#venky ganesan
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
workfromhom ¡ 6 years ago
Text
Venture investors and startup execs say they don’t need Elizabeth Warren to defend them from big tech
Responding to Elizabeth Warren’s call to regulate and break up some of the nation’s largest technology companies, the venture capitalists that invest in technology companies are advising the presidential hopeful to move slowly and not break anything.
Warren’s plan called for regulators to be appointed to oversee the unwinding of several acquisitions that were critical to the development of the core technology that make Alphabet’s Google and the social media giant Facebook so profitable… and Zappos.
Warren also wanted regulation in place that would block companies making over $25 billion that operate as social media or search platforms or marketplaces from owning companies that also sell services on those marketplaces.
As a whole, venture capitalists viewing the policy were underwhelmed.
“As they say on Broadway, ‘you gotta have a gimmick’ and this is clearly Warren’s,” says Ben Narasin, an investor at one of the nation’s largest investment firms,” New Enterprise Associates, which has $18 billion in assets under management and has invested in consumer companies like Jet, an online and mobile retailer that competed with Amazon and was sold to Walmart for $3.3 billion.
“Decades ago, at the peak of Japanese growth as a technology competitor on the global stage, the US government sought to break up IBM . This is not a new model, and it makes no sense,” says Narasin. “We slow down our country, our economy and our ability to innovate when the government becomes excessively aggressive in efforts to break up technology companies, because they see them through a prior-decades lens, when they are operating in a future decade reality. This too shall pass.”
Balaji Sirinivasan, the chief technology officer of Coinbase, took to Twitter to offer his thoughts on the Warren plan. “If big companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition,” Sirinivasan writes.
If big companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition. The reason is that if there is less M&A due to legal uncertainty, there is a reduced incentive for angels & VCs to fund those startups in the first place.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
A regulation that purports to reduce the power of a large company frequently ends up increasing it, by erecting barriers to entry for startups. Often that barrier is licensing. In this case the barrier would be reduced access to capital.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
“There are two separate issues here that are being conflated. One issue is do we need regulation on the full platform companies. And the answer is absolutely,” says Venky Ganesan, the managing director of Menlo Ventures. “These platforms have a huge impact on society at large and they have huge influence.”
But while the platforms need to be regulated, Ganesan says, Senator Warren’s approach is an exercise in overreach.
“That plan is like taking a bazooka to a knife fight. It’s overwhelming and it’s not commensurate with the issues,” Ganesan says. “I don’t think at the end of the day venture capital is worrying about competition from these big platform companies. [And] as the proposal is composed it would create more obstacles rather than less.”
Using Warren’s own example of the antitrust cases that were brought against companies like AT&T and Microsoft, is a good model for how to proceed, Ganesan says. “We want to have the technocrats at the FTC figure out the right way to bring balance.”
Kara Nortman, a partner with the Los Angeles-based firm Upfront Ventures, is also concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of Warren’s proposals.
Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Google, Amazon and Facebook
“The specifics of the policy as presented strike me as having potentially negative consequences for innovation, These companies are funding massive innovation initiatives in our country. They’re creating jobs and taking risks in areas of technology development where we could potentially fall behind other countries and wind up reducing our quality of life,” Nortman says. “We’re not seeing that innovation or initiative come from the government – or that support for encouraging immigration and by extension embracing the talented foreign entrepreneurs that could develop new technologies and businesses.”
Nortman sees the Warren announcement as an attempt to start a dialogue between government regulators and big technology companies.
“My hope is that this is the beginning of a dialogue that is constructive,” Nortman says. “And since Elizabeth Warren is a thoughtful policymaker this is likely the first salvo toward an engagement with the technology community to work collaboratively on issues that we all want to see solved and that some of us are dedicating our career in venture to help solving.”
from Facebook – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2NSGh3R via IFTTT
0 notes
newsrustcom ¡ 7 years ago
Text
Dropbox Is Said to Be Planning to Go Public This Year
Tumblr media
Venky Ganesan, a venture capitalist at Menlo Ventures, said a Dropbox I.P.O. would be seen as a harbinger for start-ups. “Will unicorns realize they have to grow up and grow out of their Peter Pan mentality?” he asked, adding that a public offering for Dropbox would also help set the scene for whether other unicorns “reignite and grow, or do they fade away?”
Dropbox filed confidentially with…
View On WordPress
0 notes
viralalien ¡ 8 years ago
Text
NVCA chair on immigration orders: If youre not at the table, youre on the menu
NVCA chair on immigration orders: If youre not at the table, youre on the menu
Tumblr media
Venky Ganesan, managing director of$4.4 billion venture capital firm Menlo Ventures and current chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, is walking a political tightrope and trying not to fall off.
The venture capital industry, financiers to many tech giants, relieson immigrant talent to launch startups, help them thrive and drive their continued success.
Right now, that puts the…
View On WordPress
0 notes
krea8ivcode ¡ 4 years ago
Text
StackRox nabs $26.5M for a platform that secures containers in Kubernetes
Containers have become a ubiquitous cornerstone in how companies manage their data, a trend that has only accelerated in the last eight months with the larger shift to cloud services and more frequent remote working due to the coronavirus pandemic. Alongside that, startups building services to enable containers to be used better are also getting a boost. StackRox, which develops Kubernetes-native security solutions, says that its business grew by 240% in the first half of this year, and on the back of that, it is announcing today that it has raised $26.5 million to expand its business into international markets, and to continue investing in its R&D. The funding, which appears to be a Series C, has an impressive list of backers. It is being led by Menlo Ventures, with Highland Capital Partners, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Sequoia Capital and Redpoint Ventures all also participating. Sequoia and Redpoint are previous investors, and the company has raised around $60 million to date. HPE is a strategic backer in this round: “At HPE, we are working with our customers to help them accelerate their digital transformations,” said Paul Glaser, VP, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and Head of Pathfinder. “Security is a critical priority as they look to modernize their applications with containers. We’re excited to invest in StackRox and see it as a great fit with our new software HPE Ezmeral to help HPE customers secure their Kubernetes environments across their full application life cycle. By directly integrating with Kubernetes, StackRox enables a level of simplicity and unification for DevOps and Security teams to apply the needed controls effectively.” Kamal Shah, the CEO, said that StackRox is not disclosing its valuation, but he confirmed it has definitely gone up. For some context, according to PitchBook data, the company was valued at $145 million in its last funding round, a Series B in 2018. Its customers today include the likes of Priceline, Brex, Reddit, Zendesk and Splunk, as well as government and other enterprise customers, in a container security market that analysts project will be worth some $2.2 billion by 2024, up from $568 million last year. StackRox first got its start in 2014, when containers were starting to pick up momentum in the market. At the time, its focus was a little more fragmented, not unlike the container market itself: it provided solutions that could be used with Docker containers as well as others. Over time, Shah said that the company chose to hone its focus just on Kubernetes, originally developed by Google and open-sourced, and now essentially the de-facto standard in containerisation. “We made a bet on Kubernetes at a time when there were multiple orchestrators, including Mesosphere, Docker and others,” he said. “Over the last two years Kubernetes has won the war and become the default choice, the Linux of the cloud and the biggest open source cloud application. We are all Kubernetes all the time because what we see in the market are that a majority of our customers are moving to it. It has over 35,000 contributors to the open source project alone, it’s not just Red Hat (IBM) and Google.” Research from CNCF estimates that nearly 80% of organizations that it surveyed are running Kubernetes in production. That is not all good news, however, with the interest underscoring a bigger need for Kubernetes-focused security solutions for enterprises that opt to use it. Shah says that some of the typical pitfalls in container architecture arise when they are misconfigured, leading to breaches; as well as around how applications are monitored; how developers use open-source libraries; and how companies implement regulatory compliance. Other security vulnerabilities that have been highlighted by others include the use of insecure container images; how containers interact with each other; the use of containers that have been infected with rogue processes; and having containers not isolated properly from their hosts. But Shah noted, “Containers in Kubernetes are inherently more secure if you can deploy correctly.” And to that end that is where StackRox’s solutions attempt to help: the company has built a multi-purposes toolkit that provides developers and security engineers with risk visibility, threat detection, compliance tools, segmentation tools and more. “Kubernetes was built for scale and flexibility, but it has lots of controls so if you misconfigure it it can lead to breaches. So you need a security solution to make sure you configure it all correctly,” said Shah. He added that there has been a definite shift over the years from companies considering security solutions as a optional element into one that forms part of the consideration at the very core of the IT budget — another reason why StackRox and competitors like TwistLock (acquired by Palo Alto Networks) and Aqua Security have all seen their businesses really grow. “We’ve seen the innovation companies are enabling by building applications in containers and Kubernetes. The need to protect those applications, at the scale and pace of DevOps, is crucial to realizing the business benefits of that innovation,” said Venky Ganesan, partner, Menlo Ventures, in a statement. “While lots of companies have focused on securing the container, only StackRox saw the need to focus on Kubernetes as the control plane for security as well as infrastructure. We’re thrilled to help fuel the company’s growth as it dominates this dynamic market.” “Kubernetes represents one of the most important paradigm shifts in the world of enterprise software in years,” said Corey Mulloy, General Partner, Highland Capital Partners, in a statement. “StackRox sits at the forefront of Kubernetes security, and as enterprises continue their shift to the cloud, Kubernetes is the ubiquitous platform that Linux was for the Internet era. In enabling Kubernetes-native security, StackRox has become the security platform of choice for these cloud-native app dev environments.” http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/techcrunch/startups/~3/T1zYEOAPki0/
0 notes
vsplusonline ¡ 5 years ago
Text
How Virat Kohli's celebration fired up Andre Russell's blazing knock vs Royal Challengers Bangalore
New Post has been published on https://apzweb.com/how-virat-kohlis-celebration-fired-up-andre-russells-blazing-knock-vs-royal-challengers-bangalore/
How Virat Kohli's celebration fired up Andre Russell's blazing knock vs Royal Challengers Bangalore
Virat Kohli and aggression go hand in hand, the ‘aggressive’ tag of the player has been with him even before he became a modern day great of the game.
It is believed that this aggressive and wild side of the Indian skipper brings the best out of him and we have enough stats to prove that the belief is not wrong. But what was not known is if his on-field antics trigger and bring the best out of an opponent as well.
Good news is that we have an answer for it now. KKR all-rounder Andre Russell in a recent interview with presenter Sanjana Ganesan, for his IPL franchise, said that Virat Kohli’s celebration has triggered him during an IPL 2019 match.
The match mentioned by the big-hitting West Indian was played at M.Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru. KKR were chasing a target of 206 runs and in the final moments of the match they needed 52 runs off 16 balls. Andre Russell had just walked in and not even found his foot.
Russell recalled the scenes which he saw before he entered the field to showcase his inhuman power-hitting skill. The scenes which he talked about had ‘triggered’ him to an extent that Chinnaswamy was going to become a real slaughter house for the bowlers.
“Dinesh Karthik got one boundary or two then he got out. He hit the ball and I think Virat Kohli took the catch. Virat Kohli turned to Venky (Venky Mysore KKR CEO) and where all the wives and KKR supporters were and he is like ‘come on’. When I looked up, like something triggered in my head like, hell no this is not over.”
Young Shubman Gill walked in after the dismissal of KKR captain Karthik and was advised by his senior to give him most number of strikes.
“When Shubman Gill walked out, I said hey listen I am gonna take down anybody that bowls. Anyone who comes on I am gonna take them down. So just try to give me as my strike as possible. He sad, ‘anything you say big man’, Boom. Since then, the game, it was like six after six and everytime I was hitting a six I was not even looking at the scoreboard because sometimes you get carried away with the crowd and everything .”
“Everytime after hitting a six I would go to Shubman, punch the gloves with him and go back to take as much deep breath as possible, that allows you to become calm. Looking around is like waste of energy,” Andre Russell added.
Andre Russell’s scorecard for his last 9 balls of the innings read 6,6,6,1,6,6,6,4,6. He smashed an unbeaten 48 off 13 balls as KKR won the match by 5 wickets, with 5 balls remaining.
Andre Russell also said that he gets the maximum goosebumps while playing for KKR in the IPL and he was wishing for IPL to happen this year.
Get real-time alerts and all the news on your phone with the all-new India Today app. Download from
Source link
0 notes
biofunmy ¡ 5 years ago
Text
This Is the Guy Who’s Taking Away the Instagram Likes
Facebook purchased Instagram in 2012, when it had 30 million users, and treated it largely as a side project, albeit a profitable one. But Instagram grew faster than anyone had expected. It shrewdly mimicked its rival, Snapchat, introducing the widely popular video-sharing Stories feature, whose private tallying of “watches” has informed Project Daisy.
Users who may have felt their privacy was compromised on Facebook used Instagram to exchange direct messages and share personal moments. In 2018, Instagram’s net advertising revenue in the United States reached nearly $6 billion, a 70 percent increase from the previous year, according to eMarketer, a social media research company.
No longer the quirky stepchild with bunny-ear filters, Instagram has become the future of Facebook in the United States, according to industry analysts who estimate that it is Facebook’s most lucrative asset and arguably one of the best acquisitions in tech history.
“There is this role reversal in Instagram’s metamorphosis from this tiny thing on the side to being the core platform,” said Venky Ganesan, a managing director at Menlo Ventures, a venture capital firm. “The actual Facebook that we know and love — or know and no longer love — is becoming a relic of the past.”
Mr. Zuckerberg began looking at the overall picture of Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook, or what he calls the “family of apps.” Facebook could seem like a jealous sibling: removing the Instagram logo from its bookmarks menu, for instance, and cutting the traffic that flowed from its platform to Instagram. Instagram users also had an option to cross-post Stories on Facebook, like sharing graham crackers.
Months before Instagram’s founders left, Jan Koum resigned from WhatsApp, the messaging app he co-founded, and from Facebook’s board, amid debates about the amount of user data Facebook had collected from its users.
Mr. Zuckerberg installed Mr. Mosseri as head of product at Instagram, a move that further convinced its founders, Mr. Systrom and Mr. Krieger, that the app they created was increasingly under Mr. Zuckerberg’s control. Not long after, they announced they would depart, leaving tumult in their wake. “No one ever leaves a job because everything’s awesome,” Mr. Systrom told Recode.
Sahred From Source link Fashion and Style
from WordPress http://bit.ly/2Rw0sqn via IFTTT
0 notes
mastcomm ¡ 5 years ago
Text
This Is the Guy Who’s Taking Away the Instagram Likes
Facebook purchased Instagram in 2012, when it had 30 million users, and treated it largely as a side project, albeit a profitable one. But Instagram grew faster than anyone had expected. It shrewdly mimicked its rival, Snapchat, introducing the widely popular video-sharing Stories feature, whose private tallying of “watches” has informed Project Daisy.
Users who may have felt their privacy was compromised on Facebook used Instagram to exchange direct messages and share personal moments. In 2018, Instagram’s net advertising revenue in the United States reached nearly $6 billion, a 70 percent increase from the previous year, according to eMarketer, a social media research company.
No longer the quirky stepchild with bunny-ear filters, Instagram has become the future of Facebook in the United States, according to industry analysts who estimate that it is Facebook’s most lucrative asset and arguably one of the best acquisitions in tech history.
“There is this role reversal in Instagram’s metamorphosis from this tiny thing on the side to being the core platform,” said Venky Ganesan, a managing director at Menlo Ventures, a venture capital firm. “The actual Facebook that we know and love — or know and no longer love — is becoming a relic of the past.”
Mr. Zuckerberg began looking at the overall picture of Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook, or what he calls the “family of apps.” Facebook could seem like a jealous sibling: removing the Instagram logo from its bookmarks menu, for instance, and cutting the traffic that flowed from its platform to Instagram. Instagram users also had an option to cross-post Stories on Facebook, like sharing graham crackers.
Months before Instagram’s founders left, Jan Koum resigned from WhatsApp, the messaging app he co-founded, and from Facebook’s board, amid debates about the amount of user data Facebook had collected from its users.
Mr. Zuckerberg installed Mr. Mosseri as head of product at Instagram, a move that further convinced its founders, Mr. Systrom and Mr. Krieger, that the app they created was increasingly under Mr. Zuckerberg’s control. Not long after, they announced they would depart, leaving tumult in their wake. “No one ever leaves a job because everything’s awesome,” Mr. Systrom told Recode.
from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/this-is-the-guy-whos-taking-away-the-instagram-likes/
0 notes
viparts ¡ 5 years ago
Text
A New Art Fair Makes Exhibitors an Unusual Offer: A Cut of Its Profits - - ARTnews
A New Art Fair Makes Exhibitors an Unusual Offer: A Cut of Its Profits – – ARTnews
Rebeca Laliberte and Rachel Mijares Fick.
VENKY PHOTOGRAPHY/COURTESY FUTURE FAIR AND VENKATA KRISHNAN GANESAN
As small and medium-sized galleries have shuttered at an alarming rate in recent years, many of their owners have pointed to the high price—and huge risk—of participating in art fairs. Now one startup thinks it has found a more sustainable model for dealers.
Future Fair, which will…
View On WordPress
0 notes
nahoo883 ¡ 6 years ago
Text
Venture investors and startup execs say they don’t need Elizabeth Warren to defend them from big tech
Responding to Elizabeth Warren’s call to regulate and break up some of the nation’s largest technology companies, the venture capitalists that invest in technology companies are advising the presidential hopeful to move slowly and not break anything.
Warren’s plan called for regulators to be appointed to oversee the unwinding of several acquisitions that were critical to the development of the core technology that make Alphabet’s Google and the social media giant Facebook so profitable… and Zappos.
Warren also wanted regulation in place that would block companies making over $25 billion that operate as social media or search platforms or marketplaces from owning companies that also sell services on those marketplaces.
As a whole, venture capitalists viewing the policy were underwhelmed.
“As they say on Broadway, ‘you gotta have a gimmick’ and this is clearly Warren’s,” says Ben Narasin, an investor at one of the nation’s largest investment firms,” New Enterprise Associates, which has $18 billion in assets under management and has invested in consumer companies like Jet, an online and mobile retailer that competed with Amazon and was sold to Walmart for $3.3 billion.
“Decades ago, at the peak of Japanese growth as a technology competitor on the global stage, the U.S. government sought to break up IBM. This is not a new model, and it makes no sense,” says Narasin. “We slow down our country, our economy and our ability to innovate when the government becomes excessively aggressive in efforts to break up technology companies, because they see them through a prior-decades lens, when they are operating in a future decade reality. This too shall pass.”
Balaji Sirinivasan, the chief technology officer of Coinbase, took to Twitter to offer his thoughts on the Warren plan. “If big companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition,” Sirinivasan writes.
If big companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition. The reason is that if there is less M&A due to legal uncertainty, there is a reduced incentive for angels & VCs to fund those startups in the first place.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
A regulation that purports to reduce the power of a large company frequently ends up increasing it, by erecting barriers to entry for startups. Often that barrier is licensing. In this case the barrier would be reduced access to capital.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
“There are two separate issues here that are being conflated. One issue is do we need regulation on the full platform companies. And the answer is absolutely,” says Venky Ganesan, the managing director of Menlo Ventures. “These platforms have a huge impact on society at large and they have huge influence.”
But while the platforms need to be regulated, Ganesan says, Senator Warren’s approach is an exercise in overreach.
“That plan is like taking a bazooka to a knife fight. It’s overwhelming and it’s not commensurate with the issues,” Ganesan says. “I don’t think at the end of the day venture capital is worrying about competition from these big platform companies. [And] as the proposal is composed it would create more obstacles rather than less.”
Using Warren’s own example of the antitrust cases that were brought against companies like AT&T and Microsoft is a good model for how to proceed, Ganesan says. “We want to have the technocrats at the FTC figure out the right way to bring balance.”
Kara Nortman, a partner with the Los Angeles-based firm Upfront Ventures, is also concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of Warren’s proposals.
Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Google, Amazon and Facebook
“The specifics of the policy as presented strike me as having potentially negative consequences for innovation. These companies are funding massive innovation initiatives in our country. They’re creating jobs and taking risks in areas of technology development where we could potentially fall behind other countries and wind up reducing our quality of life,” Nortman says. “We’re not seeing that innovation or initiative come from the government — or that support for encouraging immigration and by extension embracing the talented foreign entrepreneurs that could develop new technologies and businesses.”
Nortman sees the Warren announcement as an attempt to start a dialog between government regulators and big technology companies.
“My hope is that this is the beginning of a dialogue that is constructive,” Nortman says. “And since Elizabeth Warren is a thoughtful policymaker, this is likely the first salvo toward an engagement with the technology community to work collaboratively on issues that we all want to see solved and that some of us are dedicating our career in venture to help solving.”
from TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2NSGh3R via IFTTT from Blogger https://ift.tt/2C9q1Xy via IFTTT
0 notes
newsrustcom ¡ 7 years ago
Text
Dropbox Is Said to Be Planning to Go Public This Year
Tumblr media
Venky Ganesan, a venture capitalist at Menlo Ventures, said a Dropbox I.P.O. would be seen as a harbinger for start-ups. “Will unicorns realize they have to grow up and grow out of their Peter Pan mentality?” he asked, adding that a public offering for Dropbox would also help set the scene for whether other unicorns “reignite and grow, or do they fade away?”
Dropbox filed confidentially with…
View On WordPress
0 notes
toomanysinks ¡ 6 years ago
Text
Venture investors and startup execs say they don’t need Elizabeth Warren to defend them from big tech
Responding to Elizabeth Warren’s call to regulate and break up some of the nation’s largest technology companies, the venture capitalists that invest in technology companies are advising the presidential hopeful to move slowly and not break anything.
Warren’s plan called for regulators to be appointed to oversee the unwinding of several acquisitions that were critical to the development of the core technology that make Alphabet’s Google and the social media giant Facebook so profitable… and Zappos.
Warren also wanted regulation in place that would block companies making over $25 billion that operate as social media or search platforms or marketplaces from owning companies that also sell services on those marketplaces.
As a whole, venture capitalists viewing the policy were underwhelmed.
“As they say on Broadway, ‘you gotta have a gimmick’ and this is clearly Warren’s,” says Ben Narasin, an investor at one of the nation’s largest investment firms,” New Enterprise Associates, which has $18 billion in assets under management and has invested in consumer companies like Jet, an online and mobile retailer that competed with Amazon and was sold to Walmart for $3.3 billion.
“Decades ago, at the peak of Japanese growth as a technology competitor on the global stage, the US government sought to break up IBM . This is not a new model, and it makes no sense,” says Narasin. “We slow down our country, our economy and our ability to innovate when the government becomes excessively aggressive in efforts to break up technology companies, because they see them through a prior-decades lens, when they are operating in a future decade reality. This too shall pass.”
Balaji Sirinivasan, the chief technology officer of Coinbase, took to Twitter to offer his thoughts on the Warren plan. “If big companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition,” Sirinivasan writes.
If big companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition. The reason is that if there is less M&A due to legal uncertainty, there is a reduced incentive for angels & VCs to fund those startups in the first place.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
A regulation that purports to reduce the power of a large company frequently ends up increasing it, by erecting barriers to entry for startups. Often that barrier is licensing. In this case the barrier would be reduced access to capital.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
“There are two separate issues here that are being conflated. One issue is do we need regulation on the full platform companies. And the answer is absolutely,” says Venky Ganesan, the managing director of Menlo Ventures. “These platforms have a huge impact on society at large and they have huge influence.”
But while the platforms need to be regulated, Ganesan says, Senator Warren’s approach is an exercise in overreach.
“That plan is like taking a bazooka to a knife fight. It’s overwhelming and it’s not commensurate with the issues,” Ganesan says. “I don’t think at the end of the day venture capital is worrying about competition from these big platform companies. [And] as the proposal is composed it would create more obstacles rather than less.”
Using Warren’s own example of the antitrust cases that were brought against companies like AT&T and Microsoft, is a good model for how to proceed, Ganesan says. “We want to have the technocrats at the FTC figure out the right way to bring balance.”
Kara Nortman, a partner with the Los Angeles-based firm Upfront Ventures, is also concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of Warren’s proposals.
Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Google, Amazon and Facebook
“The specifics of the policy as presented strike me as having potentially negative consequences for innovation, These companies are funding massive innovation initiatives in our country. They’re creating jobs and taking risks in areas of technology development where we could potentially fall behind other countries and wind up reducing our quality of life,” Nortman says. “We’re not seeing that innovation or initiative come from the government – or that support for encouraging immigration and by extension embracing the talented foreign entrepreneurs that could develop new technologies and businesses.”
Nortman sees the Warren announcement as an attempt to start a dialogue between government regulators and big technology companies.
“My hope is that this is the beginning of a dialogue that is constructive,” Nortman says. “And since Elizabeth Warren is a thoughtful policymaker this is likely the first salvo toward an engagement with the technology community to work collaboratively on issues that we all want to see solved and that some of us are dedicating our career in venture to help solving.”
source https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/08/venture-investors-and-startup-execs-say-they-dont-need-elizabeth-warren-to-defend-them-from-big-tech/
0 notes
roseacisco ¡ 6 years ago
Text
Venture investors and startup execs say they don’t need Elizabeth Warren to defend them from big tech
Responding to Elizabeth Warren’s call to regulate and break up some of the nation’s largest technology companies, the venture capitalists that invest in technology companies are advising the presidential hopeful to move slowly and not break anything.
Warren’s plan called for regulators to be appointed to oversee the unwinding of several acquisitions that were critical to the development of the core technology that make Alphabet’s Google and the social media giant Facebook so profitable… and Zappos.
Warren also wanted regulation in place that would block companies making over $25 billion that operate as social media or search platforms or marketplaces from owning companies that also sell services on those marketplaces.
As a whole, venture capitalists viewing the policy were underwhelmed.
“As they say on Broadway, ‘you gotta have a gimmick’ and this is clearly Warren’s,” says Ben Narasin, an investor at one of the nation’s largest investment firms,” New Enterprise Associates, which has $18 billion in assets under management and has invested in consumer companies like Jet, an online and mobile retailer that competed with Amazon and was sold to Walmart for $3.3 billion.
“Decades ago, at the peak of Japanese growth as a technology competitor on the global stage, the US government sought to break up IBM . This is not a new model, and it makes no sense,” says Narasin. “We slow down our country, our economy and our ability to innovate when the government becomes excessively aggressive in efforts to break up technology companies, because they see them through a prior-decades lens, when they are operating in a future decade reality. This too shall pass.”
Balaji Sirinivasan, the chief technology officer of Coinbase, took to Twitter to offer his thoughts on the Warren plan. “If big companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition,” Sirinivasan writes.
If big companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition. The reason is that if there is less M&A due to legal uncertainty, there is a reduced incentive for angels & VCs to fund those startups in the first place.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
A regulation that purports to reduce the power of a large company frequently ends up increasing it, by erecting barriers to entry for startups. Often that barrier is licensing. In this case the barrier would be reduced access to capital.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
“There are two separate issues here that are being conflated. One issue is do we need regulation on the full platform companies. And the answer is absolutely,” says Venky Ganesan, the managing director of Menlo Ventures. “These platforms have a huge impact on society at large and they have huge influence.”
But while the platforms need to be regulated, Ganesan says, Senator Warren’s approach is an exercise in overreach.
“That plan is like taking a bazooka to a knife fight. It’s overwhelming and it’s not commensurate with the issues,” Ganesan says. “I don’t think at the end of the day venture capital is worrying about competition from these big platform companies. [And] as the proposal is composed it would create more obstacles rather than less.”
Using Warren’s own example of the antitrust cases that were brought against companies like AT&T and Microsoft, is a good model for how to proceed, Ganesan says. “We want to have the technocrats at the FTC figure out the right way to bring balance.”
Kara Nortman, a partner with the Los Angeles-based firm Upfront Ventures, is also concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of Warren’s proposals.
Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Google, Amazon and Facebook
“The specifics of the policy as presented strike me as having potentially negative consequences for innovation, These companies are funding massive innovation initiatives in our country. They’re creating jobs and taking risks in areas of technology development where we could potentially fall behind other countries and wind up reducing our quality of life,” Nortman says. “We’re not seeing that innovation or initiative come from the government – or that support for encouraging immigration and by extension embracing the talented foreign entrepreneurs that could develop new technologies and businesses.”
Nortman sees the Warren announcement as an attempt to start a dialogue between government regulators and big technology companies.
“My hope is that this is the beginning of a dialogue that is constructive,” Nortman says. “And since Elizabeth Warren is a thoughtful policymaker this is likely the first salvo toward an engagement with the technology community to work collaboratively on issues that we all want to see solved and that some of us are dedicating our career in venture to help solving.”
0 notes
fmservers ¡ 6 years ago
Text
Venture investors and startup execs say they don’t need Elizabeth Warren to defend them from big tech
Responding to Elizabeth Warren’s call to regulate and break up some of the nation’s largest technology companies, the venture capitalists that invest in technology companies are advising the presidential hopeful to move slowly and not break anything.
Warren’s plan called for regulators to be appointed to oversee the unwinding of several acquisitions that were critical to the development of the core technology that make Alphabet’s Google and the social media giant Facebook so profitable… and Zappos.
Warren also wanted regulation in place that would block companies making over $25 billion that operate as social media or search platforms or marketplaces from owning companies that also sell services on those marketplaces.
As a whole, venture capitalists viewing the policy were underwhelmed.
“As they say on Broadway, ‘you gotta have a gimmick’ and this is clearly Warren’s,” says Ben Narasin, an investor at one of the nation’s largest investment firms,” New Enterprise Associates, which has $18 billion in assets under management and has invested in consumer companies like Jet, an online and mobile retailer that competed with Amazon and was sold to Walmart for $3.3 billion.
“Decades ago, at the peak of Japanese growth as a technology competitor on the global stage, the US government sought to break up IBM . This is not a new model, and it makes no sense,” says Narasin. “We slow down our country, our economy and our ability to innovate when the government becomes excessively aggressive in efforts to break up technology companies, because they see them through a prior-decades lens, when they are operating in a future decade reality. This too shall pass.”
Balaji Sirinivasan, the chief technology officer of Coinbase, took to Twitter to offer his thoughts on the Warren plan. “If big companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition,” Sirinivasan writes.
If big companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are prevented from acquiring startups, that actually reduces competition. The reason is that if there is less M&A due to legal uncertainty, there is a reduced incentive for angels & VCs to fund those startups in the first place.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
A regulation that purports to reduce the power of a large company frequently ends up increasing it, by erecting barriers to entry for startups. Often that barrier is licensing. In this case the barrier would be reduced access to capital.
— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) March 8, 2019
“There are two separate issues here that are being conflated. One issue is do we need regulation on the full platform companies. And the answer is absolutely,” says Venky Ganesan, the managing director of Menlo Ventures. “These platforms have a huge impact on society at large and they have huge influence.”
But while the platforms need to be regulated, Ganesan says, Senator Warren’s approach is an exercise in overreach.
“That plan is like taking a bazooka to a knife fight. It’s overwhelming and it’s not commensurate with the issues,” Ganesan says. “I don’t think at the end of the day venture capital is worrying about competition from these big platform companies. [And] as the proposal is composed it would create more obstacles rather than less.”
Using Warren’s own example of the antitrust cases that were brought against companies like AT&T and Microsoft, is a good model for how to proceed, Ganesan says. “We want to have the technocrats at the FTC figure out the right way to bring balance.”
Kara Nortman, a partner with the Los Angeles-based firm Upfront Ventures, is also concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of Warren’s proposals.
“The specifics of the policy as presented strike me as having potentially negative consequences for innovation, These companies are funding massive innovation initiatives in our country. They’re creating jobs and taking risks in areas of technology development where we could potentially fall behind other countries and wind up reducing our quality of life,” Nortman says. “We’re not seeing that innovation or initiative come from the government – or that support for encouraging immigration and by extension embracing the talented foreign entrepreneurs that could develop new technologies and businesses.”
Nortman sees the Warren announcement as an attempt to start a dialogue between government regulators and big technology companies.
“My hope is that this is the beginning of a dialogue that is constructive,” Nortman says. “And since Elizabeth Warren is a thoughtful policymaker this is likely the first salvo toward an engagement with the technology community to work collaboratively on issues that we all want to see solved and that some of us are dedicating our career in venture to help solving.”
Via Jonathan Shieber https://techcrunch.com
0 notes
meanwebhost ¡ 6 years ago
Text
SoftBank’s triple, Pinterest is going public, and the market meltdown
SoftBank’s triple, Pinterest is going public, and the market meltdown
Hello and welcome back to Equity, TechCrunch’s venture capital-focused podcast, where we unpack the numbers behind the headlines.
This week we had 75 percent of the core crew on hand to chat: Connie Loizos, Danny Crichton, and myself. Kate will be back on the show early next year, we promise. We were also joined by Menlo Ventures‘ Venky Ganesan who was a super great addition to the team.
There…
View On WordPress
0 notes
biofunmy ¡ 5 years ago
Text
This Is the Guy Who’s Taking Away the Instagram Likes
Facebook purchased Instagram in 2012, when it had 30 million users, and treated it largely as a side project, albeit a profitable one. But Instagram grew faster than anyone had expected. It shrewdly mimicked its rival, Snapchat, introducing the widely popular video-sharing Stories feature, whose private tallying of “watches” has informed Project Daisy.
Users who may have felt their privacy was compromised on Facebook used Instagram to exchange direct messages and share personal moments. In 2018, Instagram’s net advertising revenue in the United States reached nearly $6 billion, a 70 percent increase from the previous year, according to eMarketer, a social media research company.
No longer the quirky stepchild with bunny-ear filters, Instagram has become the future of Facebook in the United States, according to industry analysts who estimate that it is Facebook’s most lucrative asset and arguably one of the best acquisitions in tech history.
“There is this role reversal in Instagram’s metamorphosis from this tiny thing on the side to being the core platform,” said Venky Ganesan, a managing director at Menlo Ventures, a venture capital firm. “The actual Facebook that we know and love — or know and no longer love — is becoming a relic of the past.”
Mr. Zuckerberg began looking at the overall picture of Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook, or what he calls the “family of apps.” Facebook could seem like a jealous sibling: removing the Instagram logo from its bookmarks menu, for instance, and cutting the traffic that flowed from its platform to Instagram. Instagram users also had an option to cross-post Stories on Facebook, like sharing graham crackers.
Months before Instagram’s founders left, Jan Koum resigned from WhatsApp, the messaging app he co-founded, and from Facebook’s board, amid debates about the amount of user data Facebook had collected from its users.
Mr. Zuckerberg installed Mr. Mosseri as head of product at Instagram, a move that further convinced its founders, Mr. Systrom and Mr. Krieger, that the app they created was increasingly under Mr. Zuckerberg’s control. Not long after, they announced they would depart, leaving tumult in their wake. “No one ever leaves a job because everything’s awesome,” Mr. Systrom told Recode.
Sahred From Source link Fashion and Style
from WordPress http://bit.ly/2u9O9Z7 via IFTTT
0 notes
theinvinciblenoob ¡ 6 years ago
Link
Hello and welcome back to Equity, TechCrunch’s venture capital-focused podcast, where we unpack the numbers behind the headlines.
This week we had 75 percent of the core crew on hand to chat: Connie Loizos, Danny Crichton, and myself. Kate will be back on the show early next year, we promise. We were also joined by Menlo Ventures‘ Venky Ganesan who was a super great addition to the team.
There was a lot to get through. In fact, we had to toss a few things overboard toward the end due to time. So, we didn’t get to US-China cross-border venture flows, or the new Lightspeed China fund, but we did dig into:
SoftBank’s latest three mega investments. SoftBank let loose a trio of titanic checks into three companies, including $385 million into Fair, a car-focused company, $400 million into Relay Therapeutics, which deals with “protein motion,” and $500 million into Cambridge Mobile Telematics. That’s what, $1.285 billion announced in a single week?
Pinterest’s impending IPO. As expected, Pinterest is going public. We riffed on its recent revenue growth and the timing of its debut. Honestly, I’m pretty giddy to read this S-1, and I doubt that I am alone.
The US market’s crisis. Recording this late in the day on the 20th, we cut the episode right after U.S. tech stocks took a pounding. Dropbox fell under its IPO price as other SaaS players like Box took big hits. Social fell, as Snap and Twitter both swooned, the former falling under $5 per share temporarily. The pain went on, and on, and on.
Big Chinese tech stocks at 52-week lows. It’s not only American tech stocks that are in trouble, however; Chinese tech shops that have already gone public are taking their lumps as well. Indeed, as Danny detailed, many firms that were running hot before are now testing full-year lows.
Equity’s impending two-week vacation. And to celebrate all of that, this podcast is taking the first two weeks of 2019 off. Mostly so that TechCrunch can decamp to Vegas for CES, but also because after more than 100 episodes, we need to catch our breath. (And restock the fridge with Red Bull. Danny did yawn on this episode, after all!)
Next week we have a special holiday episode involving the ever-brilliant Connie and a guest. Past that, as mentioned above, we are off for two weeks. So, we’ll be back as a group in the middle of January.
Until then, a big thanks one last time for hanging out with us over the last couple of years. Chat soon!
Equity drops every Friday at 6:00 am PT, so subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Downcast and all the casts.
via TechCrunch
0 notes