web analytics

IoT


Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/davidgs/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1067

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/davidgs/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1067

San Francisco Now Has Its Own Cellular Network Just For The ‘Internet Of Things’ – Forbes

Search Forbes.com

    Comment Now

    • share
    trending

    Comment Now

    on San Francisco Now Has Its Own Cellular Network Just For The 'Internet Of Things'

    Please log in or sign up to comment.

    Trending Now

    Oct 27, 2015 @ 08:00 AM 3,748 views

    San Francisco Now Has Its Own Cellular Network Just For The 'Internet Of Things'

    Aaron Tilley ,

    Forbes Staff

    I cover hardware and chipmakers.

    Full Bio

    Does your fitness tracker need its own cellular network? Sigfox think so.

    Phone carriers like AT&T T +0.00% and Verizon love talking about the “Internet of Things” — the tech industry’s buzzword for the hooking the entire physical world up to the internet. But adding a conventional cellular modem is going to suck up a lot of power, and these kinds of devices need a low power way of connecting to the internet.

    Sigfox’s answer is a wireless network that specializes in communicating with millions of low-power devices that don’t deal with large streams of data. The Toulouse, France-based company’s network is already covering almost all of France and Spain.

    Now Sigfox is pushing hard into the US. At an event on Tuesday, the company is announcing it has complete coverage of San Francisco, and is planning coverage for a total of 10 US cities by the first quarter of 2016: San Francisco, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas and San Jose. Allen Proithis, a former HP executive, is leading this US rollout as Sigfox’s president of North America and the regional headquarters will be based in Boston.

    For the San Francisco rollout, Sigfox has around 20 of its briefcase-sized base stations on the top of buildings around the city. It partnered with the city of San Francisco to reserve space on these buildings.

    Sigfox’s network is able to handle tiny packets of data. These are small 12-byte messages — not enough for streaming video. Instead of phones, Sigfox’s wireless network is tailored for everything else you might want to hook up to the internet: parking meters, fire alarms, moisture sensors out in a farm field, or even wearables. In Europe, for example, Swedish security giant Securitas has built home security monitoring products that hook up to the Sigfox network. For the initial US rollout, smart electricity meter maker Glen Canyon is announcing that it will use the Sigfox network.

    Building out Sigfox’s wireless network infrastructure is a lot less costly than putting together a phone network, the company said. The network runs on the unlicensed wireless spectrum band of 900 megahertz in the US, so the company doesn’t need to acquire licensed spectrum. For a geographical location like the size of the entire state of California, Sigfox estimates it only needs around 1,500 microcells compared to something like 20,000 for a traditional cellular network, said Thomas Nicholls, the executive vice president of communication at Sigfox, in an interview with Forbes in July.  It took only 12 months to get its network to cover all of Spain, Nicholls said. The company partners with existing cell tower owners and uses off-the-shelf hardware. Once the company achieves scale in a region, the idea is to provide a subscription for access to the Sigfox network for around $1 a year per device.

    For device makers, they have to install a radio chip that costs less than $2 and comes loaded with the Sigfox firmware. Chip vendors such as Texas Instruments TXN -1.75% and Silicon Laboratories are selling these Sigfox chips. Samsung, an investor in the company, is also starting to build Sigfox connectivity into its Artik chips, which are designed for low-powered devices in the Internet of Things market.

    Samsung, along with chipmaker Intel INTC +0.00% and Spanish telecom Telefónica, have poured more than $150 million into the company.

    Although traditional mobile network operators are also going after the growing market around the Internet of Things, Sigfox sees opportunities to partner with them. For example, AT&T is switching off its 2G network by the end of 2016, but there are still many devices running on it. AT&T could partner with Sigfox to pick up those connections. Said Sigfox’s Proithis, “US carriers are still trying to figure us out.”

    Follow me on Twitter @aatilley or send me an email: atilley@forbes.com

    IoT: The Success Tool for Entrepreneurs

    If you are in the startup space , or are someone who keenly follows technology news, IoT is an acronym that you hear very often.
    IoT means Internet of Things, and it is the network of physical objects which are embedded with electronics, software, network connectivity, and sensors which enable these objects to exchange data . It should be noted that IoT and data are mutually inclusive here, one cannot add value without the other.

