Softbank isn't perfect, but its disappointing to see such a snarky/dismissive tone coming from Bloomberg.
This is ridiculous:
> Three months later, Zume has yet to revolutionize food production or to be profitable
I've worked with Jeff Housenbold. They got his intelligence right, but this nonsense sounds like Gawker not Bloomberg
> Jeff Housenbold,... Acquaintances describe him as smart and arrogant and almost entirely lacking in self-awareness
And when did random company gossip become news reported as fact? How does publishing the denial make it OK to report anonymous smears as fact?
> Navneet Govil, told a Mormon employee to “go back to Utah to get more wives.” The employee left the company. Via a spokesman, Govil denies making such a statement. Around that time, Govil also berated a young accountant in front of a group, bringing her to tears. She later quit. And at a work lunch a few months later with several colleagues, Govil remarked that “Chinese people sound stupid,” according to two people who heard the comment. Via a spokesman, Govil denies making such a statement or berating the employee; SoftBank says it has no record of these events.
While I agree that it should be possible to mention nationality without being labeled racist, what legitimate value do you think his nationality adds to that sentence other than to preload whatever preconceptions people have about African businessmen onto that person? I just don't see how it adds any substance.
I think the value it adds is subjective. In my opinion, it is a fact that further describes the individual. In fairness, it may not be the most relevant point.
We have to appreciate that his place of birth it is a fact, whether one thinks it preloads preconceptions or not.
None! I also don’t know anyone from Mason City, Iowa. But everybody’s gotta be from somewhere.
Seriously, if you’re writing a whole article about someone it seems worthwhile to mention if they’re from Zambia, but if you’re writing a single sentence it’s a bit off putting.
look, in essence, I hear what you are saying, but when considering the readership of Bloomberg News, Mason City, Iowa and Zambia is a false equivalency.
His nationality is Zambian but he's Indian....not from one of the local ethnic tribes. With that context I don't think there was any ulterior motive mentioning his nationality.
I don't think anyone is suggestions a motive here. Looking at the wiki article for microagressions[0]
>Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups.
I think the idea of the parents is on point. We never say "An American CFO" or "An American CFO from the Mississippi delta"
All this from Bloomberg, who published an explosive piece on Chinese spies infiltrating "America’s technology supply chain". [1] Then when it became clear that the story was bogus, refused to admit they made a mistake. [2]
Those would be tangible evidence that it's possible, again, not that it happened in the Chinese supply chain as alleged in the Bloomberg story that hasn't been retracted yet.
Bloomberg didn't say possible, though. They said it had happened, and been discovered.
Specifically, they said "A major U.S. telecommunications company discovered manipulated hardware from Super Micro Computer Inc. in its network". And then that manipulated hardware was never produced and verified, Bloomberg provided no evidence for the claim, every outside investigation disagreed with it, and their primary source criticized the story (in favor of an even broader, equally unproven assertion).
It's an interesting theoretical attack, but Bloomberg made specific, concrete assertions which are, according to all available evidence, bogus.
The problem is that they would have to prove that Bloomberg wasn't just incompetent, but rather malicious. It's entirely possible (and imo the most likely scenario) that Bloomberg didn't fabricate the story, but were duped.
That's not true. The company would have plenty of damages to their reputation that a lawsuit would be perfectly reasonable. Not to mention the fact that lost market cap also damages the companies ability to hire and retain talent.
> After Vision Fund invested $375 million in Zume Pizza Inc., whose mission to use robots to automate pizza making had shades of Silicon Valley frivolity, CEO Alex Garden expanded his mission to include rethinking the entirety of U.S. food production. Employees were unnerved. “Are we the next Theranos?” went one anonymously submitted question at an all-hands meeting over the summer
> The four-year-old company has largely pivoted to an enterprise model where it works with restaurants that have no storefront and prepare their food in shared centralized kitchens, or “cloud kitchens”; with delivery providers like DoorDash and Postmates; and with existing pizza companies to build a hub-and-spoke model for the entire delivery industry. The company has been trying to morph into a data and logistics provider, part of an effort by founder Alex Garden to become “the Amazon of food.”
Once again proving that SV companies do no market research before making their ideas...
