Slashdot Mirror

Oh ho ho! You just haven't seen the amazing, totally true marketing materials that venture capitalists saw 10 months ago. Holograms are real! Bing Gordon from Kleiner Perkins will tell it to you straight.

However things are a bit different with TV. First, they do lose viewers when the ads become obnoxious, so they avoid that. Users are allowed to leave the room while ads are playing, they are never forced to "click to continue" or wait 20 seconds.

Actually, that's not quite true. Firstly, broadcasters turn up the volume during ad breaks. That way you still hear the ads, even though you're out of the room.

They have a much larger audience too and generate less per viewer than the typical ad-based web site expects to get per reader.

That's completely untrue. Revenue is way higher on TV than web/mobile, when measured on a media consumption basis. Mobile figures are completely in the toilet - is's a factor of 16 difference. Here's a link to KPCB's Mary Meeker's State of the Internet report if you're interested in a more in-depth analysis: http://www.kpcb.com/file/kpcb-internet-trends-2012. Slide 17 is the relevant one.

The problem (as far as I can see it, anyway) is that more and more snake oil is being applied in digital advertising, *trying* to work out your interests, whereas the advertisers overlook the blindingly obvious matter of context.

I'm currently here on slashdot, which means that I'm probably going to be quite receptive to tech advertisements. When I'm reading a cooking blog, I'll probably be quite receptive to food advertisements. But start pushing me food ads on Slashdot, and tech ads on food blogs, and you'll creep me out. I switch interests on a momentary basis, but give you all the clues in the content I'm consuming. The only targeting information you need is to turn global into local. i.e. where in the world I am.

Full disclosure: We're actually building an ad platform, but from the perspective of the developer and the end user. We come from TV and Videogames backgrounds, so are in a somewhat OK position to try to understand and address some of the (many) shortcomings of existing ad solutions.

Cute. No, actually, it's not a good starting point at all, regardless of whether the Earth goes boom. This idea is crap. It's a needlessly brittle way of providing first responders with important medical information. Simpler, more reliable ways of doing that already exist, including the whole database aspect of it. The new ideas here are using a QR code and a smartphone with proprietary software to access the database. Reliable operation depends heavily on uninterested third parties.

It's almost like a bunch of people that enjoy making money off of smartphone and social networking technology decided to shoehorn that same thinking into emergency services. [sarcasm]How could you lose when you combine two hot, growing markets like smartphones and healthcare? It's a definite win-win.[/sarcasm]

Why shouldn't the maker of a platform ... pay for some devs to write for it!?

iFund.

It's because it takes much less funding to write a Facebook application and the return on investment a lot higher. And the funding required to develop a mill is much harder to come by than say funding for an iPhone app. For example, there a $200 million fund for iPhone app developers http://www.kpcb.com/initiatives/ifund/

"Republicans deny that this was a political choice" the WSJ reported

That's a story from an alternate universe, where publications like the WSJ really are fair and balanced. I checked out KPCB's webpage and found that both Al Gore and Colin Powell are directors. So why did the WSJ play up Gore's involvement, but not Powell's?

http://www.kpcb.com/team/byers

I applaud him for his resignation, but this is Tom Perkins of Kleiner, Perkins et al., one of the biggest venture capital firms. Its not like he has to worry about keeping a job to feed his family...

Kleiner Perkins, one of the most successful VC firms in history

People always talk of Microsoft vs Google or MSFT vs Sun or MSFT vs Netscape for MSFT vs AOL - but they rarely realize that it's always been Microsoft vs Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers where all these companies (Sun, Electronic Arts, AOL, Google, Netscape) are all at heart part of KPCB's portfolio and act more similarily to divisions of microsoft than separate entities.

Eh, I think Kleiner, Perkins is probably a little more of a "household name" than Seqoia but whatever.

Sybase and Symantec as well.

Here's the trend I see of lots of Kleiner companies like Sun, Compaq, AOL, Netscape, Electronic Arts, and yes, Google.

The begin with lots of top-talent in lots of areas - academic, practical, financial, etc. Eventually they do very well (Sun, Netsape and AOL come to mind as the examples most familiar to /.); and some of the bright peole move on - some to start their own things, some to retire, or get promoted to management. Whatever the reason, most (notable exceptions, electroninc arts, genentech) fade after a while; IMHO because the best people moved on.

Then KPCB'll invest in those best people's next venture that will once again take on Microsoft in the next hot area of High Tech.

IMHO it never was Netscape vs MSFT, or Sun vs MSFT or AOL vs MSFT -- it's always been KPCB vs MSFT; with Sun, NSCP, AOL, Google just minor divisions of KPCB's virtual company bound together by a common culture of great innovation.

I vehemently disagree.

The Silicon Valley venture capital community has the financial (Kleiner, Redpoint, Brentwood, Benchmark, Draper, etc), and intellectual (Stanford, Berkeley, both next door) to hold it's own against any of those far east conglomerates or wealthy corporations. Furthermore, they have as one of their primary goals to take on this kind of high-risk/high-reward R&D.

Consider just one of these VC firms. These guys are the force behind AOL, Amazon, Genzyme, Cell Genesis, Electronic Arts, Cryogen, Genentech, Google, Macromedia, Nanogen, Netscape, Pharming, Rambus, Sun, Sybase, Zetacore, etc. They certainly have the resources to accomplish "real innovation and significant research", and they have the track-record as an existance proof.

Even when the big corporations do high-tech research these days, it's often through a venture arm investing in small organizations or a venture-funded spinoff (Affymetrix from Affymax, etc).

