@JoeTaylorLand

What if Star Trek did the Royle Family?

2013-01-19T00:23:00.000Z

Review - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

2012-12-17T00:01:00.003Z

Should you watch the first instalment of The Hobbit? Unless you loathe orcs, trolls, goblins and wizards (oh, and poorly cute hedgehogs); my advice is a resounding "yes". Don't hang back for the DVD - find the biggest screen you can, take a cushion and settle down for nearly three hours of Jackson-ised Tolkien, the like of which you have never seen before.

The level of detail on-screen is utterly absorbing and the CGI is (mostly) leaps and bounds ahead of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, Peter Jackson's re-imagination of Middle Earth using the latest cinematic gadgetry has generated a decidedly mixed response from the critics. The use of 3D is certainly less than mind-blowing. Sure, all the usual 3D tricks are present - arrows popping out of the screen, boulders narrowly missing your head - but, any contemporary movie can (and does) do this. The Hobbit is not enhanced by a 3D rendering in the way that Avatar managed.

Equally, the use of high frame rate cameras has produced a very unusual looking film. Movies are usually shot at 24 fps (frames per second). Peter Jackson opted to shoot The Hobbit using 48 fps. Doubling the frame rate enhances the 3D presentation of a movie by showing each eye a 24 fps image. Scenes are sharper and motion blur is substantially reduced. Slow motion scenes particular are more fluid. But, and it's a big but, our eyes are used to a more 'cinematic' treatment, slightly less fluid and slightly less 'real'. At times, The Hobbit looks almost too real - rather like a TV drama. Fast moving scenes can sometimes feel a bit odd, as if characters are moving too quickly and unnaturally. Arguably, a fantasy movie should look anything but life-like. My advice is to watch the theatrical release in 3D at 48 fps (at an IMAX) and then buy the 2D 24 fps blu-ray when it is released (no doubt just before next instalment of The Hobbit in 2013).

Let's put the technological stuff to one side and concentrate on the actual movie. Don't worry, I will not reveal any massive spoilers. The Hobbit takes place before the Lord of the Rings and was written by Tolkien as a children's book, much shorter and less involved. A small chap is coerced by a wizard into joining a quest to retrieve a jewel from a dragon. He joins with thirteen dwarves and off they go. It's the classic tale of a the meek inheriting the earth. Innocence over evil. Loyalty over cruelty.

The tone is generally lighter than LOTR and the dialogue generally more comical. There are also songs. I must admit to skipping the songs when reading the book. Thankfully, there are only a couple in the movie version. Jackson spends a great deal of time in setting things up, even throwing in cameos from LOTR characters (which is kind of nice, but mostly irrelevant). Meeting the dwarves takes a huge amount of time, arguably too much time. For this reason, I felt the movie dragged for the first hour. Things improve once the party hit the road and begin to encounter obstacles. Jackson ramps up the pace and keeps building to the climax, which is a forced break before the next movie picks up.

Dialogue is mostly lifted directly from the book, which is generally a good thing. Very occasionally some scenes get bogged down by the sheer amount of prose, but Jackson does an excellent job with Tolkien's wit and word-play. The Hobbit is another three film affair, which is ambitious considering how short and light the book is. New, non-book, scenes are inserted here and there. This is not just padding, though - the new stuff genuinely enhances the tale and is good to watch.

The Hobbit features a large number of characters, often with many on-screen simultaneously. One very quickly forgets that the actors are heavily green-screened and 'perspective-ised' - Gandalf is believably statuesque compared to the stocky dwarves and hobbits. It is pretty difficult to build empathy with thirteen dwarves, which means that several of the company receive very little airtime. The attention focuses on Thorin and a few others, along with Bilbo and Gandalf. But this is not to say that other characters do not steal scenes - Gollum's segments are superbly played by Andy Serkis, a real highlight of this first instalment. Scenes involving cockney trolls are also wonderful, as is the romp through the Great Goblin's lair. Martin Freeman is inspired casting as Bilbo (although I did occasionally think of Tim from The Office) and Sir Ian McKellen is as fabulous as ever with Gandalf. Richard Armitage plays Thorin with pathos and authority, rather as if Aragorn has been condensed into dwarven form.

The movie ends at a suitably compelling point, albeit not exactly a cliffhanger. We get a glimpse of things to come in the shape of Benedict Cumberbatch's Smaug. All in all, I was satisfied that three hours had been well-spent and I eagerly await the next instalment.

Only a year away...

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey IMAX 3D 48FPS

Rating: 4 out of 5

Friends in High Places

2012-10-15T19:10:00.001+01:00

Review: BBC iPlayer App + Downloads

2012-09-04T13:51:00.002+01:00

Who needs local storage now that the skies have Clouded over? Contemporary mobile devices have tiny storage capacities; the expectation being that you should stream whatever you want to watch or listen to. This is obviously the way forward and therefore a great idea. Provided there's an internet connection. A sufficiently fast one, at that.

Imagine the following. A frazzled father eventually manages to strap his two young children into the Volvo and is driving down to Devon. Their mother is snoozing in the front passenger seat, exhausted after staying up all night making miniature Doctor Who costumes. She is rudely awoken by a small Dalek kicking the back of her chair. "Are we nearly there, yet?", squeaks the Dalek. At that point, the little Cyberman decides to throw his Doritos at the Dalek and all hell breaks loose. Their father, declaring that exterminations are indeed imminent, decides that a Weeping Angel game is the order of the day and peace is restored. For two minutes. Then all hell breaks loose again.

How different things would have been had the children been distracted, entertained and amused. If only they could watch the very latest Doctor Who episode in the car. Over and over until Devon arrived. But of course, this is not possible. Sure, the new episode is on BBC iPlayer, but there's no internet connection. What a shame.

Hang on a minute, though. What's this? The iPlayer app has been updated (on iOS at least)? Programmes can be downloaded and kept for seven days? Parents of small children everywhere can breathe a collective sigh of relief. Once again, Doctor Who has saved the day.

Desktop versions of iPlayer have supported content downloads for years. My home internet connection is of truly glacial speed (1.7 meg on a good day) and so watching Top Gear on the pc is a choppy affair. Totally impossible in HD. The workaround is to download and watch later. Or watch it on TV, but that seems so 20th Century. The newly updated iOS app doesn't help me too much at home, but it does mean that I can download stuff in advance to watch while out and about. In the past, I've tried iPlayering using Virgin Trains' wifi, usually with poor results. Just not enough bandwidth. Watching over 3G is not really viable, not least due to the cost and data limits. All that changes with downloads.

What's the new app like? Pretty much the same, but with a few new options. Calling up a programme via the iPlayer interface now yields the option to 'Download'. Pretty simple. The bottom bar now has a 'Downloads' option, which takes you through to your downloaded (or downloading) programmes. There's the option to enable 'High Quality Downloads', but I don't think this actually magics up full HD content. I could be wrong, but the Doctor Who episode I downloaded on the iPad is definitely not 1080i/p. Hopefully this will come soon, especially as the new iPad has such a capable display.

The 50-minute Doctor Who episode takes up about 0.5 gig on the hard drive. I'm guessing that the episode is 720p, with some pretty decent compression algorithms at play. Whilst the file size is very reasonable, the average iPhone/iPad will soon fill up if you want more than just a handful of programmes. But that's true for all kinds of stuff on the iPad/iPhone. You can keep programmes for at least 7 days, sometimes longer. I've heard that the BBC intends offering an 'on demand' service at some point, no doubt to keep up with Sky Anytime and Netflix. This seems all the more likely now that the iPlayer app has download functionality. How hard can it be to offer the entire BBC digital back catalogue? Bolt on a payment platform and Bob's your uncle, or maybe Beeb's your auntie.

One of the benefits of iPlayer, in both app and desktop form, is that it's really easy to use and pretty much 'just works'. That said, there are one or two annoying things about the app's download function that I find rather annoying. Firstly, you can only download while the app is actually open and active (with the iOS version at least, Android is coming soon apparently). If you switch to another app, the iPlayer download queue pauses. This is very different to downloading content via the iTunes store, which runs in the background. There may be decent technical reasons, but it's quite annoying nonetheless. At least auto power off is disabled once a download is in progress - but make sure your device has enough juice.

Another gripe is the lack of a 'series record' and scheduling feature. It isn't possible to find a future episode of Eastenders via the planner and opt to automatically record it in the familiar Sky+ way. I am unable to tell my iPad to download all future episodes of Top Gear as they become available. Along the same lines, you can't 'pause' a live streaming programme. Now that storing content on hard drives is enabled, this kind of thing should be pretty easy. There may be other reasons behind this functionality gap, but it would have been a nice touch.

Aside from these criticisms, the BBC iPlayer app is certainly enhanced by the addition of content downloads. The concept that viewers can choose when to watch programmes is bolstered considerably by allowing them the choice of 'where' to watch. We are no longer tied to our internet connections.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

2012-08-16T15:12:00.000+01:00

Now that I've become an Apple Fanboy; I just could not resist...

Review: The Inn at Whitewell, Lancashire

2012-07-31T23:30:00.000+01:00

Nestled in Lancashire's Forest of Bowland, the Inn at Whitewell has provided travellers with welcome respite since the 18th Century. More recently, the Inn has focussed on offering 5* accommodation and food to guests seeking the very best in Northern hospitality. The spectacular scenery outside complements the top-notch, unaffected luxury within the Inn's walls. This place knows how to do quality in a quiet, unaffected way; not overly surprising given that the landlord is none other than HM The Queen.

I live about twenty minutes away from the Inn at Whitewell and have been in several times for lunch. If you like the very best in food, drink and country ambience then you simply cannot go wrong here. Peat fires and stone floors welcome visitors, along with exceedingly comfortable chairs and excellent antique fittings. This may all sound rather stuffy and 'country set', but that is very wide of the mark. Civilised and relaxed is much more like it. Definitely quirky. If you are not a fan of comically-posed stuffed foxes, then stay away...

The Inn is famous for its food and drink. Menus are replete with locally-sourced finery and dishes are designed to fill you just enough to leave room for the wonderful puddings and cheeses. Lots of nooks and crannies to explore, along with a more formal dining room overlooking a picturesque bend of the River Hodder (part of the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

Whilst I have been to the Inn a few times, I never actually got round to staying overnight. Imagine my delight, then, upon learning that my little sister had booked the Inn for her wedding reception. Venues do not get much better than the Inn at Whitewell and so I decided to book a room (it would be rude not to). This review is very much about the accommodation and much less so the wedding facilities. Let's just say that if you are tempted (and flush enough...) to book your wedding at Whitewell; you will not be disappointed.

The Inn has twenty three bedrooms spread throughout the main building (facing the front or the river at the back) and the annexed Coach House. My room was in the latter, number 23. The Coach House is a short walk from the main building, down a hilly little path. Whitewell is absolutely in the middle of nowhere and so at night things get very, very dark. Bear this in mind if you like whisky a lot more than you like dark, hilly paths...

Any concerns about being away from the main building dissipate once you set foot through the door of the Coach House. The rooms are not cheap (mine was £208 a night) but the level of luxury and comfort really do justify the price. I've been fortunate to stay in some rather fabulous hotels around the world and the Inn at Whitewell is right up there with them. It's not Claridges, but then it's not supposed to be. The intention is to offer rooms full of history and quality, with every little detail taken care of. The rooms are not grand in an ostentatious way; they are welcoming and comfortable in a homely way.

Room 23 is a large double/twin with four poster bed and en suite bathroom. Very rarely do I stay at a hotel and think, "yes, I would like my bathroom at home to be just like this". In this case, I would happily take possession of 23's huge bathroom with it's exquisite antique fittings and cast iron bath, not to mention it's modern wet room-style shower and abundance of luxury toiletries (Molton Brown, which is smashing, but maybe they could consider some of St James' finest such as Taylor of Old Bond Street or DR Harris).

The bedroom is very spacious (fortunate, since four poster beds are invariably massive). The bed is high and extremely supportive. Maybe I've stayed in too many American hotels; but I'd have liked an abundance of fluffy pillows and a big thick duvet instead of the slightly spartan sheets and sensible pillows on offer here. Either way, I had an extremely good night's sleep. At the foot of the bed is a large, comfy sofa, ideal for watching the decent sized LCD TV whilst enjoying a glass of chilled wine from the fridge. If you fancy a proper percolated coffee then you will appreciate the decent of supply of fresh ground and french press. It should be said that if you elect to stay in the main building - there are no tea/coffee/bar facilities in-room. Instead, you call room service and they deliver your heart's desire. Now that is true luxury.

The room is full of authentic, high quality antiques and quirky paraphernalia. Room 23 has a huge double door wardrobe that could easily back on to Narnia. Beside the bed is a splendid Bakelite telephone. Line drawings of local country houses are mounted all over the walls. It feels like a 1930s country gentleman's living room. This is a good thing. Room 23 has the added benefit of a small, private garden accessed via french doors. Whilst you won't be barbecuing out there, it is a nice space to sit and relax.

My only gripe about room 23 is that I could clearly hear the TV in the room upstairs. Maybe it was on really loud, I don't know. It was not really a problem, but I was surprised that someone else's noise seeped through into my £208 bedroom. Creaking floorboards above also loudly evidenced themselves, but this was less unexpected given the age and style of the building. Neighbours aside, Whitewell is totally silent at night, save for a few hunting owls and surprised rodents.

The other minor issue that I have concerns the warmth of welcome upon arrival. Unusually, the reception desk is not situated in the entrance hall, instead it's part of the giftshop. Lancashire customer service is traditionally direct and no nonsense, but I did find the chap behind the reception desk rather cold. The person with me thought he was snooty, but this is probably a little harsh. Given the quality and concept of the hotel, coupled with the importance of first impressions; I'd like to see a dedicated reception area with smiling, welcoming staff. I feel that the receptionist chap did not strike the proper balance between unaffected, unfussy service versus vague indifference. I don't think he even said 'hello' or 'thank you', but I cant remember and that is telling in itself. Everybody else at the hotel was wonderful and the customer service top notch (I single out the wedding coordinator Emma for special praise).

Breakfast is included in the room rate and I was particularly looking forward to the full English as I have heard very good things indeed. Unfortunately, I totally slept through (breakfast is served 7.30 - 9.30) and so missed all the goodies on offer. My father (who stayed in the main building) informed me that it was delicious. Thanks dad! He did also say that the portions were surprisingly stingy: 1 rasher, 1 sausage, no choice of egg etc. Still, the missed breakfast gives me the perfect excuse to stay at the Inn at Whitewell again. I certainly will do so and heartily recommend that you do the same...

