<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/56c6669add0895896d8b456c-2000-1333/ted2016_021816_1bh7781.jpg" alt="HoloLens" data-mce-source="TED" />TEDMicrosoft's Alex Kipman demonstrates the HoloLens.</div></div></div>Microsoft is on track to release a $3,000 version of its <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-nfl-hololens-demo-2016-2">super-futuristic HoloLens holographic goggles</a> to app developers within the next few months. But a full consumer version of the HoloLens is delayed indefinitely, HoloLens project head Alex Kipman said at last week's TED conference, as <a href="http://recode.net/2016/02/18/burned-by-kinects-fizzle-microsoft-is-taking-its-time-with-hololens/">reported by Re/code</a>. The reason for this indefinite delay, at a time when competitors like Magic Leap or a revitalized Google Glass are nipping at Microsoft's heels? Kipman says he doesn't want to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-hololens-vs-xbox-kinect-2015-10">repeat past mistakes</a>. The last time Kipman tried to push Microsoft into a new market with a super-futuristic device, we got the Kinect - a super-advanced body sensor for the Xbox 360 that exploded when it was first release, but <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/why-microsoft-xbox-kinect-didnt-take-off-2015-9">fell into obscurity until even Microsoft seemingly gave up on it</a>."It was not a pleasant experience," Kipman said of the Kinect at TED, Re/code reports. "It was just not ready to go sell 10 million units in 60 days, which is what it did."<h2>Forward motion</h2>When the Kinect first launched, it was with the full support of then-Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. The original idea was to reinvent video gaming by removing the need for a controller, thus making it more accessible to a much wider base. Things didn't work out that way. First and foremost, the Kinect sensor itself wasn't quite ready for prime time. It worked ninety percent of the time, sure. But if you played it for long enough, you noticed a lot more of its imperfections. <div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/552d1d5eeab8eacb354fe559-1024-681/kinect-5.jpg" alt="kinect" data-mce-source="Flickr" />FlickrThe Microsoft Kinect for Xbox 360.</div></div></div>Further, it didn't have a ton of software support. It launched in 2010 - at the same time that most developers interested in making more accessible gaming were shifting their businesses towards the growing smartphone market. And the bigger game developers were unwilling to move their established top-tier franchises towards integrating motion control. It meant that consumers were expected to pay $150 for a buggy, unreliable device without many games to play. After that big initial pop, the Kinect faded from the public eye, and even Microsoft recently all but gave up on it. <h2>Avoiding past mistakes</h2>These are issues to which the HoloLens is equally prone. In the same way that the Kinect was supposed to reinvent video games, Microsoft expects the HoloLens to reinvent computing itself. By projecting holograms into your field of vision, HoloLens can both augment and replace the traditional PC experience.But because it's such a new, different way of thinking about computing, developers are racing to catch up. Software on your PC or phone has benefited from decades of thinking and debate over how to build human interfaces to be viewed on the screen. With holograms that interact with real life, we're mostly starting from scratch. <div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/56b1432fc08a8036008beb29-1440-590/screenshot 2016-02-02 15.59.57.png" alt="microsoft nfl hololens" data-mce-source="Microsoft/YouTube" />Microsoft/YouTubeMicrosoft's concept for watching a football game with HoloLens.</div></div></div>That's why it's so important that Microsoft releases a $3,000 early version of the HoloLens to developers: If HoloLens is going to work, Microsoft is going to need a ton of <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-hololens-share-your-idea-contest-finalists-2016-1">real, actual, practical software for people to use</a> once it's finally released to the consumer. Otherwise, it'll go the way of Kinect - lots of hype, followed by a steep dropoff once they realize nobody has anything to do with it. And so, taking a lot of time here makes sense."If a consumer bought it today, they would have 12 things to do with it. And they would say 'Cool, I bought a $3,000 product that I can do 12 things with and now it is collecting dust," Kipman said at TED. <h2>One more thing</h2>There's one last thing that Kipman didn't shout out that would also go a long way towards building longterm goodwill with consumers while we wait for a final version: Stop misrepresenting what the HoloLens can do. In just about every public demo of the HoloLens, Microsoft has made it look like it places you in a huge, open world, surrounded by holograms.HoloLens is still extremely cool, and potentially very useful. It's just not quite as immersive as Microsoft has been implicitly promising with these stage-stealing demos of <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-demonstrates-minecraft-for-hololens-at-e3-2015-6">Minecraft castles</a>, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/project-xray-is-a-crazy-demo-for-microsoft-hololens-2015-10">robot shootouts</a>, and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-hololens-demo-at-ted-2016-2">Mars explorations</a>.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/56b22194dd0895437c8b4802-1200-593/hololens_windowfov1200.jpg" alt="HoloLens (limited FOV)" data-mce-source="Microsoft" />MicrosoftThe field of view on the Microsoft HoloLens.</div></div></div>If you actually try one, the field of view on the HoloLens is so small that <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-hololens-limited-field-of-view-2015-12">you can only make out a tiny rectangle's worth of holograms hovering in front of your eyes</a>. The Kinect promised a full-body, controller-less life that worked flawlessly, but couldn't deliver. And even outside Microsoft's four walls, the first version of Google Glass failed when the reality didn't match the hype. So if Microsoft wants HoloLens to be a hit, getting broader software support is important. Microsoft should also maybe do a better job of managing expectations during this period of indefinite delay - especially if the final version carries a similar $3,000 price tag as the developer version. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-hololens-visualized-2015-6"> Here's Microsoft's amazing vision for what the HoloLens can do</a></h3> <div> <div> <script src="http://player.ooyala.com/v3/6e12e8b3387a44daacfb73afba25a76e"></script> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="tvMmF4dTpcbcL4wiCSNfU5Or39ars0LQ" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> <script> if (typeof RunFunctions === 'undefined') { var RunFunctions = []; } RunFunctions.push(function() { var ooyalapopvideo = OO.Player.create('ooyalaplayer_popvideo', 'tvMmF4dTpcbcL4wiCSNfU5Or39ars0LQ',{ autoplay: 'false' }); }); </script> <noscript><div>Please enable Javascript to watch this video</div></noscript></div> </div> <script>(function() { function createPlayer() { OO.ready(function() { RunFunctions.forEach(function(ooyalaFunction) { ooyalaFunction(); }); RunFunctions = [];}); } createPlayer(); }()); </script> </div>

