Image by Zach Klein via FlickrChris Dixon's is a good blog to follow if you want to keep abreast developments in the fast churning VC industry. He is an entrepreneur and one of those angels that you will read about a lot, people who are changing the face of the game.
Chris Dixon: The segmentation of the venture industry: Venture capital has only existed in its modern form for about 35 years. ...... “customers” (entrepreneurs) have flocked to more specialized “products.” ...... segmentation by company stage. ..... The segmentation of the venture industry is healthy for startups and innovation at large, even if at the moment it might be uncomfortable and confusing for some of the people involved.
I like his conclusion here. He says, and I agree, that the churn has been healthy and the segmentation has been welcome.
Chris Dixon: If you aren’t getting rejected on a daily basis, your goals aren’t ambitious enough: My most useful career experience was about eight years ago when I was trying to break into the world of VC-backed startups. I applied to hundreds of jobs: low-level VC roles, startups jobs, even to big tech companies. I got rejected from every single one..... I had a strange resume .... I probably got rejected by someone once a day last week alone
And I am thinking the guy still has a strange resume.
Chris Dixon is a New Yorker. Chris Dixon has a day job. He is working to build a middle range, ambitious company. Hunch is one of those post-algorithm search engines. They try to bring in the human element more front and center.
Chris Dixon was not trained as a techie. He did not learn programming at school. But he is very much a creature of the tech world, the startup world. He very much fits my definition of a techie. He belongs. He will rule.
I wish more prominent tech entrepreneurs blogged like Chris Dixon does. But his blog is less that of a tech entrepreneur, and more that of an early stage investor.
I think Chris Dixon's real calling is not that he is a tech entrepreneur, but that he is one of those who are really defining early stage investing. If you listen to Dixon, you will think VCs are dinosaurs. They don't "get" it. They are not hands on enough. They don't really get their hands dirty. Writing checks no longer does it. You really have to be involved.
And this blog post by Chris Dixon is a jewel. It really distills a lot of what he has said over time.
GigaOm: Chris Dixon To VCs: Act More Like Startups: “have fewer meetings” and “have everyone at the firm blog/tweet.” ..... venture firms should act more like the startups they invest in, right down to his suggestion that they “have offices that look and cost like startup offices — or better yet, don’t have offices at all [and] spend your time visiting companies.” ..... VCs should not “talk/tweet/blog about your vineyard, yachting, golfing etc. while you tell your CEOs to work non-stop and be frugal.” ..... “Stop kidding yourself that you add a lot of value beyond recruiting/intros/governance/financing/selling companies.” ..... “Say no to companies. Saying “come back later” feels like a free option to you but actually hurts you and the startup in the long run.”
New York Observer: In Facebook's Crosshairs: He didn't make the trip himself, sending in his stead Foursquare's new VP for mobile and partnerships, a fellow named Holger Luedorf, who spoke at the event for only a few minutes and made clear that Foursquare was not yet sure about the nature of its "partnership" with Facebook. ...... The next day, Mr. Crowley wrote on Twitter that his 86-year-old grandma had called him and remarked that this Facebook thing "sounds like Four-Squared, but without the fun." .... the New York City tech scene, which badly needs a major local success story ..... turning their fledgling service—currently at some three million registered users and growing by about 18,000 new users per day—into the city's first true social media juggernaut. ...... Crowley wants Foursquare to transcend its status as a niche mobile check-in tool, and to become the platform upon which all other check-in tools, whatever they turn out to be, are built. ...... —if you control the infrastructure, you control the market. We see the same thing with Twitter and with Apple." ...... "My personal view is, it's going to be huge—Facebook huge," said Hunch founder Chris Dixon, an investor in Foursquare who is not known for polite optimism. "They'll have a huge brand and a direct relationship with users. ... They absolutely could become the dominant platform upon which all check-in services are built." ........ "your favorite, er, mobile + social + friend finder + social city guide + nightlife game thing" ...... Facebook's apparent desire to become the dominant platform for check-ins did not worry him ...... We're developing this really deep and rich road map for what we're going to do ..... the implementation of Places would be good for Foursquare in the long run because it meant Facebook would be doing the hard work of popularizing the hard-to-grasp concept of check-ins—location-based and otherwise—while the Foursquare crew was left to innovate and figure out new ways to make them useful to people and the businesses that want to sell them things. ........ Where Foursquare has an admired—some might say tricked out —API, Facebook has so far released only a read-only version of theirs, which severely limits what developers can build on top of it.
