Looking at founders, such as Larry Page, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerberg, you get the feeling they believe they are all powerful — more so than even governments.

It’s not a new attitude; Bill Gates learned they aren’t the hard way.

The Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, according to Mr. Smith, “learned that life actually does require compromise and governments actually are stronger than companies,” if only after a bruising confrontation.

Mr. Gates, who wrote the foreword in Mr. Smith’s book, recalled that for years he was proud of how little time he spent talking to people in government. “As I learned the hard way in the antitrust suit,” he wrote, “that was not a wise position to take.”

Lesson learned well enough that you don’t see Microsoft on the common list of big tech, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple.

That lesson hasn’t hurt Microsoft, which is valued at more than a trillion dollars by investors based on profitability, not funding.

Satya Nadella, who became CEO in 2014, is credited most often for the change in Microsoft fortunes, i.e., its culture. attitude and product mix.

You don’t hear as much about Microsoft president Brad Smith, but he’s the guy who made friends with government and helps with policy.

“When your technology changes the world,” he writes, “you bear a responsibility to help address the world that you have helped create.”

Responsibility.

The thing that so many founders don’t see as being within their purview.

Unlike Microsoft, their future will be decided more in Europe than in the US.

But the revised interpretation of an old US law could change things drastically.

And that change is being driven in by a surprising source.

Join me next Tuesday to learn more about it.

Image credit: luquidat

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

Last year I wrote that no one is a “self-made” anything, with backup from Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The media loves attaching the “self-made” label, shining a spotlight and making it seem that anyone willing to work hard enough can become a billionaire, or at least a multi-millionaire.

It’s not just all the people along the way, but also where you come from and how privileged your background.

The latest self-made billionaire is 21-year-old Kylie Jenner who claims the self-made title, because she didn’t inherit her company, i.e., bootstrapped it using her own money.

No help, did it herself.

Of course, that self-made label ignores a few significant factors.

Still, it’s obviously absurd to attach the phrase “self-made” to Jenner, who is part of the wildly successful Jenner-Kardashian clan. While she is clearly savvy about marketing and promotion, Jenner grew up in one of the wealthiest ZIP codes in the world with access to every advantage money could buy ― including years of self-promotion on a successful reality television show. The value of her makeup company lies in the celebrity she accrued via her family.

So is “self-made” more nature or nurture? According to new research from Sandra Black, an economics professor at the University of Texas at Austin, the answer is nurture.

The environment you grow up in ― the quality of education your parents can afford to give you, the investments they make in you, the relative affluence of your neighborhood ― is almost twice as important as biology.

It’s not a case of denying the success of Kylie Jenner, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, or Nick Woodman.

It’s a case of recognizing how the advantages they enjoyed reduced risk, lowered barriers, smoothed the road, and made the journey easier.

If you still doubt that parents aren’t a big deal and nurture doesn’t carry all that much weight, take a look at a currently breaking scandal over the lengths to which parents will go to get their kids into a top university.

Image credit: HikingArtist

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

Invent: Create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.

Inovate: Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

If you look carefully there is very little actual invention going on these days, it’s mostly innovation, based on previous products.

However, sometimes innovation is radical enough that it should count as invention.

Consider the lowly toilet.

The Gates Foundation has been funding the effort to reinvent the toilet.

In 2011, the Gates Foundation launched the Reinvent the Toilet Challenge to bring sustainable sanitation and hygiene solutions to the 2.5 billion people worldwide who do not have such access. The challenge, which is ongoing, is a global call to researchers around the world to develop innovative and financially profitable systems to manage human waste. The systems must operate off-grid, cost less than $.05 per day, and function in poor, urban settings.

Even corporate giants got into the effort.

Kohler—a leading U.S. manufacturer of toilets (…) received a Gates grant in 2014, describes these toilets as “stand-alone units that take in wastewater, then disinfect and purify it to be reused for toilet flushing.”

But water is also a scarce commodity, even when it’s reused.

Now, from a group of students at the University of British Columbia, comes the  MYCOmmunity Toilet.

The MYCOmmunity Toilet consists of a mycelium tank that is small enough to sit inside each individual dwelling. (…) when it’s full, the toilet is buried in the ground or left somewhere out of the way for another 30 days to allow the composting process–aided by the mushroom spores–to finish. Each toilet includes local seeds, which can be planted on top of the toilet, allowing plants or crops to grow from the human waste.

Although it was designed specifically with refugee camps in mind, it would seem to have far greater potential.

The MYCOmmunity Toilet qualifies as an invention — with the potential to truly change the world.

Image credit: 2018 Biodesign Challenge

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

Over the years I’ve written about the value of reading books, most recently in a Golden Oldie just before Christmas. A few days later I was talking with a group of founders, all under 40, a couple of which follow this blog.

They took me to task for expecting them to have spare time to read. They said it was difficult enough finding the time to keep up with what was happening in their field and tech in general and that if they needed additional information on a subject they could google it.

When I commented that that kind of information didn’t lend itself to enlarging knowledge or encouraging thinking things got a bit heated. It was simpler to let them think I had backed down and change the subject than to subject the others to an argument.

And at that time I didn’t have the right ammunition to make my point, but now I do. Better yet, it’s courtesy of four of the most well-known thought leaders / influencers alive today.

“In my whole life, I have known no wise people (over a broad subject matter area) who didn’t read all the time — none. Zero.” — Charlie Munger, Self-made billionaire & Warren Buffett’s longtime business partner

Why did the busiest person in the world, former president Barack Obama, read an hour a day while in office?

Why has the best investor in history, Warren Buffett, invested 80% of his time in reading and thinking throughout his career?

Why has the world’s richest person, Bill Gates, read a book a week during his career? And why has he taken a yearly two-week reading vacation throughout his entire career?

Why do the world’s smartest and busiest people find one hour a day for deliberate learning (the 5-hour rule), while others make excuses about how busy they are?

Not only do they read, they read widely.

Successful people focus on both the tactical (daily) part of their business/lives, as well as the strategic (long(er)-term) part.

Blogs, media, conferences, etc., are tactical.

Books are strategic.

Image credit: HikingArtist

Back in 2009 I asked what it meant to be educated, considering the amazing basic ignorance displayed daily by Americans — often the same folks who disparaged education focused on liberal arts and the humanities.

Two years later Bill Gates agreed with them, while Steve Jobs disagreed.

In 2011, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates told a panel of American governors that a liberal arts education would hold back college graduates in the modern economy.

A few days later, late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs declared that “it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing.”

Their opposite attitudes partially account for Apple’s rise and Microsoft’s fall

In 2015 I wrote about the value of a liberal arts education.

It took seven years and a full change in management, for the “new” Microsoft to acknowledge this fact.

Microsoft president Brad Smith and EVP of AI and research Harry Shum wrote in their new book “The Future Computed” that “one of the most important conclusions” of Microsoft’s recent research into artificial intelligence is that lessons from liberal arts will be critical to unleashing the full potential of AI.

“At one level, AI will require that even more people specialize in digital skills and data science. But skilling-up for an AI-powered world involves more than science, technology, engineering, and math. As computers behave more like humans, the social sciences and humanities will become even more important. Languages, art, history, economics, ethics, philosophy, psychology and human development courses can teach critical, philosophical and ethics-based skills that will be instrumental in the development and management of AI solutions.”

Jobs wasn’t much of a coder. His real genius lay his ability to “see around corners,” know what his market wanted before it knew and then invent it. The fact is that he could see because he was grounded in liberal arts and the humanities.

This is the advantage non-tech founders often bring to the table.

Just as AI can beat humans at chess and Go, it will soon beat them at coding, I wonder just how many of the highly paid techies at Google, Facebook, etc., have the knowledge, philosophy and empathy to design algorithms fit for human consumption?

Image credit: Kyle Pearce

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

Ask most tech founders about role models and who they want to emulate and you’ll usually hear the same names —  Gates/Jobs/Page/Zukerberg/Bezos.

Rarely do you hear Benioff.

Granted, Benioff’s Salesforce’s revenues aren’t as high and the valuation is “only” $66 billion, but Salesforce sells no consumer products — ads are products — therefore has a much smaller market.

Revenues aside, Benioff is a much better leader and role model.

Not just a philanthropist, but an activist philanthropist who is not afraid to use his clout and get in the face of his peers.

Given the same clout, would you do the same thing?

A guy who believes a company’s concerns should go beyond its investors to include all its stakeholders, direct and indirect.

How far beyond yourself do your concerns go?

Tech’s been on the hot seat lately for a host of reasons, with gender issues front and center, especially equal pay.

Most, including the “role models” listed above, have been vocal in their promises to address the pay disparity.

Benioff, however, has put his money where their mouths are.

In 2015, his company did a salary study, and it turned out they needed to make some changes. So they spent $3M to level the playing field. A year later, they put salaries under the microscope again and found they had to spend another $3M to close additional pay gaps.

Now Benioff has pledged to evaluate salaries on a regular basis. For this and more, he was named a “Global Champion of Women in Business.”

And before you whine about not having enough cash to do that stop and think.

If you pay your people equally when you hire and promote there wouldn’t be a pay gap for you to erase.

Image credit: HikingArtist

Are you green? I love green, so today I thought I’d share two terrific super-green startups with you.

One targets energy and the other water.

One is from France and the other from Washington State.

Neither is one of the over-hyped hotbeds of innovation .

I adore the French approach to wind power, because it’s relatively small and draws its inspiration directly from the natural world.

Designer NewWind R&D has created a “silent” turbine called the Tree Vent that is supposed to blend into the landscapes which house it. It’s a 36ft-tall structure made of steel with 72 artificial leaves.

Pretty cool. In fact, I’d love to have one in my yard.

Next is Washington State startup Janicki Bioenergy; the company with the viral video of Bill Gates drinking water — water made from human poop. Its called an Omniprocessor.

The machine extracts water from sewage that’s piped in or delivered to the facility. The dry sewage is then incinerated to generate steam, which powers the entire machine.

And self-powering is what makes it perfect for entrepreneurs in emerging countries to start businesses.

Do you know of other radically super-green startups? Please share.

Image credit: Edip YALTIR and thegatesnotes

Have you been hearing about the “Internet of Things?” Hearing how everything you use, everything you own will connect to the Net?

And I mean everything! Bill Gates is even funding development of a Net-enabled woman’s contraceptive.

Google is building Net-enabled, smart, self-driving cars.

The media claims that the Internet of Things will be world-changing.

Are you excited?

Some things are already available.

Whirlpool’s “smart” washing machine boasts Wi-Fi and a colored control screen, can be started from an iPhone app, and will text or email you when your clothes are ready to dry…

And there’s more excitement coming in the next few years.

Whirlpool said its “kitchen of 2020” would be piled high with not-exactly-necessary whirligigs: stove-tops that display the weather, Facebook photos and Pinterest recipes; music-playing refrigerators; oven burners that flame up via voice command.

There’s just one teeny-tiny, minor problem that I rarely see mentioned in all the news, excitement and hype.

Hacking.

Every system currently in existence has been or can be hacked.

What makes anyone think that the things of the Internet of Things won’t be hacked, too?

Flickr image credit: centralasian

Bill Gates is considered a pretty smart guy and his Foundation has provided funding to find solutions to global problems.

But…

The results haven’t always been stellar, let alone affordable.

And it seems as if they’ve done it again.

After seeing an invention at the MIT Lab, Gates asked if it could be modified to use for birth control.

The Gates Foundation has pumped $4.6 million into a startup called MicroCHIPS, which has developed an implant that is capable of delivering steady, regular doses of hormones to control fertility for up to 16 years. When a woman is ready to start a family, her doctor simply disables the implant remotely, and then restarts it when she wants to prevent additional pregnancies.

This could be a Harvard case study of what happens when an idea is funded without thinking through the possible hitches, glitches and repercussions.

In short, contraception is both a religiously and politically charged concept and everything is hackable. (Read the article for the details.)

The thing for entrepreneurs to remember is that what sounds great late at night after a few beers, among a group of like-minded folks whose excitement and enthusiasm feeds off each other or like a flash of genius or an epiphany may not stand up to cold logic and due diligence—not to mention possible ethical implications.

Even if your name is Bill Gates.

Flickr image credit: Nam-ho Park hack

There’s been a social media firestorm since Tom Perkins had his say in defense of the so-called 1%.

I asked a retired serial entrepreneur who was funded by KPCB decades ago when the names on the door were actually working partners what he thought.

Tom was reasonably liberal when he was running KP. Many VC’s who had made tons of dough became very conservative as they aged, supporting right wing Republican and Libertarian causes. They seemed to regard it as an insult that the government was trying to take even a tiny smidgeon of their billions in taxes.

I get why Perkins comments incited so much noise, both sincere and politically correct, but the real story a few days earlier didn’t get the play it deserved.

Here’s the headline that should have gotten more attention.

World’s richest 85 people have as much as bottom half the population

This means the world’s poorest 3,550,000,000 (3.55 billion) people must live on what the richest 85 possess.

The statistics are from non-profit Oxfam and are neither political nor partisan—they just are.

Nor are they an indictment of the US, since they are global.

In line with the mantra of “think globally, act locally” what can you do to help change this?

KG Charles-Harris says,

“It’s really action in the little ways that makes a difference.  Not everyone has to do big things, but small things are possible every day with little cost.”

Here are some ideas,

1. Choose your role models more carefully; Richard Branson, Bill Gates and, more recently Mark Zukerberg are all in the 85%, but they model their lives very differently from Larry Ellison or the Koch Brothers.
2. Commit to giving one week’s worth of what you normally spend on coffee to a cause you care about.
3. Do the same with the time you save.

I’ll end by borrowing a line from a 1971 Alka-Seltzer® ad, “Try it, you’ll like it.”

Flickr image credit: playerx