To many investors, visionary entrepreneurs come off as naïve or worse — isn’t it safer/easier/more profitable to create a(nother) social network for cat fanciers than to try to cure cancer, defeat terrorism, or organize the world’s information?

– Bruce Gibney, in a post on the Founders Fund Web site entitled “What Happened to the Future?”

To all those entrepreneurs, I offer my advice: Don’t do it. Shotgun weddings don’t work in romance, and they don’t work in venture capital, either.

Solutions that offer the best valuations, without the close-knit partnerships required to build successful long-term businesses, are never going to be sustainable solutions.

In my experience, a lack of shared understanding between the parties upfront can lead to bigger problems down the line.

I recently read a statement from Founders Fund boldly declaring that VCs impose “value-destroying distractions” with the “intrusion of adult supervision.” As I reflected on this thought, I began to wonder — if any entrepreneur shares these feelings, why then would he ever enter into an arrangement with a venture firm?

The fact is, a VC’s value can vary widely. Just like you’d be better off not going under the knife of a neurosurgeon who graduated med school with a C- average, you’d be wise not to choose a sub-par venture investor who doesn’t share your values. Take the time to find the right one.

If both enterprise and investor don’t understand each other upfront, there is going to be a lot of dissatisfaction about where — and how — the relationship ends. When you look at the start-up and venture capital sectors separately, it seems they both understand this principle. For each, building relationships is a prerequisite to building up businesses.

In the start-up world, founders take a long-term approach when searching for co-founders. Larry Page and Sergey Brin met at Stanford on Larry’s first day of class before founding Google; Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were friends in high school and spent every day together before founding Apple.

Similarly, while you probably won’t find a VC partner after a single meeting, there are a few things to keep in mind that can increase your chances of success over the long run.

First and foremost, do your homework. It’s shocking to me how few entrepreneurs actually make due diligence calls to other portfolio CEOs. At Foundation Capital, we provide contacts for every company we have ever funded. Use those kinds of resources. Ask for references beyond what is on the Web site. Don’t expect glowing reviews from every single reference, but weigh the feedback carefully and decide if you like what you hear overall.

Second, dig deeply into how the firm works with founders on a day-to-day basis. Consider how much — and in what capacity — partners participate in their portfolios. Think about the proposed value-add, and if it will complement the existing capabilities of your executive team. Decide if the VC firm’s approach fits your style.

Third, don’t get seduced by the name of the firm. This isn’t choosing a college or buying a car. Set the prestige factor aside. Frankly, a firm’s name counts for little when it comes to predicting the success of your venture. It’s really about the individual partner who will be working with you. Decide if you want to work with that particular person.

Finally, ask the tough questions:

• How will this investor help out during difficult times?
• Will he or she understand the process and need for more funds if or when that time comes?
• Is the investor’s approach to the venture truly collaborative — one in which both parties are dependent on each other to succeed?
• Are your prospective investors passive-aggressive, or do they come out and tell you what they’re thinking?

Strong entrepreneur/VC partnerships are based on mutual respect and a true drive to succeed. You don’t want an investor who simply hands you a check and pushes you out the door with nothing more than an expectation of flawless execution — and, of course, a significant return on that investment.

At the end of the day, accepting an investment is like committing to a relationship — there will be ups and downs and disappointments, and even a few failures along the way. But the best partnerships — like the strongest relationships — are lasting ones. Granted, we’re talking about a decade and not a lifetime, but it is still critical to understand the people you are bringing into your business and whether you can work with them over the long haul — through thick and thin.

Understanding a prospective partner takes time. So do yourself a favor: Play it smart. Take your time. Do your homework.

Charles Moldow is a general partner at Foundation Capital, where he primarily focuses on consumer Internet companies. A former entrepreneur, Charles was a member of the founding executive team at TellMe Networks and on the founding team of @Home, and has a background in general management, sales, marketing, product management and business development.

Last weekend, I interviewed former OpenTable and eBay exec Jeff Jordan — who is now a newly minted VC with Andreessen Horowitz — at the student-run Play digital media conference at the Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley.

It turned out to be a lively session with the sassy Jordan, who talked about a wide range of topics, from entrepreneurship to running a scaled org to his first venture investments, such as Pinterest.

Luckily, I get to interview Jordan again tomorrow, at Open Mobile Summit in San Francisco, along with eBay’s CEO John Donahoe. The topic will be mobile commerce.

