Haywire

@semil's blog, building a technology community

By

Mega-Trend: Ride-Sharing At Scale Could Be Crazy Massive

Lyft just raised $60M in funding. Whoa! For the last year, I’ve contended ride-sharing at scale “could be” a massive trend and have corresponding economics that are attractive. About 11 months ago, in July 2012, I started commuting to SF every day from Palo Alto, so I started to take Caltrain (ugh!) and then try a battery of startup transportation services, including Lyft and Sidecar. Here’s my initial, informal review of all of the seven (7) different services I used. As a disclaimer, I live in the apartment where Zimride was founded in Palo Alto, and the founders are friends of mine. And, I am a transportation junkie, having worked at an airport, container port, and a few other related odd-jobs. (I also hosted Lyft co-founder John Zimmer “In The Studio” for a conversation, which is below.) Finally, in August of 2012, I wrote about this trend in my “Iterations” column, trying to string together how the products and services could hit big markets — I’ve pasted the text from that piece below. Wow, huge. Really happy for Logan and John.

* * * * *

There was a time in the United States when federal and local governments could initiate and orchestrate big, sweeping infrastructure projects. One of the most notable was the establishment of the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration, a post-war public works project to connect an enormous nation and bolster its defenses. It also helped unlock a new era of interstate commerce. Decades later, the government tried again with the creation of Amtrak, but for a host of reasons, well, that hasn’t really worked out. Instead, success came in aviation, which further accelerated economic growth, and the rise of the American (and eventually global) automotive industry, which created many jobs, ignited technological progress, and fueled the country’s renewed investment in building more roads and settling more suburban areas, all the while selling more cars as part of the new American dream.

The country’s transportation-related feats are impressive, in many regards. We can freely drive coast to coast in a few days, with relatively cheap gas along the way. Passengers can fly to virtually any part of all 50 states within a day. While rail has been either neglected or the victim of politics, it’s no matter — the nation has put a man a moon and, just this week, engineered a system to land full-fledged roving vehicle on the surface of Mars! Yet, on Earth, on American soil, the nation can no longer make basic transportation connections or improvements. It took years for the New York City metro area to figure out how to “efficiently“ connect its subway system with its two airports. The region with the highest road traffic density — the Northeast Corridor, from NYC to Boston — had their plan to retrofit rail to handle high-speed cars stopped by individual land owners protecting private property rights. In the Bay Area, we simply can’t link Caltrain to BART in the city’s downtown area. The public wants cheap transportation and access for all, but either no one wants to pay for it or they don’t want to give up their property to see it happen. And, here we are…

A decade into the 21st Century, oftentimes it feels easier to get from JFK to LAX than it is to get from the upper west side to JFK itself. The transportation choices for citizens, especially on an intra-city basis, are far from optimal. Combine that with a sagging economy, a struggling domestic auto industry, rising gas prices, and dangerously attractive auto financing terms, and consumers are going to start experimenting with alternative means of getting from point A to point B. And it is here where entrepreneurs have been creating new behavioral models around transportation, leveraging social data, mobile devices, and marketplace inefficiencies to reinvent how we get around.

Car-sharing as a peer-to-peer transaction is fueling the charge. Ever since Zipcar emerged as a new model to give consumers an access to a predetermined fleet of cars, the public, especially in dense urban areas, have begun to see car ownership not only as a financial burden and logistical headache, but also as something that is harmful to their local environments. As a membership-based company, Zipcar’s success even motivated incumbent car rental companies to experiment with different rental models, as well as paving the way for an entire fleet of new companies trying to create innovative solutions in the space.

In the past few years, serious new enterprises have formed to tackle this overall problem with a variety of models. Uber, which started as Ubercab, is probably the most high-profile of the new breed of transportation-related startups, and recently expanded its offerings from providing private black town cars on demand to electric vehicles (and ice cream trucks). A few months ago, their newest product, UberX, came after a San Francisco-based Sidecar became more known to the city’s inhabitants, which offered a new kind of smartphone-enabled car service with a fleet of private citizens, vetted by the company, who would use their own vehicles as taxis. At the same time, Zimride, a ride-sharing company already serving many key corridors such as SF to LA and SF to Tahoe, launched a new product, “Lyft,” which is quite similar to Sidecar except that Lyft drivers are asked to place big, pink, furry mustaches on the grills of their cars for easy identification. (Note that Sidecar and Lyft use community-driven “donation” models for paymens, and like Uber, allow both driver and rider to rate each other.) While Zimride was launching Lyft, yet another startup - Ridejoy - was posing competition on social ridesharing routes.

We’re not done yet. So far we’ve covered services where someone else drives you around. But, what about when you want to take the wheel, sort of like Zipcar? Well, you’re in luck, because there are great new companies opening up these new markets, too. In no particular order, you have Wheelz, a marketplace for people to book or list other peoples’ cars; Getaround, similar to Wheelz, which wowed crowds last year by announcing that Berkshire Hathaway would cover driver insurance and built their own mobile app-powered remote locking system ; RelayRides, which is also similar with a slightly different revenue model; and a slew of international players in this space, such as Whipcar in the United Kingdom. And, if you want to get around with a slightly different style, there’s Local MotionScooter Networks, and while I haven’t seen them all, I’d bet there are ways to rent out your bike, skateboard, or even rollerblades.

Initially, I was skeptical of these models. But after some time, it all became clearer to me. This summer, I’ve been commuting more from downtown Palo Alto to SOMA in San Francisco via Caltrain, and then have to lumber up to the Embarcadero. I chronicled the different services I’ve used here, but all in all, in six weeks so far, I haven’t used a cab or Uber town car all summer — I just Lyft, Sidecar, or walk. I haven’t used cash for any of these, either, and most often, these rides are about 40% less than what a typical taxi would have charged, and just 2-3x what it would cost on public transit. I’ve yet to try the car-rental models like Getaround and RelayRides, but after suffering through a few traditional rental car experiences this summer, and considering the listings on these services are increasing, I’m sure I’ll be both a consumer and provider on these marketplaces. I’ve even thought of listing my car on Airbnb as a place to sleep at night, as its legal to sleep in a car in Palo Alto, as I hear real estate here is going through the roof.

