Rambling late night thoughts.
There is a new DaveNet up. In it, Dave says:
We're stuck behind a horribly inefficient system for trying out new ideas. A random Hollywood movie gets much more funding than a breakthrough software idea. That seems out of whack to me. The venture capital industry doesn't get money into the hands of the unemployed technologists in Silicon Valley. We could do so much better than we are doing. There are so many people who now would appreciate a good job with a steady salary and a health plan. OK, the VCs don't want to make that kind of investment. Who does??
Some thoughts on this:
1) Would an independent grant like system work in Silicon Valley for new start ups? What about an incubator that offered management advice as well as funding, with older, experienced hands offering insights and guidance to the young bucks? Since it looks like many retirees may well have to start working soon thanks to the crash, this would be a good chance for them to share their knowledge while making a living.
2) Getting VC into people's hands is harder now than just about ever right now, I would imagine. I think a lot of people got burned who were (rashly) buying snake oil, and now they won't even buy aspirin. This may well serve as a return to the garage development model that is currently running in the world of gaming, where companies Like Rockstar and GarageGames serve to get promising teams building small games, and then grow a market based on the sequels to said software, as well as expanding to different platforms. Could a company like this work to launch subsidiaries that self manage? Who is going to invest the cash in these start ups? It's not the existing VCs, so maybe a new model needs to be built to make things happen.
Should they talent scout like professional sports teams for their team members? Are they better off letting the talent come to them, panning for gold in the silt of the river? Friend of a friend recommendations? Contracting agencies? Most of the agencies I know of are bone dry when it comes to placing personnel, as companies do not want to pay the fees for placing people. What about the hollywood model, with agencies, and casting calls? Sit a programmer down and have him show you what to he can do with some code in a short period of time, a designer show you how to improve the layout of a page/interface. Alternately, have a studio system in place with people who are contractually obligated to work on a "five picture deal", and when they are not actively programming/designing, they are in training to improve and sharpen their skills.
3) Why does it cost so much to build a new app? You need hardware, sure, and software/tools. But people need to eat, and go to the dentist, and their doctors, and they need a place to live as well. If housing is outrageous, no matter how lovely the area, people are not going to flock to work there. At the same time, if the place is a cultural cesspool, people are not going to want to live there either, even if the rates are cheap. The Silicon Valley area (my experience is mostly San Jose/Los Gatos) has incredible weather, and I'd love to live there, but the prices are outrageous for what my meager salary could cover. Regardless, health care for a start up can be expensive since it lacks the economy of scale that you would have with a large organization. Using the studio model described above, all the subdivisions can save by using the same payroll, billing, and benefit programs, allowing the wholly owned subsidiaries to benefit from being a part of the larger company. Aside: How does Activision handle benefits, if at all, for their various studios? Do they leverage the size of their organization for the benefit of all their divisions/studios?
It's now a day after I started writing this (I'm on the east coast) and I must get some rest, but I think I have put in enough to be chewed on for a little while at least. Goodnight all.
12:04:27 AM 
|
|