Microsoft is being super careful not to repeat the Kinect disaster with its futuristic HoloLens goggles

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5453766a6bb3f7aa69c62484-1200-924/martinsorrell036-7.jpg" border="0" alt="Martin_Sorrell_036">WPPWPP group chief executive Sir Martin Sorrell</img></div></div></div>Sir Martin Sorrell, CEO of the world's largest <keyword id="35666" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="advertising">advertising</keyword> holding group WPP, made the bold statement on the company's third quarter earnings call Friday that its <a href="http://www.appnexus.com/press-release/wpp-xaxis-and-appnexus-announce-strategic-transaction">$25 million investment in adtech company AppNexus </a>earlier this year leaves rivals like Publicis Groupe and Omnicom with "nowhere to go."
The deal saw WPP take a huge stake in the hottest tech startup in New York to help Sorrell's company better compete with Facebook and Google in the online advertising space.
On paper it appeared to be a huge bargain as WPP invested $25 million in cash for a 15% stake in AppNexus, which at the time was <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/appnexus-90-million-investment-values-at-12-billion-2014-8">valued at $1.2 billion following a series of funding rounds</a>. But the deal also comes with the implicit understanding that WPP will continue to funnel its clients' ad money through AppNexus and a newly created Xaxis for Publishers Unit (which AppNexus acquired from WPP as part of the deal.) It's similar to the deal WPP cut with social media marketing platform Buddy Media, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-wpps-profit-on-the-sale-of-buddy-media-2012-10">on which WPP made a huge profit when the company was sold to Salesforce.</a> Salesforce went on to offer "volume-based incentives" to WPP's larger ad clients because Buddy was the ad group's preferred partner.
Sorrell said he prefers these kind of deals with adtech businesses (or the "application of technology" companies as he calls them) rather the simply "plonking down a couple of billion dollars in xyz company and the feeling that you might control the application of that technology," because that would be "too risky and dangerous." Instead he believes the injecting some cash and working in a partnership is more flexible and brings together its media and data businesses much closer together.
He also said it now means there is "no other agnostic platform" between Google's Double Click and Facebook's Atlas on the market, which leaves rival advertising holding groups in a quandary.
He added that the partnership caused a "considerable amount of consternation and disruption" in the industry. Sorrell revealed rival Publicis Groupe had been trying to cut a deal with AppNexus in Europe, a discussion that has now ended, and Omnicom "would very much like to establish a relationship with AppNexus," which it now can no longer do. 
Sorrell suggested strength of Google's Double Click business and the potential rise of new competitors was also one of the reasons Facebook "<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/introducing-atlas-facebooks-plan-to-tackle-google-doubleclick-2014-9">accelerated" the launch of its Atlas advertising platform</a> to give it a "countervailing force" to go to battle with in the increasingly competitive adtech market.
WPP beat analysts' estimates on revenue growth for the third quarter, but posted slightly lower than expected net sales, which it blamed on ongoing geopolitical tensions making clients more cautious and a slowdown in the global economy. Like-for-like net sales were up 3% year on year to £2.41 billion ($3.8 billion, below estimations of 3.3%) and like-for-like revenue (which WPP strips out due to the way it books some of its income) grew 7.6% to £2.76 billion.
While missing estimates, WPP was ahead of rivals' recent reported like-for-like revenue growth. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/omnicom-ceo-john-wren-on-the-shift-from-tv-to-digital-advertising-2014-10">Omnicom reported 6,5% growth in its Q3 earnings</a> while <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/publicis-groupe-q3-results-2014-10">Publicis reported 1% revenue growth</a>. 
The company's Q3 performance was buoyed by its advertising and media investment management division, which posted growth of 17.1% year on year. The UK was the geographical region marking the strongest revenue growth and the second strongest net sales (10.2% and 3.7% lifts respectively.) In North America, revenues grew 7.8%, while net sales were at 2.3% - slower than in the first half of the year.
WPP's results often serve as a barometer of the health of the wider global economy - if advertisers are spending, it usually means the economy is going through a purple patch too.
In the results statement WPP said clients appear to be more confident than they were in 2008 but they "broadly remain unwilling to take further risks, particularly given multiple geopolitical flash points."
On the earnings call, Sorrell listed out a number of what he terms "swans" - both known and unknown geopolitcal events that pose risks to businesses and the wider macro and micro economy. More recent developments include the Ebola crisis, the rise of ISIS and the effect of recent demonstrations in Hong Kong on China.
"If China sneezes, we all catch cold," Sorrell said.
 WPP detailed all the swans in this slide below:
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/54536c57eab8ea9748be0242-800-485/wpp-swans.png" border="0" alt="wpp swans"><a href="http://www.wppinvestors.com">WPP</a></img></div></div></div>