A bigger picture you can have is when you look at the investors behind each of Google, AOL, Sun, Netscape, Macromedia, and many more. Kliener Perkins Caufield & Byers is one of the leading Venture Capital firms out here, and they're behind every one of those companies! And they're not shy about talking about the "collective strength and experience" that they encourage among their portfolio.

I think it's really the cultural difference that makes Silicon Valley strong. Companies like Microsoft grow by becoming having zillions of divisions that do some of everything. In the bay area, perhaps no single piece can compete with microsoft as a hole, but the combined plays of all these slighlty related companies really becomes significant. In Microsoft, each of those functions is a division that is shelterd by the parent organization. In Silicon Valley, each is a separate company that has to survive on its own merits. If one fails, and the market segment it focused on is still important, another may be funded to take its place.

A bigger picture you can have is when you look at the investors behind each of Google, AOL, Sun, Netscape, Macromedia, and many more. Kliener Perkins Caufield & Byers is one of the leading Venture Capital firms out here, and they're behind every one of those companies! And they're not shy about talking about the "collective strength and experience" that they encourage among their portfolio.

I think it's really the cultural difference that makes Silicon Valley strong. Companies like Microsoft grow by becoming having zillions of divisions that do some of everything. In the bay area, perhaps no single piece can compete with microsoft as a hole, but the combined plays of all these slighlty related companies really becomes significant. In Microsoft, each of those functions is a division that is shelterd by the parent organization. In Silicon Valley, each is a separate company that has to survive on its own merits. If one fails, and the market segment it focused on is still important, another may be funded to take its place.

A bigger picture you can have is when you look at the investors behind each of Google, AOL, Sun, Netscape, Macromedia, and many more. Kliener Perkins Caufield & Byers is one of the leading Venture Capital firms out here, and they're behind every one of those companies! And they're not shy about talking about the "collective strength and experience" that they encourage among their portfolio.

I think it's really the cultural difference that makes Silicon Valley strong. Companies like Microsoft grow by becoming having zillions of divisions that do some of everything. In the bay area, perhaps no single piece can compete with microsoft as a hole, but the combined plays of all these slighlty related companies really becomes significant. In Microsoft, each of those functions is a division that is shelterd by the parent organization. In Silicon Valley, each is a separate company that has to survive on its own merits. If one fails, and the market segment it focused on is still important, another may be funded to take its place.

• Lots of new "Sales" or commission-based positions at company
• An exodus of employees. (With their high retention rate, "exodus" might mean 10 people.)
• Research efforts into non-Linux infrastructure.
• A lot of new product offerings that target consumers directly.

• A removal of one (or both) founders from day-to-day operations.
• More parterships with content producers.
• Another level of financing (demonstrating VC belief that they can grow.)

You've already encountered this sort of strategy before. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Beyers is one of if not the biggest name in the venture capital business. They have funded companies ranging from Yahoo! to Amazon to Netscape. Most of the internet revolution rests on the cash they infused into the market (which by the way didn't exist before the companies they backed created it). Complaining that companies all shouldn't own the same thing is a moot fucking argument. Corporations have been scratching each other's backs for years which pretty much amounts to a monopoly if not in name. Stop bitching about one company owning everything you see and hear. Your new Nikes are made in the same factory as Silver Series velcro strap shoes Wal-Mart sells for nine bucks. Tommy Hilfiger shit is made in the same factory that makes Guess shit. A good portion of the stock photography you see in just about everything from advertisements to brochures to magazines are all from a handful of private collections. Stop giving a shit whether your broadband has an AT&T label or a AOL Time Warner label, they're both existing to take your money and then make you thank them for it. Assuming they're going to fuck you over or make you install Windows on your computer is ridiculous, they want the biggest market share they can. Pissing off all the non-Windows users in a given market is not high on their agenda. Besides which if you're not forking over heavy wads of cash for a T1 you should just be happy you've got a broadband connection. Bitching you can't abuse a network service in breech of the service contract is retarded. Besides communication monopolies aren othing new. Silly slashdotters don't remember that AT&T used to own the entire national telephone system. The only competition to corporate giants is municipally owned services (yes that's right kids, low fat socialism) or other corporate giants.

Keiretsu is a business concept barrowed from Japan where a number of companies (who are not competitors) have a common interest and therefore form an association to leverage mutual business development and cross sales. These associations rarely have the formality of either a partnership or joint venture, and are often founded on bonds of family or traditional alliances from the past. Kiretsus can manifest themselves in a number of ways, including preferential rates, cross referrals, exchange of competitive and market intelligence.

I see this as the future (actually, the present if you look at their posessions and investments) of Microsoft, should it be forced to split.

Much more information on Keiretus is available at http://www.corpwatch.org/ trac/feature/planet/japan_k.html

Hey, did you know that Sun, AOL, Netscape and Tivoli (IBM), @Home and many other companies are all already part of a Keiretsu?

http://www.kpcb.com/keiretsu

Of course, they added a disclaimer when someone pointed out that in the US this behavior might strike someone was being that of a cartel.

Simon

Hmmm. "Soulhuntre." Could that possibly be the same "Soulhuntre" who Lisa and Shannon say served as their "Daddy" for a time and who wrote the bittersweet essay on training submissives on the-estate.com ?/

Well, now let's see. The writer of the piece lives at "the estate," as well as their primary "talent" and web designers. Gosh, a fully functioning goth-BDSM website team? Kleiner-Perkins and Sequoia Capital are going to be beating down some doors in the New Jersey area!