Year: 2018

29 May 2018

Flock raises £2.25M for its on-demand drone insurance

Flock, a London-based startup that has created a data-driven insurance product for drones, has picked up £2.25 million in seed funding. Leading the round is fintech and insurtech VC fund Anthemis, with participation from Silicon Valley’s Plug and Play, Seed and Speed, and previous backer Downing Ventures. A number of unnamed angel investors also took part.

Describing itself as “pioneering the use of real-time data in insurance,” Flock’s drone insurance has its roots in the academic studies of founder Antton Pena. He wrote his thesis on the use of real-time data to quantify drone flight risks, and began building the first version of the Flock platform at the Data Science Institute at Imperial College London with help from a post-doctoral researcher in artificial intelligence.

Likewise, while studying at Cambridge University, Flock CEO Ed Leon Klinger focused on the future of the autonomous world, writing and publishing papers on driverless vehicles, AI safety, and autonomous drones. This included a paper on the future of the drone industry in which he identified the same solution that Antton had already begun building: the idea that real-time data could be leveraged to identify and quantify the risks of drone flights.

To that end, Flock’s first product, dubbed “Flock Cover”, is a ‘pay-as-you-fly’ insurance app that allows drone pilots to insure flights for a minimum of one hour. It aggregates real-time data, including hyperlocal weather conditions, population density, proximity to high-risk areas (such as airports), and more. Flock’s algorithms then analyse this data, coupled with other data points, such as the weight of the drone, to quantify the risk of any given drone flight. The insurance itself is offered through a partnership with Allianz.

“The problem we’re solving in the drone industry is that drone flight risks are unpredictable, complex, and not particularly well understood by insurers,” explains Klinger. “The result of this is overpriced, cumbersome, but often compulsory insurance policies that are not fit for purpose (in the U.K. drone insurance is a legal requirement for commercial pilots)”.

In contrast, Flock’s use of real-time (and static) data enables the startup to offer pricing that is “risk-dependant,” says Klinger, “so the safer you fly, the less you pay. Our safest pilots now pay less for their insurance than their morning coffee!”.

The company says that 1,000 commercial drone pilots now use Flock Cover, which launched earlier this year in the U.K., representing a departure from flat-rate annual premiums in favour of Flock’s on-demand model.

With that said, the Flock CEO concedes that there are a number of other on-demand drone insurance products already on the market, even if traditional insurers remain the startup’s main competition. “These insurers have been going for longer than us, and they certainly have bigger budgets. What they don’t have is real-time data on their side. They cannot differentiate between high-risk and low-risk customers or flights, so they simply charge everyone roughly the same amount for an annual policy,” he says.

Meanwhile, it would appear that drone insurance is just the beginning, as Klinger and Pena eye up other areas of cover where Big Data can be utilised to offer more flexible and better value insurance.

“As the world becomes increasingly autonomous, from the cars on our streets to the robots in our homes, we can expect to see a whole new set of risks emerge,” adds Klinger. “Here at Flock we’re using cutting edge data science to identify, quantify and insure these risks for drones, but we’re just getting started. Our wider vision is ultimately to bridge the gap between today’s insurers and tomorrow’s technologies, pioneering the use of Big Data in insurance for an autonomous future”.

29 May 2018

Alibaba Group agrees to sell several Tmall healthcare categories to subsidiary Alibaba Health

Alibaba Group announced today that it has agreed to sell several of the healthcare categories on Tmall, its B2C shopping platform, to digital healthcare subsidiary Alibaba Health Information Technology. In exchange, Alibaba Group will receive $10.6 billion HKD (about $1.35 billion) in newly issued shares of Alibaba Health and increase its equity stake in the company, which is listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, from 48.1% to 56.2%.

If you have followed Alibaba Group for a while and this news is giving you a feeling of déjà vu, there’s a reason why. In April 2015, Alibaba Group made a similar announcement, saying that it had agreed to integrate Tmall’s pharmacy business into Alibaba Health in exchange for a majority stake.

The next year, however, Alibaba Health disclosed to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange that it had let the proposed deal lapse because of regulatory uncertainties as the Chinese government reviewed legislation related to online drug sales. In that disclosure, it also said that Alibaba Group “continues to support [Alibaba Health] to execute an organic growth and investment strategy as the healthcare flagship company for Alibaba Group,” with the two companies exploring service agreements between Tmall and Alibaba Health.