Speaking of Airbnb, these fleetless car-sharing marketplaces are really similar to the big apartment and home-listing site. In the few months I’ve been a consumer and preparing myself to list my 10-year old European sedan, consumer mindset seems to have shifted slightly. It turns out that many folks are totally OK with getting a ride by a stranger in that stranger’s car, or renting out their car to someone for a few hours or a few days. In many cases, it turns out, it’s easier than hailing a taxi in San Francisco and dealing with a rental agency and their archaic rules. And, investors in these companies are actually using them, too, most notably a Getaround investor who made a few thousand per month listing his two cars and a RelayRides investor who actually bought a nice used car exclusively to list on the site, calculating he could actually make money over time after paying off the car.

The potential of these markets are huge, though getting to the promised land won’t be easy. As Uber has learned, these new models, while providing more choices (and cheaper prices) to consumers, can also stoke fears among those entrenched interests who have the most to lose. A few years ago, Airbnb had to fight off the hotel lobby in various cities who were threatened by the enormous market the young company was opening up. In a similar way, city medallion holders and car rental companies may, over time, see some of their markets threatened by companies who don’t manage fleet inventory but rather route supply to demand and take a cut of the transaction.

At the end of the day, yes, there will be roadblocks, but I’m bullish on this consumer trend, especially considering how congested many cities are becoming and governments’ overall inability to gather enough consensus (or funds) to actually build sufficient infrastructure. Just using some of these services over the past few months has impressed upon me that these aren’t just new markets, they’re actually movements. It’s strangers coming together, it’s new opportunities for work, it’s helping other people out, and it’s extracting rents from assets that would otherwise be laying dormant. Nearly every Lyft or Sidecar driver I’ve had, in addition to being genuine and courteous, was either trying to supplement income during a job transition or had just moved to the city to start their careers. They found it was a good way to pass the time, to meet people, to learn the city, and help make rent. If citizens can’t get the transportation systems they need from governments, we’ll have no choice to make new ones ourselves. That is sort of what’s happening, and as a transportation junkie, it’s just awesome to watch unfold.

By

Venture Capital’s Magnum Vintage

Ever buy and reserve a nice bottle of wine, only to open on a special occasion, years later? Well, in venture terms, get out your finest decanter, because we are about to taste the notes of a vintage rarely seen. Now, there are the Accels and Google-backers of the world who can still, to this day, enjoy a return from one company, the right bet placed at the right time — but on a pure batting average basis, what Union Square Ventures is pulling off is insanely amazing. Of course, everyone knows this, but I wanted to gently dig into how great this could be with some rough calculus.

A few serious disclaimers as I try to string this together. One, it’s not gentlemanly to keep score (especially about money), but in terms of venture, what USV is beginning to realize warrants attention and respect. Two, the information below isn’t 100% accurate because I don’t have all the data, nor do I seek to obtain it — I want to simply scribble on the back of an envelope and try to quickly approximate the scale of their success. Three, I’m making a lot of assumptions to back into a numbers at the bottom. I’ve probably made lots of mistakes, just using my intuition based on CrunchBase. Four, I’m bullish on all of these companies myself and trying to be conservative in approximations. Five, I’m not sure if these investments were made out of the same fund. Six, I don’t have details about follow-on funding, sales of secondary shares, or any blended averages. And seven, I’m only looking at a small handful of Series A investments made within a 3-year timeframe, so this excludes a lot of investments the firm made before and after the fact, leading up to today. I repeat, this is a small cross-section of their vintage, but a juicy cut at that:

  • Tumblr: $750K in at $3M pre-money valuation, plus follow-on funding, sold for $1.1B to Yahoo, generating a return now of 293.3, or at least $220M
  • Zynga: $2.5M in at $20M post-money valuation, conservatively assuming majority holdings liquidated at $5B valuation in 2011, marks ~250x return, or $625M
  • Disqus: assuming $7.5M in at blended $30M post-money valuation, and I’m very bullish on this company and feel it’s underrated and will be a sleeper $500M+ exit, so will approximate a ~17x return, or $127.5M
  • Foursquare: assuming blended $5M into a $50M post-money valuation, and although I’m bullish on this company (thought that’s controversial), I’ll conservatively say they can liquidate at $600M valuation, will mark ~12x return or $60M
  • Twilio: assuming $3M into a $17M pre-money valuation, this is another billion dollar company in my opinion, so estimating a ~50x return or $150M
  • Etsy: assuming blended $4M in at a $12M pre-money valuation, conservatively assuming exit will be $500M at least, so marking a ~31.25x return, or $125M
  • Twitter: $5m in at $25 valuation post, will conservatively assume majority holdings liquidated in secondary offering around $200M/$4B valuation in 2011, marks a ~160x return, or $800M
  • ***  Lots of assumptions here, again. *** Yes. But, if we add up these end numbers and assume it’s the same vintage, we’re looking at at least $2.1B+ in gross cash returns generated by seven (7) investments made within a 3-year period, this all with $150M fund-size gunpowder — not a mega fund. Huge.

By

Announcement: The Camera Keeps Rolling

You may have noticed “In The Studio” ended last week. After 70 continuously weekly episodes starting in January 2012, it was time for me to put the show to bed and move on. In that time, however, I had to email a lot of future-slated guests and tell them about the news. And, in those discussions, it became clear that people wanted me to continue doing these interviews and conversations. I’ve already got a few great guests booked. When one door closes, another one opens, and that’s exactly what happened today. I’m going to walk through the new door. And, I’m trying to learn from past experiences and make this next installment even better. As this is a work in progress, I’d appreciate any ideas and suggestions you have — both for format and guests. Right now, I’m thinking the show would be about 1-2x per month, it will be distributed on my blog only, the episodes would be about an hour long in format (but cut up into digestible video clips based on a specific topic), will be shot on-location (as opposed to a black studio) and will continue to feature founders and investors in Silicon Valley who are not attention-seeking. I’m excited to rebrand the series, change the format, and continue open-sourcing these conversations with you. If you have any suggestions on format or potential guests, please contact me. Thanks! (The picture above is of Zimride co-founder John Zimmer, before they launched Lyft!)

By

Iterations: How Tech Hedge Funds And Investment Banks Make Sense Of Apple’s Share Buybacks

Here’s this week’s TechCrunch column, this one looking at how Wall Street and hedge funds make sense of Apple’s recent decision to buyback shares.

