Noah Kagan was the product manager for the original facebook mobile, then went on to join the core team at Mint to do marketing, and is now making sure game & app developers get paid with Gambit.

Two of the companies you worked with, Facebook & Mint, were both web base services that benefit greatly from a mobile app.   How quickly did they recognize the importance of mobile and how was the process of taking a successful product and porting it for use on a mobile device?

At Facebook we recognized the mobile necessity way before the iPhone became popular. A lot of the product decisions were out of necessity, we wanted to look up people and add friends on our regular razr phones and smart phones. At Mint it was more of a maintaining and promoting the brand. Many of your financial decisions are made away from a computer so having an overview of your finances comes in handy. Porting them to the mobile device was very tricky for both companies. Fundamentally, mobile is about providing real-time information that is relevant and only what the user actually needs. With Facebook we thought people would get bored and phones are great for time killing so we added features like random photo browsing and some easter eggs around special types of pokes. The main thing to consider for the mobile experience is what really matters and why does the user need it in real-time.

Do you think the future of mobile is going to be dominated by existing players meshing their basic web presence with mobile or is it likely that the new mobile only developers will continue to hold their own?

So far the success of mobile has been from existing players porting over the web traffic /products to a mobile presence. The mobile app stores, primarily iphone are decentralizing this away from the existing players. I think mobile in America is about 5 years behind internationally what it could be doing and it is an open season for new companies to establish a presence on the phone.

Brendan Lim is the director of mobile solutions at Intridea.  He’s going to be giving an intro talk about the Palm Pre’s SDK.

How do you see palm’s entry fitting into the competitive marketplace for mobile apps?

I believe Palm’s App Catalog has a really good chance at being successful.  The Mojo SDK has a low barrier to entry due to the fact that if you know HTML and JavaScript, you could essentially start writing your own apps relatively easily.  At first, Palm’s App Catalog will only cater to the Pre, but there’s information that they will also include apps for the old Palm OS.  Also, due to the limitations of the API, I doubt we will see many applications for the Pre that have to do with any high-end gaming.

Would you recommend programmers building apps for all platforms or just start with one? And would you develop first for the palm platform?

I would recommend starting off with what you’re comfortable with, at first.  I started off with Android development, then quickly went to iPhone development, and just recently, Palm.  I was already familiar and comfortable with Java, so it made Android feel more at home for me.  Also, since I have an iPhone myself and because we’ve had to do iPhone development for clients, I chose to dive into development on that platform as well.  Palm’s barrier to entry is rather low since you only really need to have an understanding of HTML and JavaScript to get started, so I can see many people starting with the Palm platform once the SDK access opens up.

Good software design and sales begin with a thorough understanding of the underlying business process the software is to enable. Layering software on a misunderstood and broken business process only exasperates operational issues and masks root causes.. Software should GREATLY impact the overall performance of any process, not hinder.

I have spent some time in the software business as a product manager, several years running a tech investment firm and now run a health care services company. My first love has always been solving problems using process engineering, cost accounting and total quality initiatives as they relate to business operations. Most recently, I have jumped into a health care practice with the eye of improving the operations. The first thing I noticed was how broken the process was and how poorly designed and implemented technology (software) simply confused and compounded the issues and almost never met the stated goals and expectations. Some of this failure fell squarely on our shoulders – we simply did not have a good grasp on the process. But, the companies selling into this space NEVER ask any process questions and in fact the notion of “work flow” is completely foreign to them. They did what most software comes do, sell features and functionality and promised new and exciting technologies to come.

The first thing we did was go BACK to paper and document the process. But first, we sat and watched the people work and kept our mouths closed. Spend a week just sitting and watching — hard to do, but you will learn much more. Interestingly enough, if you ask someone how they do something, they will give you a detailed set of steps, but if you sit and watch you will see things they missed or little go-arounds they failed to mention.

So, this brings me to the notion that software is a product, or more accurately, my thought that it is NOT a product, but merely an enabling technological component of the process. What we need is a software sales person that is a process/workflow consultant that can fix our process and then apply their technology; I guarantee that any sales person who uses this skill will KILL their quota. The opposite is usually true — sales guy promises nirvana, operator is desperate and buys the hype, software is installed, process is worse, more complicated and takes a PhD to fix. That sucks, pure and simple.

My advice to early stage software companies is to invest in process (lean) expertise and go WATCH how your customers MAKE MONEY. Then document how your enabling technology will make them MORE MONEY. Stop with quotas, calls, etc. Put the customer’s process first and the rest will follow.