Sorrell Says $25 Million Stake In AppNexus Leaves Publicis And Omnicom With 'Nowhere To Go'

The biggest barrier to electric cars isn't tech - it's making public chargers feel safer and more accessible

<div class="image-container float_right" style="width:350px"><div class="image"><img src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/516f0c1feab8ea654b000002-607-455/marissa-mayer-at-davos-6.jpg?maxX=350" border="0" alt="Marissa Mayer at Davos" width="350" /></div>Bloomberg TV</div>For the third time since she took over the company last July, former Google executive and current <keyword id="6363100" type="CITY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Yahoo">Yahoo</keyword> CEO <keyword id="319703" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Marissa-Mayer">Marissa Mayer</keyword> got on the phone yesterday and reported quarterly financial results.
There was one big difference between this phone call and the other two, however.
This time, Yahoo's results were lousy.
Mayer reported that during the first three months of this year, Yahoo generated much less revenue than most Wall Street analysts expected.
Then Yahoo's CFO, Ken Goldman, got on the line and said something even more dispiriting about Yahoo's core business.
He said that during the quarter, Yahoo sold 7% fewer ads than it did during the same period a year ago, and that it charged 2% less for them.
Worringly, Goldman said the reason Yahoo sold fewer ads was that there was too little "supply."
The amount of "supply" in an online advertising business like Yahoo's is the number of times Yahoo Webpages or Yahoo apps with ads in them are opened. 
Goldman said: "Supply has been the main driver for the decline in number of ads sold, as it follows the overall user engagement trends."
In normal-people speak that means: Yahoo sold fewer ads because people are using Yahoo products less, so there are fewer ads to sell.
The fact is, Yahoo's core business is eroding quickly.
People who care about Yahoo's core business are very alarmed.
Late last night, we got an email from a former Yahoo executive who still owns a lot of stock. This source was disgusted with the results, and wrote, "Employees have had it and are leaving in droves. There will be no competent folks left by fall."
Mayer, said this source, "best get a plan and start 'earning' or she will not make the Christmas break."
But here's the thing about Yahoo's first quarter results, its eroding display advertising business, and even Marissa Mayer's performance so far at the company:
In the big picture, none of it matters ... not to Yahoo's biggest shareholders.
What matters to them is that Yahoo is a major shareholder in two incredibly high-performing Asian Internet companies: Yahoo Japan and Alibaba. 
(These stakes are thanks to brilliant side bets made by Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang years ago.)
Yahoo's 24% stake in Alibaba is particularly valuable to Yahoo shareholders.
Alibaba is a huge Chinese Internet e-commerce company that continues to grow at an insane pace. 
Last summer, Alibaba was worth about $40 billion. Today, analyst Carlos Kirjner of Bernstein Research says it's worth at least $50 billion — and maybe as much as $75 billion. (JP Morgan's Doug Anmuth says $55 billion to $65 billion.)
Obviously, investors around the world would love to invest directly in a company that is growing so fast in a market as huge as China.
But right now, that's hard to do. Alibaba is a private company.
That makes owning Yahoo stock the easiest way for an investor to get exposure to Alibaba.
Betting on Alibaba by buying Yahoo stock even has a built-in payday.
Yahoo and Alibaba struck a deal last year in which Yahoo promised Alibaba that if it went public before 2015, Alibaba would have the right to buy half of Yahoo's 24% stake. 
At today's $50 billion valuation for Alibaba, that would mean an influx of $6 billion for Yahoo. At a $75 billion valuation or higher, Yahoo nets $9 billion or more. 
Yahoo management has given every indication that it will return some of that money to shareholders, probably by acquiring Yahoo shares, raising the price of those remaining on the market.
So now you know the truth: The reason Yahoo is valuable to its investors has nothing to do with it being a consumer Internet company or its display advertising business. 
It's a tracking stock for Alibaba.
This puts Marissa Mayer in a wonderful position.
The only way Yahoo can return to growth is to invest lots of money in building or buying new, disruptive products and businesses.
For years, Yahoo management refused to do that. First, it had the chance to acquire Google when it was a fast-growing, but overpriced startup. It passed. Later, it could have bought Facebook at a huge premium. It passed.
The reason Yahoo passed on both those acquisitions — and failed to invent its own, equally disruptive products — was that it had a successful display advertising business to protect.
Yahoo CEOs before Mayer knew that someday they were going to have get the company into a new line of business, but they were unwilling to sacrifice the company's current quarter to do it.
Well, now shareholders don't care if Yahoo has a lousy quarter, because they're not investing in Yahoo for Yahoo's business anyway. They're in it for Yahoo's stake in Alibaba.
That means Mayer has time to implode Yahoo's core business and spend a lot of money growing something else in its place.

