Thanks to JB for pointing this out.  Pretty interesting idea.  I particularly like it from a data representation standpoint (see my post on that subject  here).

http://milliondollarhomepage.com/

I can’t promise that this will be my last pre-conference post on Glue, but I can promise that if you’re not planning on attending the conference you’re going to be missing out on a great event.  To give you a sense of who is coming (other than our great group of speakers), below is a list of some of the companies and organizations that have people already registered for the event:

AdMeld
Alsop Louie Partners
Avaya
Best Buy
Citizen Sports
Cloud Ave
Cloud Security Alliance
Denver Art Museum
Devver
Facebook
Filtrbox
FreshBooks
Gartner
Guidewire Group
IntelliWare Systems
Internet Broadcasting
Intuit Inc.
Los Alamos Nat’l Lab Research Library
Massachusetts Institue of Technology
Meritage Funds
NASA Ames
Network World
NeuStar
Paypal
Salesforce.com
Symantec Corporatiion
SynapticHealth
Union Square Ventures
UserSphere Research
Yahoo! Inc.

The level of excitement around Glue is increasing every day – I can’t wait for May 12th!

Trada (one of our Boulder based portfolio companies) is looking to hire. They’re looking for a tech-skilled individual who thinks they can do just about everything, because they might be asked to.  Primary role is testing their online advertising app but there’s a huge opportunity to contribute much more.  There’s dev work; cloud systems admin; operations tasks; end-user support; and even customer facing account management tasks that can be added to the mix for the properly skilled (and properly motivated) individual.  While still in stealth these guys are already rocking. Interested? contact Michael Lawless at mlawless@trada.com

StockTwits announced two great new features in the last week that are worth checking out.

The first is a partnership with SecondMarket to expand the StockTwits platform to include private company streams. So just as you’d tag a post with $AAPL you can now tag private companies (think $ZYNGA,$4SQ, etc). Just as it is for public equitites, tagging your posts (tweets, blogs, etc.) with private company symbols is a much more efficient way to identify the company you’re talking about and become a part of the broader conversation about a company. StockTwits has put together an impressive database of private company symbols and is adding to this list daily.

The second feature was launched with less fanfare – a WordPress plugin that takes any ticker symbol in the body of a post and links them to the realtime discussion of that company at stocktwits.com. You can see how this works in this post – check out $GOOG, $CSCO and $AAPL. Very cool stuff. From a very cool company.

I’ll admit that I have a bit of a complex about business schools. I never went (sorry – no “Seth J. Levine, MBA” on my business card . . . ) – probably because all of the schools I wanted to go to wouldn’t accept me for college, so I don’t see any reason to give them money for business school. Plus it was the rock and roll late 90’s and I still had dreams of getting rich in the internet bubble (which I did not, although I do continue to receive class action notices for various companies whose stock I owned at the time, much to my amusement). So with that as my clear bias, I have a pet peeve to share with you. I understand why many business schools are named after rich donors (in the same way that many cultural institutions have wings or buildings named after people who gave money in support of them), but why is it that someone tells you where they went to business school, they never actually tell you the name of the school the went to? I think it must be like a fraternity handshake – referring to schools in code. Personally, I think it’s annoying. No one went to Dartmouth – they went to “Tuck”; same is true for UVA (“Darden”); ditto Penn (“Wharton” – this one is even used by undergrads who studied business there); the list goes on. Even schools whose name is in the name of their business school name have to use code (does anyone say they went to business school at Harvard? No – they went to “HBS”). My all time favorite is Stanford. No one goes to Stanford business school – they went to GSB (which is short for Graduate School of Business – said in a way to indicate that really, this is the only graduate school of business in the country worthy of having gone to, so why identify the actual school – everyone will understand). I think I’m going to start telling people who ask that I went to BSOTDCB (business school of the dot com bubble), and then look at them with a blank stare when they ask me what that stands for (and in “DUH. Don’t you already know?”).

Forbes published an article yesterday by Maureen Farrell stating that there’s a “signaling problem” for TechStars Boulder companies who don’t raise money from Foundry Group.

“… one byproduct of [Foundry Group’s] generosity for any young Boulder company is that, if it hasn’t been funded by The Foundry Group, it must explain why. Otherwise it has a signaling problem, something that happens when a VC invests in an early round but doesn’t show up for later rounds.”

And while I’m going to argue (forcefully) here that neither my partners nor I either believe this to be true or even wish for that kind of market power, I should acknowledge that I’ve heard this before. And not just in relation to TechStars companies, but for tech companies based in Boulder more generally. I’ve been in a couple of meetings where a founder has suggested that if Foundry didn’t invest, no-one would (in both cases we didn’t invest and they did indeed find another capital source). I’ve also received calls from other investors asking why Foundry had “passed” on something (although in none of those cases did I think they were fishing for a reason to pass – but rather trying to get another data point on the business). And many, many people around town talk regularly about the overall lack of venture funds in the Colorado market (which leaves Foundry at the top of a very short list of active local investors, in large part where this perception likely stems from).