While the deal announced today is still subject to shareholder and regulatory approval, it furthers Alibaba Group’s goal of consolidating more of Tmall’s pharmacy and healthcare business operations into Alibaba Health. These include Tmall categories like medical devices and healthcare products and medical services, which in total cover 3,300 vendors and generated 20.6 billion RMB (about $3.2 billion) in gross merchandise volume in the fiscal year that ended in March.

Vendors moving over to Alibaba Health will now have access to its ecosystem, including data analytics, hospitals, doctors, healthcare consultants and equipment suppliers, creating more growth and synergy opportunities, an Alibaba spokesperson told TechCrunch.

In a press statement, Daniel Zhang said “Healthcare is a strategically important area for Alibaba Group with strong growth potential. This transaction is a logical evolution for the continued development of Alibaba Health into our healthcare flagship platform.”

29 May 2018

Alibaba Group agrees to sell several Tmall healthcare categories to subsidiary Alibaba Health

Alibaba Group announced today that it has agreed to sell several of the healthcare categories on Tmall, its B2C shopping platform, to digital healthcare subsidiary Alibaba Health Information Technology. In exchange, Alibaba Group will receive $10.6 billion HKD (about $1.35 billion) in newly issued shares of Alibaba Health and increase its equity stake in the company, which is listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, from 48.1% to 56.2%.

If you have followed Alibaba Group for a while and this news is giving you a feeling of déjà vu, there’s a reason why. In April 2015, Alibaba Group made a similar announcement, saying that it had agreed to integrate Tmall’s pharmacy business into Alibaba Health in exchange for a majority stake.

The next year, however, Alibaba Health disclosed to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange that it had let the proposed deal lapse because of regulatory uncertainties as the Chinese government reviewed legislation related to online drug sales. In that disclosure, it also said that Alibaba Group “continues to support [Alibaba Health] to execute an organic growth and investment strategy as the healthcare flagship company for Alibaba Group,” with the two companies exploring service agreements between Tmall and Alibaba Health.

While the deal announced today is still subject to shareholder and regulatory approval, it furthers Alibaba Group’s goal of consolidating more of Tmall’s pharmacy and healthcare business operations into Alibaba Health. These include Tmall categories like medical devices and healthcare products and medical services, which in total cover 3,300 vendors and generated 20.6 billion RMB (about $3.2 billion) in gross merchandise volume in the fiscal year that ended in March.

Vendors moving over to Alibaba Health will now have access to its ecosystem, including data analytics, hospitals, doctors, healthcare consultants and equipment suppliers, creating more growth and synergy opportunities, an Alibaba spokesperson told TechCrunch.

In a press statement, Daniel Zhang said “Healthcare is a strategically important area for Alibaba Group with strong growth potential. This transaction is a logical evolution for the continued development of Alibaba Health into our healthcare flagship platform.”

29 May 2018

Apply now: Startup Battlefield San Francisco ’18 applications end in less than 2 weeks

Less than two weeks.That’s all that stands between you and your chance to compete in Startup Battlefield at Disrupt San Francisco 2018 on September 5-7. If you think your pre-Series A company has what it takes to go head-to-head against some of the top early-stage startups, both domestic and international, then don’t delay. The application window for this potentially life-altering startup pitch competition slams shut in — you guessed it — less than two weeks. Apply right now.

Disrupt SF ’18 is without doubt our largest and most ambitious Disrupt ever. Our new venue, Moscone Center West, provides three times the floor space, offers four unique stages, and we expect more than 10,000 attendees over the course of three program-packed days. Clearly, we needed a Startup Battlefield suitable for an event of this magnitude. So how does a $100,000 equity-free cash prize grab you?

That kind of cheddar will go a long way to help you realize your startup dream, but you have to take the first step and apply. Here’s how it all works.

Our team of pitch-savvy TechCrunch editors will scrutinize every Startup Battlefield application. As vetting processes go, it’s highly competitive with an acceptance rate somewhere between 3 and 6 percent. We look at the team, the product and the market potential before ultimately selecting 15-30 pre-Series A startups in the final cut. Keep in mind that competing in Startup Battlefield doesn’t cost a thing; we don’t charge any fees or take any equity.

