David Girouard, founder of Upstart.com

The company also gets two new board members, Bob Kerrey, the former senator from Nebraska and former president of the New School, and Jessica Jackley, co-founder of Kiva, which helps organizations obtain microfinancing.

David Girouard, the former president of Google Enterprise, founded Upstart last year because he thought that the difference between a smart grad starting his or her own company or not often boils down to relatively small amount of money. “At Google, we hired hundreds of great young people who couldn’t put together $30,000 to buy a car if their life depended on it without going into credit card debt,” he told me last year.

Goal: Helping  students stick with school, then launch

Upstart’s goal is to match those students with backers/mentors — mostly tech industry veterans like Andy Palmer, co-founder of Vertica. The Upstart entrepreneurs agree to give up  a set percentage of future earnings — capped at 7 percent — in return for the backer or backers’ investment.

“An upstart can have as few as 3 or up to 30 backers,” Girouard said in an interview. “How much they can raise can vary to over $100,000 but the sweet spot is $30,000 to $40,000.”

In the past year, more than 80 grads have been funded and 135 backers signed on. And Upstart, which started out focusing on select universities, has now opened up the program to all comers. This is not a charity: Upstart gets 3 percent of the patron’s initial contribution. If the effort pans out and the entrepreneur repays the patron, it also collects a 0.5 percent service fee, down from 1.5 percent last year.

Kicking the can down the road?

Upstart, based in Palo Alto, Calif., stands in contrast to the Thiel Fellowship, which pays smart college kids to drop out and pursue their business objectives rather than staying in school. Girouard has said repeatedly that degrees have value and hopes his program will encourage students to stick with their studies until completion..

Still, Upstart came under some fire — including from some GigaOM commenters — who said it just encourages students to incur more debt, “kicking the can down the road,” when they should just dig in and self-fund or take their first jobs to make money before setting out on their own.

Girouard maintains it’s a creative and low-risk way for these would-be entrepreneurs to get funding that could mean the difference between founding a startup or not.

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

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro
• Survey: How apps can solve photo management

And now he’s backing a new project that would let corporate Media Lab sponsors fund students’ startups after they graduate, according to this Scott Kirsner story in The Boston Globe.  That means big name companies including Samsung, Panasonic, AOL etc. could pony up to fund a stipend for MIT graduates to build the company or technology of their dreams.

This is still early stage. Asked to comment on the report, an MIT spokeswoman said “the program has not yet been approved or funded, so the Boston.com story was a bit premature.”

Industry-funded academic research projects are problematic. Critics say that private companies use universities, which often are publicly funded,  as petri dishes for their own R&D purposes. Company-funded college research can also lead to squabbles over  who owns intellectual property rights of work done at the school but partially or wholly underwritten by private industry.

Here’s the crux of the issue from Kirsner:

“One key purpose of the new fund, Ito explained to me recently, will be to encourage students to finish their degrees before they start companies. “We want students to stay focused while they’re here,” he said. But once they’re done, the fund will provide a six-month stipend to lay the groundwork for their company, and help make sure that the new venture has clear rights to the intellectual property they developed while at the Lab. (In the past, there has been a somewhat vague non-exclusive right granted to students to commercialize technologies that they worked on while at the Lab, Ito said.)”

The idea of encouraging college researchers to stick around for their diplomas is actually of note. Obviously MIT has a vested interest in its students completing their coursework, but some in tech say this is a waste of time and resources. These skeptics include early Facebook investor Peter Thiel who has funded two classes of Thiel Fellows. These young technologists get money to leave school and pursue their work. His argument is that it’s better for promising talent  just to get to it rather than put in their time at college, running up huge student loan debt.

That’s a premise that Upstart, founded by Google veteran David Girouard, for example, finds troubling. Upstart invests in promising graduates of specified schools in return for a percentage of their future earnings. Again, you have to graduate to get that Upstart money.

Whatever happens with Ito’s new project, it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

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

• The Internet of Things: What It Is, Why It Matters
• A near-term outlook for big data
• Will cloud computing push the BRIC market to the front?

