Slashdot Mirror
20 Tech Ideas VCs Want to Fund
An anonymous reader writes "CNNMoney reports on the top 20 technology ideas that our beloved VCs want to throw money at. Are these the brilliant ideas that will change the world (and make you rich in the process)?" From the article: "Delivery of new types of Web search to mobile phones. Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are all taking a swipe at this, but Rimer believes they're betting on a losing strategy by simply shrinking their existing desktop features into a handheld package. He says he's willing to invest in new search applications that, for example, depend as much on voice recognition as on text input and would offer up everything from shopping and news headlines to driving directions and restaurant reviews with a few voice commands and keystrokes ... What he'll invest: $2 million for a working demo application."
The thing about all of these ideas is that they are not really very interesting or innovative. No slam on any of the VCs involved here (particularly the Draper Fisher Jurvetson folks as they are top notch), but these ideas are all about derived markets and products. It seems that the VC world has gotten lots more conservative over the past five years or so and they are looking at giving larger amounts of money to easier/simpler concepts rather than encouraging real cutting edge research.
This of course is a major problem as the US has historically relied upon federal funding to help develop the real cutting edge stuff, yet federal funding for basic science research is being cut dramatically in favor of applied research. So, we now run the risk of losing out on our technological advantage from both traditional government funding and now private funding. (notable exceptions for a number of philanthropists such as Paul Allen, Bill Gates, John Moran and others).
It's harder for VCs to find basic science research projects that have a significant payoff, but the projects are out there. We're banking on our technology and approaches to an area of bioscience and metabolomics to pay off in a variety of spaces from agronomics to medicine, drug development, defense and nutrition among many other applications, but I've found most VCs to be remarkably limited in their approach preferring to focus only on the short term, 1-3 years, rather than the 5-6 necessary for many projects. Its an old story, but focusing on the short term is a good business model where you invest 50% of the capital (or less) for 70-80% of the profits only after 80% of the work has been done. Unfortunately, you miss out on prospects for real impact by focusing on the next marketing tool rather than the next disease cure.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
So drivers can read email while driving.
That's just fucking retarded. People have trouble driving while "reading" the road and traffic conditions. Why split their concentration any more?
Don't you need internet access on your cell phone before mobile search engines hit it big? In which case there would need to be almost nothing different than current websites. Maybe they should focus on getting decent broadband to mobile phones in the area of $20 a month before worrying about super-duper mobile phone websites. Otherwise nobody will use the websites....
I want my flying car.
Are these the brilliant ideas that will change the world (and make you rich in the process)?"
They may change the world and the certainly will make somebody rich if they do succeed, but that person will probably NOT be the poor developer or inventor who came up with the idea in the first place. They don't call it "vulture capital" for nothing you know. If the idea or invention is a spectacular success then the inventor may receive some millions after the financiers have received their billions. Remember what happened to the inventor of the blue LED...there is a lesson to be learned there.
I must've missed the first five minutes... what's a VC?
Draper thinks there's an opening for a startup that can deliver most of the benefits of standard Big Blue products without millions of lines of code or an army of consultants and IT managers. "I'm not sure yet what this company would look like," Draper says, "but it would not have the technology baggage of the entrenched monopolists. If it can penetrate the market cleverly like we did with Hotmail and Skype, it might not take that much funding."
What he'll invest: $3 million for a working application
And if the folks at Postgres are smart, they've just found a way to add $3MM to their foundation funds with a simple email...
Kidding aside, one thing that _would_ be interesting to see--high-quality, moderate cost OLAP analytics engines, preferably running ROLAP on top of an engine such as PostgreSQL. Maybe they're out there, but I don't see much of them (other than Mondrian). As the commercial OLAP market is structured now, it's hard for midsize companies to justify the outflow for decent analytics. No lack of demand though, just need something at the right price point...
True, but a heads-up display is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What we need is a transparent backlight with an LCD windshield (or an OLED windshield). I'll explain.
With an LCD windshield, coupled with a sufficiently advanced computer and external cameras, the car could use overlay boxes to alert the driver to potential hazards. For example, it could alert the driver to pedestrians standing beside the road, large animals beside the road, police motorcycles sitting in the bushes, etc. All of these things represent potential traffic hazards, as any of these things could suddenly go from being beside the road to being on it very quickly. (I know that law enforcement would hate this because of the reduced ability to set up speed traps, but the improvement in overall safety is hard to dismiss, and might even make speed limits less critical except in inclement weather.)
Even better. by combining it with cameras in the car to measure the position of the driver's head, since the entire windshield (and, ideally, the side windows) would be LCD panels, you could do other things like darkening a small portion of the panel so that the sun is reduced in brightness to a more manageable level on a bright, sunny day. Ditto for overly bright car headlights, the light bridges on police cars when they park next to road construction (yeah, like being distracted by bright, flashing lights is going to make me drive BETTER!?!), and so on.
Finally, this would be one step towards having fully automated driving. As the reliability of external threat detection improves, it will eventually evolve to the point that people don't actually have to touch the wheel except in the event of a computer failure. That's many years down the road, but you have to crawl before you can run.
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that a heads-up display isn't a good idea for reducing driver distraction. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But any such technology should be combined with what I'm describing here to maximize driver safety FIRST, then reduce distraction as a side effect.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Who says you need internet access on your phone for this? Those are the types of assumptions that hinder innovation. Couldn't you do some kind of query/response to a server somewhere? One of the things that always seems kind of obvious AFTER some kind of innovation is what assumptions were thought about in a different way. Think of the problem, and how it could be solved, without getting caught up in what already exists. That is just one way to do it, obviously another is to try and use what already exists. But all ways should be looked at to solve problems.