Remember those pitch-savvy TechCrunch editors? They’ll provide the competing teams with free pitch training to prepare for the big day and round one of the competition. Teams have just six minutes to pitch and demo in front of an expert panel of judges. Judges follow each pitch with questions for the team.

Those judges select approximately five teams to advance to round two for a repeat pitch performance in front of a fresh set of judges. And from that impressive cohort will come Disrupt Startup Battlefield’s first-ever $100,000 champion.

The whole thrilling shebang takes place in front of a live audience that numbers in the thousands. We also live-stream it to the world on TechCrunch.com, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. And it’ll be available later, on demand.

Just being a Startup Battlefield competitor can reap significant benefits — whether you win or not. You’ll receive investor interest and media opportunities from more than 400 accredited outlets at the show. Just consider Aircall, a company that competed back in 2015. It just received $29 million in another round of funding.

And every Startup Battlefield team gets to join the ranks of the Startup Battlefield alumni community. This group of more than 800 companies has collectively raised more than $8 billion in funding and produced more than 100 exits. You may recognize a few of them: Mint, Dropbox, Yammer, Fitbit, Getaround and Cloudflare. That’s some rarified company.

Disrupt San Francisco 2018 takes place on September 5-7 at Moscone Center West. Startup Battlefield is an outstanding opportunity to launch your company to the world. Don’t pass up your chance to go big — $100,000 big. Apply to Startup Battlefield today.

29 May 2018

Apply now: Startup Battlefield San Francisco ’18 applications end in less than 2 weeks

Less than two weeks.That’s all that stands between you and your chance to compete in Startup Battlefield at Disrupt San Francisco 2018 on September 5-7. If you think your pre-Series A company has what it takes to go head-to-head against some of the top early-stage startups, both domestic and international, then don’t delay. The application window for this potentially life-altering startup pitch competition slams shut in — you guessed it — less than two weeks. Apply right now.

Disrupt SF ’18 is without doubt our largest and most ambitious Disrupt ever. Our new venue, Moscone Center West, provides three times the floor space, offers four unique stages, and we expect more than 10,000 attendees over the course of three program-packed days. Clearly, we needed a Startup Battlefield suitable for an event of this magnitude. So how does a $100,000 equity-free cash prize grab you?

That kind of cheddar will go a long way to help you realize your startup dream, but you have to take the first step and apply. Here’s how it all works.

Our team of pitch-savvy TechCrunch editors will scrutinize every Startup Battlefield application. As vetting processes go, it’s highly competitive with an acceptance rate somewhere between 3 and 6 percent. We look at the team, the product and the market potential before ultimately selecting 15-30 pre-Series A startups in the final cut. Keep in mind that competing in Startup Battlefield doesn’t cost a thing; we don’t charge any fees or take any equity.

Remember those pitch-savvy TechCrunch editors? They’ll provide the competing teams with free pitch training to prepare for the big day and round one of the competition. Teams have just six minutes to pitch and demo in front of an expert panel of judges. Judges follow each pitch with questions for the team.

Those judges select approximately five teams to advance to round two for a repeat pitch performance in front of a fresh set of judges. And from that impressive cohort will come Disrupt Startup Battlefield’s first-ever $100,000 champion.

The whole thrilling shebang takes place in front of a live audience that numbers in the thousands. We also live-stream it to the world on TechCrunch.com, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. And it’ll be available later, on demand.

Just being a Startup Battlefield competitor can reap significant benefits — whether you win or not. You’ll receive investor interest and media opportunities from more than 400 accredited outlets at the show. Just consider Aircall, a company that competed back in 2015. It just received $29 million in another round of funding.

And every Startup Battlefield team gets to join the ranks of the Startup Battlefield alumni community. This group of more than 800 companies has collectively raised more than $8 billion in funding and produced more than 100 exits. You may recognize a few of them: Mint, Dropbox, Yammer, Fitbit, Getaround and Cloudflare. That’s some rarified company.

