Angel list is a special thing that I believe will transform Silicon Valley. Much like how Michael Arrington exploited the market dynamic to make TechCrunch the success it was, Ravikant and Nivi is doing the same thing by connecting entrepreneurs with investors. And not just any investors: the early stage investors that startups really need. Simply put, it's reducing the costs of innovation in Silicon Valley - the 'thing' that has changed the world.

I really hope the industry rallies around this and collaboration opportunities with other high profile angels continue. Jason Calacanis for example is doing something equally impressive with the Open Angel forum, and I sense they both have equal motivations due to their annoyance at how other investor groups have abused their position in the industry. Even though I see them adding different value to the startup scene (they're similar but different - and should stay different for maximum value creation), all I can say is "awesome - I want more".

Pollenizer is an agency that helps startup's grow, run by my good friend Mick Liubinskas and his superstar business partner Phil Morle. They sponsored the bus, with the request an important lesson be shared, which was related to failure.

Below is a short video of Brandon Leonardo - a superstar that I think is going to go very far in his career. He however, had a very unfortunate incident that nearly threw off the entire operation of the bus. The incident revealed an important lesson for Brandon about how you deal with failure. Watch the video the find out what.

This blog post was done in honour of our proud sponsor Pollenizer. This post is part of a series on the Startup Bus, an event that occurred in March 2010 that was powered by Alassian, mentored by the eStrategy Group and supported by several other very generous sponsors.

Hewlett Packard was the company that started Silicon Valley, and Phil is one of the three divisional CTO's at the company, focused on personal systems (meaning a lot of the innovative things that we will see come out are under his watch). So it was a no-brainer to start our experience there. He shared secrets of innovation, including some insight into yet-to-be released products by HP, like it's electronic-ink paper that kills anything else in its class and the proposed Slate device itself (an iPad competitor soon to be released).

You can watch the entire presentation as part of this playlist. Or, click on the videos below which are in ten minute blocks.

Part one: Introduction
Part two: The Rules of the Bus
Part three: The Challenge of Innovation
Part four: The Secret Sauce - FIRE
Part five: The Secret Sauce - PO
Part six: Show and Tell
Part seven: Q & A
Part eight: Q & A (continued)
Part nine: (continued)

This blog post is a series on the Startup Bus, an event that occurred in March 2010 that was powered by Alassian, mentored by the eStrategy Group and supported by several other very generous sponsors.

I'm going to write a blog series that will answer the following questions:
* What worked?
* What didn't work?
* What were all the ideas?
* What ideas got rejected?
* Who was on all the teams and what were there roles?
* Did people flake out before/during/after (and if so how did that get addressed)?
* What are the state of the projects now?
* Are we planning to do something like this again?
* Did anything crazy happen during the trip?

Below you'll find links to posts I will write on the event (as I write them). Above the links, you will find a video of me explaining to the "buspreneurs" why I think this experiment is valuable, regardless of the outcome.

Relate blog posts:
Phil McKinney talks innovation to the Startup Bus/

This blog post is a series on the Startup Bus, an event that occurred in March 2010 that was powered by Alassian, mentored by the eStrategy Group and supported by several other very generous sponsors.

The concept is to put a remarkable amount of constraints (moving bus, strangers, 48 hours, crappy connectivity, sleep deprivation) among a group of smart people (and the people so far asking to join, include people who have built million dollar businesses). In my experience with these things, real startups can emerge from these efforts (like OpenOnDemand.com/ or BinaryPlex.com, which is where the founders met), but the real motivation is to give a learning experience - and so I am structuring the program so that it maximises that as the experience. I guess you could say it's like training, or as my friends Bart Jellema and Kim Chen coined for the Australian startup camps, "excercise for entrepreneurs".

Leena Rao from TechCrunch makes an argument that these efforts can stir up emotions and controversy. But that's exactly the point - in building a startup, you face obstacles. And if don't deal with them - which include infighting, things breaking, and crazy pressure - then chances are, you're not made for the startup world. Which is why these experiences are so valuable - you give people practice and exposure to these issues, and you end up developing better entrepreneurs.

As they say: good judgment comes from experience, but to get experience, you need to have made bad judgment. Here's to developing entrepreneurs, so that they have better judgment with their real startups one day.

Huge opportunities for exposure for sponsors, which will fund this experience. Contact me for more.

I just don't care any more
I started writing this post sitting in my parents living room last week in Sydney, where I visited for the Christmas break to spend time with family. Chatting away with my parents, my father said something very startling but also very relevant. He was talking about his 73 years of life and the 47 years he's had as a lawyer. Once a fiery dragon in the courts and of life, he's now an aged playboy winding himself down. He said he's thinking of giving it up and going into retirement, as he has been working these last few years purely for the passion. Why quit now, I asked: "I just don't care anymore".

I've got countless anecdotal examples (but none I can share specifically here, sorry). People I thought that were pushing to create global businesses, are now giving way to other priorities and looking to sell their very valuable company. People who have been involved with a startup for over four years, that's only now exploding in growth, but feeling fatigued and ready to move on.

It's not just entrepreneurs
A good friend of mine who has worked for five years at a big bank, is now looking for a change in employer. Several other friends, who have been in long-term romantic relationships for around 3-5 years, are now feeling the pressure of making a decision: get married or stop wasting her time. And sometimes it's not them making the decision - but it's what she's probably thinking.

Passion, fire and ambition is needed to start something - whether it be a new job at a big brand company, a new company that disrupts the industry, or a partner that reinvigorates your life. But like life itself, there is a predictable pattern that follows. What gets born will also mature - and will die, one day. It's just how life is; what goes up, will go down as well.

Build to flip: it's a good thing
Bringing this back to the point of this post, I want to highlight that the obsession to build a sustainable business is actually not a normal thing. And I said obsession, because a few years ago I made a naive plea that that was the only way. Now that I've seen more, I've realised it's a way but not the common way.

People that create businesses are creative. The same reason that makes them creative, is also the same reason that has them get bored when a process gets repeatable. The types of personality that start a company and battle during its pre-revenue days, are vastly different from the ones that help grow and manage a profitable business.

So the next time people criticise a company that doesn't stay the course towards an IPO, and let's itself get bought out - just remember, that sometimes, it's because the people behind them just don't care anymore. And that's perfectly alright. Don't fight it - it's how it is.

Vanish is designed to give people control over the lifetime of personal data stored on the web or in the cloud. All copies of Vanish encrypted data — even archived or cached copies — will become permanently unreadable at a specific time, without any action on the part of a person, third party or centralised service.

As the New York Times notes, the technology of being able to destruct digital data is nothing new. However this particular implementation uses a novel way that combines a time limit and more uniquely, peer-to-peer file sharing that degrades a "key" over time. Its been made available as open source on the Mozilla Firefox browser. Details of the technical implementation can be found on the team's press release, which includes a demo video.

Implications
Advances like this could have a huge impact on the world, from controlling unauthorised assess to information to reinforcing content-creators copyright. Scenario's where this technology could benefit

• Content. As I've argued in the past, news derives its value from how quickly it can be accessed. However, legacy news items can also have value as an archive. By controlling the distribution of unique content like news, publishers have a way of controlling usage of their product - so that they can subsequently monetise the news if used for a different purpose (ie, companies researching the past for information as opposed to being informed by the latest news for day to day decision making)
• Identity. Over at the DataPortability Project, we are in the finishing touches of creating our conceptial overview for a standard set of EULA and ToS that companies can adopt. This means, having companies respect your rights to your personal information in a standardised way - think how the Creative Commons has done for your content creations. An important conceptual decision we made, is that a person should have the right to delete their personal information and content - as true portability of your data is more than just reusing it in a different content. Technologies like this allow consumers to control their personal information, despite the fact they may not have possession, as their data resides in the cloud.
• Security. Communications between people is so that we can inform each other in the 'now'. This new world with the Internet capturing all of our conversations (such as chat logs and emails threads) is having us lose control of our privacy. The ability to have chat transcripts and email discussions automatically expire is a big step forward. Better still, if a company's internal documents are leaked (as was the case with Twitter recently), it can rely on more avenues to limit damage beyond using the court system that would issue injunctions.

There's a lot more work to be performed on technologies like this. Implementation issues aside, the inline encryption of the information doesn't make this look sexy. But with a few user interface tweaks, it gives us a strong insight into real solutions for present day problems with the digital age. Even if we simply get companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft ad Yahoo to agree on a common standard, it will transform the online world dramatically.

But I won't get into the trends right now that are banging around my head, making me willing to change careers, country and life to position myself for the future opportunities. Let's instead start with his core thesis:

The days of infinite margins, 1,000% productivity gains, and growth of market throughout the universe are long over. Internet companies now should be treated, at best, like utility companies that get bought at about 10 times earnings and sold at 13 times earnings. Even then, I'm not sure I would give the Internet sector the same respect as the monopoly-protected utility sector.

I am glad that was said, because this is more of a world-wide problem we have, that has lead us into the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The ridiculous false economy generated over decades of speculative growth - where fundamental asset values were supported by unreal cash - is something we need to stop. The best thing the GFC has taught us, is that valuations need to be supported by independent cash flows with markets not manipulated to inflate their true value. And I can't wait to see the technology sector (who along with their partners in crime in banking and property) use some basic accounting skills, and come to the rude awakening that, in the real world, that's how things roll.

Where he is wrong however, is in the innovation that is creating new ways of generating revenue. More importantly, what we are seeing is a stabilisation in technologies invented half a century ago. The Internet and hypertext (the web is an implementation of a hyptertext system) have all been in development for 50 years - and it's only *now* that we are coming to grips with the change. So to say this is a fad that's now over, is really ignoring the longer term trends occurring.

As identified in the article, the biotech market will be massive, but I was told by the head of the PwC Technology park Bo Parker in March 2009 that it's only just resembling Information Technology in the 1970s. However, when in comes to information, things are ramping up for a lot more as the industry has had a lot more time to evolve.

Where do I see things going? Oh man, let's get a beer and talk about it. Data portability, Semantic Web, VRM, Project Natal, the sixth sense, augmented reality - try that to get your imagination started. I call it the age of ubiquity: ubiqitous connectivity, ubiqitous computing, ubiqitous information - where we have those separate things accessible anywhere and everywhere and when combined will change our lives. Information and communications, after all, are a fundamental aspect of being human that underlie everything we do - and so its impact will be more broadly applicable, obvious, and transformative.

Where's the money in that? Are you kidding me?! The question is not how many dollars these changes can generate, but how many new industries will they spawn. We seriously don't know what's about to hit us in the next two decades for information technology, and clearly, neither do the Fund Managers.

It has the potential to replace email, instant messenging, and create a new technical category for collaboration and interactivity in the broadest sense. However hidden in the details, is a dirty little secret about the practicality of this project.

Google Wave is transformative, but it also is a technical challenge. If adopted, it will entrench cloud computing and ultimately Google's fate as the most dominant company in the world.

The challenge in its development
For the last two years, the Google Sydney office has been working on a "secret project". It got to the stage where the office - which runs the Google Maps product (another Sydney invention) - was competing for resources and had half the office dedicated to developing it. So secret was the project, that only the highest level of Google's management team in Mountain View knew about it. Googler's in other parts of the world either didn't know about it, or people like me in the local tech scene, knew it was something big but didn't know what exactly.

However although I didn't know what exactly it was, I was aware of the challenge. And basically, it boils down to this: it's a difficult engineering feat to pull off. The real time collaboration, which is at the core of what this technology provides, requires computationally a huge amount of resources for it to work.

It needs everyone to use it
Although we are all digging into the details, one thing I know for a fact, is that Google wants to make this as open as possible. It wants competitors like Microsoft, Yahoo and the entire development community to not just use it - but be a big driver in its adoption. For collaboration to work, you need people - and it makes little sense to restrict it to only a segment of the Internet population (much the same like email). Google's openness isn't being driven out of charity, but pure economic sense: it needs broad-based market adoption for this to work.

Only few can do it
However, with lots of people using it comes another fact: only those with massive cloud computing capabilities will be able to do this. Google practically invented and popularised the most important trend in computing right now. A trend where the industrial age's economies of scale has come to play - reminding us that there are aspects of the Information Economy that are not entirely different from the past. What Google's Wave technology does, is give a practical application that relies on cloud computing for its execution. And if the Wave protocol becomes as ubiquitous as email and Instant Messaging - and goes further to become core to global communications - then we will see the final innings to who now runs this world.

Wave is an amazing technology, and I am excited to see it evolve. But mark my words: this open technology requires a very expensive setup behind the scenes. And those that will meet this setup, will be our masters of tomorrow. Google has come to own us due to its innovation in information management - now watch Act II as it does the same for communications.

I had some great discussions with people there and it's great to see so many passionate people share ideas about building a better future. The video was streamed online - hit play on the video embedded below and enjoy. (I come in at the 17 minute mark.)