Re: Funding
Hi Soeren,
Soeren Tiedemann wrote:
>
> Yes, and if one is in a bad position one has only a few friends, if any!
> I'm ready to support the project wherever I can help.
I suspect that Jeff has many friends like you who'd help if they knew
how.
>
> I'm sure he's strong enough to push himself forward!
> The most frustrating part is waiting for something to happen. We really
> should think about some further concrete steps, if things are ok for Jeff.
> I'm open minded and I personally would like the idea very much to push the
> project into the Millenium! It's F21!!
>
It's difficult to take concrete steps until we know clearly what Jeff
wants. On the other hand, I know how hard he has pushed already. It may
be difficult for him at the moment to put good creative energy into
these questions. But, presuming that he's giving himself some renewal
and reflection time during his vacation, he may come back with some
dazzling ideas. I would guess, without trying to put words into Jeff's
mouth, that his options are more or less as follows:
1) Develop F21 and MISC as a traditional investor-funded (e.g. angel/VC)
company.
2) Bootstrap F21 and MISC as a conventional for-profit company --
starting with a small revenue stream, reinvesting revenue/profit for
growth, perhaps taking on additional debt. Jeff's on-line store provides
a seed upon which this could be built.
3) Develop F21 and MISC from within a not-for-profit, structure -- e.g.
"listener-supported" National Public Radio; or, going back a few years,
The Whole Earth Catalog.
4) Develop F21 and MISC as an open-source "movement" -- using, say, the
Linux model.
5) Develop F21 and MISC with grant or foundation funding.
6) Develop F21 and MISC on time and cash donations from friends.
7) Give it up altogether.
Some of the these models are more practical than others. Each offers
advantages and disadvantages. It would be good for people on this list
to debate the pros and cons of each approach. Moreover, I'm sure that
others with a better business sense than mine can come up with
additional possibilities.
Some of the assumptions, as I understand them, that will have to be
factored into any model are as follows:
1) Jeff has already invested a substantial amount of money and time into
the techhnology for which he should be rewarded.
2) On-going development could be fairly expensive.
3) Price/chip for F21 and successors is dependent on production
quantity. It will take fairly large production runs to bring price/chip
down to an economically viable level.
4) iTVs claims and rights to the technology are not clear.
5) Fab availability for future prototype/production runs is not clear.
6) F21 and successors will need either a "killer ap" or a large,
impressive software base to make any significant inroads into the
market.
7) F21 and MISC are up against formidable competitors and deeply
ingrained hostile prejudices.
On the other hand:
1) Jeff has a truly outstanding and inspiring technology vision.
2) Development of F21 is, indeed, very far along; and it may be possible
with a relatively small amount of additional work and investment to put
together some truly remarkable demonstrations.
3) If F21 does indeed work as hoped, it promises truly impressive
price/performance benefits.
4) The web opens up totally new and creative development and marketing
opportunities.
5) Jeff and the people who believe in him are smart as hell and have a
passion not widely found in business.
A venture like Jeff's feeds off the following resources:
1) Creativity
2) Information
3) Money
4) Time
5) Technical skills
6) Business skills
7) Social networks
Given enough money, you can buy all of the others. When money is the
tightest resource, however, you must substitute other resources to the
fullest extent possible. This discussion, on this list, for instance,
substitutes to some extent for money in obtaining the counsel that a
traditional company might otherwise get from it's paid executives and
board of directors.
My bias in this kind of thing is to:
1) Set down explicit goals
2) Meticulously analyze the amount of money needed to reach those goals
(development and marketing effort) following conventional paths
3) Creatively determine every possible way to substitute other resources
for money to bring the $ budget down as low as possible and practical;
E.g. one good creative idea can sometimes save thousands of dollars.
3) Cobble together a strategy to secure the needed funds
4) Hammer out a plan to most effectively mobilize the other resources
5) Regard the result as a "living document" business plan and follow it
vigorously; reviewing it frequently and changing it as conditions and
opportunities change.
In addition to the many technical and financial issues he is currently
juggling, at some point Jeff is going to have to get some good legal and
business help.
Quite a number of years ago there was a very small group of people in
Berkely who deeply believed in "community" radio. They started and ran
on a shoestring a small station, KPFA; depended upon a lot of volunteer
effort. They put their hearts and souls into it, but ran out of money.
They finally announced that they were out of funds and going off the
air. As far as they knew at that point, nobody really cared.
The community did care, however. It rallied and said, "No! We need you!"
Listeners stepped forward and organized. Sufficient donations came in to
keep KPFA going strong. The basic concept of "listener-supported" radio
has since developed into the public broadcasting network. A lot of
conservatives would like the shut the whole thing down, but the fact is
that "listener-supported" broadcasting has brought to the public many
outstanding offerings and services that were and are simply not possible
for commercial broadcasting.
So, Soeren, maybe if we all indicate, as you have, our commitment and
how we can help, we can help Jeff renew his energies and committment.
But we mustn't forget that this is Jeff's baby until he tells us
otherwise.
To my way of thinking, E. F. Schumacher was right "Small is Beautiful."
This principle, I believe, is at the heart of Chuck Moore's genius and
the deep strength of F21. The question is, can the small, highly
creative efforts of a group of supporters bring about the big success
for F21 and MISC that we'd all like to see?
Best wishes,
Lloyd R. Prentice
