As a potential home buyer right now, it's less about prices drop but more about homes not going over asking. When you hit this situation you have to cover the difference. In some cases this could be $30-50k which depending on your downpayment could greatly reduce your buying power. During the pandemic with low interest rates would yield anywhere from 10-20 over asking offers on a home. Now days homes are generally selling close to asking and occasionally you can even get a home under. Yes the supply is lower but people will always ned to sell and it's nice having the buyer pool be smaller and less competitive.
I’m gonna say go the old fashion way. Print out a sheet of paper with a date and time for a meet up. Host a meet up at a bar in a few Saturday’s in the future. Building community starts by being vulnerable and starting small. Even if you get one person to come hangout that’s a win.
This is incredible on so many fronts. 5-10 years ago, I would choose my computer based on it's potential to edit video. A decade ago, most laptops couldn't handle the load of uncompressed video. 5 years ago, having iMovie on your Ipad allowed us to make sub <5 minute videos of low-res/processed files. Now we have an intersection of 1. an Ipad is powerful enough to handle this type of data processing and 2. BMD has found ways of dealing with the huge file sizes and rendering / editing in real time. Unreal. I imagined this would come some day but not today.
Nobody should be shocked that it's computationally possible for a tablet to run this software. The question is why would you opt for that?
This is on a tablet with no proper I/O, running an OS with no user-accessible file system. And, based on screen shots, this software presents essentially the same UI it does on the desktop... which is totally inappropriate (if not unusable) on a touchscreen with one's fingers.
So now we have something that is profoundly gimped by the hardware, for which you have to buy MORE hardware (a Pencil). But the Pencil is only supported by the most expensive iPads.
In the end, you're paying as much as (or more than) you would have for a MacBook Air; a real computer running a computer OS with proper I/O, keyboard, and high-quality video and audio output. It's only marginally bigger than an iPad Pro, and... get this... it has A HEADPHONE JACK, which the iPad Pro does not.
All of that makes the MacBook Air a far better portable solution for Resolve than a tablet will ever be.
> A decade ago, most laptops couldn't handle the load of uncompressed video.
I doubt this is true. In 2006 (so 16 years ago) I bought a mid-tier Windows laptop with a 80 GB IDE HDD and I was cutting uncompressed DV avi files on it in Adobe Premiere just fine. Real time preview and everything.
Yes, pretty incredible considering most of iPad's limitations are artificially imposed by the OS. If Apple would just allow it to be used as a general purpose PC, something they heavily market it as anyway, or gave us the ability to install macOS on it, we probably would've seen announcements like this sooner. The iPad hardware is quite capable, but it's a shame that it's restricted by the OS.
Not many know this but the “walled garden” built around the Apple ecosystem is actually functional as a séance ring keeping the soul of Steve Jobs at peace so it doesn’t rise up from the grave to turn us all into fruitarians.
When it does support it, probably very well. iPads could support editing and playing back multiple simultaneous 4K video streams long before desktop Macs could due to the huge bandwidth between cpu, memory and gpu of A series chips. M chips dialed that up to 11.
As to your storage concerns USB-C iPads, apart from having up to 2TB of internal storage and up to 16 GB of memory, support external drives just as well as any laptop. The time when high end iPads had below low end desktop specs is long gone.
LumaFusion, aka the only way to edit professional video on iPad before this announcement, supports direct editing/ingestion and working directly on an external ssd. With USB-C and thunderbolt supported on the M1 ipads, the experience is basically, hook up your 4TB samsung external portal drive, and edit away. You don't need to copy the information onto the ipad itself. The export also goes to the external drive.
If BMD did not support this fuction for Resolve, they will have a hard time competing against LumaFusion.
However I think LumaFusion will be very carefully monitoring this market. It is theirs to lose.
LumaFusion is a fantastic app, but I do find it a bit fiddly to use sometimes - really precise edits are much harder than they should be. Looking forward to giving Resolve a go though.
Not many people are going to care. I know a lot more people with 4k and lower short videos from iPhones/GoPros/Drones you name it. Being able to edit personal videos on the fly would be very nice.
Surprisingly yes. It used to be a limitation that apps would have to import the file on to local storage, edit, export back to external. But now extra APIs have been added and video editors can edit on external storage.