Apple has a good deal of cash. And, in the Valley, the startup ecosystem — for many reasons — wants to see Apple spend that cash. As their cash pile continued to grow as their stock price and market cap soared, Apple’s inability to provide robust software services combined with opportunities to expand their reach through acquisitions has become a fancy parlor game which includes every stripe of public and private investor imaginable. On top of this, pumping even a small percentage of cash pile into acquisitions could provide another pool of much-needed liquidity for founders and investors alike. While it all makes sense on paper, part of what makes Apple “Apple” is that they operate how they want to — not how the market wants them to. Recently, in response to a variety of pressures to do something, to do anything, Appleannounced a two-part share buyback. There are many explanations for this financial strategy, and while the Valley may have their own armchair financial analysts with a Twitter account, I reached out to some friends who actually work in technology banking or at techonology-focused hedge funds and asked them to send me a paragraph on their perception of the move. Because of the world these folks work in, I’ve reproduced their answers below anonymously, as they are not permitted to publicly share their opinions on such matters:

Technology Investment Banker: With the amount of cash stock piled by Apple, and mainly overseas, it was only a matter of time until the water would break, especially with activist investor David Einhorn ruffling feathers. Apple did something very standard and not uncommon, but on a large scale the way Apple likes to do things. At the end of the day I feel Apple’s actions represent the following four points: (1) Increased Shareholder Value: There are many ways to value a profitable company but the most common measurement is Earnings Per Share (EPS). If earnings are flat but the number of outstanding shares decreases. . Voila! . . A magical increase in period-to-period EPS will result; (2) Higher Stock Prices: An increase in EPS will often alert investors that a stock is undervalued or has the potential for increasing in value. The most common result is an increase in demand and an upward movement in the price of a stock; (3) Increased Float – As the number of outstanding shares decreases, the shares remaining represent a larger percentage of the float. If demand increases and there is less supply, then fuel is added to a potential upward movement in the price of a stock; and (4) Excess Cash: Companies usually buy back their stock with excess cash. If a company has excess cash, then at a minimum you can bank that it doesn’t have a cash flow problem. More importantly, it signals that executives feel that cash re-invested in the corporation will get a better return than alternative investments. This is definitely a positive sign for the company going forward. Customers and investors should feel confident with these events transpiring that Apple will continue to deliver value to both parties respectively.

Technology Hedge Fund Principal: Since Apple has around $150B cash on the books (70% of which is foreign), it’s clear they need to do something with this cash because it’s just wasted sitting on the balance sheet earning low interest rates. People have assumed the market would respond well to Apple making acquisitions, especially in software and services, particularly in cloud and mobile software. While they have reaped the benefits of profits in mobile hardware, the value going forward is at the application and services layer. Other hardware manufacturers are catching up, if they haven’t caught up already. Unfortunately, Apple doesn’t seem to have an appetite for these types of acquisitions. Another option is to buy back shares, a proven way to deploy cash, though doing so sends a signal that they are a mature (read: not growth) company. Tactically, buybacks can decouple EPS growth from new product lines, and Apple could see 2x its buyback investment in earnings growth as a result. Ultimately, Apple has withstood significant pressure from the investment community to do something with the cash, especially as growth has slowed. (Venture arms, since you asked, are not an effective use of capital for a corporate player; I see the share repurchase as a much more responsible use of proceeds.

Hedge Fund Partner #2: Apple had four basic choices of what to do with their cash, remembering that apple has a duty to its shareholders: (1)  Do nothing (status quo), which makes zero sense. given that they have ~$145Bn in cash and are adding ~ $40Bn in cash annually assuming zero growth earnings earning; (2) Strategic acquisition or expansion, though Apple will be hard pushed to effectively put either their cash hoard or future cash flows to use to do this; (3) a one-time special dividend and increased annual dividend; or (4) a share buyback (or various form of it). Only options #3 or #4 made any sense to me and I assumed it was only a matter of time before they did something. #1 is out as they are would not be meeting their shareholder responsibility and #2 is out simply because of scale.

I see the share buyback as positive for three key reasons: (1) Apple stock is currently very cheap. My back of the envelope calculations conservatively value them at $500-$550/share, so they are effectively leveraging and creating additional shareholder value here until the multiple recovers to fair value. What’s more is that management knows a lot more than what we all do, so they should be able to calculate their own value in two to three years fairly well, and I assume they saw this as a positive. (2) Because Apple issued bonds to finance the deal rather than using cash, this way they will not need to repatriate taxable offshore cash to perform the buyback and they will likely get a bond rate the crazy low prices. Bottom line, they are saving shareholders cash, although at some point they will need to find a way to address the offshore cash, so perhaps they are waiting for another tax holiday. And (3), assuming the market reacts rationally, a buy back signals that managements believes in stock and the story and believes that this will generate returns that will outperform for long-term investors, something that a cash hoard did not address at any level and effectively generate returns far in excess of what could be achieved in any other safe manner.

More often than not I do not like share buybacks. often management does this to boost their own salary bonuses (EPS biased etc) or simply follow bad advice and follow the investment banking herd, but this time I liked Apple’s share buyback at this share price and multiple and applaud the debt financing way of doing it, I would have applauded it more if they had also issued a $40 special dividend.

Hedge Fund Partner #3: The view is Apple has stopped being an innovator. While they were at the forefront of technology, people bugged them to use their cash for a dividend or buyback and they could say “no” because the stock price was going up on leading edge innovation. Once Jobs passed away, Tim Cook hasn’t been able to keep that going, and if anything they are now playing catch-up to Samsung or even Google. When you aren’t innovating and you have $150B in cash, a board has to find ways to keep investors happy and one tactic is to conduct a massive buyback. Showing they are returning money to shareholders, creating a new base if “capital return” investors rather than growth investors. It’s all a game to prop up the stock price, money is cheap because of Bernanke, so it’s an easy way for them to please shareholders without much cost to the business. In general, I think that Apple is falling behind and trying to figure out how to regain their lead, and I’m not sure if its possible any time soon.

Technology Stock Investor: They’re doing the buyback because: 1) they have an unprecedented amount of cash ($140+ billion) that’s earning nearly nothing; 2) the stock is down nearly 40% from its high and shareholders are angry; 3) the stock is cheap on every financial metric, signaling that buying shares is a good use of cash if you believe in the long-term growth of the company.  The company does not appear to want to do a large acquisition or massively increase its capital expenditures.  They don’t “need” to hold that much cash. So the company had a very inefficient capital structure ($140+ billion of cash and no debt). Equity investors (who, in the end, own the company) sooner or later demand to get returns on their companies’ cash. Capital markets are competitive, and if management doesn’t give investors great reasons to own their stock, investors will go somewhere else. AAPL is facing slowing revenue growth, margin pressure, and uncertainty about their next major product line. A management team that is perceived as unfriendly to shareholders is another reason for investors to sell the stock. The buyback is a big gesture by management that they understand their shareholders’ concerns, in addition to likely being a good investment.

