Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Tag: tech

  • Unicorns overwhelmingly originate in big cities

    In the world of startups, a unicorn is used to refer to a company with a market cap greater than $1 billion. A decacorn, the latest benchmark, is what it sounds like in that it’s a company with a market cap greater than $10 billion.

    While unicorn status is just one measure, valuations are an important yardstick for cities and countries. How many big new companies are you creating? That is a critical question because, presumably, these big new companies are going to create a bunch of new jobs and generate a lot of new wealth for people.

    This recent blog post by Elad Gil is a great summary of what’s happening in the world from this perspective. The raw data is also available if you’d like to dig deeper.

    Here are the number of new unicorns since October 2020 by city:

    Silicon Valley, not surprisingly, continues to dominate, followed by New York.

    Here is a breakdown for the United States as a whole:

    Miami and Austin have been in the news a lot over the past year and their startup scenes may very well be on the rise relative to other US cities. But it’s interesting to see other smaller cities on this list, like Salt Lake City, who are, at least right now, holding their own.

    I found this last set of two charts particularly interesting:

    They are showing unicorn count (first) and unicorn market cap (second) as a percentage of their respective countries. For example, Silicon Valley is sitting at about 47% and 51%, respectively. So about half of all unicorns in the US have originated from this geography.

    But for most other cities on this list, the percentage is much higher and, in many cases, it is 100%. (Silicon Valley is perhaps relatively low because the US has lots of other big and important cities.) For me, this shows the continued dominance of cities. If you’re building the next great unicorn or decacorn, the data tells us that you’re probably doing it in a big city somewhere. And I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

  • A fundamental and profound innovation

    I setup a new cryptocurrency wallet (offline hardware storage) this evening and then used it to buy brandondonnelly.eth using ENS (Ethereum Name Service). I don’t know what the hell I’m going to use it for, yet, but I own brandondonnelly.com. So I figured I should grab the decentralized blockchain version of my name as well. Perhaps at some point in the future I’ll be glad I did.

    I plan to buy a bunch of other .eth domains in the near future as well. The costs are similar to registering a traditional domain.

    Part of the reason why I’m doing all of this because I’ve decided that it’s time to do a deep dive and better understand the possibilities of the blockchain (a decentralized vs. centralized internet). I’ve been following for a number of years, but it has been pretty surface level. It’s time to get serious. And I must say that it felt pretty cool to use my new hardware wallet to buy something with ETH.

    Overall, things started to really click for me when I saw the digital economy that was emerging with Ethereum (applications, NFTs, DeFi, etc.). Instead of just digital money, I could now see clear use cases and demand drivers for the cryptocurrency. Again, I used ETH to buy brandondonnelly.eth, which means I first had to be an owner of ETH.

    If you’re looking to better understand the possibilities of a decentralized internet — specifically why non fungible tokens are bad ass — check out this blog post by Albert Wenger. He uses the example of the Mona Lisa sitting in the Louvre to explain why NFTs are not a fad and, instead, a “fundamental and profound innovation.”

  • Luminar announces vision for autonomous vehicle future

    Luminar Technologies, which is an autonomous vehicle technology company that I have written about before, just hosted its first ever “Studio Day” in New York City this week. And at the event they announced two new technologies.

    The first is called Iris, which is a small lidar device that is intended to be integrated into regular consumer production vehicles — on the roof just above the windshield. And supposedly the company is on track to have these into full production and available to their OEM partners by the end of next year (2022).

    The second technology is something that they are calling Blade, which is a lidar system that can offer a 360 degree field of vision and is intended for use in robo-taxis, trucks, and other consumer vehicles. It’s called Blade because it’s kind of like a blade that wraps around the tops of these vehicles.

    We’ve been talking about autonomous vehicles for what seems like a long time. And it is now clear that this is not an easy problem to solve. But from what I have read, lidar seems like the promising technology and something that will become necessary for full autonomy. So I am now long $LAZR. Whether this is the right move is still to be determined.

    The full Studio Day video is embedded at the top of this post. If you’re reading via email subscription and can’t see it, click here.

    I liked the bit (just after the 9 minute mark) about how headlights were first introduced and how it took some time before they were fully absorbed and integrated into the design of cars. Today they are now a signature design element for most car brands. It’s a clever parallel for what Luminar is trying to do with Iris and Blade.

