Silver Lake is known for its investments in high-profile technology companies like Skype and Groupon as well as for a growing interest in the clean energy sector. But the firm has also been stepping up its presence in the media space. Last year, Silver Lake bought a reported 31 percent stake in Ari Emanuel’s William Morris Endeavour agency, with a specific focus on digital initiatives.

Habiger brings an interesting background to the table for Silver Lake. Before NDS, he was the CEO at Sonic Solutions, where he oversaw the transition from a software-based business to one focused on premium online video. Sonic Solutions ran Cinemanow, one of the first transactional video-on-demand platforms, and ended up powering the premium video offerings of companies like Blockbuster and Best Buy. Sonic Solutions eventually got bought by Rovi for $775 million.

NDS, on the other hand, has been focused on the other end of the premium video market: cable, satellite and IPTV service providers. But despite working with legacy distribution businesses, the company also looked to innovate through targeted advertising, advanced programming guides and more. Cisco picked up NDS for $5 billion last year, and Habiger left the company when the deal closed.

Having worked in both worlds — over-the-top and traditional pay TV — gives Habiger a unique perspective on some of the key challenges the media business is facing. Many in the industry believe that the big technological problems with regards to digital content distribution have been solved. What’s left are questions around content rights and business models. Addressing these is going to require a lot of capital. Silver Lake’s appointment of Habiger could be a sign that the firm is seeing an opportunity to profit from this process.

Check out this interview I did with Habiger back in 2010 when he was still CEO of Sonic Solutions:

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How consumer media will change in 2013
• What the shift to the cloud means for the future EPG
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

The news wasn’t surprising as the company said in September 2011 that it planned to split its more profitable financial services division from its education arm. And earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and others reported that a deal with Apollo was in the works. According to McGraw-Hill, the deal is expected to close in late 2012 or early 2013.

As the rise of digital content disrupts the publishing business, McGraw-Hill Education has attempted to keep pace with new products like its adaptive learning platform LearnSmart and partnerships with digital distributors like Apple, as well as startups Kno, Benchprep and others. Despite its efforts, the company’s education unit has lagged behind its financial services division. In the last quarter, for example, revenue for the unit fell 11 percent to $836 million. In its quarterly report, the company said the growth in sales of digital products across all product lines and the migration to more subscription-based business models impacted revenue.

Wall Street responded favorably to the news – after the announcement of the sale, shares in McGraw-Hill climbed about 2.35 percent to $52.90. Once the deal is closed, McGraw-Hill will be renamed McGraw Hill Financial.

As Bloomberg notes, McGraw-Hill Education’s sale isn’t the first time private equity has dabbled in education. In 2007, London-based Apax Partners led a $7.75 billion purchase of Cengage Learning Inc. from Thompson Reuters Corp, the financial news outlet reported.

As we and others have reported, tablets and other digital devices, along with the growth in open content initiatives and other textbook creation tools, are dramatically changing the landscape for traditional textbook publishers.

This summer, in a conversation with reporters, Jay Chakrapani, vice president and general manager of digital at McGraw-Hill Higher Education, said that the company wants to be the “Netflix of education.”

Through its digital products, LearnSmart, especially, he said, the company gathers increasing data about its students, enabling them to personalize learning experiences much like Netflix personalizes recommendations over time. Going forward, it will be interesting to see if Apollo takes a similar view on the future of McGraw-Hill Education.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• How consumer media will change in 2013
• The state of cross-platform media measurement

If we believe Bloomberg’s unnamed sources, Trujillo has pitched Kohlberg Kravis and Roberts and The Blackstone Group on raising the enormous amount of private equity to separate T-Mobile USA from its [PARENT?] Deutsche Telekom, but both firms balked at the enormous price tag. T-Mobile USA was most recently valued at $39 billion by AT&T, which unsuccessfully tried to acquire it. According to Bloomberg, Trujillo is also floating the idea of a private equity buyout of Sprint, but at nearly twice T-Mobile’s size would be an even harder sell.