By

Pedestrian, Rambling Thoughts On Tumblr And Yahoo!

A few Fridays ago, the Valley classes were chattering about Mailbox being acquired by Dropbox. Fast-forward to today, and those same classes are now chattering about Yahoo!’s potential purchase of Tumblr. On Twitter, I suggested that regardless of acquirer, the rumored $1.1B acquisition price struck me as undervaluing Tumblr. SoftTech’s Charles Hudson (who is a friend) asked me a good question on Twitter, one which I could not answer immediately but wanted to eventually, or at least attempt to. Here’s our conversation:

So, we have two questions:

  1. From Tumblr’s POV, is $1.1B too low, a great deal, or just right? and
  2. Is Tumblr worth $1.1B to Yahoo! and, if so, why and how?

Question 1 - If I were an early shareholder or founder in Tumblr, I would think $1.1B undervalues Tumblr right now as an acquisition target. The instinct among many observers is to approximate revenue projections and model a revenue stream, which produces some multiple. The statistic batted around here involved the $13m revenues booked by Tumblr in 2012, and then suggests the company is aiming for $100m in 2013. There’s no way to verify this, let alone it’s just a distraction anyway and probably leaked to the press for future positioning — case in point, this week. So, back to the early shareholders in Tumblr…if I were in that position, I would perceive the acquisition market for Tumblr to assign a value greater than $1.1B given the basic stats of the product today: Tumblr is ranked in The Top 20 highest traffic web sites in the U.S. (Alexa), is ranked in The Top 100 of iOS apps and near the Top 10 for Social Networking (AppData) and probably has tens of millions of mobile downloads (and growing) across iOS and Android, of which I’d assume a good percentage of those are at least reliable weekly active users. For a “blogging” platform, Tumblr’s mobile product and footprint seem unrivaled with the competition no where in sight. Then, there are the intangibles, such as young people using Tumblr as a place to be themselves or assume pseudonyms and avoid the watching eyes of elders, parents, teachers, etc. Yahoo! or not, and despite revenues that would not (yet) impress an Excel junkie, I’d have to believe a company like Facebook, or Microsoft, would want our New York-based team of engineers and designers, our brand, our mobile footprint, the reliable web traffic (which includes data tentacles into Twitter and Facebook).

Question 2 - This is a harder question for me personally to answer. All I can do is infer from Yahoo!’s moves over the last year during the Mayer regime. Buying Tumblr gives Yahoo! a team of great mobile and web designers and engineers based in New York City, where so much of media is bought and traded. It continues with Mayer’s acquisition strategy to help re-infuse the company with fresh talent and slowly siphon out the old guard. It gives them a reliable property with reliable traffic on the web (and trending up on mobile) to serve its ads to, as Yahoo! is an ad-content business without any social or pseudo-social graph. Buying Tumblr immediately puts a Yahoo! mobile property on tens of millions of mobile devices, where its user base is already trained to share their Tumblr content into other social channels where even more millions of people will see it. Charles’ question is a good one from the Yahoo-POV, and I don’t know exactly how they take their core ad business and extend it to Tumblr, but that has to be the crux of the strategy.

Therefore, given all this, I stay away from the numbers and look at the narrative. For Yahoo, $1.1B is a lot relative to their annual profits (especially in an all-cash deal), but I respect this bold move. For Tumblr, it’s a great outcome because they haven’t really turned from a product into a business, and unless one of the other big players wants to play, this may be the best — and only good — chance to exit. I don’t believe Tumblr has the leadership or mettle to really turn their traffic into stable revenue, and this may be outside of their core interests as they seem to be focused on design and engineering. There’s nothing wrong with that, which means this is the time to make the move. Ultimately, the value in a property, whether physical real estate or a web site or mobile app, isn’t what projections say it is, but what a willing buyer is willing to pay for it.

By

Another Perspective On The “Anti-Investor” Mantra @ Y Combinator

Anyone who knows me and/or reads this blog knows that there is a group of people that I really look up to mainly because of their writing and minds. I was first motivated to write about technology when I was introduced to Chris Dixon. I didn’t know who he was in late 2009, but then realized when I Googled him after our meeting. My blog was on Posterous at the time. It was really bad. I think my first post was a review of Chris Nolan’s “Inception.” Chris got me turned onto Fred Wilson’s blog, which of course is the bible for the intersection of consumer technology, venture capital, and networks. I began to read it religiously. After I moved to the Valley, I read through all of VentureHacks, which was invaluable to me. Then, I became friends with MG and Erick at TechCrunch, and they saw my writing on Quora, and they graciously invited me to post a few times, which eventually turned into a monthly post, which last year became a weekly column, Iterations. MG is making great waves now, which is so fun to see. Now, I try to follow the writing of a small set of reporters and investors, which you can see here. So, it goes without saying, that writing about entrepreneurship, technology, and venture is something I like to do, and ultimately it helps me learn quicker because, frankly, I am not from this world. I need to catch up.

One of the early writers I grew to worship is, of course, Paul Graham. His essays are legendary. Someone recently referenced one of his essays from 2005, The Submarine, which still rings true today, over eight years later. His insights on how startups are formed, how they compete, and how they win is pretty much incomparable. Many of these essays, of course, touch on the tense relationship between investors and founders. There’s no doubt that, in the past, the relationship was rife with tension. Fast-forward to today, and things do feel different — the founder is quite empowered. And, while investors now market themselves and either are or behave in a “founder friendly” manner, the sheer competitiveness doesn’t bring out the best in people. Everyone reading this will have encountered more than one investor who rubbed them the wrong way. There’s no doubt we could use a few more saints.

A few months ago, Graham shared a post mocking investor language, which struck me as too heavy-handed because I had actually seen the opposite behaviors from investors. You can read my response here. I realize it’s not kosher to write about Y Combinator in this manner, but at the same time, I have helped many YC founders through the fundraising process (without ever asking for anything), and I’ve observed how they and others who are pitching behave. The investing game is business, and I would agree it’s unnecessarily tedious. And, the entire process can boil anyone’s frustrations. Believe me, there are some interactions I’ve had myself that still bother me. Everyone knows part of the YC mantra is to help founders navigate once-treacherous waters and not get screwed, but in that training, new behaviors emerge on the part of founders that aren’t always in their best interest. I’ve seen investors back away from a deal they like because of the overt game mechanics. Yes, this is a taste of their own medicine, but I’d argue that in the end, it’s the founder who learns a bad habit and that it’s the investor who is rendered irrelevant.