I also hear this from many people within Kentucky, often from entrepreneurs looking for funding.  The fact is Kentucky has advantages over places like silicon valley such as the cost of talent and other costs of doing business.  If you cant raise funding here than bootstrap it etc.  I would also add to Fred’s list a Lexington success, Exstream Software, Dan Kloiber and Davis Marksbury built that startup into a billion dollar company building software in Kentucky.

The lesson is pick where you want to live and work and then build your business, the rest is just a crock.

What is your company’s 30 second elevator pitch?

Bexion Pharmaceuticals is developing a first-in-class biologic drug to cure cancer.  Our drug is based on a human protein that creates a surprise and lethal attack on cancer cells.  Our drug targets certain membrane patches that seem to exist on all cancer cells.  Bexion has demonstrated both tumor targeting and potential treatment for a broad range of human cancers.  Our initial focus is on gliomas and pancreatic cancer.  The active biologic is expressed human Saposin C (present in all of our cells), which are formed into unique cancer targeting nanovesicles. Beyond intrinsic anti-tumor activity, SapC-DOPS has very strong development potential as a diagnostic imaging reagent and tumor targeting drug delivery vehicle for siRNA and antisense-based anti-cancer products.

What has been your company’s funding & growth so far?

We’ve been largely supported by our own pockets, Ohio and Kentucky state grants, and also Federal grants.  Our founding team has grown to include Paul Correa, PhD as VP of Operations and it is our intention to remain small and efficient for the near term future.

What is the outlook for your business in the next eighteen months?

Bexion Pharmaceuticals is looking forward to opening a Series A round this summer and initiating IND-enabling studies before the end of the year.

What attracted you to entrepreneurship? 

All of us have had satisfying and successful careers in big pharma, but have always had a strong desire to innovate and make a difference. We think the best way to achieve that is through entrepreneurship.

What have been the advantages and disadvantages of starting a high tech business in Kentucky?

No surprises, except pleasant ones! Among the disadvantages is scarcity of similar biotech-oriented companies, especially in Northern Kentucky where we are located…although our partners are creating them through bioLOGIC Corp, where our office and lab reside. Among advantages are a largely entrepreneurially minded business community, cost efficient location, and very supportive local and state government. We’re benefiting from Kentucky grants and incentive programs that are working really well for us. Down the road and with our growing success, we want to do our part to support education, workforce development and community service.

Starborn Solutions is a startup founded by Randy Lynn.  Randy is an IBM guy who has built an impressive team and is taking on the challenge of e-medical records for the home health industry.  Randy spoke to me about his startup.

What is your company’s 30 second elevator pitch?

An average per day cost for a hospital stay is above $5,000. An average per visit cost for a home health visit is about $130. Whether it is privately or federally funded, home health will remain and will likely grow as a priority contributor to the complete health care team.

Starborn, recognizing this trend, and cost savings in the delivery of health care has studied, analyzed and concluded that the software and services are as much as twenty years behind where they could be for home health. There are certain operating characteristics of home health that are challenges unlike any other health care setting, yet at the same time it is those characteristics that offer an opportunity to drive efficiency, and move the quality of care beyond what only a few years ago was even thought possible.

We need to implement applications that filter data so that it becomes information, that transform information into knowledge, and that ultimately provide clinicians with wisdom based on that knowledge exactly when they need it. The existing software and systems were conceived and built decades ago. Not only do the agencies need us, the patients need us;  now more than ever is there an opportunity to affect not only the bottom line, but the quality of life.

That is what drives us; the knowledge we can apply our technical skills to drive positive outcomes for the patient.

What has been your company’s funding & growth so far?

We are applying our software design and development experience, to the business domain of Home Health driving our software architecture and technical prototypes. The team is 9 strong right now, with the expectation to grow according to adoption of our product and processes in the home health industry. We are prototyping our first-generation products and services while developing customer relationships. Many have given advice, and the common thread is the importance of engaging your potential customers in the collaboration in design and validation of your product and services.

We have been approved for a Kentucky Enterprise Fund investment and  We have made numerous presentations to various investment groups. Times have changed for the technical startup  especially one built on software. Gone are the days of multi-million dollar budgets. It is our minds and ideas that are of the most value and the capital investment costs represent the time in exchange for our full-time effort. In that regard, we’re fortunate to be able to move our ideas forward with lower costs than other types of services or products, we could be and likely are, the traditional garage-startup (think Apple, Google and Microsoft).