I’m extremely proud of the vibrant tech ecosystem in Boulder and the role that my partners and I have played in helping shape it, however we don’t welcome the notion that Foundry somehow controls the Boulder market. Whether Foundry has this kind of negative drag on Boulder companies or TechStars is an extremely important topic to us. We spend untold time and energy helping Boulder tech companies (not just TechStars companies and certainly not limited to companies in the Foundry portfolio) be successful, and the implication that not getting funding from Foundry is a negative mark on a business is the kind of market power that we certainly DO NOT want to have.  It’s not good for Boulder, not good for Foundry and not good for other venture firms (in part because it suggests that other venture firms simply aren’t capable (or willing) to do their own work). And while all four Foundry partners are involved with TechStars, our funding support for the program (and those in other cities) comes from us personally, not from our fund (we do this in part to try to avoid the perception that TechStars is in any way captive to Foundry, which it most definitely is not).

It is my belief that this sentiment, to the extent to which it even exists, is much more perception than reality (and at that, the perception of a very limited number of people). And while writing about it might drive some traffic Forbes.com, the reality is that there’s no due diligence line item on other venture firms’ checklists for Boulder companies that says “find out why Foundry passed”. There is no signaling problem.

And the numbers support me. Strongly.

Foundry has 28 companies in our 2007 fund (we have yet to close an investment from the new fund that we announced last week). Nine of them are based in Colorado (all of those in Boulder). Since we raised Foundry Venture Capital 2007, 64 Boulder-based companies have received funding, meaning that we’ve funded approximately 14% of the local companies taking in institutional funding since we raised our fund. Furthermore, 101 different venture firms have funded Boulder-based companies during this time period – reflecting the strong national reputation that Boulder is building among technology investors. The Forbes article cites Boulder’s funding total for 2010 through 9/31 – $91M that has been invested in Boulder businesses since the beginning of the year. With $13.6M of this total, Foundry represents just under 15% of the dollars invested in Boulder in 2010. The numbers for our participation in TechStars are similar (easy to look up since TechStars openly publishes its results).  Since the founding of TechStars Boulder 39 companies have gone through the program. Of these, 22 have received outside funding and another 5 have become profitable without the need for external financing (as an aside, this is a great track record!). Foundry has funded 3 (thats 13.6% of those receiving funding and less than 8% of all the companies that went through the Boulder program).

The conclusion here is pretty straightforward – while Foundry’s presence might seem to loom large over Boulder the numbers are pretty clear – we’re in no way driving a significant percentage of the investment activity in the area.

I recognize that my partners and I carry a certain amount of weight in Boulder and are viewed as leaders of the Boulder tech community (there are many tech leaders in Boulder – it’s one of the things that makes Boulder such a fantastic entrepreneurial city). But we don’t have the corner on TechStars nor the Boulder tech market. In fact we work hard to try to avoid this. As strong supporters of the Boulder entrepreneurial ecosystem we recognize that it benefits no one for us to behave in a way that isn’t in the interest of the entire community.

While it may be a catchy title to a magazine article, it’s just not the case. Simply stated, there is no TechStars Boulder Foundry Group Signaling Problem.

A note of thanks to Emily Mendell of the NVCA for pulling the Boulder data for me from the PWC/NVCA database.

I’m reposting a note from Eric Norlin, our partner in both the Glue and Defrag conferences which really struck a chord with me. While Foundry invests across the US, we’re based in Colorado and do our best to support the local startup ecosystem. As part of this we very deliberately set up camp with both Glue and Defrag here in our backyard in an effort to make Denver/Boulder the center of the technology universe for a few days of in depth discussion and networking around all things technology. Glue is coming up at the end of May. It’s an in depth look at the “connective” technologies that are changing the way we live and work. If you’re a technologist that’s working in and around this space I’d encourage you to show up. Especially if you live here in Colorado – come support our effort to bring greater focus and energy around these topics right in your backyard.

As a guy who organizes two tech conferences that take place in Colorado, I’m in a bit of a weird place. I’m part of that “Colorado tech community” via my friends/cohorts/biz partners — people like Brad Feld begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Seth Levine, Andre Durand, Rob Johnson, Josh Fraser, John Minnihan, David Cohen, etc — but I’m also not part of that community, as I don’t get to be absorbed into all of the day to day stuff (by virtue of the fact that I don’t physically reside in Colorado). However, I believe that Colorado (Boulder-Denver especially) is one of the best places in the country that you could “get involved” in the internet-software space. I’ve railed against the “if you’re serious you move to Silicon Valley” myth so many times (and called the purveyors of that falsehood more names than I care to remember) that I can’t even believe it still ever comes up. And, in some ways, I think this recession has really helped to expose people to the fact that there is so much good entrepreneurial activity happening outside of the valley. I mean, is there any *hotter* (trendy, successful, honest, fun) group of VCs than Union Square Ventures (Twitter, Zynga), Foundry Group (Zynga), Roger Ehrenberg (new fund on Big Data) and Howard Lindozon (Stocktwits)? Nope. Do *any* of them live in Silicon Valley? Nope. Places outside of “the valley” are where it’s at right now (much to the dismay of some), and Colorado is leading that charge.

Similarly, I often get asked why Glue (or Defrag) isn’t located in the Bay Area. My answer is always the same, “don’t you think the bay area has enough tech conferences?” The Bay Area really isn’t the center of the universe. I know – shocking, right? The second question I always get is “why Colorado?” That answer is a bit more complex, but really it boils down to “because it rocks, that’s why.” (And it does Bay Area folks good to actually *go* to a conference sometimes.)

It is in that spirit that I wanted to reach out specifically to everyone in Colorado in the software, internet, startup space. We’re bringing some *amazing* people and sessions to your backyard for Glue, so I’m making my case early: If you live in Colorado, and are interested in software, you need to come. Now, let me explain why:

1. Speakers: Look, there is no shortage of genius in Colorado. But that doesn’t mean that mixing that genius with other geographically different genius-types doesn’t yield good things. With that in mind (and keeping in mind that the agenda is still a very early draft), let’s look at the speakers that are already confirmed –

Doug Crockford (creator of JSON), Joe Shirrey (Azure team, Microsoft), Dwight Merriman (CEO, 10gen), Sunir Shah (Freshbooks), Scott McMullan (Google biz stuff), John Musser (Programmable Web), Clay Loveless (CTO, Mashery), Dave Smith (Basho), Jonathan Ellis (Rackspace), Mike Miller (Cloudant), Emil Eifrem (Neotechnology), Michael Barrett (CISO, PayPal), Chris Hoff (Director of Cloud, Cisco), Laura Merling (Alcatel-Lucent), Ryan Sarver (Director of Platform, Twitter), Jack Moffitt (Collecta), Jeff Lindsay (Webhooks), John Fallows (CTO, Kaazing), Brian Mulloy (Apigee), Jeff Lawson (Twilio), Rick Nucci (CTO, Boomi), Phil Windley (Kynetx), Joe Stump (SimpleGEO), David Recordon (Facebook), Eric Marcoullier (Gnip), Chris Messina (Open Web Advocate, Google), Eve Maler (PayPal)

…and that’s the *early* draft. The agenda is probably 30% complete.

2. Topics: What about topics we’ll be covering?

Webfinger, User-managed Access, Federated Provisioning, Open/Linked Data, Cloud Data Management, Facebook’s Open API, Understanding Twitter’s APIs, MongoDB, Activity Streams, A6 (cloudaudit), OAuthWRAP, managing multiple APIs, XMPP, webhooks, PubSubHubBub, HTML5 websockets, cloud security, SAML, OpenID, Facebook Connect, NoSQL (Neo4J, Cassandra, Riak, CouchDB), API terms of service, State of the API marketplace, How to build your own computing cloud, AWS, Force.com, Windows Azure, Google App Engine, Web Oriented Architecture, and a ton more that we’re still adding.

3. Price: You can register right now for Gluecon for under $475 bucks (just use “louie1″ when registering) — a price that’s already cheaper than 80% of the conferences you’d attend in the Bay Area (and absolutely cheaper than any other “cloud” conference – which are running about $1895). Throw in the fact that the conference is in your backyard (ie, no travel expenses) and it becomes an unbeatable Colorado deal. Keep in mind, that price is covering your food, drink, evening reception, wifi – everything — over 2 days.

4. And let’s just say that $472.50 is still out of your price range – then at a minimum you should be registered for the Cloud Camp happening at Gluecon. It’s free (and only has 140 tickets remaining, so don’t wait), so there’s no excuse there.

Bottom-line: if you’re doing internet-software-startup stuff in Colorado, Gluecon covers every possibility (price, topics, speakers, location). You literally have to work at it to come up with a reason NOT to go if you live in Colorado.

I’m saying all of this for a very simple reason: My hope is that the Colorado “presence” at Gluecon is overwhelming this year. Last year, about 70% of our gluecon participants came from outside of Colorado. That just isn’t right.

So, my Colorado friends, you can stay home, not meet amazing people, not participate in hackathons, not get involved in a new project, not increase your knowledge and help your career, and wonder why it is that Silicon Valley gets to have all of the fun, OR you can realize that the Valley doesn’t get to have all of the fun, and do something about it by participating in Gluecon. I really hope you’ll choose the latter, because we’re gonna have a blast.

Ever hear of this start-up called Color? They launched a social photo sharing thing yesterday. And raised $41M.

Oh wait. Everyone has heard of Color by now (and has an opinion about it; re: their capital raise, I’d refer you to a recent post on that subject)

What I want to talk here isn’t the Color business, the financing or how much it paid for Color.com. It seems to me that this most basic problem with photos hasn’t come close to being solved yet. And while I don’t have a strong opinion around what Color is doing (although with age, I fear that I’m finding that many of these types of apps don’t much appeal to me personally) the hype around it did make me wonder why no one has yet figured out an answer to this much larger and more interesting problem:

Why hasn’t anyone solved the most basic photo problem of all – the ingestion, compilation, backup and sharing of digital media?

Everyone I know has the same basic problem with photos: They’re everywhere. On your phone. Synced with one of 5 different computers. Sitting on one of 3 different external hard drives. On any number of flash drives. On a half a dozen cloud services. Still in the cameras themselves waiting to be downloaded to one of the aforementioned places. And almost without exception never fully and truly backed up anywhere.

I envision this service would be pretty basic. I could indicate what machines were “mine” and set rules for what I wanted it to do with any and all photos. I could connect up any device to any of these machines and it would automatically pull photos from them, and sync them across my personal photo network. I could set up rules for how I wanted photos from different devices treated (for example to set up separate places to send pictures from the kids cameras, but have the two cameras my wife and I use merged; or send video to a certain place and pictures somewhere else. Maybe there’d be cloud storage involved. Ideally I could use my PogoPlug to create my own cloud for these digital assets. Obviously there would be backup involved (mirroring PogoPlugs would be easy; cloud back-up easy as well). The service would give me the option to access my photos on my mobile phone (and a great interface to do so – something fitting such a visual media) and enable me to specify a small number of pictures I wanted cached locally on the phone and grab everything else off the phone so I didn’t have thousands of photos clogging up my camera roll.

We’ve invested in a few companies who have some great technology that could be put against this problem (specifically Cloud Engines which is how I manage my photos and back-up now and Memeo which can recognize different kinds of digital assets and route them to various places for you) but what I’m talking about is a layer above this – the control tower for all this.

And I’d bet it wouldn’t cost $41M to build…

Thoughts?

For a fun diversion take a look at Cracked.com‘s list of “The 10 Most Terrifyingly Inspirational 80’s Songs“. Don’t know that Danger Zone or You’re the Best (Joe Esposito?!?) would be on my personal list. And how can you possibly leave out Foreigner’s I Want To Know What Love Is (which, in a true highlight of my life, I was able to see performed live by Foreigner about 5 feet from the stage at a conference I was attending)? For that matter, how can Wanted (Dead or Alive)] not be at the top of the list – it blows the rest of the group away without a doubt!

Of course there will be disagreements about this sort of thing (why else put out a top 10 list?) – but the trip down memory lane is a fun one.

Be sure to read the article itself – it’s hilarious: “There are two kinds of people in this world: People who love Journey ironically and people who love Journey genuinely.” or my personal favorite: [Wanted (Dead or Alive)] was written in that small window of the ’80s when a blue collar steelworker from New Jersey with a terminal case of hockey hair could write songs about being a cowboy and be taken seriously.”

Enjoy!

I should preface this post with the caveat that a VC describing what it takes to be a good VC runs the obvious risk of falling into a trap of vanity and lack of self-awareness. I hope I haven’t, but you be the judge…

There’s been a real uproar over Andy Dunn’s recent missive slamming venture capitalists. In it Dunn asserts (I’m paraphrasing here and I’d encourage you to go read the full post) that 98% of VCs suck. And his last line pretty much sums up his feelings: “98% of VCs who read this post self-identify as being in the top 2%. The other 2% are actually the top 2%.” There have been some good rebuttals of his overall critique – and especially of the 98/2% split (which, interesting, is perhaps an admission that certainly by track record, and implicitly by some of the other critiques Andy offers, there is some split between good and bad VCs -or Dumb and Not Dumb in Andy’s parlance; by the way, his math is completely wrong – the majority of venture returns are generated by an order of magnitude more than 2% of VC firms). I particularly like what Mark Suster had to say on the topic in his response – especially his opening point, about liking the VCs you know and hating the rest (Andy calls out his own VCs as being great in his post, to Mark’s point).

But this post isn’t a further rebuttal to Andy. Instead I’m interested in starting a conversation around what makes a good VC – specifically from an entrepreneurs perspective. Why might an entrepreneur choose to work with one VC over another (and as Andy suggests in his post there’s plenty of information out there to help entrepreneurs make informed choices). And in what ways can VCs actually be impactful on a company’s business (Andy suggests that this is by staying out of the way, although implicitly he suggests that his own VCs actually are quite involved with his company – I strongly disagree that being uninvolved is the answer).

Here are a few idea