Trujillo appears to be hitting some roadblocks, but if he eventually finds an investor, it would certainly be an interesting situation for the U.S. wireless industry. Private equity buyouts of large wireless operators certainly aren’t unheard of. In 2007, TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners bought the country’s fifth largest operator Alltel for $27.5 billion and a year later sold it to Verizon for $28.1 billion.

There are a few differences between Alltel and T-Mobile though – and not just the fact that T-Mobile is three times bigger than Alltel was before its sale. Alltel operated mainly in rural markets and small and mid-sized cities. T-Mobile is in the major metro markets where spectrum is valued at a premium. In addition, TPG and GS bought Alltel to prep it for an eventual sale to a large operator. Such a transaction wouldn’t be so easy with T-Mobile.

The FCC and the U.S. Department of Justice have made it very clear they aren’t letting any of the big 4 carriers merge any time soon. Regulators also would look unkindly at Trujillo trying to dismantle the company and sell off its parts. That means Trujillo and company would have to shop T-Mobile around to companies without current U.S. wireless businesses such as Google, Apple, Dish Network or any number of multinational carrier groups. Either that, or Trujillo envisions taking T-Mobile public.

Either way, Trujillo probably has some tough love in mind for the country’s smallest nationwide carrier, which just reported another subscriber loss. Trujillo’s departure from his last job at Telstra wasn’t exactly amicable, as this article in Australia’s Crikey makes clear. For his part, Trujillo didn’t take kindly to the Australian media’s condescending references to him as an “amigo” (Trujillo is a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent).

The roving chief executive might have a lot more in common with a scrappy T-Mobile than with Australia’s big wireless incumbent. During is four-year tenure at Telstra, Trujillo oversaw the launch of the carrier’s Next G network, a wide-ranging mobile broadband network that was the first globally to utilize new HSPA+ technology, boosting theoretical bandwidth to 21 Mbps and later 42 Mbps. Coincidentally, T-Mobile holds both those honors in the U.S.

Featured image courtesy of Flickr user great_sea.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• 2012: Data, spectrum and the race to LTE
• Mobile 2012 and beyond
• A look back at mobile in the third quarter

BRZTech is a three-month old investment vehicle backed by a number of private investors in Europe and South America, including Portuguese conglomerate The Ongoing Group. Realtime CEO André Parreira (pictured above) explained that the company plans to use 60 percent of the money on R&D and hiring new people with the remaining 40 percent going toward marketing and launching the technology in the U.S.

So what is this technology that deserves so much investment? Parreira explains that it is a line of code that developers can insert into their web sites to create an open pathway direct to their servers. The net effect of doing this is that where this code is implemented suddenly has real-time access to the server. Think of it like an IM connection for elements of your web server.

Parreira calls the technology ORTC (Open Real-time Connectivity). It uses xRTML, extensive Realtime multiplatform language, a standards-based way to turn existing HTML code into something that works with the ORTC framework. It can be implemented in a range of APIs for NODE.js, Javascript, ASP.net, Java, PHP, and other server-side and web languages. It also can be implemented on iOS, Android and Windows Phone. From the company’s release:

The ORTC (Open Real-time Connectivity) is a highly scalable, cloud-hosted, many-to-many messaging system for Web and mobile apps. Due to its bidirectional permanent link between server and connected user, ORTC allows a web application to broadcast (push) data to a single user or to every connected upon demand. This is a huge improvement over needing to refresh a browser. This important change increases the speed of message delivery (low latency) and saves bandwidth costs, allowing the development of Web applications that until now would be too slow to be effective or too expensive to operate.

The underpinnings of this system are a series of virtual appliances hosted in a variety of clouds, including Amazon Web Services and Rackspace data centers, and a software overlay that organizes the flow of information back and forth between the servers and the web sites.

“The Internet used to be just like a walkie-talkie,” says Parreira. “But in the modern era everything will be live and directly connected to the source of information.”

Realtime charges developers by the number of messages sent using the system, and so far Parreira won’t disclose what customers might be using the site. He did say that the platform is already seeing 750,000 messages every second with more than 120 millions users in a 24-hour period. The most likely initial customers are those that need real-time access to information, such as an e-commerce site sharing inventory.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A near-term outlook for big data
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future
• What Amazon’s new Kindle line means for Apple, Netflix and online media

But although the competition — which the organizers say takes “the X-Factor approach” to startups — is now accepting entrants, it turns out that the details of precisely what victory involves are far more complicated than they may first appear.

In fact, the million pound carrot being dangled in front of potential entrants is not actually a prize, but a cash-for-equity investment — on terms that are yet to be decided, and from an individual whose identity is currently undisclosed.

I questioned Kam Star, the head of London’s Digital Shoreditch group, which is behind the competition, about the lack of clarity, and he confirmed that the winner would be asked to hand over an as-yet undetermined amount of equity to the individual funding the project. He refused, however, to divulge the backer’s identity.

“Yes, this is a private equity investment, not a gift,” he said in an email, before adding that the precise terms on which the victorious idea would be asked to accept the money was “to be discussed with the winner” and “really depends on circumstance.”

Later, in a phone call, he said that the competition had only had a “soft launch” and explained that more details of the process and those involved would become public over time, ahead of the closing date next year.

“This only got sent to a very small group of contacts and close friends,” he said, despite the fact that he gave an interview to a globally read news website on the topic. “We’re keeping our cards close to our chest, but there will be a public process.”

When asked why this information about the nature of the investment was not made clear on the competition’s website, or during the applications process — including the terms and conditions that entrants must agree to — Star said that some changes would be made.

The site has now altered its About page to refer to the prize as an “equity investment.”

However, it remains the case that the identity of the private investor and the terms they may demand are still a secret to anyone who signs up. This comes despite the fact that Digital Shoreditch is already promising anyone who introduces the winning startup to the competition that they will receive one percent equity as a finder’s fee if the company subsequently exits for at least £100 million.

It seems obvious that these are vitally important details that any serious entrant would need to consider — after all there’s a big difference between handing over 10 percent of your business to an experienced investor with entrepreneurial experience in the same sector, and giving a majority share to any old person with deep pockets.

Star responded to further questions about the lack of clarity by reiterating the fact that the competition had still not launched properly.

“This is good feedback,” he told me.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Google and the Ghost of Silicon Valley Past
• Social 2013: The enterprise strikes back
• Crowdfunding’s rapid growth and future opportunity

The London-based company, which acts as the middleman for restaurants and helps them take orders online, announced on Monday morning that its third round was being led by the private equity group Vitruvian Partners (OpenBet, Unicom) , along with follow-ons from existing investors including Index, Greylock and Redpoint.

It’s further confirmation that the business — which we featured in the GigaOM Euro 20 last summer — has ramped up its growth since moving from Copenhagen to London four years ago. Now operating in 11 markets, including several in Western Europe, as well as Canada, India and Brazil, it now claims to be more popular online in the U.K. than brands like Domino’s and Pizza Hut.

Just-Eat provides hungry shoppers the chance to order food online from local restaurants and food sellers, who in turn give the company around 11 percent commission on each purchase made through the site.

Not all restaurants are comfortable with the model — not least because Just-Eat controls the entire transaction, and holds onto the money for several weeks before paying it out, which can be tough for many small operators without a large cash float to help them through.

But as consumers increasingly move online, more than 25,000 businesses feel it’s their best choice for taking online orders.

Acquisitions on the horizon

Just-Eat has fueled growth in significant part through acquisitions, and in the last year or so it has bought up lots of smaller, local rivals, including British service Urbanbite and GrubCanada.

In an interview with the Financial Times, CEO Klaus Nyengaard said that the money was earmarked for a dramatic expansion, and acquisitions were definitely on the cards — especially as the company looked for greater international opportunities.

“There are consolidation opportunities coming up here and there so it’s nice to have a war chest to know for sure you can do the deal, if it’s attractive,” he said.

“We’ll definitely also keep increasing our investment in product and technology. Thirdly it makes sense to strengthen the balance sheet when you have the opportunity to get good money from good investors.”

What’s not clear, however, is how fast the company is burning through its cash.