Last night, this tweet from Graham was retweeted into my Twitter feed. It made me sad. I totally understand that Graham has his own view of the relationship between founders and capital. And, I don’t have enough context or history to draw from. But, I also think he’s made his point clearly. He has ground-rules for his Demo Days. Some people are invited, and others are not.

So, when I read this tweet below, it makes me sad for Graham, that despite all of his successes, and all the great founders he’s helped and will help, and all the investors that have helped YC founders (even when they didn’t invest) that he would use his great platform to throw another cheap dig at a group that’s actually quite diverse. Maybe the founder below isn’t talking to the right people. Maybe the pomp and circumstance of a staged, gated Demo Day attracts those prone to cynical behavior. Maybe he needs to, yet again, remind everyone of his disdain for and disappointment in “investors.”

I don’t know, because I’m not an insider in this specific world nor do I seek to be. I’m just lucky to work with a few YC companies and have seen many, many pitches by them, as well as many of their funding negotiations. So, given all that, when I read a tweet like this, it makes me sad because not only is it petty, and not only is it directionally wrong (based on my experience), and not only does it potentially influence a founder to learn bad behaviors themselves, but ultimately I think one could switch around the words “founder” and “investor” in his tweet below and, perhaps more often then anyone would like to admit, have the quote read quite similarly.

 

By

Putting The Art Back In Venture Capital

Everyone knows venture capital is going through a long series of drawn out market corrections, adjustments, contractions, and so forth. During this time, people have been innovating around venture, adding more operating partners, creating platforms, raising either really big or smaller funds. There’s also a belief that data will help investment dollars better determine where to go. The theory is that, with more data online, investors can leverage it to better inform investment decisions and, by proxy, their returns.

The problem with this mode of thought — this science of venture, of markets, and of data — is that it doesn’t allow room for the art of venture. I have tried to write about this. Specifically, I’ve tried to come up with my own definition of what is venture capital to me — now, it may not be this to you — and this post generated a lot of comments disagreeing with my definition — but this is what venture capital means to me:

Venture Capital is the aggregation of external capital by an institution (including companies, or even family offices managing their own funds) or individual with the sole purpose of investing that capital (often as a lead investor) into (relatively) early-stage, privately-held companies based on scarce information (imperfect information) with the intent of funding and assisting in the growth of businesses, products, and services that mature alongside markets to the point where the investor can realize a larger return, either through an acquisition, secondary share sale, or going public and liquidating within a 7-10 year time horizon, if not sooner.

There are a few people in venture who currently operate this way. I’d love to find more. One of those people is my friend Bipul Sinha. He’s a partner at Lightspeed. He will find entrepreneurs before they even know they’re entrepreneurs. He will help them. He will guide them. And, when they’re ready, he will prepare them to meet his partners and write a pretty big check, right up front with just a few slide decks and a great team. This is what he did with Nutanix, which is now the fastest-growing enterprise IT appliance company, in terms of revenues. ever. Ever! And, this is what he did with Pernix, which just made a big breakthrough in server-side flash and raised a healthy Series A from some of the most experienced enterprise investors on Sand Hill. Sure, he may do his own type of diligence and market research, but he operates with conviction and courage before due diligence, he operates on intuition and is willing to take a big risk where his peers may not write a check. In an era where many investors are collecting fancy tiles in later-stage growth deals or waiting for momentum to kick-in or scientifically trying to make sense of disparate and oftentimes irrelevant data, it’s refreshing to see someone like Bipul put the art back in venture.

By

The Enterprise, In Lay Terms

The EnterpriseIn 2012, my friend Parth Shah (no relation, but we are brothers) was trying to teach me about “the enterprise.” I mean, I had some idea about it, particularly on the data side, but we started composing this post for non-technical people to better understand. After much work, we’re proud to finally release our co-authored version of that today — see below. The spirit of this document is to be living (so please suggest any changes or additions), and is geared as a basic primer for anyone interested in enterprise IT but who isn’t natively familiar with that landscape. In other words, if you are already an expert in enterprise IT, this won’t be of use to you.

by Parth Shah and Semil Shah

INTRODUCTION

For people interested in technical entrepreneurship, the phrase “the enterprise” can feel foreign, especially for those more steeped in consumer products and services and/or those who do not possess technical backgrounds. Yet, we have found that many people have a desire to learn more about enterprise-level technologies, and to that effect, we have collected and organized this work to be a continually improving resource in lay terms for people to begin learning.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE LAYER

This section will cover datacenter storage; networking; and compute hardware and software. Traditional storage players like EMC and Netapp face two major threats to conventional storage models: Distributed storage; and flash.

Distributed Storage

Traditional enterprise storage is centralized, where multiple servers connect to one large storage device (usually a disk array) through a specialized network (usually the storage-area network, or SAN). This is a very reliable setup, providing features like backup, fault-tolerance, deduplication, snapshot, etc. built right into the storage device. The shift in this market, however, is toward a Google-style model where commodity (read: cheap) storage devices are directly attached to servers instead of being centralized. This shift is driven by the next generation of Internet-style enterprise apps that are “scale-out” in nature. The opportunity here is to make distributed storage as reliable and feature-rich as traditional, centralized enterprise-grade storage while offering the cost-savings afforded by using cheaper commodity hardware. [Reference: (1) see Nutanix’s article on evolution of datacenters; see Nutanix CEO Dheeraj Pandey with Semil on "In The Studio"; (3) see Nutanix investor and Lightspeed Partner Bipul Sinha with Semil on "In The Studio"; and (4) see Nebula CEO Chris Kemp with Semil on "In The Studio."]

Flash Storage

Traditional storage is also facing a threat from startups focused on pure flash storage, such as Nexenta, Pure Storage, etc. Flash-based storage devices are orders of magnitude faster when compared to spinning disks. Most of the current innovation in and around flash is in trying to overcome other constraints such as costs, life cycle, form factor, etc. Just like distributed storage, with flash there is an opportunity to provide enterprise-grade features like deduplication, snapshotting, backup, data recovery, etc. for pure flash-based storage devices. The shift to flash poses a challenge in that most of the technology to invent these features were written for devices with spinning disks. [PureStorage creates the software to manage flash storage, provides similar features as Netapp, and EMC-level enterprise features. Nutanix is poised well to combine the power of distributed storage and flash. Other flash device vendors like Fusion IO, Violin Memory, Samsung, and Hitachi are also in a good position.]

