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

December 2020 - Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Blade Runner) by Phillip K. Dick

This month we read the classic sci-fi novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The book follows Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter searching out android robots who are pretending to be human beings. Along the journey, the reader is asked to consider: what does it mean to be alive? Philip K. Dick was a crazy sci-fi writer, producing many books and stories that became famous like The Man in the High Castle, Minority Report, and Total Recall. Although his writing career was prolific, Dick was a troubled individual. He was a heavy drug user, he married five times, he experienced drug-induced “paranormal activities” and he was physically abusive to at least two of his wives. While

Tech Themes

The common, modern depiction of a Turing Test

1. Are you an android? In 1950, British computer scientist Alan Turing conceived of the Turing Test, a hypothetical test to determine whether a machine can display intelligent behavior. Turing asked the question, “Can machines think?” and attempted to define a test whereby a human might be tricked into believing a machine was human. The test design is fairly complex but involves a human asking written questions to a machine in another room. If the machine can convince the interrogator that it’s human, then machines can “think.” This Turing test is mirrored in the Voigt-Kampff test used throughout the book. It’s unclear if the test works, and Rick Deckard almost misdiagnoses Rachel in the book's early parts. At the end of the book, the test is turned on its head, with Rick impersonating John Isidore (another human), trying to convince machines (in another room) to let him in. This role-reversal and the questioning of who is an android happens throughout the novel - at times, Rick, Phil Resh, and Harry Bryant might all be androids. These questions are the centerpiece of sci-fi lore. They are also explored in a similar style in the famous movie Ghost in The Shell, where people have now have some organs and limbs replaced by electric parts. When a cyber-attacker named the Puppet Master takes over the machine network of technological parts, it’s unclear who is human, who is an android, and who is possessed by the Puppet Master. In the video game world, this idea has also recently been explored in Detroit: Become Human. In the game, which is set up in choose-your-own-adventure style, players can play as humans or androids and choose whether they stay in character or break out of their controlled, android state. The idea of an interrogator or bounty hunter snooping out rogue machines has been explored across books, film, and video games. As technology has become more prevalent in our lives, the cultural mediums may have changed, but the classic philosophical question - what does it mean to be alive? - remains.

2. Predicting the future. The Blade Runner movie is famously set in Los Angeles, 2019, while the book is set in 1992 in San Francisco. The book itself was written in 1968, and the movie Blade Runner debuted 14 years later in 1982. In 2019, Blade Runner experienced a comic resurgence as its dark, bleak futuristic society of flying cars, fully intelligent artificial beings, and international space travel never happened. Today, predictions of computing and artificial intelligence abound. In his original Imitation Game paper, Alan Turing made one of the most famous AI predictions: “I believe that in about fifty years’ time it will be possible to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 percent, chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.” It’s tough to know if this prediction came true (other than the 10^9 part because that is only 1 GB), with some places claiming to have built algorithms that beat the Turing Test. Interestingly, one common theme emerges about these computing predictions - both experts and non-experts typically predict about 15-25 years out. In the Innovators, Walter Issacson posited that this was enough time to allow people to engage in imaginative thinking. Roy Amara, co-founder of the Institute for the Future, probably put it best: “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.” How long run is the long run, though? As John Maynard Keynes proclaimed: “In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if, in tempestuous seasons, they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.” It is seriously hard to estimate the combination of changing technologies and infrastructures, which unlock completely new and cost-effective ways of building things. Will we have self-driving cars in 20 years? Will we have Artificial General Intelligence? Will we have quantum computing? I have no idea.

3. Technology and nature. One theme repeatedly explored throughout the novel is this balance or tension between technology and nature. World War Terminus has caused a layer of radioactive dust to fall over the world, killing animal life and changing the environment. Mechanical animals are the norm, and Rick dreams about procuring a real horse, ostrich, or goat one day. He regularly checks his Sidney’s Animal & Fowl Catalogue like a stockbroker checking the latest price change. A real animal is significantly more expensive than a mechanical version, despite it being nearly impossible to figure out whether an animal is real or fake. This mirror’s the book's whole premise - a real human is more important and valuable than an Android despite increasingly small differences between Androids and humans. Rick realizes this at the end of the book: “The spider Mercer gave the chickenhead, Isidore; it probably was artificial, too. But it doesn't matter. The electric things have their lives, too. Paltry as those lives are." Technology and nature have a tradeoff in today’s world as well. Cloud computing is certainly energy-intensive, but according to the companies that run those clouds (like Google Cloud or Microsoft Azure), it is significantly less intensive than having companies run their own data centers. Beyond the environmental impact, the behavior of nature is something to consider when operating a data center. A few years ago, Facebook data centers went down when a Snake chewed through a switchboard and took down all services. In 2014, a shark bit through an underwater Google fiber cable, and in 2012 a squirrel took down a Yahoo data center. Animals, technology, and nature are constantly interacting, sometimes in unexpected ways.

Business Themes

1. Status seeking and the growth of e-commerce. In the battle to achieve status, real animals are a highly sought after status symbol. Early on in the book, Rick engages in a jealous conversation over his neighbor’s real horse: “‘Ever thought of selling your horse?’ Rick asked. He wished to god he had a horse, in fact any animal.” After revealing that his sheep was electric, Rick’s neighbor kindly remarks that he won’t tell the other people in the apartment complex, suggesting that if people knew Rick had an electric sheep (rather than a real one), they would look down on him. While this interaction seems weird, it parallels so many interactions people have today. Vance Packard offered a description of “status seekers” in 1959: “People who are continually straining to surround themselves with visible evidence of the superior rank they are claiming.” As general consumption and wealth rose after World-War II in the US, luxury goods became more attainable for more classes. Globalization of supply chains also increased this trend. When commerce moved online, new shopping styles and behaviors emerged. E-commerce purchases can frequently replace feelings and there is even a psychological disorder caused by excessive purchasing: Buying-shopping disorder (BSD) is characterized by extreme preoccupations with and craving for buying/shopping and by irresistible and identity-seeking urges to possess consumer goods. Patients with BSD buy more consumer goods than they can afford, and those are neither needed nor frequently used. The excessive purchasing is primarily used to regulate emotions, e.g. to get pleasure, relief from negative feelings, or coping with self-discrepancy.” Dick may be signaling that humans seek status and importance compared to their reference groups, regardless of setting or what indicates that status to others, whether it be an expensive handbag or a goat.

2. Buy goat now, pay-later. 2020 saw the emergence of buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) vendors like Affirm, Klarna, and Afterpay. These companies typically offer zero-interest loans to consumers and get paid a 5% merchant fee for increasing purchases at e-commerce stores. The stores (like Peloton for example) increase sales and the consumers benefit from not having to pay a significant upfront payment. The other way these companies make money is by charging interest payments on specific types of purchases (likely where the merchant doesn’t want to give away a fee). These interest rates can be really, really high - averaging around 10-30% depending on the purchase. This is not a new concept and the idea of payday loans at predatorily high-interest rates has been around for over 30 years. Luckily, the purchases that these BNPL providers are financing tend to not be really high-value products, but it’s still concerning that some people are buying things without understanding the true value they will have to pay in interest. When Rick purchases a real goat, after killing three androids, he finances it, paying $3,000 upfront and entering into a three-year payment contract. Rick’s wife Iran is outraged at the cost of the goat: "‘What are the monthly payments on the goat?’ She held out her hand; reflexively he got out the contract which he had signed, passed it to her. ‘That much,’ she said in a thin voice. ‘The interest; good god — the interest alone. And you did this because you were depressed. Not as a surprise for me, as you originally said.” With BNPL providers now securitizing these consumer loans and selling them off to banks, I wonder if we will see any new regulation come to bear for the benefit of consumers. If people are not careful, they could be locked into long contracts with significant interest over time.

