<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why the LinkedIn IPO Is Bad for Cleantech</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 06:11:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Katie Fehrenbacher</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625869</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Katie Fehrenbacher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2011 19:30:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625869</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Bill Hewitt and @Clint Wheelock, Very interesting points, thanks for those.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Bill Hewitt and @Clint Wheelock, Very interesting points, thanks for those.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clint Wheelock</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625792</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Clint Wheelock]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2011 04:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While reading through this post, I had some of the same thoughts that I later saw in Bill Hewitt’s comment.  I can certainly see how the Silicon Valley VC crowd may be backing away from cleantech for a while, which is a natural part of the hype cycle.  But as Bill points out, it’s a big world out there, and there are many ways in which cleantech is not fully compatible with the VC model anyway.  Many of the most promising areas of cleantech are infrastructure-centric, and the traditional VC approach is not conducive to capital-intensive businesses.

As someone who works primarily with large global energy and technology companies, I can say with certainty that their interest in cleantech-related investments, expansion initiatives, and real-world project deployments is on an upswing.  In fact, there are a number of mainstream conglomerates and industrials who are gearing up their focus on cleantech areas, as well, and spending in key sectors is already increasing substantially on a year-over-year basis.  Availability of more traditional financing (such as project finance) is also loosening up considerably.  In short, while VC hype cycles come and go, and while some sectors will continue to experience ups and downs (and let’s face it, some of these areas, exciting as they may be, are simply not viable businesses) the underlying fundamentals of the broader cleantech business are quite healthy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While reading through this post, I had some of the same thoughts that I later saw in Bill Hewitt’s comment.  I can certainly see how the Silicon Valley VC crowd may be backing away from cleantech for a while, which is a natural part of the hype cycle.  But as Bill points out, it’s a big world out there, and there are many ways in which cleantech is not fully compatible with the VC model anyway.  Many of the most promising areas of cleantech are infrastructure-centric, and the traditional VC approach is not conducive to capital-intensive businesses.</p>
<p>As someone who works primarily with large global energy and technology companies, I can say with certainty that their interest in cleantech-related investments, expansion initiatives, and real-world project deployments is on an upswing.  In fact, there are a number of mainstream conglomerates and industrials who are gearing up their focus on cleantech areas, as well, and spending in key sectors is already increasing substantially on a year-over-year basis.  Availability of more traditional financing (such as project finance) is also loosening up considerably.  In short, while VC hype cycles come and go, and while some sectors will continue to experience ups and downs (and let’s face it, some of these areas, exciting as they may be, are simply not viable businesses) the underlying fundamentals of the broader cleantech business are quite healthy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jAY</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625735</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jAY]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2011 17:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625735</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Clean tech companies don&#039;t have high valuations because they are not holding the likely chance of high profits.
Most cleantech is much more costly that conventional tech, like solar power, wind power etc, all cost much more that the conventional competition.  
They can&#039;t survive without government subsidies, and the government is broke.  
The global warming bubble is crumbling as the population wakes up from the propaganda making subsidies even less likely.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clean tech companies don&#8217;t have high valuations because they are not holding the likely chance of high profits.<br />
Most cleantech is much more costly that conventional tech, like solar power, wind power etc, all cost much more that the conventional competition.<br />
They can&#8217;t survive without government subsidies, and the government is broke.<br />
The global warming bubble is crumbling as the population wakes up from the propaganda making subsidies even less likely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Hewitt</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625734</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill Hewitt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2011 17:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You want my opinion?  Clean tech has gone beyond VC.  If Siemens, GM and Ford, IBM and Google, the US Dept. of Energy, and hundreds of other big concerns, globally, for-profit, academic, non-profit and government among them, are on board, we really don&#039;t need our VC brothers and sisters anymore to take their 30% vig and move on.  http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/02/05/the-technology-driven-economy/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You want my opinion?  Clean tech has gone beyond VC.  If Siemens, GM and Ford, IBM and Google, the US Dept. of Energy, and hundreds of other big concerns, globally, for-profit, academic, non-profit and government among them, are on board, we really don&#8217;t need our VC brothers and sisters anymore to take their 30% vig and move on.  <a href="http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/02/05/the-technology-driven-economy/" rel="nofollow">http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/02/05/the-technology-driven-economy/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: roz</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625650</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[roz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2011 04:09:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625650</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just so we are clear how things work.  Things get way over hyped for around two years and then the bottom drops out as the hype moves to a new area. Companies that have established a value can continue and all the companies that weren&#039;t worth it fail. Sometimes the growth will sustain itself for a little longer but the general pattern is always the same in tech. Why we fail to see this and want to believe that we are on the verge of steady, continuous growth is another issue but we human tend to crowd around things until they get more attention than they deserve, then get bored and move on. 

That greentech has a future is as true now as ever. Gas is over $4/g. Renewables are needed more than ever with nuclear discredited and natural gas looking worse and worse due to fracking. Global warming is only going to get more intense and that will mean we need better, more efficient solar, wind and storage. Nothing happens as fast as business plans need them to happen in order to justify tens of millions of dollars of investment but we will shift to renewables over time and every startup that can craft a business model delivering defensible value to this process will have merit. Can it meet the scaleability and hype of internet stocks? No. That however is not the standard that investors should be looking at. They should be looking solely about price performance in comparison with alternatives in the traditional fossil fuel sector and the value they could add delivering a solution for that market.

And don&#039;t forget, a lot of these internet people want a way to spend their billions and many of them care a great deal about all things green. ie: Paypal =&gt; Tesla. Google =&gt; all kinds of green initiatives. New internet boom =&gt; next round of green tech.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just so we are clear how things work.  Things get way over hyped for around two years and then the bottom drops out as the hype moves to a new area. Companies that have established a value can continue and all the companies that weren&#8217;t worth it fail. Sometimes the growth will sustain itself for a little longer but the general pattern is always the same in tech. Why we fail to see this and want to believe that we are on the verge of steady, continuous growth is another issue but we human tend to crowd around things until they get more attention than they deserve, then get bored and move on. </p>
<p>That greentech has a future is as true now as ever. Gas is over $4/g. Renewables are needed more than ever with nuclear discredited and natural gas looking worse and worse due to fracking. Global warming is only going to get more intense and that will mean we need better, more efficient solar, wind and storage. Nothing happens as fast as business plans need them to happen in order to justify tens of millions of dollars of investment but we will shift to renewables over time and every startup that can craft a business model delivering defensible value to this process will have merit. Can it meet the scaleability and hype of internet stocks? No. That however is not the standard that investors should be looking at. They should be looking solely about price performance in comparison with alternatives in the traditional fossil fuel sector and the value they could add delivering a solution for that market.</p>
<p>And don&#8217;t forget, a lot of these internet people want a way to spend their billions and many of them care a great deal about all things green. ie: Paypal =&gt; Tesla. Google =&gt; all kinds of green initiatives. New internet boom =&gt; next round of green tech.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: financingefficiency</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625577</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[financingefficiency]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 18:36:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625577</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Very thought-provoking piece. I think the most interesting point was the one Kevin Surace made: scalability is the key to making very valuable companies with very little upfront resources. I would expect to see significantly more greentech startups in the future that focus on using the web to provide scalable solutions that make a positive environmental impact. 

It reminds me of a popular blog post by Chris Dixon: &quot;Predicting the future of the Internet is easy: anything it hasn’t yet dramatically transformed, it will.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very thought-provoking piece. I think the most interesting point was the one Kevin Surace made: scalability is the key to making very valuable companies with very little upfront resources. I would expect to see significantly more greentech startups in the future that focus on using the web to provide scalable solutions that make a positive environmental impact. </p>
<p>It reminds me of a popular blog post by Chris Dixon: &#8220;Predicting the future of the Internet is easy: anything it hasn’t yet dramatically transformed, it will.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aep528</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625569</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aep528]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 18:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625569</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Or maybe the problem is that many large companies have discovered they can save money and simultaneously go cleaner and greener without needing to buy any new technology or ideas. They simply look at their process and improve them. They don&#039;t need products or services supplied by start-ups. The same goes for my own personal behavior. Reducing energy use, purchasing more carefully and re-using and recycling is something I&#039;ve done for years. I have no need for another company to help me with it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or maybe the problem is that many large companies have discovered they can save money and simultaneously go cleaner and greener without needing to buy any new technology or ideas. They simply look at their process and improve them. They don&#8217;t need products or services supplied by start-ups. The same goes for my own personal behavior. Reducing energy use, purchasing more carefully and re-using and recycling is something I&#8217;ve done for years. I have no need for another company to help me with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Dunbar</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625564</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Dunbar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 17:42:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625564</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the great article. Though I am far from an expert in these matters, I think that social media is the next bubble. I wish I had bought LinkedIn stock yesterday, but if I had, I&#039;d be selling it today. If it is shocking that small online teams can create companies worth billions, that is probably because they are not worth billions. Groupon&#039;s business also has a low barrier to entry, an easily imitable business model, and little brand loyalty. It will also be overvalued. I believe cleantech companies provide a more measurable value and are thus not as subject to overvaluation. It is too bad that cleantech is trailing social media, but hopefully when it does take off it will not be subject to bursting.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the great article. Though I am far from an expert in these matters, I think that social media is the next bubble. I wish I had bought LinkedIn stock yesterday, but if I had, I&#8217;d be selling it today. If it is shocking that small online teams can create companies worth billions, that is probably because they are not worth billions. Groupon&#8217;s business also has a low barrier to entry, an easily imitable business model, and little brand loyalty. It will also be overvalued. I believe cleantech companies provide a more measurable value and are thus not as subject to overvaluation. It is too bad that cleantech is trailing social media, but hopefully when it does take off it will not be subject to bursting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Katie Fehrenbacher</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625530</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Katie Fehrenbacher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 14:01:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625530</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Mike, its the green-eyed monster of investors that want in on the new web bubble.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Mike, its the green-eyed monster of investors that want in on the new web bubble.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/05/20/why-the-linkedin-ipo-is-bad-for-cleantech/#comment-625523</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 13:35:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=347905#comment-625523</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just couldn&#039;t get your article&#039;s first paragraph.  The stupid eye is very annoying.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just couldn&#8217;t get your article&#8217;s first paragraph.  The stupid eye is very annoying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
