I had dreamt about it, HBO has done it…HBO-Silicon Valley
More when available in Europe…
Here is the trailer. Funny and … true!
Silicon Valley: the HBO new series
Leave a reply
Tag Archives: Silicon Valley
Something rotten in the Silicon Valley kingdom?
I have already recently discussed the difficulty Silicon Valley has in talking about or dealing with politics, for example in The promise of technology. Disappointing? and even more in Silicon Valley and (a)politics – Change the World. I was referring to two articles (which I considered as exceptionally great) written by George Packer in the New Yorker in 2011 and 2013. It is an article published on January 27 on the same web site, Tom Perkins and Schadenfreude in Silicon Valley by Vauhini Vara which motivates me in asking the question: Is there something rotten in the Silicon Valley kingdom?
All this is rather indicative of a serious situation that deserves the attention. Four days earlier, Le Monde published the article by Jérôme Marin, In San Francisco, anti-Google protests go too far. The summary of all this can be done simply, but I encourage you to read these articles (especially those by Packer whose depth analysis is really of interest):
Many new millionaires (in particular employees of Twitter and Facebook), and even some billionaires (see Technology Billionaires in 2013) contributed to the recent acceleration of the gentrification of San Francisco. However, the authorities of San Francisco rather encouraged the phenomenon and to a large extent, the debate begins to rage. On the one side a population that expresses its frustration at this new situation by blocking the famous private buses carrying these high-tech employees from their home to their office (see A Google bus blocked, anger rises in San Francisco by the same Jerome Marin) or a Google employee at his home. On the other side, the “slip” of Tom Perkins comparing these protests to attacks of the Nazis against the Jews…
These reactions illustrate a increasingly visible debate between the proponents of the Invisible Hand (let the rich be richer and the market will self-regulate for the benefit of all) and opponents increasingly exacerbated by the consequences of the global deregulation. As if Occupy Wall Street was moving to Silicon Valley. As Americans usually react fast, the city of San Francisco has taken the decision to have these private buses pay for the use of public bus stops. Vauhini Vara also mentions that Mark Zuckerberg has become the largest private donor in 2013 in the USA (with $1 billion …) and Sergey Brin ranks fifth .
My opinion is of little importance and I’ll let you judge. Let me just add (and you will understand where I am assuming that you care!) that large U.S. companies pay ridiculous amounts of tax lawfully using the possibilities offered by the law of international trade. In 2011, Le Monde published USA: profit does not necessarily mean tax, and waht follows comes from it:
Out of 280 companies among the 500 largest U.S. companies, 111, or 40%, enjoyed an average tax rate of 4.6%. There must be a rational explanation for this particular treatment you must think, falling profits for example, justifying a lower tax burden? The problem is that according to the data compiled in this report, this argument does not hold. The 111 companies we are talking about even recorded a total greater than the benefits of th oher companies combined. Between 2008 and 2010 the telecom operator Verizon has accumulated $32.5 billion in profits, the conglomerate General Electric totaled 10.4 billion profits, and toy manufacturer, Mattel, won over a billion dollars over the period. However, none of these companies did pay federal income tax.
“This is not a report against businesses, the study says in its preamble. Instead, like most Americans , we want the business to go well. In a market economy, we need managers and entrepreneurs, as we need workers and consumers. But we also need a better balance in terms of taxation.”
U.S. billionaire Warren Buffett recently called on governments to make him pay more taxes at the individual level for a greater tax fairness. Will multinational companies be capable of the same citizen behavior?
Since I started by mentioning that Sillcon Valley has changed the world, I conclude from memory with a quote I heard on France Culture this morning: “If you do not change the course of History, it is History that will change you.”
Silicon Valley unicorns on a map
Twenty years ago, I loved the Silicon Valley high-tech maps which were regularly printed. You could see the density of famous start-ups around Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino, Mountain View, Redwood City or Palo Alto, cities which would be unknown and uninteresting outside the technology world. Just have a look at some examples in the end of the post.
When playing with Banksy’s adventures in NYC, I used Google for building a customized map. And a few days later, I thought about doing the same for Silicon Valley unicorns. Remember the unicorns are the rare companies which reach a $1B valuation. According to the 2013 SV150 there are 94 such publicly-quoted companies. Too much for an interactive map. So I did the exercise with the $10B+ companies (I found 23 with their roots in Silicon Valley).
Choosing the market capitalization is debatable. I could have taken sales or profits. Companies such as Electronic Arts, Juniper, Xilinx, AMD, nVidia would have appeared but the group would have been similar. I just add to choose. You can open the map directly in Google maps for a better interface.
Diplay Technology companies on a bigger map
Again there is something fascinating about this density. People claim the center of gravity of the region is moving north to San Francisco because of the web 2.0. This remains to be seen over the long term…
The promise of technology. Disappointing?
