Charles Jannuzi wrote:
> I wasn't so much interested in streaming technology (so far from what I've
> seen of it, I wish most of it would go away).
>
you have a problem with porn? ;-) i meantion porn because they are at
this point the only business that is making money through streaming.
there is the success story of nakednews.com, but various other "live
cam" and other such streaming services are drawing in and retaining
audience willing to pay $35/month and more.
> One point was that the US
> gov't still fosters start-up technology through DARPA and In-Q-Tel. People
> marvel over US high tech companies, but key government contracts are often
> what sustains them before there is some sort of perceived trend in which
> regulated capital piles in.
i would agree with that entirely. the only exceptions are non-innovative
startups (such as those that sell old products on a new medium: web
sites) and probably a few that managed to use star power and other such
factors to start off cash rich (transmeta, with linus torvalds on their
team, is probably a good example, though i am not sure how original the
research behind their product is).
apart from DARPA, there are other federal and state grants that fund
technology innovation. NIST for instance has a fairly large grant they
offer for technology companies. here in NJ, the state govt has a similar
grant, albeit smaller.
> Also, if you go back to the overall thrust of the 'innovations' thread, my
> hunch was that venture/vulture capital was swarming all over tech groupings,
> but not to pile on a bubble. Rather, if you look closely at the investing
> and deals these groups do, it's about either moving in on the distressed
> companies once a bubble has burst OR by being ahead of a bubble because of
> the political access they have--which gives them key information about
> deregulation and liberalization regimes being forced on countries
> everywhere.
>
> The worst aspect of this is how it almost singularly favors private, closely
> held, unregulated US equity groups, such as Carlyle Group, Ripplewood
> Holdings, Lonestar, and, until recently, Enron's 'private, offshore' side
> (there are two huge groups coming out of France, nothing much of size from
> Japan since Softbank has hit the skids).
while you are probably right about investors such as the carlyle group,
with deep connections into the govt (and the old political processes),
my own experience suggests that the generalization about VCs, during the
1998-2000 bubble, holds. i am afraid my point might be naive: the trend
i saw during the internet bubble, in terms of VC investment, was that
the successful/smart VCs helped create a bubble around an investment,
helping take it to IPO, at which point they cashed out (see NEA, battery
ventures, oak, kliner-perkins, etc). the less smart ones attempted much
the same, but with lesser success.
--ravi