But over time, it became clear to me that those who rejected cloud computing (typically in favor of that unicorn of technology: the private cloud) were experiencing a form of insanity that, if left untreated, would put the very existence of their companies at risk.

When I left Google last year (to found Upstart), I jumped over the table and became a consumer of the cloud. As CEO of a tech company that does not even own a computer, tablet or phone, I now get to fully experience the cloud from a customer’s perspective. So before I get into any specifics about the myths of the cloud averse, allow me to recount a couple of anecdotes to give a little context.

I’m entirely obsessed with Google Analytics’ real-time dashboard, so it was with much dismay that on the morning of Jan. 16 of this year  I saw our traffic at Upstart drop to zero.

Zilch. Nada. Zippo.

Checking quickly with our engineers, I learned that Heroku had gone down and since we’re hosted on Heroku, we got taken down with it. Hard. Because Heroku is an application platform that runs on Amazon Web Services, I didn’t know whom to blame. To me, it didn’t matter – we were down for 40 minutes or so, and that sucked. I checked Heroku’s status page, and figured out what had happened, and what they were doing to fix it.

But all I could really say to our users was “we’re waiting as fast as we can!”

That is one of the chief conundrums of cloud computing: you are powerless to fix a problem, and entirely dependent on somebody you can’t see, hear or yell at, to fix it. People hate that.

I was on the other side of this sort of panic many times during my years at Google. Despite the BS about the “end of email,” it’s still the most broadly and voraciously consumed business application in the world. So I occupied an elite circle in Hell when our services failed to deliver. In short, when Gmail went down, pandemonium ensued – particularly in Silicon Valley. In fact, the outcry from a sizable Gmail crash was enough to bring down Twitter, too.

I recall a particularly terrible outage that happened three or four years ago. I was in a hotel in Philadelphia when my own email stopped working, and my Twitter feed lit up like a roman candle. Gmail was down, and I’m not talking about one of those outages that affects less than 1 percent of users (you know, like a few million people). I’m talking about a big one.

I called a couple of engineers who I knew were close to the situation and were working to resolve it. But I got off the phone quickly, because I knew talking to me wasn’t helping anything. (To the contrary, I was wasting their time.) So I went out for a run, just praying that Gmail would be back up by the time I returned (which it was).  So even as President of Google Enterprise, I was powerless to do more than ensure that the best people were working on resolving the outage.

And this, in fact, is the essence of the cloud. As a consumer or corporate buyer of cloud computing, your task is ridiculously simple: Make sure the best people are working on it. And in fact, those engineers working on Gmail are so good that sizable outages are extremely rare these days. Yet whether it’s service reliability, data protection, or regulatory issues, there remains to this day an insane resistance to cloud computing that is quickly becoming the “Darwinian litmus test” for companies in every industry.

This insanity has three pervasive dimensions to it:

Insanity #1: These big outages mean we should keep things in house

I have news for you: a big public outage is actually a sign of success for a cloud vendor – after all, it means tons of customers are relying on its service, no?  (When was the last time you read about IBM experiencing a hosted Lotus Notes outage?) But underlying the essence of Insanity #1 is the presumption that a cloud outages implies your in-house IT organization could do it better.

In reality, outages merely provide your IT department with excuses to protect their kingdom. The facts are that Gmail uptime is in the range of 99.99 percent – meaning the average user experiences about four minutes of downtime per month – and Amazon targets 99.95 percent for AWS. So, can your team beat that?

Further, this confused IT leader thinks his team can manage a service more reliably than a company whose entire existence depends on its ability to do so. To put it bluntly, Google has assembled the greatest collection of computer science talent in the world. Similarly Amazon has a multi-year lead in delivering compute power by the drop, with which it’s happy to provide to you with the single-digit gross margins of a successful retailer. Your IT organization simply doesn’t rate at this level.

Insanity #2: I need somebody to talk to when a service interruption occurs

I’ve never understood why IT departments seem to care deeply about how important they are to their vendors. It’s a dysfunctional need that can only result in you paying far more to your vendors than is necessary, so that they can afford to show you the love.

Needing to talk to a cloud vendor when there’s an outage is a striking example of this: Would you rather have your cloud provider spending millions on account managers to call you when something goes wrong, or instead to spend their money on world-class engineers working to fix the problem?

