What do I see in venture through 2010???

The Jordan Edmiston Group recently asked me and a few other VCs a few pointed questions about the future for circulation in their July Client Briefing.  As an aside, I worked with JEGI two years ago and they did a fantastic job helping us sell Moreover Technologies to Verisign.  They understand the media and online world, are well connected, and work diligently to get the job done.  Anyway, here are the questions and my response:

Even though there is uncertainty in the credit markets, a stalled IPO market, and few billion-dollar plus M&A transactions, the investment activity level and appetite for quality businesses in the middle-market continues to be vibrant. Venture Capital firms continue to invest in companies that are providing answers to key disruptive market forces and are exiting those investments via M&A. The Jordan, Edmiston Group, Inc. (JEGI) solicited a handful of key VC executives for their responses to the following questions:

1. What are the key market forces you believe will impact your venture activities through 2010?
2. How do you envision capitalizing on or responding to these market forces?
3. How is the environment changing for deal exits (e.g., IPO vs. M&A)?

(My answer is pretty consistent with what I have been blogging about during the last few years.  Here is an excerpt from the briefing and if you are interested in reading more and some of the other VCs responses, you can get it here)

We are continuing to move to a broadband connected world, where everything that we do on a device increasingly lives in the cloud. Our business applications, our music, our videos, pictures, and messaging will be easily accessible from any device, any time, and anywhere. We will continue to see new cloud-based applications and services, and data-driven services will play a larger role in this new world. There will be some great opportunities to invest in companies that take existing data and run algorithms over these streams of data to deliver better and more targeted advertising, personalized recommendations and search, and better overall services for end-users.

One of the next phases of growth and large revenue opportunities will be driven by what is captured every time you click on a page and move from site to site. How companies use this data to improve a user’s online experience is the next game changer. What I love about these kinds of opportunities is that algorithms scale, have high gross margins, and are highly defensible. With our computing world living in the cloud, there will be a whole new generation of mobile applications that leverage the increased computing power and faster broadband speeds that are offered today.

Mobile carrier voice revenue is declining, and data revenue is the next huge growth area for carriers. However, data revenue cannot increase without applications that drive usage. Obviously, there are concerns about carriers’ “walled gardens”, but I see a future where carriers increasingly provide open access to allow innovative apps to drive data growth. In addition, as mobile devices become better, cheaper and faster, we will see an increase in the number of users accessing the web from their wireless devices, as often as they do from their home PCs.

Capitalizing on Disruptive Market Forces
Dawntreader Ventures will capitalize on these disruptions by investing in the entire food chain, from infrastructure layer to the apps and services that touch the end-user. This includes investments in companies like Greenplum, which is powering the back-end data warehousing for a number of high profile Internet companies for targeted advertising; and Peer39, which provides semantic advertising solutions by using natural language processing and machine learning. This technology enables the company to go beyond keywords to understand page meaning and sentiment, to deliver the most effective display and text advertising to end-users.

Exit Strategy

Unfortunately, the market for IPOs is currently “dead”, but it may reopen in 2009. M&A continues to be strong for the right companies that fit a strategic hole in an acquirer’s portfolio. In the end, I continue to tell my portfolio companies that if you focus on what you can control (growing and managing your business), then the external factors (exit strategy) will take care of themselves. However, if you try to force the issue and shop your company, that shows a sign of weakness and more often than not will result in a fire sale. Companies are bought and not sold. For strong, well managed companies, opportunities will always present themselves, as long as you can avoid making desperate decisions.

To read some other VC responses and to get an update on the state of Interactive M&A, I suggest getting the JEGI briefing here.

Raising capital and meeting expectations

What I like to tell portfolio companies is that on average it will take 6 months to raise capital with some cycles being shorter and some being longer. Given that, it is imperative for a company to start thinking about its next round well ahead of time and the milestones it needs to hit to have the right momentum to get potential investors excited. One area that I would like to caution entrepreneurs is being too aggressive on the milestones and revenue forecast, particularly in the near term.

Let me explain. Like any other VC, I love to invest in companies going after big markets with huge revenue potential. That being said, I also like to see plans grounded in reality as well. Rather than get me excited, showing a revenue ramp from $1mm to $17mm to $65mm will actually do the opposite for me, raising more questions and concerns than general excitement. Along those lines, it is also imperative that when you share your plans with investors that you are pretty confident that you will realize your milestones or hit your numbers in the next 6 months as investors like to see if you can deliver on your promises. One cardinal sin is being overly optimistic in the near term and falling flat on your face in the due diligence process. It is much better to position yourself in a way that you can meet and exceed expectations during the due diligence process than the other way around. When this happens the rest of your forecasts become more believable.

