I haven't listened to the show yet. This is a comment on the announcement for the show. It makes me not want to listen to the show as I don't see the "wow!" factor.

By my math that comes to €200k invested per deal if the €60m is divided evenly.

Some of the only things at that investment level paying off at the ROI required by venture capital include the development of video games, development of apps, and the development of patents. With patents probably being the least risky of the three.

Most Angels stay away from the development stage. €200k is definitely not an expansion stage nor is it likely to be an attractive revenue stage. If there is a wow factor it is not in the announcement therefore I don't know when I'll make time to listen to this show. It sounds like they are chasing Venture Capital for follow on money.

Frank, I'll take this time to offer you some constructive criticism on your show. I don't see that you follow your own advice. I will also give you an example of what I am saying in the form of a hot investment area that repeatedly gets hot on a regular basis over time. So if you watch this area carefully to see when it is heating up again you can get yourself into a good deal.

Looking back on all your shows in general causes me to think that you may want to guard against blurring the line between a topic with its own popularity that people care deeply about, and your own popularity.

An analogy can be drawn to what I am saying about your show to some of the advice we hear from you and other Angels regarding entrepreneurs. You and other Angels say you are leery of entrepreneurs who are in it for their own ego, or the money, or because they want to be a CEO, or are in it to create their dream job.

We have often heard the Angels on your show exhibit the same negative self-centered character traits when talking about themselves. Rather than stating investment guidelines with measurable indicators of success, we here about vague concepts that would be more accurately referred to as investment gimmicks rather than investment strategies. This is followed by the cult of personality that we see many angels build about themselves.

When an Angel is asked how he knows when his vague notion of a good investment is achieved, we often hear something along the lines of "I'll know it when I see it". They go on and on about how smart they are, and how they add value to a venture. How they don't need the entrepreneur to educate them on the industry and the customers of the venture, because all they need is a fast-pitch. But then we also hear how the portfolios of these same guys that have been telling us for years how smart they are, haven't been performing well for over ten years.

The most positive comments I've read about you regarding your show, have been about how refreshing your openness, and honesty is. There have also been those positive comments regarding the educational value of your show, but those are limited because ultimately for education to be of value it has to lead success. We see very few educational elements regarding selecting good venture investments that are going to stand the test of time while the investment gimmicks are repeatedly frequently.

In order to support investment criteria with measurable indicators of success you would have to be contrary to many of your guests, some of whom manage other people's money, and in many cases have done so unsuccessfully. In some of your shows you have discussed the reason for not contradicting your fellow Angels, you've called it collegiality.

These guys are your friends and some of them are heavily engaged in self promotion selling books, and or their services as consultants, and or as money managers, and or as speakers, while not being able to show a currently successful portfolio. All of the products I have seen from these men have lacked measurable indicators of success. How do they know when a venture is a good idea; they just know it when they see it. Their past and current business relationships and poor portfolios prevent them from admitting that measurable indicators of success exist. Instead we here the often repeated disclaimer that it is impossible to tell what will be a good investment; which of course is a direct contradiction from when they tell us they know when they see it.

In your shows we also see another reason you do not support measurable indicators of success. For years you have been touting the fast-pitch as the only tool an Angel investor needs in order to find something that is worthy of going through the due diligence process. The evidence against that logic is staggering and sometimes seems to be increasing on a daily basis. This makes it look like you really have a hard time back peddling on the issue. Another trait Angels say is undesirable in an entrepreneur.

With the realization that Angels are exhibiting the same self-centered traits they say are undesirable in an entrepreneur, it becomes obvious why the same Angels complain about a lack of success for the last ten years.

We hear Angels tout the old saying "he who has the gold makes the rules". They say it is their money so they get to make the rules. That's fine only when specifically talking about the deal or relationship between them and the venture. But we've seen investments that have gone bad where Angels have carried this thinking over into the market.

We've seen failed investments where Angels have said if you want my money, the business has to be run like this, and the products have to be changed to that, and we are going to include the other thing. The problem with that thinking is that when you get to the market it is now the customer's gold that is making the rules. In those cases Angels have wrongly believed that their power to dictate terms to the entrepreneur extended to dictating to the customers what they will buy. In looking at some failed ventures, Angels seem to have the misguided belief that the self-centered character traits are only bad if the entrepreneur has them and not if the Angel has them.

A lot has been said on your show about Angels needing to protect their reputations from entrepreneurs acting inappropriately. I'd say entrepreneurs need to be just as leery. When the Angels turn the venture into their idea and it goes sour, it is still the entrepreneur's name on the failed the venture.

The topic of venture investing is already popular on its own. People are interested in it because people are interested in success. Based on the comments I've read, you are popular for your openness and honesty; which are not the same reasons venture investing is popular. If you make your show synonymous with successful venture investing it will be more popular. People can get openness and honesty from their dog. If you align your show with the reason people are interested in venture investing in the first place it will be much more popular. This is the same advice you give about paying attention to the customer. As you cling to collegiality with your friends, you fail to follow your own advice of giving your customer what they want.

I don't think it is a coincidence that your highest number of listeners came after you started questioning what leads to success in venture investing. It is also worth noting that it came after you mentioned a record enrollment of new members in TCA. Could the record enrollment have more to do with the increase in your listeners? Just as TCA lost almost one third of its members, and is trying to make sure it doesn't now lose the new ones, time will tell if you are able to sustain or grow your audience. Does your increase in listeners have more to do with the you flying around the world meeting people, or is your show attracting listeners on its own merit?

Now, as promised I will inform you of a hot investment area, that has repeatedly led to hockey-stick growth, which is another thing you and your Angel friends say is not possible. In this example I will demonstrate
1. measurable indicators of success,
2. that the understanding of these indicators cannot be taught in a fast pitch,
3. hockey stick growth has been happening repeatedly and will continue to happen
4. and listening to customers.

Consumers adopt better user interfaces very fast and on a large scale. This leads to fast and large returns for those who invest in them.

The user interface has the power to determine which products sit on the shelf and which get sold. It also has the power to create entirely new markets. One doesn't have to invent or own the new breakthrough technology. One only has to come up with a better way to use it.

You wouldn't buy a car with a crank start or one with a tiller instead of a steering wheel.
The crank start and steering tiller are examples of user interfaces. Whenever a better user interface is invented, such as the electric starter or steering wheel, all competing manufacturers must offer it or their products will not sell. This is true in every industry.

The Wright Brothers were not the first to soar through the air on a set of wings. People all over the world were experimenting with flight and the air foil and tail wing were already known for a long time. The Wright Brothers were the first to control flight by developing the ability to bank from side to side by changing the shape of the wing. They invented the user interface that launched the industry and we still use it today. Before the Wright Brothers people tried to keep the wings level with ground as they turned in the air.

In the early typewriter industry, adjacent typebars are more likely to jam with each other when used in succession. So letters that are more likely to be used in sequence were separated from each other allowing people to type faster.

The Qwerty layout was the fastest layout and every year the owners of the Qwerty patent were winning more and more market share. As soon as the patent expired, in order to survive, competing manufacturers who were not yet pushed out of business quickly switched over to the Qwerty layout.

Owners of the Qwerty patent used the patent to monopolize the layout rather than license it to other manufacturers. Had they licensed it to other manufacturers instead of keeping it to themselves, they would have made more money and the Qwerty layout would have become the standard long before the patent expired.

The idea of a computer in every home never caught on until the invention of the Graphical User Interface. Before the GUI there was the Command Line Interface where people had to type commands into the computer.

The GUI created the ability to point and click with a mouse, scroll up and down and side to side, and manipulate images and entire sections of text.

The GUI launched the Personal Computer industry and since then all software and all computers must have a GUI in order to sell. In the case of the GUI, the user interface has proven to be more valuable than the computer hardware.

In looking at how both Apple and Microsoft handled the introduction of the GUI to the marketplace, we see an example of the mistake made by the owners of the qwerty typewriter patent. Like the owners of the qwerty patent, Apple kept their patents to themselves and did not share their user interface with other computer manufacturers. This decision restricted them to a small market share. Microsoft made their technology available to all PC manufacturers and consequently made much more money.

The keyboards of early laptops had their keys placed near the edge just like typewriters. In 1991 Apple came out with a better User Interface by placing the keyboard further back allowing for palm rests and a track ball. All laptop manufacturers quickly made the change to have their keyboards placed further back because they wouldn't sell otherwise.

In 2001 the iPod was introduced with a revolutionary click wheel user interface that incorporated buttons and scrolling. Sine 2004, just three years later, the iPod line has dominated digital music player sales in the USA, with over 90% of the market for hard-drive based players and over 70% of the market for all types of players.

In 2003 the Palm Treo 600 was the only smartphone in which all the buttons of the keypad could be reached by a single thumb. The user did not need two hands to operate it. By 2004 it was the only smartphone to be offered by all five major USA service providers and the stock jumped from $10 in March to $35 in July.

In 2007 the iPhone was ridiculed by analysts and other manufacturers for not having a physical keyboard and Apple was ridiculed for having only one product. It was said that multiple products are necessary in order to be competitive. In just over two years the iPhone has captured over 30% of the USA market and all manufacturers now offer a user interface similar to the iPhone in order to be able to sell their product.

In all of the seven examples above we see consumers rapidly adopting the new user interface and manufacturers quick to offer the new user interface in order to protect their market share.

Now I have the next breakthrough user interface that all manufacturers will have to quickly offer if they want to protect their market share. It takes less than a $million to bring it to market and has the potential to make $billions.

The mobile workforce is making less money because it has to return to a chair and table in order to enter and edit text and graphics at the same speed of a full size keyboard and mouse. The computer and internet has become so ubiquitous that it has become important to be able to type while on the phone or while holding a briefcase, shopping bag, or baby.

I have invented a hand operated control that allows one hand to simultaneously hold a cellphone and type into it just as fast as two hands on a full size keyboard and mouse, but without the aid of a desk, chair, or lap. The User can be standing, sitting, or lying on his back. This is not voice recognition or predictive text software. It is operated by just a single hand without looking at it and only takes one day to learn as opposed to the two months it takes to learn to type on a keyboard. The future cellphone will also be a universal remote control, calculator, and replace the keyboard.

I close with a challenge to you Frank and all your Angel friends, to prove that the future I have predicted here is not going to happen. I predict that the keyboard will be replaced soon and relatively quickly, and a lot of money is going to be made relatively quickly when it happens. History has shown us hockey stick growth in the user interface sector time and time again. Don't let your portfolios fail to learn from history. Give me a call soon.