Archive for February 10, 2013

Rumors of Apple developing a smartwatch, cheekily dubbed the “iWatch” by gadget geeks, aren’t dying off anytime soon.

Now even the New York Times is reporting that Apple is developing “wristwatch-like devices” — though the interesting spin this time is that the devices are reportedly made of curved glass.

According to two sources familiar with Apple’s plans, the iWatch will run iOS and lean heavily on its curved glass design to differentiate itself from competitors. It sounds like Apple is working on yet another massive leap in how we view commonplace devices, similar to how the iPhone seemed generations beyond other cellphones when it was first released.

Corning’s new Willow Glass, a flexible new type of glass that’s both incredibly thin and bendable, could be the mysterious curved glass in question, according to the New York Time’s Nick Bilton. That wouldn’t be a huge stretch for Apple — Corning’s Gorilla Glass was brought back from obscurity thanks to Steve Jobs’ desire to have a strong glass for the iPhone. Gorilla Glass has since gone on to be an industry standard for smartphone and tablet screens.

The last iWatch rumor suggested that Apple was working on a Bluetooth-capable smartwatch with an Intel chip, but that report never really caught my interest since it seemed like a minor step for Apple. Introducing the first wearable device with curved glass to the public seems more like Apple’s style — just like how the iPhone made touchscreen smartphones seem commonplace, and the iPad made it clear that even large displays could benefit from touchscreen tech.

Given just how much hype the Pebble smartwatch project has seen, it’s clear that there’s a desire for some sort of high tech device on our wrists. An iWatch will likely do more than show you messages and texts — it will likely incorporate some sort of activity tracking technology, similar to Nike’s Fuelband and Jawbone’s Up.

While the tech world seems gung-ho for a big screen iPhone and the increasingly crazy idea of an Apple-made television, a small screen iWatch could ultimately be far revolutionary.

Update: The Wall Street Journal is also reporting on a potential iWatch today, adding that Apple has been in discussions with Foxconn about it.

Photo: An iPod nano watch, by Ruben Schade/Flickr

This is a guest post by Stephen Ebbett

If you have a new iPhone 5, Android smartphone or other mobile device, watch out — you may be targeted by electronic device thieves. It’s a growing problem: The FCC reports that 30 to 40 percent of robberies in several major U.S. cities now involve mobile phones, and the spike in thefts of Apple products like the iPhone and iPad has inspired a new nickname for the crime: “Apple picking.”

---

Related: Our reporter was mugged in San Francisco. Read her safety tips here.

---

There’s a growing black market for stolen mobile devices, with crooks following supply and demand trends just as legitimate merchants do. But there are ways to safeguard your investment in mobile devices like the iPhone 5 — and protect the vital personal data stored on your smartphone.

Here are five tips to help you prevent thefts and beat mobile device thieves at their own game:

1. Don’t leave your smartphone unattended: No one would leave $700 on the table while going to the coffee shop counter to pick up an order, but people leave their shiny new mobile devices unattended all the time, providing a golden opportunity for thieves. Don’t make that mistake.

2. Install a tracking app: Both Android and Apple smartphones offer free tracking apps you can install to help you recover your device if someone steals it. The apps allow you to log onto another device like a laptop or tablet and track your missing device’s current location.

3. Be aware of your surroundings: Treat your iPhone 5 or other smartphone like you would a wallet – chances are it is more valuable than the contents of your billfold! Avoid handling it in unsafe areas, and keep both hands on the device to thwart thieves when you do have to display it in public.

4. Make sure you set a passcode: You probably have a lot of personal data on your smartphone – including private messages, contact information and even mobile banking data. This can be a bonanza for thieves, but you can stop them in their tracks with a simple passcode.

5. Ask your carrier for help: If your smartphone goes missing and you are unable to track it through a GPS app, your wireless carrier may be able to help. Contact customer service immediately and ask them to help you recover your phone and protect your personal data.