It's like looking back on the comments around flying before airplanes where they thought it was impossible because things were too heavy, so they tried to make things really light in order to fly. That is why I love the "50,100, 150 years ago" section in Scientific American magazine. It is really interesting to read the thoughts on science from those time periods. Sometimes it is amazing at how forward-thinking they were, and sometimes it is funny to see how far off they were.
Always look at your assumptions, and consider how to eliminate them if they are hindering your solution. Like Google's recent comments on PC power supplies (a href=http://informationweek.com/hardware/showArti
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
What they want now: A driver's tech fantasy fully realized: an in-dash computer with a keyboard built into the steering wheel and a full-screen heads-up display projected on the windshield.
What they'll invest: $5 million for a deeply qualified 20-person team to deliver a prototype and a plan for pitching a commercial version to automakers within three years
Gee, a whole $5 million for a DEEPLY QUALIFIED 20 PERSON TEAM FOR 3 YEARS. LOL.
Apparently, on-shore development teams need not apply.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
5 out of the 20 were about different ways to advertise. One was about a way to automate product placement on TV shows and in movies.
There are a lot of technology-gone-horribly-wrong scenarios; the one that leaves me in a cold sweat is inescapable advertising.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Don't forget, this is a list of projects they are willing to discuss publicly. They don't have to worry about someone stealing an old concept for a product and they might just get someone to call them up with a way to do it. They guard the innovative stuff a little more jealously.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
It specifically said:
Just because you the poster failed to read that last word does not mean you get to then say what he wants as if it was your idea,and slam him for not thinking it. Mods, please take appropriate action regarding parent post.
That said, your idea is a paltry imitation of his. He wants more than a sales organization. He wants a company that can take on the big boys on their own turf: big database work. That means application support that goes beyond the little stuff done by most (all?) current DB smaller companies.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Cool! Then it could darken like Zaphod's sunglasses so you wouldn't have to panic just before impact!
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
Is is just me, or are most of these ideas pretty anemic? Pathogen detection sounds pretty far out, but much of the rest is questionable. They either want an incremental software upgrade or a monumental leap in the energy field.
Of course you want a li-ion battery with 5 times the power, we all do. R&D labs have been working on it for years, remember li-poly? And your investment? 2M, that's 66k / person for 2 years! And I need PhDs for this kind of work! 2M won't even cover salary and ops expenses for 1 year, let alone startup fees. A new battery is worth billions, not millions, this money is a fraction of what's needed and the 15 underpaid geniuses have to find a way to succeed where other R&D research labs have failed. This looks pretty bad.
FTA: One idea offered $5 million for a deeply qualified 20-person team...commercial version to automakers within three years. That's 86k per person per year, clearly not enough.
As to software, you want a working version of the next MMO, web-based Excel, cell phone search? If I'm that far along, why do I need your money? If I have established a user base in one city or an established user community, what's the difference between your $5M and a $5M loan? Venture Capital is defined as high risk, but if I have working tech and a defined user base, you're basically an investor.
BTW, what's this about the 20 smartest companies to start now? It seems to me that most of these would be bad companies to start now. If you had a working version and really needed the VC, well then here's your hookup. But starting some of these ideas now could be really fatal (i.e. spreadsheet blown away by Google's, NetSuite upgrading their software).
The only way I can see any of these working is for an existing company to gather a team and apply for this VC with hopes of a quick turnaround. Even then, the company will definitely be dumping a chunk of their own money on the project, so I don't see how the VC will get a reasonable cut.
These are not the 20 smartest ideas, just 20 reasonably good ones.
As pointed out, the quantities of money, while sounding impressive to people who are not well aquainted with this type of business, are actually rather low in terms of what it really would cost to get a team of software developers to get something like this put together.
My experience is that most people who don't directly understand the costs of software development underestimate the actual cost of development by only willing to pay about 5%-10% of the real world cost, especially if you are talking a full life-cycle in terms of development, maintainence, and archival for retrival in case something goes wrong and the ancient stuff needs to be hauled out of mothballs.
When spread out over a number of customers the cost can be lower per unit, but there are only so many software packages that can be sold simultaneously to millions of customers. Bill Gates didn't become a billionaire just because of one single software package.
A good, tight, and well discliplined software development team of between 5-10 programmers can easily burn through $5 million and still have rags on their kids and clunkers in their driveway, especially if spread over 3-4 years. And the investors would really wonder what happened to the money when all they have to show for it is a lousy CD-ROM filled with source code and an expired lease on some obscure office park with broken windows and police crime tape.
That is if you have somebody who is also willing to let the software development team do its job and not get in their way, and you let them get that fleabag office space or try to do it in a garage that you are renting for $50/month. If you want to impress other investors and do show and glitz, or try to blow money to puff up your prestige, fancy office space can even chew through more money than salaries. Then the management wonders why the programmers are buying computers from the local thrift store.
Heaven help you if the main investor decides to get involved with day to day affairs, even if they are a software developer themselves. Only if that investor is also acting as a lead designer and doing substantial amounts of software development can you really trust them to understand the situation.
Yeah, I've seen it all in this regard and worse, even from those who think they understand software development. Usually it isn't too extreme like I've described and most small software development shops are only semi-mediocre in terms of where they are located at, but the extremes do happen.
You are completely correct that once the day of reckoning comes (whatever that may be called or described) the number 1 thing that these investors are interested in is increasing value, the apparent value.
From my own experience in getting involved with a major software startup, unless you are the primary investor you are likely to get screwed over unless you also hire an attorney right at the beginning before you even start writing the first line of code. You might be lucky and have an "honest" senior investor, but don't count on it and more people are likely to lose their shirt... even from investors that are otherwise decent human beings.