It is only a year ago that the venture backers who joined this round pumped $48 million into the company — a move which helped fund its move into Brazil.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Facebook’s tactical retreat on privacy
• Open-sourcing the food industry: new technology for a new food system
• Google and the Ghost of Silicon Valley Past

Marc Andreessen

There’s no question that Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital firm headed up by Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, has become a major force since it was founded back in 2009. The young VC firm has funded some of the best and brightest companies in the tech industry: Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, Groupon, Airbnb, Box, Fab.com and Pinterest, to name just a few. And this is just the beginning — Andreessen Horowitz just announced it has raised $1.5 billion in fresh funding to invest in even more startups.

I talked to Marc Andreessen this week to get his thoughts on Silicon Valley, the startup ecosystem, and where the larger tech world is headed in 2012. Here’s what he had to say:

Silicon Valley is still tech’s ground zero

“Our firm is very Silicon Valley focused. Now, we’re not religious about it. We’ll go far and wide to find the best companies and fund them. But there is a magic to Silicon Valley. It’s a lot like Los Angeles with film, New York City with finance or fashion, and Washington D.C. with politics. A lot of people want to work where there’s a critical mass of other people in their field; it’s like a natural force of gravity.

Because the best people in technology keep coming to the Valley, there tends to be a self-renewing property to it. It’s become a place where great technology franchises have been built repeatedly. I would love for there to be a dozen Silicon Valleys around the world. But it’s a very hard thing to replicate.”

When running a VC fund, it pays to walk the walk

“Closing this latest [$1.5 billion] round from our investors was a pretty straightforward process. The key thing is, we’re really focused on the alignment of our interests with the people who invest in us. Each of us at Andreessen Horowitz has a significant personal investment in the firm ourselves. We each pay full management fees and carried interest, so we’re exactly side-by-side with our investors.

We also have a hard commitment that none of our partners will make private technology investments outside of Andreessen Horowitz — you won’t see me investing in a startup as an individual. Our investors really like that, it makes them feel that we’re real partners.”

Tech should learn the language of Washington

“Ever since I arrived in the Valley, there’s been a debate about how the tech industry should approach government and legislation. There’s one school of thought that says we should just ignore Washington and build the future on our own, the idea that we’re going to invent our way out of any problem that comes up. Then there’s the other school of thought, that it’s very important to engage with Washington on their terms, because the industries that are threatened by technology are very good at lobbying. I’ve always been more in the second camp.

Technology is very important and it has a big impact on the world. Politicians are naturally going to want to be involved in something that is that important, and they’re going to try to make laws about it. For every exciting advance we make, there’s someone on the other side that is threatened by it. The oldest and most entrenched industries are lobbying like crazy, so for the tech industry to not participate is just handing the ground to them.

On top of the traditional methods, we can also do new stuff like the SOPA/PIPA blackout, which was a whole new form of engagement and protest. I know that a lot of people in Hollywood were absolutely shocked at the effectiveness of that.”

A startup shakeout is coming, but that’s OK

“There has been a lot more seed funding in the past two to three years. In terms of our own self interest as a VC firm, we want as much seed funding as possible — it presents us with a lot of great opportunities to evaluate for a venture round.

There is going to be a shakeout at the seed stage. A lot of companies will come up for Series A funding at some point, and there are just too many of them to really raise what they’ll need. But that’s not a bad thing. It’s a very small amount of funding they’ve taken on so far, and nowadays a lot of them will have the opportunity to sell as a talent acquisition. It’ll work out fine for them. In the long run, imagination tends to be rewarded, not penalized.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Q4 Wrap-up: SOPA and the future of digital content

SoftTech VC founder Jeff Clavier

SoftTech, the venture capital firm headed up by Jeff Clavier, is officially bulking up the “micro-VC” space to enter the investment world’s big leagues. The firm has closed investment on its third fund, Fund III, at $55 million — that’s more than triple the size of SoftTech’s Fund II, which had $15 million to allocate to startups.