Score: 5 out of 5
Web: http://www.innatwhitewell.com/
TripAdvisor: Reviews & Ratings
Twitter: @InnAtWhitewell

View Larger Map

South Bank Sensation: The Shard

2012-07-05T18:11:00.000+01:00

Tonight sees the inauguration of London's newest skyscraper, the Shard. It's an outstanding edifice in every way, not least because it's the tallest building in London, the UK and Western Europe. Funded mostly by Qatari bankers, the Shard took just three years to top out, against a backdrop of real estate slumps and global recession. Designed by the wonderfully-named Renzo Piano, the Shard's forté is the absolute dominance of London's skyline. Visible from pretty much everywhere in Central London, it's as if some pristine glass needle erupted from the ground and simply did not know when to stop. Every time I see it, I'm amazed just how colossal and overbearing the thing is. It is awesome in the true sense of the word.

Some people hate it. Too big. Wrong place. Spoiler of ancient sight lines. I disagree on all three counts. Sure, it's big - but being nearly pyramidal means that the bulk is at the bottom, leaving just the slender spire to play with the clouds. As for the location, I think London Bridge is an inspired and bold choice. It's a poke in the eye to those tedious denizens north of the Thames who consider South London highly unpalatable. Guy's hospital was the ugly overlord of London Bridge and Borough for too long - now it is well and truly in shadow. I love the juxtapose between Dickensian warehouses and impossibly angled 21st century glass. Ideally, the whole area will fill with giant statements of design like the Shard, browbeating the City and establishing the south bank as the heart of London (not sure the local residents would be overly enamoured, though).

As for the impact on sight lines, this is where I think the Shard really works with its surroundings. A few hundred metres away lies the Tower of London, the 1,000 year-old royal palace that many hold synonymous with London. Critics argued that the Shard would ruin the Tower's aspect and vistas, destroying things for ourselves and future generations. Nonsense, I say. Seeing the Shard and the Tower of London together; somehow it just makes sense. Ancient and modern. Individually, both are spectacular. Combined, we see a breathtaking example of what London is all about: the hodgepodge of history, utility and technology. I hope that both towers will be around for at least another thousand years, symbols of strength and ambition.

The Shard on Launch Night, as seen from the Barbican (via @GemGemmy)

MediaCityUK Musings

2012-07-02T18:13:00.000+01:00

I found myself in Manchester the other day and decided that it was high time for a visit to the newly-launched MediaCityUK complex. You may have read about it in the media, probably in relation to the extreme disgruntlement of southern BBC staff at the prospect of forced relocation to Salford. That's right, Salford.

MediaCityUK is not actually in Manchester, home of high speed rail links to London Euston and several billion funky bars. The complex is actually a couple of miles west of the city centre in neighbouring Salford. Despite the close proximity, it still took me about 30 minutes from Manchester Piccadilly station by tram (otherwise known as MetroLink - a cleaner, more yellow version of London's Docklands Light Railway). The tram stopped at a whole gamut of tiny, uninhibited stations (apparently nobody EVER gets on at Pomona) before eventually arriving at the MediaCityUK terminus. It wasn't an unpleasant ride, just way too long and winding. There is definitely scope for an uninterrupted shuttle service from Piccadilly.

The site is based over 200 acres of the Salford Quays, itself an 80s rejuvenation project of the old Manchester Docks. Having previously worked for many years in London's Canary Wharf, I immediately felt at home in MediaCityUK. Lots of water, lots of glass, lots of funky architecture. I've always enjoyed working near water, especially when ensconced in a major city - the air is generally fresher and less polluted. The parallels with Canary Wharf are numerous: the frenetic busy periods during the working day when millions of people pour out of their glass boxes looking for an expensive sandwich; the quieter times when it's possible to sit outside and read a book in peace. As with Canary Wharf, there is a certain degree of soullessness about the place - people mostly come here through necessity, rather than choice. To be fair, Canary Wharf has come a long way since its ghost town days and I am sure that MediaCityUK will blossom too. Its worth remembering that the site is only half finished and much more is planned. Still, I couldn't help wondering if some of the media types streaming around me would much rather be working amid the vibrant buzz of Manchester's Northern Quarter. I rather think it is up to the denizens of MediaCityUK to shape and nurture its soul.

Stepping off the tram, you'd be forgiven for thinking that you'd arrived at some sort of gigantic BBC theme park. As the largest tenant, the BBC has multiple buildings strewn around the site. Large, colourful images of famous BBC people are plastered on the sides of buildings. As I walked across the central plaza, the Jumbotron (which a single, solitary old man was watching) had zoomed in on Sir Bruce Forsyth chatting to Prince Charles at Wimbledon. BBC Breakfast's Bill Turnbull winked at me from the side of a building and Sue Barker fixed me with a welcoming grin.

I had a quick peek inside one of the BBC's offices while catching up with a friend for coffee. Very impressive. A lot of money has been spent on styling and the general consensus seems to be that it's good to have previously disparate teams sitting next to each other. I even saw the BBC Breakfast studio (which doubles as the News North West set). Sadly, I did not see Bill Turnbull...

The thing that interests me most about MediaCityUK is the potential for digital media/tech companies, particularly startups. It would be really rather cool if a significant technology hub could form at MediaCityUK, complementing the massive presence Down South. Maybe Google should take possession of one of the future plots and build a Northern Campus? Now that would be interesting! Right now, startups are encouraged to hot desk in the rather funky Greenhouse building. I would definitely consider setting up here, if the price is right...

As I left MediaCityUK on the tram, once again stopping at a billion pointless stations, it struck me that the biggest challenge facing the developers will be enticing people to come and then stay. The biggest issue for me right now is the ostensible isolation from Manchester city centre. It should take a matter of minutes to move between the two places. There is room for improvement but, hey, it's very early days...

Posted with Blogsy

What does short selling a stock mean?

2012-05-23T15:44:00.000+01:00

With all the interest in the Facebook IPO right now, it might be helpful to explain what 'short selling' means. Not often I get to use bits from my banker past when talking about tech stuff :)

Generally, if you are 'short' of something; then you don't have it (e.g. 'short of ideas right now'). So if you are 'short of a stock', then you don't own it. You might think that to sell a stock, you must own the stock. Wrong. It is entirely possible to sell a stock that you don't own. The buyer will probably never know and the market sees the transaction as a regular sale.

How can you sell a stock without owning it? Simple. Borrow it. Banks and brokers often hold stock that they are willing to lend (for a fee) and they might have other clients happy to lend. You borrow a set number of shares (either indefinitely or until the lender calls them in) and then sell them to a buyer at the current market price.

When the time comes to return the stock back to the lender (usually when you decide), obviously you need to get hold the stock from somewhere. How? Simple. You go to the market and buy the stock at the market price. You give the stock back to the lender and the deal is done.

You may be wondering why people bother to short stock. Well, imagine that you borrow 100 Facebook shares and sell them at $38. You are up $3,800. When the time comes to return the stock to the lender, you go to the market and buy 100 Facebook shares. Only now the price is $31. It costs you $3,100 to buy the replacement stock. The lender will charge a fee and maybe interest, but we'll ignore this for now. Therefore after the whole transaction is concluded; you are up $700. Bingo!

So shorting only works when you expect the price of a stock to go down. Just imagine if the price had increased to $45. You would be $700 out-of-pocket! Theoretically the stock could increase in price infinitely, therefore you have uncapped risk exposure. Due to the high risks involved, shorting is only performed by institutions and other sophisticated investors.

So what do you think? Is shorting 'ungentlemanly' or simply a sophisticated play? If a stock sees high levels of shorting; the price can fall dramatically. Very exceptionally, shorting is banned if regulators feel that the action could cause catastrophic results. On the other side of the coin, shorting does generate liquidity in a stock.

You may have heard the phrase 'naked short selling'. The 'naked' bit means that you have not arranged to borrow the stock before selling it, i.e. you are uncovered. This is uber risky - what if you agree to sell something that you cannot get hold of? The stock is deemed 'failed to deliver'. Naked shorting is open to the accusation of market manipulation - a seller may never intend to cover the position, thereby creating the effect of so-called 'phantom shares'. This has the effect of temporarily diluting a company's shares and may cause a price reduction.

Why Facebook's future is important for all startups

2012-05-22T22:50:00.003+01:00

Since I last blogged (just over a week ago), Facebook exploded out of the Geekosphere and landed in Suitland. For a few brief seconds the whole world was in awe of this behemoth and its twelve figure market cap, with a breathless media predicting an apocalyptic bun-fight for stock. The figures being touted were huge: numerous billionaires created, even more millionaires. It was all terribly exciting and the anticipation on Thursday evening must have been overwhelming for many of Facebook's imminently pecunious employees.

But the launch turned out to be one big damp squib. First of all, NASDAQ royally messed up the launch (computer glitches apparently). Second, the media-predicted price explosion never materialised. The initial offer price was set at $38. A full day of trading later (well, nearly) the price was... $38.23. Throughout the day the price threatened to sink below the initial offer; it was only via vigorous 'underwriting' that it effectively broke even.

Things went from bad to worse on Monday and Tuesday, with the stock trading 18% down on the initial offer price. Mark Zuckerberg has seen around $2bn knocked off his paper net worth in the last three working days. In short, the market does not like Facebook as an investment right now. No surprise. Behind all the pomp and fanfare of the last few weeks, there has been considerable consternation regarding Facebook's viability as an investment.

The biggest concern would seem to be an apparent lack of strategy when it comes to monetising usage, especially via mobile. Whereas Twitter is right at home on mobile devices, Facebook has been slow to join the party. Facebook claims to have 900 million users, yet only generates a few billion in advertising revenue. Pretty measly for a company that asserted a market cap of about $100 billion. Facebook themselves expressed concerns over mobile just days before the IPO. If they do know how to tackle their issues; they are pretty much keeping it to themselves. Not good when the company is now beholden to investors. Sentiment drives prices and, right now, sentiment is against them. Passion and defiance are great, but investors need clarity.

I have the perception that the whole IPO operation was designed exclusively to meet the needs of Facebook's early investors and employees. The company does not seem to need a cash boost (they just shelled out £1 billion for Instagram after all) and has not indicated how they will spend all this new money. In fact, Zuckerberg stated that they don't need the money; it's all about rewarding the employees for their hard work. When it came to the launch, Zuckerberg did not leave anything on the table - he priced so precisely that the market did not rob him by more than a few cents. It's kind of smart, really, but in a self-serving way - his company is now taking a hammering that could probably have been avoided by initially offering a lot lower. Serious questions about 'selective disclosure' are now being asked about the whole process - did Facebook share privately its profitability concerns with a group of institutional investors? Analysts at the underwriting banks do appear to have quietly lowered their revenue forecasts in the run up to the IPO. Were retail investors aware of the downgrading? Hmm, who knows? The SEC has indicated that a probe into the IPO will probably need to take place. Not the best of starts for a public company.

How Facebook will fare is anybody's guess. But the startup community should be willing them on. Zuckerberg and his team need to get this right otherwise the credibility of the 'startup' is at stake. Facebook is the poster-child for the startup industry. It's stories like Facebook that makes your grandmother sit up and take notice, maybe even show her that not wearing tie to work is a good thing. Zuckerberg represents the possibility that any one of us can make it big. He started up in his college bedroom. He built something that people liked and ultimately loved. He faced the same issues that many startups encounter - and pushed on through. In romantic terms, Zuckerberg railed against the orthodoxy of be-suited business men without deviating from his core beliefs and vision.

But right now, the suits are winning.

Complexity vs Simplicity: Should We Return to Old Fashioned Banking?

2012-05-14T17:39:00.000+01:00

A new banking scandal emerged last week at JP Morgan. A London-based prop desk allegedly built up large, complex credit default swap positions. Unwinding apparently proved impossible when things went wrong, given the thinly traded market and muddy structuring. This resulted in several billions of losses for the bank and they warn that more may come. US Senate candidate, Elizabeth Warren, has called on Wall Street to stop taking risks, "we need a tough cop on the beat so that no one steals your purse on Main Street or your pension on Wall Street", she told CNN.

Obviously, she is right in principle. Nefarious trading activities need to be stamped out and those responsible need to be drummed out of the financial sector. Some banks have certainly displayed a cavalier attitude to regulating what their trading desks get up to. As with any industry, there are good and bad eggs out there. But we must think carefully when demanding that "banks should get back in the business of old fashioned banking, rather than the complex business transactions", as Warren stated on CNN.

I do not believe this is what most banking clients (retail and institutional) actually want. It's a bit like saying that we should stick to good, old fashioned bicycles because modern cars kill more people. She paints an overly-simplified picture of banking - one with cops and robbers. In fact, we should be demanding better management of risk, not its removal. We should not shun sophistication purely because there is more complexity involved.

Having worked as a private banker in London for several years, I gained some experience in working out what clients look for when building investment portfolios. It is true that very few clients exclusively seek a punchy, high risk approach when selecting an investment strategy. It is also true that some clients want absolutely no risk in their portfolio at all - rather they want a safe place to keep their cash. But most clients seek a balanced approach, i.e. some exposure to higher risk investments, offset against a solid chunk of 'less exciting' stuff. It's all about the risk-return ratio. Clients generally want to see their portfolios grow over time and many expect some level of out-performance. So banks do need to take risks in order to achieve their mandates. Obviously there are big differences between institutional and retail instruments - very few individuals get involved with complex credit derivatives structured by trading desks - I am generalising 'risk' in order to explore the propensity of bankers to engage with it.

Often, clients implicitly demand the impossible of banks - 'make me more money without losing a penny'. They want win-win. Sure, they read the T&Cs about 'investments going up and down' and verify that they understand all this. Everything's great in a bull market, but less so when things stagnate. People forget that losses are part of the game. The skill of the banker is to understand their client and manage the relationship through good times and bad times. There will always be good times and bad times so long as markets are driven by sentiment.

On the subject of sentiment, the Western media has a tendency to exacerbate and amplify incidents, causing panic where there needn't be panic (Robert Peston, I'm looking at you...). It seems that everybody hates bankers now. Ask anyone you like. Nobody seems to remember or recognise that banks play a big part in facilitating most people's lives. The perception nowadays seems to be that bankers play around with everyone else's hard-earned cash, invariably losing it and/or triggering recessions. Take the recent strikes over pensions by public sector workers. Who messed things up for these hard-done-by folk? Bankers, apparently. It's a compelling argument - 'not enough money for public sector pensions because the country had to bail out the banks'. Sounds good, but I believe that the premise is specious. Yes, bailing out banks cost many billions, but the ultimate reality is that most Western countries have been spending way more than they receive in tax dollars for years.

It's very easy to get swept along by the notion that banks are too big and complicated for their own rather sinister, greedy boots. Once you buy into this notion; the obvious solution is to seek a return to simplicity. I think that Elizabeth Warren is wrong to insist that we return to 'old fashioned banking'. We should never go backwards out of fear of complexity. We should embrace the sophistication of today's financial markets and and redouble efforts to understand and manage the inherent risks.

Where works best for startups: home, office or hot desk?

2012-05-10T13:10:00.001+01:00

One of the first things I did when setting up my first startup was order two mugs emblazoned with our company logo. One for me and one for my fellow co-founder. Our new mugs were placed on our new desks in our new office. Every morning (and thirty other times a day) we filled our new mugs with coffee and surveyed our new little empire with satisfaction. One morning, whilst Nespresso-ing, I dropped my new mug and it shattered. No more new mug.

Looking back, I do wonder what on earth I was thinking. Not about starting up a startup, obviously, but the manner in which I did it. Did we really need our own office with its filing cabinets and whiteboards? Did we really need the mini-fridge? Did we really need our own yucca plant? Nope (actually, yes to the yucca).

Our office was in the Knowledge Dock Business Centre, part of the University of East London. When I signed up, on offer was a permanent hot desk facility or a more expensive private office. There was no hesitation - we must have a private office. You see, I had just stepped out of the world of high finance and had spent the last seven years working in a plush Canary Wharf office. It made perfect sense to me that our own office (emphasis on 'own') was the way forward. Subconsciously, I was trying do things the 'big business' way.

At that time, I never considered working from home. It seemed important that there was some separation between the spaces of work and relaxation, which is still a valid notion. I liked the idea of getting up and physically going somewhere each morning. I also had doubts about how productive things would be if we sat around in each other's flats day in, day out.

Equally, I did not like the idea of working at hot desks. A big open space full of other folk. No thanks! Where's the privacy? Where do we hang our many whiteboards? Where does the yucca live? That was how my brain was working back then. But I should have thought, 'a big open space full of other folk SETTING UP STARTUPS'.

Looking back, hot desking is what we should have done (as South Park's Captain Hindsight would have told us). It is an awesome concept for startups, provided that you have enough privacy to make phone calls and a lockable drawer in which to keep your stuff. Being surrounded by like-minded folk is a real opportunity. It's also cheap as chips (e.g. Tech Centre in Manchester). Whilst our office was very well-priced; it was still a relatively big monthly drain and one that became untenable whilst we were at the product development stage. Thinking about it, you don't even need a permanent hot desk - what about a combination of working from home AND working at a hot desk? Potentially, that's even cheaper.

Unless you are sat next to a competitor trying to build out your exact same business model (...but hey, this might be an opportunity too), hot desking exposes you to other thoughts and ideas. It puts you among other people, which is great because being an starter upper can sometimes get lonely. The ethos behind hot desking is quite different to that of having your own private office with its lockable door. Really, the motive there is to keep your idea secret and everyone else out. Offices are probably the correct evolutionary step for startups that have a bit of traction, a few staff members and most likely a bit of funding. This is where business centres that specialise in accommodating early-stage tech companies are really useful (e.g. the Wesley Centre in Manchester, Knowledge Dock in London etc).

So, when starting up something from scratch, bear in mind two important things when it comes to deciding where to base: 1) cost and 2) collaboration potential. The way I see it:

offices are great if you expect to be turning a profit from day 1 and need private space to contain you and your team
working from home is great if you are developing something that won't initially generate revenue and you have a quiet, dedicated work space (such as a spare bedroom, dining room etc)
hot desking offers a hybrid solution that should be very cost effective and will most likely expose you to other like-minded people

Regardless of the option chosen, you can still get your own company mug and admire it each day as you drink copious amounts of coffee. Just don't break it...

Actually, what IS a startup?

2012-05-04T18:07:00.001+01:00

Asking people how they define 'a startup' brings to mind the ancient Indian tale of blind men describing an elephant. Each man touches a different bit of the elephant and, based on their individual perceptions, describes what they think an elephant looks like. Answers such as 'tree trunk' and 'wall' are given. There is a deep and meaningful angle to the tale, I'm sure; probably about absolute truth and perception. Or maybe it was simply an excuse to grope an elephant.

You might ask 'does it really matter' about defining startups. The reason I am cogitating is based on a rather lengthy recent group discussion on the Manchester Startups Facebook page. Most of the discussion revolved around the different perceptions of what it means to 'be in startups'. I'll quickly summarise the two main views as I see them:

A startup is:

a company with an 'investable' business plan that is focussed on very quick scaling and exiting, seeking as much external investment as possible (usually via VCs) as soon as possible

a company that grows more organically based around the distinctiveness of its product, either via boot-strapping and/or self-investment. Not necessarily looking for a quick (or any) exit

These two definitions are pretty binary; I'm sure there are hybrid approaches mixing the best bits of both. The first definition might come across as the 'hard-nosed' business guy approach and the second one as the 'passionate philosopher' approach. The Facebook discussion had well-argued defences for both. There are examples of successful startups that grow rapidly and exit with decent profits for all involved. There are examples of successful startups that grow more slowly and never go for an exit. It's not that one is better than the other. The Facebook discussion started because a request was posted for developers in Manchester. The idea was floated that top developers will only want to join startups that have VC involvment and an exit plan.

This got me thinking - is the first approach exacerbating the infamous startup bubble that may or may not be upon us?

As someone on the Facebook page said, the first approach is how the 'dance' is right now with VCs in London, Berlin etc. There is a lot of truth to that. VCs can give startups a hefty injection of cash and they can also offer stellar resources in terms of networking, marketing and promotion.VC involvement can dramatically increase your chances of success. But they will only invest in companies that meet their investment requirements (obviously) and often these requirements are pretty narrow. This is a potentially limiting factor in the diversity of the startup industry. VCs need an exit and they need massive scaling - otherwise their initial investment is not that attractive in light of the return.

I believe that VCs have transformed the startup industry in the same way that MBAs transformed big corporation management jobs. Lots of benefits, but also the adoption of a 'standardised' approach and mindset. You want to be CEO of Credit Suisse? Great - you have an MBA, right? From which US Business School? There is nothing overly wrong with this, but it is a blinkered approach. You end up with the same homogeneous pool of talent at the top.

How does this translate to startups? Well, I'm starting to think that this is why we are seeing so many well-funded clones. Replicating (exactly or indirectly) an original business model, building a user-base and then getting out. It's sound business practice. It ticks all the boxes for all concerned. But... it's is not terribly innovative, is it? And isn't that what being in startups is all about - innovation?

Sure, the second definition could be seen as the slow burner. Companies that are obsessed with their core product to the exclusion of commercial sense. The guys who are in it more for the spirit of innovation than the smell of dollars. But that is a pretty narrow view. I'm sure that there are loads of startups who are genuinely interested in running a commercial business - but to their own tune. I admire companies who bootstrap their way to success, maybe taking a longer route to get there. I believe that this is what being an entrepreneur is all about. I worry that the startup industry has become overly 'venture-capitalised' and that this has changed the mindset of its participants.

If we are in a bubble, and if it does eventually burst; it will not be because startups got too innovative for their own boots...

Startups - Never Pay For Advice

2012-04-30T23:55:00.001+01:00

The startup industry has never been hotter. It's not just co-founders and investors who are looking for ways to make money - increasingly, the startup industry itself is being monetized by 'expert service providers'. There is big business in working with small businesses, it seems...

The path to building a successful business from scratch is fraught with risk and complexity. For many co-founders, this is one of the key reasons to leave the old 9-to-5 routine and live dangerously. Anything that could help demystify the process is a good thing, right? Hmm. Maybe. It all comes down to quality and motive.

Let's look at an example of a potentially good service for a new startup - business incubators. When we were was starting-up, my fellow co-founder and I decided to base at Knowledge Dock at the University of East London. The main attraction was the high concentration of other startups and the cloud of knowledge that arises. Working alongside other folk trying build stuff is immensely useful. One can share ideas, experiences and (occasionally) resources. Being an entrepreneur can be a lonely business - so talk to other people in the same position!

We benefitted from other startups' services (i.e. technology, app building, print expertise etc) and vice versa. Your first customer might well be the office (or hot desk) next-door. The staff at the centre were genuinely interested in our business plan and made their expertise available to us, especially when it came to fundraising and marketing. It's important to note that, aside from the unit's monthly rental fee (which was lower than similarly-sized commercial office space), we did not pay for any of the advice or help that we received.

Now let's look at another growing area - experts, consultants, gurus & advisors. These are folk who work with startups on a whole range of issues, most notably from helping find funding (angel introductions, business plan writing, seminars) to helping solve problems (acting as whiteboard facilitators, strategy consultants etc). Invariably, they require a fee - after all they are doing a job and need to pay their bills. However, my feeling is that a startup should never pay to receive advice, for the following reasons:

The people offering the advice probably have no vested interest in your company's success, beyond getting rehired in the future

The people offering the advice probably have never been in the same position as you

Asking someone else to write your business plan or solve a problem takes all the fun out of building your own business and is conceptually at odds with being an entrepreneur

Most, if not all, of the services offered for a fee are also available for free - usually from other entrepreneurs who are looking to pass on their knowledge

Into the category of 'advisor' I include most of the people who write expensive books on 'how to succeed'. Sure, it's great to know what someone else thinks about stuff - but you are the one on the ground, not some guy writing a book. There is no one right answer. You should listen to relevant individuals' experiences and decide how that information might shape your own approach. I get particularly frustrated with the idea of 'members-only' organisations that promise to spruce up business plans and put founders in touch with angels. They usually require a fee or a percentage of the amount you (might) raise. You have far better things to spend your money on. The best way to find an angel is to be properly networked in your field. Targeted 'coffee sessions' are great. Networking usually costs money (paying for coffee, breakfasts etc), but this is an investment by you in you - so it's fine.

So, before you reach for your wallet - question the motive and experience of the person quoting a rate. Do they genuinely know anything useful about starting up stuff? Unless they are providing a specific service that saves you time (i.e. building a website quickly, therefore removing the need for you to learn how to do it yourself); my advice is to pass. In general, when resources are tight - don't pay anyone who tells a startup that their advice is worth paying for.

A V-Band Photometric Study of RZ Tauri

2012-04-30T22:20:00.000+01:00

The following study is my undergraduate astrolab project from 2001. Co-authored with Dr Emma Whitaker (nee Taylor) at Durham University. The subject is an eclipsing binary star system (RZ Tau) approximately 714 light years from Earth in Taurus (visually close to Aldebaran). It is not visible to the naked eye, with apparent magnitude 10.19. Supervisor: Dr John Lucey.

Test Driving Google Drive on the PC

2012-04-24T22:04:00.002+01:00

Google has gone all Cloudy! They have been threatening to kill the traditional hard drive for a really long time - so long, in fact, that loads of companies beat them to it. Dropbox has been looking after people's documents for ages, making it really easy to access files from anywhere you happen to be. Apple launched iCloud last year, mainly to handle multimedia content for their iDevices. Microsoft have had cloud-based document management for a while via the SkyDrive service. So is Google too late to join the party?

This afternoon saw the limited release of Google Drive. Some people have immediate access, whereas others will have to wait to be invited. Weirdly, checking the Google Drive website using Google Chrome presented me with the news that I could not play with it yet - they'd notify me. Accessing the exact same page and account using Safari brought better news - I could sign up immediately and getting tinkering. So I did...

This might shock you, but I use a PC. I am led to believe that Drive works exactly the same on the mac - only much better because the people I asked owned macs. The first thing Drive asks you to do is download an application that proceeds to install itself on your local machine. It creates a 'folder' in the file system called "Google Drive". All you need to do is drag files from your machine into this folder and they will be available in the Cloud. Nothing revolutionary here, but it works really easily. It's fast too, even on my decrepit PC and 1.5 mbps broadband connection.

Where Drive works really very well indeed is when it comes to integrating with Google Docs and Gmail. Indeed, Drive is presented as an upgrade to Google Docs. I have a fair few files on Google Docs, including many that were shared with me by other collaborators. Good news - all of the files are automatically available in Drive. These docs have never, ever touched the hard drive of any local machine. They were created, stored, shared and published on the Web (or Cloud? I never know) using Google's proprietary apps and platforms. Email also 'just works' with Drive - big file attachments are no issue at all because they are pulled straight from the Cloud. You can choose to send any file to an email recipient (this seems to integrate with Google+) or an existing Google Docs collaborator. I have not yet found a way to 'insert file' from within Gmail yet, but this could simply be my own daftness. This high level of Google integration is what gives Drive a real chance to become the Cloud of choice.

Here's a 5mb png image from 'Philip the Beagle'.

It's fair to say that Google's storage prices are more expensive now that Drive is here than they used to be for Google Docs/GMail/Picassa etc. Everyone now gets 5GB of free storage on Drive compared to the previous 1GB on Google Docs. Other services are unchanged. Upgraded storage is definitely more expensive now, for example 400GB costs $9.99 per month compared to $4.17 per month previously. However, this is way cheaper than Dropbox's $19.99 per month for 100GB.

I am unlucky enough to own a Windows Phone (read my recent post on the woes of doing so), so I can't test Drive's integration with mobile content. I *suspect* that the integration is just as seamless with Android as it is with my clunky old PC - maybe even better. I'd love to hear your experiences with Drive on Android (and iOS when the apps are released) in the Comments bit below.

Google may have been late to the party, but it turns out that they had been supplying the beer all along. The sheer number of users who already have Google Docs content laying around and use Gmail (either at home or at work via Google Apps) means that Google Drive gets in via the back door. You don't have to do anything special to use it with your existing set-up - the integration is seamless, from both a functional and usability perspective. If and when Google+ really kicks off; I expect Drive to be all over it.

Dropbox will be worried. Their service is great, but they do not have the same reach as Google and they are currently more expensive. Microsoft should be worried, but probably won't be. Apple is not really pitching at the same market - yet. I really think that Google have a winner on their hands. Google Drive is the long lost cousin in a well-established family of popular services. The timing of its arrival might be a surprise, but it will slot in with ease.

Where's the Value in Patent Wars?

2012-04-24T00:10:00.001+01:00

In the olden days, companies used to acquire other companies in order to move onwards and upwards. Mergers and acquisitions were terribly sexy, terribly expensive and sometimes just plain terrible.

Microsoft certainly has a history of buying out smaller companies (potential rivals, potential next big things etc) and promptly closing them down. Brand preservation and product dominance was everything. These actions often meant that Microsoft (and therefore its customers) failed to benefit from any creative or intellectual value from their takeovers. In my view, this is akin to shooting anyone you think may be smarter, more popular or more dangerous than you. It's the human race's favourite strategy since the dawn of time.

Things are a bit different now. Microsoft is not exactly the behemoth of old. There are smarter, more popular and more dangerous companies. Apple, Facebook, Google and maybe Twitter. These companies are in the driving seat because they embarked on creating and innovating while Microsoft was busy taking its eye off the ball. In short, they had ideas - new ones. Ideas are legally encapsulated as patents - the ultimate protection of original thought and concept. The trading of patents has become really, really massive at the world's largest tech companies. Groovy companies like Apple, Facebook and Google have registered or acquired hundreds of patents in the pursuit of their next revolutionary offerings. Less groovy companies like AOL, Nokia, Intel, Samsung etc have done the same.

Microsoft has also been playing around in the market and recently engaged in some patent speculation. They spent $1bn on patents from AOL and almost immediately flipped a chunk to Facebook for $550m (BBC News article). Facebook had been one of the original bidders. Microsoft was effectively nothing more than the market maker; the middle man; the intermediary. Selling someone else's patents could rather imply that they don't have many ideas of their own. Maybe Facebook's idea lake is also starting to dry up? They were evidently pretty keen to get their hands on AOL's stuff. What does that say about their growth potential, bearing in mind that they are about to embark on the largest internet IPO in history?

We've seen numerous examples of alleged patent violation by some of the biggest technology players. Apple and Samsung have been locked in a series of highly-charged arguments regarding each other's products violating each other's patents. The results have been somewhat detrimental to their customers - potential bans on tablet devices in certain markets etc. It is right and proper to defend one's intellectual property, of course, but these skirmishes will only escalate as more and more patents are bought and sold.

As today's superpowers argue over products and patents; they must take care not to remove value from the only people who really matter - their customers. History points a bony finger at the last technology company to successfully detune its customers; Microsoft has been trying frantically to jump back up the ladder ever since.

Puzzled by Pugs

2012-04-23T17:35:00.001+01:00

Pugs. I don't get them. One can only assume that name derives from a (weak) portmanteau of the words 'pointless' and 'ugly'. Don't get me wrong; I like dogs. I understand why folk love labradors and are doe-eyed for dachshunds. Indeed, I like to mollycoddle mongrels and boast about beagles with the best of them. But I don't get why people go potty for pugs.

Yet it seems that I am in the minority. Twitter is ablaze with an intense, collective penchant for these malformed little creatures. This maybe a simple case of 'child substitution', but seriously folks - wheeling pugs around in prams suggests that you secretly yearn for very, very ugly babies. Pugs suffer a whole range of indignities at the hands of their owners - some are dressed up in hats and boots; some are made to wear monocles; whilst others peer pensively out from pink piglet outfits. A little peculiar, perhaps?

The dogs themselves are a sad hotch-potch of whimsy, derived from centuries of genetic tinkering. Their huge, doleful eyes are prone to injury; they often cannot prevent overheating and many struggle to breathe properly. These poor, inbred little creatures may well be "man's best friend", but what kind of friend have we been back?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe pugs do have charm and attraction. Hollywood certainly thinks so. I hear that some LA-based agents have client lists entirely comprised of pugs. These innocuous little dogs have appeared in major blockbusters, such as 'Men in Black' (Frank the Pug) and 'Pocahontas'. They frequent the small screen on both sides of the Atlantic, with "Little Willie" being a very famous pug indeed (BBC TV's 'Eastenders').

The only good thing I can say about pugs is that they are called 'puglets' when newborn. Which is kind of cute. Very cute, even. Actually, maybe pugs are really rather cute indeed. There'd be no harm in maybe getting a puglet, would there? Possibly dressing it up in a top hat? No harm, right?

OMG. I want one...

It's good to be English, by George!

2012-04-23T16:00:00.000+01:00

William Shakespeare was so proud to be English that he chose to enter and leave the world on the 23rd of April - St George's Day. As we celebrate England's national day, here are my Top 5 reasons why the English should be celebrated and thanked by the massed populous of the world:

We invented a language called English, which rather caught on a few centuries ago (whilst we were invading and colonising other countries). Without the English language, "Desperate Housewives" would be in Spanish and nobody would be offended by Ricky Gervais.

Without England; Scotland (or possibly Wales) would be a lot bigger and therefore more expensive to run; the Channel Tunnel would not lead anywhere from France; and international flights to London Heathrow would be unable to land.

Without England and its people; the following things might not exist: the fire extinguisher; the World Wide Web; the steam turbine; postage stamps; the tin can; stainless steel; the small pox vaccine; general anaesthetic; the tank military vehicle; fighter jet aircraft; the hologram; the electromagnet; the hovercraft; the submarine; plastic; plasticine; the crossword puzzle; the comic book; silicone; the lawnmover; the electric toaster; DNA fingerprinting, retina scans; the internal combustion engine; and the mp3 player.

We gave you James Bond; Harry Potter; Lord of the Rings; Bridget Jones; Downton Abbey and Doctor Who.

Finally, we shared with you our secret weapon - Simon Cowell. Without him, you would not be enduring One Direction...

Happy St George's Day! Please charge your glasses for Her Majesty The Queen. God bless you, ma'am.

House of Three Hands - Longevity Records

2012-04-23T15:54:00.001+01:00

House of Three Hands recently signed with Longevity Records in Manchester (check out Indie Bus, the project I helped Longevity out with). I really like Alex Brown's voice and the three guys gel well as a credible three-piece. Chris Moyles likes them, so will be interesting to see what the future holds.

Don't Shoot Me, I'm Only the Business Guy

2012-04-22T17:09:00.000+01:00

Sometimes it feels like the startup world is obsessed with technical co-founders. Folk who think in code, hack till the cows come home and who do not see anything amusing about the name 'GitHub'. But spare a thought for the lowly business guy; the 'other' co-founder.

A quick peek at the current job listings on Work In Startups shows that the appetite is most definitely for technical co-founders, programmers, user interface specialists and so on. Very few listings are requesting people with 'business experience'. That's kind of weird. After all, each new startup should be expecting to make an impact in the real world, right? Business plans need writing; products need shaping; revenue strategies need formulating and implementing; effective copy needs writing; advertising needs to happen; partnerships need to be built; customers need to be cared for; all the stuff that nobody else wants to do needs doing.

From a stereotypical perspective, it's the boring stuff, I suppose, for techies. Whilst all of the above elements are important; there's nothing particularly revolutionary or 'next big thingy' about them - business guys can come onboard later right? Startup players may see themselves as off on a magical journey of trendy non-corporate-ness. The very last thing they want is some business guy who could just as easily be working for Accenture. But this assumes that being a business guy is all about selling stuff and being an 'alpha human' - the kind of idiot that enters The Apprentice and proudly tells the camera that they can sell any old garbage (and lots of it) to people who they don't give a monkey's about. Actually, though, business guys who express interest in working for (or co-founding) startups tend to have the following things going for them:

They are risk takers - willing to forego the trappings and security of corporate life (pensions, season ticket loans, salaries) for potential future upside
They almost certainly seek stimulation in ways that big companies cannot deliver
They have contrasting skills and experience for which big companies are happy to pay a lot of money, whereas these guys are throwing them in the ring at a massive discount
They tend to be driven and good with people
They are interested in the sharing and building out of ideas,
They like the idea of working for themselves and want to work in a startup (don't forget - many people could not and would not work for a small, pre-revenue company!)

Hang on, most of the points also apply to techie startup guys! Could this mean that a technical starterupper has a lot of important stuff in common with a business guy starterupper? Yup. One cannot exist without the other. I believe that business guys can (and do) come up with innovative ideas in the technological space, it's just that they can't execute the underlying technology (although some learn to code specifically to realise their ideas). This is the flip-side to a great technical guy having an innovative idea, knowing how to build it, but not knowing how to monetise it. Success is all about getting the right mix of skill-sets, which is why most successful companies were not started by just one person.

So why don't startups actively seek business guys on job boards? I have a theory - Venture Capitalists. Startups in a position to take on new people generally have some funding behind them, usually from VCs interested in early-stage companies and/or business angels. My theory is that VCs generally do not see business guys as terribly useful - because VCs themselves are business guys. VCs, whilst representing an invaluable source of funding, generally do not come up with ideas and do not build the technology. They are effectively spread-betting on the next big thing. VCs often fulfil the stereotypical role of business guy, taking charge of strategy and 'moving you to the level'. For example, startup platform Hackfwd only wants to work with tech guys - they themselves take care of the business stuff and provide salaries. There is nothing wrong with this approach; however, I believe that the exclusion of non-developers can limit a startup's talent pool and therefore it's potential for creativity. The important function of 'business' is outsourced from day one, which I think is a shame.

Seedcamp recently started running events called SeedHack - bringing together anyone who has ideas for startups (or the desire to be part of one) and throwing them together. So developers looking to develop stuff can meet folk with ideas that need developing. Yes, even business guys with ideas can join in! It's all about building the right team for the right idea. Personally, I think this is a really good approach and has great potential in building diverse teams of people from day one, in fact day zero.

Building a balanced, in-house mix of skill-sets is crucial for a startup's success. Technical co-founders - don't wait until later to add business guys; they should be part of your team right from the start!

Bogus Word of the Day: Ecclestonacious

2012-04-21T20:01:00.000+01:00

Today's bogus word is "Ecclestonacious".

Adjective:

unwilling to yield or change plans, especially in the face of external pressure
able to make large amounts of money whilst simultaneously being ineligible to ride most roller coasters

Noun

the quality of sporting a white 'page boy' haircut at all times

Usage Example:

"Formula One's decision, in the face of overwhelming international condemnation, to go ahead with the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix is ecclestonacious to say the least..."

Bernie, Take Charge & Drop Bahrain

2012-04-21T10:38:00.000+01:00

This weekend sees the resurrection of Bahrain as a Formula One destination. It was stuck off last year amid a human rights scandal, with dozens of Bahrainis killed amid bloody anti-government protests. The whole world saw and we were appalled.

Prior to last year, Bahrain appeared to be a new breed of Gulf state - progressive, prosperous and interested in being friends with the West. Early last year pro-democracy protests took hold in several Arab countries and the seeds of change drifted over to the island of Bahrain. The West's perception of Bahrain was altered. We learned that a large chunk of the populous, Sunni Muslims, felt that the governing royal family discriminated against them. Peaceful demonstrations were repeatedly cleared with an increasing brutal hand. Bahrain had been due to host the opening race of the 2011 Formula One calendar. Bernie Ecclestone cancelled the event. An independent commission estimated that over fifty civilians were killed and hundreds were imprisoned. The King of Bahrain, Sheikh Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, promised sweeping change and reparation.

Fast forward twelve months and the King's main priority is Formula One. He has done all the sweeping change stuff now and is truly sorry for last year. Things are OK now and there is no reason at all why Bahrain should not host Formula One again. In fact, it would be really rather useful, Bernie, if you could see to it as a matter of considerable urgency. Bahrainis are known for their love of motor sport, but surely this determination to host a weekend of racing is a little odd?

The Bahraini government see Formula One has a giant international press conference run on their own terms. The glamour; the sexiness; the bling; the drivers. Formula One projects an image of cool, Western prosperity. The King wants a piece of that. Let's face it, he needs it. He wants to tell the world that things are OK. Back to how they were before it went wrong. Business as usual.

And this is the problem. Back to normal is not good enough. Bahrainis are again demonstrating. Fire-bombs have been thrown at Formula One teams. Tensions are high. The populous is enraged at the government's attempt to use Formula One to airbrush out the events of the last twelve months. Bernie is adamant that engines will run this weekend. With the practice stage just a few hours away, it could be too late for Bernie to cancel. He will be considering his own image and that of Formula One - cancelling now might appear to be giving in to popular pressure. There is only one king of Formula One and that is Bernie. It will be a business decision based on brand perception and the level of incurred loss in revenue. Moral concerns will not really play a part. If Bernie does take charge and drop Bahrain, it will probably be for all the wrong reasons. The corollary, however, would be a big old slap in the face for the King of Bahrain. That's pretty much what his people want.

"The airbnb for... [insert sector]"

2012-04-20T14:41:00.000+01:00

When airbnb glided into our lives a few years ago, little did we know that we'd be using it epithetically to explain the business models of other companies. For those who don't know (seriously?), airbnb lets home owners 'rent out' their spare rooms (or entire property) to its users. There's more to it than that, but essentially it makes monetising your spare capacity easy to do on the fly.

Airbnb has grown rapidly, claiming rentals in over 19,000 cities in 192 countries. This has, of course, spawned direct clones (see an interesting article by Fast Company's E. B. Boyd on clones). There were other startups doing the same thing at the same time; airbnb recently acquired one - Crashpadder. There does seem to be a decent market to go after, at least for now.

When writing a business plan, especially the 'elevator conversation' hook, it's usually not a good idea to explain your paradigm in relation to another company's model, i.e. LOVEFiLM would never describe themselves as "the UK's NetFlix" (especially now that NetFlix has arrived in the UK). This would imply that your business model is not unique and merely piggy-backing someone else's success. We are now so familiar with the airbnb concept that the media use it to frame other companies' business models. For example, take ParkatmyHouse. This is a hot, new-ish platform that lets home-owners rent out their empty drive ways, useful for commuters with no office parking and concert goers etc. I've seen numerous articles explaining it as "the Airbnb of parking". The same is true for Comuto, which TNW's Martin Bryant referred to as "airbnb for car journeys". A similar epithet is used for goCarShare. Basically, the peer-to-peer market can be referred to as 'the airbnb for [insert whatever you like]'.

What does all this mean for airbnb? It's obviously tremendously flattering. It's also a mega-opportunity, in my view. The fact that the media and consumers use you to understand your competition is something to leap on. Airbnb should be renting out driveways; garages; seats in cars; seats at dining tables. If they do this in the future; many of their competitors will have no chance.

All this talk has got me thinking. I'm off right now to register a new domain: RoomInMyWomb.com - the "airbnb for surrogacy".

A Cable Car Named Desire: The Antidote to Bob Crow?

2012-04-19T20:24:00.000+01:00

London Underground strikers should re-think their plans, i.e. what they've been told to do by tube tsar Bob Crow. Only last week a giant cable car was fitted between the O2 and the Excel Centre. It is designed to carry customers (yes, people who pay money to use a service) where they want to go in a non-underground way. No sweaty armpits. No shoving. No Rihanna.

So you can move from one point to another in London without going underground? Apparently. Weird, huh? But just think, what if there were more of these cable cars. Imagine tube lines running in the air. Without tubes. Without Bob Crow. Just imagine if Apple operated them and there was free wifi. OK, maybe that's too far.

By looking to the skies, the good folk of London would no longer be held to ransom by a surly, overpaid set of people (oops, nearly said workers) who strike when they feel like it. This time it's about including one group in another's pension scheme. Previously it's been over outrages like when station announcer Maurice accidentally swallowed his chewing gum whilst announcing that the Jubilee line was going down. Or when Jeanette the driver was denied time off to have a bikini wax ahead of her all-expenses-paid trip to Mauritius, which she was given as compensation for being denied the right to smoke a pipe on the job. In all cases, it's when Bob Crow decides. Because he is Big Bob Bossy Boots. How dare anyone have the audacity to employ him and his mates; then require them to do stuff. It's a bleeding cheek.

Unions are undoubtedly good things for workers. But the RMT discredited itself as a serious and purposeful body many, many years ago. Britain's Achilles heel is that it always folds in the face of fatuous, vain strike action. I applaud when people strike for the common good, in protest over a genuine outrage. But all too often it's a blatant attempt by a group of people who are happy to blackmail everyone else in order to get what they want. Watch the skies, Bob.