TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Technology

    Tech Deciphered

    Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. To understand what’s really happening behind the surface, join our hosts, Nuno Goncalves Pedro, investor, co-founder and managing partner at Strive Capital, and Bertrand Schmitt, entrepreneur, co-Founder & Chairman at App Annie. They have been each in tech for almost 25 years, are now based in Silicon Valley, having both previously worked and lived in Europe and Asia. With Tech DECIPHERED, discover how the best entrepreneurs pitch, how investors think, and what are the deep trends underlying the tech industry. To learn more about Tech DECIPHERED, head over to www.decipheredshow.com for more info about the podcast, show notes, resources and complete transcripts.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © Bertrand Schmitt & Nuno Goncalves Pedro

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    #11 – The coming decade in tech, the 2020s, and its impact on the world we live in Jun 15, 2020
    Show notes

    In this episode, we will start discussing the 2020s. We will introduce a unique and novel framework that we will follow around scenario planning, frame when exactly the 2020s start (hint: starts with a C and ends with 19), debate the macro landscape - both governmental/geopolitical and non-governmental and finalize with the user paradigms around Work, Home and Mobility. We will continue this discussion of the 2020s in the next episodes, including the second part of our analysis of the 2020s, in which we will delve into the future of Energy + Climate Change, Healthcare, Education, Financial, Retail & Commerce, Leisure & Entertainment and Social & Communication. Look out for episode 12. Navigation: Introduction (01:24) Section 1 - When did the 2020s start? (02:41) Section 2 - Macro, World Governance, Geopolitics and Non-Governmental (03:24) Section 3 - User Paradigms (28:08) Conclusion (53:49) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Intro (01:24) Nuno: In today's episode, episode 11 we will start talking about the 2020s, the decade that we have ahead of us. We will drive this into different episodes and we will choose a framework that's a little bit different than those normally followed by people that we normally listen to. We will choose a scenario planning framework. The difference between a scenario planning framework and simply a forecast framework is in forecasting. We're trying to extrapolate the future from where we start today. In a scenario planning exercise, we really doing a little bit of time traveling to start with. We're moving ourselves into the future and to 2025, 2029 and we're trying to figure out, from there, what things would need to happen to give rise to those scenarios. In some cases, we will share very strong views, which we hope you're okay with, but in others we will really structure two or three potential scenarios for some of the elements that we will discuss. The objective is to start the discussion going and to the best of our knowledge, really frame what's ahead of us in the next five to 10 years. Section 1 - When did the 2020s started? (02:41) Bertrand: We will start with, where does it start? When did the 2020s started? And I guess everyone will agree that right now under shelter in place we have a pretty momentous event with us. We're in the middle of COVID-19 emergency, we are in a new world, a brave new world, I guess, and that's how the 2020s started. Obviously it will be more difficult to guess exactly when this decade will be over, beyond, the digits, but more based on inflection points. Nuno: So we start with crisis. Bertrand: We start with crisis. Hopefully we don't end with crisis Nuno: It seems like every decade has been defined by crisis. So the likelihood of that we shall see. Bertrand: Indeed Section 2 - Macro, World Governance, Geopolitics, Non-Governmental (03:24) Nuno: We are gonna talk about scenarios for what the world will look like in 2029, 2030, from what I call the outlandish, to the predictable. And we're going to start with the macro space, world governance, geopolitical, and non-governmental elements. 2.1 Covid-19 impact So we'll start with coronavirus, which is obviously in our minds today, and we've already dedicated episode 9A and 9B to the discussion around coronavirus. So today we will not repeat what we discussed in that episode. So go back to episode 9A and 9B to really see our views on what's happening with coronavirus. Rather, we're going to focus a little bit further out on what we see from that impact. 2.2 Government interventions / regulations Bertrand: Yes, I think it makes totally sense. So let's move to government interventions, government regulations, where do we see the world ending in that decade. Personally, I am definitely expecting more and more regulations, at least in tech. I'm not saying we should wish that because actually, you could argue that some of these regulations at least played a role in where we are today, which is not a great situation regarding COVID-19. We had maybe too much regulations. We have seen that some regulations have been actually removed in the emergency. Now you can do in the US medicine across state lines, you can do remote medicine for instance. So maybe there is some positive regulation actually going on, meaning less of it. But on the other end, it's very clear we should end up with more in many ways. If we think about fake news, if we think about elections, it's highly probable that we will end this decade with a lot more, and what we know today as social platforms might have a very very different face as a result, because they're often the target of regulations. Privacy is another one. There has been a lot of changes in the past decade with GDPR, with now some new California regulations. How far will it go? It's highly probable there will be more of it. What is very highly probable is that it will be everywhere. What you have in US and Europe will be there for the rest of the world. That would be at least my expectation. Another question because we see that a lot, is around breaking down some big tech companies. I don't know if we will see that, but it's definitely a possibility that more in that direction. What's your take Nuno: Nuno? So I would do the time traveling, the time-traveling piece and talk about government roles to start with. I think all the topics you mentioned are very much top of mind. But if we look maybe 5 to 10 years ahead, what will be the role of government. And for me, scenario one is, as this scenario where we will have democratic governments elected that are not exceptionally competent, but they're whatever the people choose, that are most of the time ill prepared for crisis, but otherwise do a decent job and we're all happy with that. I think the second scenario to go a little bit more extreme, is what I would call mummy governments, and we end up in governments that basically we expect that everything will be taken care of for us. So we expect government takes care of our infrastructure, they care of our wellbeing, of our health. And in that scenario, even countries like the US will migrate more and more to a sustainable system where people do have access to healthcare, where people do have access to justice, and do have access to all the infrastructure they need to have, which today they can't take for granted. So it's sort of the mummy logic. The government will take care of us. They need to take care of us because we've had a pandemic, maybe we'll have another one who knows, but we need to have a government and institutions that really take care of what we need to do. The other extreme, on the other hand, is sort of governments die in some ways. Governments are there just to manage the upper layers, and the basic infrastructure of the country. But in some ways, the private sector once and for all just fully takes over. And that scenario would be a scenario under which our belief in the government is no longer there. We believe that the companies around us, are really much better equipped to serve our needs, to serve our privacy or lack thereof if we're willing to accept it. And in that scenario. You know, our view on the governments is just, for the basic things and basic regulation. So if we look at three scenarios as potential scenarios, I would say, you probably have the most regulation in scenario one and two. And in the other scenario that I just talked about, which is the mummy government that takes care of us and that mommy government, as you said, all the key issues are around, undue power of the private sector, issues around privacy, issues around access to healthcare, issues around any regulatory intervention that allows things to be fair and non discriminatory. Whereas you move to a scenario where we just stop trusting our governments, we're going to be in a world that really is more and more in the hands of some of the giants around the world. The energy giants, the financial service giants, and obviously the tech giants. Bertrand: I think it is not just a question of trusting, not trusting our governments, or system of government. My take for instance is that it's clear that at least in the West, the response to this COVID crisis has been pretty poor, while in some other countries like Asia it has been pretty great, much less infection rate, much less death. And the way I'm looking at it is, maybe we end up with a similar system of government, but what is changing is who is in charge. Do we move to a place where instead of the lawyers being in charge in many governments, do we move to a world where we have more experts, more scientists? Interestingly enough, there are a few countries that are actually led, by scientists or former scientists that did actually pretty well during this crisis. So do we move to a place where it's a new type of politicians that are taking over because we have been proven that we cannot trust, the current type of politicians but the system can sustain a different approach, a new type of politicians that might be less populist, more focused really on the good the people. And, I think what we went through is also showing us some level of incompetence at so many level that it's really scary. So will it push some change. I think it can only come from the bottom up, from the citizens, for this change. I'm hopeful....


    #10B – A review of the past decade in tech, the 2010s, and its impact on the world we live in May 27, 2020
    Show notes

