Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Business models’ Category

Article from NYTimes.

Three of Cisco’s top engineers with a strong record in building some of the company’s most important products are in negotiations to create a new type of network switch for data centers, according to people with knowledge of the talks.

The product they are discussing, called Insiemi, would be designed to work in high-end computer centers that use “software-defined networking.” This type of data center, increasingly used in cloud computing, typically carries out much of its computing with cheaper off-the-shelf semiconductors, while complex software handles tasks that were previously done using expensive machines full of custom semiconductors.

Cisco is known for such custom network switches and routers, which have a high profit margin. It is facing competition from new companies like Arista Networks, which use commodity silicon for very fast switching, and Nicira, which uses software-based network virtualization to cut down on data center manpower.

In a recent call with journalists, John Chambers, Cisco’s chief executive, said the company had “reinvented” itself and was now a big believer in software-defined networking. Insiemi could be a networking product that would bridge the custom and commodity worlds for Cisco.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Chambers declined to comment on Insiemi. “We do not discuss our plans or internal investments,” he said. People with knowledge of the matter say discussions about Insiemi are expected to be completed in the next few weeks, and if successful are likely to be announced in the late spring.

Insiemi could be one of the great face-offs in enterprise computing. Two of Arista’s founders, Andreas von Bechtolsheim and David Cheriton, sold an earlier company to Cisco. They are also both billionaires, thanks to early investments in Google. Arista’s chief executive, Jayshree Ullal, is a former chief engineering director at Cisco. The three Cisco engineers involved in Insiemi, Mario Mazzola, Prem Jain, and Luca Cafiero, are also wealthy, thanks to their work inside companies they led, which were hatched inside Cisco, financed largely by Cisco and then purchased by Cisco.

Cisco’s use of so-called spin-in projects, the opposite of the more typical business process of spinning a technology out from a company in order to create a new venture, have been controversial in the past.

While Cisco is guaranteed a product that fits well inside its overall technology plans, Cisco’s internal morale can be challenged. The spin in is seen as a kind of star system of top engineers, who work on a what, essentially, is going to be a Cisco device, earning a payout several times their normal Cisco salary. Ms. Ullal, who declined to comment on Insiemi, was a critic of spin ins while at Cisco.

The three men involved in Insiemi had their first spin in about a decade ago with Andiamo Systems, a storage networking company. The second, Nuova Systems, made a fast switch that could handle lots of different types of computing tasks in big data centers.

Nuova was purchased by Cisco in 2008 for a total of as much as $678 million, following an initial investment of $70 million for an 80 percent stake. Nuova’s core technology, the Nexus switch, has become an important part of Cisco’s product line.

Insiemi, like the names of the other companies, is Italian, the native language of Mr. Cafiero and Mr. Mazzola. Andiamo means “let’s go.” Nuova means “new.” Insiemi translates as “collection” or “assembly,” in the sense of orchestration.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

“Demandware who? Yeah, that is exactly what I thought. However, a tweet from financial and venture industry observer Dan Primack alerted me to the initial public offering of this Burlington, Mass.-based e-commerce platform provider that sells its services to folks like Barneys, Crocs and Tory Burch. The IPO has priced at $16 a share which values the company at $448 million. The company is raising $88 million.”

The company lost money on mere a $56 million in 2011 revenue, a sign that Wall Street is ready to punt on even marginal technology IPOs — so expect more of those to follow in coming months. Jim Cramer on CNBC’s Mad Money show said that one should not confuse a “trade with an investment.” In other words, buy at the time of IPO and then flip it. Buying later is a sucker’s bet. About Demandware, Cramer said, that if the stock priced below $15 it is good. “Anything more than that and there might not be enough juice to merit buying,” he said. Oops!”

Read more articles here.

Read Full Post »

Article by John Backus, Partner New Atlantic Ventures

“Much has been written about the explosive growth of smartphones and tablets, but apps are what make them useful and are driving their adoption. IDC estimates mobile app downloads will reach nearly 182.7 billion in 2015. There are now nearly one million apps, mostly for Apple and Android devices, and Gartner projected app revenue from app stores alone will reach $58 billion by 2014. Apps are big business.

But this sheer volume of apps creates real complexities for app developers and consumers alike. As a developer, how does your app stand apart from the pack? As a consumer, finding the right app is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Conventional wisdom suggests that search is the answer. Chomp, Quixey and even Yahoo! let you discover apps through search. Others are trying to help you search for apps with various algorithms, through social networks and games.

I disagree with this this entire approach.

Search is not the answer for app discovery – finding the top apps is serendipitous.

We find our best apps today by talking to our friends at a restaurant, by reading about them in a blog or an article, or by stumbling upon them on a recommended or top ten list.

Not a month goes by when an entrepreneur I meet, developing a smartphone app, can’t quite answer a simple question: How will you market your app to your customers? All too often the answer lies somewhere between “Apple is going to feature my app,” and “I’m going to advertise it in other apps.” Neither is a compelling answer, nor likely to help developers build a big business.

We’re placing a big bet, alongside VC media giant, Syncom, that serendipity will drive the app discovery process. That’s why we invested in Apptap. Similar to what an ad network does today, serving you ads based on the content of the web page you are viewing, AppTap serves you apps to consider, based on that same content.

A USA Today online reader, browsing an article in the sports section, is likely interested in seeing sports-related apps. A visitor to TUAW (The Unofficial Apple Weblog) is likely to be intrigued by cutting edge Apple iPhone or iPad apps, but not by an advertisement on basket weaving. A Pandora iPhone listener, on the other hand, is likely not interested in clicking out of Pandora to check out a flashing app advertisement.