You can’t have both (unless you want to pay a lot more for your service). By this time, any credible cloud vendor has mastered the art of providing online status updates (just as Heroku did for us here). It’s no small challenge to do this right (we worked on it for years at Google), but it’s critical to servicing customers well in the cloud. So why are so many large companies turned off by the idea of getting updates via a website or RSS? Because it doesn’t make them feel special.

As a consumer of cloud computing, your goal is to be as unimportant to your cloud vendor as possible – to ride the curve of innovation and cost reductions that result from their efforts to serve an enormous and diverse customer base.

Insanity #3; Cloud is OK for non-critical applications with non-sensitive data

If you believe that cloud vendors are just plain better, faster and cheaper at delivering IT services, then it’s another level of insanity (and illogic) to limit the use of these services to inconsequential applications that aren’t critical to your organization. This is the status quo’s last stand – “this data is too sensitive to enable Company X to manage it for us!” (A similar concern is for those who find perverse comfort in actually knowing where their data physically resides.)

This thinking is backwards. If you care about the reliability, security, and the protection of your data, then you should entrust it to those who are most capable of managing it. If you believe you can match the capabilities and rigor of Google’s Security Operations team, I wish you well.

Of course, the objection to the cloud heard more often than any other is “it’s not me, it’s them.” In this case, “them” means the boss, the lawyers, the executive team, or the board of directors. And just as frequently, “them” is a varied assortment of regulators whose statutes invariably fail to give clear guidance on whether cloud computing is, in fact, legal. Strangely, even when you speak with these regulators, you will hear the same thing: It’s not me, it’s them.

Ultimately, the spoils of cloud computing will accrue to those organizations that break through the insanity, that resolutely fight through these distractions and ambiguities to drive this radically better approach to computing throughout their organizations.

Dave Girouard is founder and CEO of UpStart. Previously he was President of Enterprise at Google. Follow him on Twitter @davegirouard.

Photo courtesy of John Wollwerth/Shutterstock.com.

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

• Quality of the cloud: best practices for ISVs
• What Enterprise Software Vendors Could Learn from the Consumer Space
• How intelligent networks address enterprise cloud issues

It turns out that entrepreneur and college prof Daniel Abadi has a bone to pick with that model.  

In a blog post, Abadi, who is a noted Hadoop expert, chief scientist at Hadapt, and an associate professor of computer science at Yale, says he was initially intriqued by Upstart but then saw some things that concerned him.

“A deeper look at the Upstart Website reveals a problematic clause that is attached with the funding of the student start-up ideas. This is not a traditional crowdfunding model where investors receive equity in the start-up in exchange for their investment dollars. Instead, the investors get a percentage of the student’s income for a 10-year period in exchange for the investment. This way, in the likely event that the student’s start-up idea does not work out, the investor is able to receive a nice return on investment by taking a cut from the student’s hard-earned salary when the student enters the workforce.”

The problem is that, many students have unrealistic expectations of success and given that the failure rate of startups is high — some say that 11 out of 12 fail — the entrepreneur still has to pay the Upstart mentor a portion of annual earnings — whatever their source — as agreed upon no matter what.  Upstart itself gets 3 percent of the patron’s initial contribution. And, later should the startup succeed, Upstart collects a 1.5 percent service fee when the debt is repaid.

Mentorship over money

Upstart CEO and Google veteran David Girouard said the program is almost more about the mentorship than the money. “It’s possible (and actually likely ) that startups fail,” he said via email. “The idea of Upstart is you have backers that help you well beyond any particular startup or initiative — they are with you for at least the duration of your commitment.”

And, there are some protections in place. The deal is negotiated up front and the percentage taken from yearly income is capped at 7 percent. If the entrepreneur makes less than $30,000 in a given year, payment is waived and another year is added to the payout timeline, which is capped at 15 years.

Of course, naysayers contend that 7 percent is a pretty hefty take for young people who are also likely saddled with school debt.

Girouard said the program was specifically designed to facilitate investment in a person, rather than in a company. “We aren’t really a substitute for venture capital or angel investing — funds are typically used to retire debt or pay living expenses rather than corporate expenses,” he said via email.