    We split this episode into two parts: in this, the second and final part (10B), we discuss the significant shifts in business models and the funding landscape that happened in the 2010s. We deep-dive into these business models, e.g. freemium, advertising/free at the point of consumption, subscription, and we give you the no-BS view on the fundraising landscape, what REALLY changed and what (mostly) stayed the same. Please also listen to the first part of this episode (10A), in which we discussed the macro-trends of the 2010 decade and the underlying technological tectonic shifts, including analyses of the OS, platform and product & application spaces Navigation: Introduction (01:24) Section 1 - A brave new world ... of business models (01:56) Section 2 - The switch in funding landscape (27:59) Section 3 - The end ... of the world, as we know it?! (37:38) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Intro (01:24) Bertrand: Welcome back in this , the second part of Episode 10, Episode 10B, we're still focus on the 2010s, that incredible decade that we spent some time discussing in Episode 10A and now, we are going to be focus on the dramatic changes in business model that happened, as well as the switch in funding landscape. For further reference, listen to the first part of this Episode, Episode 10A. Let's start today with dramatic changes in business models. Section 1 - A brave new world ... of business models Nuno: So software is eating the world, Marc Andreessen famously wrote, I believe in 2011 and the world was going to be basically not only fully digitized as software was going to entrench itself and disrupt every single industry. Part of that promise, I believe, was realized in the last decade where we have the advent of a lot of things that we discussed in episode 10A, but also I believe that the whole thesis around software is eating the world is not the full story. In some ways, the world got totally digitized, but the physical world didn't catch up. And one of the stupid examples I always give is in a world where, for example, we are going to have self driving cars, well, the cabin of a car needs to change because you don't need to drive anymore. So what is it going to become? Is it going to become an office, a living room, a bedroom? Is it going to be a flexible space or not. So Mark's comment I think is well taken. The comment that digitalization is going to overrule many industries. There is not any other moment, but the current moment in which we're in the midst of COVID, that would make that point. But I do think it missed part of the story. Part of the story is that the physical world will have to change as well. And it's very interesting that Marc just published a manifesto of sorts on how the world needs to change going forward. And he talks a lot about core infrastructure in that manifesto, which is, by the way, an exceptionally well written piece of text. But as I said, I think software wasn't the only part of the story. There is also a hardware and physical part of the story. Bertrand: Yes, totally. It's as you say, pretty interesting that he started the decade with this very famous article and is starting a new decade with a new article. I think he was definitely right on the first one. Software is indeed eating the world, but as you say, the physical world was not following up. The good news is that these days the physical world is digitalizing as fast as they can, learns to use some tools that us been using for a while. It's definitely a tale of two worlds, but these are going to merge. So, in term of change of business model, let's go to first the B2C side and we'll talk later on about B2B. I think the first biggest phenomenon has been the rise of apps. Long time ago, there was a lot of discussion about why do we even need apps, there was a lot of discussion of native apps, web apps, et cetera. Now it's very clear that it was huge. Interestingly enough, initially Steve Jobs didn't want native apps. He was fine with web apps, changed his mind dramatically after a few months, launched what was the biggest revolution, thanks to the app store, which was not just a new technology, but truly a new business model. A new way to discover, distribute and monetize content at a scale, never seen before. And that has been since copied by every other platform. From, Android to Windows to of course, MacOS and other platforms. And, interestingly enough, they started first with music. The concept was started with iTunes, then it was followed by Amazon with their Kindle platform. But finally it started to go really big with the app store. Just to give you some numbers, of course, we know that we have millions of apps, more than a dozen million apps across different app stores. But in term of downloads, we got more than 200 billion downloads in 2019 alone, 200 billion downloads. We have seen in term of consumer spend directly through the app stores, so excluding e-commerce, excluding advertising, more than 120 billion U.S. dollar of consumer spend in 2019 alone. Per day, the average user of a smartphone is spending 3.7 hours, more than three hours and 45 minutes every day on their smartphone. So, it's really been a huge revolution coming from zero to the biggest new way to distribute applications. And, that's probably been the biggest change in the history of B2C in term of rise of a new business model. Nuno: I think in hindsight it's always obvious that, basically this was going to be a success anyway, but this is a time for you and I Bertrand to gloat because we were people that bet on this. You with App Annie, I with Strive Capital, we bet that mobile apps was going to be its own thing. And it was going to be its own economy. It was going to be a content form that was just different from anything else. And so this is a time where we say we were right guys. You all told us that we were wrong. We were right. It wasn't HTML 5, it wasn't some other thing. This is its own thing. And back to your point on the economy side. We've had a lot of innovations that really in some ways I believe were facilitated and certainly gained momentum through mobile apps and starting with the first one, freemium. Obviously the most monetized area of apps are games and games. In some ways, innovated in how you propose to your end user and potentially customer to get paid for. They innovated by saying, we'll give you something free that gives you utility that you can play with. But if you want to extend the range of things you do, if you want to extend utility of what you do with it, you need to pay. And that innovation is dramatic. And as we'll discuss later, also pretty apparent in what happened in the B2B space. Bertrand: Yes and it's an actually started in Asia, specially in Korea in gaming, copied pretty quickly in China, initially in PC gaming and ultimately came to the West with mobile. So, invented in Asia, in a PC gaming situation, transposed in the West, in mobile situation. Freemium was a huge, huge enabler for gaming for sure, but also for a lot of other type of products that benefited from such a business model. And we'll talk more also on the B2B side, where it had a real big impact. Nuno: And then my favorite pet peeve around business models. Since probably 2004 2005 I've been saying free isn't really free. Free at the points of consumption comes with some costs. And in many cases that cost was supported by advertising based business models. A lot of the services we had were paid for by the ability for the provider of that product or service or application to serve me ads. For a long time we were very happy with that because free is great. Free, I don't pay. As we will later on discuss, the issue was that the free was done at some cost to me because my information was being manipulated, used for things that maybe I didn't know it was being used for. And then I was served back with advertising. Now, I'm not saying advertising based business models are all wrong. I don't think that advertising based business models have been negative. Actually, quite the contrary. They have supported a lot of services that we use that are significant to us. Who could imagine not using Google search if we didn't have advertising based business models? But clearly that was a trade off that was all but misunderstood by most users. People never understood the trade off. People were like, free is great. I'm not willing to pay anyway. But they didn't understand that there was something being done with their information and that manipulation. The advent of advertising based business models is a very interesting counterpunch to now the advent of subscriptions, which were really looked down on for significant part, even of the early decade of 2010s. Subscriptions is like the old business model. Nobody wants to pay for that. That's the old model of feature phones where you have so called value added services. And you pay for things that you don't know you're paying for, or you have subscriptions that your telco charges you that you don't know why you have them. But somehow subscriptions did make their way back in the late 2010s, and today they are wildly adopted business model and one that we've seen across every single area, like entertainment, gaming, et cetera. So subscriptions have taken over in some way for the fact that we do like free,...


    #10A – A review of the past decade in tech, the 2010s, and its impact on the world we live in May 19, 2020
    Show notes

    We split this episode into two parts: in this, the first part (10A), we argue the 2010 decade actually started with the 2008 crisis, the advent of the iPhone, the App Store and the move of the world to the cloud. We go in-depth into the macro-trends of the decade and the underlying technological tectonic shifts, including analyses of the OS, platform and product & application spaces. Look out for the second part of this episode (10B), where we will discuss the shifts in business models and the funding landscape that happened in the 2010s. Navigation: Introduction (01:24) Section 1 - When did the 2010s really start? (02:24) Section 2 - The Backdrop: Macro-trends and overall context (03:41) Section 3 - The Tech Stack: Operating Systems, Devices & Platforms (19:09) Section 4 - Products & Applications (38:18) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Intro (01:24) Bertrand: Hi Nuno, how are you today? Nuno: I'm well and you Bertrand, how are you? Bertrand: I'm doing good. I'm doing good, enjoying shelter in place. In today's episode we're going to discuss, the 2010s, the past decade. A lot happened in that past decade in tech. So it will be a pretty, pretty high density episode. We will talk first about a more higher level, macro view of what has been happening in tech. We will deep dive into the underlying of the technology industry, operating systems, devices, technologies, platforms, and then we will talk about the dramatic changes we also saw in business models. It's actually pretty amazing when we think about everything that changed there. It's not just the technology. And finally, we will conclude around the switch in funding landscape and how much has changed as well. We will be splitting this episode in two. So that it's more digestible. Section 1 - When did the 2010s really start? So Nuno, I will start with a question. When can we say that the 2010s really started? Nuno: Well in my opinion, the 2010s start with the 2008 crisis that prolonged itself well into 2009 and to the beginning of the 2010s. And in some ways that's a really good timing to choose because 2008 was also the year in which the Apple app store launched for the iPhone. It's also the year where, in effect, Android became a real threat to iOS and Apple, and it really defined a lot of what was going to come into 2010s so we start with a crisis, as we'll see, we might end with a crisis as well, which will be interesting. So maybe decades actually do get defined by crisis, but for the purposes of this episode, we will go back a little bit in 2007, 2008 to give us more context into what the decade really looked like. Bertrand: Yes, it's might be sad to start and end with crisis, but at least it's pretty clearcut, and crises definitely generate very strong inflection points. Nuno: And we had the 2000/2001 already with the bubble. So in effect, beware of end of decades. Bertrand: Indeed, indeed. If we make a full comparison, the decades themselves are pretty good. It's the ending and the starting. Section 2 - The backdrop: Macro-trends and overall context So let's talk about the more macro trends that we saw in tech. And I feel the first big macro trend was really how in the 2010s, technology started to insert itself right in the middle of society, in the middle of us. It has been pretty amazing, to see technology scope, enlarging, growing into our daily interactions. Nuno, what's your perspective on that? Nuno: Yes. If we talk about IT or tech in some ways, we sometimes use them interchangeably. Tech is definitely in the middle of all society. We all use different technologies. Software based technologies, Internet based technologies, mobile based technologies, and the 2010s were really the years where these changes happened most dramatically. Where to your point, technology definitely got in the midst of us. Everyone uses today, smartphones, everyone uses today the Internet. And that was not a given in 2008, 2009, as we said, the beginning of our journey into the 2010s. But today it is true. So definitely a huge shift in this decade. I would say a real significant emergence of technology around the world in developed markets and emerging markets alike. Bertrand: Yes, for me, what's been amazing is as you say, it's not just developed markets, but also developing economies, where technology has been more and more important, more and more visible, and you could argue more and more transformational for people's life. As much as our life has changed in the US, in Asia, in Europe, life thanks to technology has probably changed even more in developing markets. You suddenly move from no smartphone, no Internet, maybe sometimes a feature phone, to suddenly discovering the Internet. There has been no PC or Mac or laptop, stop gap like we had during the 90s or 2000s, it was suddenly move to discovering, the Internet and all its connected services. And we'll talk more about some of the ways that technology inserted itself. But it's pretty exciting to see how our daily life has been changed from, ordering taxis, ordering food. We could talk about the digitalization of society at large. Who remembers using a paper plane ticket, for instance, we have all gladly transformed to using our phone for that, in the past decade where we could still travel. So it's really for me, that part that has been exciting and we already talked in a previous episode how, COVID is a big impact. So I think that digitalization of societies that really happened in 2010s is only going to accelerate, in a way, thanks to COVID. Nuno: Yes. And with effectively a new decade with a tremendous shift towards technology, we see the emergence of winners and new players that dominate the market. There's always these classic charts on who's the largest market cap in the world, and it's very interesting in how they changed through the years. And obviously if we look at what happened in the last decade, we see really the emergence of companies that were somehow a little bit significant already, but not definitely as significant as they are right now. And we obviously talk about Apple, which obviously with the iPhone became a significant player in the late 2000s and then 2010s. Google, that was already very significant player. That only became a stronger player in particular with Android and YouTube becoming of age. Amazon becoming a household name to all of us, and a dominant force in e-commerce, but also in infrastructure, which we'll talk about in a second, and Facebook becoming the real win around social. We obviously can't forget Microsoft, which had its resuscitation in some ways and found its groove again in particular in the late 2010s. But obviously, you know these five big, I would be very specific about it, these five big Western dominant players really leading the world in terms of market cap and really showing us how, how much tech has taken over the world and eaten the world in some ways. Bertrand: Yes, you to highlight Nuno, that it's really the Western players, but in Asia there are some very strong players in that space. We can talk about a Rakuten in Japan, we can talk about an Alibaba and a Tencent in China, and some new players like Xiaomi as well during that period in China. So indeed, it's an emergence of some very strong players, that are scaling from devices, to cloud computing, to web to mobile, to IT infrastructure, whose scope of operations, have really grown in the past 10 years. Some of them were pretty specialized players. Take a Google, much more specialized in search, at the time and you could argue they still monetize very well search. But it is a much bigger and very different company today. Facebook, multiple acquisitions, well done, actually. Acquisitions over the past 10 years, they have you could argue an amazing track record. Some would say "too" amazing track record in acquisition. But we cannot, not acknowledge this. And talking about the Asian players, I think there's one theme, is that there's has been the emergence of China as a tech superpower and overall global superpower. But if we focus on tech for a moment, it's clear that 10 years ago in the eyes of many, China in term of business model had a focus on serving Chinese market and in many ways of copying more what was existing in the West in term of business model. And I think it's fair to say is that China is emerging the 2010s some of the biggest tech giants of the world. With giants, who are not just focus on the China markets, but are now global giants themselves. And these very large Chinese players, like in the West, are not just focusing anymore, on one region or one product. They've really become companies that span across products and that ultimately have actually created new business models. We keep talking about Tencent, with WeChat that has built an app that is bigger than some other apps, the super app. We have seen, the fastest penetration of e-commerce and payments in China, that the world has ever seen. And China is now leading the way in e-commerce, in digital payments. That might come as a surprise to some. So China, Asia, definitely, in a very different place than it was. Unfortunately, sadly, so for Europe we cannot say that there has been, there's similar level of transformation. I think there has been a positive transformation,...


    #9B – Impact of COVID-19 in the World, Venture Capital and Start-ups May 09, 2020
    Show notes

    We split this episode into two parts: in this, the second and final part (9B), we discuss the implications of COVID-19 in the Venture Capital and the Start-up ecosystems. We share our no-BS view on how easy/how difficult it will be to fundraise, depending on the space you are in, on what will likely change when the “new normal” comes into play and what to focus on in order to make your business survive this, the biggest and most ruthless of all storms (recorded on April 16th). Navigation: Introduction (01:27) Section 1 - Impact on Venture Capital firms (01:44) Section 2 - Impact on Start-ups (14:37) Section 3 - Boards and Governance (31:02) Conclusion (38:23) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Intro (01:24) Nuno: In this, the 2nd part of episode 9, episode 9B, we will be discussing the impact of COVID-19 on VC firms and startups. For further reference, listen to the first part of this episode, episode 9A. Let’s start today with Venture Capital firms. Section 1 - Impact on Venture Capital firms (01:44) I recently shared with a number of you, on Twitter and a couple of other social networks my own views on what's happening in venture capital. And let's start from the bottom up. Let's start with the individual impact. I know it's shocking, but we, VCs are people, and therefore as people, we have the same issues as everyone else. When we go into shelter in place, we might have families that we need to take care of. We might have kids that we need to take care of, spouses, and we need to articulate complexities. Like, for example, all of a sudden, if you have two kids, if you have a spouse that's also working, you might have three or four zoom sessions at the same time. And you know, houses are not of unlimited space. So obviously people need to articulate. I was seeing a social media post from a well known general partner saying that he was taking his calls in his car because that seemed to be the only real quiet space in his house. So again, we as individuals are dealing with the same complexities as any other individual. And one needs to take that into account. What that implies is, there's a lag. You have a latency right now, if you're a company fundraising, you have to deal with this latency. The first step to that latency is what I just talked about. It's the fact that I as an individual, as a venture capitalist, need to deal with this new reality and this new complexity. I might not be more productive immediately. It might take me a while to get back to my productivity. The second level of latency that I have to deal with, if I again, am a startup fundraising, and trying to fundraise from a venture capital firm, is the fact that VC firms have portfolio companies, and portfolio companies in some cases right now are going through complex times. And the way I normally categorize portfolio companies for a venture capital firm is you either have counter cyclical portfolio companies or cyclical portfolio companies. If they're cyclical, they're aligned with the current economic cycle we're in. If they're counter-cyclical, they're not. If they're counter-cyclical at this stage, you're probably doing fine, your companies are probably doing well. If the companies are cyclical, your portfolio companies are normally either positively correlated or negatively correlated to the cycle, and if they're positively correlated meaning they're doing really well in the current cycle, we're in, basically you have issues like capacity. How do I hire faster? How do I scale? I'm having issues around regulation that I need to sort out, but normally it's about hyper growth. Many would say that's a great issue to have. Yes it is, but it also creates other issues in terms of capacity supply and how you, for example, as a board director of some of these startups need to deal with them. Then there's the negatively correlated, the companies that are just getting killed. If you're in the travel space, if you're in the restaurant space, if you're in the hotel space. How are you dealing with this? And those companies need particular attention from, again, their investors at this stage. Some of them might have four months runway, five months runway. So how do you deal with that? So again, that's how VC firms now are dealing with this. Those are the latencies that are subject to. On the other side of latency, you have to take into account that many VC firms are raising money, or probably in the process of raising their next fund, or their first fund in some cases. When this happened, those VC firms are going to have difficulty doing what we call a close of getting capital commitments from their own investors so that they can start investing in companies. Now, there are venture capital firms that are deploying capital, that are closing funds right now. We just heard Lightspeed closed another record fund. And so those are deploying capital and are in the market. But again, they need to deal with their limited partner base. They need to deal with their own investors. And it might be the case that some of their own investors right now are having their difficulties. It's not unheard of that family offices, that even some institutional investors in VC firms at some point in time have too much exposure and might have low liquidity. So if I'm a venture capital firm and I need cash to invest in a company, and I do what I call a capital call, it might be that some of my investors actually don't have that cash to give me, and that generates its own issues. So when you're looking at VC impact, the VC impact comes at many levels, from the very individual person level, all the way to VCs' investors, all the way to the issues that they need to deal with their existing portfolio, et cetera. So at this stage, VC impact is very significant coming out of COVID Bertrand: Yes Nuno, I totally agree with all these points. I think it's good to provide that big picture view of what's happening on the VC side, and yes VCs are human beings as well, and they have to go through that, like you are on the other side, as an entrepreneur for instance. So it's key to understand, who you are working with, and what's their situation. I think another piece to think about, both from a VC perspective and entrepreneur perspective, I've seen a lot of people comparing with 2008. 2008 , yes, that was a big crisis. So first after what we discussed, it's pretty clear 2008 is probably the best case, it's probably going to be worse. But that's more than that. It's not just financial, this is a health crisis. People don't know, they might be dealing with their parents in very bad shape, that are at risk of getting this type of illness. They cannot meet, GPs cannot meet LPs, general partners cannot meet limited partners physically. Maybe you might close with people you know very well, but people you don't know very well, how are you going to even pitch them for your fund? 2008, it was not easy, but at least you could physically pitch, now you cannot physically pitch. And the same is true with entrepreneurs with VCs. In the short term, I see a lot of VCs saying, " business open as usual." Yeah, but if you where not used as a VC to work remotely, I don't think you are open as business as usual. You are already changing everything how you operated, so some VCs are used to operate remotely, but they are rare. Nearly everybody else was not used to that, required in-person partner meeting, in-person meetings, and this is not there anymore. So business as usual, like some are claiming, I have a lot of trouble to believe, and by your description, it's pretty clear that it's a near mathematical impossibility. Of course, some are closing deals because they knew each other for a while. Deals don't happen in a few weeks usually, you have met people before, so this kind of stuff is going to work out for the coming weeks, but at some point, we need to go to the next stage, which is, "Hey, we have not met, but we can still not meet physically face-to-face, how do we go from there?" and I think that will create change in process. And to be clear, it's not just VCs and startups obviously, if you are in any sales situation, that's the same question. Some new etiquettes will be put in place, that yes, you can do some deals remotely, and it's okay, but right now, we don't know yet how some will adjust to that new reality, and that's part of your analysis as an entrepreneur, as a VC, on how to deal with that, and potentially delay some action. I would personally strongly suggest to wait a bit before fundraising, and do everything to not need it, so that you can get a bit of sense of where the world is going, and how to position your business the right way. Nuno: And as it is always the case in times of great volatility, there's also great opportunities, and so VCs that are aggressive, that have capital to deploy. That want to be aggressive going to the market, that want to build the brand, NFX actually just announced nine days or less to go from first conversation to commitment to start ups. Smaller checks, but still, that's an interesting thing. This is a great time to be in the market. It's a great time to invest. It's a great time to have capital to deploy if you are a venture capital firm. A lot of companies that need capital right now or that are fundraising right now,...


