Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Technology’ Category

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 »

Spotflux Brings Privacy Back to the Web with $1 Million in New Funding from New Atlantic Ventures, Kima and Angels

 

NEW YORK, Mar 07, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Spotflux officially opens its doors today, introducing a free application that allows consumers worldwide to freely connect to the Internet with unprecedented privacy protection. Since its inception less than a year ago, adoption of Spotflux has grown exponentially, with more than 100,000 users across the globe depending on Spotflux to provide a more private, secure, and less restricted Internet experience. As part of its formal debut on Windows and Mac computers, Spotflux also announced today that it closed its first round of funding, led by New Atlantic Ventures and joined by a group of angel investors, including Paris-based Kima Ventures. The $1 million in new venture capital will be used to meet global user demand by advancing Spotflux’s technology, enhancing the consumer application and for worldwide brand building.

“Everyone online today has lost control of their privacy. Big companies like Facebook, advertisers, employers and governments look at everything you do online, and before Spotflux, no one was looking out for you,” said John Backus, founding managing partner, New Atlantic Ventures. “We invested in Spotflux because of these emerging privacy concerns and its universal appeal to the 1.2 billion people using the Web. Consumers, policy makers and activists are fighting the privacy issue hard but they often face a daunting and cumbersome process. Spotflux has removed the burden for more than 100,000 customers across 121 countries — before its formal launch — demonstrating that consumers are actively seeking a more secure, more private, more open Internet.” With the initial round of funding, Mr. Backus joined the board of directors.

Spotflux is a free application and allows you to connect to the Internet with unprecedented privacy protection from any computer, anywhere in the world. Spotflux gives you the freedom to use the Web like you always have, from shopping to social media, without unwittingly giving away private information like your location and where you spend your time online. Expensive off-the-shelf Internet protection tools protect you from traditional online threats but fall short by failing to understand that most threats to privacy can come from common websites or applications. Spotflux bridges this gap by providing an all-encompassing free, cloud-based solution to your online security and privacy. Spotflux gives you an easy to use, secure, limitless connection to the Internet by protecting your identity and fully encrypting your Web connection.

“We created Spotflux to give consumers the opportunity to take back control of their privacy online,” said Dean Mekkawy, co-founder, Spotflux. “There is a large gap between what consumers are willing to share online, and what’s actually being shared without their consent. Spotflux is bringing security, access, and privacy back to the web for everyone.”

Founders Dean Mekkawy and Chris Naegelin are technology entrepreneurs who have spent more than a decade solving large-scale information security challenges in the financial and public sectors. Mr. Naegelin is an award-winning technologist recognized for his enterprise-level contributions to the open-source community and as a contributing author to a widely adopted risk management framework. Both Mr. Naegelin and Mr. Mekkawy, were named two of the top 30 Entrepreneurs Under 40 by Bisnow in 2011.

About Spotflux

Spotflux is a free application that allows consumers worldwide to freely connect to the Internet with unprecedented privacy protection. Spotflux shields you from spyware, cookies, adware and other malicious software that stick to your computer and simultaneously gives you secure, unrestricted access to the Web anywhere in the world. Founded in 2011, Spotflux is based in Brooklyn, New York and funded by New Atlantic Ventures, Kima Ventures and a group of angel investors. To sign up or for more information, go to Spotflux.com.

SOURCE: Spotflux

        Press Inquiries:
        Spotflux
        Chris Naegelin
        646-820-1337
        press@spotflux.com

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 »

Article from GigaOm.

For many years, Oracle and HP co-existed quite happily. They collaborated on the first Exadata in 2008, for example. Former HP CEOs Carly Fiorina, then Mark Hurd, keynoted at Oracle OpenWorld. HP appeared to have supplanted Sun Microsystems as Oracle’s hardware BFF for a while. Everything was copacetic.

Now the two companies are arch-rivals and are engaged in an increasingly bitter, seemingly personal battle, the latest skirmish of which saw a California Superior Court judge throw out a fraud claim Oracle lodged against HP. He also opened up court documents that don’t show either company in a particularly good light.

How did it all go so bad?

First, Oracle bought Sun for $7.4 billion in a deal completed in January 2010. That meant Oracle, for the first time was in the hardware business and its servers would compete with HP servers. That sealed the fate of the relationship going forward.

The public bad feeling erupted in August 2010 when HP canned Hurd as CEO, then hired former Oracle president Ray Lane (pictured above right) as chairman and Leo Apotheker, former CEO of SAP, as CEO. SAP is a huge rival to Oracle in enterprise apps and Lane left Oracle after a bumping heads with Oracle chairman Larry Ellison (pictured at right.) Things have just deteriorated ever since.

Here are some highlights (low lights) of the slap fight.

In a letter to the New York Times in August 2010, Ellison said HP’s firing of Hurd:

The H.P. board just made the worst personnel decision since the idiots on the Apple board fired Steve Jobs many years ago … That decision nearly destroyed Apple and would have if Steve hadn’t come back and saved them.”