Networking

The networking industry is currently dominated by the likes of Cisco and Juniper, among others. The biggest shift shaking up this industry right now is software-defined networking, or SDN. The traditional datacenter networking provided by a company like Cisco, for instance, carries too much vendor lock-in with it, as well as expensive devices, proprietary networking protocols, and less flexibility in deploying applications. SDN is being pioneered by companies like Nicira (acquired by VMware) and Big Switch Networks. With SDN, companies can use commodity network switches manufactured by any vendor that supports an open protocol like OpenFlow. With SDN, one can virtualize the network, pool the resources and create virtual wires on-demand, based on the application’s needs. This yields flexibility, agility, and lower capital and operating expenses for deploying and managing applications. (For those using IaaS, they don’t have a network to manage, but rather configurations to adjust. However, once these folks move to a hybrid cloud model, a new challenge emerges with respect to managing balance load and deciding how traffic is split between private and public clouds.)

Compute

Intel rules the datacenter — 90% of the world’s workloads run on Intel processors. AMD completely lost the game in the server marketplace to Intel. Recently, there has been increasing interest around using ARM processors in the datacenter. ARM, the company, licenses CPU architecture to manufacturers. ARM processors are typically extremely low-power and, hence, suitable for mobile devices. The majority of modern mobile devices in world (smartphones, tablets, etc.) run on ARM. Apple’s A-series SPUs, Qualcomm’s Snapdragon, NVIDIA’s Tegra, etc. are all based on ARM architecture. [It helps to understand the fundamental difference between Intel’s x86 architecture versus ARM. Intel using CISC (complex instruction set computer) architecture: complex hardware that supports a rich set of complex mathematical operations and computes very quickly, all handled in the hardware and therefore consumes more power and dissipates more heat (requires cooling fans) as the hardware is complex. On the other hand, ARM uses RISC (reduced instruction set computer), a simple hardware solution that supports basic operations and software, which is slower than CISC, to perform more complex operations. RISC consumes less power and is therefore suitable for mobile devices.]

Memory

Memory is dominated by companies like Samsung and Hitachi. It is not a very interesting space because it is all based on pricing and density. All vendors are trying to make their chips smaller and smaller, and this drives all prices down. It is a race to the bottom.

THE CLOUD LAYER

The cloud layer abstracts away these infrastructure resources and delivers them on-demand.
Gartner defines “Cloud IaaS” as a standardized, highly automated offering, where compute resources, complemented by storage and networking capabilities, are owned by a service provider and offered to the customer on-demand. Cloud computing enables the delivery and consumption of computing as a utility. You pay as you go and move from CapEx to OpEx. Cloud services enable enterprise to compete better in changing markets, be more agile and optimize resource utilization.

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)

In IaaS, the infrastructure is available as a service. Current examples of IaaS companies are Amazon (with AWS), Google (Compute), Nebula, and Rackspace, among others. Currently, these players service small companies but can eventually grow to cover the enterprise market. As a result, the IaaS landscape will likely consolidate to a small handful of big players.

One of the interesting aspects of IaaS is that it doesn’t matter where the infrastructure is coming from. In the public cloud, a company like Amazon doesn’t own the hardware and provides cloud-based services; in a private cloud environment, companies like Nebula or VMware provide solutions; and in a hybrid cloud state, a company owns some hardware but outsources some as well. This hybrid state is where most innovation is happening today, as most enterprise runs private cloud most days but, for busy times, can burst to add more capacity when needed.

The growth of hybrid cloud models is potentially threatening to AWS. As servers shift from public to private, companies will adapt to a hybrid model. This will have initial investment costs to purchase hardware, storage, network setup (capital expenditures), plus operating expenditures to manage it, assuming things are architected correctly with stable traffic.

The “cloud” is about “how” one does compute plus storage (an operational model) rather than “where” it’s done — it’s not location-specific. Infrastructure can be anywhere, but the key is how it is managed. The cloud is getting less and less about technology, and more about process, policies, and orchestration. This trend provides opportunities for hybrid packaged solutions (like Nebula) and management policies for sensitive and/or regulated data (e.g. financial, health, security, etc.).

Platform as a Service (PaaS)

Companies also offer platform-as-a-service, or PaaS, such as Heroku, Appfog, Nitrous.IO, and others. This market will likely have many small players, and will be hard to run into Amazon as they expand AWS offerings from the infrastructure layer. The value in PaaS solutions take the pain of setting up and managing production environments, such as setting up software environments on top of infrastructure, finding the right plugins, managing security patches, and so forth.

A classic PaaS example is Heroku, a service which essentially takes care of all the busy work of setup and maintenance and frees up developers to write and deploy code. Developers can push using Git and make their apps live on Heroku, and this agility results in teams not needing systems- and/or database-experts. Heroku runs on AWS, so customers enjoy the goodness of IaaS already baked in and the developer never has to touch it. The problem is that if and when Amazon experiences an outage, startups who are addicted to these setups are stuck, perhaps rationalizing the need for Nebula-like client-side solutions once a company reaches a certain scale. [[ ex Dropbox, Netflix, Ngmoco, Zynga is doing “Hybrid Cloud Model” - ZCloud started early 2011 (considered innovative operating model]]

Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)

Everyone knows SaaS. Briefly, we’ll define it as the pure software and application layer, the place where real scale and innovation will occur. An example of SaaS could be software like Asana, which may (as it grows) provide tiers of service that would empower it to charge for the right to use it. Here’s a brief matrix of some of these companies, to share examples:

Screen Shot 2013-05-15 at 3.07.09 PM

Big Data

“Big Data” is an overused, often misused term. We define “big data” as data one cannot process using traditional analytical techniques, but which require parallel algorithms designed specifically to operate on said data that is usually stored in a distributed fashion. The definition of what constitutes “big data” today will change as computing power increases and price of storage falls. Today, defined in terabytes and petabytes, but in future terabytes might not be considered big data. The reason this is such an exciting space is that the market for all the industries this can effect are huge. Applications of big data are enormous including but not limited to analytics, visualization, business intelligence, reporting, recommendation systems, information discovery, etc. Most think of consumer data, but consider the life sciences, oil and gas discovery, and so forth. For example, a Boeing 787 generates several terabytes of telemetry data on a typical transatlantic flight.

The rise of Big Data can be mainly attributed to two factors: a) denser & cheaper storage devices b) emergence of open-source Big Data processing frameworks (Hadoop, et.al)

MapReduce by Google is one of the most foundational programming models used to process large datasets. Yahoo extended the MapReduce paradigm and introduced the Hadoop open-source framework to perform parallel algorithms on large datasets. The rapid adoption and contribution to Hadoop by companies like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc played a huge role in making big data processing popular.

Although Hadoop remains massively popular in consumer internet companies, the adoption in the enterprise has been relatively slower due to concerns like complexity, security, support and lack of talent to operate Hadoop infrastructure. Whole new category of startups have emerged which are making easier for enterprises to adopt Hadoop. For e.g Cloudera and Hortonworks are doing something very similar to what RedHat did for Linux. These companies offer “enterprise-ready” distributions of Hadoop software, help enterprises deploy them in their cloud and then provide ongoing customer support for the same. With enterprise distributions of Hadoop, enterprises are able to make the transition much faster. However they still have to own and operate the infrastructure to run Hadoop. Hadoop-as-a-Service startups aim to solve this problem by offering big data processing services on demand. Amazon has been a pioneer in this space with their Elastic MapReduce offering. Amazon Elastic MapReduce is a web service that enables businesses to easily and cost-effectively process vast amounts of data. It utilizes a hosted Hadoop framework running on the web-scale infrastructure of Amazon EC2 and Amazon S3. Cetas (acquired by VMware) provides advanced, real-time Hadoop analytics and can be deployed on-premise or in the cloud.

[Reference: See LinkedIn's Peter Skomoroch with Semil on "In The Studio," as well as Accel Partners' partner Ping Li with Semil on "In The Studio."]

Virtualization

In layman terms, virtualization is a way of creating abstract virtual resources from real physical resources. IBM technically invented virtualization decades ago however VMware is usually given the credit for creating an industry around it. The enabling technology behind virtualization is a smart mini-kernel like software, commonly referred to as the “Hypervisor”. The Hypervisor runs directly on top off bare metal hardware and provides abstractions like virtual CPU, virtual memory, virtual disks, virtual networks, etc to the upper layers. Hypervisor enables a single server in your datacenter run multiple virtual machines (VMs) on the server that run in their own container with virtual resources like CPU, memory and storage. Each of these VMs can be running a full-fledge operating system (OS) like Linux/Windows. The OS is usually unaware of the fact that its running on a virtual computer and not a real one.

In a typical datacenter, with tens to thousands of servers, resources are not often fully utilized. With virtualization a single server could be hosting tens, hundreds or even thousands of VMs which dramatically improves the utilization and thereby has a huge impact on the CapEx. When there is resource contention on a server due to high demand for resources from the VMs, the Hypervisor acts as an intermediary and allocates resources to each VM according to its fair share. Virtualization is the key enabler for Infrastructure-as-a-Service products. Key features like elasticity, auto-scaling, multi-tenancy and efficient resource utilization are impossible to deliver without virtualization.

[Reference: see Tintri CEO Kieran Harty with Semil on "In The Studio."]

Recommended blogs on enterprise IT:

By

Iterations: Snoopify, The Greatest Mobile Photobombing App Of All Time

Here’s yesterday’s column on TC. People really seemed to like this, but the best part is the shout-out from Snoop Dogg/Lion himself on Twitter, which you can see here and below!

“What are the cool new apps you’ve seen lately?” To this oft heard question, lately, there have been lots of answers. So, mobile is indeed exciting and moving fast. And, just recently, a fun new app came out that instantly captured my attention — no, it’s not from a Stanford dropout or from the  ”innovation lab” of a large technology company. No. It’s from Snoop Dogg — excuse me — Snoop Lion. Yes, that’s right, the same artist so many of you grew up with. He’s diversified his musical career into the business of his own branded apparel, a television show, and now he invades the greatest consumer stage of our times — our mobile phones. And, what’s more impressive is just how he did it — the genius to observe and iterate, to pull out the nuggets of lessons we have learned and package it together with marketing that’s both fun, easy, and devilishly derivative yet simultaneously novel.

The app is called “Snoopify.” I think it’s both a noun (the app) and a verb (as in, to “Snoopify” a photo). Essentially, you can take a new or existing picture, and then open up a box of Snoop stickers (that’s right, stickers) and overlay them onto the picture before sharing it on every social platform . Most of the stickers, as you can imagine, have something to do with Snoop and his brand, which makes for a hilarious “Snoop filter” on these doctored photographs. The first time I downloaded the app, I  ”Snoopified” about five times in the span of 10 minutes and shared them everywhere. Snoop has essentially digitized himself and appified a scalable way to photobomb any picture with his signature brand. And, this is the best part — if you want to unlock the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pages of stickers, pull out your credit card because they’re locked behind a paywall.

In-app purchases. Genius.

From a marketing and branding standpoint, this is all fascinating to me. Look at the intersections of trends here: (1) Photos remain the premium communication currency in our mobile world. Like SnapChat showed with their expiring images, there’s no end to the creative manipulation mobile software can offer to pictures. (2) Influencers with their own global, diverse audiences can leverage networks like Twitter and Instagram to breakthrough the noise and clutter of the iOS app storedistribution minefield. There’s the tactic  of growth hacking, yes — and then there’s the pure organic lift a celebrity can leverage to surpass everyone else. And (3) Stickers. Just a few months ago, everyone was hemming and hawing about Path’s latest 3.0 update which include new sets of free and paid stickers, perhaps influenced by the growth of mobile messaging apps in Asia (such as Line, an app which reportedly raked in US$50M+ in Q1 of 2013 by selling virtual goods in-app).

So, Snoop and his team watch all these trends converge, and steal a page out of the apps like Line and Path. Great artists steal, right? And, what do you know, it worked — I bought stickers, my first in-app purchase of a digital good. Brilliant.