It is perhaps relevant to mention another company that I blogged about recently: FoodSpotting. That is a bi-coastal startup. But it does have a major New York City presence. So I guess hometown pride is warranted. But perhaps bi-coastal is the future. You get the best of both worlds. And you prove geography is not that relevant.
FoodSpotting does not do bland check ins, it does a very specific type of check ins. Does that mean FourSquare will some day wake up and eat up FoodSpotting for lunch? I don't see that as a possibility. FourSquare just can not do what FoodSpotting does. That same logic for Facebook, FourSquare is even more true. Facebook does not have the option to become an experience for which checking in is your starting point. On the other hand FourSquare could make claim that the FourSquare social graph is much more real than the Facebook social graph. The truth is they are just different.
Even if Facebook had not done Places, there were no guarantees FourSquare would survive and do well and see an IPO exit - my personal recommendation to the company - but the real news from the Facebook Places launch was it gave FourSquare a visibility that it never had before. How is that depressing? There were more check ins on FourSquare that day than any other day in recorded history.
If I were FourSquare, I'd still be more worried about Gowalla than Facebook, although I'd work extra hard to work out just the right partnership with Facebook.
The FourSquare founders are brimming with ideas they want to execute, features they want to add. The real action for FourSquare is in the front, it is not in the rear view mirror.
I look forward to FourSquare burning up all its 20 million and getting ready to raise its next round. Sooner is better.
It is unrealistic to think Facebook could have stayed away from the location space. It is also unrealistic to think Facebook can become the leader in the location space if checking in is not the starting point of the Facebook experience, which it isn't. Facebook Mobile is mini me. Facebook is a big screen web experience, primarily.
New York Observer: Foursquare’s Happy Growing Pains: Crowley said the space shortage has been not just inconvenient but detrimental to Foursquare's evolution ..... "There are three or four big-ticket items we've been talking about all summer," Mr. Crowley said. "All the specs are written—they're waiting there, like half of the designs are done—but they just haven't been implemented because we don't have an engineer that could work on it full time." ...."Or when the lounge furniture started coming together, it was like, 'Whoa, real conference rooms, with chairs!'"
In The News
VentureBeat: Blog Platform Tumblr’s Soaring Traffic Brings Growing Pains: seeing massive traffic growth ..... skyrocketed over the first half of the year and reached about 1.7 billion page views in the month of August. .... WordPress.com, an older, more established blog platform, recently reported 2.1 billion monthly pageviews ..... Tumblr, which employs about 10 people ..... Six Apart, a blogging pioneer whose TypePad service competes most directly with Automattic’s WordPress.com, recently announced it is folding the simplified blogging service Vox, which never gained firm traction after four years of existence. ..... You can give this to somebody who can barely program a VCR and they can do a blog post in a minute.” .... you can find a whole lot more of value on a Tumblr page potentially than on a Twitter page.
GigaOm: Chris Dixon To VCs: Act More Like Startups: “have fewer meetings” and “have everyone at the firm blog/tweet.” ..... venture firms should act more like the startups they invest in, right down to his suggestion that they “have offices that look and cost like startup offices — or better yet, don’t have offices at all [and] spend your time visiting companies.” ..... VCs should not “talk/tweet/blog about your vineyard, yachting, golfing etc. while you tell your CEOs to work non-stop and be frugal.” ..... “Stop kidding yourself that you add a lot of value beyond recruiting/intros/governance/financing/selling companies.” ..... “Say no to companies. Saying “come back later” feels like a free option to you but actually hurts you and the startup in the long run.”
Chris Dixon: Web Services Should Be Both Federated And Extensible: The next step in this evolution is to create web services that are both federated (APIs) and extensible (Apps)..... The combination of Facebook’s data (social graph and check-ins) and SimpleGeo data/algorithms would create much more advanced feature possibilities than either service acting alone...... a “data threesome” ..... Allowing websites to be federated and extensible will open up a whole new wave of innovation
Two memes have been making the rounds: the web is dead, women in tech.
Chris Dixon, in this post, is referring to mash ups, high level mash ups. He is talking of "data threesomes" and how that would lead to "a new wave of innovation."
Some people have commented saying it is already being done. If it is, it is not mainstream yet.
People have been building APIs upon APIs. There is much data sharing going on, but not entirely enough.