After reading the great New Yorker article about Silicon Valley and politics, I searched for “Silicon Valley” on the magazine web site and found two contrasting articles:
– the first one is a kind of introduction to my previous post, it was also written by George Packer (clearly a great and insightful writer) in 2011 and is about Peter Thiel, the famous libertarian entrepreneur and investor: NO DEATH, NO TAXES – The libertarian futurism of a Silicon Valley billionaire.
– the second one is much older and is about the early days of Google and Internet search: SEARCH AND DEPLOY by Michael Specter.
They are kind of contradictory because the second one is optimistic about what technology can solve (Google greatly improved our access to knowledge) whereas Packer shows Thiel’s pessimism with the outcome of technology even if he has great hope in it. In fact as mentioned in the previous article about SV and politics, he belongs to the group of people distrusting politics to the point that he believes technology might / must be the alternative.
Let me begin with the optimistic first: in 2000, Google was already seen as the winner of the Internet search race. Even if it did not have yet its business model, Google solved better our search on the Internet. Page and Brin did it by finding a better mathematics algorithm, the PageRank system based on the popularity and frequency of reference of web pages. As a funny side result, Google had less queries than other sites on porn: “About ten per cent of Google queries are for pornography. The figure is lower than that of most other search engines. This reflects the demographics of the people who use the search engine, but perhaps it also demonstrates one of Google’s obvious failings: porn sites are sought out by millions of Internet users but are rarely linked to prominent Web pages. Without links, even the most popular page is invisible.”
The credo of Thiel’s venture-capital firm: “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.” Photograph by Robert Maxwell.
It’s been known that Thiel has been disappointed with high-tech innovation. Just read again my 2010 post, Technology = Salvation. I think you should read Packer’s article if you liked (or even if you did not) his Change the World. Both articles show the power and limits of these visionary people and the sometimes scary vision of technology vs. politics. There is something of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey in all this. He brilliantly shows the strange nature of these people (a high concentration of Asperger syndromes and dyslexia – apparently two rather high frequency features of entrepreneurs). Again just short notes (you have to read it to see the broadness of the topics:
“Thiel believes that education is the next bubble in the U.S. economy. He has compared university administrators to subprime-mortgage brokers, and called debt-saddled graduates the last indentured workers in the developed world, unable to free themselves even through bankruptcy. Nowhere is the blind complacency of the establishment more evident than in its bovine attitude toward academic degrees: as long as my child goes to the right schools, upward mobility will continue. A university education has become a very expensive insurance policy—proof, Thiel argues, that true innovation has stalled. In the midst of economic stagnation, education has become a status game, “purely positional and extremely decoupled” from the question of its benefit to the individual and society. It’s easy to criticize higher education for burdening students with years of debt, which can force them into careers, like law and finance, that they otherwise might not have embraced. And a university degree has become an unquestioned prerequisite in an increasingly stratified society. But Thiel goes much further: he dislikes the whole idea of using college to find an intellectual focus. Majoring in the humanities strikes him as particularly unwise, since it so often leads to the default choice of law school. The academic sciences are nearly as dubious—timid and narrow, driven by turf battles rather than by the quest for breakthroughs. Above all, a college education teaches nothing about entrepreneurship. Thiel thinks that young people—especially the most talented ones—should establish a plan for their lives early, and he favors one plan in particular: starting a technology company.”
Always consistent with his thoughts, he “came up with the idea of giving fellowships to brilliant young people who would leave college and launch their own startups. Thiel moves fast: the next day, at TechCrunch Disrupt, an annual conference in San Francisco, he announced the Thiel Fellowships: twenty two-year grants, of a hundred thousand dollars each, to people under the age of twenty. The program made news, and critics accused Thiel of corrupting youth into chasing riches while truncating their educations. He pointed out that the winners could return to school at the end of the fellowship. This was true, but also somewhat disingenuous. No small part of his goal was to poke a stick in the eye of top universities and steal away some of their best.”
I am not sure I follow him too much (I am just too normal), for example in his quest for eternity, but I understand many of his visions. He is as much a dreamer as a doer, his fund had mixed results, but he is with Elon Musk (one of his his co-founders in PayPal) among the people who push “trying” to the limits without being afraid of failing.
Silicon Valley and (a)politics – Change the World
My colleague Andrea just mentioned to me this exceptional article about Silicon Valley and its lack of interest, not to say distrust, for politics. It’s been published in the New Yorker in May 2013 and is entitled: Change the World – Silicon Valley transfers its slogans—and its money—to the realm of politics by George Packer.
“In Silicon Valley, government is considered slow, staffed by mediocrities, and ridden with obsolete rules and inefficiencies.” Illustration by Istvan Banyai.