I’ll be writing more about the overall trends I’m seeing at the app layer here in my column this summer, but an app like Snoopify, which rose quickly in the charts earlier this week, breaks convention with how much of the startup world views  how apps are supposed to be made and distributed. Distribution may, in the end, be just as, if not more, important than the actual app. Maybe. The creator of the app doesn’t actually have to do the hard-coding of the software — he or she can commission it, and it can be developed elsewhere. Of course, as I finalize this post, the app has already slipped in the charts. When I started drafting this post a few days ago, “Snoopify” was in the Top 25 trending free apps according to App Annie, but now as I finalize this early Sunday morning, it’s slipped to #36 (on AppData) and #58 (on App Annie) and is ranked #156 for grossing according to the official Apple App Store.

An app like Snoopify was destined to be faddish and not a business. Or, maybe this is just the first move by Snoop Lion to cut into the iPhone, on the app level. At scale, it’s an incredibly clever technique to extend his brand on top of other peoples’ pictures — the greatest photobomb at scale….ever! Perhaps he doesn’t see enough quality engagement on his work in popular music apps like Spotify or Rdio or other myriad music apps. Maybe he’s tired of Instagramming and receiving hearts in return, or maybe Twitter is just for distribution to his fan base. Maybe after stickers, he’s going to open private messaging inside his app, or broadcast scenes from his next concert to a select audience. (I’m having fun with this, naturally, though it’s not out of the realm of possibility.)

The opportunities on mobile are continuing to prove endless, and for someone as creative as Snoop, even a little mobile icon can represent the largest of sandboxes. Of course, not every artist can go to the lengths that Snoop went to in developing and promoting his mobile app, but of the ones who do have this luxury, Snoop’s foray into the  app store was a brilliant move, complete with a built-in revenue model, a platform for showcasing his brand, and artfully blending some of the biggest trends in consumer mobile behavior we have all collectively observed. Well played, Snoop — well played.

Snoopy Steve

By

Iterations: A Youthful Rebellion Against The Permanence Of Facebook’s Walled Garden

Below is my column from last week. I’m not sure it was that good. It’s a difficult topic, but one that has fascinated me for a few months. Truth be told, I haven’t yet wrapped my head around it. I’d love to hear your thoughts…

Facebook’s mission is to make the world more open and connected. Indeed, great things can come from this, and for many of its one billion users, Facebook isn’t just on the web — it is the web. It is where images, biographical data, and every speck of a connection to a person, place, or thing lives, both the dream of a doting family spread miles apart and a marketer close by. It is a place where generations of people now reside, hang out, fawn over public statuses and peek into the lives of others. Ironically, while Facebook’s aim is to make the world more open, they themselves are building a new web within their own closed garden, inaccessible and (mostly) unexportable to all. As the saying states, “what goes on the Internet is written in ink,” so what goes onto Facebook is etched in stone walls.

Yes, much of Facebook’s traffic comes from mobile now, too. For most people who don’t care about all the latest and greatest apps, Facebook works splendidly for them, simply yet powerfully connecting them to exercise the habits they’ve picked up on the web version. Yet, at the same time, mobile platforms (phones and tablets) have presented newer and younger audiences with new graphs of people, folks whose first computing device may have been of the latest iPod touches (complete with Facetime), folks who live in other countries with exploding mobile growth adoption curves. As working professionals have come to use the Internet to help define, cement, and reinforce their perceptions of their own identities, younger generations in search of their own identity can use a battery of new services and mobile apps which containerize their activities, isolating them from the permanence of the web, a permanence embodied by the likes of Facebook and Google+.

These ascendent generations may have a Facebook account for the web and to use Messenger, but they seem to be disinterested in a network where everyone hangs out, where their parents or schoolteachers may be lurking. (To be fair to Facebook, Google seems to invoke similar fears of permanence given all the apps data they have on us, combined with their integration of Google+.) The emergence of this trend isn’t an implicit criticism of Facebook, though the company sure does push its users to adopt certain behaviors — rather, this trend is merely the world evolving alongside the rapid spread of personalized computing interfaces, giving rise to services which snap, share, and explode digital pictures (SnapChat), allow users to buy disposable phone numbers (Burner), or to assume various pseudonyms and tag pictures associated with negative, potentially shameful, or embarrassing feelings to an audience who will empathize with them (Whisper) — and pay a monthly membership fee for the right to send private messages. (There are services which go steps further, encrypting information — such as Bitcoin or Wickr — allowing people to move without a trace.)

What I’m writing about here is not new or original. I have read a lot about this and have simply grown fascinated by the trend itself, the trend whereby more and more people enjoy the ease and shelter provided by lightweight mobile applications, ones that seemingly never touch the web and spread like a Facebook share. For a brief selection of items I’ve read on the topic, I’d suggest: PandaWhale’sAdam Rifkin on why teens are flocking to Tumblr over Facebook; TechCrunch’s Billy Gallagher on the “impermanence” of new mobile apps; Branch’s Josh Miller’s look into technology trends among teens; and USV’s Andy Weissman’s personal essay about how he doesn’t want to bring video memories from another era on to YouTube.

All in all, the questions this trend trigger are equally fascinating: Is this just the beginning of a big wave, or this simply a trendy byproduct of a world obsessed with social networking? If this is a trend, does it have the legs to provide the foundation for a company or set of companies to form around this organizing principle? What does this mean for the future of the Facebook newsfeed and its relevance to users? Will Facebook be reduced to a utility for public sharing backed by real identity, but miss out on all the texts, snaps, and other bits of mobile messaging exploding these days? Is this a new type of movement, or simply the ebb and flow of behavior as generations pass? And, as the trend continues, will the younger generation of users who grow up “app-first” seek to bypass the web and explicit social networks altogether, or will they join the masses as they mature?

I’ve been talking about this trend with knowledgeable folks for a few months now, and everyone has a different, interesting point of view. I certainly don’t know the answers to any of these questions, but questions themselves are undeniably fascinating. It’s not even been an entire year that Facebook has been a public company, and they are on track to make lots of money (especially on mobile), but there’s no denying that despite their growing mobile metrics and revenues, mobile apps that provide all varieties of private messaging seem to challenge Facebook’s immediate relevance. As these mobile apps grow, and as Facebook approach’s it’s 10th birthday next year, the next 10 years will likely be defined by a whole new set of what is considered “social networking” — and that might already be the new reality today. What is clear, however, is that while on the web, Facebook’s walled garden enjoys a captive audience already trained to do what it wants — on mobile, that walled garden is relegated to the size of an app icon alongside a sea of competing icons with very different or non-existant “sharing models,” and if today’s currents provide any trustworthy bellwether, the next 10 years for Facebook could present quiet a thorny challenge.