What really matters is the end product, that final interface that the end user interacts with. A simple interface sitting on top of rich data interactions is what you want to shoot for.
It is much cheaper to start a dot com today than it was in the late 1990s. What I do for free on the Blogger platform today had to be built from scratch for a dot com I was part of in 1999. Amazon got rid of servers for you. Only a few days back Google dropped a bomb: now anyone can create an Android app. Elementary programming is now like flipping the light switch.
The need for early stage funding is not as dire as it used to be. But the need for later stage funding is still dire. I am going to argue that is also going to change in the next wave of innovation. There will be companies like OfferPal Media that will help you monetize early and strong. There will come a time when most startups will need little to no money early stage, and little to no money late stage. Asking a startup to both build a great service and to monetize that service is like asking coders to buy and upkeep servers. Makes no sense.
But this newish development is not just about there being less need for big, early money. This also is about saying investors need to get down and dirty with their investments. They don't need to put in daily involvement like members of the executive team, but showing up once in a while for the Board meeting and getting your fee perhaps does not cut it no more. You need a more hands on approach.
The dot com domain is going to stay fertile for a long, long time. To see saturation in that domain is to suggest the human mind will attain satiation at some point, and I just don't see that happening. The human mind has been programmed to stay permanently hungry. Content creation, content curation, content search: they will stay in play.
There is plenty of room on the cutting edge. But then there is plenty of room if the entire world is your stage. You have to be willing to go wherever there might be opportunities for growth.
And money does not differentiate between one sector and the other. New hot domains will emerge. Clean tech, bio tech, nano tech are the obvious names being bounced around. And there are old names. I believe microfinance could easily digest a few trillion dollars. All that money the Wall Street junkies sunk into real estate the past decade and brought the house down for the rest of us, if they had been innovative, they would have taken some of that money into microfinance.
Summary statement: things are exciting, and are getting heated up. I can't even see five years out, let alone 10.
I blog because it helps me think through a lot of issues we face in our business ...... it still takes on average $20mm to get a web startup to sustainable positive cash flow. But the vast majority of that capital will be required after the business has "traction." ..... What has changed in technology venture capital is not so much the total capital requirements, but when they are required. ..... Dennis and Naveen had built the service all by themselves and had just lured Harry onto their team. They needed no capital to do that. In fact they did not even have a bank account when we went to close our seed investment...... The deals that work get very competitive when it is time to raise real money. ..... First Round Capital, the grandaddy of the web 2.0 super seed funds, has now evolved into a firm that is twice as big as our firm in terms of investors and they have more capital under management than we do. And I've met a couple investors who are talking about creating "seed bridge funds." I think that's a great idea..... We are still figuring out to evolve the VC business to reflect the change in financing needs of entrepreneurs and we aren't done by a long shot.
a combination of ease of entry, lower capital requirements, failing incumbent venture capital (VC) firms, and general fervor has driven the emergence of a host of new "super-seed" firms. These small-ish outfits -- usually running less than $20m -- specialize in seeding a bazillion companies, following on in very few, and generally trying to be fast-moving and networked. ..... Nor does it mean that incumbent VCs will once again rule the world with mega funds. Many of them, like the dinosaurs, have turned out to be evolutionary dead-ends that couldn't adapt with a changing financial landscape. ..... Declining average cost of company creation is driving declining average cost of venture firm creation. ...... Incumbent VCs make up shit about the inadequacies of super-angel funds ..... Venture capital is hard, whether practiced by brain-dead VC incumbents, or by smart and nimble super-angels. Most VCs, and most angels, fail -- it's just that its takes 10 years to kill a VC fund ..... as incumbent VCs justifiably vanish en masse, niche overshoot seems almost ecologically inevitable among super-seed funds.
was a very common occurrence before the rise of seed funds, due to VCs pressuring entrepreneurs to raise more money than they needed so the VCs could “put more money to work.” ..... I thought the brands of the big VCs would help me and didn’t really understand the dynamics of fund raising. ..... Today, entrepreneurs are much savvier, thanks to the proliferation of good advice on blogs, via mentorship programs, and a generally more active and connected entrepreneur community. ...... prominent seed funds will outperform top-tier VC funds
every time I turn my head there is another seed incubator popping up. .... Things are not as active in traditional venture capital funds as many struggle to raise super sized funds and maintain the flow of fees. Angels and incubators, on the other hand, are exceedingly active. ...... While some of these early stage deals will be capital efficient even in later stages, many will still need relatively large raises that angels and incubators just can't handle. ..... an early stage deal has to reinvent itself multiple times. ..... Some really famous seed investors use the shotgun approach. ..... Early stage investing requires an ability to go from failure to failure without any measure of diminished hope or exuberance. To me that implies a lot of the ex-corp dev guys and lawyers who are now active seed investors may drop off. ....... My relationships with teams I've invested with early on are like family as you are often in some pretty thick battles with them. ....... Right now we don't have enough competition in broadband and too much spectrum is tied up warehoused in too few hands.
My first disagreement with Fred Wilson, expressed at some third party blog, about a year ago, was with his assertion that there was too much money in the venture capitalbusiness. I find tremendous overlap between his and my thought processes most of the time, and I respect him as a person through our disagreements, and I sure admire his work, but I think I just came across my second major disagreement with Fred.
I am going to paraphrase my summary statement from an earlier debate where I was on Fred's side: firing a founder can sometimes become necessary, but that has to be the exception rather than the norm. Fred seems to think that has to be the norm.
If I look back at our most successful investments over the almost 25 years that I have been in the venture capital business, almost every single one of them has seen a founder or critical founding team member shown the door as the company scaled. It's almost inevitable.
(W)ow, Fred, I've never disagreed with one of your posts as much as I do (with) this one. (U)nless a cofounder is deliberately underperforming or engaging in terrible behavior etc you should never fire him/her. (P)ut them in a different role or something if they can't manage/scale.
There are a few things Fred is right about. One, that letting go of an early team member is not easy. And he has put in a lot of sense into how to do it. If you do have to let go a cofounder, do it right. Do it fast, and be generous in the process.
I am in favor of vesting more stock than is contractually obligated to be vested. And severance so the person can take some time and decompress is another way to be generous. Most of all, be generous with the way you talk about the person's contributions. Call them a founder if they are a founder. Recognize their contributions both internally and externally and continue to do so. And help them find another situation where they can work their magic again.
What he has not talked about enough although he has touched upon it is the circumstances in which the cofounder has to let go. He makes it sound like this has to be routine practice, and I find that alarming.
Fred, I guess I see your point to an extent, I can see some instances where a cofounder might need to go. But I'd see your side better if you were to also talk of instances where a founder's departure was a really bad idea. Famous example: Steve Jobs and Apple. A recent example and close to your home: Etsy. Sometimes a charismatic cofounder might be "did in" just because he/she was not adept at the smoke room politics of a big team.
And he has not talked about the alternate which Chris Dixon touches upon. There are alternatives to let go. You could create a new, smaller role for that early team member.
My argument is not that this firing should never happen. I am suggesting this has to be rare, and there has to be a healthy debate as to what the circumstances would be that would warrant such a let go.
Severely diluting angel investors and mercilessly kicking out early team members is not venture capitalism, it is vulture capitalism. All the top tech companies of today have had their founders intact. Sometimes venture capitalists kill or stunt the growth and promise of companies they invest in with their unwise use of power: because-I-can.
Mozart died an early death because he was a creative genius who could not have been adept at the brute force ways of the dumb people around him.
Steve Jobs getting fired by Apple was a terribly bad idea. I have been angry at that Pepsi guy this entire time, and I am someone who has never bought an Apple product. A recent example close at home: why was the Etsy founder brought back? It is a DNA thing. There are people who are good at managing, and good at managing at big scales, and are good at scaling, but they lack the DNA, and that is why they did not start the company they now work for. It is tempting to give all the power to those technocrats, but that can be defeating. You trade muscle for essential DNA.
The Daily Beast: John Sculley On Why He Fired Steve Jobs: “I haven’t spoken to Steve in 20-odd years,” Sculley tells The Daily Beast. “Even though he still doesn’t speak to me, and I expect he never will..."
On that note, I am for a much simpler, transparent formula for the investment climate. That probably is another blog post.
Paul Allen left early for health reasons. Bob Miner was not fired by Larry Ellison, he left on his own. Steve Wozniak, it can be argued, did not scale either. These incidents do not prove Fred Wilson's point, they only disprove another of his pet points, that a company must have a Co-Founder. That is my third major disagreement with Fred. Every historic company has had this one key, indispensable member. That second person was a junior member, an early member, but not a Co-Founder. Companies are not founded by Siamese twins. But, again, that would be another blog post altogether.