The iPad has been sitting in this limbo state where they are way more powerful than most people expect but still not really worth it when you can get a MacBook for the same price and do more.
Yes, you plug it in and it shows up in the Files app as another storage source along with iCloud and any third party service you have like OneDrive, Dropbox, Google Drive or you can store files locally in the iPad.
The workflow many post-production studios use for editing/grading is to keep files on a NAS with proxies (i.e., lower-quality transcodes of the video clips in the edit) on a local disk -- that's the workflow I use even with my desktop machine, and I bet it'll work well with this too.
The tests I’ve seen say that (depending on how you implement it) an iPad Pro M1 only pulls 5Gbps (directly powering) to 7.7Gbps (powered) out of a 10GbE card.
I'd generally agree, with the caveat that running a video editing workflow off of a NAS/SAN would want all the speed it can get, which is 10GbE at this time on MacOS/iPad OS (AQC107 chip).
So for copying files over it's bit slower, but for working with stuff it could be a pretty big issue. I really don't know; I haven't tried it as my iPad Pro is an earlier non-TB model.
Yes, but you might be using an iPad to take your rushes and throw together a quick assemble right there on set, "there that's how it'll look", and even import the timeline into your proper project.
OK, iPad Pro has something like 4k-5k video camera, which produces a lot of RAW data anyway (assuming software can access RAW feed with some lossless compression applied), so the problem is still there unless you want to prepare videos with ugly artifacts from compression.
Does the 2TB model have any additional bells and whistles? The difference to the base model is 1300€, which is almost as much as just buying an "average laptop".
The apple website does not mention anything, but that cannot be right.
?
I don't think it is the tool for that job, but for footage acquired on the iPad it will do just fine thank you very much. The iPads are being used for shooting way more frequently than I'd have given credit, until I realize that if an iPad was available back when I was unable to afford other equipment, I'd have used the hell out of it too. We shot the shit out of VHS=>SVHS=>Hi8=>Digi8=>DV/MiniDV as if it were film. Now, there's image stabilization, light as a feather, prices are a fraction of prior so for the price of one thing you can get like 3 or 4, and then consider them crash cams, etc. Then when you get done shooting, there's 0 time wasted on transfering to your editor as your friggin camera is the editor and the color corrector. I mean, why the hell would you not do this if you're a broke ass college film student. hell, even elementary school kids could be doing this. it's mind boggling what kids have at their finger tips now.
And i was agreeing with you. The proselytizing as you call it was me being able to expand past the nonsense proposed and offered up a more compelling workflow. Sorry to offend thy sensitivities on expanding upon a conversation.
I think the under represented view point of the the MBA is you're only as good as your peers and the school's connections. Top Tier MBA programs, provide inside tracks to companies in a way I have never seen. Ex. When I was interviewing at McKinsey, I had to do a number of additional interviews because I only had an undergrad. Meanwhile a friend from Northwestern's Kellogg was offered a position after ONE interview.
The math I've done when considering an MBA is a top tier program is expensive, competitive and I can't work during that time. The value besides connections is a the potential pivot into a field that I otherwise wouldn't have as accelerated of a path into. As many have said, if you're interested in business as a basic level, try starting a business you will learn. If you want to go be an executive at a mid to large scale company, consider and MBA from a top tier school.
I feel like this is just trying to rebrand “lifestyle businesses” or small businesses in general. Where I grew up it wasn’t uncommon for people to have businesses that did a few million in sales and the whole family worked at. While not as sexy as getting angel investment, it sustained a quality of life that met their needs. In order to run a successful business you don’t NEED mass profits or VC dollars.
There's somewhere between a "lifestyle business" and a unicorn though. You can be a contractor with a focus on re-doing roofs and pull in $1m/year without too much work once you have things running. You will be wealthy, but you won't ever pull in $20m/year. I think it's fair to call that a "lifestyle business".
I know of a company near me that has $300M/year revenue (gross, not net) that sells cables and other equipment to ISPs in the region. It's owned by one person. I don't know their margins, but that person might be making $20M/year. They might be able to grow that business and sell it for $500M dollars if they play their cards right. I wouldn't call that a "lifestyle" or "small" business. It's somewhere in the middle.
