Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies

We feel instinctively that societies with huge income gaps are somehow going wrong. Richard Wilkinson charts the hard data on economic inequality, and shows what gets worse when rich and poor are too far apart: real effects on health, lifespan, even such basic values as trust.

In "The Spirit Level," Richard Wilkinson charts data that proves societies that are more equal are healthier, happier societies. Full bio »

Canada fits in the middle of the pack of countries presented here in this presentation. However under the Harper Regime we are being pushed further to the right towards the US. As Canadians we instinctively understand that what makes us strong is our belief that we should we have more income equality. We have to make it clear to the government that we dont want to be more like the US but rather more like Norway. We can't sit back particularly when the data is so clear that this path that Harper wants to take us down leads to a less healthy and happy society.

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Amazing Dance Sequence

This guy has incredible control of his body and has mind blowing flexibility.

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous

If Tetris was a (stupid, Battleship-style) movie - Boing Boing

Warialasky's trailer for a big-budg apocalyptic science fiction movie based on Tetris is all too plausible in the era of Battleship: the Movie: "Official Tetris Teaser Trailer. The invasion is beginning. It is inevitable. You created them, you can destroy them! I did not create Tetris, I was but the messenger. Tell me how to stop them. This is an extinction level event. No, don't go! Let her go!"

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous

Manatee and kid - Boing Boing

Isaac's Live Lip-Dub Proposal on Vimeo

This will bring tears to your eyes. Inspiring!

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous

Friday, May 04, 2012

Twitter Says Farewell To Adam “MCA” Yauch | TechCrunch

original

Earlier today, GlobalGrind broke the news that Adam “MCA” Yauch, a founding member of New York’s pioneering hip-hop group the Beastie Boys, had died of cancer at the age of 47.

While the loss of Yauch will be felt for decades to come, the outpouring on Twitter shows just how big an impact the Beastie Boys and Yauch have had on social consciousness. Both Twitter’s global and local trends are currently dominated by tributes to the boys from Brooklyn.

He is survived by his wife and daughter.

RIP MCA.

H/T to Gizmodo for the image.

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous

Priceonomics Raises $1.5 MM, Users Unfazed

Priceonomics Raises $1.5 MM, Users Unfazed

Priceonomics just raised $1.5 MM in seed funding. Raising seed capital isn’t a triumph by any measure, but we’re enormously grateful we get the opportunity to build something we love. We get to go on the journey to build the definitive price resource so that no one gets ripped off ever again.

We raised the money from SV Angel, Spark Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, CrunchFund, Crosslink Capital, Y Combinator partners, Michael Ovitz, top angels like Joshua Schachter, and early Google engineers. TechCrunch has the full announcement here.

It’s a little awkward announcing our funding, because what’s the point really? None of our users noticed when the money hit our bank account.  We decided this announcement could be useful for two audiences: 

  • Engineers who want to join our team, or
  • Other entrepreneurs who could benefit from our observations from raising money for the first time (or at least find it interesting)

So, here we go - a quick note to engineers and then our experience raising money for the first time.

Quick Note to Engineers and Hackers:  If the idea of algorithmically cataloging every washing machine ever made and then determining their fair market price appeals to you, join us! We are a happy clan that relentlessly structures data and makes information digestible.

We’re hiring! Email omar@priceonomics.com or check out our jobs page.  

Onward, what we learned raising money

To entrepreneurs and startup voyeurs, here’s what we learned raising money for the first time. We’re trying not to present any advice, but instead just present some observations from our limited and idiosyncratic experience.

1. We tried to follow Y Combinator’s advice to minimize time fundraising and get back to work. Our goal was not to die from lack of funding or die from losing focus on the product. All $1.5 MM was committed within 10 days of YC demo day. Once we hit that number, we got back to work on the product.  When we were fundraising, it was actually hard to work on the product.

2. Commitments are important, but money in the bank is better. Logistically, there are still a lot of steps from a verbal yes to money in the bank. One of our co-founders (Michael) was designated “the closer” to make sure the deals formally closed and he dominated that role.

3. The first money is important. It seems unlikely anyone will give you any money until someone actually gives you money. If we noticed any hack in raising money, it is get someone to give you money first. SV Angel was the first investor we talked to and they offered to invest and set the basic terms.  They were enormously helpful and we’ll always remember how important they were for us.

4. Our legal bill was $0. We used the standard YC documents and the platform clerky.com to handle all the paperwork. We also leaned heavily on YC’s in-house lawyer, Jon Levy. Thank you Jon!

5. Even when you’re able to raise money from awesome investors, it still feels like you’re failing.  For every Andreessen Horowitz that tells you they want to invest, 3 investors give you the cold shoulder that same day.  We raised $1.5 million in 10 days and pretty much the whole time we didn’t feel very good.

6. Inbound leads close, outbound leads don’t. Almost all investors participating in our round round contacted us or requested an introduction to us. Conversely, when someone told us, “Oh, you have to meet Investor X”, Investor X typically didn’t seem that interested in meeting us unless it was their idea originally. If there’s a second hack in the process, it’s to generate inbound interest in your company (which is a difficult hack to figure out). 

7. ~$500,000 of the capital we raised were from people who cold-emailed us at “info@priceonomics.com.” Check your company’s public-facing email address!

8. Very few investors tell you “no”. Overwhelmingly, they just never email you back, even after they were the ones initiating the conversation. If they do tell you no, their reasons are often weird or cryptic.