As long as there’s a black market for stolen smartphones, thieves will target them, so it pays to be prepared. Your new iPhone 5 or Android device is a big-ticket item, and if you are protected by a warranty only, theft may not be covered at all, and it’s likely you’ll have to pay much more out of pocket to replace your device than the original purchase price.

Stephen Ebbett is President of Protect Your Bubble, a new kind of insurance brand that understands that 21st century lives are busy and complicated and offers an online service that makes insurance simple and uncomplicated. The company offers a range of insurance products, such as iPhone 5 insurance, that has been specifically tailored to offer protection in a fast changing, modern world, so that customers are prepared if the unexpected happens, with the coverage and support they need in place and immediately available. 

Stolen cell phone image // Innershadows Photography, Shutterstock

This is a guest post by Eran Laniado, the managing director of BMN.

Has this happened to you? You needed to consult with a friend about an important matter, but when you finally met, you realized that he was hardly interested in your problem. Even worse, he half-heartedly gave you vague and remotely related advice. Could it get more frustrating?

Similarly, a CEO may feel that the board of directors does not help the company. She may be right — board meetings could be a waste of time; board members may be unproductive or burdensome; in the worst cases, lack of board cooperation may prevent a successful exit. Kevin Rose got an offer to sell Digg for $60 million a few years ago, but his board rejected it. Digg was sold for mere $500,000 back in July 2012.

Board ineffectiveness often stems from board nomination mistakes. Here are five big mistakes that are often made when choosing board members — and, maybe more importantly, tips on avoiding them.

1. Wrong People on the Board

Board members can be great resources who provide support, knowledge, and access to unique professional networks. Unfortunately, not all board members offer such value.

For example, some board members prioritize the interests of the investors or founders whom they represent far above those of the startup.

Scott Kurnik, an experienced entrepreneur and investor, advises not to nominate to the board anyone reporting to the CEO. Interestingly enough, he also suggests putting the founder’s best friend on the board.

Additionally, one should be careful of five types of dysfunctional board members as defined by Jack and Suzy Welch: The Do-Nothing; The White Flag (will do anything to avoid confrontation); The Cabalist (driven by personal agenda); The Meddler (dwells incessantly on details); and The Pontificator (only enjoys hearing himself speak).

How to avoid this mistake:

• Carefully consider board nominees and ask for feedback from people who have worked with them.
• Appoint at least one independent director, loyal to the company only.

2. Misalignment Regarding the Board’s Role

Boards of directors have many fiduciary and legal responsibilities. Still, boards often have additional roles, correlated with the venture’s stage.

At early-stage startups, members should support the management (without micro-managing it). For example, they may help guide product decisions or provide access to recruits, customers, and investors. Ideally, board members could also mentor founders. More established startups, however, may need a different type of assistance related to scaling sales, engineering, logistics, and other functions that no longer fit into a garage.

The above roles differ from those at publicly traded companies, where board members extensively monitor the firm’s performance and confirm that the management does not put its interests before the company’s (“the agent problem”).

Matt Blumberg, the CEO of PathReturn provides a useful summary of what makes awesome board members.

How to avoid this mistake:

• Check whether the candidate has board experience with firms of similar stages and needs.
• Discuss with the candidate expectations of the board’s role and responsibilities.

3. A Homogeneous Board

It is important not to form a board of too similar profiles (e.g., all are engineers or all have similar VC backgrounds) and to diversify your startup to confirm that the various required skills are in place.

David Roth, the co-founder of AppFirst, described recently how the need to balance the board guided his startup’s decisions.

Aileen Lee of Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers has an interesting argument, that the next board member should be a woman, especially if women compose a significant portion of the venture’s users.

How to avoid this mistake:

• List the skills and experience needed from the board (Product design? Customer acquisition? Partnerships? User experience? A great rolodex?).
• Consider rejecting solid candidates whose skills and experience are common within the board in favor of candidates who possess the missing skills and attributes.