    #9A – Impact of COVID-19 in the World, Venture Capital and Start-ups Apr 30, 2020
    Show notes

    We split this episode into two parts: in this, the first part (9A), we discuss the broad implications of COVID-19, the short-term and long-term implications, how this is the “end of the world, as we know it”, but why there are many reasons to be hopeful about the future to come (recorded on April 16th). Look out for the second part of this episode (9B), where we will be focusing on the impact of COVID-19 in the Venture Capital and Start-up ecosystems. Navigation: Introduction (01:27) Section 1 - COVID-19 - “the end of the world, as we know it” (02:36) Section 2 - What the future holds (05:53) Section 3 - Economic impact (12:03) Section 4 - Long term impact of COVID-19 (18:41) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Intro (01:24) Nuno: In today's episode, we will be discussing the impact of COVID-19 and the pandemic. Specifically, we will go through an introduction. We are recording this on April 16th so the numbers that we have today, we will also talk about what the future holds. We will be sharing the opinions of several people that we've been reading as well as our own opinions. We will be discussing the core assumptions economically and how the world is supposed to recover from this. We will discuss the longterm impact of COVID-19 in our own view, and how do we expect to be exiting this pandemic? We will talk about the impact to venture capital firms in their own fundraising, in their own operations. We will discuss the impact on startups, how and where they play, their markets, their operating models, the complexities that they're going through. And finally, we will finish with the impact on board of directors and governance in these companies. We will, be splitting this episode into two so that it is more digestible. We will not be talking about the scientific ramifications of COVID-19, we are not experts in that space and therefore we will stay away from those discussions. Bertrand a difficult start to this episode, it is the end of the world as we know it. The REM song is a little bit happier than this, but in some ways it is the end of the world as we know it. Bertrand: But it is not the end of the world. Hopefully, we are going to grow back. It's definitely tough times. As of today, we have more than 2 million cases, confirmed. Close to 150,000 dead. It's really, really, big numbers. It's amazing the change in society that have happened over the past few weeks, few months, since early January, since it was starting from Wuhan in China. Expanded to China, and then expanded step by step to the rest of the world. We saw Europe, we saw US, and many other countries are going to get even more impacted from South America to Africa. It's an event like you have every 50 or 100 years. So, it's a very, specific moment in time and, a surprising timing for us launching our podcast. Nuno? Nuno: It's been an interesting, and by interesting, obviously we can't really minimize the tragedy of what is going on. The stress that is basically affecting all our infrastructure hospitals, food supplies, the effect that we're having in our own lives as people are locked down, they're sheltered in place. So in this episode, although we will talk about a lot of things that we hope to be hopeful about and more positive about, we did want to start in this more somber note of acknowledging all the deaths and all the people that have been affected dramatically by the virus already, and those that still will be affected by it. So today, everything that we will share with you is our own opinions as best informed as they are at this point in time. Bertrand: Hopefully having both lived and worked across US, Europe and Asia, having lived in China many years, we have some level of global perspective on all of this. Myself, I've been following quite closely the situation since late January, since the quarantine was official in China. And it gives us some perspective on where do you go next, and specifically, Asian countries went through that first, not just through COVID-19, by the way, but through other episodes from SARS, to MERS, to different type of epidemic in the past. So, in many ways, they were also the most prepared for this type of situation. Nuno: And in some ways we've been blessed. We have people that are very good friends, even in some cases, family members, that are based in Asia, that have gone through this as the first blunt, hit China, and we've gotten a lot of feedback. Both of us have been very conservative in how we've approached mobility in the time of COVID. We both went into shelter in place, pretty early on, actually, even before Northern California, started shelter in place. We had an interesting exchange of devices and equipment to record the podcast at a distance already. And so I think for us, people that have connections to other parts of the world , we have treated the situation with the due respect that it deserved. And we've been both been in very strong shelter in place now for over four weeks. Bertrand: Yes, definitely, I think we were probably more prepared than most. It's not just our global perspective, perspective of China, but also the fact that we understand numbers, or at least, we try to understand numbers. And definitely, there was a lot to be scared from the numbers coming from COVID-19. Section 2 - What the future holds (02:36) So, it's time to go into our section around what's going on, what's going to happen on the very short term in term of shelter in place, how long will it stay there, how is life going to change around the coming few weeks or months. Again, we don't have a crystal ball, but we will try to share some informed perspective based on what we have learned over the past few weeks, especially from other countries, and the the latest from the news. Nuno: I think the level of preparedness that we have seen work, does command a very strong discipline around a few dimensions and we can go into them. One is the dimension around testing that testing is readily available because if we can't test people either for antibodies or if they're infected, it's very difficult to know who's out there that's already infecting other people. So the ability to let people out of shelter in place depends very strongly on the testing infrastructure available to have tests and other mechanisms to make that work. So that is clearly something that we would be looking at in the case of the countries that are still in shelter in place or in lock down equivalents. Bertrand: Yes, as you say what we have learned from Asian countries is definitely that you have to do a lot of tests , you have to be able to track and trace, what has been happening, people who got infected. So, there is a lot of tools that have been already discussed, in some case vetted. We have just seen actually, recently Google and Apple, working together to build better apps, to help track, who you met through your smart phone using Bluetooth connections. I think there has been quite a few weeks where it was not really clear where we were going. But it's starting to be more and more clear what would be the criteria to reopen states and countries. And not just by looking at what Asian countries have done, but by listening to what our governments are telling us right now across Europe or in the US. We just have actually today, President Trump talking about opening up America again, sharing guidance of what states should we looking at, when they decide to reopen. What different level of opening you could do: a phase one, a phase two, a phase three. And we have seen similar things in France, in Europe. With many countries trying to put a date around, sometimes in May, sometimes in June. I think no one is really sure. Governments who give you precise dates are probably, either wrong or trying to just share their best estimate. I think what is key is understand this criterias and what it means. And therefore, you would get a better understanding of: will this state potentially change, get delayed. And that will help you make the right business decision. I think another piece that is quite key is to understand what means reopening, leaving a shelter in place. It doesn't mean we go from black to white, in a minute. It will be a gradual release. And if things go wrong, and I'm sure they will go wrong in some states and countries, there will be some level of rollback to some previous measures. And that will be some things to be very careful in term of our understanding of where we might end up because all of these parameters might change, might be readjusted. And might depend on decisions by state, by countries. All will have their own approach to manage this. And some might be doing it really well, some might have some more issues. Some might try to favor a lot more personal freedoms, some might not care as much about that. So, there will be different roadmaps by different countries. And we need to acknowledge that. And maybe a last point is that, obviously, what's going to give us our full freedom back again is getting access to either extremely good treatment that limit the level of pain and death we get from that virus, and ultimately having a good vaccine. I think it's pretty clear for everyone following this, that's really the criteria to going back to true normal. What we are going to experience in a few weeks will be a new nor


    #8 – Demystifying Venture Capital, Private Equity and Start-up success Apr 16, 2020
    Show notes

    We demystify a whole lot in this episode of Tech DECIPHERED. We demystify Venture Capital and its nitty gritty decision-making processes and operating models. We demystify Private Equity vs Venture Capital and explain the differences between both. We discuss factors for Start-Up success and demystify entrepreneur “ageism”. Last but not least, we disagree … on the Tesla Cybertruck. Navigation: The other side of the table - Entrepreneurs who become VCs (02:31) Decision-making and the operating model of Venture Capital (05:10) VCs have to make lot of decisions with incomplete information (08:23) Are VCs much less ambitious that PEs? (23:39) Key reasons why start-ups succeed (31:27) What successful second time founders do differently? (43:59) Are older entrepreneurs more successful than younger ones? (56:08) Tesla's new Cyber-truck (59:28) Resources: Andreas Goeldi, What I Didn’t Understand About VCs When I Still Was a Founder - https://bit.ly/3bbf4UU Auren Hoffman, Venture Capitalists are MUCH LESS ambitious than their private equity siblings - https://bit.ly/2V5itin Alex Ponomarev, The Five Reasons Why Startups Succeed, According to a Legendary Investor - https://bit.ly/34wQuLy Feliks Eyser, What Successful Second-Time Founders Do Differently - https://bit.ly/3b86aYn Mark Travers, For Entrepreneurs, 45 Is The New 25 - https://bit.ly/3a3ypWz MotorTrend, Tesla Cybertruck - https://bit.ly/2V6jSoY Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Intro (01:24) Bertrand: Welcome to Tech Deciphered Episode 8. Hi, Nuno, how are you today? Nuno: Hey, Bertrand, how are you? I'm well. Bertrand: Pretty good, thank you, Nuno. So, what are we going to discuss today? Nuno: So we're gonna discuss a couple of different areas. One, we're going to demystify VC: a couple of articles on the venture capital space and we'll agree with some of the points made, we will disagree with others, we'll again go in depth and try to demystify the discussion. Then some other articles on de-mystifying startups and founders in particular, and what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur. And finally we'll talk about gadgets and we'll talk about cars today, which is really, really cool. Bertrand: I know you are very excited. Nuno: I am super excited. We only have one article on cars, but I think we can go on for some time. Bertrand: And which car are we going to talk about? Nuno: We are going to talk about the cyber truck, that thing that does Tesla announced. And we're going to talk about other stuff that's cooler and what's happening in the space. There was a recent announcement as well, of a couple of new electric cars, and so we'll go a little bit off piste on that one. The other side of the table - Entrepreneurs who become VCs (02:31) So, let's start with our first topic today , and we'll start with this good article, from Andreas Goeldi, titled "What I Didn't Understand About VCs When I Was Still a Founder". It's great that he's coming with his perspective having been a founder, an entrepreneur, now on the venture capital side, and being able to relate, in a way, more easily, from a founder perspective, entrepreneur perspective what it is to be a VC. And let's go point by point on this one. So the first point that he makes, I agree actually with all of his points. I think there's some nuances around some of the explanations and rationale that he's giving that I would like to elaborate a little bit more. I do think he misses a few points in his rationale certainly. So the first one is VCs have a limited attention span because they have to context switch so often. This is true. We have to context-switch a lot. And actually it's a little bit broader than that. Sometimes if you are, even in a thesis driven venture capital firm, it's likely that's you're looking at different sub-industries. You could be meeting someone in construction tech in the morning and meeting someone in the retail space in the afternoon. You could be meeting someone who's direct to consumer in the morning and someone who's B2B to see in the afternoon. So you do have to context-switch, not only in the sense you're meeting different companies, very different stories, sometimes even different stage of development. But actually you have to interact with sub-industries as well that in many cases are very different. And sometimes you get sub-industries that come through the door that you haven't necessarily spent a lot of time on. They might match your thesis because there are somehow, for example, direct to consumer or B2B, but they might not match necessarily the industries where you spend most of your time. And so that amount of context switching is pretty important. Bertrand: Yes, I've spent more times these past few months meeting with a lot of entrepreneurs, investing in a few startups, advising some VCs. And probably one of the fun part actually of being a VC, is to see so many different industries, so many different type of business models. And hopefully from that you can form better judgment. Nuno: Yes. And if you have a top of funnel, he mentions his own firm: 3,500 to 4,000 pitch decks in any form. So I normally talk about this as top of funnel: which might mean a pitch deck that is sent to us inbound, it might mean a first call, it might mean a reference from someone, but really the top of funnel. If you're seeing 4,000 - 5,000 different companies a year, and let's say you're making five to six investments a year. His firm does do more than that, they do 20 to 30, which is quite a lot, certainly on a yearly basis. You know, the funnel is very, very steep, which means not only there's a lot of context switching, but there's a lot of attention that you need to pay to the companies. We'll come back to that below. Decision-making and the operating model of VC (05:10) He makes another point on decision-making and why it is so important to get decisions right, that links maybe better to the funnel and the drops off from the funnel. One thing I'd like to add as well, often hear entrepreneurs complaining to me saying: well, these partners are always speaking at events and there's always shindigs and all this stuff, and they spend money, and all these different things that they do. Well, that's part of being a venture capitalist as well. And the reason for that is, certainly in a very classic playbook of venture capital, you're attracting, startups to you in many cases, inbound, which means you need to have a brand, you need to create a brand. You need to be known to the market for something, either because of your thought leadership or because you participate in events or network a lot. Or is it because of your circles of influence that are present in your team? The access you have to different types of alumni networks, the different types of academia, institutions, et cetera. But people end up spending a lot of time doing these events, talking publicly. I personally talk a lot in public, not because we don't have better things to do, but because we do need to create brand and we do need to have people recognize us for something. Otherwise it's very difficult to attract inbound deal flow. And that also means context-switching because we're not just context switching between startups and companies. We're context switching between speaking in public, writing an article, being at an event, networking, we are context switching as well in the case of many VC firms, between sort of operations where you need to manage the day to day, hire people, manage the office. A lot of these VC firms are small, so you literally need to do everything. A general partner might have decisions in a day that go from: should we buy more paper or not, to shall we invest in this company or not? So it seems very glamorous all the time, but it's actually like a tiny little startup that really manages a lot of capital at the end of the day. Bertrand: And to be fair, each firm will have a different strategy. Some have been historically very secretive, more a Sequoia type of approach, and even them, they have changed over time, while some other firms, especially newer ones, ones that have established themselves in the past 10 years have to demonstrate more who they are. If you don't have 20 or 30 years of history, you have to make yourself known and spend some time, building a brand, and not just building a brand. For entrepreneurs, what you see coming from the partners should hopefully give you a good sense of who they are, what are their thesis, what is their approach to business. And hopefully, as entrepreneur, you can make a better pick and a better choice, initially based on that. Nuno: There are very, very, very few venture firms that are staying off the press these days. You mentioned Sequoia, Sequoia's more and more active, certainly more than they were five, 10 years ago. The only ones that occurred to me that are really still relatively away from the limelight but really more open in the last five years then they were before, would be a Benchmark. I would say probably Sutter Hill continues not being in the news at all, and it's one of these really old firms that a lot of people don't talk about that all, but with incredible track record. But there's really very few venture firms that are really off the limelight. Accel has stepped back from the limelight quite a bit,...


    #7 – The “Silicon Valley bubble” bursts, why that is good news, and the IPO landscape in hardware vs. software and enterprise vs. consumer Mar 15, 2020
    Show notes

    We launch into why 100 Bn in value just evaporated from “Silicon Valley” and why that is a good thing for private companies and investors going forward. We discuss the rationality of public markets and go into the IPO landscape... B2B vs B2C, as well as hardware vs software. We analyse direct listings and why that may (or may not) matter. Finally, we discuss secret teams at Apple, the controversy around its Activation Lock and Amazon steadily making their role noticed in the Tablet market. Navigation: Silicon Valley bubble bursts? (02:18) Hardware IPOs continue to struggle, but public performance is not always bad (11:53) B2B vs. B2C IPOs (22:49) Direct listings (28:33) Apple’s (not so) secret satellite team (37:32) iFixit controversy (43:17) State of the Tablet market (47:20) Resources: WSJ, Silicon Valley adjusts to new reality as $100B evaporates - https://on.wsj.com/2TRGKYD Top Tier, B2B vs B2C IPOs - http://bit.ly/2INnoxz Tech Crunch, Hardware IPOs continue to struggle - https://tcrn.ch/2IQXZmJ CNBC, NYSE proposes allowing companies to raise fresh capital in direct listings - https://cnb.cx/39TjMWx Bloomberg, Apple Has Secret Team Working on Satellites to Beam Data to Devices - https://bloom.bg/39VjVsy Walt Mossberg, Apple has added the infamous "Activation Lock" to Macs, and it's going to cause tons of perfectly good laptops to go to waste - http://bit.ly/2wYuGMe iFixit, Apple’s Activation Lock Will Make It Very Difficult to Refurbish Macs - http://bit.ly/33mrCWr Business Wire, Strategy Analytics: Prime Day and Alexa Catapult Amazon to #2 Tablet Spot Globally - https://bwnews.pr/38U1Nyb Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Nuno: Episode 7. In this episode, we're gonna discuss news around IPOs, initial public offerings, or exits, as we like to call them. We will be talking about , the de-mystification of venture capital and startups. And finally, we'll end up with some gadget news. Bertrand: Excellent Nuno, thank you. Let's start with IPOs and as you say, sometimes we talk about IPOs and we equate that with exit. I think that might be actually dangerous to think too much as an exit, at least from an entrepreneur perspective. Yes, from a VC perspective, but from an entrepreneur perspective, it's often a stepping stone, to getting bigger and getting, maybe out of your teenage years, but definitely an exciting time when it happens. Nuno: Correct. And you get to ring bells and do all sorts of funny things that are interesting. Silicon Valley bubble bursts? (02:18) That said, sometimes reality sets in, which brings us to the first article today, which is the article on Silicon Valley, adjusting to the new reality as a $ 100 Billion evaporates, the Wall Street journal article. This article goes into quite a lot of detail on the significant haircuts that have happened with companies that have IPOed in the last few years. So companies that have lost a lot of value from their initial public offering price, and also companies that almost IPOed and manage not to IPO and had significant hair cuts in their private market caps, with the case of WeWork being obviously, probably the most discussed one. Bertrand: Exactly. I think today in this article, actually the most value lost has been by private companies moving from one private round to another private round instead of an IPO per se. Nuno: And the interesting thing for me is that public markets, have been incredibly rational. So the question that I'm often asked are we in a bubble? I always say we're not in a real bubble in the sense of what happened around 2000, because public markets, unlike in the late nineties, public markets have been incredibly rational in their valuation of companies. And that justifies a lot of the haircuts we're seeing. It justifies that we've had some failed IPOs companies that really didn't manage to underwrite their IPO, because of that. So for me, public markets have come to the rescue and they are now, effectively pushing back on a lot of the late stage private market valuations, which were, let's say, rather silly. Bertrand: Yes, and they have been coming to the rescue and at the same time there's a question, is that usually 10, 20 years ago companies will have gone public much sooner in the life of the business, and here now, you could argue companies are going public much later, in the life of their business. So you could argue public markets now have way better tools and ways to analyze a business, because businesses going public are much more mature businesses. So there is less of a bet on the business than before. The bet is not just early on fully done by the private market as always, but even later on, at later stage it's still being done by the private markets. And in a way, public markets are not playing that part of the game anymore. They are just accepting companies when they are very mature, very predictable. And as a result, if it doesn't look like that, not predictable enough, not exciting enough, then I think it's an easier say for the market to give an opinion. Nuno: Yes. And there's this interesting chart at the end of this article that talks about the difference the haircut, on IPO value, versus the valuation of last round of venture capital. And we've had some really significant haircuts, companies like Cloudera, Blue Apron, Dropbox, Domo, Pinterest, and obviously companies that have stayed and remained private, like WeWork and Juul Labs, which have been very, very significantly pushed in terms of their valuation. Bertrand: And I guess for Juul Labs, given what's happening, it's probably even optimistic, that " only" 14 billion lost in market cap, I think their business model is fully truly at risk, all of it. Nuno: And the new federal law, I believe, announced that basically demands that you can only sell these products to 21 year olds or older. Bertrand: Yes. And they also restrict what type of flavors, should be made available. So there are a lot more restriction. But I think this graph doesn't share the full story. Because if I take a "Blue Apron" for instance, yes, there is some haircut between last round and IPO, but not by much actually, but you could argue this one end up being a big bad story in the public market. Moving from a $ Billion plus initial market cap, maybe even $2 Billion, to less than $100 million today of market cap. So even as we just said, we talk about public market being mature, realistic, the initial reception to Blue Apron was actually, I would say pretty good. But what happens, the following quarters was definitely a disaster. So you could argue Blue Apron really went public too soon. Their business model was still not clear enough, not valid enough. Nuno: And although the two of us, we're not experts in public markets, but obviously we understand the notion of underwriting. And so the propping up of the value when the company actually IPOes is sometimes linked to the institutional investors that are underwriting, or there are behind basically the company going public, unless there's a direct listing, we'll come back to that in a second. So in some ways, the propping up of value doesn't immediately go away when the company becomes public, because there are retail investors that are coming on to that round effectively. That's the last round, effectively. And that signal in the market stays there for a few days, we've seen. So it's very customary that you'd do an analysis beyond the first five days of the company being public, one month out, after the first release of earnings, as a public company and a few other options down the road. So in some ways, the market doesn't immediately adjust. Bertrand: Yes. And actually it goes even to the first six months. Because usually you have a lockup, for the first six months of post IPO, of shares, meaning insiders cannot sell their shares during the first six months, at least not in a traditional IPO process. So, that's also another thing that's happening. So it means that usually, the first six months are an early indicator, but nowhere near a clear indicator of what should be the true value of the company and how much supply and demand is truly there. Nuno: Yes. I think this is good. So I think it's good news that the public markets are being rational. I think it's great news that valuations are becoming, I would say, more realistic towards what companies are actually delivering in terms of profitability. the business model. That they're anchored around and how they make their money. A little bit the case around WeWork is that a real estate company, or a tech company? I may think the market has spoken and has sort of said it is real estate, and therefore the multiples that which it trades need to be aligned with that market. So I think this is all great, and positive news. Bertrand: I agree. I think overall it's good. It's not solving every problem, however. Because you still have probably in a way too much money now in the private markets. Because if the expectation was "easy IPO", a lot of money needed for a lot of private companies, and now we realize actually maybe not as much money is needed because the most crazy business models are "out" and now it's more about smarter growth, then what will happen? A lot of money chasing fewer deals, or a lot of money chasing as many deals,...