3. Two case studies in electric animals. Electric animals have actually been invented and while they may not be the equivalent of Goddard from Jimmy Neutron yet, they are pretty funny and interesting case studies. Sony released the AIBO dog in 1999 after many years of research. The original robot dog cost $2,100 (~$3,500 in today’s dollars) and sold about 65,000 units. The programmable software allowed the dogs to be used in a variety of situations including an AI soccer world cup. The initial popularity of the dogs waned, and price wars with new rivals caused sales to decline. In 2006, the AIBO dog was discontinued. In 2018, it made a resurgence and is now a barking flexible model that you can pet, play games with, and feed. Another tale of odd mechanic animals is Boston Dynamics. The company that spun out of MIT in 1992 produced massive quadruped animals including one called BigDog, that was capable of balancing, walking up-hill, and carrying significant amounts of equipment. The Company had trouble selling products though and was acquired by Google in 2013 for an undisclosed sum. This came at a time when Google was pushing heavily into robotics with Google Glass and what would become Waymo - they literally titled this Project Replicant (the name used for Android in the Blade Runner film). After some more years of underperformance, Google sold Boston Dynamics to Softbank in 2017. After years of development, the company finally released a product to consumers for a whopping $75,000. The dog is still pretty creepy and comes without a real face, unlike the Aibo. In 2020, it was announced that Hyundai had acquired an 80% stake in the business at a $1.1B valuation. We are still years away from having electric animals that mimic real-life animals and that may be a good thing.

Dig Deeper

• Blade Runner: How Its Problems Made It a Better Movie

• Does Buy Now, Pay Later Threaten Credit Card Issuers?

• Predicting a Future Where the Future Is Routinely Predicted

• An Overview of the latest Affirm Consumer Loan Securitization

• Snakes in a Facebook Data Center

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

November 2019 - Brotopia: Breaking Up the Boys' Club of Silicon Valley by Emily Chang

This book details a number of factors that have discouraged women’s participation and promotion in the tech industry. Emily Chang gives a brief history of the circumstances that have pushed women away from the industry and then covers its current issues - weaving in great insights and actionable takeaways along the way.

Tech Themes

1. The Antisocial Programmer. As the necessity for technological talent began to rise in the early 1960s, many existing companies were unsure how to hire the right people. To address this shortfall in know-how, companies used standard aptitude tests, like IBM’s Programmer Aptitude Test, to examine whether a candidate was capable of applying the right problem solving skills on the job. Beyond these standard aptitude tests, companies leveraged personality exams. In 1966, a large software company called System Development Corporation hired William Cannon and Dallis Perry to build a personality test that could shed light on the right personalities needed on the job. To build this personality test, Cannon and Perry profiled 1,378 programmers on a range of personality traits. Of those 1,378 profiled, only 186 were women. After compiling their findings, the final report stated: “[Programmers] dislike activities involving close personal interaction; they are generally more interested in things than people.” Furthermore, Cannon and Perry’s 82-page paper made no reference to women at all, referring to the surveyed group as men, for the entire paper. A combination of aptitude tests and Cannon-Perry’s personality test became the industry standard for recruiting, and soon companies were mistakenly focused on stereotypical antisocial programmers. Antisocial personality disorder is three times more common in men than women. Given how early the tech industry was, compared to what it is now, this decision to hire a majority of anti-social men has propagated throughout the industry, with senior leaders continually reinforcing incorrect hiring standards.

2. Women in Computer Science. According to the book, “there was an overall peak in bachelor’s degrees awarded in computer science in the mid-1980s, and a peak in the percentage of women receiving those degrees at nearly 40 percent. And then there was a steep decline in both.” It was at this time in the mid-1980s that computer science departments began to turn away anyone who was not a pre-qualified, academic top performer. There was too much demand with a constrained supply of qualified teachers, so only the best kids were allowed into top programs. This caused students to view computer science as hyper-competitive and unwelcoming to individuals without significant experience. Today, women earn only 18% of computer science degrees – a statistic that shocks many in the industry. Researchers at NPR found that intro CS courses play a key role in this problem – with many teachers still assuming students have prior familiarity with coding. Furthermore, women are socialized in a number of ways to achieve perfection, so when brand new code is not working well, women are more likely to feel discouraged. It is imperative to encourage women to try computer science if they have interest, to combat these negative trends.

