm’s debt securitizations? Or have we not gotten to the Frenzy phase yet? Is the public cloud or the iPhone the start of a new big bang and we have overlapping revolutions for the first time ever? Obviously identifying the truly breakthrough moments in technology history is way easier after the fact, so maybe we are too new to know what really is a seminal moment. Perez’s answer, though only a few words, fully provides scope to the question. Perez suggests we are still in the installation phase (Irruption and Frenzy) of the new technology and that makes a lot of sense. Sure, internet usage is incredibly high in the US (96%) but not in other large countries. China (the world’s largest country by population) has only 63% using the internet and India (the world’s second-largest country) has only 55% of its population using the internet. Ethiopia, with a population of over 100M people only has 18% using the internet. There is still a lot of runway left for the internet to bloom! In addition, only recently have people been equipped with a powerful computing device that fits in their pocket - and low-priced phones are now making their way to all parts of the world led by firms like Chinese giant Transsion. Added to the fact that we are not fully installed with this revolution, is the rise of populism, a political movement that seeks to mobilize ordinary people who feel disregarded by the elite group. Populism has reared its ugly head across many nations like the US (Donald Trump), UK (Brexit), Brazil (Bolsonaro) and many other countries. The rise of populism is fueled by the growing dichotomy between the elites who have benefitted socially and monetarily from the revolution and those who have not. In the 1890’s, anti-railroad sentiment drove the creation of the populist party. More recently, people have become angry at tech giants (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Twitter) for unfair labor practices, psychological manipulation, and monopolistic tendencies. The recent movie, the Social Dilemma, which suggests a more humane and regulatory focused approach to social media, speaks to the need for regulation of these massive companies. It is also incredibly ironic to watch a movie about how social media is manipulating its users while streaming a movie that was recommended to me on Netflix, a company that has popularized incessant binge-watching through UX manipulation, not dissimilar to Facebook and Google’s tactics. I expect these companies to get regulated soon -and I hope that once that happens, we enter into the Synergy phase of growth and value accruing to all people.

Yes, I do. I will find the time to reply to you properly. But just quickly, I think installation was prolonged by QE &casino finance; we are at the turning point (the successful rise of populism is a sign) and maybe post-Covid we'll go into synergy.

— Carlota Perez (@CarlotaPrzPerez) January 17, 2021

Business Themes

1. The role of Financial Capital in Revolutions. As the new technology revolutions play themselves out, financial capital appears right alongside technology developments, ready to mold the revolution into the phases suggested by Perez. In the irruption phase, as new technology is taking hold, financial capital that had been on the sidelines waiting out the Maturity phase of the previous revolution plows into new company formation and ideas. The financial sector tries to adopt the new technology as soon as possible (we are already seeing this with Quantum computing), so it can then espouse the benefits to everyone it talks to, setting the stage for increasing financing opportunities. Eventually, demand for financing company creation goes crazy, and you enter into a Frenzy phase. During this phase, there is a discrepancy between the value of financial capital and production capital, or money used by companies to create actual products and services. Financial capital believes in unrealistic returns on investment, funding projects that don’t make any sense. Perez notes: “In relation to the canal Mania of the 1790s, disorder and lack of coordination prevailed in investment decisions. Canals were built ‘with different widths and depths and much inefficient routing.’ According to Dan Roberts at the Financial Times, in 2001 it was estimated that only 1 to 2 percent of the fiber optic cable buried under Europe and the United States had so far been turned on.” These Frenzy phases create bubbles and further ingrain regulatory mismatch and political divide. Could we be in one now with deals getting priced at 125x revenue for tiny companies? After the institutional reckoning, the Technology revolution enters the Synergy phase where production capital has really strong returns on investment - the path of technology is somewhat known and real gains are to be made by continuing investment (especially at more reasonable asset prices). Production capital continues to go to good use until the technology revolution fully plays itself out, entering into the Maturity phase.

2. Casino Finance and Prolonging Bubbles. One point that Perez makes in her tweet, is that this current bubble has been prolonged by QE and casino finance. Quantitative easing is a monetary policy where the federal reserve (US’s central bank) buys government bonds issued by the treasury department to inject money into the financial ecosystem. This money at the federal reserve can purchase bank loans and assets, offering more liquidity to the financial system. This process is used to create low-interest rates, which push individuals and corporations to invest their money because the rate of interest on savings accounts is really really low. Following the financial crisis and more recently COVID-19, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates and started quantitative easing to help the hurting economy. In Perez’s view, these actions have prolonged the Irruption and Frenzy phases because it forces more money into investment opportunities. On top of quantitative easing, governments have allowed so-called Casino Capitalism - allowing free-market ideals to shape governmental policies (like Reagan’s economic plan). Uninterrupted free markets are in theory economically efficient but can give rise to bad actors - like Enron’s manipulation of California’s energy markets after deregulation. By engaging in continual quantitative easing and deregulation, speculative markets, like collateralized loan obligations during the financial crisis, are allowed to grow. This creates a risk-taking environment that can only end in a frenzy and bubble.

3. Synergy Phase and Productive Capital Allocation. Capital allocation has been called the most important part of being a great investor and business leader. Think about being the CEO of Coca Cola for a second - you have thousands of competing projects, vying for budget - how do you determine which ones get the most money? In the investing world, capital allocation is measured by conviction. As George Soros’s famous quote goes: “It's not whether you're right or wrong, but how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose when you're wrong.” Clayton Christensen took the ideas of capital allocation and compared them to life investments, coming to the conclusion: “Investments in relationships with friends and family need to be made long, long before you’ll see any sign that they are paying off. If you defer investing your time and energy until you see that you need to, chances are it will already be too late.” Capital and time allocation are underappreciated concepts because they often seem abstract to the everyday humdrum of life. It is interesting to think about capital allocation within Perez’s long-term framework. The obvious approach would be to identify the stage (Irruption, Frenzy, Synergy, Maturity) and make the appropriate time/money decisions - deploy capital into the Irruption phase, pull money out at the height of the Frenzy, buy as many companies as possible at the crash/turning point, hold through most of the Synergy, and sell at Maturity to identify the next Irruption phase. Although that would be fruitful, identifying market bottoms and tops is a fool’s errand. However, according to Perez, the best returns on capital investment typically happen during the Synergy phase, where production capital (money employed by firms through investment in R&D) reigns supreme. During this time, the revolutionary applications of recently frenzied technology finally start to bear fruit. They are typically poised to succeed by an accommodating regulatory and social environment. Unsurprisingly, after the diabolic grifting financiers of the frenzy phase are exposed (see Worldcom, Great Financial Crisis, and Theranos), social pressures on regulators typically force an agreement to fix the loopholes that allowed these manipulators to take advantage of the system. After Enron, the Sarbanes-Oxley act increased disclosure requirements and oversight of auditors. After the GFC, the Dodd-Frank act mandated bank stress tests and introduced financial stability oversight. With the problems of the frenzy phase "fixed” for the time being, the social attitude toward innovation turns positive once again and the returns to production capital start to outweigh financial capital which is now reigned in under the new rules. Suffice to say, we are probably in the Frenzy phase in the technology world, with a dearth of venture opportunities, creating a massive valuation increase for early-stage companies. This will change eventually and as Warren Buffett says: “It’s only when the tide goes out that you learn who’s been swimming naked.” When the bubble does burst, regulation of big technology companies will usher in the best returns period for investors and companies alike.

Dig Deeper

• The Financial Instability Hypothesis: Capitalist Processes and the Behavior of the Economy

• Bubbles, Golden Ages, and Tech Revolutions - a Podcast with Carlota Perez

• Jeff Bezos: The electricity metaphor (2007)

• Where Does Growth Come From? Clayton Christensen | Talks at Google

• A Spectral Analysis of World GDP Dynamics: Kondratieff Waves, Kuznets Swings, Juglar and Kitchin Cycles in Global Economic Development, and the 2008–2009 Economic Crisis

November 2020 - Tape Sucks: Inside Data Domain, A Silicon Valley Growth Story by Frank Slootman

This month we read a short, under-discussed book by current Snowflake and former ServiceNow and Data Domain CEO, Frank Slootman. The book is just like Frank - direct and unafraid. Frank has had success several times in the startup world and the story of Data Domain provides a great case study of entrepreneurship. Data Domain was a data deduplication company, offering a 20:1 reduction of data backed up to tape casettes by using new disk drive technology.

Tech Themes

Data Domain’s 2008 10-K prior to being acquired

1. First time CEO at a Company with No Revenue. Frank is an immigrant to the US, coming from the Netherlands shortly after graduating from the University of Rotterdam. After being rejected by IBM 10+ times, he joined Burroughs corporation, an early mainframe provider which subsequently merged with its direct competitor Sperry for $4.8B in 1986. Frank then spent some time at Compuware and moved back to the Netherlands to help it integrate the acquisition of Uniface, an early customizable report building software. After spending time there, he went to Borland software in 1997, working his way up the product management ranks but all the while being angered by time spent lobbying internally, rather than building. Frank joined Data Domain in the Spring of 2003 - when it had no customers, no revenue, and was burning cash. The initial team and VC’s were impressive - Kai Li, a computer science professor on sabbatical from Princeton, Ben Zhu, an EIR at USVP, and Brian Biles, a product leader with experience at VA Linux and Sun Microsystems. The company was financed by top-tier VC’s New Enterprise Associates and Greylock Partners, with Aneel Bhusri (Founder and current CEO of Workday) serving as initial CEO and then board chairman. This was a stacked team and Slootman knew it: “I’d bring down the average IQ of the company by joining, which felt right to me.” The Company had been around for 18 months and already burned through a significant amount of money when Frank joined. He knew he needed to raise money relatively soon after joining and put the Company’s chances bluntly: “Would this idea really come together and captivate customers? Nobody knew. We, the people on the ground floor, were perhaps, the most surprised by the extraordinary success we enjoyed.”

2. Playing to his Strengths: Capital Efficiency. One of the big takeaways from the Innovators by Walter Issacson was that individuals or teams at the nexus of disciplines - primarily where the sciences meet the humanities, often achieved breakthrough success. The classic case study for this is Apple - Steve Jobs had an intense love of art, music, and design and Steve Wozniak was an amazing technologist. Frank has cultivated a cross-discipline strength at the intersection of Sales and Technology. This might be driven by Slootman’s background is in economics. The book has several references to economic terms, which clearly have had an impact on Frank’s thinking. Data Domain espoused capital efficiency: “We traveled alone, made few many-legged sales calls, and booked cheap flights and hotels: everybody tried to save a dime for the company.” The results showed - the business went from $800K of revenue in 2004 to $275 million by 2008, generating $75M in cash flow from operations. Frank’s capital efficiency was interesting and broke from traditional thinking - most people think to raise a round and build something. Frank took a different approach: “When you are not yet generating revenue, conservation of resource is the dominant theme.” Over time, “when your sales activity is solidly paying for itself,” the spending should shift from conservative to aggressive (like Snowflake is doing this now). The concept of sales efficiency is somewhat talked about, but given the recent fundraising environment, is often dismissed. Sales efficiency can be thought of as: “How much revenue do I generate for every $1 spent in sales and marketing?” Looking at the P&L below, we see Data Domain was highly efficient in its sales and marketing activity - the company increased revenue $150M in 2008, despite spending $115M in sales and marketing (a ratio of 1.3x). Contrast this with a company like Slack which spent $403M to acquire $230M of new revenue (a ratio of 0.6x). It gets harder to acquire customers at scale, so this efficiency is supposed to come down over time but best in class is hopefully above 1x. Frank clearly understands when to step on the gas with investing, as both ServiceNow and Snowflake have remained fairly efficient (from a sales perspective at least) while growing to a significant scale.

3. Technology for Technology’s Sake. “Many technologies are conceived without a clear, precise notion of the intended use.” Slootman hits on a key point and one that the tech industry has struggled to grasp throughout its history. So many products and companies are established around budding technology with no use case. We’ve discussed Magic Leap’s fundraising money-pit (still might find its way), and Iridium Communications, the massive satellite telephone that required people to carry a suitcase around to use it. Gartner, the leading IT research publication (which is heavily influenced by marketing spend from companies) established the Technology Hype Cycle, complete with the “Peak of inflated expectations,” and the “Trough of Disillusionment” for categorizing technologies that fail to live up to their promise. There have been several waves that have come and gone: AR/VR, Blockchain, and most recently, Serverless. Its not so much that these technologies were wrong or not useful, its rather that they were initially described as a panacea to several or all known technology hindrances and few technologies ever live up to that hype. Its common that new innovations spur tons of development but also lots of failure, and this is Slootman’s caution to entrepreneurs. Data Domain was attacking a problem that existed already (tape storage) and the company provided what Clayton Christensen would call a sustaining innovation (something that Slootman points out). Whenever things go into “winter state”, like the internet after the dot-com bubble, or the recent Crpyto Winter which is unthawing as I write; it is time to pay attention and understand the relevance of the innovation.