Marissa Mayer Doesn't Have To Worry About Yahoo's Imploding Core Business

A 'nonsense' valuation of $1 billion, a failed sale to Snap, and an investor fight: Inside Blippar's dramatic collapse

<div class="image-container float_right"><div class="image"><img src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/51dc26f46bb3f71017000002-1044-783/steve-ballmer-1.png?maxX=480" border="0" alt="Steve Ballmer" width="480" /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124348109@N01/3511406259/in/photolist-6mhSKe-6rMYZN-6wGj8F-6K13VB-6K141t-6K143P-6K146V-6Kv6uY-75dYS2-79iCg9-7fAKy3-7kpRpi-a1K2Tb-7DmRsN-ax8zop-axbhfu-ax8zj8-84uRZZ-8Kc2US-a1K319-8Kc2ZC-avLZE9-avJmaB-avLZVC-avLZxJ-8Kc2Su-7Di3cx-7DmPeE-7DmNyu-7DhUv6-7DhTj6-88ZDPk-89sVgG-awwXNx-8a4f73-doABxd-doAybA-doAri2-8K8YCV-8Ghc2p-8Ghbm4-8Gkmzj-8Gkmp3-8GhbPK-8GkkTy-8GkkZC-8Gkkv5-8GkmcC-8Gkm7d-8Ghb78-9iJ4J1">Flickr/Steve Jurveston</a></div></div>The grumblings about <keyword id="62333" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Steve-Ballmer">Steve Ballmer</keyword>'s job performance have been so consistent over his 13-year tenure as <keyword id="10387" type="CITY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Microsoft">Microsoft</keyword> CEO that it was a huge surprise when he finally announced he was stepping down within the next 12 months.
Though it was portrayed by the company as a planned retirement, Ballmer <a href="http://allthingsd.com/20130825/ballmer-departure-from-microsoft-was-more-sudden-than-portrayed-by-the-company/">may have been forced out</a> ahead of his preferred timeline. 
Now the stakes are incredibly high for Microsoft to name a successor who can take what's still an incredibly valuable, but less and less relevant, company and turn it into an industry leader again. 
Though there are obviously many company-specific problems that the board and leadership team have to consider, here are a few ground rules the company needs to follow to avoid another decade of stagnation:
Pick someone who's confident, even overconfident.
Research shows that very confident, <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w16041">even overconfident CEOs</a>, are more likely to take their company in a new technological direction. They underestimate the probability of failure and are more likely to pursue innovation rather than the status quo. 
This dovetails nicely with one of Microsoft's biggest current issues — the fact that it's been slow to come up with innovative products, and has failed when it's tried to challenge others on their home turf. Think Bing vs. Google and the Surface versus the iPad.
The obstacles to innovation are very large, <a href="http://qz.com/118513/the-long-hard-road-back-for-microsoft/">as Christopher Mims at Quartz</a> points out. So many large and institutional investors own the stock that there's enormous pressure to avoid risks and deliver a steady dividend. And the company's products are so widely used and entrenched that users are resistant to any change.
Someone with the confidence to push past those obstacles and push for real change is needed, even if they're more likely to fail in some instances, and even if it means killing some profitable businesses. 
Ballmer was always confident and frequently brash. But it was obvious that he was a business guy. The result is that Microsoft's revenue has grown massively, but its future as a technology company looks bleak. 
Pick someone who can act quickly 
Microsoft's PC business, so long its core, is collapsing. Its server business is being attacked by Google and Amazon. It has lost the search business to Google, as well as the mobile world. 
It's in about as much trouble as a company still pulling in $20 billion a quarter can be. The last 10 years have been about reacting rather than getting ahead, and it shows.
The next CEO has to take a business that's been disrupted at every turn, and figure out how to turn it around, fast. 
As part of consulting firm Booz and Co.'s annual <a href="http://www.strategy-business.com/article/00182?gko=2eb37">CEO turnover study</a>, Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen helped a group of the consultancy's partners break down the core attributes of CEOs who respond well to disruption:
<ul>
<li>The CEO has to take personal responsibility for the situation, and move quickly.</li>
<li>They have to break down human inertia and complacency — make it clear that what happened in the past won't work, and impart what the future plan is. </li>