Ben Horowitz: Why We Prefer Founding CEOs: The conventional wisdom says a startup CEO should make way for a professional CEO once the company has achieved product-market fit. .... The macro reason: that’s the way most of the great technology companies have been built ..... founding CEOs consistently beat the professional CEOs on a broad range of metrics ranging from capital efficiency (amount of funding raised), time to exit, exit valuations, and return on investment. ..... why are great technology companies so often run by their founders? And why do professional CEOs sometimes succeed? ...... Professional CEOs are effective at maximizing, but not finding, product cycles. Conversely, founding CEOs are excellent at finding, but not maximizing, product cycles. Our experience shows—and the data supports—that teaching a founding CEO how to maximize the product cycle is easier than teaching the professional CEO how to find the new product cycle....... innovation is the most difficult core competency to build in any business. Innovation is almost insane by definition: most people view any truly innovative idea as stupid, because if it was a good idea, somebody would have already done it. So, the innovator is guaranteed to have more natural initial detractors than followers. ........ the founder’s courage to innovate despite the doubters. ....... Comprehensive knowledge .. Moral authority .. Total commitment to the long-term ..... Great founding CEOs tend to have all three and professional CEOs often lack them. ...... This knowledge is nearly impossible to replicate. Without it, thoughtful people lack the courage to bet the company on entirely new directions......eems totally natural that Larry Ellison transformed Software Development Labs from a consulting business into a software company called Oracle ....... An excellent example of existing, invalid assumptions paralyzing a whole set of companies recently played out in the music industry. ...... Despite this dynamic history, modern record company executives badly missed the most sweeping technical innovation—the Internet. How was that possible? By the time the Internet arrived, all of the original founders of the record companies had been bought out, retired, or died. The new, professional CEOs were unwilling to let go of the most basic assumptions driving the cost structure of their businesses........They were proficient at running the current business, but lacked both the courage and the moral authority to jeopardize the old business model by embracing the new technology. ...... Hastings wasn’t married to the old distribution model precisely because he invented it. ...... Any serious innovation requires a heavy investment. Beyond the up-front cash, costs may include lower growth, bad publicity, and internal grumbling as existing features atrophy. Recently, we’ve seen Facebook’s founding CEO Mark Zuckerberg make a series long-term bets........
Chris Dixon is a great entrepreneur and investor, and he has a great blog (it's on my blogroll), but his latest post on Twitter I did not find all that impressive. The guy comes across as high on diligence, not so high on vision.
This morning when I showed up at AVC.com for my morning coffee - I am not much of a coffee drinker, by the way, beer and coffee are strictly social for me - Fred Wilson had mentioned Chris Dixon. Obviously the two have a mutual admiration thing going on.
And what's up with bloggers who flash this road sign on their old posts? "Comments for this page are closed." I don't do it, I don't get it. It is not like your blog post can not be found a few weeks later. Unless you are someone who makes a point to read every comment that was ever left at your blog. That might be Fred's rationale behind flashing that road sign. I don't flash it. I use my Disqus dashboard to manage my comments. It probably helps that I don't get all that many. Looks like Fred and Chris have a high class problem to have: many, too many comments.
Chris was already on my blogroll. He does have a swell blog. But this attention from Fred made sure he got promoted to the A1 section on my blogroll. These are bloggers that if they post something new, I have to go read it if I spot it. There are too many white males in that section. And a disproportionate number of Indians, but that is understandable.
Fred and Chris should have been there when they ran me out of the Sun building: Presenting At The Dot Com Hatchery. I came from the narrative angle, and they came from the not-ready-for-prime-time, the-guy-does-not-have-numbers angle.
Anyways, so I am thinking, I have not been to Chris Dixon's blog in a while, let me go look at some fresh stuff. And I found this.
Twitter is perhaps - not perhaps, it is - the most talked about company at my blog. That is why I think I would be a great addition to the Union Square Ventures team: Union Square Ventures Job Opening: I Am Applying. Twitter is the best investment Fred ever made, in my opinion.
This is the Twitter narrative: Fractals: Apple, Windows 95, Netscape, Google, Facebook, Twitter. Either you get it or you don't get it. If I were to write that blog post today, I'd probably add FourSquare at the end. But I will admit I did not see FourSquare coming. I was at FourSquare's demo at the NY Tech MeetUp I believe in March 2009. I remember not being impressed. Although I made a point to say hello to the Indian looking guy Naveen, who sensed it and was not impressed.
Fred Wilson imagined a Twitter like service before he actually came across Twitter, and it was slightly different from what he had imagined, it was better than what he had imagined, it was a case of reality being stranger than fiction. But scientists knew of Pluto, before they actually pinned it down. Fred Wilson and Esther Dyson are visionaries. Every time I get to meet Esther she makes my day. And I have met her at a few different NY Tech MeetUps. I don't think she knows me, but I could care less. The first time I saw her, I immediately recognized her, I could not believe it was her I was seeing. I thought the NY Tech MeetUp was for mere mortals like myself.
This is what I am looking at for the first half of this year. I guess this could go on for all of this year, and maybe even some of next year, but I don't feel confident projecting too far ahead. 2010 is definitely location's buzz year. Next year the space will have matured and receded from the headlines a little.
So coming back to Chris Dixon and Twitter.
Twitter having sent mixed signals over the past few years..... somehow Twitter had convinced the world they were going to “let a thousand flowers bloom” – as if they were a non-profit out to save the world, or that they would invent some fantastic new business model that didn’t encroach on third-party developers...... Twitter has yet to figure out a business model..... Twitter search will monetize poorly ..... Twitter’s move into mobile clients and hints about a more engaging website suggest they may be trying to mimic Facebook’s display ad model. ...Facebook’s ad growth is being driven largely by companies like Zynga who are in turn monetizing users with social games and virtual goods..... Facebook’s model depends on owning “eyeballs,” which is entirely contradictory to the pure API model Twitter has promoted thus far. ....Hopefully Twitter “fills holes” through acquisitions instead of internal development. ..... but on the product development front has been underwhelming ....Now that Twitter seems to be mimicing Facebook...Facebooker Ivan Kirigin tweeted yesterday: “I suppose when your competition is making huge mistakes, you should just stfu.”
Other than the fact that this guy is running a few days behind, obviously he has not blogged since Twitter made its big announcement. That is curious because the Twitter announcement was the biggest announcement in tech this past week. As far as I am concerned, the Twitter announcement is bigger than the iPad release. Twitter affects and will affect far more people. Steve Jobs, the Pied Piper. (The iPad Is No Laptop Killer)
Twitter has not sent any mixed signals. There is an almost total overlap between the Twitter path and the Google path. First build the product. Worry about monetization later. Just like there is a Google ecosystem (and this blog - Netizen - is part of it), there will continue to be a Twitter ecosystem. But Google bought Blogger and YouTube. Twitter will make its purchases. Twitter never pretended to be a non profit. If there are people who ever thought Twitter was a non profit, that can't be Twitter's fault.
Twitter search will monetize poorly? Chris, Twitter is second only to Google in the search arena. That has to ring a bell.
Twitter could not imitate Facebook even if it wanted to. Google could not become Facebook. Facebook can not become Twitter. Facebook and Twitter can add location, but FourSquare will thrive. Vision 101.
Facebook has not in earnest started to monetize. Their ad model will rely on the social graph and the social interactions. In a sense Facebook has not yet done what Twitter has done already. (Facebook's Ad Space Is Different)
The "API model" has been about extending Twitter's reach and making tweets fundamental to the web experience. It has been part of product development. It was never a business model.
It is not a choice between buy or build. Twitter has to do both. Each situation is slightly unique. My suggestion has been to go for an IPO, and then go on a buying spree: Twitter Should Go For A Netscape-Like IPO.
Twitter deserves credit for Twitter.com, but it also deserves credit for the Twitter ecosystem. I could complain Google did not give me Gmail on day one, or I could say thanks, they finally did it.
How is Twitter mimicking Facebook? The Facebook Ivan dude is making even less sense. Twitter is in the best shape it has ever been after its Chirp announcements. And there are people who think Twitter is imploding? Wet dreams.
We need to talk some resonance sense into this guy.
Image by Zach Klein via FlickrChris Dixon's is a good blog to follow if you want to keep abreast developments in the fast churning VC industry. He is an entrepreneur and one of those angels that you will read about a lot, people who are changing the face of the game. 
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_trIl0URzigUk7ANb_fgfd_28s9jgVSlLcsQcryM9ipeqVeQ2uPWTirrY5dVoi1xWDlKrLKHyVuRNOMMZNuT9f0L1LHSWDVyKr83139OyY1yDfFv9RvGvatKRoWWATQdTmdnqUgMZqJE_B2yS6rpgK3=s0-d)