All this is not so far from a recent post I published: The Capital Sins of Silicon Valley. George Packer’s analysis is however profound, subtle and quite fascinating. I will not analyze the article, you have to read it even if it is a vrey long article, and to encourage you in doing so, here are just five quotes:
– “People in tech, when they talk about why they started their company, they tend to talk about changing the world,” Green said. “I think it’s actually genuine. On the other hand, people are just completely disconnected from politics. Partly because the operating principles of politics and the operating principles of tech are completely different.” Whereas politics is transactional and opaque, based on hierarchies and handshakes, Green argued, technology is empirical and often transparent, driven by data.
– Morozov, who is twenty-nine and grew up in a mining town in Belarus, is the fiercest critic of technological optimism in America, tirelessly dismantling the language of its followers. “They want to be ‘open,’ they want to be ‘disruptive,’ they want to ‘innovate,’ ” Morozov told me. “The open agenda is, in many ways, the opposite of equality and justice. They think anything that helps you to bypass institutions is, by default, empowering or liberating. You might not be able to pay for health care or your insurance, but if you have an app on your phone that alerts you to the fact that you need to exercise more, or you aren’t eating healthily enough, they think they are solving the problem.”
– a system of “peer production” could be less egalitarian than the scorned old bureaucracies, in which “a person could achieve the proper credentials and thus social power whether they came from wealth or poverty, an educated family or an ignorant one.” In other words, “peer networks” could restore primacy to “class-based and purely social forms of capital,” returning us to a society in which what really matters is whom you know, not what you could accomplish. (…) Silicon Valley may be the only Americans who don’t like to advertise the fact if they come from humble backgrounds. According to Kapor, they would then have to admit that someone helped them along the way, which goes against the Valley’s self-image.
– “There is this complete horseshit attitude, this ridiculous attitude out here, that if it’s new and different it must be really good, and there must be some new way of solving problems that avoids the old limitations, the roadblocks. And with a soupçon of ‘We’re smarter than everybody else.’ It’s total nonsense.”
– “This is one of the things nobody talks about in the Valley,” Andreessen told me. Trying to get a start-up off the ground is “absolutely terrifying. Everything is against you.” Many young people wilt under the pressure. As a venture capitalist, he hears pitches from three thousand people a year and funds just twenty of them. “Our day job is saying no to entrepreneurs and crushing their dreams,” he said. Meanwhile, “every entrepreneur has to pretend in every interaction that everything is going great. Every party you go to, every recruiter, every press interview—‘Oh, everything’s fantastic!’—and, inside, your soul is just being chewed apart, right? It’s sort of like everybody’s fake happy all the time.”
The Dream of Silicon Valley
This is my translation (well Google translation) of a very good article I read in newspapers La Tribune de Genève (pdf here) and 24 heures (pdf here). I am not sure I have the rights to do such a transaltion. I will do it the Google was and hopefully the news papers will not complain…
If you do not want to read it all, here are just two short quotes: “Some explain the excitement that prevails here because of a feeling of urgency, says Christian Simm. We must go quickly, people know they cannot work 80 hours a week for twenty years.” and
“You want to know the secret of Silicon Valley? asks Fadi Bishara, head of the incubator Blackbox. Failure is not an issue. It is completely accepted. It is even considered an apprenticeship.”
The Dream of Silicon Valley
Can the Lake Geneva area reproduce the ecosystem of the U.S. technology hub ?
by Renaud Bournoud
Often imitated, never equaled. The famous ecosystem of Silicon Valley, near San Francisco, is one of the most dynamic regions of the world. The success stories of Google, Apple and Facebook continue to fascinate, even on the Lake Geneva. But on paper, this Eldorado for innovation has much in common with our region. In a similar geographic area, a large bean sixty kilometers long, the two countries are ranked in the world’s most successful regions. If Silicon Valley is based on the prestigious universities of Stanford and Berkeley, the Lake Geneva can count on the EPFL, the Universities of Geneva and Lausanne or the IMD, the High School of Management. In both cases, the density of highly qualified people is high. Even daily commuters from Silicon Valley experience the discomfort that we know well . They also wait for hours in traffic jams. U.S. Highway 101, which irrigates the valley is as congested as the A1, between Lausanne and Geneva. Housing is also a concern that we share with them. The real estate prices are well above the U.S. average and have nothing to envy to those on Lake Geneva. So what are the ingredients that make Silicon Valley so special?
Demographic factors
A century ago, the orange groves reigned as kings over this corner of California. Now the land has nearly four million people. More broadly, the population of the San Francisco Bay is the size of that of Switzerland. The presence of reputable universities brings a lot of talent, as well as the attraction of the region. Silicon Valley Community Foundation considers that 60% of the engineers were born abroad, many of whom are from Asia. But the valley also attracts many Americans. “Here we are at the extreme west of the United States. We cannot go further, says Christian Simm, founder of Swissnex (note: the Swiss Agency for Promotion of Science and Innovation) in San Francisco. People who consider Boston too quiet come here to create. Because everything seems possible.” This density of great talent pool is ideal for company recruitment. A startup like Square, active in payment systems, could recruit 600 programmers in less than four years. This would not necessarily be feasible in the Lake Geneva region. These people have often come alone and can concentrate fully on their work. “Some explain the excitement that prevails here because of a feeling of urgency, says Christian Simm. We must go quickly, people know they cannot work 80 hours a week for twenty years.”