<li>Find out who's on board, and quickly remove those who aren't.</li>
<li>Keep the group of top leaders, the real decision makers, extremely small.</li>
</ul>
Don't go out and hire a superstar. 
There's a temptation to go and pick up a "name" CEO, someone who will fire up shareholders, employees, and the media. It's a <keyword id="6363690" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="strategy">strategy</keyword> that can work sometimes, as it has so far with Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer. 
Given the size and profile of the job, Microsoft will have its pick in a lot of ways. 
But for CEOs, past performance isn't a guarantee of future success. In fact, research finds that <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w14140">award-winning CEOs,</a> the ones who massively outperform and become media darlings, actually end up doing worse after getting recognition.
They spend time on activities outside the company, write books, and take board seats. They lose a sense of urgency, and the company suffers. 
Better to pick somebody with a strong track record, the right skills for the company, and the abilities that correlate to success, particularly <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w14195">the ability to execute</a> on plans rather than just talk about them. 
Ignore the impulse to go with an outsider.
Outside hires are exciting, Mayer being the prime recent example. And Microsoft is under more perceived pressure than most because Ballmer was so clearly an insider, closely identified with founder Bill Gates.
But insiders tend to have longer tenures as CEOs, and perform better than outside hires, <a href="http://www.booz.com/global/home/what-we-think/chief-executive-study/past-studies/display/2011-ceos-first-year">according to Booz &amp; Co</a>.
That comes with a qualification: The tendency with inside hires is to tap people who have been "filtered," as HBS professor <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/business/21567341-outsiders-can-make-best-leadersand-also-worst-lincoln-and-leadership?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/rfd/pe">Gautam Mukunda calls it</a>. They've gone through all the company's businesses, met every test, and managed large organizations. 
That's a recipe for continuing the status quo.
The company's better off going with somebody with the experience and company-specific knowledge that tends to make insiders successful, who hasn't been turned into another generic leader who will keep the company on its current path. 
Make <keyword id="24504" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="culture">culture</keyword> change a priority. 
If there's one thing to point to about Microsoft's failure, it's that the company was unwilling or afraid to invest in businesses that might hurt its core. A recent Wall Street Journal piece points to the fact that Ballmer killed investment in an innovative new tablet to redirect Microsoft into a new version of Windows.
That caution has led to a succession of extremely profitable businesses, that are now starting to decline.
A serious cultural shift is required. By reorganizing a culture that, by all accounts, made collaboration extremely difficult, the organization has made a start, but only that.
"I don't think it's Steve stamping it out from above; it's the culture stamping it out from below," an executive <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906304579035141246779898.html?mod=WSJ_mgmt_LeadStoryCollection">told the Journal.</a> 
The reorganization won't be enough. There's a culture problem down at the employee level. The way the company currently motivates people is one example. For a long time <a href="http://qz.com/118513/the-long-hard-road-back-for-microsoft/">it used "stack ranking,"</a> where a certain number of people in a high-performing team were always rated "poor" in an effort to increase competition. It just <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/teams-more-productive-than-individuals-2013-8">pitted people against each other</a>. 
Beyond the day-to-day, there's a perception about the company that will be hard to erase — that it's a place where ideas go to die.
It's the reason talent flows away from and not into Redmond, and any new CEO has to completely change that.
The business strategy is incredibly important. But finding someone who can articulate exactly what behaviors they want from employees and managers, and who has a plan for making them happen across the organization, might be even more crucial.

