Silicon Valley Connect
The Union debate last Thursday was a lively affair, with venture capitalists and other entrepreneurial types attempting to decide whether Europe, or the Valley, will be the best place to start billion dollar companies in the future. In the end I felt i had to abstain though - I can't bring myself to care much where innovation happens most. It was encouraging to see that some of the leading lights of entrepreneurship can also compose a strong speech and present it with panache, although most of the points were comical rather than intellectual.
NESTA and Silicon Valley Connect had organised last night's forum in London, as part of a tour for visiting Valley luminaries. It had rather more content than the debate! (As ever, I am reminded of an old colleague of mine, who always called it the valley of the silly clones.)
George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor, spoke coherently and well about the need for university and industry interaction, the importance of an encouraging tax regime, and how governments could support SMEs by relaxing regulations limiting public service contracting. He also mentioned that the "most interesting trip" in his two and a half years as Shadow Chancellor had been to Silicon Valley, a particular highlight being a visit to "a strange company called Mozilla." I'd've liked to hear more about that! His references to Facebook and open source were reasonably in context, and he came across very well. Several attendees commented that although they would never vote Tory, they were more likely to after hearing Osborne speak.
Reid Hoffman, founded of LinkedIn amongst other things, believed that Silicon Valley will continue to dominate the world in consumer internet development, but that other clusters, perhaps with different technology focuses, would arise/grow. Virtual social networks are good, but will never replace physical ones; these local ecosystems are increasingly important to encourage enterprise, and the world is better for it. He seemed encouraged by what he had seen in the UK (or at least, in the Golden Triangle of Oxbridge and London), but did note that he feels angel investors here need to be seen more as a resource outside the financial sphere, as well as within it.
One question asked how young people should be encouraged to be entrepreneurial. Hoffman said that we should enthuse kids simply by enabling them to succeed, which was fine, but at this event he didn't exactly motivate me - it sounded like it was jolly hard starting a business (at least in Reid's area) and there was no hint as to what one might get out of it, other than money.
No consumer internet startup in the Valley has a plan for more than 6 months out these days, because things are moving so fast, and "you have to be running." Hoffman stays in touch with his staff even when travelling, to avoid any delays in decision-making. One method he has is to ask them to email him any question requiring a decision as soon as they need an answer, with a list of options (a: do it, b: don't do it, c: i'll call you asap, etc). He can then get the urgent mail on his Blackberry and reply with one letter, even if he's in an important meeting.
James Slavet, a VC, highlighted some points he sees as crucial to an innovative cluster, where ever it is in the world. There must be access to management talent (in the form of leaders of "foundation companies", such as Apple and Google, as well as serial entrepreneurs), and technologists must be respected within the culture. Venture capital is necessary, too. Risk taking must be encouraged, with it being perfectly OK to fail, and to have gone through many jobs. Slavet commented that in China enterprise is generally seen as a good thing, whereas in India, whilst technologists are admired, someone working for a startup is viewed as poor marriage material without a reliable income. Culture is critical for an enterprising ecosystem.
Slavet thinks that Silicon Valley will stay at the top of the pile in terms of being the biggest and best tech cluster, but that others would appear around the world. In the UK, Slavet would increase the transparency of technology in development, to make it clearer what could be commericialised. This seemed to be a roundabout way of saying that tech transfer between academia and industry was important.
Megan Smith from Google spent a lot of time saying how inspired she was, by the UK tour, the debate in Cambridge (where she was quite tickled by voting with her feet), the wonderful innovative atmosphere at Google, and so on. She mentioned the need for strong academic interaction with industry, and that alumni networks should be fully utilised. Another important catalyst for enterprise is reduced friction - that setting up a company should be easy and quick - with centralised services to link entrepreneurs with resources. Smith quoted someone from Toshiba, about how Silicon Valley is like one company, with many divisions, and people moving freely betweek the divisions; this "company" encompassing Stanford as well as businesses. Smith also talked a great deal about the wonderfulness of Google (as do most of the Googlers I come across lately - their brainwashing techniques must be top notch), with staff writing papers, enjoying their famous 20% time, eating well, and not having the burden of managers. (I have been wondering of late how easy it is in the UK to switch between industry and academia. The talk in enterprise circles is always of academics spinning out and becoming entrepreneurs; but can people move the other way, particularly if they have been at a small company without the time to publish as well as creating a product?)
Again, Smith highlighted the importance of having the right culture. Talented people appear everywhere, then meet up in technology clusters, and will spread ideas and styles of working from the Valley back to growing clusters around the world. Still, she knows of succesful "fully networked" companies, with staff widely distributed between countries and cities. The UK would do better with more flexible government purchasing requirements, and if only we could see angel investors not as a plentiful source of capital gains tax, but as a way of growing the tax base of the nation through employment.