Here’s the video of the event, with thanks to ReelSurfer for the embed:

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Stone, who left day-to-day operations at the microblogging service in June but is still an adviser, discusses teaching creativity and entrepreneurship. (Mr. Stone will serve as an Executive Fellow at the Haas School for one year.)

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Innovation is back. Leadership is back. IPOs are back. The technology industry has shaken off the post-dotcom malaise and is once again exciting.

Now is perhaps a good time to stop for a moment and reflect on what this coming decade will be all about for the Valley and its denizens.

I will share some of my thoughts, but mostly, I’d like to hear from readers on what you’d like to see happen over the next decade in Silicon Valley. So, please feel free to jump in. (If your thoughts are sufficiently formulated to warrant guest columns, feel free to submit them to us for consideration. If your writing and vision are compelling, we will publish.)

Philosophy

My vision of what Silicon Valley needs to focus on is best described by the title of Michael Dertouzos’s book The Unfinished Revolution. The revolution that Dertouzos talks about is in “human-centric” computing. Indeed, today’s open problems are not so much in the domain of chips and networking as they are in the more human-centric domains.

For example, the technology that makes it possible for a digital worker in rural Africa or small-town India to work on data processing projects already exists. What do not yet exist are systematic methods of locating such projects and connecting these remote digital workers to them.

Similarly, the basic technology for telemedicine does exist, but the socioeconomic framework to connect willing doctors to needy patients around the world does not.

In some of these areas, Silicon Valley has already played a phenomenal role. Kiva has created the socioeconomic model for crowd-sourcing microfinance investments and matching that with projects. And Egypt’s revolution is a salute to Facebook’s role in the organization of a society’s successful bid for democracy.

Our attempt to democratize entrepreneurship, education and incubation through 1M/1M speaks to the same philosophy of using technology to impact humanity on a large scale.

The Renaissance Mind

In exploring the possibilities for our future, let me revisit certain historical phenomena, especially the Renaissance.

Although it can be difficult to pin it down in a definition, the Renaissance can be understood as “a cultural movement that profoundly affected European intellectual life in the early modern period. Beginning in Italy, and spreading to the rest of Europe by the 16th century, its influence affected literature, philosophy, art, politics, science, religion, and other aspects of intellectual inquiry.” [Wikipedia]

Other periods of cultural rebirth and rejuvenation have also been termed a “renaissance,” a notable one being the Bengal Renaissance: “The Bengal Renaissance refers to a social reform movement during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the region of Bengal in Undivided India during the period of British rule. The Bengal renaissance can be said to have started with Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1775–1833) and ended with Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941), although there have been many stalwarts thereafter embodying particular aspects of the unique intellectual and creative output. Nineteenth-century Bengal was a unique blend of religious and social reformers, scholars, literary giants, journalists, patriotic orators and scientists, all merging to form the image of a renaissance, and marked the transition from the ‘medieval to the ‘modern.’” [Wikipedia]

What was striking about the various renaissance movements were the extraordinary degree of intellectual, artistic, and social achievement, and the tremendous cross-pollination among the leaders of those different disciplines.

Leonardo da Vinci was the quintessential Renaissance man — an engineer, a painter, a scientist — with a mind capable of assimilating ideas from multiple disciplines and pushing the envelope in multiple directions. That same capacity for acute observation, experimentation, and smart synthesis that is the hallmark of a Renaissance mind is in part the secret of Steve Jobs’s success. Steve has drawn from art, architecture, design, sociology, and computer science to build Apple into the most innovative and exciting company in Silicon Valley and perhaps even the world.

I believe in the decade ahead that the style of thinking that will have the maximum impact is this ability to assimilate ideas from across domains and disciplines and apply them to innovation and entrepreneurship, instincts already deeply woven into Silicon Valley’s fabric. In other words, it is the Renaissance mind that is likely to create the most important companies in Silicon Valley.

Rule #1: Look for disruptive change.
If you’re about to start on a new venture, ask yourself: What is becoming possible or necessary that wasn’t possible before? Is a new product or service able to take over an existing market or create a new market? When I co-founded LinkedIn the tech industry was in a deep depression. I looked at all the opportunities created by the Internet and had the idea that eventually everyone would need a professional profile online. The disruption was that people were able to directly reach the best candidates rather than hoping for responses from a listing in the paper or an ad on a Web site.

Rule #2: Aim big.
Regardless of whether a start-up is targeting a big idea or a small one, it will still require the same amount of blood, sweat and tears—so aim big! What is “big?” It is a new product or service that creates or dominates a significant market.