5 Things Microsoft Must Do To Avoid A Replacement Worse Than Steve Ballmer

Rohan Shravan was 24 years old when he founded Notion Ink, a <keyword id="138263" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="startup">startup</keyword> that designed India’s first tablet computer Adam. The device was launched five months before Apple placed the first version of the iPad on store shelves. 
 
At its international debut in the Consumer Electronics Show at Las Vegas in January 2010, one of the first to place an order for Adam was an employee at Apple headquarters in Cupertino. However, in the ensuing months as the iPad gained iconic status, Adam dropped by the wayside, felled by the lack of risk capital to grow the business. 
 “When I told venture capitalists that our product will be a challenger to <keyword id="10591" type="CITY" weightage="40" keywordseo="Samsung">Samsung</keyword> and Apple, they laughed at me,” said Shravan, a mechanical engineer from the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur who initially bootstrapped the firm with personal savings of around Rs 6 lakh. 
 
Shravan’s experience is hardly unique. In the midst of an unprecedented entrepreneurial boom, several of those starting up say there are more hurdles than advantages in the Indian startup sector. Apart from the red tape and the lack of policy support there is also a shortage of true risk capital that can back edgy new ideas. 
 
Customers are unwilling to pay for untested products and many entrepreneurs choose the middle path fearing failure. “I was very aggressive, arrogant and fought like a warrior, the so-called experts advised me to tone down and be nice, which led to our downfall,” said Shravan who trained engineering students to work on Adam as a way to minimise staff costs. “Around 80 per cent of the employees were final year students; they were later snatched by Samsung and Motorola.” 
 
<img class="gwt-Image" src="/photo/34868665.cms" style="margin: 4px; float: left;" />In recent years, several ventures including short messaging service GupShup, personalised news service Frrole and language keypad maker Luna Ergonomics have altered business models when faced with regulatory hurdles or the fear of rejection from investors and customers. 
 This at a time when many global technology companies including WhatsApp, <keyword id="6354576" type="CITY" weightage="40" keywordseo="Facebook">Facebook</keyword>, caller identification service Truecaller, home rental marketplace Airbnb, and question and answer site Quora count India as one of their fastest growing markets. 
 
Nearly 40 million of WhatsApp’s global user base of 450 million is in India. “India is our largest market with about 30 million users and continues to demonstrate great opportunities for us,” said Nami Zarringhalam, cofounder of Sweden’s Truecaller. When Amarpreet Kalkat started his company Frrole in 2011, he wanted to build a product that was tailored to a user’s area of interest. 
 
“I believed it could rival Google News,” said the 35-year-old entrepreneur. Eight months later, Kalkat started looking for funds and he had to answer the dreaded question, over and over again: “How do you make money?” Two years of running the company without external funding almost made him bankrupt. Kalkat was forced to start a new by changing his model to an enterprise product. 
 
At about the same time when Frrole was launched in Silicon Valley, a text and photo sharing app called Snapchat was born. It received $60 million (Rs 361 crore) in initial funding and was handling 150 million photos every day. 
 
Last year, the company rejected a $3 billion (Rs 18,000 crore) buyout deal from Facebook. “There is a very high chance that Frrole would still have been a social newspaper, if we were based in Silicon Valley,” said Kalkat whose company now has a dozen of enterprise customers. 
 
Parag Dhol, managing director at Inventus Capital Partners, said he has some sympathy with the entrepreneurs’ point of view. “But let me throw the question back at them—let us find at least one product from India where there are at least 100 million users,” said the investor who has backed firms such as Savaari Car Rentals, online bus ticketing site redBus and technology company TELibrahma. 
 
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
	&#xa0;</div>
Angel investor Sharad Sharma, who pushed Kalkat to alter his business model, is of the view that in Silicon Valley entrepreneurs can afford to not have a paying business. “Because they have the confidence that they will get bought over, here there is no such scene. It’s all about viability of the business,” said Sharma who participated in a $245,000 angel (Rs 1.4 crore) funding round in Frrole this April. 
India has a far worse ratio of venture capital exits as compared to Israel and the US, according to data compiled by think tank iSpirt and investment bank Signal Hill. Few large companies are interested in buying out startups or using their products, impeding growth of local companies. 
 