Cultural factors
A they arrived alone in Silicon Valley, people are quite willing to meet others, creating a culture of networking. Many networking events are regularly organized, like the Start Up Weekends. They also exist here, but in smaller proportions, simply because the population and the number of start-ups are lower. “It makes it easy to find a partner to build a startup,” says Ahmed Siddiqui, one of the organizers of Start Up Weekends Bay Area. “Here the world lives around the field of technology , explains Alexandre Gonthier, the boss of PayWithMyBank in Redwood City. I met my partner at the playground where I watched my children.” Not only can we can find a future partner in the sandbox, it is also easy to cross the pundits of Silicon Valley at random from a barbecue party. They are available and are ready to play mentors for younger people. “It is not as easy to meet bosses in Europe … Unless they learn that you are installed in Silicon Valley. There, the doors open,” notes Alexandre Gonthier. Contacts are natural, and the mentality towards failure also has a role. “You want to know the secret of Silicon Valley? asks Fadi Bishara, head of the incubator Blackbox. Failure is not an issue. It is completely accepted. It is even considered an apprenticeship.” And if the project does not fail, it will soon be on the market. “The minimum viable product” is the leitmotif of the Silicon Valley. “We need to create something simple that you can use right away,” says Solomon Dykes, the founder of the start-up Dotdoud in San Francisco. “I would add that the idea is not very important, Fadi Bishara continues. Googje invented nothing, there were already search engines. What matters is the “packaging”, how the project is sold.” It’s the reason why storytelling is used a lot to sell. These stories also serve to develop an entrepreneurial spirit. Many myths have grown from Silicon Valley. There is the famous story about the birth of startups in garages. Like, for exampl , Google, which had rented a garage, whereas it had already raised $ 1 million.
Financial factors
Good idea or not, nothing is possible without money. The region of Silicon Valley attracts 46% of venture capital in the United States, according to the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. This happens especially much earlier in the development of projects than here.” If, after a year , the start -up has not found funding , we believe that we need to move on,” adds Jeff Burton , director of Skydesk , an incubator located on the Berkeley campus . “For us, the institutional money comes much later, said Joao Antonio Brinca, representative of BCV board at the Foundation for Technological Innovation in Lausanne. Financing through venture capital funds typically occurs between the fifth and seventh year of the project life. “The sums involved are not the same. A young company of Lake Geneva can hopee to raise between 300,000 and 600,000 francs for its first round of funding. In Silicon Valley it is at least twice. So there is a gap between the first efforts of startups to exit the academic world and the interests of investors . This longer period may explain the difficulty of transforming research into marketable products. Another advantage of Silicon Valley is its close proximity maintained between universities and private firms. In this regard, the Lake Geneva is still lagging behind. But it would be wrong to say that nothing is done about it. EPFL has worked in recent years to attract firms in the area of innovation, so that they mingle with the start-ups. But again, the structures of the same type that abound in Silicon Valley are favored by the scale. The density of start-ups produces a unique emulation world. Also keep in mind the economy of scale to explain this difference. A U.S. start -up happens in a domestic market of 320 million potential customers. In Switzerland, an emerging company has to deal with a much smaller market, divided into three languages and twenty- six cantons.
This article was produced as part of a tour organized by BCV for ten young Vaudois.
Stanford will invest in companies founded by students
“The prestigious American university Stanford will now invest in start-ups.” Thus begins an article in the newspaper Le Monde. The author, Jerome Marin, is rather negative about this decision, as the following quote shows: “The confusion is fueled even at the top of the university: the president has close ties with several giants of Silicon Valley, including Google as it is a member of the Board.” Without trying to argue, I think the reporter is misled.
But before I give you my point of view , I’d like to mention that I looked for other articles related to the topic, I found at least two :
– That of TechCrunch, close in spirit to Le Monde’s one, Stanford University Is Going To Invest In Student Startups Like A VC Firm. The article is also critical but I think better informed… and it also deals with the tension between the academic and business worlds. “That tension between academia and industry was highlighted this past spring when a number of students dropped out of school to start Clinkle”.
with references to another New Yorker article.
– The press release by Stanford University, StartX, Stanford University and Stanford Hospital & Clinics announce $3.6M grant and venture fund. If you read the statement carefully, it is about a gift from Stanford to StartX and a joint Stanford-StartX fund. StartX is an accelerator created by Stanford students and I understand that the University therefore supports this initiative. There is no mention, however, of a fund managed by Stanford as a VC fund.