Business Themes

1. Importance of Owning Sales. Slootman spends a considerable amount of this small book discussing sales tactics and decision making, particularly with respect to direct sales and OEM relationships. OEM deals are partnerships with other companies whereby one company will re-sell the software, hardware, or service of another company. Crowdstrike is a popular product with many OEM relationships. The Company drives a significant amount of its sales through its partner model, who re-sell on behalf of Crowdstrike. OEM partnerships with big companies present many challenges: “First of all, you get divorced from your customer because the OEM is now between you and them, making customer intimacy challenging. Plus, as the OEM becomes a large part of your business, for all intents and purposes they basically own you without paying for the privilege…Never forget that nobody wants to sell your product more than you do.” The challenges don’t end there. Slootman points out that EMC discarded their previous OEM vendor in the data deduplication space, right after acquiring Data Domain. On top of that, the typical reseller relationship happens at a 10-20% margin, degrading gross margins and hurting ability to invest. It is somewhat similar to the challenges open-source companies like MongoDB and Elastic have run into with their core software being…free. Amazon can just OEM their offering and cut them out as a partner, something they do frequently. Partner models can be sustainable, but the give and take from the big company is a tough balance to strike. Investors like organic adoption, especially recently with the rise of freemium SaaS models percolating in startups. Slootman’s point is that at some point in enterprise focused businesses, the Company must own direct sales (and relationships) with its customers to drive real efficiency. After the low cost to acquire freemium adopters buy the product, the executive team must pivot to traditional top down enterprise sales to drive a successful and enduring relationship with the customer.

2. In the Thick of Things. Slootman has some very concise advice for CEOs: be a fighter, show some humanity, and check your ego at the door. “Running a startup reduces you to your most elementary instincts, and survival is on your mind most of the time…The CEO is the ‘Chief Combatant,’ warrior number one.” Slootman views the role of CEO as a fighter, ready to be the first to jump into the action, at all times. And this can be incredibly productive for business as well. Tony Xu, the founder and CEO of Doordash, takes time out every month to do delivery for his own company, in order to remain close to the customer and the problems of the company. Jeff Bezos famously still responds and views emails from customers at jeff@amazon.com. Being CEO also requires a willingness to put yourself out there and show your true personality. As Slootman puts it: “People can instantly finger a phony. Let them know who you really are, warts and all.” As CEO you are tasked with managing so many people and being involved in all aspects of the business, it is easy to become rigid and unemotional in everyday interactions. Harvard Business School professor and former leader at Uber distills it down to a simple phrase: “Begin With Trust.” All CEO’s have some amount of ego, driving them to want to be at the top of their organization. Slootman encourages CEO’s to be introspective, and try to recognize blind spots, so ego doesn’t drive day-to-day interactions with employees. One way to do that is simple: use the pronoun “we” when discussing the company you are leading. Though Slootman doesn’t explicitly call it out - all of these suggestions (fighting, showing empathy, getting rid of ego) are meant to build trust with employees.

3. R-E-C-I-P-E for a Great Culture. The last fifth of the book is all focused on building culture at companies. It is the only topic Slootman stays on for more than a few chapters, so you know its important! RECIPE was an acronym created by the employees at Data Domain to describe the company’s values: Respect, Excellence, Customer, Integrity, Performance, Execution. Its interesting how simple and focused these values are. Technology has pushed its cultural delusion’s of grandeur to an extreme in recent years. The WeWork S-1 hilariously started with: “We are a community company committed to maximum global impact. Our mission is to elevate the world’s consciousness.” But none of Data Domain’s values were about changing the world to be a better place - they were about doing excellent, honest work for customers. Slootman is lasered focused on culture, and specifically views culture as an asset - calling it: “The only enduring, sustainable form of differentiation. These days, we don’t have a monopoly for very long on talent, technology, capital, or any other asset; the one thing that is unique to us is how we choose to come together as a group of people, day in and day out. How many organizations are there that make more than a halfhearted attempt at this?” Technology companies have taken different routes in establishing culture: Google and Facebook have tried to create culture by showering employees with unbelievable benefits, Netflix has focused on pure execution and transparency, and Microsoft has re-vamped its culture by adopting a Growth Mindset (has it really though?). Google originally promoted “Don’t be evil,” as part of its Code of Conduct but dropped the motto in 2018. Employees want to work for mission-driven organizations, but not all companies are really changing the world with their products, and Frank did not try to sugarcoat Data Domain’s data-duplication technology as a way to “elevate the world’s consciousness.” He created a culture driven by performance and execution - providing a useful product to businesses that needed it. The culture was so revered that post-acquisition, EMC instituted Data Domain’s performance management system. Data Domain employees were looked at strangely by longtime EMC executives, who had spent years in a big and stale company. Culture is a hard thing to replicate and a hard thing to change as we saw with the Innovator’s Dilemma. Might as well use it to help the company succeed!

Dig Deeper

• How Data Domain Evolved in the Cloud World

• Former Data Domain CEO Frank Slootman Gets His Old Band Back Together at ServiceNow

• The Contentious Take-over Battle for Data Domain: Netapp vs. EMC

• 2009 Interview with Frank Slootman After the Acquisition of Data Domain

June 2020 - Bad Blood by John Carreyrou

This month we review John Carreyrou’s chilling story of the epic meltdown of a company, Theranos. We explore bad decision making, the limits of technology and the importance of strong corporate governance. The saddest thing and the reason Bad Blood hits so hard is that Theranos was a startup that seemed to have everything: a breakthrough blood analyzer, tons of funding, excellent board representation, and a smart, visionary female CEO. But underneath, it was a twisted cult of distrust with an evil leader.

Tech Themes

1. The limits of technology. Sometimes technology sounds too good to be true. Theranos’ Edison and miniLab blood analyzers were supposed to tell you everything you could ever want to know about your blood. But they didn’t work and never had a shot to work. Stanford professor Phyllis Gardener even told Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos’ founder/CEO) early-on that an early patch-like design of the product would never work: “[Holmes] just kind of blinked and nodded and left. It was just a 19-year-old talking who’d taken one course in microfluidics, and she thought she was gonna make something of it.” It was debunked by almost every scientist as wild fantasy even prior to its commercial use and subsequent fall from grace. There is something so human about wanting to believe there are no limits to technology. In today’s day of fake technology marketing, it’s easy for messaging to slowly take over a company if left unchecked. Think about Snap’s famous declaration, “Snap Inc. is a camera company.” or Dropbox’s S-1 mission statement: “Unleash the world’s creative energy by designing a more enlightened way of working.” These statements ignore what these businesses fundamentally do - advertising and storage. Sometimes there are massive leaps forward, like the transistor, networked computing, and the internet, but even these took many many years to push to fruition. When humans hear a compelling pitch, it is natural to want to remove those limits of technology because the result is so astounding, but we have to remain skeptical or risk another Theranos.

2. The reality distortion field. Elizabeth Holmes was obsessed with Steve Jobs. Mired in this deep fixation, she also managed to subscribe to one of Jobs’ interesting habits: the reality-distortion field. While we’ve discussed the reality distortion field before in relation to Jobs, Holmes seemed to take it to a new level. Jobs would demand something incredible be done and a lot of times his amazing team could come up with the solution. Holmes also believed this but failed to consider two things: fundamental biology and her team. Biology, at its core, is just not as flexible as the hardware and software that Apple was building. Jobs demanded an excellent product, Holmes demanded a biological impossibility. Beyond searching to enable a biological impossibility, which to be frank, can pop up after years of research (see CRISPR), Holmes operated the Theranos cult as a dictator, ruthlessly seeking out dissenters and punishing or firing them. While Jobs challenged his team repeatedly while being a huge asshole, the team, for the most part, stayed in tact (Phil Schiller, Tony Fadell, Jony Ive, Scott Forstall, and Eddy Cue). There were certainly those who got fired or left, but Holmes active rooting out of non-believers severely limited the chances of success at the company. The additional levels of secrecy were even extreme for a stealth technology startup. Startup founders need to drink the kool-aid sometimes, it comes with being visionary, but getting so drunk on power and image can only lead to personal and business demise as was the case with Theranos.

3. When startups turn bad. Tons of startups fail, but only a few turn truly malicious. Theranos was one of those few. The company tested people’s blood and gave individuals fake, untested medical results, including indicators of cancer diagnoses! Even when reviewing other major business failures and frauds - Jeff Skilling at Enron and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme - nothing compares to Theranos. While it could be argued that Enron and Madoff’s schemes did more and broader financial hurt to society, at least they were never physically endangering individuals. The only comparisons that may be warranted are Boeing and the Fyre Festival. The brainchild of famous clown, Billy McFarland, the Fyrefest certainly endangered people by marooning them on an island with little food. Furthermore, Boeing’s incredibly incoherent internal review process which knowingly led to the production of a faulty airline software system, also endangered people - including two flights that crashed because of its system. Did Elizabeth Holmes set out to build a dangerous device, knowingly defraud investors, and endanger the public? Probably not. It was one decision after another. It was firing CFO Henry Mosley who called out fake projections; it was hiring Boies Schiller to pressure former employees; it was enlisting Sunny Balwani to “run” the company. It was what Clayton Christensen calls marginal thinking - the idea that the incremental bad decision or the incremental costs of doing something frequently outweigh the full costs of doing something. The incremental cost of firing the CFO who wouldn’t make fake numbers was simply easier than facing the difficult reality that the product sucked, and they had pushed through too much investor money to start again. When things turn bad, at startups or other businesses, a trail of marginal decision making can normally be found.

Business Themes

1. The Pressure to Succeed. Stress seems to be a part of business, but the pressure can sometimes get too big to handle. Public companies, in particular, face growth targets from wall street analysts and investors. One earnings miss or even a more modest beat than expected can completely derail a stock (See pluralsight and alteryx graphs to the right). Public company CEOs and CFOs can be fired or have compensation withheld for poor stock performance. So when a young hot biotechnology startup wanted to launch a partnership with Walgreens, Dr. J and the Walgreens team were more than ready to fast track the potential partnership. Despite not being allowed to use the bathroom, see the lab or see a partial demo of the product, Walgreens pushed through a deal so that longtime competitor, CVS, wouldn’t get the deal. As then head of the Theranos/Walgreens pilot said, "We can’t not pursue this. We can’t risk a scenario where CVS has a deal with them in six months and it ends up being real.” When the partnership was announced, even the press release sounded oddly formulaic: “Theranos’ proprietary laboratory infrastructure minimizes human error through extensive automation to produce high quality results.” There was no demo. There was no product. There was only pressure at Walgreens to beat CVS and pressure at Theranos to make something from a fake device.

2. The Importance of Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance has historically rarely been discussed outside of academic settings but has come into sharper focus over the past few years. Some have recently tried to bring some of the prominent corporate governance issues such as member compensation and option grants for executives to the forefront. Warren Buffet even commented on boards in his 2019 annual shareholder letter: “Director compensation has now soared to a level that inevitably makes pay a subconscious factor affecting the behavior of many non-wealthy members. Think, for a moment, of the director earning $250,000-300,000 for board meetings consuming a pleasant couple of days six or so times a year. And job security now? It’s fabulous. Board members may get politely ignored, but they seldom get fired. Instead, generous age limits – usually 70 or higher – act as the standard method for the genteel ejection of directors.” Boards are meant to help guide the company through strategic challenges, ensure the business is focused on the right things, and evaluate the CEO. Theranos’ Board of Directors was a laughable hodgepodge of old white men: George P. Shultz (former U.S. Secretary of State), William Perry (former U.S. Secretary of Defense), Henry Kissinger (former U.S. Secretary of State), Sam Nunn (former U.S. Senator), Bill Frist (former U.S. Senator and heart-transplant surgeon), Gary Roughead (Admiral, USN, retired), James Mattis (General, USMC), Richard Kovacevich (former Wells Fargo Chairman and CEO), and Riley Bechtel. The average age of the directors in 2012 was ~72 years old and few of these men could offer real strategic guidance in pursuing novel biotechnology. On top of that, as Carreyrou points out, “In December 2013, [Holmes] forced through a resolution that assigned one hundred votes to every share she owned, giving her 99.7% of the voting rights.” George Shultz even said later in a deposition, “We never took any votes at Theranos. It was pointless. Elizabeth was going to decide whatever she decided.” The episode brings more clarity to those CEOs and companies who hide behind their Board of Directors, who promise governance for investors, but rarely deliver on anything beyond pandering to the CEO’s whims. In another ludicrous comparison, Apple and Steve Jobs specifically have also been accused of shoddy corporate governance. In 2007, Apple famously backdated Jobs options, allowing him to make an instant profit, and did not even bother to report that it had issued the options. The best companies are not immune, and investors and employees should be aware of the qualifications and monetary interests of a company’s board members.

