Silicon Valley Technology Commentary & Archives · Est. 2006 3,045 Posts · 2006–2026

September 23, 2014

September 23, 2014 · 3 MIN READ · BY LOUIS GRAY

Zillowionnaires Common As Bay Area Property Prices Boom

Zillowionnaires Common As Bay Area Property Prices Boom

While much of the world isn't all that sympathetic to the concerns of a relatively well-off Bay Area population that is home to some of the most successful tech companies on the planet, there's a clear and increasing separation of the exceptionally comfortable (read: rich) group, and those being squeezed by a higher cost of living that is rapidly outpacing any kind of increase in income.

As I wrote just over a year ago (See: DINKs vs SITKOMs and Other Family Finance Disasters), Bay Area housing costs are putting incredible pressure on families who haven't been lucky enough to partake in an IPO or acquisition (or two). Neighborhoods that seem average can be shockingly full of homes valued well over a million dollars, putting mortgages well out of reach, and rents continue to skyrocket. For those who already own a home, this can be a great source of comfort, but for those on the outside looking in, the circumstances aren't getting any better.


This summer, a home with an identical floorplan to our own went on sale, and spent less than two weeks on the market before a bid was accepted. Curious, given the continued balloon in costs in our neighborhood, I awaited the final results. Eventually, Redfin and Zillow updated to show the home had gone for $626 a square foot, 52% higher than the $412 a square foot my wife and I paid when we bought our home just four years ago. The buyers, unsurprisingly, have two working parents - one employed at eBay, and the other at Google. They could afford it. But being a single income parent, it's pretty unlikely that I could afford to move into our own neighborhood today. I'd be priced out. Even a two bedroom, one bathroom home with 1,160 square feet can clear $1.1 million on the asking price, thanks to location, and a sizeable lot.

Zillow Shows Sunnyvale With Million Dollar Homes a Plenty

Having worked in Silicon Valley since 1998, I've seen the rise and fall in the economy following the first dotcom boom, the 2001 recession following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, another recovery and the bank and housing collapse in 2008 and 2009, which saw many people, even in the Bay Area, underwater. But the rise and fall of property prices hasn't kept the trend steady. For example, the two bedroom, two bathroom apartment I shared with a roommate from 2000 to 2002 initially cost $1,350 a month. It rose to $1,950 during our stay there, and just a decade-plus later, is now $3,519 a month. That's a 161% rise from our $1,350 mark, and 80% over our top price, which was a direct reaction to demand from dotcom money chasers.

Zillow Zillow Everywhere, and No Sub $1Ms to See

For those lucky enough to have been in the right place at the right time, the rise in property assets outstripping cash assets can be a funny thing. Why aren't there opportunities out there to sell equity in your home, and take the cash to pay off your mortgage? The buyer would retain percentage ownership, and have the option to sell the share to another buyer, or wait for the entire unit to be sold to cash out. Assuming a continued rise in prices, the partner would make money on the final transaction, and the current owner would save money through eliminating interest payments to the bank. And there's always selling at a perceived high point and high tailing it to a lower cost state or community, in exchange for reduced access to the go-go Silicon Valley network and economy.

It's pretty nuts. I can basically open the Zillow app practically anywhere in Mountain View, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Menlo Park and Belmont and not have to confront properties with the dreaded K. But the high price of living comes in exchange for higher chance at bigger success. You have to be in the game to win the game, even if the stakes are incredibly high.

September 22, 2014

September 22, 2014 · 3 MIN READ · BY LOUIS GRAY

I Heartily Endorse This Event Or Product

I Heartily Endorse This Event Or Product

Everyone's a cynic. Or at least it can often seem that way, when the concept of 'balanced' reporting means to find the gray cloud for every silver lining, giving equal weight to unequal issues or looking for ulterior motives from well intended people who genuinely find value from products, groups or communities.

Many years ago, I made a decision to use my blog for good and not evil, per se. I recognized there was little value in tearing things down, and that my readers and I would benefit more from a series of highlights than a trolling muckery through half-finished products and half baked business models. (See: Does Negativity Deliver Credibility? If So, That's Nuts.) There are enough good companies and good products that you can showcase the very best - something I've gotten even tighter at since reducing my regular posts here to something less frequent.


But when I do find something I really enjoy, and use regularly, I want to tell you about it, and that position is a genuine one. I want you to see the same benefits I do, and give the company or service more users, improving their chance at success, and extending the network effect, which often brings me value. As +Mark Hopkins said back in 2008, regarding my consistency: "Forget product evangelist. When he likes something, he's a one man crusade."

This weekend's Twitter discussion about sponsored posts.

In a world where many people are using their streams to promote self interests, be it their companies, their stock investments, or pimping their latest book, I'm hyper aware of being trusted. My posts aren't sponsored. So this weekend, after highlighting MightyText, a personal favorite app I helped unveil and have since covered regularly, one Twitter user snarkily suggested the update was an ad, or sponsored. And that's annoying. With Twitter being at times overrun by self-promoters and shillers, it's no good to be lumped in with the dreck.

I use MightyText daily because it's an exceptionally fast way to text from my computer or tablet. I switched to Android more than four years ago because I was very happy with the product's direction and the wealth of choices available compared to iOS, let alone Blackberry or Palm. My preferring one over the other doesn't mean that your choices are bad or that I wish ill on anyone who has selected an alternative. It's just what I prefer, and I'm more than eager to tell you why.

If you're pushing products you don't actually care for, you're in danger of losing the trust earned with those in your community. Sonos and Spotify made sense to me right away. ChromeOS was alluring and is now my go to OS all the time. I've been a happy eTrade user for 15 years. Sunrun and Rachio are saving me money and helping the environment at the same time. The list of brands I've interacted with that I can point you to are many. But it's not because I have hollow self interest. If I did, you could wait to see my disclosures. That's what they're for.

Disclosures: I work at Google, which in some ways competes with Sonos in hardware, Spotify in software and MightyText for messaging. But I still love those products. And Sunrun has a great referral program. But that's not the point.

September 16, 2014

September 16, 2014 · 2 MIN READ · BY LOUIS GRAY

Rachio Users Save 10 Million Gallons of Water Amidst Drought

Rachio Users Save 10 Million Gallons of Water Amidst Drought

California, and much of the Western United States, is in the midst of an incredible drought. But despite the dire warnings to stop wasting water, most sprinkler systems are still pretty dumb, or are just too obtuse and challenging to operate, putting homeowners on the wrong side of conservation. Rachio, which makes a smart, good-looking system you can schedule with a mobile app, just told early users, myself included, that their combined efforts saved more than 10 million gallons - more than a drop in the bucket.

Rachio's Note to Customers Today Reports 10M+ Gallons Saved

Unfortunately, in our home, we know we're higher on the end of water consumption than we'd like to be. Our three kids need baths far too often, and we do our unfair share of laundry and dishwashing. But through heightened awareness of using less water, and our own switch to Rachio, we've been able to cut down our water usage forty percent year over year, and are down 60 percent from just two years ago.

We've dropped our water consumption 60+% in 2 years, and 40% year over year.

Like our move to Sunrun for solar energy, we'll never be perfect, but we're doing better for the environment, and for our wallet. In our bimonthly statement, by switching from a dumb sprinkler system to Rachio, we've already saved more than $100. Two to three more months of savings like that, and our Rachio has paid for itself, in addition to being easier to schedule and just plain looking better.

The Rachio App In Action for a Quick Drip

If you believe this drought is going to continue, or expect that sunny days are going to greatly exceed rainy ones for the near future, there's really two major moves you could adopt to take advantage of it. First, make energy from the sun that's hitting your house anyway, and second, stop using all that water. If you must use your sprinklers, do so sparingly, and overnight, when it's more likely to have impact and not evaporate. You won't catch ours running during the day and spilling into the gutter - thanks to Rachio.

September 10, 2014

September 10, 2014 · 4 MIN READ · BY LOUIS GRAY

If Content is Portable, Where You Consume It Doesn't Matter

If Content is Portable, Where You Consume It Doesn't Matter

My good friend and colleague +Adam Singer lit a thought bubble with his latest rant against the dumb pipe of television, saying the formulaic, reality show centric content there is no longer palatable to generations growing up with many more choices - dominated by the on demand, everything's available alternative of the Internet. The summary, he says... is that who actually watches TV is "the old", backed by data from the Washington Post echoing the same.

The argument that the Internet is supplanting TV is one that can't be denied outright, but I believe it's the wrong discussion. What's happening is that the consumers wield incredible power in terms of deciding what they want to watch, when they want to watch it, and where they want to consume it - thanks to dramatic developments in on demand libraries like Netflix, YouTube and others, content destinations, including the smartphone, tablet, and PC, in addition to the TV, and, yes, the humble DVR, which extended the first volley from the VCR (remember those?) and timeshifted our entertainment to take place whenever we wanted it, not when it first aired.

I agree 100% with Adam that a good chunk of the content that fills TV's many channels is low quality stuff that has no redeeming educational value. Then again, the same could be said for much of the Internet and the many social networks we all participate in. Humans love turning their minds off and being entertained. I prefer to not watch reality shows and soap operas, but I do watch TV for live events, and have a list of serial dramas that I watch with my wife - in addition to late night fare like The Daily Show and Conan O'Brien.

One taking a pro-Internet vs TV stance could say, wait. You can watch The Daily Show or Conan online after they air, just like you watch them on your DVR. Sure. You could also, assuming Major League Baseball lets you, watch streaming games live on your tablet through their app. And you can now watch many of those comedies or dramas the same day or later through various network-led outlets online, or on Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, iTunes or some other place.

And at that point, I think the conversation changes. If you're watching The Daily Show online instead of on TV, you've just changed the destination screen, but are still watching the same content. If you're watching a movie on your tablet instead of on your TV, again, you're watching the same content - and the content producers are still bringing you value, whether you're watching on a 5 inch screen or a 50 inch screen.

As an individual, what I've observed in the last decade or so is that as traditional network television has taken fewer risks with their content, and tapped into a soft pudding of reality shows and 24 hour gab events, the premium cable networks are the ones that have delivered an overwhelming amount of perceived high quality content. From Breaking Bad to Dexter, Homeland, The Killing, Ray Donovan, and others, I'm spending a lot more time watching content on AMC, HBO and Showtime than I do on the stalwarts of ABC, CBS and NBC. And I'm paying them money for the privilege.

The success of shows like Breaking Bad on AMC has seemed to lead quickly to top-notch shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black skipping the TV route altogether and debuting on Netflix. Netflix marries the quality of premium channels with Internet delivery and on demand, which the new generation likes - leading to binge watching instead of scheduled consumption.

But my enjoying those shows instead of reality tripe on network TV doesn't mean the Internet has won. After all, if House of Cards were to be the exact same, only on CBS, I'd still watch it. When I'm making a decision on what to watch, I'm not selecting the show due to any loyalty to a network, a medium or a device. I'm watching it because I want to be informed or entertained. If the only way I can get live sporting events is on my television, that's where I will go. If the only way I can get House of Cards is on Netflix, that's where I will go.

I never bet against the Internet. I have long been a huge advocate of migrating from analog to digital, and bringing content on demand - all of it - to be available any time anywhere. But it's not a contest to consume on one screen instead of another - even if it makes me seem like an old fuddy duddy.

Disclosures: I work at Google, which loves the Internet, and owns YouTube.