Rule #3: Build a network to magnify your company.
People tend to think that behind every great start-up is a single entrepreneur with a whiz-bang idea. The reality is great companies are built by a number of people with talent who are surrounded by amplifying networks. The most successful entrepreneurs bring in advisors, investors, collaborators and early customer relationships.

Rule #4: Plan for good luck and bad luck.
You should always assume you will have both good luck and bad luck with your new company. Good luck is not as simple as “it worked out.” Rather, this is when you discover a great opportunity and can quickly shift to go after it. Bad luck is what happens when your first idea doesn’t work. It doesn’t mean failure; it means you need to pursue plan B.

Rule #5: Maintain flexible persistence.
Very often entrepreneurs are given conflicting advice: “Be persistent! Stay committed to your vision!” or “Pivot on key data! Know when to change!” The challenge is to follow them both, but know which advice is most appropriate for which situation. You must know how to maintain flexible persistence.

Rule #6: Launch early enough that you are embarrassed by your first product release.
With my first startup, Socialnet.com, it took us nine months to launch the first product. That was a disastrous mistake. We wanted to have all the detailed functionality right away, including social controls to people could decide to connect or not with the people in their networks. We wanted everyone to “Ooh” and “Aaah” about how terrific the product was. We wasted a bunch of time and it put us months behind on more important problems that needed to be solved, such as how to get our product in the hands of millions of people. From that I learned, if you are not embarrassed by your first release, you’ve launched too late!

Rule #7: Aspire, but don’t drink your own Kool-Aid.
Target excellence, but be very careful about blind trust or belief in your theories. It is important to launch as early as you can in order to learn how your customers use your product or service. It is equally important to identify metrics that tell you if your aspirations and vision are on target. You should also get feedback from your network in order to iterate or pivot on the target, the product and/or the service. In other words, maintain your aspiration but always look for good perspective on how you are doing. It is very easy for creative innovators to get caught up in their own story rather than learning where they should be headed.

Rule #8: Having a great product is important but having great product distribution is more important.
I meet a lot of entrepreneurs who think the best product is the most important thing and that the best product should always win. What a lot of people fail to realize is that without great distribution, the product dies. How will you get your product in the hands of millions or hundreds of millions of people?

Rule #9: Pay close attention to culture and hires from the very beginning.
Your first hires set your culture, so make them good ones. These first people hire the next people and so on. The old wisdom was that you needed people with a decade more of experience in your start-up. The things a smart person learned a decade ago won’t help you now – you’re doing things that have never been done before, and the world and the competitive landscape are changing at hyper speeds. What you really need are people who can learn fast.

Rule #10: Rules of entrepreneurship are guidelines, not laws of nature.
Do not pay too much attention to rules set by other people. Entrepreneurs are inventors. They are successful when they make something work for the very first time. Sometimes in order to make something work, you will drive over the guardrail of one of these rules. Entrepreneurs sometimes just make new rules.

Reid Hoffman is Co-Founder and Chairman at LinkedIn and a partner at Greylock Partners. He is a member of the founding team at PayPal and has been an angel investor and adviser to dozens of organizations including Facebook, Zynga, Flickr and Last.FM. He currently serves on the boards of LinkedIn, Zynga, Shopkick, Kiva.org and Mozilla. His complete profile can be found at www.linkedin.com/in/reidhoffman.

In front of a crowded auditorium and a glowing overhead screen, Gross discussed his business incubator, which has given rise to such successful companies as Picasa, Overture and Citysearch.

While such famous guest speakers and panels make up a considerable portion of the E-Week schedule, which runs through Wednesday, March 2, Gross’ lecture-style presentation isn’t necessarily par for the course.

E-Week also serves as a launching pad for student start-ups to get their ideas out into the open, at the university that has spawned some of the most important tech companies in Silicon Valley.

Heard of Google?

The week-long, campus-wide event series is ultimately designed to encourage interaction between student entrepreneurs and potential investors, and to burnish Stanford’s credentials as a hub of tech and business innovation.

And while start-up conferences are a dime a dozen in Silicon Valley, with seemingly endless companies trotted out as can’t-miss targets for investors, E-Week organizers hope their event has one key differentiator: Early access to Stanford brainpower.

The event’s organizers believe that this alone is enough to attract high-profile investors hungry for that first piece of the action.

“There’s no shortage of companies or firms here in the Valley that would love to get on the inside and make contacts with students coming out of Stanford engineering, business or any other department,” explained Matt Harvey of the Stanford Technology Ventures Program (STVP), the event’s main organizer. “So many students go on to make major impacts in their fields–there’s a great deal of interest in what they’re up to.”