9. People who invested in our round told us yes very quickly. No one who stalled on deciding ever came back with a yes.  Investors that were engineers decided particularly quickly. On the other end of the spectrum were VC funds (except the ones that invested in our round, we love you guys!).

10. Deadlines and scarcity helps close investors. One of the biggest benefits of YC Demo Day is you get to simultaneously talk to many different investors who know they could miss out on the deal if they don’t decide quickly. If the process of talking to investors was purely sequential, it seems like they’d all just want to be the last investor you talked to.

After we got funding, we went a little bit nuts with the expenses.

Finally, an enormous thank you to the partners and staff at Y Combinator. It’s impossible to overstate how hard they worked directly on our behalf and how earnest they are about doing the right thing for their companies. The program lets you spend nearly 100% of your time working on the product, and then at the end creates inbound interest from investors for your company. Among the reasons this works is because everyone at Y Combinator puts so much effort into pulling it off.

It’s hard to go through Y Combinator and not feel optimistic about the human race. It’s also hard to not feel like you have a lot of work to do.

So, that’s where we are. Back to work.

We are hiring engineersComment on this post on Hacker News. 

This post was written by Rohin Dhar. Follow him on Twitter here.  Get the latest from Priceonomics on Facebook or Twitter

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous

How Apple will become a mobile carrier — Apple News, Tips and Reviews

What’s next for Apple? Apple will provide wireless service directly to its iPad and iPhone customers. First, Apple will sell data packages bundled with iPads. Then it will sell data and international roaming plans to iPhone customers through the iTunes Store. And in time — sooner than many think — Apple will strike wholesale deals with several mobile operators so that Apple can provide wireless service directly to its customers, as Apple Mobile.

Will domestic and global mobile operators like AT&T, Vodafone, Telefónica and others “play ball” with Apple? Many in the U.S. were surprised six years ago when AT&T capitulated to Apple’s terms to become the first carrier to offer the iPhone six years ago. Conventional wisdom is that the struggling operators compromises, not a leading operator like AT&T. But Apple makes everyone “think different.”

And in hindsight, the first iPhone deal was a brilliant strategy that has continued to pay huge dividends to AT&T. In the last quarter just reported, four out of five smartphones AT&T sold were iPhones.

Apple changed the formula of the relationship between operator and handset vendor, with Apple having more bargaining power than the operator for the first time in mobile history. And that’s the point.

Apple will make an offer carriers can’t refuse

Today, mobile operators would have a hard time saying “no” to the world’s largest and fastest growing company, which builds the devices everyone wants. Apple tends to have its way with operators. Any reluctance on the carrier’s part to offer Apple a sweetheart wholesale deal would be outweighed by the huge business opportunity presented. It’s a classic case of “The Prisoner’s Dilemma.” The carrier’s biggest fear is that if it says “no”, the business and growth would go to a competing carrier and it would be kicked the curb.

It’s no secret that Apple has been thinking about this strategy for some time. Apple filed a patent for “Dynamic Carrier Selection” on October 10, 2006, just a few months before Apple announced the first iPhone. The diagram in the patent application portrayed Apple as the wireless service provider connecting to multiple carriers. This would allow Apple to make wholesale cellular agreements with and connect to multiple carriers so it could offer its customers choices in carriers, plans and services. Apple has clearly put a lot of thought into its dynamic carrier selection architecture.  And lest anyone think Apple isn’t serious about this, last June Apple extended the filing in what many considered confirmation of its plans.

Adding further fuel to the fire, Apple recently has been fighting with other handset vendors, including Nokia, over a new, smaller-sized SIM card for GSM and LTE handsets. According to some, such a SIM would allow Apple to bypass carriers entirely, and activate a new customer through the iTunes Store. Whether it uses the NanoSIM, virtual SIM or other variant, Apple could have the ability to activate and sell voice, data, messaging and roaming subscription plans before the ink dries on a carrier wholesale agreement.

Apple has all of the pieces necessary to offer wireless service directly to customers. They have the world’s leading brand, a loyal following who will pay a premium for Apple’s products and services, and 363 retail stores around the world, growing to 400 by the end of the year. And with iTunes, it has the digital content and billing platform to offer service with one-click simplicity. The infrastructure is in place today, with the patented architecture ready for Apple’s next big move.

iPhone customers typically spend as much as twice or more the U.S. national average monthly wireless bill, which was about $44 in the last year. So these are high value customers. And they buy apps and content – music, videos, TV shows and movies – through Apple today. By offering mobile service with iPhones and iPads, the company could provide the full Apple experience to its users.

How likely is this to happen? Given the patent filing more than five years ago, it wouldn’t surprise me if Apple is already talking to mobile operators, nor would I be surprised if the mobile operators initiated the conversation.

And what about Google?

Might Google offer mobile service directly to its customers, for the rumored Google Android Tablet or any Android smartphone? With Google acquiring Motorola Mobility, it, too, will be able to manufacture handsets to its own specifications. But it won’t be nearly as easy for Google to follow Apple’s likely path. While Google has a great brand — number two in the world and second only to Apple — it doesn’t have the retail stores, the experience with subscription services, and the customer care that Apple offers. Nor does it have the elegant ecosystem that enables single-click app and content purchasing that Apple has through its iTunes Store.

Whitey Bluestein, a 25-year telecom veteran, is a strategic advisor and corporate development specialist focused on prepaid, applications, payments and services. For more information, go to http://whiteybluestein.com

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous