Having spent time over the past two years in start-up mode i'd agree that many of the government programs fail to make a distinction between tech and web and that web is frowned upon. The much missed 'commercial ready' program was much more slanted towards tech widget making and couldn't even define us as a service business that used the web.
In our visit to the US in October (and in build up to our UK visit in 6 weeks) our place as a web business is much better understood and the benefits quantified - we actually have these foreign governments chasing us to relocate (and we are a web based loyalty program aggregator)!
I'm not complaining - COMET has been a great support for us and has connected us well (due mainly to our COMET advisor who is a gun networker). It's also allowed us to work with great people like Mick @ Pollenizer, but we've definitely felt that the Gov and VC community have a harder time coming to terms with web start-up.
Don't know what you and Pesce had a fight about but there's our experience.
Mark Pesce
· 7 months ago
Well, I don't suppose I'll shut the fuck up now, because you're still reiterating the same lame points you made in your post the other day.
My point - and feel free to disagree with me on it - is that it doesn't matter at all what the Government does. Full stop. Create a favorable investment environment, or not. (The US does not particularly favor investments in technology startups, contrary to what Duncan seems to believe.) Just so long as the government isn't actively standing in the way of such investments, they will bear fruit.
The rest is just whinging about why Australians aren't creating more businesses proportionately, than they are today. To this I'd just like to point out that Australia somehow managed to avoid ever having an Industrial Revolution, so many of the processes (both cognitive and legal) which lead to a startup-based culture simply aren't present in Australia in the same numbers. The lack of a viable venture capital culture in Australia is a clear indication of this. Can it be fixed? Probably. But it would require risk, and right now those with capital are risk-adverse.
Perhaps we need some sort of government intervention. ;-)
m0nty
· 7 months ago
I disagree with Mark on several points. Duncan is right about CGT deferment - that seems to me to be a no-brainer move that won't cost the government anything, and VCs definitely take notice of tax avoidance as Dunc says. It encourages continued investment in tech, not just fly-by-night lurks.
I don't think it's true to say that there's not a viable VC culture. The key is that there's not a viable angel culture. And who are the most regular angels? Friends and family, sure, but also previously successful entrepreneurs. It's a virtuous circle that the government could play a role in speeding up.
It does grate me, however, when people do get a teensy bit whiny about the handouts given to the likes of the pine plantation industry and demand the same thing. Incentives to invest are one thing, government grants at $900 a pop are something else. I'd prefer more of the former.
Stilgherrian
· 7 months ago
To clarify one point for me, I was under the impression that tax concessions for research & development happened no matter what sort of R&D was being done, whether it be process improvement in coal mining or flux-generator efficiency improvements for time travel. Is that correct?
However what's being suggested is that other government programs, such as direct investment or places at NSW Technology Park or profile raisin through Austrade, tend to be more selective of the sectors they support -- and that anything web-based is looked down upon. Yeah?
If so, then I contend that's due to the failure of the web-based industries to lobby effectively i the traditional places where such lobbying is done. While there are certainly a few smart players out there doing their best, the bulk of the web-based industry players are, I reckon, spending to much time talking amongst themselves and whinging that the politicians don't come to them, rather than going to where the politicians are.
@Duncan Riley and @Mark Pesce: Please stop being such self-righteous stubborn pricks. I know it's in both your natures, but on this occasion it's annoying rather than endearing :) You're both smart, and you're both largely on the same page. Energy spent on refusing to budge an inch from strongly-held positions on the edge of the issue is energy wasted.
Sarah Stokely
· 7 months ago
I'm glad I came back here to see Stilgherrian being the voice of reason. :)
All Comments
In our visit to the US in October (and in build up to our UK visit in 6 weeks) our place as a web business is much better understood and the benefits quantified - we actually have these foreign governments chasing us to relocate (and we are a web based loyalty program aggregator)!
I'm not complaining - COMET has been a great support for us and has connected us well (due mainly to our COMET advisor who is a gun networker). It's also allowed us to work with great people like Mick @ Pollenizer, but we've definitely felt that the Gov and VC community have a harder time coming to terms with web start-up.
Don't know what you and Pesce had a fight about but there's our experience.
My point - and feel free to disagree with me on it - is that it doesn't matter at all what the Government does. Full stop. Create a favorable investment environment, or not. (The US does not particularly favor investments in technology startups, contrary to what Duncan seems to believe.) Just so long as the government isn't actively standing in the way of such investments, they will bear fruit.
The rest is just whinging about why Australians aren't creating more businesses proportionately, than they are today. To this I'd just like to point out that Australia somehow managed to avoid ever having an Industrial Revolution, so many of the processes (both cognitive and legal) which lead to a startup-based culture simply aren't present in Australia in the same numbers. The lack of a viable venture capital culture in Australia is a clear indication of this. Can it be fixed? Probably. But it would require risk, and right now those with capital are risk-adverse.
Perhaps we need some sort of government intervention. ;-)
I don't think it's true to say that there's not a viable VC culture. The key is that there's not a viable angel culture. And who are the most regular angels? Friends and family, sure, but also previously successful entrepreneurs. It's a virtuous circle that the government could play a role in speeding up.
It does grate me, however, when people do get a teensy bit whiny about the handouts given to the likes of the pine plantation industry and demand the same thing. Incentives to invest are one thing, government grants at $900 a pop are something else. I'd prefer more of the former.
However what's being suggested is that other government programs, such as direct investment or places at NSW Technology Park or profile raisin through Austrade, tend to be more selective of the sectors they support -- and that anything web-based is looked down upon. Yeah?
If so, then I contend that's due to the failure of the web-based industries to lobby effectively i the traditional places where such lobbying is done. While there are certainly a few smart players out there doing their best, the bulk of the web-based industry players are, I reckon, spending to much time talking amongst themselves and whinging that the politicians don't come to them, rather than going to where the politicians are.
@Duncan Riley and @Mark Pesce: Please stop being such self-righteous stubborn pricks. I know it's in both your natures, but on this occasion it's annoying rather than endearing :) You're both smart, and you're both largely on the same page. Energy spent on refusing to budge an inch from strongly-held positions on the edge of the issue is energy wasted.