4. Too Many Board Members

An entrepreneur once complained, “My board keeps on growing.” VC-backed startups often encounter this problem when a new round of financing entitles investors to board seats. Sometimes, “observer rights” increase the number of attendants even more.

At some point, a board’s growth has diminishing returns. For a startup, a ten-person board will rarely be as engaged and helpful as a smaller one will. Further, the logistics (assembling everyone, arranging one-on-one time with the CEO before board meetings, etc.) become exponentially more complex. Fred Wilson from Union Square Ventures thinks a board of five members is ideal. He recommends no more than 7 board members (two founders, one to three VCs, and one to two other industry professionals).

How to avoid this mistake:

• Negotiate the number of future board seats entitled with investors in the shareholders agreement.
• Prefer nominees who will agree to leave the board when it grows or when their skill sets become less relevant.
• Consider building a board of advisors to access additional experience without increasing the size of the board of directors.

5. Poor Organizational Fit

Some board relationship problems can harm the company severely. For example, board members who get involved in day-to-day decisions instead of supporting the management (or replacing the CEO, when necessary) can inhibit the CEO’s ability to lead.

Another problem occurs when board members accustomed to aggressive corporate cultures meet a CEO for whom “aggressive” equals “rude.”

Furthermore, pushy board members can cause CEOs to commit to unrealistic plans. It’s true that CEOs are responsible for their own decisions, but they can still be unduly pressured, especially when the board member is an investor (whom an inexperienced CEO may feel obligated to please).

Last, some board members may be professionally adept, but they do not show interest in mentoring the management, nor can they successfully interact with other members, bond, or build team spirit.

Steve Blank provides a painful example of poor relationships between one of his ex-students and the chair of his startup.

How to avoid this mistake:

• Check each candidate’s track record (tenure, reasons for leaving, relationships developed) as board member at other firms.
• Replace board members who negatively impact the board’s internal relationships. This is not easy, but in extreme cases, it is necessary.

Eran Laniado advises multinational firms and mentors entrepreneurs. He gained corporate experience as VP of Business Development Strategy of a NYSE traded firm and as a member on boards of directors. He writes about strategy, business models, and innovation on his blog on bmnow.com and can be followed at @EranLan.

Board meeting image via Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

Dan Frommer, Business Insider

See Also

Apple Considered Making A Car Before The iPhone, Says SVP Phil Schiller

NYT: Apple Is Developing A Curved-Glass Smart Watch

The iWatch Could Be The First Step In Apple’s Plan To Kill The iPhone

Here’s a nugget of news buried in Nick Bilton’s story on Apple potentially making an iWatch:

In a meeting in his office before he died, Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s co-founder and former chief executive, told John Markoff of The New York Times that if he had more energy, he would have liked to take on Detroit with an Apple car.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard about Jobs interest in making a car. Apple board member Mickey Drexler said Jobs’ dream was to make an iCar.

While it would seem unlikely for Apple to make a car, wouldn’t just automatically dismiss the idea. Two of Apple’s most important executives are car guys.

Eddy Cue, who runs Internet Services, is on the board of Ferrari.

Phil Schiller, who is in charge of marketing is all about cars. His Twitter bio is: Apple, Sports, Cars, Science, and Rock And Roll. He used to tweet photos of cars all the time.

With Google exploring self-driving cars, maybe somewhere down the road Apple decides to test a completely new market…

Steve Kovach, Business Insider

See Also

Sorry Apple Fans, Your iPad Can’t Do This

Microsoft Tried And Failed To Make The Future Happen Now

200 Million People Want A Microsoft Windows Tablet And Not An iPad

Within a day of launch, Microsoft’s new Surface Pro tablet has sold out at most retail locations.

The 128 GB model of the Surface Pro is no longer listed as in stock on Microsoft’s online store, and we’ve seen several tweets and comments on sites like Business Insider and Supersite For Windows that say retail locations like Best Buy and Staples are sold out. The cheaper, 64 GB Surface Pro is still listed as in stock on Microsoft’s site.

But the question remains how many units were available to begin with. There are several threads on Reddit where users complain retail locations like Best Buy and Staples only had a few Surface Pros in stock or none at all. Same goes for comments on the official Surface blog. It appears many retail locations only had a handful of devices to sell on launch day and quickly sold out.

Here’s what one disappointed customer had to say (cleaned up for grammar, spelling, clarity, etc.) on the Surface blog. We’ve seen several similar complaints on various sites. 

Tried every outlet that Microsoft released the Surface Pro. Cannot get my hands on the 128 GB version. My local Staples and Best Buy stores ( 2 of each ) had 2 64 GB versions for sale each and ran out by 9:15 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. on Feb. 9 and had no 128 GB versions at all. What is wrong with you guys at Microsoft?

The head of Microsoft’s Surface team, Panos Panay, responded to the complaints in a tweet, “We’re excited for the response to Pro. Some are having trouble getting it. Sorry you’re having to wait. We’re working hard to get u Pro ASAP.”

SEE ALSO: 
The Surface Pro Review

Business Insider, St. Louis Fed

Cuts in government spending from the “sequester” may start to kick in on March 1st.

These cuts will force the U.S. to sharply reduce military and entitlement spending.

Cutting such spending sharply is a terrible idea, for several reasons.

First, sharply cutting military spending might suddenly weaken our position in several key areas of the world. Gradually reducing our commitments makes sense, but doing it suddenly does not.

Second, and even more important, cutting spending like this will hammer the economy, just the way the sharp cut in military spending in Q4 hammered the economy at the end of last year.

The private sector will not immediately replace this government spending (sorry–the “confidence fairy” was a myth), so the unemployment rate will likely rise and consumer and business spending drop, thus hurting the rest of the economy.

In short, although the Republicans used to have a legitimate claim to being the party that was smarter about the economy, the GOP’s advocacy of sharp spending cuts to curtail what the party continually describes as “runaway government spending” is, sadly, economic idiocy.

As George Soros, Paul Krugman, Joe Weisenthal and many others have argued for the past several years, the only way out of our current economic malaise and debt and deficit problem is growth.

And slashing spending sharply because, well–because something bad might happen someday if we don’t–will make the economy and debt and deficit problem even worse than it already is. Greece, the U.K., and other countries have tried this “austerity” approach to fix their debt-and-deficit problems in recent years, and these experiments have illustrated that cutting spending to reduce deficits simply doesn’t work. On the contrary, it makes the problem worse.

We have to grow our way out of our debt and deficit problem. There’s just no other way out.

But!

If we are going to cut spending, military spending is a perfectly good place to start.

Why?

Because we spend an astronomical amount on our military.

U.S. military spending has soared over the past decade, and we now spend $700+ billion a year on our military (see chart at top). This dwarfs the military spending of any other country on the planet.

SIPRI, Wikipedia

The No. 2 military spender in the world, China, spends about $140 billion a year on its military–less than a quarter as much. (See chart at right).

Our military spending is so huge, in fact, that it accounts for a staggering 41% of all the military spending in the world.

That’s more than the next 15 biggest military spenders put together. (See chart below,)

The only military spending category in which the U.S. isn’t absurdly dominant is military spending as a percent of GDP. Our economy is so huge that our level of military spending as a percent of the economy–~5%–is behind that of several other countries. Importantly, however, these other countries are small countries with small economies. No other developed or big country comes close to us in military spending, even as a percent of GDP.

SIPRI, Wikipedia

So suggesting that we can’t cut military spending without rendering ourselves a weakling relative to the competition is absurd.

Of course we can.

But those who suggest it would be disastrous to cut this spending all in one go, this year, are correct: As previously suggested, it would hammer the economy.

So we shouldn’t do that.

And, in fact, we shouldn’t even “cut” this spending over the next several years. Rather, we should re-allocate it.

Specifically, instead of just “cutting military spending,” we should gradually shift some of this spending to domestic infrastructure spending.

Business Insider, St. Louis Fed

For years now, as government budgets have gotten tight, we have scrimped on national infrastructure spending. And it shows. On an infrastructure level, the U.S. has become an embarrassment relative to the rest of the world.

Gradually shifting a couple hundred billion dollars a year out of military spending and re-allocating it to domestic infrastructure spending would not harm the economy–because we would still be spending this money.

It wouldn’t reduce employment or harm business or consumer income or spending.

And, importantly, it would allow us to start to address the sad state of our domestic infrastructure, which, by some estimates, needs about $3 trillion of spending just to become safe and state-of-the-art again.

So, yes, we should cut military spending.

But we should cut it gradually.

We should cut it gradually enough that we don’t suddenly screw ourselves in areas of the world in which our military spending is performing a critical function.

And we should cut military spending by re-allocating it, so the overall level of government spending on things like equipment and infrastructure doesn’t drop.

We should cut our military spending because, as much as we want a “strong defense, we certainly don’t need to spend $700+ billion a year on our military when the next-biggest spender on the planet spends only ~$140 billion a year.

Meanwhile, we do need to spend more to bring our national infrastructure into the 21st Century.

And we certainly don’t want to just slash government spending, because that will just make the employment and debt-and-deficit problems worse.

So the answer is a gradual shift… Take some of the vast amount of money we’re currently spending on our military and gradually invest in in shoring up our domestic infrastructure. We can do this with a couple hundred billion dollars a year and still have the most powerful and biggest military on the planet by a factor of two or three. Instead of using this spending to police the rest of the world, we can use it to improve our experience at home. And we can reduce our military expenditures without demolishing our economy in the process.

It’s a win-win all around.

SEE ALSO: Amazing Pictures of Afghanistan Before 30 Years Of War

Military spending by country… Guess who wins:

SIPRI, Wikipedia

Created by Canadian development firm Yafoy, Timehub is a service which lets programmers generate invoices from their GitHub repositories. Yes, developers can now track the time they spend on projects without ever leaving GitHub.

Yafoy details that Timehub is targeted towards “freelancers who need to submit time-based invoices and who spend their time on GitHub.” Given that GitHub passed 3 million users last month, there’s clearly a large potential user base.

To get started, you’ll need to sign in with your GitHub account — that way Timehub can load in your repositories and commits. Then, annotate your commits with the time you spent coding, select which commits to include and generate your invoice (you can send it via email or download it as a PDF).

By tracking the time spent on each commit, developers end up with an easy way to monitor and summarize their work. Timehub also touts itself as a way for developers (aka usually non-designers) to create “beautiful invoices” with little work.

Check it out via the link below and let us know what you think!

➤ Timehub

For more, check out TNW’s full Design Dev channel.

If you’re a hacker or a security researcher, this is a reminder that you don’t have to take on Google’s or Mozilla’s software to get paid for finding a bug. In its first week, the Mega vulnerability reward program has already confirmed and fixed seven bugs, showing that Dotcom really does put his money where his mouth is.

Although Mega hasn’t shared how much money it paid out in the first week, how many bug submissions were made, or even who found which bugs, the company did briefly detail the discovered security holes. It also confirmed that the program is here to stay and urged those participating to find more severe bugs.

Mega also revealed the program classifies vulnerabilities based on their impact. Here are the six classes in order of most severe to least severe:

• Severity class VI: Fundamental and generally exploitable cryptographic design flaws.
• Severity class V: Remote code execution on core MEGA servers (API/DB/root clusters) or major access control breaches.
• Severity class IV: Cryptographic design flaws that can be exploited only after compromising server infrastructure (live or post-mortem).
• Severity class III: Generally exploitable remote code execution on client browsers (cross-site scripting).
• Severity class II: Cross-site scripting that can be exploited only after compromising the API server cluster or successfully mounting a man-in-the-middle attack (e.g. by issuing a fake SSL certificate + DNS/BGP manipulation).
• Severity class I: All lower-impact or purely theoretical scenarios.

In the first week, no Class V and VI vulnerabilities were reported. Here’s the breakdown for the seven bug bounties:

• One Class IV vulnerability: Invalid application of CBC-MAC as a secure hash to integrity-check active content loaded from the distributed static content cluster. Mitigating factors: No static content servers had been operating in untrusted data centres at that time, thus no elevated exploitability relative to the root servers, apart from a man-in-the-middle risk due to the use of a 1024 bit SSL key on the static content servers. Fixed within hours.
• Three Class III vulnerabilities: i) XSS through file and folder names. Mitigating factors: None. Fixed within hours. Ii) XSS on the file download page. Mitigating factors: Chrome not vulnerable. Fixed within hours. iii) XSS in a third-party component (ZeroClipboard.swf). Mitigating factors: None. Fixed within hours.
• One Class II vulnerability: XSS through strings passed from the API server to the download page (through three different vectors), the account page and the link export functionality. Mitigating factors – apart from the need to control an API server or successfully mounting a man-in-the-middle attack –: None. Fixed within hours.
• Two Class I vulnerabilities: i) HTTP Strict Transport Security header was missing. Fixed. Also, mega.co.nz and *.api.mega.co.nz will be HSTS-preloaded in Chrome. Ii) X-Frame-Options header was missing, causing a clickjacking/UI redressing risk. Fixed.

Again, it’s not clear how much each of these bugs are worth. Kim Dotcom first offered up to a €10,000 (about $13,500) bounty for anyone who broke the company’s security systems and then made it official with the security program’s launch on February 2.

Since there were no high-class severity flaws reported in the first week, we can’t use that number. Kim Dotcom did, however, reveal information about one of the payouts in one of his retweets:

Congratulations @fransrosen for XSS in #MEGA. Handsome EUR 1000 in Bug Bounty Program twitter.com/fransrosen/sta…

— The Hacker News™ (@TheHackersNews) February 10, 2013

This appears to be one of the class III severity bug discovered. It’s thus safe to say Mega has already paid out thousands of dollars in bug bounties during the first week of its security program.

Image credit: Miguel Saavedra

Silicon Valley has its fair share of venture capitalists, eager for a chance to get in on the ground-floor of the hottest new startup. We hear about it practically every week when there are funding announcements. But sometimes we don’t hear what companies get beyond the financial support. Just who are the people behind the pursestrings of startups and how have they guided startups from relative obscurity to rockstar status?

Earlier this month, we spoke with Shervin Pishevar, a venture capitalist. If you’ve ever chatted with this man, you’ll know he’s a very interesting person. There’s an aura of je ne sais quoi that resonates around him, and he understands what entrepreneurs are going through — he was one himself.

Described by one startup founder as a “big soft teddy bear,” Pishevar has been labeled as one of Silicon Valley’s “Superconnectors“.

The value of sacrifice

Having immigrated with his parents to the United States in 1976, Iranian-born Pishevar has led a life that personifies the struggles to achieve the American dream. His father came to the country to pursue a master’s degree, but returned to Iran in 1978 prior to the revolution. For him, his experiences during that chaotic time had helped to shape who he was to become in his professional life. In an interview he gave in 2009, Pishevar says it “forged in our minds the sacrifices that our parents were making for us.”

One of the things that drove Pishevar was the drive to learn and study. Back in the US, he attended the University of California-Berkeley and pursued a degree in molecular cellular biology. When he was 20, he published an article on human rights and doctors in JAMA focusing on the details of torture and doctors involvement — it subsequently helped lead to the Istanbul Protocol, which banned physicians from being involved in any form of torture.

His calling

Rather than go into a medical profession, Pishevar decided to become an entrepreneur and start his first company — something he says upset his father, but the younger Pishevar felt he had to go after his calling.

His foray into technology began in 1993 when he came up with the first idea for a company: “At the time I was doing malaria research and was using the library search system. I realized I could search the whole web for information and I found a Japanese researcher who was doing research on the same peptide that I was working on.” From this, Pishevar saw that through technology, he could benefit thousands of people compared to if he was a doctor.

This entrepreneur eventually would introduce the world to its first company, WebOS (formerly MyWebOS), which focused on the web as a platform where he believed applications would reside. It spun off HyperOffice, in which he is still a shareholder in.

Pishevar’s other endeavors included Webs.com (which sold to Vistaprint for $117.5 million) and Social Gaming Network (acquired by Mindjolt in 2011). In addition, he went on to be the chief application officer and general manager at the Mozilla Corporation, while also doing some angel investing. In all, Pishevar funded 50 companies, including Cherry, Socialcam (sold to Autodesk), Klout, Aardvark (sold to Google), Dollar Shave Club, Gowalla (sold to Facebook), TaskRabbit, Rapportive (sold to LinkedIn), Votizen, and others.

All of this has led him to his next chapter in 2011: managing director at Menlo Ventures. Helping to oversee a venture capital fund with more than $4 billion under management, Pishevar has been on the lookout for the next thing in the social web, consumer Internet, and mobile space. He has invested in companies like Uber, Cinemagram, Fab, Getaround, Machine Zone, Mr. Number, Poshmark, Shaker, and Tumblr.

Philanthropy and service

While his career has taken him on a variety of adventures, Pishevar has never stopped thinking about others. If you ask him about his mantra, he’d say:

Surround yourself with value creators so that you can continue to be open with your heart and mind in an environment based on grace, merit and generosity.

By looking at the life that Pishevar leads, he really takes the mantra to heart as he’s an avid and vocal supporter of the tech community and those less privileged and underserved.

On his resume, Pishevar has been named one of 10 members of the UN Foundation’s Global Entrepreneurs Council, serves as an Entrepreneurial Ambassador for several US State Department delegations, and also on President Obama’s Summit on Entrepreneurship. Recently, he was named one of 100 naturalized Americans to be presented the US government’s Outstanding American by Choice award, which recognizes the civic participation, professional achievements, and responsible citizenship that Pishevar has demonstrated as an American.

In addition, he has been an active volunteer in other philanthropic ventures, including helping raise money for clean water in Africa through Charity: Water, and also helping stop the plight of the suffering with Invisible Children. In 2011, Pishevar spoke at the Fourth Estate event at the University of San Diego to supporters of Invisible Children, which organized the Kony 2012 campaign:

And there’s no signs of Pishevar slowing down his effort to bring opportunity to those less fortunate. Last week, he announced the creation of The Cyrus Prize, a $100,000 genius grant for Iranian innovators. The first prize will be awarded by the end of 2013 and was inspired by The Cyrus Cylinder and Cyrus the Great. As he told TechCrunch in an email: “Human capital is the greatest untapped resource. Iranians talent is worth more than all the oil and gas reserves in Iran. However, it is still untapped.”

For this Iranian-born venture capitalist, this prize has a personal connection — he says his first angels when he sought funding were from the Iranian tech community.

Evangelist for life

And while he has traveled the world and supported great causes (and will most likely continue to well into the future), Pishevar is also known as a rather spirited supporter of startups and the technology community.

Recognizing the need for bringing in talent from around the world to help spur innovation, he helped lead the charge to seek passage of the Startup Visa Act.

Introduced into the US Congress in 2011 by then-Senator John Kerry, along with Senators Richard Lugar and Mark Udall, it aims to solve the needs of entrepreneurs by giving them employment-based visas, which they’re currently denied because they own a significant stake in the sponsor company. In addition, the act would enable investors from other countries to get a visa in exchange for starting a US business with $1 million in capital (or $500,000 for economically targeted areas) and the creation of at least 10 jobs in the country.

Some might also think that Pishevar has the ear of the President too. After all, he has been acting almost as an advisor to Obama, and seems to frequently meet with the President when he’s either in Silicon Valley or at the White House.

But Pishevar is an astonishing supporter of startups as well — just ask Uber or Getaround, two companies that he’s invested in. Sure, he has a financial incentive to see that they succeed, but it’s perhaps his personality and character that draws people to him. As Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick tells us, there’s a bit of “Shervin’ness” that is appealing.

Getaround, the peer-to-peer car sharing service, chose to take funding from Pishevar when they sought their Series A round. Founder Jessica Scorpio says that she originally connected with him five years ago and found his personality “infectious”. To her, she found Pishevar to be very proactive and creative — she says that he’s always coming up with ideas for her company when he’s out traveling the world. Working with Pishevar has been fun and refreshing, Scorpio says, and since he’s typically invested in companies tackling big problems, working with Getaround was pretty much up his alley.

For Kalanick, the sentiment was quite similar and you don’t even need him to tell you that — just look at Pishevar’s Twitter account and you’ll frequently see photos of his support for the company. Kalanick has worked with Pishevar for about a year now, but says that he has “a big heart” — he’s an optimistic person who always approaches every situation upbeat and positive, something that he seeks to bring out in others as well.

When Uber went to raise its Series B round of funding, Kalanick says that they went with Menlo Ventures because of Pishevar — for the company, it was more interested in the partner than the deal. From his perspective, he sees Pishevar has having authentic relationships, something that allows him to connect you with anyone on the planet.

What Scorpio and Kalanick have told us sounds logical and it’s clear that Pishevar is a spirited evangelist for his companies — after all, how many investors do you know would shave company logos (see here, here, and here) on their head?

Fellow investors also find Pishevar’s character fascinating. We spoke with #DominateFund’s Ben Parr who believes that Pishevar’s labeling as a hyperconnector is aptly suited for him:

Shervin has a gift as a connector. You can’t help but love him. I think that’s why so many entrepreneurs trust him. He’s charismatic, but more importantly, he has a righteous heart. He’ll go to the mat for his entrepreneurs.

Jacob Mullins from Shasta Ventures agrees and adds that he admires Pishevar for his “honest and pure excitement and passion towards life.” Mullins tells us:

It’s a deep, innate love of life that few people have, and it radiates outward from him into everything that he touches…He’s all about people, creating and building strong relationships with individuals. In his investment life, he’s taking the same approach and I’m confident he’ll be very successful.

Pishevar’s “success” is probably not measured in just dollar figures, but rather the amount of lives that he’s touched and changed. From all his experiences thus far, if you measure the value derived from his efforts, it would probably be safe to say that he’s already been a success.

Main image header: Kmeron/LeWeb/Flickr

Photo credit: New York Times, Outstanding American by Choice award via Shervin Pishevar,  Shervin Pishevar with President Obama at the White House via Tom Katis, Sarah Lane, MG Siegler, Erick Schonfeld, Travis Kalanick, Shervin Pishevar, Ana Pishevar via Ken Yeung, Shervin Pishevar with Uber shaved into his head via Ken Yeung

MoTR 290 is 51:50 minutes long and is a 32 MB file in MP3 format.

CLICK HERE to download the file and listen directly.

HOSTS: Matthew Miller (Seattle) and Kevin C. Tofel (Philadelphia)

TOPICS:

• Hunt for the Surface Pro and first impressions
• One week in with the BlackBerry Z10
• Coda One 3-in-1 bluetooth handset. How come there aren’t more of these? Great for voice conversations on a tablet.
• HP jumps in the Chromebook game: $329 for a Pavilion with 14-inch screen

SUBSCRIBE: Use this RSS feed with your favorite podcatcher or click this link to add us to iTunes