3. Search and Destroy. Only the Paranoid Survive, right? Wrong. There is such thing as too much paranoia. When you combine that paranoia with a manipulative persona, you get Elizabeth Holmes. It’s hard to believe that any startup or founder would need the level of security and secrecy that dominated the culture at Theranos. The list of weird security and legal gray areas include: personal security for Holmes, laboratory developed tests (instead of FDA approved tests), copious and vigorously enforced NDAs, siloed teams with no communication, and false representation in the media. Organizations are often secret and many startups operate in stealth to not give away details to competitors. Some larger companies launch new divisions in separate locations from their office, like Amazon a9. The Company hired private investigators (through its powerful law firm Boies Schiller) to threaten and track former employees including Erika Chung and Tyler Schulz. Tyler Schulz, grandson of board member George Schulz, was one of the key informants to author John Carreyrou. After he accused Elizabeth and Sunny of lying and potentially harming patients, he resigned and tried to convince his grandfather that it was all a sham. His grandfather agreed to speak with him one-on-one and at the end of the conversation surprised Tyler with two attorneys from Boies Schiller who almost forced Tyler to sign a confidentiality agreement. Tyler refused, which eventually led to the publication of Carreyrou’s first article. As early board member Avie Tevanian put it, “I had seen so many things that were bad go on. I would never expect anyone would behave the way that she behaved as a CEO. And believe me, I worked for Steve Jobs. I saw some crazy things. But Elizabeth took it to a new level.” Again, sadly, while Theranos may be the pinnacle of secrecy, paranoia and threatening behavior, eBay recently fired six employees for threatening online reviewers. On top of sending live spiders to the reviewers’ household, eBay team members would knock on their doors day or night, to scare the reviewers. How could these employees think this was ok? How could Elizabeth partake in this threatening and manipulative behavior? As Organizational Behavior professor Roderick Kramer reminds us: “‘Reality’ is not a fixed entity but rather a tissue of facts, impressions, and interpretations that can be manipulated and perverted by clever and devious businesses and governments.” Theranos’ fake Edison tests are reminiscent of Enron’s fake trading floor, where 70 low level employees once pretended to be busy to impress wall street analysts. Paranoia and secrecy are powerful weapons when left unchecked, and clearly Theranos' wielded those weapons to the fullest extent.

Dig Deeper

• HBO Documentary: “The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley” has many interviews and deep analysis on Theranos

• When Paranoia Makes Sense by Organizational Behavior Professor Roderick Kramer

• Theranos criminal trial set to begin March 9, 2021

• Ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes says 'I don't know' 600-plus times in never-before-broadcast deposition tapes

• Holmes’ famous Mad Money Interview: “First they think you're crazy, then they fight you, and then all of a sudden you change the world.”

• Theranos’ still active Twitter account

April 2020 - Good To Great by Jim Collins

Collins’ book attempts to answer the question - Why do good companies continue to be good companies? His analysis across several different industries provides meaningful insights into strong management and strategic practices.

Tech Themes

1. Packard’s Law. We’ve discussed Packard’s law before when analyzing the troubling acquisition history of AOL-Time Warner and Yahoo. As a reminder, Packard’s law states: “No company can consistently grow revenues faster than its ability to get enough of the right people to implement that growth and still become a great company. [And] If a company consistently grows revenue faster than its ability to get enough of the right people to implement that growth, it will not simply stagnate; it will fall.” Given Good To Great is a management focused book, I wanted to explore an example of this law manifesting itself in a recent management dilemma. Look no further than ride-sharing giant, Uber. Uber’s culture and management problems have been highly publicized. Susan Fowler’s famous blog post kicked off a series of blows that would ultimately lead to a board dispute, the departure of its CEO, and a full-on criminal investigation. Uber’s problems as a company, however, can be traced to its insistence to be the only ride-sharing service throughout the world. Uber launched several incredibly unprofitable ventures, not only a price-war with its local competitor Lyft, but also a concerted effort to get into China, India, and other locations that ultimately proved incredibly unprofitable. Uber tried to be all things transportation to every location in the world, an over-indulgence that led to the Company raising a casual $20B prior to going public. Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber’s replacement for Travis Kalanick, has concertedly sold off several business lines and shuttered other unprofitable ventures to regain financial control of this formerly money burning “logistics” pit. This unwinding has clearly benefited the business, but also limited growth, prompting the stock to drop significantly from IPO price. Dara is no stranger to facing travel challenges, he architected the spin-out of Expedia with Barry Diller, right before 9/11. Only time will tell if he can refocus the Company as it looks to run profitably. Uber pushed too far in unprofitable locations, and ran head on into Packard’s law, now having to pay the price for its brash push into unprofitable markets.

2. Technology Accelerators. In Collins’ Good to Great framework (pictured below), technology accelerators act as a catalyst to momentum built up from disciplined people and disciplined thought. By adapting a “Pause, think, crawl, walk, run” approach to technology, meaning a slow and thoughtful transition to new technologies, companies can establish best practices for the long-term, instead of short term gains from technology faux-feature marketing. Technology faux-feature marketing, which is decoupled from actual technology has become increasingly popular in the past few years, whereby companies adopt a marketing position that is actually complete separate from their technological sophistication. Look no further than the blockchain / crypto faux-feature marketing around 2018, when Long Island iced-tea changed its name to Long Island Blockchain, which is reminiscent of companies adding “.com” to their name in the early 2000’s. Collins makes several important distinctions about technology accelerators: technology should only be a focus if it fits into a company’s hedgehog concept, technology accelerators cannot make up for poor people choices, and technology is never a primary root cause of either greatness or decline. The first two axioms make sense, just think of how many failed, custom software projects have begun and never finished; there is literally an entire wikipedia page dedicated to exactly that. The government has also reportedly been a famous dabbler in homegrown, highly customized technology. As Collins notes, technology accelerators cannot make up for bad people choices, an aspect of venture capital that is overlooked by so many. Enron is a great example of an interesting idea turned sour by terrible leadership. Beyond the accounting scandals that are discussed frequently, the culture was utterly toxic, with employees subjected to a “Performance Review Committee” whereby they were rated on a scale of 1-5 by their peers. Employees rated a 5 were fired, which meant roughly 15% of the workforce turned over every year. The New York Times reckoned Enron is still viewed as a trailblazer for the way it combined technology and energy services, but it clearly suffered from terrible leadership that even great technology couldn’t surmount. Collins’ most controversial point is arguably that technology cannot cause greatness or decline. Some would argue that technology is the primary cause of greatness for some companies like Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft. The “it was just a better search engine” argument abounds discussions of early internet search engines. I think what Collins’ is getting at is that technology is malleable and can be built several different ways. Zoom and Cloudflare are great examples of this. As we’ve discussed, Zoom started over 100 years after the idea for video calling was first conceived, and several years after Cisco had purchased Webex, which begs the question, is technology the cause of greatness for Zoom? No! Zoom’s ultimate success the elegance of its simple video chat, something which had been locked up in corporate feature complexity for years. Cloudflare presents another great example. CDN businesses had existed for years when Cloudflare launched, and Cloudflare famously embedded security within the CDN, building on a trend which Akamai tried to address via M&A. Was technology the cause of greatness for Cloudflare? No! It’s way cheaper and easier to use than Akamai. Its cost structure enabled it to compete for customers that would be unprofitable to Akamai, a classic example of a sustaining technology innovation, Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma. This is not to say these are not technologically sophisticated companies, Zoom’s cloud ops team has kept an amazing service running 24/7 despite a massive increase in users, and Cloudflare’s Workers technology is probably the best bet to disrupt the traditional cloud providers today. But to place technology as the sole cause for greatness would be understating the companies achievements in several other areas.

3. Build up, Breakthrough Flywheel. Jeff Bezos loves this book. Its listed in the continued reading section of prior TBOTM, The Everything Store. The build up, breakthrough flywheel is the culmination of disciplined people, disciplined thought and disciplined action. Collins’ points out that several great companies frequently appear like overnight successes; all of a sudden, the Company has created something great. But that’s rarely the case. Amazon is a great example of this; it had several detractors in the early days, and was dismissed as simply an online bookseller. Little did the world know that Jeff Bezos had ideas to pursue every product line and slowly launched one after the other in a concerted fashion. In addition, what is a better technology accelerator than AWS! AWS resulted from an internal problem of scaling compute fast enough to meet growing consumer demand for their online products. The company’s tech helped it scale so well that they thought, “Hey! Other companies would probably like this!” Apple is another classic example of a build-up, breakthrough flywheel. The Company had a massive success with the iPod, it was 40% of revenues in 2007. But what did it do? It cannablized itself and pursued the iPhone, with several different teams within the company pursuing it individually. Not only that, it created a terrible first version of an Apple phone with the Rokr, realizing that design was massively important to the phone’s success. The phone’s technology is taken for granted today, but at the time the touch screen was simply magical!

Business Themes

1. Level 5 Leader. The first part and probably the most important part of the buildup, breakthrough, flywheel is disciplined people. One aspect of Good to Great that inspired Collins’ other book Built to Last, is the idea that leadership, people, and culture determine the long-term future of a business, even after current leadership has moved on from the business. To set an organization up for long-term success, executives need to display level five leadership, which is a mix of personal humility and professional will. Collins’ leans in on Lee Iacocca as an example of a poor leader, who focused more on personal celebrity and left Chrysler to fail, when he departed. Level 5 leadership has something that you don’t frequently see in technology business leaders, humility. The technology industry seems littered with far more Larry Ellison and Elon Musk’s than any other industry, or maybe its just that tech CEOs tend to shout the loudest from their pedestals. One CEO that has done a great job of representing level five leadership is Shantanu Narayen, who took the reigns of Adobe in December 2007, right on the cusp of the financial crisis. Narayen, who’s been described as more of a doer than a talker, has dramatically changed Adobe’s revenue model, moving the business from a single sale license software business focused on lower ACV numbers, to an enterprise focused SaaS business. This march has been slow and pragmatic but the business has done incredibly well, 10xing since he took over. Adobe CFO, Mark Garrett, summarized it best in a 2015 McKinsey interview: “We instituted open dialogue with employees—here’s what we’re going through, here’s what it might look like—and we encouraged debate. Not everyone stayed, but those who did were committed to the cloud model.”

2. Hedgehog Concept. The Hedgehog concept (in the picture wheel to the right) is the overlap of three questions: What are you passionate about?, What are you the best in the world at?, and What drives your economic engine? This overlap is the conclusion of Collins’ memo to Confront the Brutal Facts, something that Ben Horowitz emphasizes in March’s TBOTM. Once teams have dug into their business, they should come up with a simple way to center their focus. When companies reach outside their hedgehog concept, they get hurt. The first question, about organizational passion, manifests itself in mission and value statements. The best in the world question manifests itself through value network exercises, SWOT analyses and competitive analyses. The economic engine is typically shown as a single metric to define success in the organization. As an example, let’s walk through an example with a less well-known SaaS company: Avalara. Avalara is a provider of tax compliance software for SMBs and enterprises, allowing those businesses to outsource complex and changing tax rules to software that integrates with financial management systems to provide an accurate view of corporate taxes. Avalara’s hedgehog concept is right on their website: “We live and breathe tax compliance so you don't have to.” Its simple and effective. The also list a slightly different version in their 10-K, “Avalara’s motto is ‘Tax compliance done right.’” Avalara is the best at tax compliance software, and that is their passion; they “live and breath” tax compliance software. What drives Avalara’s economic engine? They list two metrics right at the top of their SEC filings, number of core customers and net revenue retention. Core customers are customers who have been billed more than $3,000 in the last twelve months. The growth in core customers allows Avalara to understand their base of revenue. Tax compliance software is likely low churn because filing taxes is such an onerous process, and most people don’t have the expertise to do it for their corporate taxes. They will however suffer from some tax seasonality and some customers may churn and come back after the tax period has ended for a given year. Total billings allows Avalara to account for this possibility. Avalara’s core customers have grown 32% in the last twelve months, meaning its revenue should be following a similar trajectory. Net retention allows the company to understand how customer purchasing behavior changes over time and at 113% net retention, Avalara’s overall base is buying more software from Avalara than is churning, which is a positive trend for the company. What is the company the best in the world at? Tax compliance software for SMBs. Avalara views their core customer as greater than $3,000 of trailing twelve months revenue, which means they are targeting small customers. The Company’s integrations also speak to this - Shopify, Magento, NetSuite, and Stripe are all focused on SMB and mid-market customers. Notice that neither SAP nor Oracle ERP is in that list of integrations, which are the financial management software providers that target large enterprises. This means Avalara has set up its product and cost structure to ensure long-term profitability in the SMB segment; the enterprise segment is on the horizon, but today they are focused on SMBs.