    #6 – The value of an idea, how you should pitch VCs and the truth about product management Mar 15, 2020
    Show notes

    We discuss whether you can figure out if your idea is worth 1 Bn or not in advance (spoiler alert: NO), analyse several frameworks that are still useful in that analyses, why not being a lemming makes sense in the investment space, and why founders and CEOs shouldn’t waste time arguing with VCs. We go into the more nit gritty elements of product management and product portfolio management, including what one can learn from dead Google projects. Finally, we go into the new Mac Pro, including its $400 (!!!) wheels, why YouTubers like MKBHD (Fanboy alert) and iJustine matter so much, and finally we nerd out on Graphics APIs… because, well, why not.Navigation:How much is your start-up idea worth? (02:23)Pain vs frequency of use framework (03:26)Howard Marks framework (06:35)Lemming mentality in venture capital (10:27)The case for critical thinking in VC (11:11)Introducing feedback loops in VC (15:28)Pitching VCs - do’s and dont’s (18:01)Product management: agile vs waterfall (24:19)A decade of dead Google projects (32:43)Mac Pro (39:48)Marketing through Youtube celebrities (42:44)Apple’s Metal graphics API (45:05)Resources:Ali Zahid, How to know if your startup idea is worth $1 or $1B - http://bit.ly/2U7UhKLTren Griffin, Andy Rachleff, 2×2 matrix If you’re wrong, you don’t generate attractive returns. If you’re right and consensus returns get arbitraged away. The goal is to be in the lower right quadrant - http://bit.ly/3d1Aoh6Eric Paley, Don't Waste a VC Pitch Arguing - http://bit.ly/2xGvllWHBR, The Kind of Creative Thinking That Fueled WeChat’s Success - http://bit.ly/2QgvTVYThe Verge, What we can learn from a decade of dead Google projects - http://bit.ly/2WgpBcEBloomberg, Apple’s New Mac Pro Can Cost $52,000. That’s Without the $400 Wheels - https://bloom.bg/2QjlcSvFortune, Why YouTubers MKBHD and iJustine Got the First Sneak Peek at the New Mac Pro - http://bit.ly/2WffmFCApple Insider, Editorial: Mac Pro puts the pedal to Metal in Apple's race with Nvidia - http://bit.ly/2U9PtEpOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Bertrand: Episode 6 of "Tech Deciphered." How are you, Nuno, today? Nuno: I'm well, although today I'll be very grumpy throughout most of the episode. There's a couple of articles that we'll be discussing that I have some objections to. But overall I'm doing very well. How about yourself, Bertrand? Bertrand: I'm doing good, it's a good day. I'm not sure if I'm as grumpy as you on some of these articles, but we will see, we will see. Nuno: Maybe we'll get to get grumpy at each other as well? Bertrand: Oh, I hope not. So, we have a few articles today we will be talking about: 3 main topics. One around, how to help you in term of start-up idea: how to evaluate it, how to get a good sense as an entrepreneur, does it make sense? Talking as well about, product management - high level: what are different types of product management. And finally, we will talk as usual, we'll have a section around gadgets, and this time we'll have a focus, of course, on the new Mac Pro. How much is your startup idea worth? (02:23) Nuno: Yes. So let's start with VC and startups and we're going to be discussing two articles to start with: one is actually, how to know if your startup ideas worth a dollar or $1 billion. Bertrand: And I prefer a billion, personally. Nuno: I think most people do, but maybe it's difficult to get to a billion, and then we'll talk about, threads from Twitter from Tren Griffin who summarized the podcast with Andy Rachleff, who obviously is a former GP at Benchmark, who I believe is still the CEO of Wealthfront, and he's sort of synthesizing some of the findings from there. So, let's start with the positive things. There's a lot of two by twos in particular, two "two by twos" that are used by Ali. The "pain versus frequency of use", two by two, and then the other one, the "Howard Marks consensus versus right or wrong", two by two, which Andy actually also mentioned in the podcast, apparently. I think frameworks are really useful for a couple of things. They're really useful to highly simplify very complex decisions, and certainly for people to put into perspective, what are the analogies in that specific space? = Pain vs Frequency of use Framework (03:26) Nuno: The first framework is a framework that has on the x-axis pain, and on the y frequency of use. And so the different quadrants as he categorizes them are: The top-right quadrant so high frequency frequency of use / high pain - sort of the holy grail in start-up. Bertrand: Yes, usually we're all excited when we see something like this. Nuno: That's the one we love. Then the low pain / high frequency of use is "step forward" "innovation /inventions" "Schlep blindness" as he categorizes. Bertrand: Maybe some example: we would categorize a Zoom or a Slack in that category. Nuno: Yes, because they're coming into a market where there was no perceived pain for messaging for communications in groups, etcetera, and still they were innovators, and they need to step forward, and they are high frequency use tools and services. Bertrand: And to be clear it's always a question of perception: myself being a big user of video call, of email, I could feel it was not right, something was not right, I remember myself looking for solution for video call for our needs, at App Annie, and I was not satisfied with anything on the market. So it's really a question of perceived pain. Nuno: Yes. And then the high pain / low frequency of use: we have the "Rich Barton Playbook", Rich Barton the founder of Zillow, Expedia, and Glassdoor. And that playbook is the "Power to the People" playbook where users generate information that create data loops, which later help aggregate the consumer demand quickly and match it with suppliers, and I'm here directly quoting Ali on his article. So interesting also that a lot of plays here are highly transactional plays, so they are high-value transactions. Bertrand: Rare transactions, but high value transaction. Nuno: And then the last quadrant so, low pain / low frequency of use: are brands and luxury goods as defined by him, I'm not sure I totally agree with that categorization, but that's the low pain low frequency side of the quadrant . So talking about the positiveness of these frameworks. Again, it allows you to distill something that's very complex into something that's very simple. If you're an entrepreneur, or an investor, or venture capitalist that allows you to sort of put things in perspective and create what I call the analogizer mindset, which is, where would this fit in our realm of decisions? For example, as a venture capitalist, the fact that we need to come back to the decisions that we've made over time and also frame future decisions, it's very important that somehow we can put these decisions in perspective. So all of that is very, very valuable. I think the problem of these "two by twos" is they're obviously overly simplistic. So in time they're snapshots. They're helpful in looking at the past, sometimes. They're rarely very helpful in looking at the future. So at least you can distill a simplified analysis of a market, et cetera. But I don't know, personally any venture capitalist that makes their decisions on "two by twos". And so, my issue with this type of analysis is: there's always going to be exceptions. Also, there's always be going to be companies that maybe there's a misunderstanding of what consensus, for example, in the "Howard Marks" framework, what this consensus actually mean. Howard Marks framework (06:35) Bertrand: Let's talk about what is the Howard Marks framework? Nuno: The Howard Marks framework, the 2x2 is on let's call it the y-axis consensus or non-consensus, and then on the x-axis wrong or right. And obviously everyone likes to be right and non-consensus and that seems to be the venture returns quadrant, where's there's at least two to three years head start. The right and consensus is is the quadrant that normally has a lot of competition, he calls it relentless competition. The wrong and consensus is not fun, and then the wrong and non-consensus "sucks to be here". So they're both really bad because obviously you're wrong. Bertrand: Yes, you're wrong, consensus or not... Nuno: ...you're wrong, so that's not good. Bertrand: Actually people might make even more fun of you if you are wrong in the non-consensus situation, so I guess there is some political risk in some ways being in this quadrant. Nuno: Of credibility almost. Bertrand: Yeah. At some point, if it sounded too crazy, maybe it really was too crazy. Nuno: I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with this framework. Again, what I don't think it does, is helps you make critical decisions like, for example, will I invest in this company or not over time? I don't think it's particularly helpful to most entrepreneurs either because you might be looking at something that you think is not consensus, but you might be missing a lot of data points to figure out if it is consensus or not. For example, one space where there's a lot of stealth companies emerging in the market is the area on artificial intelligence . So sometimes it's very difficult to know what's consensus and non consensus driven. You can look at papers, you can look at the academic papers in what's been published. You can look at IP,...