3. PayPal and Perpetuating Cycles. After the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s, several newly minted millionaires did the natural thing after selling a company for millions of dollars, became a venture capitalists. One of the major success stories of the era was PayPal. Among those newly minted millionaires were the PayPal mafia: Peter Thiel, Keith Rabois, Elon Musk, Max Levchin, David Sacks, and Reid Hoffman. Thiel and Rabois have a history of suggesting a meritocratic process of hiring where only the most qualified academic candidate should land the job, not taking into account diversity of any form. Furthermore, in his book Zero to One (which we’ve discussed before), Thiel proposes startups should hire only “nerds of the same type.” The mafia began investing in several new companies, seeding friends who were likely to perpetuate the cycle of recruiting friends and hiring based on status alone. Rabois, who is currently a venture capitalist has remarked: “Once you have alignment, then I think you can have a wide swath of people, views and perspectives.” These ideas seem more like justification for hiring large groups of white males who were friends of PayPal executives than a truly “meritocratic” process, which is not the best way of building a successful, diverse organization. Roger McNamee, founder of technology private equity firm, Silver Lake, suggests: “They didn’t just perpetuate it; they turned it into a fine art. They legitimized it… The guys were born into the right part of the gene pool, they wind up at the right company, at the right moment in time, they all leave together and [go on] to work together. I give them full credit for it but calling it a meritocracy is laughable.”

Business Themes

1. The Women at Early Google. A lot of people know the story of Sergey Brin meeting co-founder Larry Page. But few are aware of when Sergey and Larry met Susan Wojcicki, who is now CEO of YouTube. Sergey and Larry were looking for office space, and through a mutual friend, were introduced to Susan Wojcicki, who worked in marketing at Intel at the time. Though she didn’t jump on board immediately, Susan eventually came around and was instrumental in launching two of Google’s most important products: AdWords and AdSense. Wojcicki would soon be working closely with a newly recruited, Marissa Mayer, who after graduating from Stanford with a degree in Symbolic Systems, joined Google to help build AdWords and design Google’s front-end. Wojcicki and Mayer would soon be joined by Sheryl Sandberg, who came to Google in 2001 as Vice President of Online Sales and Operations. Another now-famous early female employee was Kim Scott, author of Radical Candor, who joined the company in 2004. All of these early, powerful female leaders, with the continued urging of Larry and Sergey (who wanted to achieve a 50/50 ratio of male to female employees) helped build a strong culture of female leadership. But as the Company scaled it lost sight of its gender diversity goals – “In 2017, women accounted for 31% of employees overall, 25% of leadership roles and 20% of technical roles.” Google claims it lost touch as it scaled, when the need for hiring outpaced the ability to find qualified and diverse candidates – but that sounds like an easy cop out.

2. Startups and Party Culture. Atari and Trilogy Software pioneered the idea of a work-hard, play-hard startup cultures. Nolan Bushnell of Atari would throw wild parties and have employees (including Steve Jobs) work late into the night, building for the company. Trilogy, a provider of sales and marketing software, extended this idea even further. It started with hiring, where, according to a former engineer, Trilogy’s ethos was: “We’re elite talent. It’s potential and talent, not experience, that has merit.” The Company regularly used complicated brain-teasers in interviews and attracted swaths of anti-social engineers with young and attractive talent recruiters. Joe Liemandt, the CEO of Trilogy, also moved the company to Austin, Texas; executives likened the tactic to marooning members of a cult. Co-founder Christy Jones remarked: “I didn’t go on vacation. We called holidays competitive advantage days because no one else was working. It was a chance to get ahead.” The Company had a strong drinking and partying culture and bares striking cult-like resemblance to WeWork, except it had a sustainable business model. Other technology companies have mixed constant alcohol and long hours, which has led to numerous assault charges at well-known startups including Uber, Zenefits, WeWork and others. Startup and party culture does not need to be so intertwined.

3. Hiring Practices to Encourage Diverse Backgrounds. Stewart Butterfield, the founder of Flickr (sold to Yahoo for $20 million in 2005), has focused on diverse hiring efforts at his new company Slack. According to Brotopia, “In 2017, Slack reported that 43.5% of its employees were women, including 48% of managers and almost 30% of technical employees – far better numbers than any tech company in Silicon Valley.” Butterfield, who grew up on a commune in Canada, recognizes his privilege, and discusses its not insanely difficult to create a diverse environment: “As an already successful, white, male, straight – go down the list – I’m not going to have the relevant experience to determine what makes this a good workplace, so some of that is just being open but really just making it an explicit focus.” Slack’s diverse recruiting team was given explicit instructions to source candidates from underrepresented backgrounds and schools for every new role in the organization. More companies should follow Slack’s lead and adopt explicit gender and diversity goals.