3. Culture of Discipline. Collins describes a culture of discipline as an ability of managers to have open and honest, often confrontational conversation. The culture of discipline has to fit within a culture of freedom, allowing individuals to feel responsible for their division of the business. This culture of discipline is one of the first things to break down when a CEO leaves. Collins points on this issue with Lee Iaccoca, the former CEO of Chrysler. Lee built an intense culture of corporate favoritism, which completely unraveled after he left the business. This is also the focus of Collins’ other book, Built to Last. Companies don’t die overnight, yet it seems that way when problems begin to abound company-wide. We’ve analyzed HP’s 20 year downfall and a similar story can be shown with IBM. In 1993, IBM elected Lou Gerstner as CEO of the company. Gerstner was an outsider to technology businesses, having previously led the highly controversial RJR Nabisco, after KKR completed its buyout in 1989. He has also been credited with enacting wholesale changes to the company’s culture during his tenure. Despite the stock price increasing significantly over Gerstner’s tenure, the business lost significant market share to Microsoft, Apple and Dell. Gerstner was also the first IBM CEO to make significant income, having personally been paid hundreds of millions over his tenure. Following Gerstner, IBM elected insider Sam Palmisano to lead the Company. Sam pushed IBM into several new business lines, acquired 25 software companies, and famously sold off IBM’s PC division, which turned out to be an excellent strategic decision as PC sales and margins declined over the following ten years. Interestingly, Sam’s goal was to “leave [IBM] better than when I got there.” Sam presided over a strong run up in the stock, but yet again, severely missed the broad strategic shift toward public cloud. In 2012, Ginni Rometty was elected as new CEO. Ginni had championed IBM’s large purchase of PwC’s technology consulting business, turning IBM more into a full service organization than a technology company. Palmisano has an interesting quote in an interview with a wharton business school professor where he discusses IBM’s strategy: “The thing I learned about Lou is that other than his phenomenal analytical capability, which is almost unmatched, Lou always had the ability to put the market or the client first. So the analysis always started from the outside in. You could say that goes back to connecting with the marketplace or the customer, but the point of it was to get the company and the analysis focused on outside in, not inside out. I think when you miss these shifts, you’re inside out. If you’re outside in, you don’t miss the shifts. They’re going to hit you. Now acting on them is a different characteristic. But you can’t miss the shift if you’re outside in. If you’re inside out, it’s easy to delude yourself. So he taught me the importance of always taking the view of outside in.” Palmisano’s period of leadership introduced a myriad of organizational changes, 110+ acquisitions, and a centralization of IBM processes globally. Ginni learned from Sam that acquisitions were key toward growth, but IBM was buying into markets they didn’t fully understand, and when Ginni layered on 25 new acquisitions in her first two years, the Company had to shift from an outside-in perspective to an inside-out perspective. The way IBM had historically handled the outside-in perspective, to recognize shifts and get ahead of them, was through acquisition. But when the acquisitions occured at such a rapid pace, and in new markets, the organization got bogged down in a process of digestion. Furthermore, the centralization of processes and acquired businesses is the exact opposite of what Clayton Christensen recommends when pursuing disruptive technology. This makes it obvious why IBM was so late to the cloud game. This was a mainframe and services company, that had acquired hundreds of software businesses they didn’t really understand. Instead of building on these software platforms, they wasted years trying to put them all together into a digestible package for their customers. IBM launched their public cloud offering in June 2014, a full seven years after Microsoft, Amazon, and Google launched their services, despite providing the underlying databases and computing power for all of their enterprise customers. Gerstner established the high-pay, glamorous CEO role at IBM, which Palmisano and Ginni stepped into, with corporate jets and great expense policies. The company favored increasing revenues and profits (as a result of acquisitions) over the recognition and focus on a strategic market shift, which led to a downfall in the stock price and a declining mindshare in enterprises. Collins’ understands the importance of long term cultural leadership. “Does Palmisano think he could have done anything differently to set IBM up for success once he left? Not really. What has happened since falls to a new coach, a new team, he says.”

Dig Deeper

• Level 5 Leadership from Darwin Smith at Kimberly Clark

• From Good to Great … to Below Average by Steven Levitt - Unpacking underperformance from some of the companies Collins’ studied

• The Challenges faced by new CEO Arvind Krishna

• Overview of Cloudflare Workers

• The Opposite of the Buildup, Breakthrough, Flywheel - the Doom Loop

March 2020 - The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz

Ben Horowitz, GP of the famous investment fund Andreessen Horowitz, addresses the not-so-pleasant aspects of being a founder/CEO during a crisis. This book provides an excellent framework for anyone going through the struggles of scaling a business and dealing with growing pains.

Tech Themes

1. The importance of Netscape. Now that its been relegated to history by the rise of AOL and internet explorer, its hard to believe that Netscape was ever the best web browser. Founded by Marc Andreessen, who had founded the first web browser, Mosaic (as a teenager!), Netscape would go on to achieve amazing success only to blow up in the face of competition and changes to internet infrastructure. Netscape was an incredible technology company, and as Brian McCullough shows in last month’s TBOTM, Netscape was the posterchild for the internet bubble. But for all the fanfare around Netscape’s seminal IPO, little is discussed about its massive and longstanding technological contributions. In 1995, early engineer Brendan Eich created Javascript, which still stands as the dominant front end language for the web. In the same year, the Company developed Secure Socket Layer (SSL), the most dominant basic internet security protocol (and reason for HTTPS). On top of those two fundamental technologies, Netscape also developed the internet cookie, in 1994! Netscape is normally discussed as the amazing company that ushered many of the first internet users onto the web, but its rarely lauded for its longstanding technological contributions. Ben Horowitz, author of the Hard Thing About Hard Things was an early employee and head of the server business unit for Netscape when it went public.

2. Executing a pivot. Famous pivots have become part of startup lore whether it be in product (Glitch (video game) —> Slack (chat)), business model (Netflix DVD rental —> Streaming), or some combo of both (Snowdevil (selling snowboards online) —> Shopify (ecommerce tech)). The pivot has been hailed as necessary tool in every entrepreneur’s toolbox. Though many are sensationalized, the pivot Ben Horowitz underwent at LoudCloud / Opsware is an underrated one. LoudCloud was a provider of web hosting services and managed services for enterprises. The Company raised a boatload ($346M) of money prior to going public in March 2001, after the internet bubble had already burst. The Company was losing a lot of money and Ben knew that the business was on its last legs. After executing a 400 person layoff, he sold the managed services part of the business to EDS, a large IT provider, for $63.5M. LoudCloud had a software tool called Opsware that it used to manage all of the complexities of the web hosting business, scaling infrastructure with demand and managing compliance in data centers. After the sale was executed, the company’s stock fell to $0.35 per share, even trading below cash, which meant the markets viewed the Company as already bankrupt. The acquisition did something very important for Ben and the Opsware team, it bought them time - the Company had enough cash on hand to execute until Q4 2001 when it had to be cash flow positive. To balance out these cash issues, Opsware purchased Tangram, Rendition Networks, and Creekpath, which were all software vendors that helped manage the software of data centers. This had two effects - slowing the burn (these were profitable companies), and building a substantial product offering for data center providers. Opsware started making sales and the stock price began to tick up, peaking the attention of strategic acquirers. Ultimately it came down to BMC Software and HP. BMC offered $13.25 per share, the Opsware board said $14, BMC countered with $13.50 and HP came in with a $14.25 offer, a 38% premium to the stock price and a total valuation of $1.6B, which the board could not refuse. The Company changed business model (services —> software), made acquisitions and successfully exited, amidst a terrible environment for tech companies post-internet bubble.

3. The Demise of the Great HP. Hewlett-Packard was one of the first garage-borne, silicon valley technology companies. The company was founded in Palo Alto by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard in 1939 as a provider of test and measurement instruments. Over the next 40 years, the company moved into producing some of the best printers, scanners, calculators, logic analyzers, and computers in the world. In the 90s, HP continued to grow its product lines in the computing space, and executed a spinout of its manufacturing / non-computing device business in 1999. 1999 marks the tragic beginning of the end for HP. The first massive mistake was the acquisition of Compaq, a flailing competitor in the personal computer market, who had acquired DEC (a losing microprocessor company), a few years earlier. The acquisition was heavily debated, with Walter Hewlett, son of the founder and board director at the time, engaging in a proxy battle with then current CEO, Carly Firorina. The new HP went on to lose half of its market value and incur heavy job losses that were highly publicized. This started a string of terrible acquisitions including EDS, 3COM, Palm Inc., and Autonomy for a combined $28.8B. The Company spun into two divisions - HP Inc. and HP Enterprise in 2015 and each had their own spinouts and mergers from there (Micro Focus and DXC Technology). Today, HP Inc. sells computers and printers, and HPE sells storage, networking and server technology. What can be made of this sad tale? HP suffered from a few things. First, poor long term direction - in hindsight their acquisitions look especially terrible as a repeat series of massive bets on technology that was already being phased out due to market pressures. Second, HP had horrible corporate governance during the late 90s and 2000s - board in-fighting over acquisitions, repeat CEO fiirings over cultural issues, chairman-CEO’s with no checks, and an inability to see the outright fraud in their Autonomy acquisition. Lastly, the Company saw acquisitions and divestitures as band-aids - new CEO entrants Carly Fiorina (from AT&T), Mark Hurd (from NCR), Leo Apotheker (from SAP), and Meg Whitman (from eBay) were focused on making an impact at HP which meant big acquisitions and strategic shifts. Almost none of these panned out, and the repeated ideal shifts took a toll on the organization as the best talent moved elswehere. Its sad to see what has happened at a once-great company.

Business Themes

1. Ill, not sick: going public at the end of the internet bubble. Going public is supposed to be the culmination of a long entrepreneurial journey for early company employees, but according to Ben Horowitz’s experience, going public during the internet bubble pop was terrible. Loudcloud had tried to raise money privately but struggled given the terrible conditions for raising money at the beginning of 2001. Its not included in the book but the reason the Company failed to raise money was its obscene valuation and loss. The Company was valued at $1.15B in its prior funding round and could only report $6M in Net Revenue on a $107M loss. The Company sought to go public at $10 per share ($700M valuation), but after an intense and brutal roadshow that left Horowitz physically sick, they settled for $6.00 per share, a massive write-down from the previous round. The fact that the banks were even able to find investors to take on this significant risk at this point in the business cycle was a marvel. Timing can be crucial in an IPO as we saw during the internet bubble; internet “businesses” could rise 4-5x on their first trading day because of the massive and silly web landgrab in the late 90s. On the flip side, going public when investors don’t want what you’re selling is almost a death sentence. Although they both have critical business and market issues, WeWork and Casper are clear examples of the importance of timing. WeWork and Casper were late arrivals on the unicorn IPO train. Let me be clear - both have huge issues (WeWork - fundamental business model, Casper - competition/differentiation) but I could imagine these types of companies going public during a favorable time period with a relatively strong IPO. Both companies had massive losses, and investors were especially wary of losses after the failed IPOs of Lyft and Uber, which were arguably the most famous unicorns to go public at the time. Its not to say that WeWork and Casper wouldn’t have had trouble in the public markets, but during the internet bubble these companies could’ve received massive valuations and raised tons of cash instead of seeking bailouts from Softbank and reticent public market investors.

2. Peactime / Wartime CEO. The genesis of this book was a 2011 blog post written by Horowitz detailing Peacetime and Wartime CEO behavior. As the book and blog post describe, “Peacetime in business means those times when a company has a large advantage vs. the competition in its core market, and its market is growing. In times of peace, the company can focus on expanding the market and reinforcing the company’s strengths.” On the other hand, to describe Wartime, Horowitz uses the example of a previous TBOTM, Only the Paranoid Survive, by Andy Grove. In the early 1980’s, Grove realized his business was under serious threat as competition increased in Intel’s core business, computer memory. Grove shifted the entire organization whole-heartedly into chip manufacturing and saved the company. Horowitz outlines several opposing behaviors of Peacetime and Wartime CEOs: “Peacetime CEO knows that proper protocol leads to winning. Wartime CEO violates protocol in order to win; Peacetime CEO spends time defining the culture. Wartime CEO lets the war define the culture; Peacetime CEO strives for broad based buy in. Wartime CEO neither indulges consensus-building nor tolerates disagreements.” Horowitz concludes that executives can be a peacetime and wartime CEO after mastering each of the respective skill sets and knowing when to shift from peacetime to wartime and back. The theory is interesting to consider; at its best, it provides an excellent framework for managing times of stress (like right now with the Coronavirus). At its worst, it encourages poor CEO behavior and cut throat culture. While I do think its a helpful theory, I think its helpful to think of situations that may be an exception, as a way of testing the theory. For example, lets consider Google, as Horowitz does in his original article. He calls out that Google was likely entering in a period of wartime in 2011 and as a result transitioned CEOs away from peacetime Eric Schmidt to Google founder and wartime CEO, Larry Page. Looking back however, was it really clear that Google was entering wartime? The business continued to focus on what it was clearly best at, online search advertising, and rarely faced any competition. The Company was late to invest in cloud technology and many have criticized Google for pushing billions of dollars into incredibly unprofitable ventures because they are Larry and Sergey’s pet projects. In addition, its clear that control had been an issue for Larry all along - in 2011, it came out that Eric Schmidt’s ouster as CEO was due to a disagreement with Larry and Sergey over continuing to operate in China. On top of that, its argued that Larry and Sergey, who have controlling votes in Google, stayed on too long and hindered Sundar Pichai’s ability to effectively operate the now restructured Alphabet holding company. In short, was Google in a wartime from 2011-2019? I would argue no, it operated in its core market with virtually no competition and today most Google’s revenues come from its ad products. I think the peacetime / wartime designation is rarely so black and white, which is why it is so hard to recognize what period a Company may be in today.