Perhaps the most notable event has been VC3, which took place Friday, giving students three minutes to pitch an idea to venture capitalists, after which they received three minutes of feedback.

But don’t expect a handful of Stanford students to walk away from VC3 with freshly cut checks in hand. Harvey noted that the event is geared more towards critiquing the early plans of start-ups and making initial introductions to investors.

“We try to offer a more holistic approach to starting up,” added Laura Chau, president of the Asia-Pacific Student Entrepreneurship Society, which sponsors the event. “Our goal for this is introductions, although a lot of times, after presentations, VC people will invite students back to their offices and have sessions.”

Chau cited one success story from last year’s event, commercial satellite company Skybox Imaging, which received funding following its presentation at VC3.

The event continues this week through Wednesday.

On Monday, for example, the Graduate School of Business Energy Club and Stanford’s Center for Entrepreneurial Studies will be co-sponsoring a presentation by Dan Yates, chief executive officer of OPOWER, a clean-tech company. The following day, E-Week will switch gears entirely as the Stanford Biodesign organization hosts its Medtech Career Fair.

The STVP will also be busy throughout the week as it hosts several sessions, most notably its daily “Coaches-On-Call” event–a sort of office hours for curious students who wish to ask questions and bounce ideas off industry experts.

In addition to matching entrepreneurs with investors, E-Week also encourages collaboration between disciplines, especially since Stanford students often become insulated in their respective departments.

“Sometimes there are people involved in the same sorts of interests and passions that may not know each other,” said Harvey. “Being introduced to people with similar ideas can be a great benefit for an aspiring entrepreneur.”

And, for many students, it will be the first exposure they have to the world of private financing, and to bigger fish who live outside the Stanford pond.

Barack Obama, June 4, 2009, Cairo, Egypt

In past 8 days at least 12 #Egyptians set themselves on fire out of desperation: unemployment, poverty, corruption. #Jan25 #Egyptprotest
@monaeltahawy, January 25, 2010, Cairo, Egypt

I will keep on saying this. Youth Entrepreneurship is key in creating a long lasting impact in the Arab world! #Jan25 #Lebanon #Sidibouzid
@habibh, January 25, 2010, Beirut, Lebanon

As we left Cairo ten days ago to travel home to the U.S. after taking part in the first delegation of the State Department’s Global Entrepreneurship Program, we saw Egyptians huddled around TVs in the airport watching video of the Tunisian uprising on Al Jazeera. We had no idea then that a single “slap to a man’s pride” in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia could lead days later to fierce protests in Cairo and the defacement of posters of Mubarak. While there is a good chance that the protests will settle down in the coming days in the face of a growing military presence, it’s clear that Egypt is at a tipping point–politically, socially and economically.

The pent-up frustration that Egyptians feel about the current regime is felt in different ways across the population. Our focus in Egypt was on a growing class of educated, tech-savvy entrepreneurs. While the frustration they feel may not be as intense as that of a fruit vendor subsisting on two dollars a day, there are a number of economic and cultural impediments that have historically limited their chances for success. Based on what we found, the promises of Egypt’s start-up scene lie in stark contrast to the desperation of its poor. The next few weeks and months will tell us a lot as to whether there is enough stability in the country to make external investors comfortable with its prospects.

Amr Ramadan is the kind of entrepreneur investors look for: he started his company Vimov with only $1,060 and begins his investor pitch by openly admitting the failure of his first product. His next product was a simulator for iPad developers that sold thousands of downloads at $32 each. His third product was the most popular paid weather app on the iPad, with over 350,000 users paying $.99 each. The next product in his pipeline, an ingenious take on personalized news, sounds even more promising. In Silicon Valley he would have a few hundred thousand dollars of angel money in the bank, and a couple of Series A term sheets from VCs in his pocket. But Amr is not in California, or even the United States. He is in Alexandria, Egypt, and he’s just one of a new class of young, educated and Internet-enabled entrepreneurs in the region.

We watched this narrative unfold firsthand in Egypt, which was selected as the pilot country of theU.S. State Department Global Entrepreneurship Program. The GEP is the government’s effort to promote and spur entrepreneurship around the world, led by passionate advocate (and successful entrepreneur) Steven Koltai. We met with a series of senior government officials, including Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif, who are committed to building a startup-friendly business environment. The Egyptian government recognizes that a nucleus of successful entrepreneurs is critical to catalyzing a sustainable middle class. While no single company is going to cure unemployment or increase the poverty line, an inspiring story of upward mobility could be an important populist spark.

