By Evan Ackerman When we posted our last update on the Martin Jetpack Ductedfanpack about a year ago, they were looking at producing around 10 units at $100,000 each. In that quantity and price, it didn’t seem like something that was particularly realistic. At the end of last month the Telegraph reported that Martin Aircraft Company [...]
By Evan Ackerman
When we posted our last update on the Martin Jetpack Ductedfanpack about a year ago, they were looking at producing around 10 units at $100,000 each. In that quantity and price, it didn’t seem like something that was particularly realistic. At the end of last month the Telegraph reported that Martin Aircraft Company had teamed up with an unnamed international aircraft company, and that the new partnership had secured enough capital to begin producing 500 jetpacks a year at a cost of around $75,000 each. Yes, it’s a lot, but come on, it’s a personal jetpack, and it may actually be a practical one too:
-No pilot’s license required -Runs on premium gas from a gas station -30 mile range at 60 mph, 8000 ft ceiling -Includes low altitude ballistic parachute for safety
It’s certainly not the sexy sci-fi jetpack of the future yet, but I mean, it works, and you can actually buy one (quite soon, anyway) for a not entirely crazy amount of money.
It’s a rare day that I find the opportunity to write about entrepreneurism and Canada in a single post. It’s rarer still that I’m able to do it twice in one day. But apparently today is that day. Earlier today I wrote about changes to Canadian tax law that makes outside investments to Canadian startups less onerous. And now I have the honor of introducing you to The C100, a new Silicon Valley based mentoring and networking organization for Canadian entrepreneurs. The C100 is the brainchild of Anthony Lee (Altos Ventures) and Chris Albinson (Panorama Capital). There are 250,000 Canadians living in Northern California, Albinson told me earlier today, many of whom are in tech (he and Lee are among them). And they need an organization like TiE, which was originally founded for south Asians, to help them help each other. The organization will also help Canadian startups and entrepreneurs get a foot in the door in Silicon Valley. Canadian incubators Bootup Labs, FounderFuel and Xtreme Labs are all sponsors of The C100 and will bring Canadians down to Silicon Valley for various networking events.
It’s a rare day that I find the opportunity to write about entrepreneurism and Canada in a single post. It’s rarer still that I’m able to do it twice in one day. But apparently today is that day. Earlier today I wrote about changes to Canadian tax law that makes outside investments to Canadian startups less onerous. And now I have the honor of introducing you to The C100, a new Silicon Valley based mentoring and networking organization for Canadian entrepreneurs.
The C100 is the brainchild of Anthony Lee (Altos Ventures) and Chris Albinson (Panorama Capital). There are 250,000 Canadians living in Northern California, Albinson told me earlier today, many of whom are in tech (he and Lee are among them). And they need an organization like TiE, which was originally founded for south Asians, to help them help each other.
The organization will also help Canadian startups and entrepreneurs get a foot in the door in Silicon Valley. Canadian incubators Bootup Labs, FounderFuel and Xtreme Labs are all sponsors of The C100 and will bring Canadians down to Silicon Valley for various networking events.
The C100 has successful charter members who pay $800 to be part of the organization. But general members who are the type of people who will want to get to know the charter members, can join for free, here.
Canada isn’t shy about making life difficult for startups, and we’ve had one or two personal brawls with the country as well. But a change in Canadian tax law last week is designed to spur U.S. venture investments in Canadian startups and make Canada less of a leper colony for tech entrepreneurs. The change allows foreign investors in most Canadian startups to avoid “literally hundreds of pages of documents” to be filed and processed on a sale of a startup, sometimes by each limited partner in a venture fund. That burden meant that most venture firms simply ignored the Canadian market, says Deloitte:
Canada isn’t shy about making life difficult for startups, and we’ve had one or two personal brawls with the country as well. But a change in Canadian tax law last week is designed to spur U.S. venture investments in Canadian startups and make Canada less of a leper colony for tech entrepreneurs.
The change allows foreign investors in most Canadian startups to avoid “literally hundreds of pages of documents” to be filed and processed on a sale of a startup, sometimes by each limited partner in a venture fund. That burden meant that most venture firms simply ignored the Canadian market, says Deloitte:
A 2007 survey by Deloitte and Canada’s Venture Capital & Private Equity Association (CVCA) of 528 VCs from around the world found that 40% of U.S. respondents and 28% of global respondents cited Canada’s unfavourable tax environment as a key reason for not investing in Canadian companies. This level of concern is five times higher than for any other country in the survey and reflects the current investment crisis within Canada’s venture capital industry. The survey also found that Canada is attracting the attention of just 11% of U.S. VCs as a primary country for expansion — behind China (34%) and India (24%).
“I predict that over time this farsighted tax legislation will help propel Canada’s extraordinary technology into global industry leadership in numerous markets, and will likely be viewed in the future as a defining moment for the Harper government in Canadian innovation,” says Stephen Hurwitz, a partner at U.S. law firm Choate Hall & Stewart.
That may be a bit optimistic, but the tax change is a nice start. Perhaps over time our frozen neighbors to the north will be known for being great at something more than playing hockey and eating poutine. A robust startups community would be very welcome.
More information:
Change in tax law sends a strong signal to international investors that Canada is “open for business”
Government removes tax barriers and stimulates flow of capital across Canadian border
TORONTO, March 4, 2010 — Canadian companies across the country are likely applauding today’s federal budget, which contains tax law changes that give them the advantage they need to compete on the global stage.
By amending the definition of “taxable Canadian property” to exclude shares of Canadian private companies (where not more than 50% of their value is derived from real property in Canada, Canadian resource property or timber resource property), the government has significantly reduced administrative and, in some cases, economic barriers to foreign investment in Canadian-based innovation and technology. This change puts Canada at the top of the list of places to invest globally.
“The changes in tax legislation announced in today’s budget are among the most significant changes to capital gains taxation since the introduction of taxation of capital gains in 1972,” explains John Ruffolo, Global Tax Technology, Media & Telecommunications Leader, Deloitte. “The Canadian government has listened to the financing community, understood the severity of the problem and removed the major tax barriers that have prevented critically needed international investment capital from crossing our borders.”
“At a minimal cost to the government, this amendment will have an immediate, positive and direct impact on Canada’s ability to grow a robust Canadian technology industry,” explains Terry Matthews, Chairman, Wesley Clover. “By sending a clear message to international investors that Canada is “open for business”, the government will make Canadian companies more attractive to foreign investors overnight. This will help Canadian companies raise the capital they need to achieve global leadership status.”
The change means a much more welcoming environment for foreign investors. In the vast majority of cases, non-residents who were not taxable on the disposition of their investments in such shares due to Canada’s broad international tax treaty network, are now exempt from tax under Canadian domestic law without having to apply for treaty relief. As a result, they are no longer required to comply with the Section 116 tax clearance certificate procedure or file a Canadian income tax return. The changes also remove what were perceived to be insurmountable barriers for many venture capitalists who considered the previous administrative requirements and economic delays for each investor to be strong deterrents to investing in Canada.
“The removal of the Section 116 tax barrier is a tax master stroke by the Canadian government enabling Canada’s emerging technology companies to access deep pools of international capital and the vast global customer markets to which those pools are connected,” notes Stephen Hurwitz, Partner, Choate Hall & Stewart LLP in Boston. “I predict that over time this farsighted tax legislation will help propel Canada’s extraordinary technology into global industry leadership in numerous markets, and will likely be viewed in the future as a defining moment for the Harper government in Canadian innovation.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SECTION 116 TAX BARRIERS
The following describes the tax barriers that were removed in today’s budget and that are no longer preventing international investment in Canada:
• Withholding and Section 116 certificate process — The overwhelming majority of foreign VCs are not subject to Canadian tax when they sell an investment, but face a delay of many months to work through the Section 116 tax clearance process until funds can freely flow to them. Many foreign VCs are structured such that each of the investors in the VC — sometimes hundreds or even thousands — is subject to this clearance process as if they held the investment directly. This delay results in lower returns and frequently causes direct financial loss to investors. Canadians who invest in the United States, the United Kingdom and other major global markets do not face such taxes or delays from red tape.
• Requirement to file Canadian tax returns by foreigners who don’t owe taxes creates hundreds of pages of unnecessary paperwork — Canada imposed tax filing requirements in circumstances where no taxes were payable by these investors. When a foreign VC sells an investment, each investor of the foreign VC has to file a Canadian tax return even if they don’t owe any taxes. This results in literally hundreds of pages of documents that are required for signature and processing for a single sale. This tax return filing issue also applies to certain Canadian public companies.
Why Canada was perceived by VCs as having an unfavourable tax environment A 2007 survey by Deloitte and Canada’s Venture Capital & Private Equity Association (CVCA) of 528 VCs from around the world found that 40% of U.S. respondents and 28% of global respondents cited Canada’s unfavourable tax environment as a key reason for not investing in Canadian companies. This level of concern is five times higher than for any other country in the survey and reflects the current investment crisis within Canada’s venture capital industry. The survey also found that Canada is attracting the attention of just 11% of U.S. VCs as a primary country for expansion — behind China (34%) and India (24%).
About Deloitte Canada’s tax practice With the largest tax practice in the country (over 1,500 professionals in 44 offices), Deloitte offers a full suite of tax services to clients in all industries across the country. The market leader in shaping the “future of tax”, Deloitte influences Canadian tax policy with the goal of creating a business climate which propels corporate growth and furthers Canada’s international competitiveness. Known for its industry-leading expertise, Deloitte’s tax practice sets the standard of excellence in Canada and is the only Big Four professional services firm in the country to receive a Tier 1 ranking in the prestigious International Tax Review (ITR)’s “World Tax 2010” report. For further information on Deloitte’s tax practice, visit www.deloitte.ca and for further information on the “future of tax”, visit www.thefutureoftax.ca.
About Deloitte Deloitte, one of Canada’s leading professional services firms, provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services through more than 7,700 people in 58 offices. Deloitte operates in Québec as Samson Bélair/Deloitte & Touche s.e.n.c.r.l. Deloitte & Touche LLP, an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership, is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and its member firms.
The marriage of brand advertising and free content is facing peremptory annulment. There is no shortage of punditry around “the death of the media company” and whether it is a just dessert or a societal travesty. But that’s looking at it from the media company and consumer viewpoint – what do advertisers think about all of this? Where is online advertising headed and what does that mean for free content? Making content free was not a well thought out business model. Rather, before the days of Sirius XM and DirecTV, there was no more of a way to charge for freely accessible radio waves than there was to charge for air or sunshine. Making content free, and charging for advertising interspersed in that free content, was pretty much the ONLY business model back then. And it worked pretty well, because supply (advertising “units”) was limited by the amount of content produced and, more importantly, by the narrow “channels” where such content was made available. With such low supply, high demand, and massive reach, it was easy to reach large swaths of the populace. The advertisers couldn’t really quantify their results, but they came up with a wide variety of methods to attempt to do so. Market research firms such as ACNielsen flourished to fill the need for “metrics.”
This guest post is authored by Alex Rampell, the founder and CEO of TrialPay. This is a follow on to an earlier article “The End Of Brand Advertising,” where Rampell argues that the collision of online and offline advertising paradigms will have a profound impact on free content. Rampell’s most recent guest post for us was in the wake of the Scamville series: Tragedy Of The Social Gaming Commons: A Blueprint For Change
The marriage of brand advertising and free content is facing peremptory annulment. There is no shortage of punditry around “the death of the media company” and whether it is a just dessert or a societal travesty. But that’s looking at it from the media company and consumer viewpoint – what do advertisers think about all of this? Where is online advertising headed and what does that mean for free content?
Making content free was not a well thought out business model. Rather, before the days of Sirius XM and DirecTV, there was no more of a way to charge for freely accessible radio waves than there was to charge for air or sunshine. Making content free, and charging for advertising interspersed in that free content, was pretty much the ONLY business model back then.
And it worked pretty well, because supply (advertising “units”) was limited by the amount of content produced and, more importantly, by the narrow “channels” where such content was made available. With such low supply, high demand, and massive reach, it was easy to reach large swaths of the populace. The advertisers couldn’t really quantify their results, but they came up with a wide variety of methods to attempt to do so. Market research firms such as ACNielsen flourished to fill the need for “metrics.”
But, as I argued in my last piece, brand advertising doesn’t really work – or, perhaps better put, is superseded by “transactional advertising.”
The old logic went like this — people were more likely to buy Coca-Cola versus Carbonated Dark-Colored Sugar Water X because Coca-Cola had a brand (which Coca-Cola has spent billions on). What’s the value of Coca-Cola’s brand? Pure math – it’s the Net Present Value (NPV) of the difference that consumers will pay for Coca-Cola versus, say, RC Cola, for the lifetime of the consumer and duration of the brand. When you pay $1 for a Coke versus $.50 for an RC Cola, the $.50 difference is chalked up to the “brand.” (Yes, perhaps there are differences in taste, too – but even with an identical formula and taste, I would argue RC Cola wouldn’t sell as well as Coke). Multiply $.50 times billions upon billions of cans of Coke, and you see the power of brand.
I don’t disagree with this notion, but I would argue that it is becoming largely irrelevant for a large class of goods and service providers (think soda or television set, not Rolex or BMW), and that the “brand” advertising money can be better spent, thereby imperiling expensively produced, freely distributed content. To wit: what if Walmart refused to stock Coca-Cola, instead stocking just RC Cola? Granted, Walmart stocks Coca-Cola because consumers demand it, and consumers demand it because of the brand that Coca-Cola has created, but that can easily be reversed. If Walmart decided to stock only RC Cola and expel Coca-Cola from its shelves, this would change RC Cola’s fortunes, and harm Coca-Cola, quite a bit.
Preferential placement of a good or service at/near the point of a transaction is something I call “transactional advertising,” which I predict will expand as a category in the coming years. Transactional advertising describes a clear food chain of brand and positioning; the titans at the top are Google, Amazon, Walmart, and other “aggregators” who themselves hold considerable brand equity and/or organic traffic. Smaller players exist in niche fields: BankRate, Shopping.com, Edmunds.com, Lending Tree, even Diapers.com have become destinations that steer consumer decisions. These have potential to be the new “media” companies in a transactional advertising universe, odd as that might sound.
This form of transactional advertising exists today, although you might not know it. Proctor & Gamble spends great effort and expense (though it pales in comparison to their brand advertising spend) to ensure eye-level placement wherever its products are sold. Many retailers “charge” for shelf-space, with the clear understanding that better merchandised goods have a better chance of ending up in consumers’ shopping carts.
Today you see very little in the way of transactional advertising online; rarely does one brand pop up in another brand’s checkout experience. There’s a good chance that will change in a major way in the near future. If old media companies can figure out how to attach themselves to more transactions, they have a fighting chance of sticking it out online.
By Andrew Liszewski In some parts of the world, booster seats are required by law for kids up to a certain age or height when traveling in a car, but they also come in handy when eating at a restaurant or going to the movies with little ones. But why should the parents have to carry [...]
By Andrew Liszewski
In some parts of the world, booster seats are required by law for kids up to a certain age or height when traveling in a car, but they also come in handy when eating at a restaurant or going to the movies with little ones. But why should the parents have to carry it around when it’s their kids who will be benefiting from it? The creators of the BoostApak clearly asked that exact same question, and came up with their own answer in the form of this transforming backpack/booster seat that can be easily taken anywhere.
It’s got a hard plastic shell for supporting kids aged 4 to 11, and is ergonomically designed to “protect growing spines and encourage better posture” when used. There’s no pricing information yet since the BoostApak isn’t supposed to come out until April of this year, and while it seems to conform to UK safety regulations, hopefully it will be sold in other parts of the world as well.
There was recently a little skirmish on the web regarding the question of whether or not Microsoft has stopped innovating — whether the internal corporate culture there has thwarted new ideas, and so on. Well, I think we can all agree that Microsoft hasn’t exactly been an innovation machine in recent years; although, with as little currency as the word “innovation” has these days, that’s not saying much — but the fact is that its products haven’t shown as much ingenuity as its competitors in nearly every arena. And like a dragon guarding its hoard, it has striven primarily to maintain its stranglehold on enterprise, which makes up the vast majority of Microsoft’s treasure intake. Who can blame them? You wouldn’t give up a goose that laid golden eggs either. But the the goose is getting old, and people are getting tired of eggs. What’s the next step? Gates once famously said his greatest fear was “someone in a garage who is devising something completely new.” So the solution is simple: start building garages.
There was recently a little skirmish on the web regarding the question of whether or not Microsoft has stopped innovating — whether the internal corporate culture there has thwarted new ideas, and so on. Well, I think we can all agree that Microsoft hasn’t exactly been an innovation machine in recent years; although, with as little currency as the word “innovation” has these days, that’s not saying much — but the fact is that its products haven’t shown as much ingenuity as its competitors in nearly every arena. And like a dragon guarding its hoard, it has striven primarily to maintain its stranglehold on enterprise, which makes up the vast majority of Microsoft’s treasure intake. Who can blame them? You wouldn’t give up a goose that laid golden eggs either. But the the goose is getting old, and people are getting tired of eggs. What’s the next step?
Gates once famously said his greatest fear was “someone in a garage who is devising something completely new.” So the solution is simple: start building garages.
Online dating sites can be daunting. Between setting up the perfect profile and then trying to meet your dream partner from profiles of hundreds of thousands of people on each site (or on some of the more popular sites like Match.com, millions of users ). One startup, OneGuyOneGirl, aims to simplify this process. The site displays One Guy and One Girl each day. You can see a picture on the site and access their Facebook and Twitter pages, as well. And if you like what you see, you can email as the guy/girl directly. You can also request to be featured on the site.
Online dating sites can be daunting. Between setting up the perfect profile and then trying to meet your dream partner from profiles of hundreds of thousands of people on each site (or on some of the more popular sites like Match.com, millions of users ). One startup, OneGuyOneGirl, aims to simplify this process.
The site displays One Guy and One Girl each day. You can see a picture on the site and access their Facebook and Twitter pages, as well. And if you like what you see, you can email as the guy/girl directly. You can also request to be featured on the site.
I admire the simplicity of OneGuy and One Girl, but there are a few holes I’d like to point out. First, it’s unclear how the site will actually makes money and doesn’t appear to have a viable business model. Also, some of the Facebook profiles of some of the featured guys/girls are available, which makes it difficult to know much about the person besides their age and a one sentence description about the individual’s interests. Lastly, the site seems to skew very young; both individuals who were featured today are only 18 and when I’ve checked the site out previously, the individuals were in the same age range.
By Andrew Liszewski Last year we had a brief hands-on with Unisen’s wireless compact keyboard & touchpad device, and while it’s served its purpose well, we’ve already got the hankering to upgrade to this little beauty from Brando. The Rii mini wireless keyboard looks like a display-less cellphone, but it’s designed to control a Windows or [...]
By Andrew Liszewski
Last year we had a brief hands-on with Unisen’s wireless compact keyboard & touchpad device, and while it’s served its purpose well, we’ve already got the hankering to upgrade to this little beauty from Brando. The Rii mini wireless keyboard looks like a display-less cellphone, but it’s designed to control a Windows or Linux based PC via a wireless 2.4GHz RF connection with a decent range of about 30 meters.
All of the keys are backlit, making it particularly useful in a darkened home theater, and the rechargeable lithium-ion battery has a standby time of around 500 to 700 hours, though there’s no mention of how long it will last with regular use. The square shaped touchpad allows it to be used in either a horizontal or vertical orientation, but there’s also a miniature 4-way directional pad that most likely doubles as your standard arrow keys. And if you’re using it in a business or office environment to control a slideshow, there’s even a built-in laser pointer which is a plus for any gadget. Now the $92.00 price tag from Brando is a bit steep, so I imagine a lot of people who might be interested in the keyboard will be holding off until someone posts a review confirming it works as claimed.
We just came across Packrati.us, a simple bookmarking service that allows you to essentially sync your Twitter feed with your Delicious bookmarks. Once you sign up with you Twitter and Delicious accounts, Packrati will follow your Twitter feed, and whenever one of your tweets contains URLs, the site will add them to your Delicious.com bookmarks. You can also bookmark URLs in @replies to you. In your Delicious account, the service will include any hashtags you include as tags for your bookmark and include the full text of the tweet in the bookmark comments. Here’s an example of the White House Twitter account’s tweeted URLs in Delicious, using Packrati’s tool.
We just came across Packrati.us, a simple bookmarking service that allows you to essentially sync your Twitter feed with your Delicious bookmarks. Once you sign up with you Twitter and Delicious accounts, Packrati will follow your Twitter feed, and whenever one of your tweets contains URLs, the site will add them to your Delicious.com bookmarks.
You can also bookmark URLs in @replies to you. In your Delicious account, the service will include any hashtags you include as tags for your bookmark and include the full text of the tweet in the bookmark comments. Here’s an example of the White House Twitter account’s tweeted URLs in Delicious, using Packrati’s tool.
Last summer, Delicious launched a deeper integration with Twitter, to allow you to also tweet your bookmarked links out. Packrati’s ability to add the URLs your Tweet out to your Delicious bookmarks is so simple, yet serves as an incredibly useful tool to store and organize the links you send out. Of course, you may not want to bookmark all of the URLs you Tweet out, so the site could make your Delicious account a bit noisy.
By Andrew Liszewski Clearly not content with letting Ryobi steal all those carpenters who grew up with MP3 players and digital cameras, Stanley is striking back with their Jobsite Radio and iPod Dock which appears to be a rather sturdy and durable source for tunes on a construction site. It’s got an AM/FM radio of course, [...]
By Andrew Liszewski
Clearly not content with letting Ryobi steal all those carpenters who grew up with MP3 players and digital cameras, Stanley is striking back with their Jobsite Radio and iPod Dock which appears to be a rather sturdy and durable source for tunes on a construction site. It’s got an AM/FM radio of course, but on the back you’ll also find a place for stashing and connecting an iPod or presumably any MP3 player given the headphone cable that’s wired in there. It will also play MP3 or WMA files directly off of an SD card or USB flash drive, and can be powered by an AC hookup or connected to a 12V DC battery. $59 from Northern Tool + Equipment.
It’s a rare day that I find the opportunity to write about entrepreneurism and Canada in a single post. It’s rarer still that I’m able to do it twice in one day. But apparently today is that day. Earlier today I wrote about 
Canada isn’t shy about making life 
The marriage of brand advertising and free content is facing peremptory annulment. There is no shortage of punditry around “the death of the media company” and whether it is a just dessert or a societal travesty. But that’s looking at it from the media company and consumer viewpoint – what do advertisers think about all of this? Where is online advertising headed and what does that mean for free content? Making content free was not a well thought out business model. Rather, before the days of Sirius XM and DirecTV, there was no more of a way to charge for freely accessible radio waves than there was to charge for air or sunshine. Making content free, and charging for advertising interspersed in that free content, was pretty much the ONLY business model back then. And it worked pretty well, because supply (advertising “units”) was limited by the amount of content produced and, more importantly, by the narrow “channels” where such content was made available. With such low supply, high demand, and massive reach, it was easy to reach large swaths of the populace. The advertisers couldn’t really quantify their results, but they came up with a wide variety of methods to attempt to do so. Market research firms such as ACNielsen flourished to fill the need for “metrics.”
There was recently a little skirmish on the web regarding the question of whether or not Microsoft has 
Online dating sites can be daunting. Between setting up the perfect profile and then trying to meet your dream partner from profiles of hundreds of thousands of people on each site (or on some of the more popular sites like Match.com, millions of users ). One startup,
We just came across 
Entries (RSS)