“We had all the ingredients to become a large global company,” says Abhijit Bhattacharjee, 43-year-old founder of Luna Ergonomics, the maker of the Indian language keypad Panini. 
 
Named after an ancient Sanskrit grammarian, the technology makes it possible to type quickly and easily in all Indian languages on the mobile phone. The company which has received patents for its Korean language interface did not find takers amongst Indian telecom companies. 
 
“Supporting Indian scripts on digital devices does not suit the strengths and roadmaps of these companies,” said Bhattacharjee, whose company last released an Urdu keypad for iOS, Android, and PC in 2013. “Which large enterprise buys cutting edge technology from startups? When there are not early customers, how can you expect to have $1 billion companies?” asked Ashish Gupta, a senior managing director at Helion Venture Partners that backed group text messaging service GupShup. 
 
The Mumbai-based firm was launched just six months after microblogging site Twitter was launched in the US in July 2006. Within a year of inception the service had racked up 15 million users. 
 GupShup was a free, social, short messaging service that allowed users to communicate and connect with family, <keyword id="343" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="40" keywordseo="Friends">friends</keyword> and followers using ordinary mobile handsets. But the telecom ecosystem and policies were a problem. 
 
“The regulations did not allow advertising. The operators kept the short messaging service rates high,” said Beerud Sheth, cofounder of Webaroo maker of GupShup product. The company had to shift focus from retail consumers and instead offer the messaging platform for enterprises. 
 
“They (government) should invest money in big ideas. They need to stop protecting big industries and start encouraging disruption and risk taking,” said Rahul Sood, partner at Microsoft Ventures and a technology entrepreneur, who sold the luxury computer business VodooPC to Hewlett Packard in 2006. 
 
Compare this to China, where the startup ecosystem is accelerating faster than anywhere in the world. There are around 1300 incubators and accelerators across the country compared with about 35 active accelerators in India. Shravan of Notion Ink has not lost hope yet. 
 
The entrepreneur is placing another bet. This time a personal computing robot called EVE, which he thinks will disrupt the market and will be in the market by 2017. “I will be jealous of my kids, they will be enjoying the rewards our hard work and same is true for the next generation of entrepreneurs,” he said.

Indian Startup Sector: Why New Businesses Face More Hurdles Than Advantages

<img class="gwt-Image" src="/photo/22817700.cms" /> When incubation is over and funding is not forthcoming, you can still do your business a great favour and build a great founding team – a 20-something <keyword id="270327" type="POSITION" weightage="80" keywordseo="wannabe-entrepreneur">wannabe entrepreneur</keyword> with an IIT tag told me at one of the numerous <keyword id="6404679" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="start-up">start-up</keyword> events that seem to be taking place every other day. Well, loads of things happen there – from disruptive breakfasts to day-long demos and inspiring fireside chats – but speed-dating for would-be co-founders has emerged as one of the most intriguing trends at these <keyword id="6375238" type="COMPANY" weightage="80" keywordseo="networking">networking</keyword> events. 
 
On the face of it, it’s quite simple. You get a few minutes to pitch your business, discuss potential collaboration and exchange contact info. Some organisers also give you closely matching CVs from aspiring experts. If all goes well, you get some follow-worthy interests and soon find the ‘perfect’ partner to launch or grow your business. 
 
Wrong! Whether you are seeking a business genius, a tech wizard or a marketing guru, it’s absolutely crucial to get the basics right and the chemistry working between you. And by basics, we mean much more than expertise. It means building the right kind of founding team that will see your company through boom and slump. So go through this seven-point check list before you say ‘yes’ when you go speed-dating to find the significant other for your business. 
 
Don’t skip that search even if it’s long and painful: Forget the myths about meeting the right person in the neighbourhood coffee shop. Tapping your iPhone contact list or LinkedIn network may not produce any result either although networking helps. Always remember that you are not looking for a potential employee or friendly help (most of us try and persuade friends and families to join them at the early stage). If you are starting a start-up, you have a vision and you need someone who will have faith in it, along with reasonable doubts, and the expertise to execute your vision. In brief, you need a charged-up, passionate professional – not an armchair idea-churner or an amateur with nothing better to do. 
 