The reason I think the reporter is mistaken is when he says that “Stanford will invest in companies created by its students”. As if it was new. Even if I agree that the stakes taken in start-ups in exchange for licensing of intellectual property is not an investment per se, Stanford still has acquired stakes in more than 170 of its spin-offs in the past . In addition the Stanford endowment has invested on an individual basis in many start-ups in the past (not to mention in many VC funds). For example, I found in a database I am building on Stanford-related companies, that Stanford invested in Aion (1984), Convergent (1980), Gemfire (1995), Metreo (2000), Tensilica (1998). Website LinkSv mentions Stanford invested in 143 companies. [I am aware there might be some confusion between investor and shareholder, so the topic remains somehow confusing].
Finally, in the 2000s, the Office of Technology Transfer at Stanford managed two funds, the Birdseed Fund (for amounts of $5k to $25k) and the Gap Fund ($25k to $250k) as shown the 2002 OTL annual report.
It is not at all new that Stanford invests in its start-ups. There has also always been tension, let’s do not deny it either. A little-known example of Cisco-Stanford early relationship. So nothing new under the sun. But you will not be surprised if I add that the overall result seems (is) extremely positive for all stakeholders, the university (including in its academic dimension), individuals, start-ups and the economy in general.
The Capital Sins of Silicon Valley
People who are close to me are sometimes (often?) tired of my enthusiasm for Silicon Valley. It is well known that the creative energy in innovation is quite unique and the resulting value creation pretty huge. This energy is contagious and as Steve Jobs said: “[There are] two or three reasons. You have to go back a little in history. I mean this is where the beatnik happened in San Francisco. It is a pretty interesting thing. This is where the hippy movement happened. This is the only place in America where Rock‘n’roll really happened. Right? Most of the bands in this country, Bob Dylan in the 60’s, I mean they all came out of here. I think of Joan Baez to Jefferson Airplane to the Grateful Dead. Everything came out of here, Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, everybody. Why is that? You’ve also had Stanford and Berkeley, two awesome universities drawing smart people from all over the world and depositing them in this clean, sunny, nice place where there’s a whole bunch of other smart people and pretty good food. And at times a lot of drugs and all of that. So they stayed. There’s a lot of human capital pouring in. Really smart people. People seem pretty bright here relative to the rest of the country. People seem pretty openminded here relative to the rest of the country. I think it’s just a very unique place and it’s got a track record to prove it and that tends to attract more people. I give a lot of credit to the universities, probably the most credit of anything to Stanford and Berkeley.” A paradise? That’s a nice question! I will try to address the maybe lesser-known dark sides of the region.
All those office perks come with strings attached. Reuters/Erin Siegal
from Those cool Silicon Valley offices? More like secretly evil empires
Single-minded devotion to self-interest
The topic is not new. In 1984, the authors of Silicon Valley Fever devoted two chapters to the difficulties of the region, one is entitled “Lifestyles” and the other “Troubles in paradise”. On page 184, they say: “In the 1980s, cracks began to appear” and concluded (page 202) that “perhaps the greatest threat of all is the single-minded devotion to self-interest at the expense of the common good. ”
I think this is the most serious problem in Silicon Valley. In a recent article in the Nouvel Observateur, The hidden face of the oligarchs of the net, Natacha Tatu is critical of the wealthy entrepreneurs who “sometimes become rich against the American interests.” In fact, the large technology companies (Intel, Oracle, Google, Apple, etc.) have made real war chests outside the U.S. and prefer not to repatriate them to avoid paying the taxes they consider excessive. “The effective tax rate of the high-tech giants was only 16% in 2011. At this game, the champion is Amazon, which taxes amounted to only 3.5% of its earnings in 2011, followed by Xerox (7.3%) and Apple (9.8%)”, according to BFM TV in How Google, Apple & Co use tax havens. Furthermore, “in 2004, George W. Bush, magnanimous, had given such a “tax holliday” – the repatriated profits were taxed at only 5% instead of 35% -, that HP took the opportunity to repatriate $16 billion, IBM 12 billion, Intel 7.6 billion, Oracle 3.3 billion, and Microsoft 1 billion.” This tax selfishness may partly explain the poor infrastructure (public transportation, low quality highways, schools, health services); this is a typical American vice that is not unique to Silicon Valley. The fact remains that the gap between the wealth of the region and poverty in the public system is more extreme.
A very expensive area with large inequalities
I quote now Chris Schrader in What’s The Dark Side Of Silicon Valley? “The amount of wealth in the area has driven up home prices near the places where the jobs are to astronomical levels.” If we add the cost of health and education, living in Silicon Valley is a nightmare if you do not have comfortable income. I do not even talk about the “working poors” whose situation is more difficult admitting that their situation is legal. Not to mention either that much of the production is outsourced to emerging countries where working conditions are even more difficult. Needless to return to the example of Foxconn in China that provides the bulk of Apple products.
