The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →In a December 2017 VentureBeat interview, former Apple analyst Gene Munster made the case that serious technology companies—and venture opportunities—could emerge well beyond Silicon Valley. Loup Ventures was based in Minneapolis, but Munster’s model was not isolation from coastal networks: it paired a Midwest home base with time spent in the Bay Area and New York.
The interview is best read as a snapshot of what Munster expected in 2018 and 2019, not as a report of what later happened. Its enduring question is whether a regional identity can help investors find opportunity without giving up access to national networks.
Who was Gene Munster, and what was Loup Ventures?
When VentureBeat published Bérénice Magistretti’s interview on December 22, 2017, Munster was making a career change. He had spent 21 years as a research analyst at Piper Jaffray, where he became widely associated with Apple analysis, before becoming a founding partner of Loup Ventures.
That background helps explain why the interview gave substantial attention to Apple, but an analyst’s reputation is not evidence that a later forecast will come true. Venture investing also asks a different question: not simply what a public company might do, but which young companies and markets could become valuable.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches#1 Best Overall
Loup’s name offered a small clue to its positioning: “loup” is French for “wolf.” The “Main Street” framing contrasted its Minneapolis base with the familiar image of venture capital centered on Silicon Valley. It did not mean that the firm had abandoned coastal connections.
Why put a venture firm in Minneapolis?
Munster’s argument was that technical talent and company-building had spread across the United States. He saw more startup activity in the Midwest than its national profile suggested, and he preferred to build from Minneapolis rather than follow the conventional Silicon Valley default.
Distance did not mean disconnection. Munster said Loup’s partners spent substantial time in the Bay Area and New York to maintain relationships and find deals. The strategy was therefore a combination: a regional base and access to networks in major technology and financial centers.
As evidence for the Minnesota opportunity, Munster cited CliftonLarsonAllen data indicating about $7 billion in combined exits from Minnesota technology companies over the preceding decade. He predicted that figure could at least double over the next ten years. Both the historical total and the forecast are reported through Munster in the interview; the forecast was not a measured outcome.
The broader regional backdrop was also gaining attention. VentureBeat, reporting PitchBook data, said startups in several non-coastal U.S. regions raised nearly $17 billion from the beginning of the first quarter through the end of the third quarter of 2017—nearly $5 billion more than in the same period in 2016. Those figures describe that specific period and the regions covered by the report, not all U.S. startup funding. The figures appear in VentureBeat’s coverage of Heartland startup funding.
What the regional case does—and does not—show
- It supports looking beyond established hubs. A less prominent ecosystem can produce companies, exits and differentiated deal flow.
- It does not establish parity with Silicon Valley. The interview does not show that Minneapolis had the same density of capital, talent, customers or later-stage financing.
- It does not prove a regional investment advantage. A Midwest address alone does not guarantee better deal access or returns.
- It leaves the meaning of “the Midwest” broad. The region includes distinct cities, industries and startup ecosystems rather than one uniform market.
What was Loup investing in?
At the time, the four themes Munster named were artificial intelligence, robotics, virtual reality and augmented reality. He expected these technologies to change how people lived and worked over the following decade. The interview describes a thematic focus, not a complete investment policy: it does not provide fund size, check sizes, ownership targets, portfolio returns or a systematic method for selecting companies.
Munster said roughly 60% of the deals Loup saw came from outside San Francisco. That describes deal flow seen, not the share of investments made or capital deployed. Of eight investments made or committed to at that point, three were based in San Francisco, three on the East Coast and two in the Midwest. This was a small, time-specific portfolio snapshot, not evidence of a lasting geographic allocation.
How did Munster distinguish hype from lasting technology?
Munster’s view was not that every emerging technology was progressing on schedule. In 2017, he said virtual-reality adoption was slower than he had expected, while AI, robotics and augmented reality had advanced faster than he expected.
Rank #3
| Theme | Munster’s 2017 view | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial intelligence | He rejected the idea that AI was merely a passing bubble, arguing that this wave had more data behind it and continued the big-data trend. | An investor’s thesis about durability, not evidence about adoption, company performance or returns. |
| Robotics | Progress was faster than he expected. | A broad category; the interview does not quantify progress or identify a single measure. |
| Augmented reality | Progress was faster than he expected. | A forecast from the period, not a present-day assessment. |
| Virtual reality | Consumer adoption was slower than he expected. He viewed the planned early-2018 Oculus Go as a possible positive for growth. | The interview states an expectation, not a demonstrated effect of the device. |
Calling AI a durable theme is different from saying every AI company is a sound investment or that adoption will happen quickly. The interview did not examine risks such as data access, computing costs, regulation, integration or whether customers would pay enough to support a business. Its case is about why Munster believed the technology cycle could persist, not a full investment analysis.
Which other sectors and ideas caught Loup’s attention?
For 2018, Munster pointed to autonomous vehicles, computer vision, vehicle-to-vehicle communications, brain technology and brain-machine interfaces. These were areas he was watching, not proof of investments in each one or a published ranking of expected returns.
He also saw a regional connection in agricultural technology: AI and robotics could improve farming tools and the movement of commodities. That linked Loup’s broad technology themes to industries with a substantial presence in the Midwest.
One interview aside concerned emotional relationships between people and robots. Munster mentioned that Loup had examined Relate, which he described as a virtual relationship coach rather than virtual sex. The interview establishes that the firm looked at the company; it does not establish that Loup invested in it.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Rank #4
What did Munster predict about autonomous vehicles?
Munster expected autonomous vehicles to be visible in most U.S. cities in 2019. This was a dated forecast, not a settled description of what followed. The interview did not define “showing up”: it could mean public testing, limited commercial service or widespread availability, which are very different milestones. It also did not specify vehicle type, autonomy level or which cities counted.
That ambiguity matters when judging any technology forecast. A prediction about pilots appearing in a city cannot be treated as a prediction that consumers would be able to buy fully autonomous cars there.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why did HomePod matter to his Apple outlook?
Munster singled out Apple’s HomePod as the company’s exciting new product for 2018. His case combined high-fidelity audio and Apple Music playback with a stronger Siri presence in the home. He saw a chance for Apple to connect the speaker with Apple TV, iPhone and HomeKit, making it more than a device for playing music.
The strategic question was whether Apple could use its installed ecosystem to make Siri a compelling household assistant, not merely whether it could make a good speaker. Competing with Amazon and Google also meant competing on voice-assistant usefulness and home control. The interview did not provide sales targets, market-share projections or a detailed competitive comparison.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Best Value
The conversation also touched on Apple’s acquisition of Shazam and whether it might strengthen Siri against rival assistants. The article does not give a detailed answer from Munster on Shazam’s strategic value, so no stronger conclusion can be attributed to him.
What the interview is useful for today
The December 2017 interview captures an investment outlook at a moment when AI, immersive computing, robotics, autonomous vehicles and smart speakers were all framed as major opportunities. Its numbers and predictions belong to that period; they should not be mistaken for current measures or later results.
Its strongest enduring idea is more modest than a claim that the Midwest had overtaken the coasts: investors should not assume innovation is confined to the best-known technology hubs. Loup’s approach, as Munster described it, paired that regional conviction with continued national networking. The interview offers a useful account of that strategy, while leaving open whether the firm’s forecasts or regional model ultimately produced superior investment outcomes.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