    #5 – The Media war(s) are all around us, but how much content is too much content? Mar 15, 2020
    Show notes

    We go in-depth on the ongoing media streaming wars touching upon Apple, Disney, Netflix, AT&T… and well, we spend a lot of time talking about Disney, our new Media overlord. We discuss whether we are at “Peak TV”, audio streaming and the Marvel Universe and how it changed the global movie landscape for all of us. Throughout this episode, we must warn our listeners that we will also share some strong opinions on specific movies and tv shows… don’t tell us we didn’t warn you! Navigation: Apple TV Plus: why it’s not about what you think it is (01:59) Are we at “Peak TV”? (09:34) AT&T’s new media strategy (16:10) Disney Plus: a new giant of streaming emerges? (21:40) How the Marvel Universe changed the movie arena (33:05) Peak TV and peak Media (41:40) Resources: Bloomberg, Apple TV+ launch - https://bloom.bg/3cZHQsU Hollywood Reporter, Apple TV+ shows getting 2nd season - http://bit.ly/3aZ0W0x Cult of Mac, Apple TV+ pulls in ‘millions of users’ in its first week - http://bit.ly/3b9uVTJ iMore, Apple TV+ analysis predicts initial demand falls behind Netflix's top offerings - http://bit.ly/3d1ds1c Ars Technica, As DirecTV tanks, AT&T says it will “re-bundle” TV with HBO Max - http://bit.ly/2U7oJVg App Annie, Mobile Minute: Disney+ Poised to Shake Up Mobile Streaming Market - http://bit.ly/3b2elVp Seattle Times, Disney Plus hits 10M subscribers in 1 day - http://bit.ly/2QcVjUz What is the Endgame for Disney+ - https://econ.st/2We6rnW Matthew Ball, Marveliad, Cinematic Universes Aren't New; They're the Oldest Stories on Earth - http://bit.ly/3b1piXE Matthew Ball, Disney, IP and returns to "Marginal Affinity" - http://bit.ly/2Wi96wH WSJ, Roku Getting Splashed by Streaming Wars - https://on.wsj.com/2WeOuFH Hollywood Reporter, Studio Chief Summit: All 7 Top Film Executives, One Room, Nothing Off-Limits (and No Easy Answers) - http://bit.ly/3dbG5Jo Hollywood Reporter, Liberty Media CEO Forecasts "Circular Firing Squad" for Hollywood's Streaming Wars - http://bit.ly/3d3j7Ec Matthew Ball, The Mining of Media (or The "Streaming Wars" are Just a Battle) - http://bit.ly/2UdnYtE WSJ, Expect Fewer Big Media Deals Next Decade - https://on.wsj.com/2Qi9lEp Bloomberg, TV Industry Suffers Steepest Drop in Ad Sales Since Recession - https://bloom.bg/2QkucXL Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Nuno: Welcome to episode 5. Today we'll spend most of our time talking about media: the launch of Apple TV, Disney Plus, and a few other in-depth articles that we've had a chance to take a look at Bertrand: Hello Nuno, how are you? Nuno: I'm well, how about you Bertrand? Bertrand: I'm doing good, thank you. I'm pretty excited to talk about the media space today. A lot of action in that space in the few months, so glad we find the time to talk about what's happening and what is all this media streaming war all about. Apple TV Plus: why it's not about what you think it is (01:59) Nuno: So let's start with Apple TV. So, Apple TV Plus launched November 1st, we have a bunch of articles that we've been talking about for the last few weeks around and interesting. So what are your thoughts early on, on Apple TV Plus? Bertrand: If you look at Apple TV Plus alone by itself it's not a very interesting service would be my take, in the sense that what's coming and what's unique from this service in term of unique shows you cannot get anywhere else, right now you just have a few of them, and at least from my perspective as a consumer, I have not been keen to see any of their shows. I tried actually, I tried, it was kind of disappointing: what you can see is that a lot of money has been spent on any one of them, that's for sure, it's extremely polished, extremely polished, but for me the story is not there, it's disapointing in term of story basically on all these shows. But when you look at the bigger picture of what they're trying to achieve it's probably better . The bigger picture is a few things, at least from my perspective: these new shows are more a magnet to bring you to Apple TV Plus in general, to the overall Apple ecosystem. And why would they want to do that? On Apple TV Plus you can get access to other TV channels, so it's not just Apple content you get , it's other TV content you can get access to: from HBO to a lot of others who you can pick. And they are, as usual, getting some significant margins playing with that. Nuno: It's interesting because in some ways it seems like they are seeding what I would call a meta-play, right? They are trying to serve all the different experiences that you have with different streaming services onto one banner which is Apple TV, and the way for them to seed this, is to do Apple TV Plus, have all these different shows that are originals, and push people into it, so that people start consuming more and more. It's a really interesting thing because if we're right about this, what Apple is doing is they're seeding a service that in effect, just wants to aggregate your user experience at the end of the day by just creating some content. So our view is that Apple, to be clear, doesn't want to be a content owner, they don't want to be Netflix. Bertrand: Yes, I think that's really the take here, is that there is some bigger strategic reason at play, and we talk about now aggregating these different services, and by the way this is very very similar to how Prime is working. Amazon Video, part of the prime service: it's the same playbook. They make a few shows, they make a few movies, but at the end of the day it's a magnet, so is that you use Prime as your destination to subscribe to other TV channels. Surprisingly enough very similar business model on that part, where they are trying to attract you so they become the main place where you will find and play your shows, your movies, but ultimately and we'll talk more about that, at a service of a bigger business model which in the case of Apple is to sell devices, in the case of Amazon is to sell you everything. Nuno: Yes, but with Amazon Prime there are still some significant differences. They are not making the user experience totally seamless for you to see Hulu and other types of services that you might have. And they are building their content inventory, right? They've been winning a lot of awards, they actually have great shows. I've been part of all their pilots seasons and voting, and their first pilot season was a little bit iffy, but they've been really doing well and they have great shows with actually pretty impressive ratings, and as I said they've won awards. So I buy the whole generation of traffic piece that Prime is doing, that Apple is doing with the TV Plus, but I think the TV Plus play might be actually very different in the sense that it will aggregate other streaming services under one banner, whereas with Amazon that's not really the play. I think with Amazon they do want to pull you into their ecosystem and into the whole Prime ecosystem overall. So I do think they'll continue developing content, and they'll continue wanting to own your time with them, in effect. Bertrand: Yes but again, interestingly enough Amazon really pioneered this model to attract to that center location of looking for TV shows, movies, and letting you very easily subscribe to 3rd parties TV channels, basically that's what it is. So in a way Apple TV has copied part of the approach of Amazon. I was myself surprised. Nuno: But it feels, Bertrand, it feels more, the Prime play I know it's a broader play within sort of the realm and the world of Amazon, but it does seem to me that what Amazon is doing with Prime TV and Video is closer to Netflix than what Apple TV Plus is doing right now, and we'll see where Apple TV Plus goes. They have plenty of cash to just go and develop content. So it's not like they can't develop content, It just seems as you said earlier on, that they are anchoring around this sort of unified user experience with all your streaming services, which makes sense because that's how Apple TV started in the first place, as a software service. Bertrand: Yes and obviously interestingly enough you cannot browse from Apple TV, Netflix. So Netflix is not opening its content to Apple TV, or to any other service by the way. So Netflix is pushing you to go to Netflix and then you discover content and obviously only Netflix content. When the other providers from Roku, to Apple, to Prime, absolutely tried to get every other service available from outside, and be visible from their own system. But as you say, I'm expecting that, over time, Apple's offering will improve, will expand, but will it go really big beyond just being a "Magnet" it's not clear. Another interesting point is right now you get it for free in many cases: basically if you buy an iPhone or an iPad or a Mac or an Apple TV, you get a one year free. So I also think there is some realism on Apple side that the offer by itself, it's not truly standing on its own: a few TV shows with no back catalog for $5 a month, and we will talk later about the Disney offering for instance at $6/month basically it would be a pretty bad deal to pay for Apple TV Plus subscription right now. Nuno: So a couple of interesting things. One, we were talking about the quality, or you were talking about the quality of the Apple TV Plus shows, I guess we're talking about SEE, For all mankind,...


    #4 – The fragile landscape of wearables, the future of Direct-to-Consumer (DTC 2.0) and the Google Squeeze (?) Mar 15, 2020
    Show notes

    We really get into a discussion on Apple’s, Google’s, Nike’s, Fitbit’s and Garmin’s strategies. We talk about the evolution of Direct-to-Consumer (DTC 2.0), the “Google Squeeze”, and we end up disagreeing a couple of times, although no co-hosts were harmed in the making of this episode. Finally, we talk about the new Macbook Pro (Bertrand is a real fan), Apple’s foray into AR and VR, the new Moto RAZR and the “General Magic” movie. Navigation: Apple’s Vertical integration strategy (01:57) Peak Google or the Google Squeeze (08:49) Nike (really) goes Direct-to-Consumer (15:35) Cracks in Amazon’s Armor (16:06) Fitbit & Garmin in opposite directions (25:37) Macbook Pro (34:30) Apple going into AR/VR (41:17) New foldable Moto RAZR (44:46) General Magic - The Movie (46:47) Resources: Apple Insider, A6: How Apple's custom silicon and iOS optimized each other - http://bit.ly/2Um4bsn WSJ, Nike to Stop Selling Directly to Amazon - https://on.wsj.com/3d76W9x Stratechery, The Google Squeeze - http://bit.ly/2xGnGUJ Business Insider, Google offer to buy Fitbit - http://bit.ly/2U9FMGg Fortune, Why Garmin’s Shares Are Hitting Record Highs As Rival Fitbit Sinks From View - http://bit.ly/2QeyiAw Daring Fireball, New MacBook Pro 16 - http://bit.ly/3d3qfjZ Monday Note, Apple AR/VR: Reality Bites Virtual Reality - http://bit.ly/2U1TTgw Yanko Design, 2019 MOTO RAZR foldable phone - http://bit.ly/2UdkZ4q General Magic, The Movie - http://bit.ly/2WcFocF Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Tech Entrepreneur, co-founder and Chairman at App Annie, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, co-Founder and Managing Partner of Strive Capital, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. Subscribe To Our Podcast Full transcription: may contain unintentionally confusing, inaccurate and/or amusing transcription errors Bertrand: Hello Nuno, how are you today? Nuno: I am. Well, how are you Bertrand? Bertrand: Pretty good, pretty good. Nuno: Today we're going to talk quite a bit about strategy, and how some very significant players Apple, Nike, and Google are thinking through their integration in terms of business model. Also in terms of tech, we're going to leave some of the content discussion to another episode. In particular around some of the movements that Google, Apple, Facebook and others are doing around content, around gaming, et cetera. Apple Vertical Integration Strategy (01:57) But maybe just start with a really fascinating article around the A6, and on how Apple has really innovated around the system on chip space, and how that really is linked to it's almost dominant position around the operating system stack as well. Bertrand: Yes, I think there was this fantastic article on Apple Insider talking about how the A6, the Apple CPU that was launched in 2012 is representative of how Apple works differently from other tech companies. And myself, I remember one of the first time I was surprised by how Apple was working, is when I heard that story about how they cornered, the aluminum market for laptops: they will buy in advance most of the sources of aluminum to make sure nobody else could make a MacBook . And apparently that story was not just a wake up call for me, but a wake up call for execs at other tech companies, including Microsoft, when suddenly they fully realized what they were up against in term of vertical integration. I think that the traditional PC space was not about this vertical integration. That's for sure. That was about Intel and Microsoft creating that ecosystem where everyone compete pretty aggressively and the profit goes to Microsoft and Intel at the end of the day. Apple has a different approach. Apple is Apple, so they don't have an ecosystem as wide, and they focus very clearly about keeping the profits for them, not sharing with another one big strategic partner, or on another ecosystem - you could argue that actually there is some profit sharing with the app ecosystem. And that's probably new for Apple. But going back to this A6 story, and that's interesting because it's bringing us back to memory lane in a way, years ago. And that's where you see Apple has been very fast understanding and from there strategizing what to do, from that initial leadership position in the smartphone space, because to launch that in 2012, you had to prepare that a few years ago. So it was relatively early in the iPhone history that they started preparing a much bigger play around a much fuller vertical integration, that nearly no one, even today, maybe barely Samsung has truly deployed. Nuno: Yes, and I think there was a couple of interesting elements here that the article does mention, which is how Android became effectively unbundled because obviously Google is trying to bring as many OEMs to the table as possible. And in some ways, Android has become the dominant operating system globally, but the experience of Android in some ways has historically lagged some of the aspects of iOS. I would argue maybe today it's less visible, but certainly if we go back 2012, 2014, 2015, that's certainly visible. It also manifests itself in the quality of the apps, and the quality and the revenue that's made in the app store space. But for me, there was a more fundamental issue here, and I go back maybe to 2005 / 2004, when I was still with the GSM association. We're having all these fascinating discussions with MIT professors and a few early stage startups that were really saying the future is going to be system on chip. We're going to have more and more integration down stack, and it does make sense if you have a really, really well framed stack around the hardware pieces, around the operating system and then around , basically the processing power, to actually do and pass more and more stuff to system on chips. So in some ways, I think what Apple is doing is really the playbook that we've been discussing probably now for a decade and a half, even longer, that you're going to have more and more integration downstream, on the one hand, but also basically you're going to have a lot more integration into the chip, right? And that will get you performance, that will get you a level of customization linked to operating system that basically was unheard of, even in the times of Microsoft and Intel. Bertrand: Yes, and for me, what's really impressive is that this article is sharing a window in a sub-part of the full Apple vertical integration. Because again, it goes from having a near controlling side on some output from some mines in some specific type of minerals, to an integration of hardware. And at the time, let's remember in 2012 they had not yet integrated the GPU, the GPU for the iPhone designed and manufactured by Apple was a few years after, around 2016 if I remember well, that's when they drop their partner. But it goes beyond that, it goes not just to the app store that everybody knows, but it goes even to the programming tools and ecosystem. They have X-Code, very good programming tool, but they also have launched their own programming language. They always have had Objective C, but then they move to Swift, we're at Swift five now, and the latest one , the one I got actually very, very excited was Swift UI. That was announced at WWDC in June, and has been released as part of iOS 13, the new MacOS Catalina, and this Swift UI is very impressive in term of how it lets you develop easily across all the Apple ecosystem in a way that puts shame, honestly shame to everybody else in the industry because no one has such an efficient set of tools, from A to Z. And not just that: all of their tools are fully optimized to their CPUs, their GPUs. Metal, Apple's own 3D engine truly leverage their GPUs and CPUs combined, and their machine learning libraries and developer tools are also fully integrated with their hardware. And now obviously the talk of everyone is around Apple services: the last layer, from mining aluminum to providing you TV shows, you have the full stack coming from Apple. Nuno: And if you look at the Android devices, for me the realization is in effect, the best Android devices are not really the Google flagship devices anymore. We've heard some mixed feelings around the Pixel 4 and the Pixel 4 XL, even with the Pixel 3 XL, which was actually a really good device, it was clear to me at that point that there were better devices in the market. I think One Plus has done an incredible job of being ahead of the curve in many of these trends and almost keeping up to par with some of the things that we're now seeing with Apple. Right. Like the nightscape on the One Plus 7 Pro has been around since March, obviously now with the iPhone 11 Pro we have that as well in the Apple ecosystem. So I think that there's a lot of interesting things around how they've attached to the devices, and how the devices have provided this incredible experience to end users. Where Android is seems to be playing catch up and certainly Google doesn't seem to be sort of the clear innovator anymore. Maybe it was early on with the Nexus series, but certainly, probably not with the Pixel series in the last few years. Peak Google or the "Google Squeeze"? (08:49) Maybe changing to Google and talking a little bit about Google, this fascinating Stratechery article on "the Google squeeze", where there's this admission, you know, I called it peak Google. It's not peak Google, apparently they're still doing really well. And it just sort of illustrates this really interesting thing that people have sort of been noticing, which is you really are getting a lot of stuff now to just searching Google. You're getting flights,...


    Previous 1 6 7 8 9 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Reply All

    1

    Reply All Games & Hobbies
    Inside VR & AR

    2

    Inside VR & AR Gadgets
    Note to Self

    3

    Note to Self News
    BrainStuff

    4

    BrainStuff Natural Sciences
    This Week in Tech (Audio)

    5

    This Week in Tech (Audio) News
    Hands-On Tech (Audio)

    6

    Hands-On Tech (Audio) Technology
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights