Innovate Myopically

Everyone loves to talk about innovation these days. Big companies are setting up “innovation labs” in droves. Startups in particular love to innovate. After all, who doesn’t love to innovate?

Innovation is generally a bad idea.

Innovation is hard. Really hard. Innovation requires lots of money, resources, time, and luck. Startups have none of the above. So startups should innovate as little as possible.

Most startups should only innovate in their product offering to serve their customers’ needs, and avoid all other forms of innovation. Moreover, since most startups are application layer companies (and not deep tech companies), they should abstract all material engineering challenges. They should focus exclusively on application layer problems - UX, features, stability, etc.

Outside of product innovation, startups should copy as much as they can. There is generally no need to innovate on any of the following, unless that particular area is the focus of the startup and the management team has deep expertise in the area:

Legal structure
Job descriptions
Invoicing and accepting payments
Internal communications
Investor relations
Org charts
Goal setting and planning
Enterprise selling
Inside selling
SEO/SEM
Sales training
Cold calling
Onboarding
Cap table management
Accounting
Budgeting

You should seek to actively commoditize every aspect of your business that isn’t your locus of innovation. Everything else should be emulated.

Thoughts on Drones

I’ve been thinking about drones a lot lately. Obviously the technology component is really cool, but more importantly, drones shatter some fundamental assumptions about business. Below are some thoughts on drones in no particular order:

Amazon will unveil Amazon Drone Services (ADS) that will allow anyone to ship anything (within ADS size/weight constraints) anywhere in a given geography in X minutes. This will change local commerce, and will have huge implications for the current crop of food focused startups (Favor, Doordash, Postmates, etc). Aggregators such as Instacart will be better positioned to manage this transition as they provide specialized value beyond raw delivery.

There will be a convergence in “form factor” for the most important use case: delivery. There will certainly be drones of various sizes for carrying different payloads varying distances, but the underlying designs will likely converge, and the software that powers the drones will be shared.

There will be unique use cases - such as oil pipeline inspections and maintenance - that may require unique hardware that ADS will not accommodate. There will be niche markets to accommodate these use cases. The technology vendors building these solutions will offer a unique combination of integrated hardware and application-layer software focused product for specific industry verticals. For these niche use cases, hardware and software will be provided by a single vendor, though the vendor will probably use open source technology like AirWare.

Once drones converge in form factor, then there’s no reason why Amazon or Google won’t become the dominant infrastructure provider of most drone-based intra-city logistics. It seems very unlikely that any startup today - even the largest drone manufacturer, DJI - could muster the capital and resources to compete directly Amazon or Google head on. Given the roaring success that has been AWS, Amazon’s very public work on drones, and Google’s aggressive robotics research and acquisitions, it’s clear that Amazon and Google are going to fight to the death to become the dominant drone-logistics providers for cities. Startups simply won’t be able to compete.

This also means that the tech giants will drive most of the innovation in drone operating systems - computer vision, collision detection, wind management, electronic virtual highways, etc. Amazon and Google will open source their drone OSes to drive standardization in hardware around their respective software defined ecosystems, just as Google has done with Android. Startups won’t have much of an opportunity to drive innovation here in the long run, though there could be some significant early exits to tech giants. AirWare could be a notable example of this.

There are certain parts of the supply chain that Amazon probably won’t get into, such as on-demand medical rentals (rent an X ray when you break your arm for use by consult by DoctorOnDemand), fresh-baked bread (will Amazon build a bunch of ovens?), and pharmacies (too much regulation for Amazon). There will be unique opportunities to reshape many of these businesses by leveraging ADS.

The businesses most likely to be reshaped are those that have historically been very local and fragmented - such as bakeries and meat delivery. There could be an enormous opportunity to disrupt Sysco by rethinking the SMB supply chain through drones.

Because drones will reduce the cost of transportation by 10-100x, restaurants may choose to order materials “just in time” rather than every 1-2 days. This can improve profit margins by reducing waste, and by freeing up significant working capital. Drones will reshape the entire food supply chain, and will in the process create opportunities to launch new companies at every layer of the food value chain built around drones. Drones reduce the need for working capital by enabling just-in-time everything. Drones are complementary to Bitcoin.

Bitcoin and drones go hand in hand. By reducing the cost of physical transportation 10-100x, there will be a need for a low friction, instant, low-transaction fee payment system for small transactions. Bitcoin is the obvious solution.

Drones will open new opportunities in “space arbitrage,” just as the Internet has enabled labor arbitrage by empowering Indian labor to take care of white collar American tasks. The use case that most immediately comes to mind is an infinitely large, virtual closet for people who live in big cities with small closets - think NYC or SF. I can see a future in which you can pick out your clothes for the day and have them delivered in the morning, freshly washed / dry cleaned. Or better yet, you’ll be able to rent clothes Friday at 8pm and have them in your hands at 8:15pm. This naturally lends itself to interesting businesses in clothing rental. There will be other opportunities in "space arbitrage" built on this idea.

There are an enormous number of drone applications in construction, architecture, agriculture, and oil and gas. These are fairly obvious applications today and have the potential for immediate ROI. Most application-layer drone investments today are focused on these verticals because the end-users can achieve near immediate ROI.
 

Bitcoin Will Disrupt Working Capital Management

I’ve been thinking a lot about bitcoin lately. And thus, I’ve been talking to people about it. Even some of the smartest people I speak with though are still skeptical. So I thought I’d write out why exactly I’m so bullish on the future of bitcoin.

Plenty of smart people have written about the potential of bitcoin across many fronts. They’ve outlined how the protocol works, the security underlying the blockchain, and detailed some of the relatively obvious and compelling applications that will create value in the short term.

These are all fine and well. I’m generally supportive of all of the above. But I don’t think the potential power of bitcoin has been articulated in a way that most people can appreciate or absorb. Here’s my attempt:

The foundational protocol of the Internet as we know it today is the TCP/IP (thusly to be referred to as “TCP”). For those who aren’t familiar with TCP, this protocol guarantees that content - specifically packets - makes it from point A to point B. Why is this important? TCP ensures that even if you have 1 bar of cell reception, that your email still loads without missing letters. If TCP didn’t guarantee delivery, then the web that we know today would be quite literally littered with holes. But at the end of the day, TCP is simply a means by which to relay information from point A to point B.

In the early 1990s, TCP was relatively new. It was just starting to take off, and people like Marc Andreessen started playing with TCP to build what would become Netscape. At that time, people felt that most of the good ideas were taken. Seriously.

Given that there weren’t many good ideas to be had, the world was nearing peak efficiency. Circa 1993, there just wasn’t much left to do. The world was humming along just fine.

Wrong.

With hindsight, it’s clear that the world was massively inefficient. Using the Internet, securities markets would grow exponentially in transaction and dollar volume to price assets as perfectly as possible given information available. Google, Expedia, Kayak, and others would disrupt travel agents. But none of these examples compare to the massive wave of efficiency that the sharing economy has ushered into society. Uber and AirBnB are predicated on information arbitrage via the Internet. These companies exist because they can use the TCP protocol to guarantee delivery of information from one person with a need to another with supply as efficiently as possible.

Now that the Internet is in widespread use for myriad commercial and consumer applications, it’s rather clear that the world has been massively inefficient. By leveraging the TCP protocol, we have found ways to optimize billions of decisions around the most up to date information.

Who could have imagined that TCP would enable Uber 5 years ago? What about 20 years ago?

And that leads us to bitcoin:

Bitcoin will be to digital payments was TCP was to digital information. Why and how?

In short, bitcoin enables near instant, near $0 transactions at near $0 cost. This is the killer app for bitcoin.

How much of the global economy is predicated on the fact that this isn’t possible today? A few examples:

Amazon Web Services (AWS) is predicated on post-paid billing even though they are investing in capital leases each month regardless of utilization. What if AWS billed you per minute, every minute, based on per minute usage? This would have a dramatic impact on AWS’s working capital, which it would then invest in future growth and lower prices.

Apple purchases >$100B / year worth of components, or about $270M everyday. I can’t speak to Apple’s agreements with its vendors, but it’s probably fair to assume that many of them need capital from Apple to finance operations. What if Apple’s suppliers could charge Apple per component as it’s delivered to the appropriate assembly plant? This gives Apple all of the leverage by only paying upon delivery, while dramatically helping ease the suppliers’ working capital.

There are hundreds of comparable examples. But the common thread outlined here is that bitcoin profoundly impacts working capital management by enabling true per / unit billing. You could pay for water/electricity, rental cars, rent, etc on a per minute basis for some discount. Asset owners and renters alike should be thrilled as this solves a huge market inefficiency: working capital management.

The total value of working capital across the S&P 500 is measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. I wouldn’t be surprised if the total value of all working capital in all businesses is 100x more. Bitcoin can dramatically affect how we think about working capital manageemnt.

Bitcoin supply is intrinsically fixed, this single application can drive enormous demand. This is why I believe bitcoin can go up 100-1000x over the next decade.

Full disclosure: I am long bitcoin.

Cost is King

I recently listened to an a16z podcast about disruption theory. I’m a big fan of the theory and have been thinking a lot about it lately. The most important facet of the theory is cost.

Incumbents are disrupted because their cost model - typically measured by gross margin - is too high. When a smaller company devises a way to deliver the same value as an incumbent with a lower cost structure, disruption can occur. Thus the key to disruption is cost, or rather reducing cost.

Although we like to think about innovation in terms of novelty - think electricity, airplanes, or computers - the history of technological development over the course of human history can be more cohesively understood as a systematic removal of cost. Very few innovations were truly novel along a dimension other than cost.

For example, airplanes dramatically reduced the cost of long distance travel. However, human didn’t need airplanes to travel long distances. Millions of people travelled across large swaths of land and sea over the course of human history without planes. Airplanes just made long distance travel much more economical. I don’t mean to understate the power of this particular cost reduction - planes substantially changed how frequently humans could travel long distances, which has shaped every facet of business and personal life across the planet.

Even computers can be described through the same lens. Travel agents did what Kayak does. Telephone operators did what computers do. Analysts do what SaaS dashboards do. Uber drives do what computers will soon do. Because computers are programmed by humans, computers can only do what humans instruct computers to do. Through this lens, computers can be recognized as infinitely cheap “humans.” Electricity, silicon, and software costs pale in comparison to paying people’s wages - and thus mortgages, cars, meals, clothes, etc.

It thus stands to reason that the best businesses are those that methodically remove cost. Business cases to justify new innovations are by definition more compelling the more significant the financial impact of the innovation. For most companies, the largest source of cost is human labor. Thus the largest opportunities in business will be those in which technology can automate what humans used to do.

This notion that cost is the central challenge in humanity is perhaps best described by this quote by Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon. “There are two kinds of companies, those that work to try to charge their customers more and those that work hard to charge their customers less. We will be the second.”

Cost is indeed king.

If It Can't Be Said In One Sentence, It's Not Clear

The most important thing I’ve learned in my 2.5 years since starting Pristine is the power of clarity. Looking back, it blows my mind how unclear I was with all of our stakeholders - employees, customers, and investors - and even myself in my first year.

I see a similar lack of clarity when I speak with super-early stage first time founders. There’s a simple litmus test to determine clarity:

If it can’t be said in one sentence, it’s not clear.

So my advice to early stage entrepreneurs is to have a one sentence answer to all of the following questions:

  1. Besides raising capital, what are the 3 most important things that you need to accomplish in the next 6 months?
  2. What are are the ideal strengths of your first 5 employees?
  3. Based on the amount of capital you want to raise and assuming no revenue, how much runway do you have?
  4. Are you default alive, or default dead?
  5. What does your business do?
  6. Why does your business exist?
  7. Why are you going to be better than the next best alternative?
  8. Why won’t the next best alternative copy and kill you?
  9. How big is the market? Please provide a bottoms-up analysis.