Top tech M&A advisors for 2007

I just got the 451 Group’s summary on the top M&A bankers for 2007.  As with 2006, Goldman Sachs was #1 on the list.  Take a look:

Top five overall advisers, 2007

                        

Adviser Deal value Deal volume 2006 ranking
Goldman Sachs $79bn 43 1
Credit Suisse $75bn 29 3
Morgan Stanley $74bn 29 6
Citigroup $61bn 23 5
Lehman Brothers $56bn 21 4

Of course if you break down the numbers, you can see that the average deal size for all of these banks range from $1.75 to 2.75 billion.  Let me translate back for the startup community.  As I have written before, I am a firm believer that companies are bought, and not sold (see an earlier post).  In other words, I am not a fan of hiring a banker to shop a company around but rather find it better when a portfolio company receives an unsolicited offer and you then bring a banker in to leverage that bid to create a more competitive situation.  Assuming you are in this position, every startup I know says, "Let’s go get Goldman or Morgan Stanley."  While in theory we would all love to have these guys as advisors, the chances are that you are not going to get them on board.  First, they typically have high minimum thresholds of exit value typically in the $300mm plus range and secondly even if you fit that criteria you may not get all of the attention you need since a $5 or $10 billion dollar will clearly trump yours.  What I would advise is that you find a banker that has the recent experience selling companies in a price range that you are seeking, will give you the PERSONAL attention that you need to make the transaction successful, and has the network to reach out to the right people on a timely basis.  Based on my experience, I have found that some of the firms like Thomas Weisel Partners and Jefferies Broadview who are not bulge bracket but with strong reputations in the technology markets can be a good fit.  I am sure there are many other great firms that I am missing but you get the idea.

Greenplum closes on $27million round of financing

Congratulations to Bill, Scott and team on our new $27mm round of funding led by Meritech and including Sun Microsystems and SAP Ventures.  You guys have been pushing the envelope since I have known you and delivering some spectacular results to boot.  It is nice to see our team and product get validated with a significant round of funding so we can continue our battle to bring our customers a better, faster, and cheaper way to access and analyze massive volumes of data.  When we made our first investment years ago, our fundamental bet was that a new approach was needed to deal with exponential data growth driven by network computing and internet applications.  We certainly had some fits and starts tackling this data problem by utilizing a software-only approach built on top of open source software and delivered on commodity machines, but with this funding and our continued customer momentum, we are certainly on the right track.  For more on this investment, read the following quotes from Jonathan Schwartz, CEO of Sun Microsystems, and Nina Markovic, head of SAP Ventures:

"Alongside Sun’s acquisition of MySQL, our investment in Greenplum is further evidence of our commitment to the open source database community and marketplace," said Jonathan Schwartz, CEO and president, Sun Microsystems. "Postgres has been a critical part of our support offering to customers, and Greenplum’s leverage of Postgres to disrupt the proprietary vendors with breakthrough business intelligence solutions creates opportunity for their investors, and more importantly, our mutual customers."

"We invested in Greenplum because we’re seeing a growing demand for scalable database technologies to support analytical and data-driven applications," said Nino Marakovic, head of SAP Ventures. "From a technology perspective, the Greenplum database is very strong and complementary to our offerings. We share the vision of enterprises harnessing ever-growing data repositories to make optimal business decisions in real time."

Should I flip or should I build?

It seems that everyday there is a new annoucement of a tiny startup being bought by a large company.  Two days ago it was Jaiku being bought by Google and this morning CBS announced that it is buying Dotspotter, a 10 month old gossip blog.  Put yourself in these entrepreneurs’ shoes – you launch a great product or service today, usage is growing, revenue is nil or minimal, and cocktail party chatter and buzz are at its highest.  You then have the opportunity to sell today at a pretty good number but you forego your chance of building that huge business.  What do you do and how should you think about it?  As i started thinking deeper about this question, I was reminded of the old Gartner Hype Cycle chart.  If we use this as a backdrop, perhaps I could show a framework from which to think about this important decison.

According to Gartner, "A Hype Cycle is a graphical representation of the maturity, adoption and business application of specific technologies."  Similarly, I have graphically represented the choices an entrepreneur has to make in the continuing saga of build or flip.  Let’s call this the "BeyondVC Startup Cycle."Beyondvc_startup_cycle_1 According to Gartner, there are 5 phases in a Hype Cycle (my comments in parentheses): Technology Trigger (product launch), Peak of Inflated Expectations (height of buzz), Trough of Disillusionment (this is harder than I thought), Slope of Enlightenment (the broad market is finally ready), and Plateau of Productivity (better have my next product ready).  I believe the descriptions speak for themselves as what usually happens with the adoption of new technology is that the hype builds quickly but it actually takes a lot longer to reach critical mass.  Similarly, one can superimpose a startup lifecycle on the graph.  If you look at the build or flip question in this context, it is obvious that an easier, less risky choice to make is best done at the Peak of Inflated Expectations or height of the cocktail circuit chatter.  Usually at this point in time, an entrepreneur can maximize short-term value as acquirers will buy more on vision and technology than on business fundamentals.  If you decide to build for the long haul and go for the home run, it will take you a fair amount of effort and time to create the same value that acquirers will pay today at the buzz cycle as they will expect more mature companies to have more established products or services and more milestones hit.  Companies that sell at the early stages should understand that while they may forego going big, if they do not sell today for strategic value then they would have to live up to their hype and be bought in the future for real revenue. In other words, as companies mature the valuation of a startup turns from pure strategic value to one where it is based more on actual revenue multiples and market comparable data.   

At this inflection point, an entrepreneur needs to think about whether they want to and can build for the long haul (taking into account the risk and time to do so) or sell today (net present value of your potential expected outcomes in the future). This is the point where you have built a nice service or product, gotten a number of users, but have not really monetized it or created a scalable business model that can drive profits.  Can you really build a company or is this just a feature for a bigger player?  If you choose to go for it and raise VC funding, you have to really believe that the capital you raise will help you create a much larger pie in the end.  Do you want a larger percentage of a smaller pie or a smaller percentage of a much larger one?  Once you take in the money, it requires a ton of hard work to build a team, continue to innovate, and refine your business model.  There are no guarantees and given the amount of time and energy you expend you could just as easily go out of business after 5 years of effort.  One other factor for entrepreneurs to look at is the opportunity cost or the time you spend on one venture. 

Since I never like to make decisions in a vacuum, if I had an offer, I would test the market to get a read from VCs to see what their interest level is in funding my business and also poke around and speak to a couple of other strategics to see if I could extract more value.  In the end, these valuable data points will help you make a more confident decision – if no VCs bite, then it is an easy decision for you.  If some VCs have an interest, try to understand how much capital and at what price they would be willing to invest.  If you really believe in your business then you should either take the money from the VC or get a significant premium from the strategic investor to sell today versus building your business for the longer term. 

At the end of the day, it comes down to two things.  First, what is your appetite for calculated risk – in finance there is a direct correlation to risk and reward.  If you want the big payday, you are not going to get it investing in risk-free bonds.  Secondly, it comes down to your passion.  Building a company is about more than just the money as money can be fleeting – remember the bubble, it sent a lot of carpetbaggers home.  The ones who have made the big payday have focused on a broader and bigger goal, building an insanely great product or service for their customers and keeping them incredibly happy. As you do the right thing for your customers, you will do right for your investors, your employees, and ultimately yourself.

On performance based earnouts

I am sure you remember the ebay-Skype deal where ebay coughed up $2.6b upfront for Skype and offered an earnout of up to another $1.7b for hitting performance numbers.  Besides the value of the deal, what struck me most was that 40% of the total potential deal size was based on performance-based milestones.  Fast forward 2 years later and in the day of reckoning it seems that eBay is only going to pay $530mm of the $1.7bb earnout (see Eric Savitz from Barrons post and press release).  I am not going to comment here on whether or not the Skype deal was a complete failure for eBay, but rather I thought I would more importantly share my thoughts on earnouts in M&A transactions.

Quite simply, be wary of performance based earnouts unless you get significant value upfront.  Many times an acquiring company may say that they can’t pay higher than a certain value for your business but if you perform they can pay alot more.  In other words, they want you to put your skin on the line and also incent you to stick around.  That is fine as long as you get more than enough upfront for your business so that any dollar from earnouts is just pure upside.  If you feel that you are not selling for enough and that too much is tied in the earnout, then trust your gut and either rework the deal or walk away. 

Earnouts in theory sound great – the better you perform the more you get.  However in practice it doesn’t always work out well.  First, earnouts could potentially put the acquiring and target company at odds by creating potential perverse incentives for the acquiring company.  Hmm, the company I just bought is doing great but I don’t really want them to hit it out of the park just yet so I may delay giving them their marketing dollars?  You can obviously think of a bunch more examples on this front.  More importantly, though, I feel that unlike a startup, you have relatively little control of your own destiny.  In any M&A with performance numbers, the acquiring company will say it is offering all of these resources and distribution and therefore the revenue, profit, and customer targets should be quite high yet attainable.  In a startup, if you fail it is your fault.  As part of an operating business or larger entity that isn’t always the case as you are most likely dependent on the acquiring company for resources, distribution, and cash to grow and deliver on your promises.  Big companies move slow and you are more likely to not get the support you need in a timely manner meaning that realizing your earnout becomes a very tough proposition.  Even thinking about the ebay-Skype saga, I can remember reading the countless news items and stories about how the 2 cultures clashed, how ebay did not understand the Skype business, and the management changes and reorgs that took place.  All that being said, I am sure the investors are bummed about leaving another $1.2b on the table in earnouts but at the same time they are still ecstatic about the initial $2.6b they received upfront.

Learning lessons from Amp'd Mobile

I am not here to pile on the Amp’d Mobile situation, but I find it is always important to learn as much as you can from your mistakes and from other people’s mistakes.  Rafat Ali has a great interview with Peter Adderton, the former CEO of Amp’d Mobile.  Here are a couple of interesting points that Peter says helped to ultimately bring the company down:

— You don’t raise $400 million in 18 months by spending time inside the office. Trying to ambiguously raise that amount of money, while at the same time trying to create something new and different was a challenge that caught up with us in time.
— On the financing, we were learning as we went along. With the amount of cash that we required, it probably made more sense to go with one or two big pockets than a lot of smaller pockets.
— The biggest struggle I had [with the board] was agreement on where the company should go. We had way too many board members and then we had observers at top, and the any partner could dial in, to a point where it became very difficult for the management to manage.

Rather than dive into some of the operational or economic lessons like how a company that raises $400mm can’t get to profitability, I thought I would focus more on the financing side that Peter discussed with Rafat.  In short, some of the lessons learned from Peter include having too many investors and too many board members.  One VC once told me that having a great board did not guarantee success but having a bad board can almost certainly guarantee failure.  Speaking from personal experience, it is pretty easy to see how differences in strategic direction and plans combined with egos can get in the way of real productivity.  The more people you add to the mix and the more complicated and time consuming it can get.  In fact, I remember spending at least 3/4 of my time on one of the weak boards dealing with bickering between other board members instead of spending my time helping management and focusing on the important issues.  The CEO also had to spend just as much time massaging egos and different incentives to keep driving the company forward.  At times, It was close to impossible for the board to come to agreement on a budget, hiring plans, and strategy and ultimately the company missed many opportunities.  I can only imagine what Amp’d board meetings were like when you mix in a number of VCs, hedge funds, and strategics, all of whom invested in different rounds at different prices and with different preferences.  So one of the lessons to be learned is to choose your partners wisely and less is more.  Rather than try to spread out ownership of your business with lots of investors so one or two don’t have too much control, you are better off looking for a couple of investment partners who share the same vision of the business and who you believe will act rational through both good and bad times.  This is where references can help tremendously. 

One other point, every second you spend fundraising is another second you are not running your business.  Companies have to be well prepared and go through a number of meetings to raise $5mm let alone $400mm in 18 months. It is not hard to see how the CEO and management can get distracted and not spend enough time on operational issues when they are constantly raising capital. And of course, the more money you raise, the bigger the exit you need to get investors their 8-10x.  I am not saying this happened in the Amp’d situation, but when capital is abundant and the pressure to create significant returns exist, it can force companies to try to get big fast and try to spend their way to success instead of finding the right mix of organic and inorganic growth.  That is why I have always loved capital efficient business models.

Are all of the venture returns in B2B?

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today about how the resurgence of tech IPOs have really come from "less glamorous, business-focused companies selling such products as telecommunications equipment and computer storage."  In fact many of these companies have market caps > than $1b each.  The article is right in that alot of buzz gets centered on consumer Internet companies like Google or YouTube and that on absolute market capitalization many of the big returns are found in the B2B type deals.  However, I do disagree with the notion that because some of these "consumer web firms are selling themselves to larger Internet companies such as Google or Microsoft Corp. for a few hundred million dollars or less" means that returns for investors can be mediocre. In fact, what the article fails to look at is how much money some of these infrastructure companies have raised in order to get public.  Obviously if a VC is looking for 10x type multiples on their invested capital, the more money raised means the higher ultimate market cap a company needs to achieve.  Taking this a step further, let’s look at the amount of capital raised by some of the more recent IPOs:

Starent Networks: $100mm pre-IPO with first VC round in August 2000, $986mm market cap

Limelight Networks: $100mm pre-IPO with the big round in summer 2006, $1.6b market cap

Infinera Corp: $345mm pre-IPO with first VC round in December 2000, $2b market cap

Shortel: $102mm pre-IPO with first round in 1997,

Based on this data, one can see how many of the existing investors generated some great returns on absolute and relative terms.  So while there have been very few Internet companies worth $1b or more on absolute terms, one must look at the capital efficiency of these businesses to understand why companies that raised $20mm or less can still sell in the $200-400mm range and still create tremendous returns for their investors.  At this level of funding the risk/reward balance is just much different than in a traditional infrastructure play.  Sure many of these Internet companies being financed may not be standalone IPO candidates but that doesn’t mean that companies that generate 10-20x for their investors are bad investments either.  However what is beginning to scare me is that valuations for these consumer internet plays are continuing to creep higher.  In addition, many of these "capital-efficient" companies are raising bigger rounds of capital meaning the bar for exiting is getting higher and higher.  If these two factors continue to increase over the next couple of years, this could lead to disappointment for many VCs in the long run.

Don't forget to look at venture debt when raising a new round

We all know the story – it is incredibly cheaper to start a web-based business versus 5 years ago with the rise of open source software and commodity servers.  However, while getting started with thousands of users is cheap, scaling to significant numbers will require some dollars.  The good news for you and for venture investors is that your buck can go alot further today versus yesterday not only because of the commoditization of infrastructure but also because the venture debt market is alive and kicking.  In the last six months, we have augmented some of our existing venture financing with venture debt as the market has become quite competitive which means pricing and terms are getting more attractive for  all of us.  In addition, while most associate venture debt with investments in companies with core technology, more and more venture debt firms  are back and willing to offer capital to earlier stage web-based companies with  no  financial covenants and MAC (material adverse change) clauses.   Of course the more flexibility you have with respect to uses of cash means that pricing will go up.  All I can say is when evaluating your company’s cash needs and potential runway, looking at the venture debt market is not a bad idea.

There is also another market metric that is driving a renewed interest in web-based companies for these lenders- they are getting funded by VCs (venture debt lenders mostly like to do deals with strong financial sponsors which increases their likelihood of getting paid back) and these startups are better able to manage their burn rates reducing risk and offering lots of upside.  Sure, while some of these venture debt firms recognize that web-based businesses may not have as much hard and true intellectual property, the fact that they are more capital efficient and can scale more rapidly means they can also generate pretty nice returns from the warrant portion of their deal.  Getting in earlier also allows these venture debt firms to buy more of the company from a warrant perspective than getting in on later rounds.  The trick for entrepreneurs is to look at bringing on debt concurrent or soon after your close of equity financing. 

Why can raising venture debt be great?  It is quite simple –  the dollars are relatively cheap compared to an equity financing  and extending your runway to hit more critical milestones means a potentially better valuation for your company down the road.  And of course if you exit before raising another round, there are more dollars available for the equity holders.  A typical structure for an early stage deal could be an equity raise of $3-5mm with another $1-2.5mm of debt.  From a pricing and terms perspective, you should look for capital which is flexible in terms of use for true  growth capital (growing your business) with no financial covenants or MAC (material adverse change clauses) which can put more risk into the debt equation.   Of course, the more flexibility you have, the higher the interest rate will be relative to other types of loans. Most venture debt deals will have an interest only portion for a short period of time before amortization (monthly payments of principal and interest kick in).  Typically you will see terms of 30-36 months where your lender will get paid his full portion of the loan and interest by that time frame.  In addition, lenders will ask for warrants equal to a percentage of the dollar amount raised (for example, depending on the deal, a 5% coverage for $1mm could be equal to $50k of equity to be purchased at the current share price).

All is not rosy as there are some potential and hazardous downsides to this model.  If you burn through your cash and can’t make the monthly principal and interest payments, your lender can take over your company as their debt is usually secured against your company and intellectual property.  Trust me, a number of companies got burned with this during the Internet boom when their businesses were based on wildly inflated revenue projections and unilimited capital resources.  Just when you needed another month or two to sign that strategic deal, the venture debt guys would come in and pull the rug from under you.  Granted it is not that bad as your lenders are your partners and will negotiate with you, but at the end of the day, if they see their ability to get paid in significant jeopardy, they will do what they have to do to recoup as much value as possible.  For some investors and entrepreneurs, this risk may not be worth the dollars.  For others who are confident in their execution and ability to raise another round, there is no better way to stretch your dollars in the company and create more value with minimal dilution.  So the next time you hear the word "debt," don’t be scared and keep an open mind as you may be able to stretch your resources further and achieve some additional critical milestones driving increased value in your business.  The interest in web-based businesses is there and the competitive market means that pricing and terms are pretty attractive now.

Microsoft VC Summit 2007

The day after Microsoft’s TellMe aquisition, I was at Microsoft’s eighth annual VC Summit.  Unfortunately, I missed Steve Ballmer’s opening discussion, which in my opinion, is always one of the most entertaining and informative sessions of the event.  For the last few years, Steve spoke at the end of the event but for some reason they switched it on us and had him at the beginning.  Anyway, I am waiting for some other bloggers to summarize his discussion.  Notice the picture I link to from Paul Jozefak’s blog titled "Expanding Platform to the Cloud."  I must say that I came away quite impressed by Microsoft’s progress in its cloud and Windows Live strategy.  Last year, all of the Windows Live talk seemed quite rushed, disjointed and forced and seemed it was more of a response to the market saying that Microsoft did not get the SAAS thing.  This year the strategy seemed much clearer and well defined and the executives knew how the Internet and cloud fit into all of the various business units.  In the end, Microsoft has made some huge strides and will certainly be worth watching over the next year.  In addition, as with each year, I did find the Microsoft executives more willing than ever to network with startups to fill gaps in their product line and to be a more open, gentler Microsoft versus years ago.  There is nothing like real competition to get a company to change its mindset.  Sure, they didn’t tell us much in the public sessions as sometimes you can come away with the impression that Microsoft is doing everything and the only opportunities for startups are niche verticals built on Microsoft’s platform.  But truth be told, if you actually did get a chance to spend some one-on-one time with the executives, you will find a much different story. Reflecting on that point, Microsoft made a little over 20 acquisitions last year and plans on doing a similar amount this year.  One sure way to not get any partnership done is openly ask the Microsoft executives, "How do I get my portfolio company acquired?"  The real point is to find and network with the key executives at the summit and figure out how the individual business unit’s process works on a partnership discussion and get that started.

The consumer mobile breakout session was one of the more informative discussions that I attended.  Basically as the world moves to three dominant operating systems for wireless (Symbian, Windows Mobile, and Linux), Microsoft will look to increase its penetration by leveraging an extensive development platform to allow third party partners to develop new consumer services which can be easily deployed via its worldwide carrier partners.  Naturally, one of the questions asked was if these apps only worked on Windows Mobile or across the various operating systems.  As you might suspect, these apps would likely work better on the Windows Mobile platform, but the Microsoft folks did stress that it does and has to work with other competing operating systems as well. The gaps that Microsoft was looking to fill through partnerships or acquisition were, broadly speaking: games/entertainment, location aware services, TV/video (although the one Microsoft executive acknowledged it was overhyped), ad management, mobile content mgmt, and billing and payments.  One of the value propositions offered by the Microsoft mobile folks was key relationships with carriers across the world.

Another engaging talk was Peter Moore’s (Corporate VP, Interactive Entertainment Business) presentation on Microsoft’s move into the digital home with its Xbox360.  Of course, after a long day, seeing a commercial for the yet-to-be-released Halo 3 was quite energetic and refreshing.  Interestingly enough, it is quite amazing to see that as these gaming machines get more powerful, the games themselves end up being the commercial (think about The Gears of War commercial on television).  Despite the fact that Peter could have spent hours demoing games, his presentation centered around the full featured entertainment capabilities of the device which included the ability to synch with other PCs in the home and buy movies, television shows, and music in a simple way.  Once again, it is amazing how much progress is being made throughout the many divisions at Microsoft and how the Internet and on-demand services are getting weaved into the very fabric of the applications and infrastructure.  For a large company, one year has made a huge difference.  Finally, one of the other recurring themes I heard throughout the day was the importance of advertising in many of its product lines ranging from mobile to MSN to the digital home and video gaming.  If there are other acquisitions to be done, I am sure that some interesting advertising related technology and services will be on their radar screen.

Just to be clear, this is not in any way, shape or form a Microsoft love-fest.  I am just pointing out that while so many people are counting them out that they have lots of cash, renewed energy, and a long-term view towards winning in their markets.