Others in the tech world have other ideas about helping startups. The new Cambridge, Mass.-based hack-reduce program, for example, is a 501-3c charity that will give a select set of big data entrepreneurs a leg up without taking a piece of the action, according to co-founder Chris Lynch, who posted a comment to that effect on Abadi’s blog.

Feature photo courtesy of Shutterstock user wavebreakmedia

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

• A near-term outlook for big data
• Sector RoadMap: SQL-on-Hadoop platforms in 2013
• The importance of putting the U and I in visualization

That scenario bugged Dave Girouard. A little over a year ago Girouard, who was then president of Google’s enterprise unit,  was talking to friends and family who saw that drama play out again and again. Grads with computer science degrees from top schools and a flair for Ruby programming, have no trouble finding work they love. But for smart, creative seniors without those specializations and who carry big school debt and have risk-averse parents, any idea for a startup dies in its cradle.

Girouard had some personal experience here. It was a stretch for his family when he got into Dartmouth.  ”We could in no way afford it, but my father was adamant that I should do it no matter what,” he said. He graduated with the requisite “ton of debt” which only rose when he went to grad school. When he got out, he took the most lucrative job he could find at Booz Allen. As soon as he paid what he owed, he quit to join Apple.

Debt and the decisions it drives is a problem for the students — obviously — who doesn’t want to follow their bliss?  But it’s also an issue for society at large which misses out on the job creation that can come from small businesses. It bothered Girouard that investment banks and law firms became the default destinations for grads that would have liked to strike out on their own.  So he started talking to experts — to economists, to academics. He looked at government statistics. He looked at crowdfunding sources like Kickstarter and Indiegogo. He decided he wanted to build a startup to help startups, resigned from Google in March, and launched Upstart in April.

One of his findings is that it doesn’t necessarily take a fortune to help get someone started. Many of these kids couldn’t put their hands on $30,000 if their lives depended on it without credit cards, but if they could, it would be enough for them to rent office space, buy computers, hire some help, Girouard told me last month. And that, at least gives them a shot.

Matchmaking new talent and tried-and-true talent

The Redwood City, CA. company — now with eight employees  – helps to match promising upper classmen from select  schools — including Rhode Island School of Design, Dartmouth, University of Michigan — with patrons that have money to invest and business experience to share. (Upstart just added Berkeley, Harvard, NYU, Stanford and Yale to its roster.) Thirteen mentors signed up initially, including Frank Moss, professor  at the MIT Media Lab and a long-time industry exec; and Andy Palmer, who co-founded Vertica Systems) and VoltDB.

It should be noted that Girouard himself left a solid gig at Google — something his financial advisor counseled strongly against — to launch this effort with backing from Google Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, NEA and Mark Cuban. He was joined by Damon Whitsitt another former Googler and a few others. They wanted to find a way that investors share in the entrepreneur’s upside but that also limits the downside risk to the entrepreneur. If the startup doesn’t work out, the investors don’t recoup their investment, but the feeling is they have enough money and expertise to sustain the loss.

Again, the idea was to fund the person, not the startup, paying X amount for a certain percentage of that person’s income — regardless of its source — over  ten years.

In coming up with a plan, Girouard initially thought of some sort of auction:  ”Here’s Bill, who’ll graduate from Stanford with a Computer Science degree. What’s 3 percent of his income worth to you?’ and have the investors bid it out. One problem was figuring out how much a given person’s earning potential would be over the period in question.

Serendipity strikes

Right around then, Girouard heard about “a kid” in New York who was working on way to forecast an individual’s earning potential over time. This “kid” was Paul Gu one of the first class of Thiel Fellows.  He had been a double computer science/economics major at Yale but left after three years to pursue his research.  By the time Girouard reached him by phone, Gu had aggregated a couple of publicly available data sets to help in this task.

Why was Gu pursuing this? Because his friends were taking jobs they didn’t want because of student debt, he told Girouard. Bingo.

Within days, Gu flew out to meet with Girouard and Whitsitt. ”As soon as I saw what he was doing, I thought why the hell do an auction? Let’s just price this ourselves and we can build a model without burdening the backers,” Girouard said.

Gu came aboard as Upstart’s first non-Google employee. From that time on, Gu and team have been gathering data from the government, from schools, from private sources who collect salary data using it to fine tune the model. They recruited prospective grads and backers in parallel. Since the pilot program went public in August, nearly 300 backers/mentors have signed on, Girouard said, and Upstarts is launching road shows at college campuses this fall to talk up the program.

Basically, the applicant asks for a set amount (funding is capped at $50,000). Upstart then uses its “proprietary models and analytics to figure out the fraction of their future income they must agree to share to raise their desired amount,” according to its website.  The recipient gets X dollars for each 1 percent of income shared up to a maximum of 7 percent. No payments are expected when the recipient makes less than $30,000 per year.

As an aside, Upstart structured an agreement that incents Gu to return to Yale to finish his degree — which Gu said he intends to do.

Doing well by doing good

This is not a totally philanthropic effort. Upstart gets 3 percent of the patron’s initial contribution. And should the effort pan out, when the entrepreneur pays back the patron, Upstart collects a 1.5 percent service fee.

Both Gu and Girouard brim with enthusiasm about the effort. They feel they are doing well by doing good. Coming up with the analysis is challenging.  And they all seem to like each other. “I like to call it the stuck-in-the-airport-together-for-four-hours test,” said Gu. “We’re happy to spend time together. A lot of time in the valley, there’s this culture of ‘we’re so super smart that we know everything.’ Well, we definitely don’t have that here. There’s not a lot of ego,” Gu said.

After eight years at Google, Girouard seems to be loving the startup vibe. He likes to quote Andy Berndt, head of Google Labs, who used to say  (paraphrasing here) “why is it that 10 people sitting in a room at a startup is bliss and ten people sitting in a room at a meeting is painful?”

There is no indication at all that anything about Upstart is painful to its founder. “The funny thing here is we’re all in a big room with four big tables but no matter what happens, we all end up clustered around one table,” Girouard said.

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

• Survey: How apps can solve photo management
• Sector RoadMap: Content personalization in 2013
• Frenemy mine: The pros and cons of social partnerships for online media companies

That’s a resource that Upstart hopes to nurture by finding private funding and experienced mentors for young talent, says Upstart founder David Girouard, an ex-Google exec.

The goal is to enable people close to graduating who have good ideas for a startup to actually pursue them instead of taking a job that’s less inspiring but necessary to pay back the school loan debt loads that many students shoulder. (The average school loan debt for a graduating senior is just over $23,000 last year.)

“At Google we hired hundreds of great young people who couldn’t put together $30,000 to buy a car if their life depended on it without going into credit card debt,” Girouard told me in a recent interview. This funding can be used to pay for office space, staffing, the cost of living — whatever they need.

On Wednesday, Upstart will formally announce the program and introduce seven students funded under its pilot program along with 13 backers including Andy Palmer, a serial database entrepreneur and Frank Moss, professor at the MIT Media Lab, managing partner of Strategic Software Ventures, LLC, and a former exec at IBM and other tech companies.

Phase two of the program will start this fall at five universities—Arizona State,  Dartmouth, University of Michigan, University of Washington,  and Rhode Island School of Design. And there will be more to come, Girouard said.

Backing the person, not the project

There’s a couple of cool things about this model. First, Upstart doesn’t target the already sought-after computer science or engineering superstars from schools like Stanford and MIT. That is by design. “We wanted diversity,” Girouard said. “The early input is this could really work for artists and designers – people who could build their own sole proprietorship businesses.”

Second, recipients don’t have to cough up a huge chunk of equity in what they create.  Investors actually buy into the person, not the project itself, in return for a portion of that person’s income over time, but there is a cap, Girouard said. “There’s an algorithm, for every 1 percent of your income you’re willing to commit, you can raise X dollars, with 7 percent being the cap. Depending on the school, your GPA, we can project your income out over 10 years. But you give up zero control, no equity in whatever you do,” Girouard said.

The model is reminiscent of medieval patrons who funded artists. “It’s like Kickstarter or Indiegogo but instead of backing an idea or project, you’re backing a person,” Palmer said in an interview.

Pairing mentors with entrepreneurs

That sounds like a win-win situation for prospective entrepreneurs who need funds and advice and for established business leaders who like to work with young people. But it’s bigger than that, says Moss. Startups create a huge proportion of new jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate that 65 percent of job growth comes from companies with fewer than 500 employees.

“We have to experiment with new ways to empower grads to pursue their dreams and passions or our society is in trouble, “ said Moss said. Moss, as you might guess from his MIT affiliation, is not a fan of the notion proposed by VC Peter Thiel Thiele that school is a waste of time for true entrepreneurs. Students should go to school, but we also need to find a way for them to build companies — not just default to going to an investment bank or big company to pay the bills, he said.

Vincent Lucero, of the University of Washington, netted $25,000 to fund his startup Soaring Squirrels, which is building a mobile game that teaches kids about the environment as well as a gaming platform that will make it easier for developers to put games on all the major platforms easily and for users to move their saved games from device to device. Lucero and his partner are using the funding to pay for their graphic artist — they prefer “old school” graphics. He is also joining Google but will pursue the startup separately.

Nathan Sharp of Harvard got $50,000 to help pay his student loans and give him some breathing room to bootstrap his business — PayOrPass — an e-commerce platform that lets shoppers tag any product on any web page with “a non-binding best-offer bid.” PayOrPass then takes those sales leads and broadcasts them to its merchant partners who can fulfill the orders.

Since he was already well into development, he would have launched the startup regardless but the Upstart money gives him more time to find the right investors and to pay off some of his college loans.

You can read more about the Upstart program here on Girouard’s blog.

Soaring Squirrels Cast illustration courtesy of Marina Montes

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

• Flash analysis: lessons from Solyndra’s fall
• Flash analysis: the Fisker debacle and its implications on investing, innovation, and government incentives
• 11 steps for scaling a startup

FT reported another interesting metric in its first quarter earnings. While the flight to Free is pressuring its profits, revenues and margins, Free’s owner Iliad is also making a substantial contribution to Orange’s wholesale roaming business. Iliad has only built a limited 3G network of its own, so to fill in the gaps it relies on an MVNO agreement with Orange. Orange originally expected its roaming agreement with Iliad to bring €1 billion (U.S. $1.3 billion) over five years. Now Orange expects to see that first billion in just two years.

Apparently Free has resorted to buying a lot more capacity than it expected – or at least more than FT expected. Meanwhile, financial firm Jefferies believes that FT’s lower-than-expected decline in revenues for the quarter indicate that many of its subscriber losses were among budget customers lured by the Free’s lowest price €2 a month plans. If that’s the case, Free could find itself in a predicament: it may rake in new customers, but the costs it incurs from buying all of that 3G capacity may outstrip its revenues. We’ll know more when Iliad, reports its first-quarter numbers.

As long Free can keep up the pressure, though, there’s no question that it will continue to upend France’s normally staid wireless industry. Though the initial mad dash to Free appears to be over – and even shows signs of reversing — analysts project that Bouygues and Vivendi’s SFR will report similar big subscriber losses in the coming weeks. The Big 3 have all started cutting their rates to counter the Free threat. Vivendi has brought in a new CEO from Vodafone to head up SFR, while Bouygues is buying up one of Free’s smaller competitors, Darty Telecom, an IPTV and residential broadband provider that also offers mobile services as an MVNO.

Free Mobile still has a few tricks up its sleeve though. Last month it activated a critical component of its strategy, turning 4 million Wi-Fi access points embedded in its wireline customers’ set-top boxes into a private mobile offload network. While the network is limited to Iliad’s customers homes, offices and their vicinities, such a huge density of Wi-Fi could move massive amounts of data traffic off of HSPA+. That would not only conserve its own 3G capacity but potentially spare Free from relying so much on its Orange wholesale agreement.

Image of Eugene Delacroix painting courtesy of the Louvre

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

• Mobile 2012 and beyond
• New solutions for the evolving mobile network
• Updated: Forecast: global mobile subscribers, 2010-2015