Over the course of four days, we reviewed 32 presentations–culled from over 100 applications–from a variety of Web, mobile and hardware startups. Our delegation included the former CEO of CarMax; an investment banker, an MIT management scientist and a Silicon Valley VC. After two rounds of interviews, we awarded $20,000 to two companies: semantic search engine kngine and hardware accelerator SilMinds.

Haytham AbdElFadeel, the creator of kngine, is a 20-something hacker. His older brother works for him managing servers, while his father works from home as a day trader. “Search engine” are two of the most halting words known to investors. As a prominent VC emailed us, “a direct assault on Google doesn’t strike me as the right approach,” but Haytham doesn’t know any better than to pursue his passion for creating a better Google. He is using the prize money to purchase more servers, since the two desktop computers at his home are limiting his ability to index more of the web.

Dr. Hossam Fahmy is the co-founder and CTO of SilMinds, which has created the only decimal hardware financial accelerator card available in the market. He is a Stanford PhD, a professor at Cairo University, and he helped formulate the IEEE standard for floating point arithmetic. By shifting number processing from general software to specialized hardware, SilMind’s card increases server performance for certain financial service applications as much as 5X.

As an emerging market, Egypt doesn’t suffer from the irrational behavior seeping into the U.S. Internet market (unproven ad technologies raising $30mm, local discount services selling $20 gift cards for $10, etc). Instead, the start-up community in Egypt reminds us of the U.S. Internet market circa 1995, when it was tough to raise capital and when there was less glamour in being a technology entrepreneur; as opposed to the U.S. where Facebook raised $1b at a $50b valuation and “The Social Network” is poised to win an Oscar.

Some investors, sensing that the U.S. Internet equity is “priced to perfection,” are turning their sights towards emerging markets like Egypt. Usually, they look for foreign applications of successful domestic business models, like who is the “Facebook of Africa” or the “Groupon of Indonesia”? Many entrepreneurs (including freshly minted MBA grads returning to their native lands) are quick to adopt this strategy. About half of the start-ups that we saw in Cairo were localized versions of successful U.S. models.

The impressionability of these emerging market startups raises important questions. Although there may be a clear opportunity for the “Zynga of the Middle East” to get acquired in the near term by its namesake, one cannot build a sustainable business based on somebody else’s vision. Will those entrepreneurs who define themselves based on our business models look back at us, years from now, as startup imperialists? If so, will they shut us out from participating in their own economic transformations, just as they begin to scale? One need not look any further than China or Russia for cautionary tales of markets closing down to foreign investors at the most inopportune times.

There are a variety of reasons why Egypt could fail in its attempt to become a start-up mecca: poverty, political instability, poor education, lack of rule of law, difficulty to raise capital and cultural norms that do not embrace risk. For example, it takes two days to form a new company in Egypt, but takes two years to dissolve one, which is problematic because without bankruptcy reform, it is impossible for entrepreneurs to “fail fast” and move on to their next venture.

Despite these risks, there are a number of advantages that Egypt has in its favor: innovation is real, valuations are reasonable, engineering talent is available, real estate is cheap, and the government is motivated to help foster entrepreneurial success stories as a means of inspiring its disaffected youth. Egypt represents a market of more than 80mm people, and is the gateway to the broader MENA market of 320mm people (larger than US, Brazil or Russia). The region’s growth rates of mobile penetration and Internet usage are among the highest in the world.

In recent months, a few venture funds have started to finance these early stage opportunities: Arif Naqvi, founder of Abraaj Capital, the largest private equity firm in the region, recently announced multi-hundred million dollar funds dedicated to early and mid-cap technology companies in the Middle East; Ahmed Alfi, after two decades of successful investing in the United States, returned home to Cairo to form Sawari Ventures, complete with a SoMa style incubator housed in a classic 1940s building on the Nile.

Is it time to invest in Egyptian startups, or will the current political and social instability inhibit exits and investment returns? Who knows if companies like kngine and SilMinds will ever exhibit the same power in Egypt that Google and Intel exhibit in the US–what matters now is that there are Egyptian entrepreneurs with the drive and skill sets necessary to compete in global technology markets. With the Egyptian government’s support, and the organic growth of the population and its technology adoption, we believe that a framework is now in place for Egypt and the broader MENA region to emerge as an important market for early stage investment.

Seth Goldstein @seth is a San Francisco based angel investor and start-up entrepreneur. Christopher M. Schroeder is a Washington, D.C.- and New York-based angel investor and CEO of the online health start-up healthcentral.com.