3. Firing people. The unfortunate reality of business is that not every hire works out, and that eventually people will be fired. The Hard Thing About Hard Things is all about making difficult decisions. It lays out a framework for thinking about and executing layoffs, which is something that’s rarely discussed in the startup ecosystem until it happens. Companies mess up layoffs all the time, just look at Bird who recently laid off staff via an impersonal Zoom call. Horowitz lays out a roughly six step process for enacting layoffs and gives the hard truths about executing the 400 person layoff at LoudCloud. Two of these steps stand out because they have been frequently violated at startups: Don’t Delay and Train Your Managers. Often times, the decision to fire someone can be a months long process, continually drawn out and interrupted by different excuses. Horowitz encourages CEOs to move thoughtfully and quickly to stem leaks of potential layoffs and to not let poor performers continue to hurt the organization. The book discusses the Law of Crappy People - any level of any organization will eventually converge to the worst person on that level; benchmarked against the crappiest person at the next level. Once a CEO has made her mind up about the decision to fire someone, she should go for it. As part of executing layoffs, CEOs should train their managers, and the managers should execute the layoffs. This gives employees the opportunity to seek direct feedback about what went well and what went poorly. This aspect of the book is incredibly important for all levels of entrepreneurs and provides a great starting place for CEOs.

Dig Deeper

• Most drastic company pivots that worked out

• Initial thoughts on the Opsware - HP Deal from 2007

• A thorough history of HP’s ventures, spin-offs and acquisitions

• Ben’s original blog post detailing the pivot from service provider to tech company

• The First (1995-01) and Second Browser War (2004 - 2017)

February 2020 - How the Internet Happened: From Netscape to the iPhone by Brian McCullough

Brian McCullough, host of the Internet History Podcast, does an excellent job of showing how the individuals adopted the internet and made it central to their lives. He follows not only the success stories but also the flame outs which provide an accurate history of a time of rapid technological change.

Tech Themes

1. Form to Factor: Design in Mobile Devices. Apple has a long history with mobile computing, but a few hiccups in the early days are rarely addressed. These hiccups also telegraph something interesting about the technology industry as a whole - design and ease of use often trump features. In the early 90’s Apple created the Figaro, a tablet computer that weighed eight pounds and allowed for navigation through a stylus. The issue was it cost $8,000 to produce and was 3/4 of an inch thick, making it difficult to carry. In 1993, the Company launched the Newton MessagePad, which cost $699 and included a calendar, address book, to-do list and note pad. However, the form was incorrect again; the MessagePad was 7.24 in. x 4.5 in. and clunky. With this failure, Apple turned its attention away from mobile, allowing other players like RIM and Blackberry to gain leading market share. Blackberry pioneered the idea of a full keyboard on a small device and Marc Benioff, CEO of salesforce.com, even called it, “the heroin of mobile computing. I am serious. I had to stop.” IBM also tried its hand in mobile in 1992, creating the Simon Personal Communicator, which had the ability to send and receive calls, do email and fax, and sync with work files via an adapter. The issue was the design - 8 in. by 2.5 in. by 1.5 in. thick. It was a modern smartphone, but it was too big, clunky, and difficult to use. It wasn’t until the iPhone and then Android that someone really nailed the full smart phone experience. The lessons from this case study offer a unique insight into the future of VR. The company able to offer the correct form factor, at a reasonable price can gain market share quickly. Others who try to pioneer too much at a time (cough, magic leap), will struggle.

2. How to know you’re onto something. Facebook didn’t know. On November 30, 2004, Facebook surpassed one million users after being live for only ten months. This incredible growth was truly remarkable, but Mark Zuckerberg still didn’t know facebook was a special company. Sean Parker, the founder of Napster, had been mentoring Zuckerberg the prior summer: “What was so bizarre about the way Facebook was unfolding at that point, is that Mark just didn’t totally believe in it and wanted to go and do all these other things.” Zuckerberg even showed up to a meeting at Sequoia Capital still dressed in his pajamas with a powerpoint entitled: “The Top Ten Reasons You Should Not Invest.” While this was partially a joke because Sequoia has spurned investing in Parker’s latest company, it represented how immature the whole facebook operation was, in the face of rapid growth. Facebook went on to release key features like groups, photos, and friending, but most importantly, they developed their revenue model: advertising. The quick user growth and increasing ad revenue growth got the attention of big corporations - Viacom offered $2B in cash and stock, and Yahoo offered $1B all cash. By this time, Zuckerberg realized what he had, and famously spurned several offers from Yahoo, even after users reacted negatively to the most important feature that facebook would ever release, the News Feed. In today’s world, we often see entrepreneur’s overhyping their companies, which is why Silicon Valley was in-love with dropout founders for a time, their naivite and creativity could be harnessed to create something huge in a short amount of time.

3. Channel Partnerships: Why apple was reluctant to launch a phone. Channel partnerships often go un-discussed at startups, but they can be incredibly useful in growing distribution. Some industries, such as the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) market thrives on channel partnership arrangements. Companies like Crowdstrike engage partners (mostly IT services firms) to sell on their behalf, lowering Crowdstrike’s customer acquisition and sales spend. This can lead to attractive unit economics, but on the flip side, partners must get paid and educated on the selling motion which takes time and money. Other channel relationships are just overly complex. In the mid 2000’s, mobile computing was a complicated industry, and companies hated dealing with old, legacy carriers and simple clunky handset providers. Apple tried the approach of working with a handset provider, Motorola, but they produced the terrible ROKR which barely worked. The ROKR was built to run on the struggling Cingular (would become AT&T) network, who was eager to do a deal with Apple in hopes of boosting usage on their network. After the failure of the ROKR, Cingular executives begged Jobs to build a phone for the network. Normally, the carriers had specifications for how phones were built for their networks, but Jobs ironed out a contract which exchanged network exclusivity for complete design control, thus Apple entered into mobile phones. The most important computing device of the 2000’s and 2010’s was built on a channel relationship.

Business Themes

1. AOL-Time Warner: the merger destined to fail. To fully understand the AOL-Time Warner merger, you must first understand what AOL was, what it was becoming, and why it was operating on borrowed time. AOL started as an ISP, charging customers $9.95 for five hours of dial-up internet access, with each additional hour costing $2.95. McCullough describes AOL: “AOL has often been described as training wheels for the Internet. For millions of Americans, their aol.com address was their first experience with email, and thus their first introduction to the myriad ways that networked computing could change their lives.” AOL grew through one of the first viral marketing campaigns ever; AOL put CDs into newspapers which allowed users to download AOL software and get online. The Company went public in March of 1992 and by 1996 the Company had 2.1 million subscribers, however subscribers were starting to flee to cheaper internet access. It turned out that building an ISP was relatively cheap, and the high margin cash flow business that AOL had built was suddenly threatened by a number of competitors. AOL persisted with its viral marketing strategy, and luckily many americans still had not tried the internet yet and defaulted to AOL as being the most popular. AOL continued to add subscribers and its stock price started to balloon; in 1998 alone the stock went up 593%. AOL was also inking ridiculous, heavily VC funded deals with new internet startups. Newly public Drkoop, which raised $85M in an IPO, signed a four year $89M deal to be AOL’s default provider of health content. Barnes and Noble paid $40M to be AOL’s bookselling partner. Tel-save, a long distance phone provider signed a deal worth $100M. As the internet bubble continued to grow, AOL’s CEO, Steve Case realized that many of these new startups would be unable to fufill their contractual obligations. Early web traffic reporting systems could easily be gamed, and companies frequently had no business model other than attract a certain demographic of traffic. By 1999, AOL had a market cap of $149.8B and was added to the S&P 500 index; it was bigger than both Disney and IBM. At this time, the world was shifting away from dial-up internet to modern broadband connections provided by cable companies. One AOL executive lamented: “We all knew we were living on borrowed time and had to buy something of substance by using that huge currency [AOL’s stock].” Time Warner was a massive media company, with movie studios, TV channels, magazines and online properties. On Jan 10, 2000, AOL merged with Time Warner in one of the biggest mergers in history. AOL owned 56% of the combined company. Four days later, the Dow peaked and began a downturn which would decimate hundreds of internet businesses built on foggy fundamentals. Acquisitions happen for a number of reasons, but imminent death is not normally considered by analysts or pundits. When you see acquisitions, read the press release and understand why (at least from a marketing perspective), the two companies made a deal. Was the price just astronomical (i.e. Instagram) or was their something very strategic (i.e. Microsoft-Github)? When you read the press release years later, it should indicate whether the combination actually was proved out by the market.

2. Acquisitions in the internet bubble: why acquisitions are really just guessing. AOL-Time Warner shows the interesting conundrum in acquisitions. HP founder David Packard coined this idea somewhat in Packard’s law: “No company can consistently grow revenues faster than its ability to get enough of the right people to implement that growth and still become a great company. If a company consistently grows revenue faster than its ability to get enough of the right people to implement that growth, it will not simply stagnate; it will fall.” Author of Good to Great, Jim Collins, clarified this idea: “Great companies are more likely to die of ingestion of too much opportunity, than starvation from too little.” Acquisitions can be a significant cause of this outpacing of growth. Look no further than Yahoo, who acquired twelve companies between September 1997 and June 1999 including Mark Cuban’s Broadcast.com for $5.7B (Kara Swisher at WSJ in 1999), GeoCities for $3.6B, and Y Combinator founder Paul Graham’s Viaweb for $48M. They spent billions in stock and cash to acquire these companies! Its only fitting that two internet darlings would eventually end up in the hands of big-telecom Verizon, who would acquire AOL for $4.4B in 2015, and Yahoo for $4.5B in 2017, only to write down the combined value by $4.6B in 2018. In 2013, Yahoo would acquire Tumblr for $1.1B, only to sell it off this past year for $3M. Acquisitions can really be overwhelming for companies, and frequently they don’t work out as planned. In essence, acquisitions are guesses about future value to customers and rarely are they as clean and smart as technology executives make them seem. Some large organizations have gotten good at acquisitions - Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Salesforce have all made meaningful acquisitions (Android, Github, AppDynamics, ExactTarget, respectively).

3. Google and Excite: the acquisition that never happened. McCullough has an incredible quote nestled into the start of chapter six: “Pioneers of new technologies are rarely the ones who survive long enough to dominate their categories; often it is the copycat or follow-on names that are still with us to this day: Google, not AltaVista, in search; Facebook, not Friendster, in social networks.” Amazon obviously bucked this trend (he mentions that), but in search he is absolutely right! In 1996, several internet search companies went public including Excite, Lycos, Infoseek, and Yahoo. As the internet bubble grew bigger, Yahoo was the darling of the day, and by 1998, it had amassed a $100B market cap. There were tons of companies in the market including the players mentioned above and AltaVista, AskJeeves, MSN, and others. The world did not need another search engine. However, in 1998, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin found a better way to do search (the PageRank algorithm) and published their famous paper: “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine.” They then went out to these massive search engines and tried to license their technology, but no one was interested. Imagine passing on Goolge’s search engine technology. In an over-ingestion of too much opportunity, all of the search engines were trying to be like AOL and become a portal to the internet, providing various services from their homepages. From an interview in 1998, “More than a "portal" (the term analysts employ to describe Yahoo! and its rivals, which are most users' gateway to the rest of the Internet), Yahoo! is looking increasingly like an online service--like America Online (AOL) or even CompuServe before the Web.” Small companies trying to do too much (cough, uber self-driving cars, cough). Excite showed the most interest in Google’s technology and Page offered it to the Company for $1.6M in cash and stock but Excite countered at $750,000. Excite had honest interest in the technology and a deal was still on the table until it became clear that Larry wanted Excite to rip out its search technology and use Google’s instead. Unfortunately that was too big of a risk for the mature Excite company. The two companies parted ways and Google eventually became the dominant player in the industry. Google’s focus was clear from the get-go, build a great search engine. Only when it was big enough did it plunge into acquisitions and development of adjacent technologies.