Workaholics
This is known. In Silicon Valley, people work a lot. Not just for the money, no doubt, but the material considerations seem to be the only common concern to everybody. This is probably the consequence of this devotion to self-interest as much as of the cost of living. In order to pay for home, health care and education, you have to work a lot. But it goes further, and this is probably linked to the Protestant ethics and culture as well as to the pursuit of wealth that startups give hope to. Social life is sacrificed and I remember that many students at Stanford thought only of their education, which is a little sad…
This geek culture does not help in making Silicon Valley a balanced society. Discrimination and inequality remain strong. Noyce, the founder of Intel, was afraid of the unions and thought their arrival in a company were killing business. Undeclared work exists and working conditions are not nearly as idyllic as is sometimes described. More simply, the behaviors are often arrogant, hypocritical and superficial.
A deteriorated quality of life
The authors of Silicon Valley Fever mention some negative consequences of the points above: the lack of free time has obviously negative impact on family life, which is sacrificed at the altar of hard work. Little vacation, little curiosity too. In addition to degraded life conditions related to stress and a high divorce rate, these financial constraints induce a struggling transportation system since people generally work far away from home. Traffic jams are so unreasonable that Chris Schrader said, “I have to establish my schedule based on commute traffic which typically has me out of the house well before 7 am and many times back home by about 8pm. Leaving work at 5pm simply doesn’t make sense, because I would get home at the exact same time if I left at 7pm.” I’m not even talking about public transportation which is almost non-existent compared to European cities or even the metropolitan areas on the East Coast of the United States.
Security is not such an important topic in the Bay Area, but there are significant pockets of insecurity in East Palo Alto and Oakland. I’ll let you see the picture I took a few years ago. Again this is a more general American issue.
A poor socio-cultural life
Contrary to the statements by Steve Jobs I quoted earlier, Silicon Valley does not shine by its cultural life. Few major artists (compared to the wealth of the region). Athens, Rome, Florence in the distant past or Paris, London, Vienna and New York today did much better at their peak. No major museum in the region. No major figure in the political or social life despite two major universities. If you go to New York, Washington, Chicago or Los Angeles, I’m pretty sure that you’ll find a richer cultural life.
A herd mentality
I am far from having a complete list of negative elements in the region, but I will finish with a point that certainly creates a lot of frustration for innovators and creators. The fashions and trends are so strong that it is difficult to express oneself or worse succeed if one swims against the current. This “herd mentality” implies that one rarely listens to those who come up with ideas seemingly farfetched. Even the Google founders had struggled several months to convince anyone. More recently Elon Musk dit not use for Tesla Motors the usual Silicon Valley investors to finance his dream of electric vehicles; however, he has become the latest darling of the region. In the late 90s, it was the dotcom bubble, today, you need to be in social media. Innovation is much broader, but the money is flowing though in dozens of similar and often less innovative projects… Employees in start-ups follow the same trends and have no attachment or loyalty to their employers. This has probably some good sides (employees can negotiate for example, companies need to do their best to retain talent), but the superficiality of social relations in general can be problematic.
I do not in any way deny my enthusiasm for Silicon Valley which remains in my mind one of the most dynamic and creative regions in the world. I found inspiration and enthusiasm at critical moments of my life and the beauty of the surrounding nature, the enthusiasm (even if artificial) of the population and the sweetness of life (if you can afford it) make the region much enjoyable and exciting. It does not mean it is a paradise and there is clearly room for improvement.
Steve Jobs by Walter Issacson
I finally read the Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson. I hesitated a long time (the original edition was published in 2011) because I feared disappointement. I had read the excellent The Apple Revolution as well as Return to the Little Kingdom. I finally read it in French and it is excellent. Read it if you have an interest in the topic. I’m not going to do any analysis, but as I usually do just mention some striking or subjective extracts. The citations refer to the French paperback release dated October 2012.
Silicon Valley
Various cultural earthquakes upset San Francisco and SiIicon Valley in the late 1960s. There was the technological revolution, initiated by the increase of military contracts, which had attracted electronics companies, chip manufacturers, designers of video games and computer manufacturers. There was a sub-culture, the pirates – inventors of genius, cyberpunks, dilettantes as well as pure geeks, they also had in their ranks electronicians refusing to fit the mold of HP and their impetuous children who wanted to break down all barriers. There were (quasi-academic) research groups, who led in vivo experiments on the effects of LSD, such as Doug Engelbart’s Augmentation Research Center, who would later work at the development of the mouse and graphical user interfaces, or Ken Kesey, who praised the psychedelic drug in shows, combining music and light, run by a group of musicians who became the legendary Grateful Dead. There was also the hippie movement, from the Beat Generation of Kerouac, a native of San Francisco Bay, and political activists, born out of the Movement for Freedom of Expression of Berkeley. And encompassing all that, there were various spiritual movements seeking inner enlightenment – Zen, Hinduism, meditation, yoga, primal scream, sensory deprivation and Esalen massage.