“The true takeaway for me was that entrepreneurship and creativity, however complicated, difficult or tortured to execute, are perhaps the most important drivers of business today and the growth of our economy.”

– Eduardo Saverin, Facebook’s estranged co-founder, says he found inspiration in watching “The Social Network” (in which he is sympathetically portrayed as getting shafted by Mark Zuckerberg).

The first thing to strike you about the pair of Stanford University graduate students (pictured here) who made the banned and then unbanned news-reading iPad app, Pulse News Reader, is how they look like an advertisement for all that is good about entrepreneurship.

Sweet-natured, slightly naive, energetic and very product focused, they are the last techies you’d choose to be the ones who got the New York Times (NYT) in enough of a tizzy to force Apple to pull the aggregator from its App Store.

BoomTown met Akshay Kothari, 23, and 22-year-old Ankit Gupta this afternoon at a hotel near the Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco, where Pulse was called out yesterday by name by Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs for excellence only hours before the company had to stop offering it to users.

At first, the shy pair said they did not want to call attention to themselves or rail on Apple or the Times. After much convincing by me, they agreed to talk about their unusual situation in the video below, focusing on the product and its origins.

It started out simple enough, creating Pulse for the Launch Pad class at Stanford, which requires students to develop and put out a product. Both students are at Stanford’s Institute of Design and created a company called Alphonso Labs when Pulse was done.

It took them only four weeks to develop and, within weeks after it was approved for sale in the App Store, Pulse became a red-hot paid seller for the fast-growing tablet device–putting Pulse at No. 1 at times on the list of paid apps on iTunes.

In fact, the app was so well regarded that the Times wrote a rave about it last week.

The high culminated for Kothari and Gupta when Jobs named Pulse first in a list of the most-promising apps for the iPad in his keynote speech at the WWDC yesterday.

Unfortunately, that was the last hurrah for them, since the business side of the New York Times–after seeing the article about Pulse in the Times–had already fired off a letter to Apple demanding that the app be taken down.

“The Pulse News Reader app, makes commercial use of the NYTimes.com and Boston.com RSS feeds, in violation of their Terms of Use,” wrote Times lawyer Richard Samson to Apple on June 3. “Thus, the use of our content is unlicensed. The app also frames the NYTimes.com and Boston.com websites in violation of their respective Terms of Use.”

Sources at the Times said that while there are many other similar readers for online news that do exactly the same thing, Pulse’s combined framing and use of the paper’s RSS feed for commercial gain–as well as, let’s be frank, its popularity–caused execs to make what looks like a pretty boneheaded move.

(Could they have called the pair first? Of course they could have, but they did not.)

So, after the Times lawyer wrote Apple, Apple wrote Kothari and Gupta, telling them of the removal of Pulse from the App Store: “The New York Times Company believes your application named ‘Pulse News Reader’ infringes The New York Times Company’s rights.”

Today, though, the app was suddenly back up with no comment from Apple.

A Times spokesperson said this might be a mistake and that the media giant did not know what had happened.

Neither did Gupta and Kothari, who said the app on sale now is the same as the old one, although they had submitted a new version without the Times as a default earlier today.

“It’s a mystery,” said Gupta. “Although it is sad that we were off the App Store right when people might have heard about us.”

The next step? Who knows?

UPDATE: Sources close to the situation said that the Pulse iPad app was reposted because the new version submitted earlier today does not automatically include the Times properties and that older versions sold will soon be updated.

Other sources also noted that the Times has had issues with many other third-party news readers in the past, though not one as visible as Pulse.

And it remains to be seen if Pulse’s creators face other irked content owners or not.

In any case, one thing is still certain: Like its creators, the innovative Pulse is sweet, and it is on sale for $3.99 at iTunes.

For now, that is.

Until the next twisty development, here’s the video interview of Kothari and Gupta:

[Photo by All Things Digital intern Drake Martinet--taken before the recent controversy.]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100608/meet-the-two-grad-students-who-freaked-out-the-nyt-the-pulse-ipad-app-creators-speak/feed/ 4 http://allthingsd.com/20100506/report-card-how-about-that-annual-report/ http://allthingsd.com/20100506/report-card-how-about-that-annual-report/#comments Thu, 06 May 2010 12:00:00 +0000 Geoffrey A. Fowler http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=24720 Here is one indicator of the allure of Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial culture: Diane Keng just launched her third start-up–and she is still in high school.

In March, the 18-year-old launched Internet company MyWeboo.com to help teens manage their digital lives and social-network identities in one place. She is now pitching the company to venture capitalists, and earlier this week presented at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco.