What is the outlook for your business in the next eighteen months?

Starborn is focused on building customer relationships, building a technical prototype and then ultimately going through a BETA cycle with several customers. We cannot afford an extended development cycle and to that extent we’re focused on solving the most pressing need for home health. That is important; identifying the most pressing need and providing an economical solution. It is not enough to just be cost comparable, or even save a few dollars. You have to demonstrate substantial value – and when it comes to health care, you have to demonstrate an improvement in the quality of care.

What attracted you to entrepreneurship?

I believe in our product, I believe in our talent, and I believe in the future of home health. More importantly I love the idea that I can apply a passion of computers and software design and have a positive impact on a patient’s life.

So many business applications are just an abstract interface, a cog in a giant wheel. It’s difficult to recognize your value, assess your contributions to the world. It is a bit esoteric, but I think it is a characteristic of creative individuals to create not for the sake of making money, but for the sake of creation itself. It just so happens, that in this case our talent, passions and the market needs are aligned.

What have been the advantages and disadvantages of starting a high tech business in Kentucky?

One of our unique challenges is our distributed team. We have partners that live in Texas, Illinois, and Virginia complicating the design and prototyping ; but not an obstacle we cannot overcome. That is a unique challenge for our company that would exist regardless of the state we were incorporated in.

There is money in Kentucky, and there is talent; our challenge is embracing the risk/reward nature of entrepreneurship and connecting the two parties. It is more than a marketing campaign, it is more than an ordinance, legislation or an economic campaign; you cannot just create some innovation center, or business incubator. Some may remember the Silicon Central Conference started back in 2000. That conference is a classic example of the history of technology in Lexington and our efforts to not only garner local support, but advertise to the nation that we are building an innovators Mecca. We are building a culture that fosters, cultivates and expects innovation, and creativity. We have come a long way, and have a long way to go, but the first steps were taken many years ago.

Moria Gunn of NPR’s TechNation & Biotech Nation

Daniel Roth with Wired Magazine

Marc Yu- Music prodigy

The full agenda is here

Order Tickets here

Also check out dinner under the stars

What is your 30 second elevator pitch?

AllTranz will be a leader in the development of innovative pharmaceutical products delivered via unique dermal solutions to treat a variety of neuroscience disorders. AllTranz leverages proprietary technology to modify existing chemical entities with proven clinical outcomes to produce important new pharmaceutical products that extend patent franchises.

What Stage of development are you at? what do the next 12-18 months look like?

In order to take the lead product through Phase II Clinical Trials in 2011, the Company anticipates a total funding of approximately $20 million. We believe that the Company will have a range of exit opportunities after it attains seminal milestones, such as completion of Phase II Clinical Trials, post the $20 million investment. With a pipeline of innovative products, we believe that AllTranz will have a range of exit opportunities, including potential licensing, partnering or an IPO, as well as the revenue stream generated through the launch of the lead product in 2015. The total financing sought at this time is $8 to $10 million dollars in order to complete the lead product Phase I Clinical Trial and move two other products through preclinical toxicology testing.

What funding/growth have you had to date?

We have raised over $1.2 million from the Bluegrass Angels, Kentucky Seed capital fund, Commonwealth seed fund and others.  Our lead product is a proprietary synthetic cannabinoid for moderate to severe pain delivered via gel. The initial indication for the lead product is for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

The stereotype of the “angel investor” is a retired wealthy entrepreneur who sees potential, asks tough questions, takes a large stake, and in a few years makes a massive return in an IPO. This outsider fills the gap between the venture capitalist and the professional investor, swooping in with cash and expertise to bring dreams to fruition.
Unfortunately, Shane observes, this figure bears no relationship to reality. In Fool’s Gold , he draws on hard data from the Federal Reserve and other sources to paint the first reliable group portrait of the lionized angel investors. Surprisingly, he finds that they are fewer, contribute less, and involve themselves in fewer start-ups than the conventional wisdom suggests. Most angels typically still have their day jobs, make investments of $10,000 or less, and take little or no role in assisting entrepreneurs build their companies. Few of the companies they put money into arrive at IPOs, let alone massive returns. But angels can play a critical role, he writes, if the fantasy is abandoned by all concerned. Drawing on his rich store of data, Shane offers recommendations to entrepreneurs and angels alike for the most productive use of angel investing, and suggests how policymakers can encourage it. Particularly promising are angel groups, which pool knowledge and money for wiser and more productive investments. In groups, angels can rely on each other’s expertise, share the labor of performing due diligence, and generally insure that their money is being placed–and used–wisely. Fostering the formation of such groups may be the single most important thing that government can do to boost angel investing.

Shane’s research focuses on angel investing and entrepreneurship through the broad brush, however, his books should be required reading for policy makers.

The top 50 ranked metros in US & Canada are as follows:

Total high-tech results* Top fifty ranked by 2007 tech pole scores   

(Current rank 2003 rank Metro area Employment (thousands) LQ Share of North American wages Tech pole scores)   

1 1 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 244.0 4.6 5.7% 100.0  

2 3 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA 226.3 2.7 3.2% 46.4  

3 2 Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA 163.6 3.4 2.8% 45.2  

4 5 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 275.7 2.0 4.2% 41.8  

5 4 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA 376.4 1.6 4.2% 40.2  

6 6 Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX 187.7 1.5 2.4% 21.8  

7 7 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 136.4 1.8 2.0% 19.3  

8 11 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA 147.0 1.7 1.6% 17.7  

9 9 New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ 262.0 0.9 3.9% 16.8  

10 8 San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA 106.4 1.8 2.0% 16.1  

11 13 Philadelphia, PA 145.4 1.3 1.9% 14.4  

12 12 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 164.1 1.1 1.9% 14.0  

13 10 Edison, NJ 103.5 1.7 1.5% 13.9  

14 14 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL 200.0 0.9 2.5% 13.3  

15 25 Toronto, ON 157.4 1.1 1.3% 12.5  

16 15 Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA 98.0 1.6 1.4% 12.1  

17 18 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 131.0 1.2 1.5% 11.9  

18 17 Denver-Aurora, CO 107.5 1.5 1.3% 11.9  

19 27 Montreal, QC 128.2 1.3 1.0% 11.8  

20 16 Austin-Round Rock, TX 81.5 1.8 1.1% 11.6  

21 21 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 151.7 1.0 1.9% 11.6  

22 29 Huntsville, AL 42.5 3.5 0.4% 10.5  

23 20 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 124.9 1.1 1.4% 10.4  

24 31 Wichita, KS 50.6 2.9 0.5% 10.3  

25 23 Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick, MD 67.8 2.0 0.9% 10.2  

26 24 Durham, NC 44.4 2.6 0.7% 9.7  

27 28 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 88.1 1.5 1.0% 9.6  

28 19 Boulder, CO 34.0 3.5 0.5% 9.3  

29 26 Newark-Union, NJ-PA 84.9 1.4 1.3% 9.3  

30 22 Warren-Farmington Hills-Troy, MI 90.6 1.3 1.1% 9.0  

31 30 Kansas City, MO-KS 82.2 1.4 0.9% 8.4  

32 32 Baltimore-Towson, MD 92.9 1.2 1.1% 8.3  

33 35 St. Louis, MO-IL 85.1 1.1 0.9% 6.7  

34 44 Salt Lake City, UT 54.8 1.5 0.5% 5.6  

35 36 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 76.9 1.0 0.7% 5.6  

36 64 Vancouver, BC 69.5 1.1 0.5% 5.6  

37 66 Ottawa, ON 42.8 1.8 0.4% 5.4  

38 34 Raleigh-Cary, NC 45.7 1.5 0.6% 5.3  

39 39 Albuquerque, NM 39.3 1.7 0.5% 5.2  

40 33 Nassau-Suffolk, NY 71.8 1.0 0.8% 5.1  

41 40 Indianapolis, IN 58.9 1.1 0.7% 4.9  

42 38 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 57.5 1.1 0.6% 4.8  

43 46 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 63.6 1.0 0.7% 4.7  

44 47 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 48.4 1.3 0.6% 4.7  

45 50 Columbus, OH 57.0 1.0 0.6% 4.4  

46 45 Pittsburgh, PA 63.3 0.9 0.6% 4.3  

47 41 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 39.0 1.5 0.5% 4.3  

48 49 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 26.3 2.1 0.3% 4.1  

49 42 Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI 35.0 1.5 0.5% 4.1  

50 37 Colorado Springs, CO 27.9 1.8 0.4% 4.0  

Sources: BLS, Moody’s Economy.com, Statistics Canada. *Note: Due to a lack of recent data, Mexico was excluded from these rankings. An analysis of Mexico’s state-level performance, based on 2003 data, is found later