Steve Jobs was the embodiment of the fusion of Flower Power and microchips, the pursuit of personal revelation and high tech: he was meditating in the morning, followed in the afternoon courses in physics at Stanford, working the Atari at night and dreaming of starting his own business. [Page 114]
A passion for entrepreneurship
Bushnell is of this opinion: “To be a successful entrepreneur, you must have something special and I saw this thing with Steve. He was not only interested in electronics, also by business. I showed him that one had to behave as if one would succeed in what one wanted to achieve and then everything would naturally follow. That’s what I always say: if you pretend to know what you do, people will follow. “[Page 111]
His closest friends think that having learned so young, he had been abandoned at birth had left indelible scars. “The need for total control of what he did comes from this injury” [Page 34] … “The most amazing thing about Steve is that he cannot help being cruel to some people – a kind of Pavlovian response. The key to the mystery is the fact that he was abandoned at birth.” [Page 35]
So he went back to Nolan Bushnell, “Steve asked me to put fifty thousand dollars on the table and in exchange he’d give me a third of Apple’s shares. I thought I was smart and I said no. When I look back, I still laugh. Not to cry!” [Page 142]
The reality distortion field
– “This is madness. It is impossible. ”
He was answered that Jobs would not listen.
– The best definition of this oddity, you find it in Star Trek. Steve creates a reality distortion field. In his presence, reality is malleable. It can make anyone believe almost anything. The effect of course disappears, when he is not there, but it prevents you seriously to have realistic expectations for anything.
RDF was a confusing mix of charisma and mental strength, it is the willingness to bend the facts so they fit the mold. [Page 207]
When Jobs decreed that the sodas in the fridge would be replaced by organic orange and carrot juice, someone on the team had printed T-shirts with: “Beware of Reality Distortion Field!” And on the back: “It comes from the juice!”
There is a small bug page 225: To draw circles, Atkinson found a trick based on the fact that the sums of odd numbers gave a succession of perfect squares (for example, 1 + 3 = 4, 1 + 3 + 5 = 8, etc.) [The statement is correct because the last sum is 9 and not 8!]
Being a pirate
“Better to be a pirate than join the navy” [Page 248] And the Jolly Roger decorated with the Apple logo floated for a few weeks on the roof of Bandley 3.
The chapters on Jobs’ private life and Pixar are quite interesting. About the IPO of Pixar: “Earlier that year, Jobs had tried to find a buyer for Pixar, for fifty million dollars, just to recover his funds. At the end of this historic day, the actions he had kept – about 80% of the company – were worth more than 20 times that amount: one billion two hundred million dollars! It was nearly five times more than he had gained with the Apple IPO in 1980. But Jobs did not care to make a fortune, as he told John Markoff of the New York Times: “I do not intend to buy a yacht. I never did it for the money.” [Page 471]. He is in this respect very different from Larry Ellison, founder and CEO of Oracle with whom he became a friend who helped him to return to Apple.
Return to Apple
In this regard, there is an funny anecdote page 482: “Two years ago, Guy Kawasaki, Macworld magazine columnist (and former Apple evangelist) published in the magazine a parody telling Apple was buying NeXT and elected Jobs as CEO. The article featuring Mike Markkula talking to Jobs: “You want to spend the rest of your life selling Unix with a nice coating, or change the world?” And Jobs replied:” Now I am a father and I do not want to play adventurers.” The article made the assumption: “Following his troubles with NeXT, it is possible that Jobs, in his return to the parent company, will bring the Apple management a dose of humility. Bill Gates was also quoted; he said that if Jobs returned to the business, Microsoft would again have innovations to copy! Everything was invented and purely humorous. But the reality has this annoying habit of catching up all satires. “([Page 482 and see below]
And on his return: “His credo was perfection. He was not very good at compromise, or to arrange with reality. He did not like complexity. This was the case for the design of his products and the furniture of his houses, it was the same for his personal commitments. If he was sure of himself, then nothing could stop him, but if he had doubts, he sometimes preferred to throw in the towel rather than ending up in a situation that did not satisfy him completely. [Page 509]
Death
[With Markkula] They spent the rest of the time talking about the future of Apple. Jobs wanted to build a company that survives him and asked for his advice. Markkula replied that companies that remain are those who knew how to renew. That had been constant with Hewlett-Packard, beginning by constructing measuring instruments and then calculators and then again computers.” Apple was ousted by Microsoft from the market for personal computers, Markkula explained. You must change the course of Apple to another product. You have to be like a butterfly and accomplish your metamorphosis.” Jobs was hardly talkative, but he retained the lesson. [Page 515]
The music was obviously an essential art in the life of Jobs. We know his passion for Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, and the Beatles. But here’s a most interesting part: Bach, he said, was his favorite classical composer. He particularly liked the contrast between the two versions of the Goldberg Variations recorded by Glenn Gould – the first in 1995 by the little-known pianist of twenty-two years that he was, and the second in 1981, a year before his death. “They are like night and day, Steve told me one day after having listened to one after the other. The first is exuberant, young, brilliant, played so fast that it is a revelation. The second is more efficient, more austere. It reveals a deep soul, a painful experience. “Jobs was sick for the third time when he listened to the two versions. I asked him which was his favorite version. “Gould preferred the latest version. In the past, I preferred the first, the exuberant. But now, I understand better what he meant.”