So if you are a developer, quit trying to trick customers into downloading your app via incented downloads. Don’t run random app ads, it is too reminiscent of early run-of-site banner ads. And don’t think that hoping to be featured in someone else’s app store is a good strategy.

Instead, put your app where your customers are likely to discover it, and you will be well on your way to growing your audience with users actually interested in your app.

Originally published on the Huffington Post, January 13, 2012. Follow John on Twitter @jcbackus”

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

“Two Silicon Valley-backed Bay Area companies appear to be the tech vendors behind Apple’s new sizable and pioneering clean power push at its massive data center in North Carolina. Last week it was revealed that solar panel maker SunPower will provide Apple with panels for a 20 MW solar farm, while I reported earlier this month that fuel cell maker Bloom Energy looks to be the vendor behind Apple’s 5 MW fuel cell farm. The significance of Apple opting to partner with two Valley-born clean power firms illustrates that the greentech venture ecosystem can work — it just takes quite a long time.

San Jose, Calif.-based solar panel maker SunPower was founded way back in the mid-80′s by Stanford electrical engineering professor Richard Swanson, and received early funds from the Department of Energy, the Electric Power Research Institute, two venture capital firms and chip firm Cypress Semiconductor. The company went public in the Spring of 2005, bought venture-backed Berkeley, Calif.-based solar installer Powerlight in late 2006, and more recently was bought by oil giant Total.

Sunnyvale, Calif-based fuel cell maker Bloom Energy was founded a decade ago, though only came out of stealth two years ago, and was venture capital firm Kleiner Perkin’s first foray into greentech. Bloom also counts venture firm NEA as an investor, and Bloom raised its latest $150 million round of funding in late 2011.

Both companies have taken years to develop into firms that can mass produce their respective clean power technologies at scale and at a low enough cost to meet the needs of a large customer like Apple. And both companies have likely taken longer to mature than their investors had originally hoped. Kleiner Partner John Doerr said a couple years ago that he thought Bloom Energy would take nine years to go public (which, if true, would mean Bloom would have gone public last year). SunPower’s execs reportedly said back in the early(ish) days of the company that developing SunPower into a solar manufacturer took a lot longer than they anticipated.

But Apple apparently chose these two Bay Area clean power leaders for its first-of-its-kind, huge solar and clean power farms, suggesting these firms are delivering industry-leading products at the right economics for Apple. Apple is spending $1 billion on the data center, and likely between $70 million to $100 million on the solar farm. Each 100 kW Bloom fuel cell costs between $700,000 to $800,000 (before subsidies), so Apple’s fuel cell farm could cost around $35 million.

Yes, both SunPower and Bloom Energy, have had their fare share of struggles in recent years. 2011 was a particularly difficult year for SunPower, with a glut of solar panels causing prices to fall around 50 percent globally and Total’s CEO said recently that SunPower would have gone bankrupt last year without Total’s backing. Bloom Energy is a private company and doesn’t disclose its financials, but likely if Bloom was in shape to go public in 2011, it would have done so.

However, it’s no secret that greentech has been a particularly hard area for venture capitalists to invest in. The long time tables, the large capital needed, the hardcore science for the innovations, and the low cost focused energy markets, have created a difficult ecosystem for the traditional VC to make money off of. But after a long slog — which is still ongoing for SunPower and Bloom Energy in 2012 — these clean power technologies have actually broken into the mainstream. Valley, backed cleantech firms can make it — you’ve just got to sit back and wait.”

Read original article here.

Read Full Post »

Software startups reaped lions share of venture capital investment in fourth quarter

By Peter Delevett

pdelevett@mercurynews.com

Posted:   02/18/2012 03:17:00 PM PST

Maybe they should start calling it Software Valley.

Venture capitalists, who provide much of the funding that keeps startups growing, poured twice as much money into software companies in the last quarter of 2011 than into any other sector.

Venture firms nationwide put $1.8 billion into software, spreading the wealth among 238 deals. That was more than double the number of deals in the second-largest sector, biotechnology.

The trend was even more pronounced in the Bay Area, where one-third of all venture money went into software.

The data was reflected in the latest MoneyTree report, prepared by the National Venture Capital Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers using data from Thomson Reuters.

“The big story was software as a service — very hot,” said Debby Farrington of StarVest Partners, speaking of the MoneyTree findings. Her New York-based venture firm focuses on so-called SaaS or cloud-based software, which companies can rent online rather than buy at steep prices.

The wider adoption of cloud software also is being driven by the fact that more workers are bringing their personal smartphones and tablet computers to work and want the freedom to access their files anywhere, she added.

Internet-specific companies also received a healthy dose of attention from venture capital firms in the quarter, the MoneyTree report found. With VCs eager to find the next Facebook,

Groupon or Twitter, the sector received $1.3 billion, shared across 239 deals.But the software and Internet sectors both saw funding drop in the fourth quarter compared to the third, perhaps driven by sub-par Wall Street debuts by Groupon and fellow social media stalwart Zynga.

In fact, biotech was the only one of the five sectors the MoneyTree report tracks that saw gains in both dollars and deals in the quarter.

But while Tracy Lefteroff, who heads the venture capital practice for PricewaterhouseCoopers, called biotechnology “a hot spot” in 2011, his enthusiasm was tempered by the fact that biotech funding — particularly for early stage companies — has been on the decline for several years. In part, that’s because companies in the sector face high regulatory hurdles and steep costs to reach significant size.

The same factors, Lefteroff notes, plague cleantech. Even though the green energy category took in more venture funding in 2011 than ever before — $4.3 billion — the number of deals in the fourth quarter declined 14 percent compared to the previous three months.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »