This is the web version of edition 3, April 23, 2023, of my weekly newsletter, subscribe here.
For a very brief moment over the past few days, Amsterdam took center stage in the online world, and it had nothing to do with Ajax. It made me think back to 2003, twenty years ago.
On Leidseplein in Amsterdam, a group of unknown American comedians stood on stage at Boom Chicago, the comedy theater that had to rely primarily on drunken tourists. In California, the first iLife suite, consisting of the cumbersome iTunes and iDVD, which allowed you to burn DVDs very slowly, was launched amid jeers by the moribund Apple. Steve Jobs was at the helm for over 5 years and on $6 billion in sales, Apple was loss-making.
Ted Lasso's unexpected star, Hannah Waddingham, gives bald men hope in the episode Sunflowers
Anyone who would have predicted then that 20 years later a brilliant comedy show based on a cheap commercial created by these comedians would break all sorts of records on an Apple streaming service with as many as 52 Emmy Award nominations would have been instantly fooled. Ted Lasso, the brainchild of Boom Chicago alumni Jason Sudeikis, Brendan Hunt and Joe Kelly, won the Emmy Award for best comedy series two years in a row. Earlier, Apple TV+ was the first streaming service to win an Oscar for best film, with CODA, which led to strong growth in Apple TV+ subscribers.
It's comparing apples to potatoes, but it's nice to look at how another legendary company that preferred to make only hardware and no content fared during the same period: our own Philips, unlike Apple, did make a profit in 2003, even nearly €500 million on sales of €29 billion, almost five times the sales of Apple that year. Twenty years on, Philips is worth €15 billion on sales of €17 billion and Apple has a market value of €2.3 trillion. Forget all those zeros: that's 2,300 times a billion. Apple has become worth over 150 times as much as Philips in two decades and is on its way to annual sales of over $500 billion, $100 billion of which comes from its services division alone. Not bad for a company that, to the anger of Steve Jobs, was so bad at services that it couldn't yet provide a decent email service. Or does anyone still have a MobileMe address?
But I digress, because entirely in the spirit of Ted Lasso, I would like to be positive this Sunday. Last Wednesday's episode, Sunflowers, was the reason I was reminded of when the creative minds behind Ted Lasso lived in Amsterdam. Sunflowers is an hour-plus long paean from the creators to Amsterdam. Including André Hazes and even a snippet of Rob de Nijs. The only implausible moment of this episode was the beginning, Ajax's 5-0 victory in the Johan Cruijff Arena. When in reality Ajax's only scoring team was the media team, which unfurled a large banner at the pub in London where part of Ted Lasso is being shot.
Why is an Amsterdam "vector database" worth 200 million?
Who wouldn't laugh?
While all of Ted Lasso's protagonists in the Amsterdam episode experienced a direction-defining breakthrough, the same was true of a startup unknown to me that announced it had raised no less than $50 million in its third round of funding. Weaviate calls itself a "vector database" but as the last generation whose math wasn't in the required curriculum, I'm not helped by that. (I'm guessing the name stands for weav-iate, do something with weaving, and not for we-aviate, we fly). Searching for more information about Weaviate, until January still called SemI which does not provide more insight, I found this excellent explanation by CEO Bob van Luijt:
'First-generation database technology is often referred to by the acronym SQL [...] which are conceptually similar to spreadsheets or tables. In the 1980s, this technology was dominated by companies such as Oracle and Microsoft. The second wave of databases is called "NoSQL." These are the domain of companies like MongoDB (and Elastic, MF). They store data in different ways [...] but what they all have in common is that they are not relational tables. [...] The third wave of database technologies focuses on data that is first processed by a machine-learning model, where the AI models help process, store and search the data, as opposed to traditional ways.'
That's an excellent explanation, and it's smart to frame Weaviate this way. Without saying it, Van Luijt implies that Weaviate is solving a huge problem in a huge market, music to the ears of investors, referring to a number of industry peers whose "little ones" are even publicly traded and have a market value of $16 billion (MongoDB) and just under $6 billion (Elastic). Except that those are of the old generation, lisp Van Luijt actually says in passing, and Weaviate is better.
A few things strike me:
- $50 million on a $200 million valuation is a high amount for a relatively low valuation. That sounds absurd, but consider that a few weeks ago Character.ai raised $150 million on a valuation of over a billion. Still, this funding is a wise decision by Weaviate, because the fact remains that U.S. VCs invest less money in non-U.S. companies, and at lower valuations, than in U.S. companies. To stay in Ted Lasso spheres, an English Premier League club simply pays more for a player from another Premier League club, than for Jan Maas from the Eredivisie. (That character who always speaks the truth, however painfully at times, by the way, is named after Saskia Maas, the CEO and driving force behind Boom Chicago).
- in total, Weaviate has now raised $67.7 million within three years, allowing the company to compete in the development of fundamental technology for an international market. What Weaviate is doing is similar to playing Champions League soccer with a Dutch club. Fortunately, Van Luijt et al. now have sufficient resources to attract good players. (This is the latest soccer comparison.)
- ING already participated in the 2022 A round because it knew Weaviate, as a spin-out from ING Labs. It is commendable that a traditional major bank like ING made such a risky investment, provided the bank actually gets to work with Weaviate's technology. Otherwise, it is a normal venture capital investment, and those do not score better on average in the Netherlands than the AEX index. By the way, it's funny that Weaviate's name change has passed the administrator of ING Ventures' portfolio page by. There, the company is still simply called SemI.
- Alex van Leeuwen participated in the seed round of Weaviate and in doing so made perhaps one of the best investments ever in the Netherlands. Investor Peter Thiel bought a 10% stake in Facebook in 2004 for $500,000 and sold his stake for a total of over $1 billion, as far as we know the best-yielding investment in venture capital. It may not be that happy (2000x) for Van Leeuwen, but I don't rule it out. Database companies, we've learned from those first- and second-generation oldies, can scale up quickly relatively easily without huge follow-on investments.
Fine links
- The FD published this thorough article about Lightyear with the headline "How Holland's cuddly company went down by a hair. The disinterest of foreign technology investors in Lightyear (compare it to Weaviate) should have been a telling sign.
- Master vlogger Casey Neistat intentionally made a terrible vlog based on a script written by ChatGPT4. His conclusion: AI lacks soul, lacks depth. I think ChatGPT4 mostly lacks context at this point, because not yet fed Casey's past, perspective and tone.
- ChatGPT's CTO Greg Brockman gave this fascinating presentation on ChatGPT's capabilities, which extend so much further than some "text and pictures" questions. The interview with TED founder Chris Anderson immediately following the presentation is also enlightening. Thanks to Michiel Schoonhoven of content marketing specialist NXTLI for the tip.
Spotlight 9
(ChatGPT4 coined this rubric name, see the p.s. below this newsletter).
Stock market sentiment determines much of our economy and in fact the tech sector is dominated by it. The idea behind this portfolio was simple. Say you want to invest, but don't want to buy and sell every day because that's time consuming and complicated and you can stand to lose a little; what do you buy? I chose the 5 biggest tech stocks (Amazon, Apple, Google/Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft) two index funds (S&P 500 and Dow Jones Index) and the two biggest cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin and Ethereum). Anyone who had made these nine purchases on Jan. 1 of this year, each for an equal amount, would have earned a return of 37.6% today. But compared to a year ago, the return is -8%. That's the nice thing about tracking a portfolio like this: the duration of the investment, your investment horizon, determines the definition of success. Those who look only at this week, in which only Amazon stands proudly, yearn for the old Silver Fleet account. Incidentally, the main reason Amazon shares rose seems to be the announcement that the company wants to play a prominent role in AI alongside Microsoft and Google, with Amazon Bedrock as its first asset. The setup of Bedrock is interesting because instead of developing everything itself, Amazon offers AWS customers the ability to use AI models from various vendors, including AWS itself.
For those more interested in AI, I recommend this conversation, started by NRC journalist Wouter van Noort who himself produces some of my favorite newsletters, Future Affairs and Transcend.
Happy Sunday,
-Michiel
The archive of past newsletters is here.
p.s. below the conversation with ChatGPT4 about the rubric name for tracking a small investment portfolio