Yet each morning, Ms. Keng also heads to Cupertino’s Monta Vista High School for a schedule of classes that includes Advanced Placement economics and government. In the afternoons, the high-school senior squeezes in varsity badminton practice.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100506/report-card-how-about-that-annual-report/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20091202/walts-digg-dialogg-with-fcc-chairman-julius-genachowski/ http://allthingsd.com/20091202/walts-digg-dialogg-with-fcc-chairman-julius-genachowski/#comments Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:27:06 +0000 Walt Mossberg http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/?p=367 Walt recently sat down to interview FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, and asked him the top questions submitted via Digg.com. Check out the entire Digg Dialogg right here (you can also find it on Digg.com):

For brevity’s sake, we’ve also embedded the trailer:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20091202/walts-digg-dialogg-with-fcc-chairman-julius-genachowski/feed/ 7 http://allthingsd.com/20090504/yahoo-and-microsoft-deal-progress-meaningful-plus-the-deal-team-rosters/ http://allthingsd.com/20090504/yahoo-and-microsoft-deal-progress-meaningful-plus-the-deal-team-rosters/#comments Tue, 05 May 2009 02:11:22 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=13164

Recently, BoomTown reported that talks between Microsoft and Yahoo had gotten “hot and heavy.”

That mood seems to be continuing, as many sources close to the situation on both sides said that the pair are coming ever closer to a search and advertising partnership deal.

Said one source: “It’s closer than it has ever been…we’re finally talking about the how rather than the if.”

“It’s meaningful,” added another source. “The fact that there is even progress and engagement, after so many failed attempts between us, says a lot.”

Indeed, it remains a good sign that there seems to be a lot of engagement between the two sides of late, and some sources think a deal could even be struck within the next few weeks.

As I also reported last week, the latest idea is one in which Yahoo (YHOO) would take over both search and display advertising sales and Microsoft (MSFT) would run the tech for both behind the scenes.

It’s not clear if trading other assets–such as content–or an investment in Yahoo by Microsoft are being considered too.

In any case, any such deal would be a major shift for both companies in their business focus and would also tether them tightly together.

Many think they need to be tethered, given that Google (GOOG) overwhelmingly dominates the lucrative search market. Yahoo is strong in display, although that market has been harder hit in the recent economic downturn.

But whether or not Yahoo and Microsoft can come to a partnership agreement–given the deep complexities of the situation, the wariness over controlling key technologies and tense history between them–is a big if, of course.

Still, sources on both sides seem more positive than ever before.

Microsoft execs, for their part, report that new Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz is much more straightforward to work with than former CEO Jerry Yang.

And Yahoo’s side seems convinced that Microsoft appears more willing to make a deal happen and is more flexible on terms than in previous encounters.

Both sides are using very small teams to discuss the possible partnership, mostly in Silicon Valley. Some of the Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft team, in fact, are in the Bay area now.

Sources said those involved on the Microsoft side include: Digital head Qi Lu, a former Yahoo tech star; top M&A and strategy exec Charles Songhurst; Online Audience Business SVP Yusuf Mehdi; and several others.

On the Yahoo side: North America EVP Hilary Schneider, who leads the efforts; General Counsel Michael Callahan; top Yahoo ad operations techie Mark Morrissey, who was key to its revival of the Panama ad system and has recently been leading product development on its new ad platform; finance SVP and Chief Treasury Officer Mike Gupta; and Products EVP and CTO Ari Balogh, although he is more in the background.

Of course, the only two execs who will matter, if these teams finally manage to hash out details, are Yahoo’s Bartz and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, as well the both companies’ boards.

Interestingly, Ballmer is slated to be at Stanford University’s Memorial Auditorium to give a lecture on innovation and entrepreneurship as part of the Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders Seminar on Wednesday afternoon.

Whether Ballmer is seeing Bartz on this trip or not is not clear.

But he has to at some point. The approval of a deal–which could be struck soon, if terms can be reached–will be entirely their call.

[Postcard image courtesy of CarbonClothing on Zazzle.com.]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090504/yahoo-and-microsoft-deal-progress-meaningful-plus-the-deal-team-rosters/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20090430/the-recessions-effect-on-entrepreneurship/ http://allthingsd.com/20090430/the-recessions-effect-on-entrepreneurship/#comments Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:49:29 +0000 Pui-Wing Tam http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=11346 How has the recession affected entrepreneurship? So far, it’s helped to drive it up.

That’s according to a new study from the Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City-based organization. The study, out Thursday, found that an average of 320 out of 100,000 adults created a new business each month last year even as the recession took hold, up from 300 out of 100,000 adults in 2007.

That pattern is similar to the last downturn earlier this decade, when entrepreneurship levels also rose during the tech bust.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090430/the-recessions-effect-on-entrepreneurship/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090408/trueslant-tests-another-model-of-web-journalism/ http://allthingsd.com/20090408/trueslant-tests-another-model-of-web-journalism/#comments Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:08:03 +0000 Walter S. Mossberg http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20090408/trueslant-tests-another-model-of-web-journalism/ As newspapers, magazines and TV stations face dire economic challenges, and journalism moves increasingly online, debates are raging about how best to preserve quality news and commentary while still making money.

There’s lots of experimentation with different approaches. Many journalists, old and new, are operating as stand-alone bloggers, but finding it hard to make a living. Web advertising has weakened with the economy, and often can’t cover the costs of expensive reporting. A couple of respected traditional publications have successfully attracted large numbers of paid subscribers online, but many others who have tried have failed.

Meanwhile, advertisers also are scrambling to figure out the best way to sell their products online, in a manner that both attracts potential customers and blends in well with the content and style of news sites. And publishers are trying to capture the conversation and sense of community that permeate services like Facebook and Twitter.

This week, a new Web news site is entering the fray, with a novel approach to journalistic entrepreneurship, new forms of advertising, and an effort to blend journalism and social networking.

The site, called True/Slant, at trueslant.com, is opening its doors via an odd preliminary status it calls an “open alpha.” This means it’s rough around the edges, and not yet taking in revenue, but hopes to attract enough participation to hone its design and operation.

True/Slant is run by a former news executive at America Online who worked at a variety of publications, including The Wall Street Journal. It covers a wide range of topics, such as politics, culture, sports, business, health, science and food.

It is launching with 65 journalists, or “knowledge experts,” assigned to specific topics. Each of these contributors gets a page to house their journalism and, it is hoped, an active social network of followers who will regularly discuss the articles they read there. Each page also will feature headlines of stories elsewhere on the Web selected by the contributors. These “headline grabs” link back to the originating outside site.

The initial group of contributors includes current or former writers for publications such as the Financial Times, Rolling Stone, the New York Times, Time magazine and the Boston Globe.

Readers can go directly to the page of their favorite contributor, but the site’s home page will knit together popular content and contributors, and each reader will be able to track multiple topics and contributors through a streaming feed called “I’m following.”

True/Slant will run regular Web ads throughout. But, in a highly unusual move, the site plans to offer advertisers their own entire pages where they can run blogs and try to attract a network of followers. These will have the same design and features of the journalists’ pages, but will be labeled as ad content.

The journalists are paid a small amount, but the plan is to turn them into minipublishers under the True/Slant umbrella. They will be offered a share of the advertising and sponsorship revenues their individual pages generate and, in some cases, equity in True/Slant, which is backed by venture capital.

These contributors are allowed to keep writing elsewhere, either online or in traditional media, and even to promote these outside efforts on True/Slant. But they are expected to post original commentary and analysis to True/Slant. They also are allowed to arrange for their own advertising or sponsorships, in addition to what True/Slant can sell, and even, in some cases, to add other authors to their pages.

In another unusual move, the contributors also are required to actively engage with readers on the site. They must post a minimum number of comments in reader discussions about their articles and curate the comments, giving prominence to the most interesting. They are even expected to comment on each other’s posts.

This required engagement is an attempt to capture some of the excitement of a social network, and it ties in directly with a contributor’s success. On the home page, and elsewhere throughout the site, True/Slant promotes not only the most popular contributors, but also the most active ones. High rankings in these categories can lead to higher traffic on each contributor’s page, and, indirectly, to higher income.

Readers who are active commenters can also gain prominence on the site, especially if those comments are popular or called out for special attention. A front-page panel will highlight the most active commenters, and the most called-out comments.

The layout of the site is clean and handsome, a decent effort to meld a news site and a social network. One layout flaw the company hopes to fix: There’s no easy way to find a list of all topics, only those it considers hot at any moment.

It’s way too early to know if True/Slant will succeed. For one thing, it is still dependent on advertising, not subscriptions. And ethical questions could arise, because the site’s operators don’t edit or preapprove the content, and the model of blended journalism and advertising could prove problematic.

But it’s another example of how the Web is changing traditional media, and might be worth a look.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090408/trueslant-tests-another-model-of-web-journalism/feed/ 0