  • The new AirTags and Apple’s global mesh network

    Apple recently released a new tracking device called AirTag. It is similar to the small Tile devices that have been in circulation for many years in that they help you find misplaced items like your keys or a bag. They locate your stuff and work like this. I pre-ordered a 4-pack of them last month but they aren’t scheduled to arrive until June. Maybe it’s because I got custom engravings on the back of them.

    Perhaps the most obvious use case for these new AirTags is to place one inside of your checked bag(s) when you travel. There’s nothing worse than an airline losing your luggage and you not knowing where it is. So I can see myself using one of these every time I travel. Hopefully that will be very soon.

    But the other really interesting thing about these devices is that they run on Apple’s “Find My” network, which is the same network that allows you to find your other iOS devices if you happen to misplace them. This is essentially a decentralized mesh network that is powered by all of Apple’s devices around the world, as opposed to some big telco network.

    According to Wikipedia, there is believed to be about 1 billion Apple devices around the world that are capable of transmitting anonymous signals. Your phone may be doing it right now. What this means is that these new AirTags are being located not by way of a cell network, but by way of some dude with an iPhone standing nearby to your AirTag.

    Why I find this so interesting is that the internet has way of decentralizing things and also cutting out intermediaries. We’ve seen that happen with travel agents and we are now seeing it take place with cryptocurrencies and blockchains. These new AirTags feels like a microcosm of that trend. They are running on a giant global network that has been created one device at a time.

  • More drivers, more supply

    This week, Lyft announced that it is going to be selling its autonomous vehicle division to Toyota for some $550 million. (Apparently $200 million of this will be paid upfront, with the remaining $350 million paid out over a five year period.) This is notable because Uber did the exact same thing last year when it sold its autonomous vehicle business to Aurora (which happens to be working with Toyota), and because the reasons for selling seem clear: getting to full autonomy is going to cost a bunch more money and both Uber and Lyft are determined to reach profitability sooner rather than later.

    The other thing that you might be able to glean from these announcements is that neither company seemingly feels like they need to fully own/control the autonomous piece. Presumably the thinking is that someone else can spend the money on developing full autonomy and they’ll just stick to building out their ride-hailing network. Once we have autonomous taxis, they’ll need a network to run on anyway, right? I guess. But wouldn’t this dramatically undermine the network effects of Uber and Lyft?

    If you go back to Uber’s S-1, there was a diagram that explained Uber’s “liquidity network effect.” See above. It starts with more drivers and more supply (1), because more cars driving around means that wait times and fares are lower (2) and so more people are likely to use Uber (3). Network size matters. But if you no longer have drivers — only autonomous vehicles — isn’t it relatively easy to add more supply to any network? I suppose this partially depends on how the ownership structure will end up working for these autonomous taxis. Still, I wonder about the barriers to entry under this scenario.

  • NFTs, luxury brands, and reclaiming ownership

    Here is an interesting interview discussion about NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and the world of luxury brands. It’s a conversation between Benoit Pagotto, cofounder of the NFT brand RTFKT Studios, and Ian Rogers, who is Chief Experience Officer at the blockchain startup Ledger (he was previously the Chief Digital Officer at LVMH). Below is an excerpt that stood out to me. It starts to speak to the potential of NFTs for fashion/luxury brands. Rogers also makes an interesting comparison to the music industry in that things are playing out very differently today compared to what happened back in the late 90s.

    Benoit is proving that he can basically sell a $4,900 digital good alongside a $100 physical good. Now imagine when the lightbulb goes off in Adidas’s head, that the item on adidas.com comes with a digital collectible and the item at “retailer dot com” does not. It fits with their focus way more than the internet did. The internet didn’t fit in any incumbent’s focus. It was the opposite. It was like, “Oh my God, this threatens our monopoly in some way,” right? For the music business, it was, “Wait a minute, we want to sell a $17 compact disc, not a $1 digital file.” They got dragged into that world. 

    On a related note, it was recently announced that model Emily Ratajkowski has made an NFT containing a photograph of herself standing in front of a Richard Prince print that had previously appropriated one of her photos. (Richard Prince’s artwork is known for appropriation.) So this is an exceptionally neat idea. Here she is using an NFT to try and take back some control. Basically: You took my photo and then profited from it. So now I’m going to stand in front of that image, take a new photo, and then reclaim some ownership using the blockchain. Is this the future?