Isaacson ends his book with a brilliant remark by Jobs on the topic of life and death. “But on the other hand, maybe it’s like an on/off switch. Click and nothing more!” He paused again and smiled. “This is surely why I never liked the on/off switches on the Apple products.”
The legacy
I could have put these final remarks earlier in the section A passion for entrepreneurship. “My passion has been to build a sustainable business, where people were motivated to manufacture great products. Everything else was secondary. Of course, it was great to make a profit, because it allowed us to create good products. But the motivation is the product, not profit. […] The difference is subtle, but in the end it is crucial because it defines all the people we hire, those we promote, the topics we discussed at meetings. […] People do not know what they want until they have it in front of them. That’s why I do not care about market research. […] The intersection between the arts and sciences. I love this juncture, IL has a magical aura. […] Our innovation holds a large part of humanity. I think great artists and great engineers are similar .. Both have the desire to express themselves. […] I have my own theory to explain the decline of companies like IBM and Microsoft. The company did a great job, innovates and comes almost to a monopoly in some areas. It was then that the quality of the product becomes less important. The company praises great sales people […] that eventually take control of the company. […] I hate people who say they are entrepreneurs when their sole objective is to build a start-up that they will sell or go IPO. They do not have the desire to build a real company. […] People should never stop innovating. […] I think most creative people want to thank their predecessors who left their legacy.” [Pages 889-892]
An incredible life. Jobs will remain one of the biggest celebrities of the twentieth century. I wondered when I finished reading this book what I remember of Apple and Jobs and here is the result.
The Swiss innovation model: is it the best?
Very interesting presentation by the newspaper Le Temps and Xavier Comtesse about innovation in Switzerland (compared to the USA). (Thanks to Pascal for giving me the link :-)). The article is entitled The Swiss innovation model is it the best? (Same document on Prezi)
Before you view or read the content of the contribution by Comtesse, here is my reaction: it is indeed an excellent analysis, but the conclusion can be misleading! One could get the impression that the U.S. does not have large innovative companies like Switzerland has with Novartis, Roche or Nestlé. But I fear that it is a misleading view. The U.S. does not have that start-ups only and our are not growing. Not to forget, the topic of job creation, see Job creation: who’s right? Grove or Kauffman
Now here is a summary translated from Prezi: For several years, Switzerland has been at the top of the world rankings for innovation, this was not always the case especially during the 90s. So … Are we better than Silicon Valley?
Silicon Valley has developed a model in 8 strengths
– Excellent local university system
– Transfer of knowledge to the economy – technoloy parks, coaching, awards, etc..
– Powerful venture capital
– Start-ups that grow quickly and innovate in disruptive fields
– An effective IPO or M&A market (Exit Strategy)
– Large expenditures in R&D
– A high rate of patents per capita
– A strong entrepreneurial spirit per inhabitant
The 7 strong points of the Swiss model: Switzerland has a very different system of innovation from Silicon Valley but ultimately just as effective, especially for large companies.
– No federal masterplan for Innovation
– A concentration in life sciences
– A innovation driven by large companies
– Incremental innovation more than disruptive
– A quality education at all levels
– Framework conditions very favorable to the economy
– A high performance system of transfer of knowledge / technology
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Switzerland?
– Yes, our universities are excellent:
More than half of young Swiss university follow the one hundred best universities in the world, no country has such a result
– No, the Venture Capital industry is very low in Switzerland:
Switzerland underperformed largely in the area of venture capital (investment in Switzerland in 2011: 737 Million for USA 29,500 million).
– No, our start-ups do not grow fast enough:
The excellent survival rate is suspect, this means that start-ups are protected by the academic system or federal funding
– No, there is little IPO in Switzerland:
A small number of IPO (Initial Public Offering) shows weak growth start-ups or SMEs in Switzerland
– Yes, private R&D is very important but for large firms rather than in SMEs:
The share of the private sector is very important in Switzerland, particularly in the life sciences (pharma, biotech and medtech, etc.).
– Yes, we file a lot of patents:
but again it is primarily large enterprises, the proportion of patents is very important in Switzerland, this is partly due to the strong presence of very large firms
– No, the Swiss create firms twice less than the US:
the ntrepreneurial culture is very strong in the U.S., more than double that in Europe,
– Yes, the general conditions of business creation are very favorable:
Switzerland does better than innovative small countries such as Finland, Sweden and Israel
– Yes, technology transfer takes place in Switzerland:
Switzerland has fifty incubators, TechnoParks or other transfer centers Switzerland Silicon Valley
These two models as we have seen are very different. They work well both but the objective differences do not make possible to compare them as is done ll too often, especially in the field of start-ups …