    HoloLens Event Tour for Developers

    Yesterday, I had the privilege of showing HoloLens to developers in Chicago. I was really impressed with the ability of the HoloLens device. These are pre-production devices but they worked really well. If you were wondering if the videos you have seen really work that way – I can tell you they do. The customers, I talked with yesterday, had a lot of great ideas on what they want to use this device for to support their businesses. From training simulators to education tools and of course games.
    Yesterday, I played a demonstration game with the HoloLens. It showcased the Windows Holographic Platform and the features it offers. It was really cool and is the start of something that will transform the world in the same way other technologies have. Technologies such as electricity, the gas engine, Television, or cellphones. Reality augmenting holograms have the promise to make this type of change to the world. A change which is surreal when it first launches but then becomes something you don’t know how people lived without.

    So, how do you make money in IoT?

    So, how do you make money in IoT?

    A recent InfoWorld article proclaims "The Internet of Things is not paying the rent." In it, Adobe's VP of Mobile Matt Asay cites data from VisionMobile and McKinsey & Co. to point out that "less than 10 percent of IoT developers are making enough to support a reasonably sized team," and that "developers need to get real about what they're selling and to whom," which "probably involves a 'dull' enterprise-facing business." This begs the question, how do you make money in the IoT?

    In a column last year on hardware commoditization I discussed the idea of "IoT-as-a-Service," wherein Internet of Things companies could potentially transition away from one-off IoT platform sales and into business models that allow for accretive growth by means of data and feature . In this cloud-based approach, companies could establish service plans or provide additional features to end users similar to how your cell phone or cable company operate, generating recurring streams of income that continue to flow after the initial platform sale (or perhaps, giveaway) to help offset ongoing maintenance, service, and support costs. Furthermore, this paradigm permits a new way of thinking about the product development lifecycle, as rather than offering a portfolio of hardware platforms each with different features engineered into individual SKUs, can be utilized to enhance or reduce functionality on a given platform (or set of platforms) by turning capabilities on or off.

    However, one setback of this model is that it relies on services and licensing fees as the primary source of revenue generation. With the Internet breeding a generation of developers and consumers that expect things for free or nearly free, how do you ensure ROI? In addition, while the smartphone, cable, and utilities markets have matured to the point where providers can afford front-end revenue hits on hardware in lieu of lucrative service payouts over time, in the fledgling IoT it's hard to rely on commitments to long- or even short-term commitments at the expense of a large upfront payday. Especially if you're a small IoT startup, asking a group of angel investors to risk bankrolling today's IoT devices in exchange for the uncertain promise of tomorrow's data- and software-driven dollars seems like a prayer.

    This leaves IoT developers at a crossroads, as although the increasing amount of value and a more economic approach to electronic system design is now rooted in software, capitalizing on that value has largely been restricted to traditional, hardware-centric ROI models (Figure 1).

     



     

     

    Figure 1: Traditional product-centric business models limit the earning capacity of Internet of Things (IoT) solutions as they are typically earmarked by a single income phase followed by extended periods of service and maintenance costs.

     

    (Click graphic to zoom by 1.9x)

     

     

    Management and control are key to monetizing IoT

    By its very nature, the IoT is based on the real-time or near-real-time delivery of software and services, so getting capabilities to the end user is not the issue. Rather, the problem is one of control and management – control that ensures IP can't be stolen or reverse engineered so potential users are able to take advantage of features for free, and management that facilitates the distribution of software and services in such a manner that data or feature utilization can be monitored for appropriate billing (Figure 2).

     



     

     

    Figure 2: New approaches to feature monetization should provide mechanisms for protecting IP from piracy as well as entitlement management that opens new revenue streams for IoT developers.

     

    (Click graphic to zoom by 1.9x)

     

     

     

     

    In a meeting with Aurelius Wosylus, Director of Business Development at Gemalto (www.gemalto.com) earlier this summer I was introduced to the company's Sentinel Licensing Development Kit (LDK) that addresses these challenges in multiple ways. From a and IP protection perspective, the Sentinel LDK represents an evolution of Gemalto's licensing protection products into a single "Cross-Locking" technology suite that allows developers to implement a combination of hardware and/or software-based . In software, keys are exchanged using the Sentinel Envelope, a wrapper that uses code encryption at system boot up and system-level anti-debugging, among additional features, to control access to executables, libraries (DLLs), and other software data files so they can only be decrypted by authorized parties (Figure 3). Hardware-based encryption can also be utilized through technologies such as AppOnChip, which locks applications to individual devices so that specific code blocks can be authenticated at the hardware level using tokens.

     

    Figure 3: Gemalto's Sentinel Envelope, part of the Sentinel LDK, provides an encryption wrapper around products to prevent tampering and theft of valuable IP.

    (Click graphic to zoom by 1.9x)

     

     

    Once software IP is secure, developers are able deploy software features to target devices with confidence, enabled by the Entitlement Management System (EMS) built into the Sentinel LDK. A web-based solution built on an SAP backend, the EMS allows software updates to be remotely pushed to target users and devices while also retrieving usage metrics that make flexible licensing models possible, including pay-per-use, pre-pay, and post pay. In addition, usage data can also provide insight into the behavior users exhibit when interacting with various products, which in turn can be leveraged for future R&D, marketing, and so on. Figure 4 shows an example  architecture using the Sentinel LDK and ' LabVIEW application software.

    Figure 4: The EMS features of Gemalto's Sentinel LDK permit flexible remote software licensing through reporting that can be used to support pre-pay, post-pay, and pay-per-use models.

    (Click graphic to zoom by 1.9x)

     

    With control and management technologies serving as the foundation, developers can take a new approach to product definition that reduces hardware dependency and enables innovative software packaging and licensing models, many of which can provide recurring revenue streams.

    A pragmatic approach to the bottom line

    In my travels around the embedded industry the general consensus is that while consumer IoT is currently driving about 80 percent of IoT's hype, the "enterprise/industrial IoT" will amount to 80 percent of its actual value. However, nebulous projections like this don't answer the core question of how IoT companies will survive, whatever the flavor. Software monetization strategies are a big step towards getting black figures on the bottom line sooner rather than later.

    This article was published on October 1st, 2015.

    Share and Comment

    Intel Announced IoT Developer Kit v2.0

    Intel announced the release of Intel® IoT Developer Kit v2.0 . They added new installers, additional sensor support, updated IDEs, as well as a number of enhancements, bug fixes, and improved usability. If you are working with Intel IoT, it is suggested to upgrade the IDEs as many new features are added including new installers are available for Intel Edison and Intel Galileo.
    Highlights :

    Device analyzes senior behavior, notifies caregivers of anomalies

    http://blog.applysci.com/?p=4835
    Numera EverThere  monitors senior health and daily activities in real time, and immediately notifies caregivers of of out-of-parameter readings.
    Senior safety products are typically reactive — the most popular example being a button pushed after a wearer has fallen.  EverThere aims to be proactive, monitoring  daily activities and movement to determine anomalies which require intervention.
    The service and open cloud platform  work with the Numera Libris, a 3G connected, GPS-enabled two-way voice communication device, which sends customized notifications to caregivers.
    WEARABLE TECH + DIGITAL HEALTH SAN FRANCISCO – APRIL 5, 2016 @ THE MISSION BAY CONFERENCE CENTER
    NEUROTECH SAN FRANCISCO – APRIL 6, 2016 @ THE MISSION BAY CONFERENCE CENTER
    REGISTER BY 11/30/15 TO RECEIVE THE PREFERRED RATE
     

    Helping Things in the IoT speak the same language – O’Reilly Radar

    Helping Things in the IoT speak the same language

    We need to build APIs for Things that are interoperable — we need an application layer for the IoT.

    by

    |

    @domguinard |

    Comment

    |

    October 28, 2015

    Register for our free webcast “Building IoT Systems with Web Standards,” which will be hosted by Vlad Trifa and Dominique Guinard on December 8, 2015, at 10 a.m. PT.

    When the term “IoT” was first coined, the idea was to move from a model where data is generated by humans bridging media gaps between the physical and the virtual worlds to a model where data is gathered by the Things themselves.

    Fifteen years later, we’re moving in the right direction to make this a reality, but we still have several challenges ahead. One major challenge is interoperability: many Things do talk using the Internet, but they don’t talk the same language. Having been involved in the IoT for about as long as it’s been around, I’m pretty sure of one thing: a universal networking protocol for the IoT will never exist — and for a good reason! The IoT is a vast world where the needs of one field (e.g. Industry 4.0) to another (e.g. the smart home) are fundamentally different. As a consequence, the list of automation protocols is actually growing, not shrinking.

    A consequence of these different needs is the focus on the connectivity aspect of the IoT. This is not unusual, but as we ascend the pyramid of IoT needs, we must think about the data interoperability of Things. We need to build APIs for Things that are interoperable; in short, we need an application layer for the IoT.

    Why? Let’s look at a simple example: a smart hotel. The hotel owner would like to digitally connect the appliances in all the rooms of the hotel. This gives guests access to a variety of services, from controlling their room (lights, air conditioning, entertainment, etc.), to booking hotel facilities, to ordering food and drinks — all from a mobile phone. This would also enable the owner to coordinate and optimize all aspects of the hotel (e.g. energy consumption) in a centralized and efficient manner, without having to use a variety of siloed applications and tools.

    Building a smart hotel system will likely require electronic door locks made by one company, security cameras from another company, and a control application to manage all of this made by yet another company. Making these devices and systems talk and work with each other will require a lot of custom system integration work. The hotel owner likely will have to contract a specialist company and spend well-earned savings on a substantial project that will take months to deliver. Why? Because of the lack of a common application layer.

    The best example of interoperability at the application layer is the Web. The Web made the Internet successful by creating an open, simple, and highly interoperable layer where data can be exchanged between servers and consumed by applications. I believe that technical details about how physical things talk to each other over the Web will make a massive difference to whether or not the IoT realizes its true vision, or becomes a complex mesh of proprietary or semi-proprietary standards.

    I have been promoting this approach for more than a decade now and call it the Web of Things. This approach also underpins the IoT platform of the company Vlad Trifa and I co-founded: EVRYTHNG; these principles have been applied, and the platform deployed in the wild to connect millions of products, from bottles of whisky or soda, to smart plugs and lighting systems. The core of the Web of Things approach is quite simple: re-use Web standards to build the APIs of Things.

    Image courtesy of Dominique Guinard and EVRYTHNG.

    There are many areas where the Web can help:

    • REST and its Web implementation: HTTP helps us structure and create APIs for Things. Why should actuating a device be more complex than sending an HTTP PUT request to it?
    • WebSockets for real-time updates: One of the issues of HTTP is the request-response paradigm, which does not fit the sensing and monitoring use cases of the IoT. Here, WebSockets can help: why should monitoring the humidity level in a room be more complicated than subscribing to a resource via WebSockets?
    • JSON: Why should the data format of Things be different than the de facto standard of Web APIs: JSON?

    There are a lot more Web tools to leverage to build the application layer of the IoT, such as those for security (e.g. TLS, oAuth), semantics (e.g. JSON-LD, RDFa, Schema.org), or to create composite applications (e.g. Mashups).

    As the Web embraces the IoT (and vice-versa), the IoT will also influence the new developments of the Web. For instance, the recently approved HTTP/2 standard implements a number of improvements directly impacting the IoT. CoAP is another example: a protocol for low-power Things inspired by Web patterns that can be translated to HTTP and WebSockets. These are steps in the right direction.

    Standard Web protocols: Things will be accessible, but still isolated

    However, just as Web APIs created thousand of isolated Web silos, a Web of Things where we only agree on using the same protocols creates accessible silos, but still silos of Things.

    The next step toward true interoperability is to go beyond the protocols and look at common syntax and semantics for Things. This is the gap that platforms like Google/Nest Weave, Apple HomeKit, and the EVRYTHNG API are filling: they integrate via Internet protocols at the network layer, Web protocols at the Web layer, and define the models and semantics of Things.

    We are at a critical turning point in the development of the IoT, and relying on commercial de-facto standards can be detrimental to consumers. Independent institutions like W3C are essential to balance individual commercial agendas, ensuring that the IoT moves from a complicated maze of disjointed standards to an open, universal Web-based system. I love what the power of the World Wide Web has helped our societies and economies achieve so far, and believe it makes all the sense in the world to take the same approach with the IoT.

    To address this need for a Web-based approach, EVRYTHNG, alongside partners from the COMPOSE Project (with members from IBM, W3C, Barcelona Supercomputing Centre, Fraunhofer Institute, and other universities), has authored an official W3C Member Submission called the Web Thing Model, graphically represented below. This submission contributes to the pre-standard work around the Web of Things at W3C within the WoT Interest Group.

    Image courtesy of Dominique Guinard and EVRYTHNG.

    Guidelines for RESTful APIs of Things that speak the same language

    The submission starts by providing guidelines on how to implement RESTful APIs for Things. It also discusses different integration patterns (Gateways, Cloud, Direct). On the semantic level, we focus on five simple constructs as illustrated below:

    • Things
    • Models
    • Actions
    • Properties
    • Subscriptions

    Image courtesy of Dominique Guinard and EVRYTHNG.

    Things are the physical objects. They are semantically described by simple Models based on the Web Linking standard, and semantic extensions using JSON-LD are supported. This allows a Thing to extend its description using a well-known semantic format such as the Schema.org Product schema. Using this approach, existing services like search engines can automatically get metadata about Things.

    Properties are the variables of a device, such as location, temperature sensor ready, or state. These are meant to be changed by the Things themselves (or by a gateway / cloud). Properties can be observed by clients using push mechanisms such as WebSockets or WebHooks via Subscriptions.

    If an external application wants to change the state of a device, it must do so by sending Actions to the device — for example, lightState, garageDoorState.

    The Web Thing Model also provides guidelines on how to implement these constructs using Web standards, focusing on HTTP and WebSockets. However, it could also be applied and used with other application protocols such as CoAP or MQTT.

    While this submission is not yet a standard, we hope it will bootstrap the discussions in several areas:

    • The need for independent and open standards: do we want the future of the IoT to belong to a handful of players or to be a space where open innovation is possible?
    • Reusability: do we want the application layer of the IoT to be built from scratch, or do we want to leverage, adapt, and evolve the omnipresent World Wide Web?
    • Semantics: how far into the world of ontologies do we have to go to create sufficient machine-to-machine understanding to implement the automatic and spontaneous compositions the IoT has long been dreaming of? Can the semantic Web help there, too?

    No matter the outcome, these discussions are what we are looking for to finally implement the powerful vision of the Internet of Things.

    Image by Jud McCranie on Wikimedia Commons.

    Get the O’Reilly IoT Newsletter

    Software / Hardware / Everywhere

    The programmable world is creating disruptive innovation as profound as the Internet itself. Be among the first to learn about the latest news, trends, and opportunities.

    Get the IoT Newsletter

    Be among the first to learn about the latest news, trends, and opportunities.

    Featured Video

    Why the New Hardware Movement is Bigger than IoT: Jon Bruner looks at the relationship between new hardware and the IoT, and why they aren't the same thing.

    Most Recently Discussed

    Archives

    CONTACT US

    Radar managing editor


    Jenn Webb

    wmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgilwmkgil

    9 Questions To Ask Before You Accept A Startup Job | TechCrunch





    Advertisement

    Newsletters



    TechCrunch Daily
    Our top headlines
    Delivered daily



    TC Week-in-Review
    Top stories of the week
    Delivered weekly



    CrunchBase Daily
    The latest startup funding announcements
    Delivered daily



    TC Europe
    The top European tech stories
    Delivered weekly



    TC Gadgets
    Top stories about gadgets
    Delivered weekly



    TC Mobile & Apps
    Top stories about apps
    Delivered weekly



    TC Startups
    Top stories about startups
    Delivered weekly



    TC Social Media
    Top stories about social
    Delivered weekly



    TC Asia
    The top Asian tech stories
    Delivered weekly



    Crunch Network
    The best from our contributors
    Delivered weekly

    Enter Address

    Subscribe

    Advertisement

    The definitive startup checklist

    You are the valuable person here. Take care of all of your needs and then you will have more freedom. Be able to demonstrate greater competence at your job, and have better relationships with the people you work with. What follows is a checklist to help you decide if you should take a job with a startup.

    Layout credit: Anna Escher

    1. Has the CEO built a business before?

    This is not always reliable (Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page hadn’t built businesses before) but there’s an interesting stat: 85 percent of startups fail. If the CEO has built and sold a startup before, then the odds go down to 25 percent. So you might as well have the statistics on your side.

    2. Does the company have good funding?

    Do they have enough money to last at least a year? (If the company has six months or fewer worth of funding then they are already out of business.)

    “Good funding” means people (or funds) who will also write second checks. If all they have is one year’s worth of friends and family money, then you are taking the risk in a year they will run out of money. Why take risks when there are plenty of other good jobs out there?

    3. Do you believe in the vision?

    Is the CEO creative enough to develop a strong vision, and also a good enough communicator to convey that vision? Could you use this product? Could you see it helping a million or more people?

    4. Do you believe in their latest round valuation?

    Imagine you had, in cash, the amount of their full valuation. Would you be able to create a better product with more traction? Like, for $46 billion, would you be able to beat Uber? There are plenty of startups out there where if you gave me their full valuation in cash I can easily see how they can be replaced.

    Don’t work for a company that is easily replaceable at a lower valuation.

    Also, if you believe in the valuation, make sure your options are not at the venture capital price but at the “409A valuation” price. Google that.

    5. What can you learn?

    Make sure that even in the worst case scenario where you misjudged everything else, that you at least learn one thing fairly quickly after you take the job so that it adds to your skill set and you can move on to get a better job.

    6. How do the partners get along?

    The entire culture of a company comes from the top down. So if the partners who started the business don’t have their emotional act together, the company itself won’t be emotionally sound.

    Also, think ecosystem again – try to see your boss’ relationships with other people in the company. All gossiping is bad. Hopefully they think highly of the people they work with. Else you shouldn’t work for them and you shouldn’t work for that company.

    7. What are the current demographic trends?

    Warren Buffett said, “If you have a strong demographic wind behind you then the company will do well even with poor management.”

    The book Bold lists a lot of demographic trends that take advantage of Moore’s Law that are getting bigger. Robotics, Internet of Things, 3D printing, etc. That’s one start. Another start are companies disrupting healthcare since that is such a mess right now.

    Another example: I’d rather work for Uber than a company that lends money against taxi medallions. I’d rather work for Airbnb than Marriott. I’d rather work for Tesla than GM.

    8. When will they IPO?

    You can’t ask in your interview, “when will you IPO?”

    It’s unpredictable when a company will exit. A good company might wait 7-10 years before an exit. In fact, a good company should wait 7-10 years. Why? Because if they’re good then they are undoubtedly growing faster than the market. So they should stay private as long as possible to maximize benefits for shareholders and employees.

    So try to figure out if management is ultimately interested in an exit. Some CEOs are not.

    9. Do you see the path to profitability?

    Some startups might be years away. But the good thing about working for a company that ultimately has huge margins (not just profits but margins) is that they have a lot of perks.

    Just compare the chef at Google with the chef at Walmart. Hint: there IS NO chef at Walmart.

    Previous
    Next

    The definitive startup checklist

    You are the valuable person here. Take care of all of your needs and then you will have more freedom. Be able to demonstrate greater competence at your job, and have better relationships with the people you work with. What follows is a checklist to help you decide if you should take a job with a startup.

    Layout credit: Anna Escher

    1. Has the CEO built a business before?

    This is not always reliable (Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page hadn’t built businesses before) but there’s an interesting stat: 85 percent of startups fail. If the CEO has built and sold a startup before, then the odds go down to 25 percent. So you might as well have the statistics on your side.

    2. Does the company have good funding?

    Do they have enough money to last at least a year? (If the company has six months or fewer worth of funding then they are already out of business.)

    “Good funding” means people (or funds) who will also write second checks. If all they have is one year’s worth of friends and family money, then you are taking the risk in a year they will run out of money. Why take risks when there are plenty of other good jobs out there?

    3. Do you believe in the vision?

    Is the CEO creative enough to develop a strong vision, and also a good enough communicator to convey that vision? Could you use this product? Could you see it helping a million or more people?

    4. Do you believe in their latest round valuation?

    Imagine you had, in cash, the amount of their full valuation. Would you be able to create a better product with more traction? Like, for $46 billion, would you be able to beat Uber? There are plenty of startups out there where if you gave me their full valuation in cash I can easily see how they can be replaced.

    Don’t work for a company that is easily replaceable at a lower valuation.

    Also, if you believe in the valuation, make sure your options are not at the venture capital price but at the “409A valuation” price. Google that.

    5. What can you learn?

    Make sure that even in the worst case scenario where you misjudged everything else, that you at least learn one thing fairly quickly after you take the job so that it adds to your skill set and you can move on to get a better job.

    6. How do the partners get along?

    The entire culture of a company comes from the top down. So if the partners who started the business don’t have their emotional act together, the company itself won’t be emotionally sound.

    Also, think ecosystem again – try to see your boss’ relationships with other people in the company. All gossiping is bad. Hopefully they think highly of the people they work with. Else you shouldn’t work for them and you shouldn’t work for that company.

    7. What are the current demographic trends?

    Warren Buffett said, “If you have a strong demographic wind behind you then the company will do well even with poor management.”

    The book Bold lists a lot of demographic trends that take advantage of Moore’s Law that are getting bigger. Robotics, Internet of Things, 3D printing, etc. That’s one start. Another start are companies disrupting healthcare since that is such a mess right now.

    Another example: I’d rather work for Uber than a company that lends money against taxi medallions. I’d rather work for Airbnb than Marriott. I’d rather work for Tesla than GM.

    8. When will they IPO?

    You can’t ask in your interview, “when will you IPO?”

    It’s unpredictable when a company will exit. A good company might wait 7-10 years before an exit. In fact, a good company should wait 7-10 years. Why? Because if they’re good then they are undoubtedly growing faster than the market. So they should stay private as long as possible to maximize benefits for shareholders and employees.

    So try to figure out if management is ultimately interested in an exit. Some CEOs are not.

    9. Do you see the path to profitability?

    Some startups might be years away. But the good thing about working for a company that ultimately has huge margins (not just profits but margins) is that they have a lot of perks.

    Just compare the chef at Google with the chef at Walmart. Hint: there IS NO chef at Walmart.

    Advertisement

    TechCrunch Apps

    Subscribe to TechCrunch Daily

    Latest headlines delivered to you daily

    Subscribe to <span class="no-mobile">Subscribe to </span>TechCrunch Daily

    Enter Email Address

    Subscribe


    © 2013-2015 AOL Inc. All rights reserved.


    Aol Tech
    Privacy Policy
    About Our Ads
    Anti Harassment Policy
    Terms of Service


    Fonts by

    Traveling made easy with IoT

    http://blog.thethings.io/traveling-made-easy-with-iot/


    Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/davidgs/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1067

    GPS, voice monitoring wearable for special needs kids

    http://blog.applysci.com/?p=4828
    AngelSense is a tracking and voice monitoring wearable designed for children with special needs.  Parents can:
    Receive an automatically generated real-time schedule
    Listen to a child’s activities
    Receive notifications of every location change
    Locate a lost child with a 10 second live location update
    Automatically download photos of the day’s locations
    Continuous monitoring and real time alerts are enabled by cloud-based analytics and a web app.  Subscribers receive a visual diary of the child’s day, and an interface where parents and caregivers can share information and photos .
    The company’s website highlights a case study where a parent and child review photos of the child’s day:  “Every evening Josh and I watch the places he visited. By using the pictures, Josh can finally share his day with me! He understands I keep him safe and feels more confident knowing I’m with him at all times.”
    AngelSense customer service is staffed  with parents of special needs kids who are  expert users of product.
    While AngelSense is geared toward children, ApplySci believes that it could be also be  used as a safety solution for dementia sufferers and their caregivers.
    WEARABLE TECH + DIGITAL HEALTH SAN FRANCISCO – APRIL 5, 2016 @ THE MISSION BAY CONFERENCE CENTER
    NEUROTECH SAN FRANCISCO – APRIL 6, 2016 @ THE MISSION BAY CONFERENCE CENTER
    REGISTER BEFORE NOVEMBER 30TH TO RECEIVE THE PREFERRED RATE.