  • The sources of wealth

    Back in the old days, and by the old days I mean the 1980s, there were a handful of ways in which you were likely to get rich. You either inherited it, or you made it in oil or real estate. The Forbes list of the 100 richest Americans was first published in 1982 and, at that time, 60 of the people on this list had inherited their wealth. Of the 40 new fortunes on the list, about 60% were primarily related to oil or real estate. If you couldn’t inherit your money, these two industries were a good place to start.

    But as Paul Graham explains in this recent essay about “how people get rich now,” this is no longer the case. On the 2020 list, there were 73 new fortunes, but only 4 stemmed from real estate and only 2 stemmed from oil. As you might imagine, today’s biggest driver is what we call tech and, more specifically, it is people founding tech companies (there are also a couple of examples of early employees doing very well). Of the 73 new fortunes last year, approximately 30 came from tech, including 8 of the top 10 fortunes on the list.

    Given how many people are starting new companies today (it has become easier and cheaper) and given how many of these companies are quickly growing to big valuations (things are scaling faster), it is perhaps tempting to think about this period of time as being entirely unprecedented. Never before have we seen so many young people getting rich by starting their own company. And never before have we seen such inequality.

    However, Graham argues in his essay that this period of time is the default. What we saw in the second half of the 20th century was actually an anomaly. Indeed, if you go back to the end of the 19th century, the richest people in the US were mostly people who were starting their own companies and taking advantage of new technologies, such as that of mass production.

    His claim is that for the most part it wasn’t really viable to start your own company in, say, the 1960s. Instead, most people simply went to work for a big company that had some sort of oligopolistic positioning in the market. And it turns out that was pretty good for maintaining a strong middle class. Less people were getting fabulously rich. I’d like to see some more data points around entrepreneurship and wealth during this era. But regardless, I think it’s pretty clear that the dominant sources of wealth have changed.

  • Are Amazon’s private labels any different?

    Amazon is sometimes criticized for its private labels. The way this generally works is that Amazon uses the data that it collects from its platform to see what customers are buying. It then goes out and makes its own version of these products and sells them in competition with the other products in its marketplace. The reason why Amazon (and others) do this is because the margins are generally better on private labels, even though they are often positioned to the end customer as being a value-oriented alternative. That is, they’re cheaper.

    Some people think that Amazon shouldn’t be doing this, particularly as its third party marketplace continues to grow. This side of its marketplace deals with inventory that Amazon doesn’t own. It is the stuff of third party sellers who come to the platform to access Amazon’s customer base and reach, and to possibly use its fulfillment services. This marketplace now makes up about 60% of Amazon’s sales volume and so it has become a dominant part of its business. It’s a way to grow without having to spend money on additional inventory.

    Is it, then, acceptable for Amazon to mine this data, replicate products, and compete with its own customers? The truth is that this isn’t all that new. As Benedict Evans points out in this recent post, retailers have been doing this for more than a century. The above table taken from a 1932 report on “chain store private brands” shows that about 80% of stores in the US at this time were selling private label brands. Furthermore, it represented about a quarter of their overall sales. Is this time any different?

    Table via Benedict Evans

  • Shopify’s mission is to be an entrepreneurship company

    Howard Lindzon has a podcast called Panic with Friends. It was started last March (hence the name) and he uses it to interview entrepreneurs, investors, venture capitalists, and other business people about what they’re up to. In today’s episode he speaks with Harley Finkelstein, President of Shopify, about the future of ecommerce and about how they’re positioning the company. What was interesting but not surprising to hear was that in the early years people didn’t believe that Shopify had a large enough total addressable market. Supposedly, there weren’t enough people out there who might be interested in starting their own online store. That, of course, has proven to be false and there are new and successful ideas emerging all the time. We’re also now talking about how ecommerce is reshaping the landscape of our cities. Given all of this, the company has grown to think of itself as an entrepreneurship company. If you’re at all ambitious, then you’re an entrepreneur in their eyes and Shopify wants to be the platform for you. As a Canadian, it’s great to see them doing so well. If you can’t see the embedded Spotify player above, click here.

  • The 25 top-funded proptech startups in Canada

    Proptech Collective has just published their inaugural 2021 Proptech in Canada report. Here are a couple of screen grabs that you all might find interesting:

    What these images should tell you is that the Canadian proptech landscape is fairly Toronto-centric, but that it’s also very much in its nascent stages. We’re just getting started here.

    I would encourage you to download a full copy of the report. It’s very well done.