• On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
July 6, 2009 3:59 AM PDT

Steve Jurvetson: Only investing in the unknown

by Rafe Needleman
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 5 comments

Steve Jurvetson in his office, surrounded by rockets.

(Credit: Rafe Needleman/CNET)

Since I started covering start-ups for Red Herring back in 1998, no venture capitalist has entertained me as much, or made me as envious, as Steve Jurvetson of Draper Fisher Jurvetson. He's of the few real dilettantes in the field, and he actually makes money from a studied lack of focus.

In comparison, most tech VCs, including titans like Vinod Khosla (at Kleiner Perkins) and Marc Andreessen, who just launched a new fund, focus on industry segments or coherent visions for certain markets. Khosla, for example, is a modern industrialist currently investing in companies attached to renewable energy or green products. Andreessen is all about Web start-ups.

Jurvetson? If other people are investing in it, he thinks it's passe.

Recently, I talked with Jurvetson about his funding philosophy in general and some of his investments particular.

Fringe science

Jurvetson's self-appointed brief is to "invest in unique ideas that can change the world." He wants to invest in "the next waves before they happen," and that means that he is constantly working outside of his comfort zone, at least when it comes to technical knowledge. And as he says, "Firms that claim domain focus are late movers." You can't find the next big thing by mapping it to what you know.

Jurvetson believes that real breakthroughs come "at the intersections between the sciences." In other words, "a chemist working on a chemistry problems is less likely to change the world. The real insights from outside, from the edge."

For example, Jurvetson points to how ideas from life sciences have cross-polinated into to create new engineering concepts (for example, winglets on airplanes). Combining life sciences (microbiology and mycology in particular) with industrial processes, he says, yields "wonderful workhorses" for food and energy production as well as waste management. "You gotta love the bug," he says. "And if you can borrow a process from nature, chances are it's going to be less polluting."

"If there's not something disrupting the market, we shouldn't be playing in it."
--Steve Jurvetson

He's currently looking into chemical investments, especially those that turn waste chemicals into things that are useful. "There are many multibillion-dollar industries hanging off the edges of refineries."

Draper Fisher Jurvetson, has invested in both Tesla and Reva Electric (Reva makes low-cost electric city runabouts). He knew little about the auto business when he got into the field, and admits he's been very lucky. Regarding electric cars, he says, "You couldn't possibly have put a business plan together that foresaw what is happening today."

He's also a fan of space start-ups, and not just because he's an avid model rocketry buff. SpaceX, he says, will be profitable after one launch, successful or not. In the space launch business, the penalty for failure is 10 percent -- that's how much the company must refund to its client if the launch vehicle blows up on the pad. The trick, of course, is getting the launch contracts, but with those odds, Jurvetson says, he'd be a fool not to invest. Furthermore, there's "no technology invention risk." SpaceX, he says, is an integration challenge, but the science is already known and proven in practice.

Space tourism, though, is out. Too expensive. "You can get to zero gravity pretty cheaply," in an airplane. Rocketry is overkill.

"I can't invest in areas of comfort," Jurvetson says. He likes "quirky things around the edge." He invested in nanotechnolgy in 2001 and 2002, synthetic biology in 2007, and between that, transdermal drug delivery, geolocation technologies, and a tool that enables Nielsen-like media research by listening to what people are doing over their mobile phones.

An emerging area of interest: Backyard energy farming. We'll wait and see on that one.

How technology has changed

I asked Jurvetson if the economy for investing is fundamentally different from what it was during the last bubble, putting aside the current economic slowdown. Jurvetson thinks it is. "Because of the rate of technology change," he says, "forecast horizons are shrinking. Market share can shift more quickly and the pace of change is increasing." He says the rapidity of technology change that we are accustomed to with computer products is increasingly being seen now in energy, biology, clean tech, and other fields -- because information technology is becoming a bigger and bigger part of those fields.

"IT is permeating more industries. Moore's Law knocks down simulation capabilities. We don't need wind tunnels anymore, for example. You can run experiments more quickly."

Due to the connection between IT and bigger industries, like energy and transportation, Jurvetson says, tech VC "can now touch trillion-dollar industries. VCs didn't used to talk about things like telecom. But you will not pay for a phone bill 20 years from now." He points to Skype (a DFJ investment) as a disruptor in that field.

"If there's not something disrupting the market," he says, "we shouldn't be playing in it."

I asked him what he thought of all the Web 2.0 businesses without business plans. "It works," he said, "only if you have unbelievable viral effects and a very low cost of distribution. You need retention and lock-in. If you slip into a real industry, you can lose your shirt quickly."

Companies like Twitter, he said, "don't need to add distraction." One of Jurvetson's early big venture successes was funding Hotmail, another company that made no money -- until Microsoft acquired it for $400 million in 1997. But it's only in communications where these crazy economics work out; he points to Skype, Hotmail, ICQ, Facebook, and MySpace as companies that don't or didn't need to to actually make money to become valuable to their investors.

Entrepreneurship is different now than it was during the last wave of VC frenzy, Juvetson observes. He told me, "All the arbitrage-seeking opportunists are gone," and that "diversity in ideas is higher." He says he's seen more real innovation, and more passionate entrepreneurs lately. "There's less soul searching now. People believe in their ideas."

Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe.
Recent posts from Rafe's Radar
Reporters' Roundtable 10: Funny business
YouTube to get high-def 1080p player
Clicker launches for all--watch it
Two new remote Webcams: Mole and Vue
Reporters' Roundtable 9: The business of app stores
Personal services get business flavor: Xobni and SugarSync
BT's Ribbit releasing Google Voice competitor
Reporters' Roundtable 8: Future of the book
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (5 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by angeloj.rossi July 6, 2009 12:03 PM PDT
Way to go Steve J! Keep supporting the fringe industrial complex. I f I hear Steve Jurvetson correctly, innovation will come when you least expect it from where you least expect it. In between the technology rifts and shifts like tremors and geological plates, moving, shifting. Yeah! Great stuff!
Reply to this comment
by rafe July 6, 2009 12:36 PM PDT
"Fringe Industrial Complex..." love it.
by kgsbca July 6, 2009 3:31 PM PDT
Skype makes about $1.25 per user per year in revenue - if all they had to do was put up a static website, that might be impressive, but running voice gateways (for their paid calls), while not real expensive, isn't free. Skype was a giant success for its' founders, but not for its buyer, ebay, who has lost hundred of millions of dollars on buying and operating it. If Skype was as disruptive as some people think, ATT and Verizon wouldn't still be the anti-competitive giants they still are in the post-Skype world.

Hotmail was a success for the founders, but I doubt if it has generated any profit for its buyer. Microsoft felt compelled to offer free email, and hotmail was a way to buy a bunch of customers who don't actually pay for anything.

DVJ is one of the most over-rated VC firms. They do a great job of gaining visibility for their company, but as Jurvetson admits, he doesn't really know much about the companies he is investing in. Maybe he'll he want to buy credit default swaps, I hear they're very disruptive.
Reply to this comment
by ehumokay July 6, 2009 5:04 PM PDT
So basically, he's using hipster logic to invest. That will only work for so long...before you start your own investment firm that specializes in foam manufacturers.
Reply to this comment
by akvish July 8, 2009 11:11 PM PDT
(1) To find out who is tackling the 'unknown territories' is a tough business. Usually,
people who are treading in such risky waters are oblivious to VCs. Moreover, such unknowns
involve discoveries at basic sciences level. Typically, VCs do not fund at such levels of R&D
work.
(2) As for Moore's law: We may be moving away from "Paradigm Shift" that Moore's law inherently gets linked to. Technology is going through "Paradigm Flip". So, while Moore's law gives the basis, many
new unknown territories are opening up. These may not necessarily related to Moore's
law. Things beyond Moore's Law are surfacing & lack quantification similar to it. In fact these problems are quite abstract.
(3) 20th century proved a lot of technologies & so also unsustainable mess; but 21st century
is different. 21st century will question 20th century technologies, build on its mistakes
and go beyond.
(4) In the rush for market share, a lot of gaps were left between technologies and sciences.
These are surfacing now as 20th century backlog. We may have formidable triple opportunities
here - cleanup 20th century mess, fill the gap technologies & move onward into 21st century in
new territoris! VCs are yet to realise these, I think. Jurveton, looks like, is thinking in the
right direction as we may looking for real productive stuff and efficiency in all walks of life.
Reply to this comment
(5 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.

About Rafe's Radar

Rafe Needleman has been reviewing technology products and businesses since 1988. Formerly editor-in-chief of Byte Magazine, and author of the Catch of the Day column for Red Herring, he's interviewed thousands of tech execs. For this blog he talks to entrepreneurs and start-up CEOs to explore the strategies behind new technologies.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Rafe's Radar topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right