Dig Deeper

• Raymond Smith, former CEO of Bell Atlantic, describing the technology behind the internet in 1994

• Bill Gates’ famous memo: THE INTERNET TIDAL WAVE (May 26, 1995)

• The rise and fall of Netscape and Mosaic in one chart

• List of all the companies made famous and infamous in the dot-com bubble

• Pets.com S-1 (filing for IPO) showin a $62M net loss on $6M in revenue

• Detail on Microsoft’s antitrust lawsuit

January 2020 - The Innovators by Walter Isaacson

Isaacson presents a comprehensive history of modern day technology, from Ada Lovelace to Larry Page. He weaves in intricate detail around the development of the computer, which provides the landscape on which all the major players of technological history wander.

Tech Themes

1. Computing Before the Computer. In the Summer of 1843, Ada Lovelace, daughter of the poet Lord Byron, wrote the first computer program, detailing a way of repeatedly computing Bernoulli numbers. Lovelace had been working with Charles Babbage, an English mathematician who had conceived of an Analytical Engine, which could be used as a general purpose arithmetic logic unit. Originally, Babbage thought his machine would only be used for computing complex mathematical problems, but Ada had a bigger vision. Ada was well educated and artistic like her father. She knew that the general purpose focus of the Analytical Engine could be an incredible new technology, even hypothesizing, “Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations, of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and musical composition were susceptible to such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity.” 176 years later, in 2019, OpenAI released a deep neural network that produces 4 minute musical compositions, with ten different instruments.

   2. The Government, Education and Technology. Babbage had suggested using punch cards for computers, but Herman Hollerith, an employee of the U.S. Census Bureau, was the first to successfully implement them. Hollerith was angered that the decennial census took eight years to successfully complete. With his new punch cards, designed to analyze combinations of traits, it took only eight. In 1924, after a series of mergers, the company Hollerith founded became IBM. This was the first involvement of the US government with computers. Next came educational institutions, namely MIT, where by 1931 Vanneaver Bush had built a Differential Analyzer (pictured below), the world’s first analog electric computing machine. This machine would be copied by the U.S. Army, University of Pennsylvania, Manchester University and Cambridge University and iterated on until the creation of the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC), which firmly established a digital future for computing machines. With World War as a motivator, the invention of the computer was driven forward by academic institutions and the government.

Business Themes

1. Massive Technological Change is Slow. Large technological change almost always feels sudden, but it rarely ever is. Often, new technological developments are relegated to small communities, like Homebrew computing club, where Steve Wozniak handed out mock-ups for the Apple Computer, which was the first to map a keyboard to a screen for input. The development of the transistor (1947) preceded the creation of the microchip (1958) by eleven years. The general purpose chip, a.k.a. the microprocessor popped up thirteen years after that (1971), when Intel introduced the 4004 into the business world. This phenomenon was also true with the internet. Packet switching was first discovered in the early 1960s by Paul Baran, while he was at the RAND Corporation. The Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol were created fifteen years after that (1974) by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn. The HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and the HyperText Markup Language (HTML) were created sixteen years after that in 1990 by Tim Berners-Lee. The internet wasn’t in widespread use until after 2000. Introductions of new technologies often seem sudden, but they frequently call on technologies of the past and often involve a corresponding change that address the prior limiting factor of a previous technology. What does that mean for cloud computing, containers, and blockchain? We are probably earlier in the innovation cycle than we can imagine today. Business does not always lag the innovation cycle, but is normally the ending point in a series of innovations.

2. Teams are Everything. Revolution and change happens through the iteration of ideas through collaborative processes. History provides a lot of interesting lessons when it comes to technology transformation. Teams with diverse backgrounds, complementary styles and a mix of visionary and operating capabilities executed the best. As Isaacson notes: “Bell Labs was a classic example. In its long corridors in suburban New Jersey, there were theoretical physicists, experimentalists, material scientists, engineers, a few businessmen, and even some telephone pole climbers with grease under their fingernails.” Bell Labs created the first transistor, a semiconductor that would be the foundation of Intel’s chips, where Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore (yes – Moore’s Law) would provide the vision, and Andy Grove would provide the focus.

Dig Deeper

• Alan Turing and the Turing Machine

• The Deal that Ruined IBM and Catapulted Microsoft

• Grace Hopper and the First Compiler

• ARPANET and the Birth of the Internet

December 2019 - The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein

This futuristic, anti-establishment thriller is one of Elon Musk’s favorite books. While Heinlein’s novel can drag on with little action, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress presents an interesting war story and predicts several technological revolutions.

Tech Themes

1. Mike, the self-aware computer and IBM. Mycroft Holmes, Heinlein’s self-aware, artificially intelligent computer is a friendly, funny and focused companion to Manny, Wyoh and Prof throughout the novel. Mike’s massive hardware construction is analogous to the way companies are viewing Artificial Intelligence today. Mike’s AI is more closely related to Artificial General Intelligence, which imagines a machine that can go beyond the standard Turing Test, with further abilities to plan, learn, communicate in natural language and act on objects. The 1960s were filled with predictions of futuristic robots and machines. Ideas were popularized not only in books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress but also in films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the intelligent computer, HAL 9000, attempts to overthrow the crew. In 1965, Herbert Simon, a noble prize winner, exclaimed: “machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do.” As surprising as it may seem today, the dominant technology company of the 1960’s was IBM, known for its System/360 model. Heinlein even mentions Thomas Watson and IBM at Mike’s introduction: “Mike was not official name; I had nicknamed him for Mycroft Holmes, in a story written by Dr. Watson before he founded IBM. This story character would just sit and think--and that's what Mike did. Mike was a fair dinkum thinkum, sharpest computer you'll ever meet.” Mike’s construction is similar to that of present day IBM Watson, who’s computer was able to win Jeopardy, but has struggled to gain traction in the market. IBM and Heinlein approached the computer development in a similar way, Heinlein foresaw a massive computer with tons of hardware linked into it: “They kept hooking hardware into him--decision-action boxes to let him boss other computers, bank on bank of additional memories, more banks of associational neural nets, another tubful of twelve-digit random numbers, a greatly augmented temporary memory. Human brain has around ten-to-the tenth neurons. By third year Mike had better than one and a half times that number of neuristors.” This is the classic IBM approach – leverage all of the hardware possible and create a massive database of query-able information. This actually does work well for information retrieval like Jeopardy, but stumbles precariously on new information and lack of data, which is why IBM has struggled with Watson applications to date.

2. Artificial General Intelligence. Mike is clearly equipped with artificial general intelligence (AGI); he has the ability to securely communicate in plain language, retrieve any of the world’s information, see via cameras and hear via microphones. As discussed above, Heinlein’s construction of Mike is clearly hardware focused, which makes sense considering the book was published in the sixties, before software was considered important. In contrast to the 1960s, today, AGI is primarily addressed from an algorithmic, software angle. One of the leading research institutions (excluding the massive tech companies) is OpenAI, an organization who’s mission is: “To ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity.” OpenAI was started by several people including Elon Musk and Sam Altman, founder of Y Combinator, a famous startup incubator based in Silicon Valley. OpenAI just raised $1 billion from Microsoft to pursue its artificial algorithms and is likely making the most progress when it comes to AGI. The organization has released numerous modules that allow developers to explore the wide-ranging capabilities of AI, from music creation, to color modulation. But software alone is not going to be enough to achieve full AGI. OpenAI has acknowledged that the largest machine learning training runs have been run on increasingly more hardware: “Of course, the use of massive compute sometimes just exposes the shortcomings of our current algorithms.” As we discussed before (companies are building their own hardware for this purpose, link to building their own hardware), and the degradation of Moore’s Law imposes a serious threat to achieving full Artificial General Intelligence.

3. Deep Learning, Adam Selene, and Deep Fakes. Heinlein successfully predicted machine’s ability to create novel images. As the group plans to take the rebellion public, Mike is able to create a depiction of Adam Selene that can appear on television and be the face of the revolution: “We waited in silence. Then screen showed neutral gray with a hint of scan lines. Went black again, then a faint light filled middle and congealed into cloudy areas light and dark, ellipsoid. Not a face, but suggestion of face that one sees in cloud patterns covering Terra. It cleared a little and reminded me of pictures alleged to be ectoplasm. A ghost of a face. Suddenly firmed and we saw "Adam Selene." Was a still picture of a mature man. No background, just a face as if trimmed out of a print. Yet was, to me, "Adam Selene." Could not he anybody else.” Image generation and manipulation has long been a hot topic among AI researchers. The research frequently leverages a technique called Deep Learning, which is a play on classically used Artificial Neural Networks. A 2012 landmark paper from the University of Toronto student Ilya Sutskever, who went on to be a founder at OpenAI, applied deep learning to the problem of image classification with incredible success. Deep learning and computer vision have been inseparable ever since. One part of research focuses on a video focused image superimposition technique called Deep Fakes, which became popular earlier this year. As shown here, these videos are essentially merging existing images and footage with a changing facial structure, which is remarkable and scary at the same time. Deep fakes are gaining so much attention that even the government is focused on learning more about them. Heinlein was early to the game, imaging a computer could create a novel image. I can only imagine how he’d feel about Deep Fakes.

Business Themes

1. Video Conferencing. Manny and the rest of the members of the revolution communicate through encrypted phone conversations and video conferences. While this was certainly ahead of its time, video conferencing was first imagined in the late 1800s. Despite a clear demand for the technology, it took until the late 2000s arguably, to reach appoint where mass video communication was easily accessible for businesses (Zoom Video) and individuals (FaceTime, Skype, etc.) This industry has constantly evolved and there are platforms today that offer both secure chat and video such as Microsoft Teams and Cisco Webex. The entire industry is a lesson in execution. The idea was dreamed up so long ago, but it took hundreds of years and multiple product iterations to get to a de-facto standard in the market. Microsoft purchased Skype in 2011 for $8.5B, the same year that Eric Yuan founded Zoom. This wasn’t Microsoft’s first inroads into video either, in 2003, Microsoft bought Placeware and was supposed to overtake the market. But they didn’t and Webex continued to be a major industry player before getting acquired by Cisco. Over time Skype popularity has waned, and now, Microsoft Teams has a fully functioning video platform separate from Skype – something that Webex did years ago. Markets are constantly in a state of evolution, and its important to see what has worked well. Skype and Zoom both succeeded by appealing to free users, Skype initially focused on free consumers, and Zoom focused on free users within businesses. WebEx has always been enterprise focused but they had to be, because bandwidth costs were too high to support a video platform. Teams will go to market as a next-generation alternate/augmentation of Outlook; it will be interesting to see what happens going forward.

2. Privacy and Secure Communication. As part of the revolution’s communication, a secure, isolated message system is created whereby not only are conversations fully encrypted and undetected by authorities but also individuals are unable to speak with more than two others in their revolution tree. Today, there are significant concerns about secure communication – people want it, but they also do not. Facebook has declared that they will implement end to end encryption despite warnings from the government not to do so. Other mobile applications like Telegram and Signal promote secure messaging and are frequently used by reporters for anonymous tips. While encryption is beneficial for those messaging, it does raise concerns about who has access to what information. Should a company have access to secure messages? Should the government have access to secure messages? Apple has always stayed strong in its privacy declaration, but has had its own missteps. This is a difficult question and the solution must be well thought out, taking into account unintended consequences of sweeping regulation in any direction.

3. Conglomerates. LuNoHo Co is the conglomerate that the revolution utilized to build a massive catapult and embezzle funds. While Mike’s microtransaction financial fraud is interesting (“But bear in mind that an auditor must assume that machines are honest.”), the design of LuNoHo Co. which is described as part bank, part engineering firm, and part oil and gas exploitation firm, interestingly addresses the conventional business wisdom of the times. In the 1960s, coming out of World War II, conglomerates began to really take hold across many developing nations. The 1960s were a period of low interest rates, which allowed firms to perform leveraged buyouts of other companies (using low interest loans), sometimes in a completely unrelated set of industries. Activision was once part of Vivendi, a former waste management, energy, construction, water and property conglomerate. The rationale for these moves was often that a much bigger organization could centralize general costs like accounting, finance, legal and other costs that touched every aspect of the business. However, when interest rates rose in the late 70s and early 80s, several conglomerate profits fell, and the synergies promised at the outset of the deal turned out to be more difficult to realize than initially assumed. Conglomerates are incredibly popular in Asia, often times supported by the government. In 2013, McKinsey estimated: “Over the past decade, conglomerates in South Korea accounted for about 80 percent of the largest 50 companies by revenues. In India, the figure is a whopping 90 percent. Meanwhile, China’s conglomerates (excluding state-owned enterprises) represented about 40 percent of its largest 50 companies in 2010, up from less than 20 percent a decade before.” Softbank, the famous Japanese conglomerate and creator of the vision fund, was originally a shrink-wrap software distributor but now is part VC and part Telecommunications provider. We’ve discussed the current state of Chinese internet conglomerates, Alibaba and Tencent who each own several different business lines. Over the coming years, as internet access in Asia grows more pervasive and the potential for economic downturn increases, it will be interesting to see if these conglomerates break apart and focus on their core businesses.

Dig Deeper

• The rise and fall of Toshiba

• Using Artificial Intelligence to Create Talking Images

• MIT Lecture on Image Classification via Deep Learning

• 2019 Trends in the Video Conferencing Industry

• The Moon is a Harsh Mistress may be a movie

October 2019 - The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman

Psychologist Don Norman takes us through an exploratory journey of the basics in functional design. As the consumerization of software grows, this book’s key principles will become increasingly important.

Tech Themes

1. Discoverability and Understanding. Discoverability and Understanding are two of the most key principles in design. Discoverability answers the questions of, “Is it possible to figure out what actions are possible and where and how to perform them?” Discoverability is absolutely crucial for first time application users because poor discovery of actions leads to low likelihood of repeat use. In terms of Discoverability, Scott Berkun notes that designers should prioritize what can be discovered easily: “Things that most people do, most often, should be prioritized first. Things that some people do, somewhat often, should come second. Things that few people do, infrequently, should come last.” Understanding answers the questions of: “What does it all mean? How is the product supposed to be used? What do all the different controls and settings mean?” We have all seen and used applications where features and complications dominate the settings and layout of the app. Understanding is simply about allowing the user to make sense of what is going on in the application. Together, Discoverability and Understanding lay the ground work for successful task completion before a user is familiar with an application.

2. Affordances, Signifiers and Mappings. Affordances represent the set of possible actions that are possible; signifiers communicate the correct action that should take place. If we think about a door, depending on the design, possible affordances could be: push, slide, pull, twist the knob, etc. Signifiers represent the correct action or the action the designer would like you to perform. In the context of a door, a signifier might be a metal plate that makes it obvious that the door must be pushed. Mappings provide straightforward correspondence between two sets of objects. For example, when setting the brightness on an iPhone, swiping up increases brightness and swiping down decreases brightness, as would be expected by a new user. Design issues occur when there is a mismatch in affordances, signifiers and mappings. Doors provide another great example of poor coordination between affordances, signifiers and mappings - everyone has encountered a door with a handle that says push over it. This normally followed by an uncomfortable pushing and pulling motion to discover the actions possible with the door. Why are there handles if I am supposed to push? Good design and alignment between affordances, signifiers and mappings make life easier for everyone.

3. The Seven Stages of Action. Norman lay outs the psychology underpinning user decisions in seven stages - Goal, Plan, Specify, Perform, Perceive, Interpret, Compare. The first three (Goal, Plan, Specify) represent the clarification of an action to be taken on the World. Once the action is Performed, the final three steps (Perceive, Interpret, Compare) are trying to make sense of the new state of the World. The seven stages of action help generalize the typical user’s interactions with the World. With these stages in mind, designers can understand potential breakdowns in discoverability, understanding, affordances, signifiers, and mappings. As users perform actions within applications, understanding each part of the customer journey allows designers to prioritize feature development and discoverability.

Business Themes

1. The best product does not always win, but... If the best product always won out, large entrenched incumbents across the software ecosystem like IBM, Microsoft, Google, SAP, and Oracle would be much smaller companies. Why are there so many large behemoths that won’t fall? Each company has made deliberate design decisions to reduce the amount of customer churn. While most of the large enterprise software providers suffer from Feature Creep, the product and deployment complexity can often be a deterrent to churn. For example, Enterprise CIOs do not want to spend budget to re-platform from AWS to Azure, unless there was a major incident or continued frustration with ease of use. Interestingly enough though, as we’ve discussed, the transition from license-maintenance software to SaaS, as well as the consumerization of the enterprise, are changing the necessity of good design and user experience. If we look at Oracle for example. The business has made several acquisitions of applications to be built on Oracle Databases. But the poor user experience and complexity of the applications is starting to push Oracle out of businesses.

2. Shipping products on time and on budget. “The day a product development process starts, it is behind schedule and above budget.” The product design process is often long and complex because there is a wide array of disciplines involved in the process. Each discipline thinks they are the most important part of the process and may have different reasons for including a singular feature, which may conflict with good design. To alleviate some of that complexity, Norman suggests hiring design researchers that are separate from the product development focus. These researchers focus on how users are working in the field and are coming up with additional use cases / designs all the time. When the development process kicks off, target features and functionality have already been suggested.

3. Why should business leaders care about good design? We have already discussed how product design can act as a deterrent to churn. If processes and applications become integral to Company function, then there is a low chance of churn, unless there is continued frustration with ease of use. Measuring product market fit is difficult but from a metrics perspective; companies can look at gross churn ($ or customer amount that left / beginning ARR or beginning customers) or NPS to judge how well their product is being received. Good design is a direct contributor to improved NPS and better retention. When you complement good design with several hooks into the customers, churn reduces.

Dig Deeper

• UX Fundamentals from General Assembly

• Why game design is crucial for preventing churn

• Figma and InVision - the latest product development tools

• Examples of bad user experience design

• Introduction to Software Usage Analytics

September 2019 - Ready Player One by Ernest Cline

Ernest Cline’s magical world of virtual reality is explores a potential new medium of communication through an excellent heroic tale.

Tech Themes

1. Wide-ranging applicability and use cases of Virtual Reality. Although the novel was written in 2011, Ernest Cline does an incredible job of detailing the complex and numerous use cases of VR throughout the novel. Cline’s 18 year old main character Wade Watts attends school via VR, where you can have a limitless number of students all learn from the same teacher. Beyond that, different worlds and galaxies are easily conjured up with different themes, time periods and technology taking learning and experience to another level: Wade spends time playing old video games in an effort to unlock certain clues about James Halliday, Wade re-enacts all of Matthew Broderick’s part in the movie War Games in an effort to unlock one of the keys, Aech and Wade frequently hang out in the Basement, a re-created 1980’s recreational room with vintage magazines and game consoles. All of these distinct use cases – education, gaming, social networking, and entertainment – are the promise of Virtual Reality. There is a long way to go before that promise is met.

2. The intersection of the online/offline world. As James Halliday writes in Anorak’s Almanac: “Going outside is highly overrated.” Ready Player One does a great job of exploring the conflation of the online and offline worlds. The book weaves together experiences from this intersection into critical moments of the book including Wade’s escape from the Stacks and his imprisonment by IOI. While there is a tangible feeling that online is the much preferred experience for all the reasons discussed above, it’s the offline in-person events that truly shape the heroic ending of the book. This serves as a reminder that the OASIS is very much a virtual reality and explores the need for in-person human connection. Ironically, this is something Halliday sorely missed out on as shown through his unrequited love for Ogden Morrow’s (co-creator of the OASIS) wife, Kira. As big companies move into our homes through Google Homepods, Amazon Echos, Facebook Portals, the human connection element needs to be maintained.

3. The ability to disguise your identity online. “In the OASIS, you could become whomever and whatever you wanted to be, without ever revealing your true identity, because your anonymity was guaranteed.” This quote about the OASIS is largely true of today’s Internet. Through private browsing, Virtual Private Networks, avoiding Google and ad-tagging websites, people are able to stay anonymous online already. But what the OASIS does in addition, is allow you to modify not only your back-story, but also how you appear to others, something that is very important in VR. While there is no question that Wade, Art3mis and Aech are able to avoid insecurities by masking their identities, eventually those insecurities are revealed, albeit with little consequence. Given the myriad of leaks and breaches in the last few years (Yahoo, Facebook, DoorDash, etc.), as the VR ecosystem continues to grow, increasing amounts of privacy will be needed to maintain anonymity.

Business themes

1. What is the dominant revenue model in VR? The evil villains at Innovative Online Industries (IOI) and their army of sixers have tried several hostile takeover attempts to acquire Halliday’s Gregarious Simulations Systems in order to convert it to a paid user model. IOI is the world’s largest internet service provider and just like other three letter named tech behemoths (cough, IBM, cough), fits the classic evil corporation vibe. Dismissing the potential business and technology conflicts (the world’s largest ISP is probably critical in delivering the OASIS throughout the world), its interesting to theorize what the dominant revenue model of VR may be. Facebook recently launched its VR world to complement its Oculus devices and there have been varied attempts to launch similar software worlds like Rec Room. The big discovery Google made early on was that advertising would be the business model of the web. Facebook copied this as it created social networking and as devices transitioned from desktop to mobile, and image to video, advertising continued to be the dominant mode of content monetization. Is there any reason to think VR will be any different? Potentially. The current dominant model for video gaming is subscriber based, freemium (paying for enhanced abilities, character changes, etc.) or single purchase. While there is no reason these ideas can’t be combined with advertising, the idea of a multi-world VR landscape may reduce some of the targeted ROI you receive from very specific ad-targeting on Instagram and Google today. In a limitless world, advertising to specific people will be difficult. Beyond that, porting the mish-mash of complex technologies used in today’s advertising landscape would add even more challenge.

2. The BIG, evil tech corporation. IOI is the quintessential evil technology company. As the world’s largest ISP, IOI could be a reference to Comcast, which is the United States’ largest ISP and often referenced as one of the most hated companies. Comcast, like other ISPs is always facing the challenge of serving millions of subscribers but unlike other companies, they are monopolistic in certain areas where they are the only viable provider for internet, allowing them to raise prices and treat customers poorly. The big, evil technology corporation cliché has been around for a long time and today’s largest tech companies have all spent sometime being that cliché. This dynamic can arise for many reasons. At Amazon, it’s the continued alienation of open source communities, the anti-competitive behavior around its search algorithm and the smothering of small vendors on its marketplace. Facebook and Google have both faced privacy concerns. Google has been sued for manipulating search on mobile devices. Microsoft was sued for anti-trust issues over browsers. As startups begin to dominate their core businesses, unless they continue innovating, they begin acting defensively to maintain their leading position. Facebook feature copied Snapchat stories almost immediately after they came out. IBM had a book written on them in the 1980s claiming they were anticompetitive. There is a reason corporate communications (WeWork lol) are so important and maintaining the image of a positive change for good. Every major technology company has spent time as the evil one, some have just spent more time than others.

3. Difficulty in creating VR applications. Ready Player One stoked a lot interest in the promise of VR, but the actual implementation is incredibly difficult with the hardware and software we have available as tools today. Moore’s law is slowing and some computer scientists have suggested specific chips to address the demands of newer technologies like Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality and Deep Learning. After Facebook acquired Oculus in 2014 for $2.4B, funding continued to flow into VR startups. Magic Leap, the highly secretive and most heavily funded VR startup has raised $2.3B on its own, and after years of development finally released its hardware for over $2,000 per device and its unclear if it makes a profit on any sales yet. More recently, several VR companies have gone bankrupt and laid off employees as product development didn’t reach application or end users before the funding ran out. While the software and hardware continues to improve, a lot still needs to be figured out before VR becomes mainstream.

Dig Deeper

• VR Garden in Montreal

• Oculus co-founder Palmer Lucky’s review of Magic Leap

• Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Healthcare

• Deep dive into the secretive Magic Leap

• The real world easter egg hunt from Ready Player One

June 2019 - Zero to One by Peter Thiel

Peter Thiel’s contrarian startup classic, Zero to One, is a great book for understanding and building startups.

Tech Themes

1. Zero to One. As Thiel explains in the opening pages, Zero to One is the concept of creating companies that bring new technology into the world: “The single word for vertical, 0 to 1 progress is technology.” This is in contrast to startups that simply copy existing ideas or other products and tackle problems 1 to n. In Thiel’s view, the great equalizer that allows you to create such an idea is proprietary technology. This can come in many forms: Google’s search algorithms, Amazon’s massive book catalog, Apple’s improved design of the iPad or PayPal’s faster integrated Ebay payments. But generally, to capture significant value from a market; the winning technology has to be 10x better than competition. To this end, Thiel says, “Don’t disrupt.... If your company can be summed up by its opposition to already existing firms, it can’t be completely new and it’s probably not going to become a monopoly.” The true way to become a massively successful company is to build something completely new that is 10x better than the way its currently being done. This 10x better product has to be conceived over the long term, with the idea that the final incremental feature added to the product gives it that 10x lift and takes it to monopoly status.