I think it's the latter type that the article is referring to.
Oh, come on. You are putting one third of the economy as "lifestyle businesses"? How many fast food franchises make less than that per year, are they "lifestyle businesses"?
Lifestyle business doesn't mean what you think it means. Supports a persons or family lifestyle (i.e. you need a place to live, food, essentials, and could be more than just that...), rather than being for investors to make equity growth.
That definition is still horrible. Plenty of investors interested in buying equity in a franchise or retail shops. What that has to do with "lifestyle"?
No. The definitions of these are clear. It's pretty easy to define what is a franchise and what is a retail shop.
The problem is with this definition of "lifestyle business". What is the cutoff? What does it mean to "support a lifestyle?" If a company makes 10M/year and it is growing at a healthy pace without VC capital, is it "lifestyle"?
If someone makes a living of investing in fast food franchises, each shop by itself taking 500k of initial investment and then returning $100k/year in profit, do you count each individual franchise as a "lifestyle" business or the whole thing as an "equity investment"?
Like others said already (and maybe that is the point of TFA), this definition of "lifestyle business" seems to serve only as a way for VCs to downplay the significance and importance of so many businesses that exist in every sector.
Clear and broad at the same time. A Times Square McDonalds store and a country town uniform shop fall under this umbrella.
Cut off is “would an investor buy equity for growth”.
Some people own say 5 mcdonalds franchises: the owning business might be a growth one if they are planning to expand. Might be lifestyle if they don’t. Dynamics
matter as much as a static snapshot view.
Might be a middle ground but I think it is small. Coops for example.
My interpretation of the comment was that tons of business are just clumped into the “lifestyle” category just because they don’t aim to maximize valuation.
Also there was a time when "lifestyle business" was getting shade as if it an inferior product for inferior people. I think that was probably just VC shade being thrown at it because they couldn't do anything with the kind of business. That and platforms probably ate away at their core offerings...
As someone who owns a lifestyle business, I think the domain of lifestyle businesses is almost entirely distinct from that of startups. Something that has the potential to be a startup (massive growth), could not be "held back" to remain a lifestyle business. And things that are lifestyle business generally cannot be grown at the pace of a startup.
Almost by definition, a lifestyle business lacks the potential for massive growth. If it has it, and the owner tries to 'hold it back' someone else will come along and capture the rest of the market. The incentive to do so is large.
Occasionally, you will see privately held businesses that have the potential of startups, but they are not lifestyle businesses (maybe mailchimp). They grow into full fledged businesses that just happen to be privately held. They will often find ways of funding their growth (and have options for doing so), even if that isn't VC.
That said, lifestyle businesses are awesome for your lifestyle. I didn't think I wanted one until I ended up with one, and it turns out high-ish income, total control of your time, and direct positive relationships with customers are a great lifestyle for me.
This framing assumes that venture capital is both efficient and perfect at identifying potential for massive growth. In reality, there are many technology companies with potential for massive growth that are under-appreciated by the venture community - they don't fit into the right boxes, and if they were to get on the "fundraising treadmill" as the OP describes it, they'd be stuck in a situation where they're forced to spend aggressively without being able to rely on future fundraising making that burn sustainable. The good news is that would-be competitors would be in the same situation. So it's very possible for such a company to think like a startup in terms of its goals, but move at a more sustainable pace than if it were given hundreds of millions to burn. And those startups can still raise from VC when they've proven out their model, if they choose to do so - but it's important that they have a path to success as a startup that doesn't require those levels of cash injections.
Might be an effort by VCs to sell their own lifestyle. "Start a company in your dorm and become a billionaire by 25." Is possibly more compelling than "Start a business that might make 5M a year in 10 years and then live a relaxing well funded life."
Of course, they are on the back foot. If you have a successful indie business, make good money why would you accept VC investment? If you do it's on your terms and that often means worse deals for VC's. I can't blame VC's because their business modal is really different, they need to make a 100x not a value investment.
Local banks can provide the capital, often collateralized by your house. Also small business loans from the government and accelerator awards can provide 6 figure amounts. I know some "generic" business people who are fairly wealthy and they own things like food franchises and apartment complexes.
There are many paths to becoming rich that don't involve VCs and billion dollar exits. 99% of entrepreneurs don't talk to or know anything about the VC system. But if you are in tech and want to hire the best possible team to create something new, you need a lot of capital because those people are super expensive labor. And VCs don't want to give you $XX millions of dollars if the potential return is 2x. So that's the system we have in tech.
My question is why does everyone with the next CRUD SaaS app think they need to hire the “best people”?
I’ve seen plenty of job openings where companies want “ninja rockstar 10x developers” to write what ends up being something that anyone who knows the latest MVC framework with three years of experience can do competently.
And most “entrepreneurs” who own franchising are barely middle class and “bought a job”. The average fast food franchise, convenient store averages about $70K a year and that’s with the owner working insane hours and putting their family to work as free labor.
A 10x programmer can get things off the ground very fast.
Back at my peak. Me and another guy got a new startup to 1,000 paying clients in b2b space in 2 years. We had a few “regular” guys that helped out, but they would have taken 20 years to do what we did.
I consider myself a “regular guy” (and 80% of drivers think they are above average). But I believe I can go through my LinkedIn profile and find a bunch of “regular guys” that I’ve worked with through the years that if you combine us with a “product guy”, an empty AWS account and a budget. We could put together a standard SaaS app.
This is where the term "Mittelstand" gets lost in translation, and speaks to the Author's point that the Americanized definition of start-up has become too polarized and absolute.
It is neither a lifestyle business nor a shareholder-driven business.
Mittelstand doesnt even have agreed upon definition here in Germany. I've heard people call everything and anything that lies between your local mom and pop show and Volkswagen "mittelständisch".
My (very wrong) opinion on what Mittelstand is: I think of a small-to-medium sized company that manufactures (I've never thought of service providing companies as Mittelstand) one group of things at a very high and competitive level. I think of companies that are pretty much strictly B2B. These are mostly family-owned businesses, but for me that doesnt need to be true. Companies that you only know of, when you need to know. And when you do need to know about them, you most definitely will know about them.
Again, this definitely isnt what most people consider to be Mittelstand. Just my view on it.
and you can always just be an investor in a business with simple % ownership and splitting net revenues at any interval you want. no multiple share classes, no liquidity preferences, no need for infinite growth or growth at all
> top-tier VC returns by building a portfolio of Mittelstand businesses
I’m not sure this is true. You could get good relative percentage returns, but in terms of absolute returns, I’m not sure the math is there. Meaning, if you invest $1M in a smaller company and get a 20X return, that’s pretty good. But smaller companies won’t have much more need for investment capital. So, your absolute return is limited to $20M.
Now, if you have a larger company that needs $100M in investments (over multiple rounds), but still gets a 20X return, that’s a $2B return.
You have the same relative rate, but a massive difference in absolute numbers. To get the same absolute return, you’d need 100X more companies in a portfolio, which is just not manageable. Even with a 2X return in a $100M investment, you’re still way ahead in absolute terms. ($100M >> $19M)
What I think you’re really trying to argue for is that there needs to be smaller VC portfolios with smaller expectations. I think this is possible, but it’s more difficult to hedge bets with smaller expected returns.
Is Berkshire Hathaway a lifestyle business? Because it started out as one.
That’s his point. Small businesses can become unicorns - but they need space and time to grow. We need a better environment, and a more nuanced understanding, of them.
> Is Berkshire Hathaway a lifestyle business? Because it started out as one.
My skept-o-meter went off-scale upon reading this. Can you point to exactly when BH was a lifestyle business and what they were doing at that point that would classify them as a lifestyle business?
Yes, but why would you say that it was a lifestyle business? I mean, it's not about size or being family-funded, I'd argue that this hedge fund was something entirely different from a lifestyle business since day 1.
A good hack to getting lots of random legos cheap is buying bulk lots off of eBay. Most people sell by the pound and it’s always fun to see what you’ll get!
Another good way to get lots of random pieces cheap is go to eBay and look for bulk lots. Most people sell by the pound and ultimately it’s just your imagination holding you back!
A collective of independent bookshops all across the US. They split the proceeds and it seems rather equitable. That or Powells books because they are awesome and local to me.