Don’t rush into it just because your peers are doing so: Every business thrives in a unique situation. There are loads of great companies with multiple founders (Google, Facebook, Twitter et al.), but it might make sense to fly solo for some time until you really need a partner of the same stature. Don’t go <keyword id="1874588" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="co-founder-hunting">co-founder hunting</keyword> just because you need to fill in skills gaps or require helping hands. Learn those skills yourself, get professional help and wait till you come across a dynamic person who feels the same way as you do. Don’t think for a moment that single-founder businesses are doomed to fail. On the contrary, you enjoy greater freedom, decide more quickly and execute real fast. Also, you will be less answerable if your ideas do not work. One great success story is Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and you need not look any further. 
 
Common vision is fine, but don’t seek your replica: Most of us are in love with our ideas and look for those who would share our passion and dreams. A <keyword id="1874583" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="supporting-co-founder">supporting co-founder</keyword> could be a great asset in that respect. But never go for a ‘yes man’ or someone who is not involved enough to come up with different ideas. As an <keyword id="6359301" type="POSITION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Entrepreneur">entrepreneur</keyword>, you need a whole bunch of new perspectives and not a tunnel vision. If your <keyword id="170488" type="POSITION" weightage="100" keywordseo="co-founder">co-founder</keyword> is not ready to do some inspirational thinking at the building stage, your start-up would be stuck in a rut for a long time. 
 
Don’t rope in big names for the heck of it: Big names make big news, but not a successful start-up. There are plenty of iconic names across the Indian start-up ecosystem, but you need someone who can get involved full-time and do things from the scratch. Of course, it is nice to have meaningful people around, but they will be more useful as mentors and strategic sounding boards, given their insight and experience. 
 
Don’t compromise on skills: All said and done, you can’t really ignore skills, expertise and exposure. Complementary skills and viewpoints are always considered the greatest assets as they will help you achieve holistic goals without seeking outside help. If you are a tech wizard, it makes sense to have on board a creative thinker, a great marketer and a customer care expert who can run other departments equally efficiently. Also, you may not be looking for someone straight out of MIT or Harvard, but always make sure that one’s basics are strong and she is willing to innovate. Doing something different requires a different approach. So those who are ‘good enough’ in their job but unwilling to leave the beaten path may not be a cultural fit. 
 
Don’t be vague about equity, vesting schedule: Be transparent about your equity shares, vesting schedule, exit terms and division of power in order to avoid future complications. At times, co-founders get into power struggles, resulting into bitter outcome. Only recently, Bal Krishn Birla, co-founder of the online hypermarket ZopNow.com, left the firm, saying he was wrongly ousted from the company. Most co-founders do it amicably, though, but it reflects badly on the start-up’s morale. 
 
Finally, don’t deny your gut feeling: HR professionals call it halo effect, but it can also work when you are looking for a co-founder. Quite often, you may feel that a particular person fits the bill, but your gut feeling says NO. Pay attention if that is the case and ask yourself some basic questions to gauge your comfort level. Can you spend 8 hours a day with this person, working through thick and thin? Can you be friends outside work? Can you handle fights and misunderstanding? Do you find her trustworthy and reliable? Is she simply a go-getter or an ethical person with values that tally with yours? Give it some time, give it some thought. Just like a romantic liaison, a professional relationship also needs lots of understanding, nurturing and space. So it’s better to do it on a trial basis for some time and see how it works out. If both of you gel well, you can surely take the leap of faith. 
 
Image courtesy: Flickr via squinza

You Searched For "Unwilling Google followers" and got 11 results

Microsoft is being super careful not to repeat the Kinect disaster with its futuristic HoloLens goggles

Matt Weinberger

Sorrell Says $25 Million Stake In AppNexus Leaves Publicis And Omnicom With 'Nowhere To Go'

Lara O'Reilly

The biggest barrier to electric cars isn't tech - it's making public chargers feel safer and more accessible

Kristen Lee

Marissa Mayer Doesn't Have To Worry About Yahoo's Imploding Core Business

Nicholas Carlson

A 'nonsense' valuation of $1 billion, a failed sale to Snap, and an investor fight: Inside Blippar's dramatic collapse

Shona Ghosh

5 Things Microsoft Must Do To Avoid A Replacement Worse Than Steve Ballmer

Max Nisen

Indian Startup Sector: Why New Businesses Face More Hurdles Than Advantages

Economic Times

Don’t Make These Seven Mistakes When You Go Co-founder Dating

Sanghamitra Mandal

THE COST OF WINNING: Tim Armstrong, Patch, And The Struggle To Save AOL

Nicholas Carlson

Logan Paul has conquered the internet, but he can't figure out how to conquer the world

Caroline Moss

Logan Paul has conquered the internet, but he can't figure out how to conquer the world

Caroline Moss