Dig Deeper

• Susan Fowler’s blog post describing terrible conditions at Uber

• Overview of gender and diversity statistics of major technology companies

• The Sex and Drug fueled parties of Silicon Valley VCs

• A recap of the Google Walkout over sexual harassment allegations

• The Tech Industry’s diversity is not improving

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

July 2019 - Alibaba: The House That Jack Ma Built by Duncan Clark

This is an excellent book to understand Jack Ma, Alibaba and the Chinese tech ecosystem.

Tech Themes

1. Start with a Team: Alibaba’s 18 founders. At a young age, Jack Ma taught himself English by offering tours of his hometown Hangzhou to locals coming from English speaking countries. Jack went on to study English at Hangzhou Teachers Institute where he graduated in 1988. Following graduation, he taught English for a few years and because of his English skills, he was selected to go on a trip to America, on behalf of the Hangzhou government. While there, he tried using the internet to look up “beer” and noticed there were very few Chinese web pages. When he got back to China, he started China Pages, a custom website development shop for Chinese businesses. The business received funding from the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation but was losing out to rival telecom company Hangzhou Communications that had recently started a competitor. China Pages was struggling to help customers realize return on their investments because there was so little business happening online at that time in China. Frustrated by competition and worried about the long-term effects of being funded by the government, Jack rounded up a group of 17 people - some were former students, some colleagues in the government, some employees at China Pages - and started Alibaba. Jack also met and recruited Joe Tsai, the first Taiwanese graduate of Yale Law School, who was then working at Investor AB on private equity investments, to join as CFO and founding board member. The team focused on the business to business market which they felt should gain more traction before business to consumer focused companies like Amazon.

2. Open Door Policies: How China became an economic powerhouse. In 2009, China became the World’s biggest exporter, a trend that until recently, seemed all the more likely to continue. But how did we get to this point in China? In 1979, Deng Xiaoping began a series of economic reforms in China that set the stage for enormous growth. The first major act was allowing Chinese individuals to start businesses, a practice that had been strictly forbidden during the previous political era. Next, Deng announced an Open Door Policy, to allow foreign business and investment to flow into specific, Special Economic Zones. This investment spawned incredible growth in now-famous Chinese regions including Shenzhen, which grew GDP on average of 40% per year from 1981 to 1993 and by 2005 became the world’s 3rd busiest port. This incredible growth has created massive companies and seen incredible innovation but has also created global pollution. How sustainable is this great economic expansion?

3. Right Place at the Right Time: The Importance of Timing in Innovation at Alibaba. When trying to build a business, timing can often be more important than the product itself. This can work in a number of ways - during the internet bubble, several entrepreneurs became millionaires on the backs of grandiose ideas without business models. Alibaba is the perfect example of excellent timing. Alibaba was founded in 1999, right as the internet bubble started to heat up. As valuations rose, institutional investors saw returns skyrocketing; this led Goldman Sachs to open up a dedicated Asia Tech fund, focused on investing small amounts into growing Chinese tech companies. Goldman led Alibaba’s first round in 1999 (a $3.3M fundraise), which allowed Alibaba to grow to significant scale with their tight founding team. The internet bubble also attracted a now re-famous Masayoshi Son, and his software distributor turned VC firm, Softbank, to start investing heavily in the internet. Aliababa was by no means the only fast growing Asian Tech company: Sohu (Founded in 1996 by Charles Zhang), Sina (founded in 1998 by Charles Chao who pioneered the Variable Interest Entity designation in China), and NetEase (Founded in 1997 by Ding Lei) were the famed Asian tech darlings of the day. In March 2001, right before the bubble burst, Softbank led a $20M round into Alibaba (which we discuss more below) that allowed Jack the flexibility to weather the internet bubble storm and keep Alibaba private despite growing losses. Sohu, Sina, and NetEase all needed to IPO and limped out into the public markets at poor valuations (Sohu dropped below $1 per share at one point), which caused a long-term drag on their stock prices and business performance. While Alibaba clearly had reached product-market fit by that time, their fortuitous timing (much like that of Amazon’s bond offering) allowed the Company to stay in business during a tough financial time.

Business Themes

1. Different Approaches to Similar Problems: Amazon vs. Alibaba. Alibaba is often hailed as the Amazon of China, but it’s actually, quite different in many major aspects. As discussed recently in this Stratechery article, Amazon’s core e-commerce business is about controlling inventory and logistics. Amazon buys at whole sale prices from brands, keeps the inventory in their 400+ warehouses and ships them out to customers. Retailers pay Amazon a fee on the sale as commission. While this revenue model is similar to Alibaba’s Tmall, a major brand e-commerce site that charges commissions on sale, Alibaba does not retain any inventory in the process. Furthermore, on Alibaba’s Taobao, independent small merchants can list any item for sale and pay no commissions, instead they pay for higher ranking on the site’s internal search engine, similar to Google’s revenue model. While Amazon boxes are delivered nationwide, primarily by Amazon, in China, Alibaba leverages a slew of 3rd party logistics providers to deliver packages any way possible: via bike, motorcycle, car, or on foot. This impacts profit margins as Amazon has to employ its entire logistics operation (350,000+ people) whereas Alibaba is comparatively smaller at 50,000 employees. Beyond their core e-commerce businesses, both Alibaba and Amazon have cloud computing offerings – as discussed before, AWS is the biggest platform in North America, and Alibaba is the biggest in China. While cloud in China is now growing more quickly than North America, it remains a much smaller piece of the overall global cloud landscape.

2. A Lesson in Investing: Analyzing Goldman, Softbank, and Yahoo’s Returns. Alibaba’s funding history is long and complex but illustrates a common dilemma faced by investors and shareholders in startups. Alibaba’s first funding round was led by Goldman Sachs at a $5M pre-money valuation. The next round was a $20M investment in Alibaba, led by Softbank to acquire 1/3 of the Company. At the next funding round in 2004, Softbank invested in an $82M round and Goldman sold its shares, thereby inking a 6.7x return in about 5 years, which by all means is a great investment. However, if Goldman had held on to that share, as Softbank did with its share, at IPO it would have been worth $12.5B, a 3,600x+ return. This is the dilemma faced by several VCs – do I sell now, ink a great return, and make my limited partners happy? Or do I risk it, let my winners ride and realize a potentially career changing win? Yahoo is another example of this complex dilemma. Yahoo invested $1B in Alibaba in 2005 for a 40% stake in the Company (a funding round that was allegedly hashed out over golf at Pebble Beach). After rebuffing Microsoft’s $44.6B offer to buy the Company, Yahoo’s stock price plummeted. A difficult fight with activist investors ensued, and Jerry Yang was eventually fired. This all set up nicely for new CFO, Scott Thompson to come in and promptly offload half of its Alibaba stake for $7.1B, two years later that would be worth $51B. Yahoo, now owned by Verizon, sold its remaining stake earlier this year, and its expected to net shareholders roughly $40B in value.

3. The Everything Companies: The Holdings of Chinese Internet Giants. The number and variety of companies owned by the major tech giants in China is simply staggering. Alibaba has bet big on a wide variety of companies including delivery giant Meituan-Dianping, Lyft, Snap, bike sharing startup Ofo, Chinese ride-hailing company Didi (which recently merged with Uber’s China business), fintech spinoff Ali-Pay and several others. Tencent, creator of the famous all-in-one application, WeChat, has invested in JD.com, League of Legends creator Riot Games, Fortnite creator Epic Games, and many more. Alibaba and Tencent are so competitive with one another that in recent years, the Companies have made thousands of investments trying to fund the next phase of growth in Chinese Tech. As the economist writes, “Tencent has a portfolio of 600 stakeholdings acquired over the past six years (see chart), many unannounced. There is barely a trace of bombast when Jack Ma, Alibaba’s founder, says that he eventually hopes to see former Alibaba employees running 200 of the top 500 Chinese firms.” It will be interesting to see how these investments mature – in 2018 rival delivery firms Meituan and Dianping had to merge to avoid going bankrupt despite billions in funding from Alibaba and Tencent.

Dig Deeper

• The Rise of China's Innovation Machine by WSJ

• Detail on the Uber-Didi ride-sharing merger in China from Business Insider

• 9:00am - 9:00pm, 6 days a week (9-9-6) is what Jack Ma wants out of his employees

• Jack Ma hated eBay

• Tencent’s Investment in Epic Games / Fortnite