I'm not in the food industry. I've talked to a couple of food engineers though, and its apparently a very difficult space to work in, with a variety of safety regulations to prevent disease (and if disease does break out, provide a mechanism to track where it came from).
Ignoring that, the space of commercial kitchens / commercial bakeries already produces tons of bread for a variety of companies. From my understanding, these commercial bakeries are flexible enough to change the recipe and create different breads / doughs for a variety of companies. That is to say: commercial bakeries are already "hub-and-spoke" models that centralize production for McDonalds / Burger King / Grocery Stores / etc. etc.
-------
If you're entirely focused on logistics / sales of products from a kitchen to a variety of restaurants, that job is called a Food Broker (http://www.foodbrokers.org/). Its kind of the opposite of a commercial kitchen: if a small kitchen makes a particular food that probably has mass-appeal, a food-broker will distribute that food in a wide area. Food broker work for many kitchens, delivering food to many commercial locations.
In effect: the food industry is already filled with "hub-and-spoke" style businesses. Food Brokers, Restaurants, commercial kitchens, etc. etc. Ever think why your cheap chinese food all tastes the same despite coming from 10 different restaurants?
Is Silicon Valley now at the point where they are inventing things that already exist, but they aren't yet aware of because of the bubble they are stuck in?
SV VCs are throwing money at everything they can, even bad ideas or things that already exist. I wasn't around for the dotcom bubble but I heard it was exactly the same way.
Some people call them "dark kitchens" or "ghost kitchens" instead.
It's what Travis Kalanick is up to these days, incidentally. Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund has supposedly put 400MM into his new company at a 5B valuation.
I think next big thing will be 'Dish as a service' where one does not have to know how kitchen works, or the quantities of ingredient combined in what proportion. One can just order a sandwich platter or a pasta tray for 100 people without ever being bothered about how it is done. Now that would be revolutionary.
It's been a while, Soylent for a while existed for a very long time to feed tube fed patient and other people unable to consume solid food, made by Nestlé and othjer giants. The "genius" was in the marketing to convince people able to eat real food they actually wanted that.
"Cloud", in this case, is a buzzwordy but brief way of saying "capacity quickly scalable up and down, with fixed costs mostly replaced by variable ones".
The new "cloud native" model that's popping up in places like NYC is one where restaurants will farm out their delivery orders to a commercial kitchen. This commercial kitchen may make the delivery orders for 50+ restaurants, some of which have no physical storefront. Delivery drivers just go to a warehouse somewhere instead of the main storefront and the customer is none the wiser.
Most takeout / delivery places have been reduced to a menu and a handful of recipes by services like GrubHub and Postmates, so I guess this isn't surprising.
I was at a brick-and-mortar restaurant in a good location ordering and saw that 90% of their orders were going to GrubHub and Postmates. It seemed silly to pay of the downtown overhead and make the courier deal with parking for something that could be done out of a warehouse. So part of this model I get.
Until these Vc funded delivery services go belly up because the business model isn’t sustainable without subsidized prices. Then restaurants that got rid of their restaurants will have no business at all.
I looked into Zume a bit more and as far as I can tell it actually makes sense. They're not reinventing the wheel. It's odd that people are jeering at them.
Their initial focus was on incrementally improving the way pizza delivery works. The classic pizza delivery model was that the pizza was prepared somewhere (maybe a pizzeria, maybe some centralized kitchen), baked in a pizzeria near where it was ordered, then loaded onto a car for delivery. Zume combined the baking and delivery: the uncooked pizza would be prepared as usual, then loaded onto delivery trucks with automated ovens. Routes would be calculated, and pizzas would be cooked en route so that they arrived fresh out of the oven. Because the baking happens during delivery they don't need to pay for a fixed number of physical locations; instead they can predict pizza demand and scale capacity up and down by adjusting the number of trucks active in each area at each time of day. The intended result (at scale) is fresher pizza, delivered faster, at lower cost.
Obviously this can apply beyond pizza. There are plenty of other businesses in the food industry that operate the same way as classic pizza delivery. If Zume can provide them with scalable, low-fixed-cost delivery and final cooking, that's potentially worth a lot of money.
Surely vehicles with ovens already exist. Zume is based in a region that is replete with food trucks. They're simply building a high-tech version specific for deliveries. How is that worth $375 million? And what other cuisines require such low amount of human interaction that the cooking can be automated in such a way- other types of fast food?
vast majority of food trucks park and serve from a static location, there are definitely challenges associated with cooking on the go.
with the explosion in popularity of food delivery services, you can probably move into any cuisine in one of these trucks. one of my biggest gripes about delivery services right now is the freshness of the food and also how it impacts the in-person experience at restaurants.
technologically speaking, i'm all for having a solution that brings the kitchen to the (lazy) customer. but i'm definitely having some reservations about the social impact it will have
This article reads like some authors found a popular topic and just tried to use it to push it's own little unrelated insults, insinuations, and agendas.
It reads like silly the "rome fell because <insert topic i care about>" articles that were semi popular a while ago.
SoftBank might be reckless, but I've no idea what the metoo movement or the random insults have to do with it.
It's popular to hate Softbank-backed companies at the moment, so even an extremely thin article that is basically gossip and anecdotal character assassination strung together into a narrative can get eyeballs.
Of course, you could gain infinite karma votes on here just by posting his article every day, but he has some interesting things to add to this article.
Specifically, its not clear if Softbank is doing all that badly and maybe Masa's gift is this meta ability to get people to think bigger.
I met with SoftBank one time as part of due diligence. They had virtually no substantive questions about the tech. The person who led the deal was soon fired. I lost respect for SoftBank after that.
> At a portfolio meeting in October, Housenbold defended his performance by arguing he’d been trying to back female CEOs. Then he seemed to blame the #MeToo movement for limiting his ability to maneuver, bewildering at least one attendee.
What? This gives absolutely no specifics, no quotes, even softens the shit sandwich the author is attempting to feed us by saying "seemed to." And it's supposed to matter because it "bewildered" one unnamed attendee. God almighty I need to stop reading shit like this.
>The strategy that Son and his all-male phalanx of managing partners followed seemed less about any specific technology than about placing large bets on the buzziest startups...
What does his staff being male have anything to do with how he runs his fund?
Isn't that just flavour? I mean, the article also says one of the partners collects cars and wine which is arguably also irrelevant, but articles often include such details so you can picture what they're describing.
> What does his staff being male have anything to do with how he runs his fund?
For one, there is research on all-male trading and investment teams taking more risk than mixed-gender teams. For another, we have documented cases of overt sexism among SoftBank-backer founders (most notoriously, Adam).
On this, I have no information. Was just justifying citing an all-male team, within the context of a group with poor controls and a history of losing money due to taking unchecked risk, as a risk factor.
The world has never been merit-based. The fact it isn't now is not an anomaly. It's the norm.
Further, Marissa Meyer did not drive Yahoo into the ground. Yahoo was already free-falling to its death when she arrived. Perhaps she expidited the process somewhat, but when it was already near terminal velocity, who can say?
==We have been stripped of our ability to discuss the most damaging issues in society without risking a social witch-hunt, so we can be (try to not laugh) "more equal".==
It's a material problem, not a moral problem. Workplaces with gender parity function better, as evidenced by the article about securities fraud linked by elliekelly that you ignored.
This is ridiculous:
> Three months later, Zume has yet to revolutionize food production or to be profitable
I've worked with Jeff Housenbold. They got his intelligence right, but this nonsense sounds like Gawker not Bloomberg
> Jeff Housenbold,... Acquaintances describe him as smart and arrogant and almost entirely lacking in self-awareness
And when did random company gossip become news reported as fact? How does publishing the denial make it OK to report anonymous smears as fact?
> Navneet Govil, told a Mormon employee to “go back to Utah to get more wives.” The employee left the company. Via a spokesman, Govil denies making such a statement. Around that time, Govil also berated a young accountant in front of a group, bringing her to tears. She later quit. And at a work lunch a few months later with several colleagues, Govil remarked that “Chinese people sound stupid,” according to two people who heard the comment. Via a spokesman, Govil denies making such a statement or berating the employee; SoftBank says it has no record of these events.