It was an interesting evening. NESTA CEO, Jonathan Kestenbaum, proved an able chairman, and is really getting the organisation doing some great stuff to "make innovation flourish." Thanks also go to the NESTA events team, who ran a splendid function, and were very polite when asking us final stragglers to leave, so they could go home. The kiwi and melon juice in particular was very fine.
NESTA and Silicon Valley Connect had organised last night's forum in London, as part of a tour for visiting Valley luminaries. It had rather more content than the debate! (As ever, I am reminded of an old colleague of mine, who always called it the valley of the silly clones.)
George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor, spoke coherently and well about the need for university and industry interaction, the importance of an encouraging tax regime, and how governments could support SMEs by relaxing regulations limiting public service contracting. He also mentioned that the "most interesting trip" in his two and a half years as Shadow Chancellor had been to Silicon Valley, a particular highlight being a visit to "a strange company called Mozilla." I'd've liked to hear more about that! His references to Facebook and open source were reasonably in context, and he came across very well. Several attendees commented that although they would never vote Tory, they were more likely to after hearing Osborne speak.
Reid Hoffman, founded of LinkedIn amongst other things, believed that Silicon Valley will continue to dominate the world in consumer internet development, but that other clusters, perhaps with different technology focuses, would arise/grow. Virtual social networks are good, but will never replace physical ones; these local ecosystems are increasingly important to encourage enterprise, and the world is better for it. He seemed encouraged by what he had seen in the UK (or at least, in the Golden Triangle of Oxbridge and London), but did note that he feels angel investors here need to be seen more as a resource outside the financial sphere, as well as within it.
One question asked how young people should be encouraged to be entrepreneurial. Hoffman said that we should enthuse kids simply by enabling them to succeed, which was fine, but at this event he didn't exactly motivate me - it sounded like it was jolly hard starting a business (at least in Reid's area) and there was no hint as to what one might get out of it, other than money.
No consumer internet startup in the Valley has a plan for more than 6 months out these days, because things are moving so fast, and "you have to be running." Hoffman stays in touch with his staff even when travelling, to avoid any delays in decision-making. One method he has is to ask them to email him any question requiring a decision as soon as they need an answer, with a list of options (a: do it, b: don't do it, c: i'll call you asap, etc). He can then get the urgent mail on his Blackberry and reply with one letter, even if he's in an important meeting.
James Slavet, a VC, highlighted some points he sees as crucial to an innovative cluster, where ever it is in the world. There must be access to management talent (in the form of leaders of "foundation companies", such as Apple and Google, as well as serial entrepreneurs), and technologists must be respected within the culture. Venture capital is necessary, too. Risk taking must be encouraged, with it being perfectly OK to fail, and to have gone through many jobs. Slavet commented that in China enterprise is generally seen as a good thing, whereas in India, whilst technologists are admired, someone working for a startup is viewed as poor marriage material without a reliable income. Culture is critical for an enterprising ecosystem.
Slavet thinks that Silicon Valley will stay at the top of the pile in terms of being the biggest and best tech cluster, but that others would appear around the world. In the UK, Slavet would increase the transparency of technology in development, to make it clearer what could be commericialised. This seemed to be a roundabout way of saying that tech transfer between academia and industry was important.
Megan Smith from Google spent a lot of time saying how inspired she was, by the UK tour, the debate in Cambridge (where she was quite tickled by voting with her feet), the wonderful innovative atmosphere at Google, and so on. She mentioned the need for strong academic interaction with industry, and that alumni networks should be fully utilised. Another important catalyst for enterprise is reduced friction - that setting up a company should be easy and quick - with centralised services to link entrepreneurs with resources. Smith quoted someone from Toshiba, about how Silicon Valley is like one company, with many divisions, and people moving freely betweek the divisions; this "company" encompassing Stanford as well as businesses. Smith also talked a great deal about the wonderfulness of Google (as do most of the Googlers I come across lately - their brainwashing techniques must be top notch), with staff writing papers, enjoying their famous 20% time, eating well, and not having the burden of managers. (I have been wondering of late how easy it is in the UK to switch between industry and academia. The talk in enterprise circles is always of academics spinning out and becoming entrepreneurs; but can people move the other way, particularly if they have been at a small company without the time to publish as well as creating a product?)
Again, Smith highlighted the importance of having the right culture. Talented people appear everywhere, then meet up in technology clusters, and will spread ideas and styles of working from the Valley back to growing clusters around the world. Still, she knows of succesful "fully networked" companies, with staff widely distributed between countries and cities. The UK would do better with more flexible government purchasing requirements, and if only we could see angel investors not as a plentiful source of capital gains tax, but as a way of growing the tax base of the nation through employment.
It was an interesting evening. NESTA CEO, Jonathan Kestenbaum, proved an able chairman, and is really getting the organisation doing some great stuff to "make innovation flourish." Thanks also go to the NESTA events team, who ran a splendid function, and were very polite when asking us final stragglers to leave, so they could go home. The kiwi and melon juice in particular was very fine.