3 ms·

As they say in the financial world, "He's talking his book." That said, much of what he says is spot on. Software is creeping into everything. Education seem

As they say in the financial world, "He's talking his book." That said, much of what he says is spot on. Software is creeping into everything. Education seems obvious. Health Care will be more difficult. A lot of the change will happen in the US. If we can't invest money, we still can invest our careers.

nas 15y ago
I don't think most of his investments are good examples of the power of software. I would point to embedded systems as the best examples (iOS, Android, modern fighter jet avionics, millions of other products that would be useless without software). Software is not cheap but it is increasingly the cheapest or only way to achieve desired results.
- notahacker 15y ago
  Agree. When you look at someone like Groupon their competitive advantages are "brand", "voice" and "scale", none of which are technological. Facebook, Twitter and Zynga might depend on really impressive development work to widen their moat; but again their potential for profitability is down to a business development team's ability to sell ads and sew up strategic partnerships. They're selling eyeballs, not tech, and the people shouting Bubble are pointing out that eyeballs are fickle, possibly even more so when placed in front of a computer. Advertisers can find other channels too, especially if they're not getting the ROI they want (given the conservatism of media buyers it might even be a disadvantage that unlike display advertising, Groupon, Facebook and Foursquare campaigns can conclusively be proven not to have worked). You can't really compare FedEx's business model being dependent on software-driven superior logistics management with the public current preferring Facebook to other distractions.
wallflower 15y ago
> Health Care will be more difficult To implement Health Care is an immense systems integration problem. Having done some system integration work on a much smaller scale, it seems to me that in the US, more universal health care is an effective subsidy of IT for years. I think we can't really expect a working universal health care system for years. Using Britain as a possible analogy, building the actual master universal health care system to handle billing and invoices and patient care will be a technical and political challenge that will suck resources from patient care to IT [1]. Integration is a difficult problem and with 452 HMOs in the US - even though some will be inevitably consolidated - there will be plenty of IT work [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(Englan... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_111591 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publicatio... [2] http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=347&cat=7&rgn=1 http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=347&c...
- idiopathic 15y ago
  Sorry to "talk my book" as well - our start-up provides a personal health records system that is connecting the UK's providers where the government's master system approach has failed - but investing in IT does not suck resources from patient care, it frees them up. I noticed this as a physician having to walk around the hospital to deliver pieces of paper. So I wrote software for Palm Pilots with a peer-to-peer encrypted handover system, gave it away, and convinced each of my colleagues to buy a Palm themselves. Each of instantly saved time they could spend on patient care, and the quality and accuracy of our handovers increased. The problem of health care integration is not just solvable, it is already being solved (we are playing our part) but many in the mainstream are still expecting a big system approach and thus missing the small pieces, loosely joined approach that allowed the internet to scale.
  - robryan 15y ago
    I think he means suck resources more in a financial way, the money to build a big all encompassing system will have to come from somewhere and it will result in less money for patient care in the short term. Of course if the system was actually built and working it would then free up resources.
- ta1 15y ago
  What are the healthcare startups he's invested in?
ma2rten 15y ago
"Health Care will be more difficult." A few years ago I visited Phillips. They are the biggest makers of MRIs in the world. As it turns out their software department is bigger then their hardware department.

nas 15y ago

I don't think most of his investments are good examples of the power of software. I would point to embedded systems as the best examples (iOS, Android, modern fighter jet avionics, millions of other products that would be useless without software). Software is not cheap but it is increasingly the cheapest or only way to achieve desired results.

notahacker 15y ago
Agree. When you look at someone like Groupon their competitive advantages are "brand", "voice" and "scale", none of which are technological. Facebook, Twitter and Zynga might depend on really impressive development work to widen their moat; but again their potential for profitability is down to a business development team's ability to sell ads and sew up strategic partnerships. They're selling eyeballs, not tech, and the people shouting Bubble are pointing out that eyeballs are fickle, possibly even more so when placed in front of a computer. Advertisers can find other channels too, especially if they're not getting the ROI they want (given the conservatism of media buyers it might even be a disadvantage that unlike display advertising, Groupon, Facebook and Foursquare campaigns can conclusively be proven not to have worked). You can't really compare FedEx's business model being dependent on software-driven superior logistics management with the public current preferring Facebook to other distractions.

wallflower 15y ago

> Health Care will be more difficult To implement Health Care is an immense systems integration problem. Having done some system integration work on a much smaller scale, it seems to me that in the US, more universal health care is an effective subsidy of IT for years. I think we can't really expect a working universal health care system for years. Using Britain as a possible analogy, building the actual master universal health care system to handle billing and invoices and patient care will be a technical and political challenge that will suck resources from patient care to IT [1]. Integration is a difficult problem and with 452 HMOs in the US - even though some will be inevitably consolidated - there will be plenty of IT work [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(Englan... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_111591 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publicatio... [2] http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=347&cat=7&rgn=1 http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=347&c...

idiopathic 15y ago
Sorry to "talk my book" as well - our start-up provides a personal health records system that is connecting the UK's providers where the government's master system approach has failed - but investing in IT does not suck resources from patient care, it frees them up. I noticed this as a physician having to walk around the hospital to deliver pieces of paper. So I wrote software for Palm Pilots with a peer-to-peer encrypted handover system, gave it away, and convinced each of my colleagues to buy a Palm themselves. Each of instantly saved time they could spend on patient care, and the quality and accuracy of our handovers increased. The problem of health care integration is not just solvable, it is already being solved (we are playing our part) but many in the mainstream are still expecting a big system approach and thus missing the small pieces, loosely joined approach that allowed the internet to scale.
- robryan 15y ago
  I think he means suck resources more in a financial way, the money to build a big all encompassing system will have to come from somewhere and it will result in less money for patient care in the short term. Of course if the system was actually built and working it would then free up resources.
ta1 15y ago
What are the healthcare startups he's invested in?

ma2rten 15y ago

"Health Care will be more difficult." A few years ago I visited Phillips. They are the biggest makers of MRIs in the world. As it turns out their software department is bigger then their hardware department.