HP’s server and storage chief Dave Donatelli blasted Oracle for discontinuing Itanium development at the HP partner conference in March 2010. Donatelli asked the couple thousand HP resellers in attendance to lobby Oracle to reverse it’s Itanium decision.
This is a shameless attempt to force customers to spend a lot of money to move to a platform over time that gives customers no benefits  … Oracle made this decision to slow Sun SPARC market losses.

Ray Lane calls out Hurd in his letter to The New York Times in October, 2010.

The bottom line is: Mr. Hurd violated the trust of the Board by repeatedly lying to them in the course of an investigation into his conduct. He violated numerous elements of HP’s Standards of Business Conduct and he demonstrated a serious lack of integrity and judgment
ut now in California District Court is just the latest in a  deterioration of a previously beneficial relationship between the two tech giants.

After Apotheker announced HP plans to buy Autonomy — another enterprise software company for $11.7 billion in August, Oracle couldn’t contain itself.

In a statement on September 28, 2011, Oracle said Autonomy had shopped itself to Oracle first and Oracle turned it down. When Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch denied that, Oracle said: “Either Mr. Lynch has a very poor memory or he’s lying.”

When there was further denial, Oracle put out another statement entitled “Another whopper from Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch” and helpfully published the PowerPoint slides it said he and banker Frank Quattrone brought to the meeting.  The presentation is here and here.

According to the statement:

Ably assisting Mike Lynch’s attempt to sell Autonomy to Oracle was Silicon Valley’s most famous shopper/seller of companies, the legendary investment banker Frank Quattrone.  After the sales pitch was over, Oracle refused to make an offer because Autonomy’s current market value of $6 billion was way too high.

The next chapter in this saga may be a trial on HP’s remaining claims against Oracle which should kick off in April, but stay tuned: anything can happen and usually does.”

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

Article from NYTimes.

“On a recent Thursday night I stood motionless and perplexed on the dance floor of a San Francisco club. As I looked around, 300 or so people danced and darted back and forth to a free open bar while laser lights shot overhead. Cellphones glowed, like a video of luminescent jellyfish, as people snapped pictures and slung moments of the evening onto dozens of social networks.

What made the evening so perplexing was that the party I was attending celebrated Path, a mobile social network that just two months earlier was essentially written off in Silicon Valley. If the company held a party back then, people would have assumed it was a going-out-of-business sale. Now, after rebooting to positive reviews from the blogosphere, Path is again the talk of Silicon Valley. Some are even proclaiming that the company could be “the next Facebook.”

Watching the Valley’s perception of Path go from positive to negative and back has been like watching a hyperactive child with a yo-yo. The valuation has oscillated in near synchronicity.

This, I have learned, is the mentality of much of Silicon Valley, where decisions are not always made based on revenue or potential business models, but instead seem to be driven by a herd mentality and a yearning to be a part of a potential next big thing.

This is most evident in the valuations that are given to companies here. Two start-ups, each with 10 million users and no revenue, can be valued anywhere from $50 million to $1 billion.

Facebook is a prime example of this. The company does generate considerable revenue and is currently valued at $84 billion and is expected to reach $100 billion by the time of its initial public offering later this year. That’s a higher market valuation than Disney or Amazon.

Paul Kedrosky, an investor and entrepreneur, explained in an interview that one reason valuations are so wildly inflated is that venture capitalists want to be associated with a potentially successful start-up just so it looks good in their portfolio. This, he said, has driven absurd buying on the secondary private market, where stocks are bought and sold before a company goes public.

“There is massive buying on the secondary market by venture guys just for the showmanship of it,” he said. “These buyers are much less price sensitive and just want a company in their portfolio so they can stick the logo on their Web site.”

A report released last week by SecondMarket.com, such an online marketplace, said it had $558 million in transactions in 2011, up 55 percent from the year earlier. Almost two-thirds of those transactions were for consumer Web sites and social media start-ups.

Other investors give money to several companies hoping to strike it rich with at least one. I call that the Peter Thiel Effect. Mr. Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal, gave $100,000 to Mark Zuckerberg, a founder of Facebook, when the company was starting out. That investment is expected to be worth $1 billion when Facebook goes public.

In other instances, you have spite investing. This is when venture capitalists will give millions of dollars to a start-up simply because they were not given the opportunity to invest in the competitor with the original idea.

Some investors no longer even need to hear about a company to hand out money. Jakob Lodwick, an entrepreneur and co-founder of Vimeo, recently raised $2 million simply on the promise that he might have a good idea for a company in the near future.

It’s as if someone found out where Hasbro prints Monopoly money and gave every venture capitalist a key to the company’s storage facility.

“I have never seen such a generation of people shorting tech stocks,” Mr. Kedrosky said, noting that he too has chosen to bet that Groupon, Zynga and LinkedIn will fall significantly in value. “Usually the short community is more nervous about it, but there is a monolithic view that this generation of technology I.P.O.’s is completely broken.”

Read original article here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »