Apple buys Denver startup building waveguide lenses for AR glasses

I just spent the last 30 minutes writing a blog post around a simple phrase that I like. I built out my thought process around it, used a handful of examples, and then filled in some additional ideas. I was proofreading it when I decided to go try to find the original source of the phrase.

The first page of Google’s results surprised me. There was nothing on the phrase I liked, but there was a wall of vitriol and controversy around a phrase that is close but had a few different words in it. When I read a few of the articles, I quickly was able to tie it back to something someone at Breitbart said. And then I vaguely remembered the controversy around the phrase.

I realized that it would be easy to misinterpret the phrase I liked as the phrase that had all the controversy around it. I said them both out loud and slowly a few times, and concluded that the post needed a lot more work if I were to publish it. Basically, if someone read what I wrote and thought about it, they’d likely separate what I was saying from the other quote that I found objectionable. Or, if they didn’t know about the other quote, they’d just be tracking what I said.

But, if they knew the other quote, the controversy, and they felt strongly one way or another about it, then what I wrote would likely be lost is the soup of the previous controversy.

Normally, when I write, I just hit publish after I’m done. I learn a lot from writing and it helps me work out my thoughts and ideas, which is the main reason I do it. I don’t try to get everything right the first time through (if you are a long-time reader of this blog, you’ll notice the iteration of lots of stuff as I refine it with different examples, evolve my thinking, or respond to other challenges and stimulus.)

In this case, I was worried that my thoughts would be judged because of the linkage to the controversy around this other phrase. Given the two phrases, this is deliciously ironic (kind of like capers, which I despise.) So, I hit save draft instead of publishing the post, wrote this post instead, and am now heading out for a run to contemplate what just happened, since I think this may be the first time in about 5,000 posts that I experienced this hesitation to just publish something I wrote.

Also published on Medium.

It’s the second week of December, which is about the time that all of the predictions for 2019 start occurring. Last week’s announcements of the confidential S-1 filing of Lyft, Uber, and Slack helped prime the pump for some of these. By the way, did anyone other than me think it was a strange turn of events that companies are now announcing their confidential S-1 filing?

Fred Wilson’s post Thinking Ahead To 2019 is worth reading. Unlike the endless stream of predictions that are about to come out, it’s an analysis of the spread between the public market and private company valuations. Fred is not predicting anything in particular but makes several useful observations, including the following:

“And yet storm clouds are on the horizon for the capital markets in 2019. Rates have risen significantly in the last eighteen months, pulling capital out of the equity markets and into the fixed income markets. There are some leading indicators that suggest a business slowdown is on the horizon, which would be the first one in the US in a decade. And, of course, the situation in DC is getting dicey and that will weigh on markets as well.”

Last week I was talking to a friend who is a growth investor. He and his firm see most of the bay area growth deals (e.g. the unicorns stampede to their front door). He made an observation that a number of deals he’s now seeing are for flat rounds with companies that need to raise more money to keep going and he’s feeling the slow down of investor interest at this level. This dynamic is reflected in the article Scooter Firm Chases Funding to Staunch Losses about the current Lime and Bird financings.

Any student of history knows that there is a linkage between the push to the public markets, demand dynamics of the public markets, and the availability and attractiveness of capital in the private markets. If you lived through the Internet-bubble between 1999 and 2002 you know this cycle well. And, you know that the companies that survived it were the ones with very strong fundamental businesses (e.g. Google), regardless of whether they were private or public at the time.

At the same time, entire categories collapsed. The web hosting business – lead by Exodus – almost entirely went bankrupt or was restructured. Out of this mess came several long-term companies and a huge number of pennies on the dollar type acquisitions. If you were on the winning side of this, it was incredibly lucrative, because even in a massive collapse there is a huge long-term opportunity. But you had to be thinking about the economics and capital structure of the business, versus just chasing growth with more equity dollars.

I have no interest in predicting anything, including how any specific category or company will perform. I also have no idea what the timing of anything is. I do know that if you are an entrepreneur or investor, you should pay attention to the context but be very focused on building a durable long-term business. And this moment in time is one that feels like you should be aware of how much capital you have, how you are spending it, and when (or if) you will need to raise more.

Remember – it can all go to zero (a post I wrote when Bitcoin was at $12,000.)

Also published on Medium.

Tesla missing its deadlines for Model 3 production targets was not done on purpose, rather it was done out of stupidity, CEO Elon Musk said during an interview with '60 Minutes' on Sunday.

"Well, I mean, punctuality is not my strong suit.... Why would people think that if I've been late on all the other models that I'd suddenly be on time with this one," Musk said.

When it was pointed out to him that his critics would call this lying he countered by explaining it was actually stupidity.

"People should not ascribe to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity. So it's like, just because I'm like dumb at predicting dates does not mean I am untruthful. I don't know. I've never made a mass-produced car. How am I supposed to know with precision when it's going to get done?"

Tesla did make 5,000 Model 3 vehicles in the last week of June. However, it did not regularly produce that many vehicles per week during the third quarter. Rather, the company averaged 4,300 model 3 cars per week during the quarter. Tesla has still not begun production of the $35,000 Model 3, but Musk said that it should be ready in five to six months.

Ramping up to the target of 5,000 Model 3s per week almost broke the company, Musk said during the interview.

"It was life or death," Musk said. "We were losing $50 million, sometimes $100 million a week, and we were running out of money."

It wasn't until the company created a third assembly line in a tent outside the Fremont factory that the company was able to ramp up production enough to meet its target.

"So those betting against the company were right by all conventional standards that we would fail, but they just did not count on this unconventional situation of creating an assembly line in a parking lot in a tent," Musk said.

Musk said this last-minute push with the tent increased the company's output by 50%.

Do you work at Tesla and have a story to share? Contact this editor at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The internet has reached a major milestone — half of the world's population is now online.

The digital transformation of economies and society continues apace and promises a range of benefits, from better health to reduced inequality to greater access to information, the World Economic Forum said in a new report issued Sunday night. But as the digital era takes hold, policymakers, businesses and citizens are facing some profound anc difficult-to-solve problems, the forum noted in the report.

Internet adoption is slowing, which threatens to leave billions on the wrong side of the digital divide, possibly even permanently, the report warned. With cyberattacks up and trust in tech companies down, more than half of people around the globe think technology's downsides outweigh its benefits. And both the public and private sectors are struggling to keep up with the pace of digital change and set rules that benefit everyone.

"While recognizing that digital developments fuel many opportunities in political, commercial, and social spheres, a key point of this paper is the need to focus on inclusion and addressing digital divides," said Lynn St. Amour, who helped put together the report as the co-chairperson of the forum's Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and Society committee.

The committee brought together people from governments, corporations, and non-profit organizations around the world who worked together for 18 months to produce the report, entitled "Our Shared Digital Future Building an Inclusive, Trustworthy and Sustainable Digital Society." Among the participants in the working group were World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee, former Vice President Al Gore, and Booking.com CEO Gillian Tans.

Read this:'The web had failed instead of served humanity': Tim Berners-Lee was crushed by Russia using Facebook to meddle in the US election

Internet adoption has slowed markedly

Perhaps the biggest problem facing policymakers amid the digital transformation is the slowdown in internet adoption, the report said. Being able to go online is essential to being able to take part in the digital economy and world.

While the number of internet users worldwide grew by 17% in 2007, it's only expected to increase by 5.5% this year, the forum reported, citing data from the International Telecommunications Union. And the 50% adoption rate worldwide masks wide differences in adoption rates around the globe. Only 44% of people in the Asia-Pacific region are online and just 22% in Africa, according to ITU data.

"Digital connectivity is foundational to meaningful social and economic participation of individuals and countries in the 21st century," the forum's working group said in the report. "Unequal access to the internet increasingly means unequal access to opportunities, jobs or ability to deal with unexpected events."

The forum recommended that governments and multilateral organizations invest in widening access to the internet and in removing barriers to adoption.

Trust is waning in the digital economy

Another thing holding back the digital transformation are cyberattacks. Some 74% of businesses will be hacked this year and hacking attacks cost the world economy some $400 billion each year, according to the report.

And the problem is worsening. In just the first half of this year, cyberattacks compromised 4.5 billion records, which was up from 2.7 billion in all of last year.

"Digital connectivity plays a pivotal role in unlocking innovation and prosperity around the world," the working group said in the report. But, it continued: "the increasing number of cyber-risks presents a major obstacle to our continued and collective path to progress."

The forum called on governments and businesses to prioritize cybersecurity and to work together to reduce risks.

Amid all the cyberattacks and other problems, confidence in the digital economy is ebbing, according to the report. Just 45% of people around the world think that the benefits of the digital economy outweigh the drawbacks, the forum group said, citing data from marketing firm Dentsu Aegis.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk slammed the Security and Exchange Commission in an interview with 60 Minutes on Sunday.

"I want to be clear, I do not respect the SEC, I do not respect them," Musk said when asked about the SEC lawsuit brought against the company earlier this year.

The SEC sued Musk in September alleging that he shared "false and misleading statements" about taking Tesla private when he tweeted about doing exactly that.

Musk reached a settlement with the SEC in late September that required him to pay $20 million and step down as Tesla's chairman for a minimum of three years. Tesla was also required to pay $20 million to the SEC as part of the deal.

What's more, the SEC said Tesla must put "additional controls and procedures to oversee Musk's communications," including his tweets.

However, during the interview, Musk said no one has reviewed any of his tweets since the settlement with the SEC. When pressed on the topic, Musk said "I guess we might make some mistakes, who knows. Nobody's perfect."

Musk also spoke candidly about how he felt about stepping down as Tesla's chairman. When asked if the new chairman was put in place to watch over Musk "like a babysitter," Musk said that wasn't the case.

"It's not realistic in the sense that I am the largest shareholder of the company and I can call for a shareholder vote and get anything done that I want," Musk said.

When Musk was asked if he would like to go back to being chairman, he replied, "I prefer no titles at all."

Musk also said he doesn't "really want to try to adhere to some CEO template."

Do you work at Tesla and have a story to share? Contact this editor at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently visited Pyin Oo Lwin, Myanmar, for his birthday, to participate in a 10-day Vipassana silent meditation retreat. Since then, he's been posting photos and detailed descriptions of his trip on Twitter, encouraging other people to go there if they can.

Now, Dorsey is facing backlash against his supposedly ignorant promotion of Myanmar, where social media platforms — including Twitter and Facebook — allegedly helped fuel a mass genocide, SFGate and other outlets reported.

"Myanmar is an absolutely beautiful country. The people are full of joy and the food is amazing," Dorsey wrote in one Tweet. "I woke up at 4 am every day, and we meditated until 9 pm," read another Tweet in the same thread. Another read, "If you're willing to travel a bit, go to Myanmar."

A Reuters investigation published in August 2018 reported that Facebook was hiring more Burmese speakers to review hate speech posted in Myanmar. In March, a United Nations investigator had said Facebook was used to incite violence against the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group, with posts calling the Rohingya things like "non-human kalar dogs." (Kalar is a derogatory word for Muslims.)

Read more: The 18 biggest tech scandals of 2018

Reuters reported that hate speech spread on Twitter as well. In August 2017, Rohingya insurgents attacked police stations, setting off military activity that caused 700,000 people to abandon their homes. New Twitter accounts appeared in Myanmar, and the Tweets portrayed the Rohingya as illegal immigrants. One Tweet Reuters spotted read: "There is no Rohingya in Myanmar they are only illegal immigrant and terrorists."

Twitter has a "Hateful conduct policy," which prohibits "attacking groups of people on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin." However, in August, Reuters reported that such Tweets were still available on the site.

In response to Dorsey's Tweets about his visit to Myanmar, people are posting critical messages such as, "Leave it to a rich guy to step over bodies while taking pics on his vacation," and calling Dorsey's posts "tone-deaf."

As of yet, Dorsey hasn't posted any follow-ups.

In November, Reuters reported, Facebook said a human rights report it commissioned showed it had not done enough to prevent its social network from fueling violence. On a Slate podcast in March, Adam Mosseri, Facebook's vice president of product management, said he and his team "lose some sleep" over their potential role in the humanitarian crisis.