I talked with Clavier last week to find out why SoftTech decided to go so much bigger with Fund III, how the new cash will be invested, and the larger tech industry landscape. Here’s what he said:

Moving beyond a one-man band

Clavier, who was trained as an engineer and spent years as a successful entrepreneur before becoming a VC, has established a strong individual reputation in Silicon Valley as a smart and savvy investor. He recently decided, however, that it was time to grow SoftTech into a real team effort. Clavier told me:

“Around mid-2010 I started thinking about Fund III should be, and I decided it was time for me to scale on two sides. One was on the size of fund, and the other was on SoftTech as an organization. I’ve essentially done everything since 2004 on my own, and I’ve closed close to 90 investments on my own. It was time for me to really bring a team together to really take advantage of the position I had built in the ecosystem.

So, last year I brought on my senior partner Charles Hudson, and recently we hired a senior associate, Stephanie Palmieri. We’ll be looking to bring on a third partner this year. To pay for that structure, you have things like management fees, which means you have to put together a bigger fund.”

Taking more control of each startup

SoftTech’s Fund I had less than $1 million invested and put about $25,000 to $50,0000 in each deal; the $15 million Fund II brought the average size up to $100,000 to $200,000. With Fund III, which initially launched in January 2011 with $35 million but ultimately closed its investment this month at $55 million, SoftTech is taking its investment size up another big notch: It expects to invest between $250,000 to $1 million in each deal. This will allow SoftTech to take a bigger stake in each company in which it invests, Clavier said:

“We’ll invest in 60 to 65 companies, with roughly $400,000 a piece on average. $25 million of the total new fund will be put towards the initial bite in these companies, then we reserve another $25 million to $30 million to participate in a select number of the follow-on rounds. We really think the value we can create in that Series B round is very interesting.

Basically, we’re shifting our strategy from just getting access to companies to having ownership. It’s really just having our investment size and ownership match the responsibility and effort we always put into our portfolio companies.”

If you want SoftTech funding, bring your business plan

With Fund III, SoftTech is moving well beyond the micro-VC strategy that typified its earlier funds’ investments. Clavier says he will continue to concentrate on his traditional areas of expertise — mobile services and infrastructure and consumer internet and e-commerce companies — but startups will have to prove themselves as worthy in a much more serious way to match the bigger investment size.

“We’re looking for startups who are focused on building real businesses very early on. I’d say 80 to 90 percent of our companies have a very clear business model, even at the seed stage of investment. They may not have proven the business model yet, but they will have a clear idea of how to validate that model within the life of the investment.”

Sitting beneath the incubator funnel

Clavier said he doesn’t see the current boom of startup incubators and accelerators as a threat to the more traditional VC model — instead, he sees it as a big opportunity. SoftTech will be looking to these programs as a sort of farm system to curate startups that are worthy of bigger investments from the likes of Fund III:

“The TechStars and AngelPads and Y Combinators are great for teams that are just coming together and have a product concept in mind. That petri dish environment that those guys can provide by bringing together super smart founders and surrounding them with very powerful mentors can accelerate and mature these startups in such a great way. Then when they come out of these accelerators, we can take a look at investing in them. If you mentally think about a funnel, we’ve just established such a great position at the end of it.”

The tech boom is just beginning

For all the talk of a frothy market in web startup investing, the folks at SoftTech see this as only the start of a huge growth phase for the larger tech industry. Clavier said:

“The opportunity that mobile and social provide to create these viral platforms is basically unprecedented. Then we add geo-location into the mix — just the fact that smartphones are everywhere now opens up opportunities to create companies that would have been impossible to make even five years ago. When you look at all these opportunities, it just made sense for us to really get to the next level in terms of fundraising so that we could be very serious in the types of investments we make in all these companies. We’re super excited, and we think this is just the beginning.”

Graph images from an infographic made for SoftTech by Visual.ly

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Social 2013: The enterprise strikes back
• The evolution of consumer-media cloud storage
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated

A total of $6.9 billion went into 997 VC deals in Internet-specific companies over the course of 2011, an increase of 68 percent in dollars and 24 percent in deals from the previous year, when $4.1 billion went into 807 deals. Internet companies accounted for 24 percent of all VC investments in 2011, compared to 18 percent in 2010, the MoneyTree report said.

From the Q4 2011 MoneyTree report (click to enlarge)

But the year didn’t close on the strongest note for Internet VC investments. In the fourth quarter of 2011, $1.29 billion went into Internet companies, a 23-percent decline in dollars from the previous quarter and about even with the fourth quarter of 2010, when $1.25 billion was invested. What made 2011 such a huge year for web VC investments was really the exceptionally strong second quarter, when $2.4 billion was invested in Internet companies.

Another interesting data point from the survey is the large amount of seed and early stage investments seen in 2011 across all industries that received VC funding. Seed and early stage funding as a whole was the higher in 2011 than it has been in at least seven years, according to the MoneyTree report, accounting for 1810 of the 3673 total deals completed in the year — nearly 50 percent of total deal activity.

From the Q4 2011 MoneyTree report (click to enlarge)

The current level of activity may seem a bit frothy, but with the huge numbers of people using the Internet today, many people think this is just the beginning for the industry’s growth in terms of companies and revenue potential. And the non-stop buzz that surrounded the tech industry in 2011 shows the investment dollars were just accompanying the larger excitement around the space. But whether it’s overly hyped or not, with 2012 on deck to be a strong year for web startup exits, particularly through initial public offerings, the Internet VC funding frenzy probably won’t slow down significantly any time soon.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What the VC Industry Upheaval Means For Startups
• A clouded view of Google Music
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution

In 2011, 169 venture firms raised $18.17 billion from limited partners such as university endowments and pension funds. In 2010 the same number of firms raised only $13.78 billion– or 30 percent less. While more money would mean good news, but that isn’t the case.  The number of startups looking for money has gone up sharply. An active angel community and early stage investors that can put money in early stage deals, means entrepreneurs has helped many startups set-up shop. They are likely to face their biggest fundraising challenge at the Series B round, a problem that has been mounting.

From the release:

“This past year we saw more venture capital money raised by essentially the same number of firms, a sign that consolidation within the industry is continuing,” said Mark Heesen, president of NVCA. “We also continued to invest more money in companies than we raised from our investors. Both of these trends – if they continue — suggest that the level and breadth of venture investment is starting to recalibrate to reflect a concentration of capital in the hands of fewer investors. Our cottage industry is indeed getting smaller still and that will impact the startup ecosystem over time.”

For startups, which can find a few hundred thousand in seed funding or a Series A round, by hitting up angel investors or the smaller boutique firms that try to play at the seed and angel level, the impact is likely to be felt as the startup hits the point where it must move from the initial product and users to the massive scale that delivers the type of growth venture firms need. That growth will need more money, and that money is likely part of the Series B round.

Anand Sanwal, the CEO and Co-Founder of VC data provider CB Insights says what’s happening isn’t that Series B financings aren’t necessarily on the decline, there are just more startups firms competing for that money. The money, as Om predicted, has started to go to companies that having wind beneath their wings.

If one looks at venture capital as a funnel the top has gotten fatter, and the Series B point is where it narrows substantially, leaving a lot of orphaned companies. “Seed investments are kind of call option for these big funds so they can re-up at the series A or B if they want,” Sanwal said. “It’s low risk and a low investment amount.”
He stressed that this is for tech, as opposed to the life sciences or green tech industries, which require more capital to start up in general.

He also said that with the smaller funds which could be angels or micro funds of just a hundred million, there’s much less pressure on investors for a big exit, so building up a business to a Series A point and selling it would still make early investors happy. At the high end where the NVCA is tracking funds, such as the $1.05 billion fund Khosla Ventures raised during the fourth quarter, startups need to go big to make an impact on the overall portfolio.

So maybe a Series B raise is when an entrepreneurs needs to evaluate if he or she is in this for the big win rather than the quick flip. And it’s likely that in 2012 we’ll see a lot more entrepreneurs having to make this decision. Do they have the will and enough forward momentum to go big, or is it time to take the money and run? Or maybe just cut their losses and run?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What the VC Industry Upheaval Means For Startups
• Social 2013: The enterprise strikes back
• Crowdfunding’s rapid growth and future opportunity