2. Beliefs and Contrarianism. Thiel begins the book with a thought-provoking question: “What important truth do very few people agree with you on?” To Thiel, however you answer this question indicates your courage to challenge conventional wisdom and thus your potential ability to take a novel technology from 0 to 1. Extending this idea, Thiel defines the word startup as, “the largest group of people you can convince of a plan to build a different future.” This sort of Silicon Valley contrarianism is exactly the mindset of Internet bubble entrepreneurs. Thiel continues on this thinking, with another question: “Can you control your future?” and to that question he answers with an emphatic, “Yes.” People are taught to believe that “right place, right time” or “luck” is the greatest contributor to individual success. And as discussed in Good to Great, while many CEOs and prominent executives make this claim, they often don’t believe it and use it much more as a marketing mechanism. Thiel firmly believes in the idea of self-determination, and why shouldn’t he? He’s a white male, Rhodes Scholar and Stanford Law School graduate who has now made billions of dollars. In his mind, you either believe something novel and create that future or you waste your time tackling the problems that exist today. This also conveniently mirrors Thiel’s investing focus and he even calls this out in a chapter detailing venture returns. Venture takes informed speculative bets on which technology will ultimately win out in a market – the best bets are the ones that differ so greatly from the established norm because the likelihood of landing in the monopoly position (though still small) is much greater than a Company that is recreating existing products.

3. Looking for Secrets and Building Startups. The answers to the Thiel question posed above are secrets: knowable but undiscovered truths that exist in the world today. He then poses: “Why has so much of our society come to believe that there are no hard secrets left?” He provides a four part answer:

• Incrementalism – the idea that you only have to hit a minimum threshold for pre-determined success and that over-achieving is frequently met with the same reward as basic achievement

• Risk Aversion – People are more scared than ever about being wrong about a secret they believe

• Complacency – people are fine collecting rents on things that were already established before they were involved

• Flatness – the idea that as globalization continues, the world is viewed as one hyper competitive market for all products

Sticking on his contrarian path, Thiel emphasizes: “The best place to look for secrets is where no else is looking…What are people not allowed to talk about? What is forbidden or taboo?” This question is especially interesting in the context of the latest round of startups going public. A lot of people have argued that the newest wave of startups are tackling problems that are of lower value to society, like food delivery – focused on pleasing an increasingly on-demand, dopamine driven world. Why is that? Have we reached a local maximum in technology for a given period? While you may not completely believe Ray Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns, the pace of technological evolution has probably not hit a maximum. It could be argued that we have enjoyed a great run with mobile as a dominant computing platform (PCs before that, Mainframes before that, etc.) and that the next wave of startups tackling “important" problems could spring out of such a development.

Business Themes

1. Monopoly profits. Thiel plainly states the overarching goal of business that is normally obfuscated by cult-like Silicon Valley startups: monopoly profits. This touches on a point that has been bouncing its way through the news media (Elizabeth Warren, Stratechery, Spotify/Apple) in recent months with Elizabeth Warren calling for a breakup of Apple, Facebook and Amazon, Spotify claiming the App Store is a monopoly, and others discussing whether these companies are even monopolies. He claims monopolies deserve their bad press and regulation, “only in a world where nothing changes.” Monopolies in a static environment act like rent collectors: “If you corner the market for something, you can jack up the price; others will have no choice but to buy from you.” This is true of many heavy regulated industries today like Utilities. It’s often the case consumers only have one or two providers to choose from at max, so governments regulate the amount utilities can increase prices each year. Thiel then explains what he calls creative monopolists, companies that “give customers more choice by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren’t just good for the rest of society: they’re powerful engines for making it better.” Thiel cites a few interesting examples of “monopoly” disruption: Apple iOS outcompeting Microsoft operating systems, IBM hardware being overtaken by Microsoft software, and AT&T’s monopoly prior to being broken up. It should be noted that two of these examples actually did require government regulation – Microsoft was sued in 2001 and AT&T was forced to break up its monopoly. What’s even more interesting, is the prospect of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger being blocked because while the consolidation of the telecom industry could mean increased prices, both T-Mobile and Sprint have struggled to compete with guess who, AT&T and Verizon (who started as a merger with former AT&T company, Bell Atlantic). Whether monopolies are good or bad for society, whether its possible to call tech companies with several different business lines monopolies remains to be seen – but one things for sure – being a monopoly, tech monopoly, or creative monopoly is a great thing for your business.

2. Prioritizing Near Term Growth at the Risk of Long Term Success. Thiel begins his chapter on Last Mover Advantage with an interesting discussion on how investors view LinkedIn’s valuation (since acquired by Microsoft but at the time was publicly traded). At the time, LinkedIn had $1B in revenue and $21M in net income, but was trading at a value of $24B (i.e. 24x LTM Revenue and 1100x+ Net Income). Why was this valued so highly? Thiel provides an interesting answer: “The overwhelming importance of future profits is counterintuitive even in Silicon Valley. For a company to be valuable it must grow and endure, but many entrepreneurs focus on short-term growth. They have an excuse: growth is easy to measure, but durability isn’t.” Thiel then continues with two great examples of short-term focus: “Rapid short-term growth at Zynga and Groupon distracted managers and investors from long-term challenges.” Zynga became famous with Farmville, but struggled to find the next big hit and Groupon posted incredibly fast growth, but couldn’t get sustained repeat customers. This focus on short-term growth is incredibly interesting given the swarm of unicorns going public this year. Both Lyft and Uber grew incredibly quickly, but as the public markets have showed, the ride-sharing business model may not be durable with each company losing billions a year. Thiel continues: “If you focus on near term growth above all else, you miss the most important question you should be asking: will this business still be around a decade from now?” To become a durable tech monopoly, Thiel cites the following important characteristics: proprietary technology, network effects, economies of scale, and branding. It’s interesting to look at these characteristics in the context of a somewhat monopoly disruptor, Zoom Video Communications. CEO Eric Yuan, who was head of engineering at Cisco’s competing WebEx product, built the Company’s proprietary tech stack with all the prior knowledge of WebEx’s issues in mind. Zoom’s software is based on a freemium model, when one user wants to video chat with another, they simply send the invite regardless of whether they have the service already – this isn’t exactly a google-esque network effect but it does increase distribution and usage. Zoom’s technology is efficiently scalable as shown by the fact that its profitable despite incredibly fast growth. Lastly, Zoom’s marketing and branding are excellent and are repeatedly lauded within the press. The question is, are these characteristics really monopoly defining? Or are they simply just good business characteristics? We will have to wait and see how Zoom fairs over the next 10 years to find out.

3. Asymmetric Risk & VC Returns. Thiel started venture capital firm, Founders Fund in 2005 with Ken Howery (who helped start PayPal with Thiel). Thiel notes an interesting phenomena about VC returns that several entrepreneurs don’t truly understand: “Facebook the best investment in our 2005 fund, returned more than all the others combined. Palantir, the second best investment is set to return more than the sum of every investment aside from Facebook…The biggest secret in venture capital is that the best investment in a successful fund equals or outperforms the entire rest of the fund combined.” Venture capital investing, especially at the earliest stages like Seed and Series A (where Founder’s Fund invests) is a game of maximizing the chance of one or two big successes. In the past five to ten years, there has been a significant increase in venture capital investing, and with that a focus among many firms to be founder friendly. As discussed before, these founder friendly cultures have led to super-voting shares (like Snap, FB and others) and unprecedented VC rounds. Even with these changes, there is still a friction at most VC-backed companies: the supposedly value added VC board member doesn’t believe that Company XYZ will be the next Facebook or Palantir, and because of that chooses to spend as little time with them as possible. This has fueled the somewhat anti-VC movement that several entrepreneurs have adopted because as with Elon Musk at PayPal and Zip2, being abandoned by your earliest investors can be devastating.

Dig Deeper

• Facebook Chris Hughes co-founder calls for the breakup of Facebook

• Thiel wrote the first check into Facebook at a $5M valuation

• An overview of the PayPal Mafia

• A new book on scaling quickly by PayPal Mafia member Reid Hoffman

December 2018 - Steve Jobs by Walter Issacson

This is a long biography about an incredible person. The book is surprisingly personal and has tons of little stories that show Jobs’ true personality.

Tech Themes

1. The reality distortion field. Steve Jobs was famous for his reality distortion field: the ability to convince himself and others of pretty much anything through a mix of intense passion and hyperbole. The term was coined by Bud Tribble, an early member of Apple’s design team, who had daily experience working with Jobs at Apple and NeXT. Jobs’s would speak charismatically about achieving incredibly lofty goals and slowly bend employees to his way of thinking through somewhat manipulative means. He would frequently dismiss ideas as “complete shit” only to come back a few weeks later claiming to have come up with the idea. As Andy Hertzfeld (an original member of the Apple development team) put it: “I thought Bud was surely exaggerating, until I observed Steve in action over the next few weeks. The reality distortion field was a confounding melange of a charismatic rhetorical style, an indomitable will, and an eagerness to bend any fact to fit the purpose at hand. If one line of argument failed to persuade, he would deftly switch to another.” While this approach led to several incredible engineering feats, it also created a difficult environment for Apple employees. Jobs would frequently claim ideas as his own and give little credit to the engineers that actually created something. This extended to his personal life as well, where he wouldn’t shower because he claimed his diet of largely fruits and vegetables did not produce any smell (he was very wrong). Unfortunately this also extended to his cancer diagnosis, which he was convinced he could beat with a new diet despite several prominent doctor warnings to the contrary.

2. Owning the user experience. Steve was obsessed about user experience. At a time when the world was dominated by hard to use, clunky computers, Jobs helped Apple be the first to focus solely on how the user interacted with the computer. After his infamous visit to Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (Xerox PARC), in which he saw early designs for an easy to use mouse, Jobs adopted the technology for an upcoming Apple release. Apple and Jobs introduced several important design innovations including: windows for each operating program, drop-down menus, desktop metaphor (files and the trash can), drag and drop manipulation, and direct editing of a document. Jobs also wanted to maintain a tight connection between the hardware and software of all Apple devices. If Apple could abstract away all the back-end complexities and present an incredibly easy to use interface, its devices could be widely adopted by all consumers. This ran in the face of the general computing industry, which allowed significant user configurability.

3. Design simplicity. Steve Jobs was relentlessly passionate about the design of Apple products. As an extension of the user experience, Jobs wanted products that looked simple and felt magical: "To design something really well, you have to get it.” Jobs worked incredibly closely with Johnny Ive, Jobs’s “spiritual partner at Apple,” on the beautiful simplicity of every Apple product. One example of Jobs’s incredible focus on design is the iPhone. Not only does Jobs appear on the patent for the iPhone’s box, Ive and Jobs obsessed over each part of the phone, focusing on the ten commandments of design espoused by influential artist Dieter Rams. Jobs was so focused on sleek design, that even the internal, unseen logic boards of the Apple II needed to be redesigned because they weren’t straight enough. He also was thoughtful about building design at Pixar, building an open atrium that fostered random interaction as people traveled through it every day.

Business Themes

Bill Gates hovering over Jobs at MacWorld Boston 1997.

1. Vertical integration. It was Tim Cook who pulled Steve Jobs to dinner one night in Japan that led to the mass proliferaiton of Apple devices across the world. Cook had recognized that chipmakers were capable of making the device that Jobs had obsessed over for years, the iPod. Apple is a rare example of a Company that has focused on complete vertical integration. Apple wants to make both the hardware and the software behind its devices. Apple is now so large that it essentially controls all of its suppliers. Most companies leverage third party hardware (Dell, Toshiba, Motorola, Samsung, etc), put someone else’s software on it (Windows and Android), add third party services (Google, carrier services, etc.) and then sell it through someone else’s store (carrier retail stores, Best Buy, etc.) - Apple does it all.

2. Strategic investors. Many people do not know this, but Microsoft and Xerox were both strategic investors in Apple. Xerox’s investment led to that infamous visit to Xerox PARC, that led to inclusion of several proprietary technologies in Apple devices. When Jobs returned to Apple after the NeXT acquisition, he realized Apple’s dire cash circumstances. Jobs decided to call his sometimes enemy, sometimes friend, Bill Gates. Apple was in the process of suing Microsoft for copying its operating system, but Jobs desperately needed the cash. He negotiated a deal whereby Microsoft would invest $150M in Apple and Apple would drop its lawsuit against the Microsoft. “Bill, thank you. The world’s a better place.” The deal was announced at MacWorld Boston in 1997, where Gates appeared on a massive screen, hovering over Jobs in what would become an iconic scene.

3. Competing teams. Jobs would frequently set two different teams at Apple against each other in a fierce competition to produce a device or feature. The most famous example of this civil war experimentation was the design of the iPhone. According to Tony Fadell, Jobs had four different groups all working on an Apple phone: the large iPod for Video team (touchscreen), the iPod Phone team (spinning wheel), the touchscreen Macbook Pro, and the Motorola Rokr (the first phone integrated with iTunes). The whole development process was top secret within the Company, and dubbed: Project Purple. The Macbook Pro touchscreen would eventually become the iPad, and the large iPod for Video became the iPhone. These competing teams led to incredible developmental feats albeit at the sacrifice of shared knowledge within Apple.

Dig Deeper

• Steve Jobs worked the night shift at ATARI

• He dropped out of college

• Jobs went on an Apple fast and also considered himself a fruitarian

• Jobs had a kid at 23 and denied that he was her father. He eventually named an Apple computer after her, LISA

• He was absolutely ruthless