Disrupt San Francisco 2018 takes place on September 5-7 at Moscone Center West. Startup Battlefield is an outstanding opportunity to launch your company to the world. Don’t pass up your chance to go big — $100,000 big. Apply to Startup Battlefield today.

29 May 2018

Google brings its ARCore technology to China in partnership with Xiaomi

Google is ramping up its efforts to return to China. Earlier this year, the search giant detailed plans to bring its ARCore technology — which enables augmented reality and virtual reality — to phones in China and this week that effort went live with its first partner, Xiaomi.

Initially the technology will be available for Xiaomi’s Mix 2S devices via an app in the Xiaomi App Store, but Google has plans to add more partners in Mainland China over time. Huawei and Samsung are two confirmed names that have signed up to distribute ARCore apps on Chinese soil, Google said previously.

Google’s core services remain blocked in China but ARCore apps are able to work there because the technology itself works on device without the cloud, which means that once apps are downloaded to a phone there’s nothing that China’s internet censors can do to disrupt them.

Rather than software, the main challenge is distribution. The Google Play Store is restricted in China, and in its place China has a fragmented landscape that consists of more than a dozen major third-party Android app stores. That explains why Google has struck deals with the likes of Xiaomi and Huawei, which operate their own app stores which — pre-loaded on their devices — can help Google reach consumers.

ARCore in action

The ARCore strategy for China, while subtle, is part of a sustained push to grow Google’s presence in China. While that hasn’t meant reviving the Google Play Store — despite plenty of speculation in the media — Google has ramped up in other areas.

In recent months, the company has struck a partnership with Tencent, agreed to invest in a number of China-based startups — including biotech-focused XtalPi and live-streaming service Chushou — and announced an AI lab in Beijing. Added to that, Google gained a large tech presence in Taiwan via the completion of its acquisition of a chunk of HTC, and it opened a presence in Shenzhen, the Chinese city known as ‘the Silicon Valley of hardware.’

Finally, it is also hosting its first ‘Demo Day’ program for startups in Asia with an event planned for Shanghai, China, this coming September. Applications to take part in the initiative opened last week.

29 May 2018

Department of Homeland Security moves to finally rescind the International Entrepreneur Rule

After nearly a year of protest and litigation, the Department of Homeland Security finally announced late last week that it was moving ahead with plans to rescind the International Entrepreneur Rule, which would have allowed immigrant founders of startups to remain in the U.S. for up to five years.

The Obama-era initiative was designed to allow immigrants who were creating new companies (and new jobs) in the United States to remain in the country for two-and-a-half years (with the possibility for another two-and-a-half year extension) as long as they were meeting milestones for company growth and development.

It was an attempt to woo more immigrant entrepreneurs (a group that’s accounted for the creation of over half of the startups in the U.S. that currently enjoy valuations of over $1 billion) to the country and make America more competitive at a time when countries from France to Singapore are doing more to bring startup founders to their shores.

Drafted two days before Donald Trump’s inauguration, the rule-making was seen by many Republicans as an example of executive office overreach. It was certainly a response to Congress’ inability to pass immigration reform legislation, at a time when other countries were making it easier for entrepreneurially savvy emigres to settle in their borders, according to Obama officials.

“It is very entrepreneurial, it is very free market-oriented, and so I think any Republican who is serious about business would have to take this rule seriously,” Leon Rodriguez, the former director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services under President Barack Obama who oversaw the creation of the rule, told Yahoo! News earlier this year.

For supporters of the Trump Administration, rescinding the rule is part of a broader crackdown on immigration in what it calls an attempt to secure American jobs and end executive abuses of immigration loopholes — specifically granting “parole”, a technical term for permission to remain in the U.S. for short-term stints.

(Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

“Parole is supposed to be reserved for short term and emergency purposes,” said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank with ties to the current administration. “Previous administrations have pushed the envelope on parole, and the Obama administration kicked right through the envelope and claimed that the existence of the parole authority meant that the president could admit anyone.”

Krikorian and other conservative economists draw a correlation between tighter immigration policies and more jobs for American workers. But most economists disagree with the assumption that fewer immigrants mean more jobs.

“The average American worker is more likely to lose than to gain from immigration restrictions,” Giovanni Peri, a professor of economics at the University of California, Davis told The New York Times in an interview last year.

Entrepreneurial ambition and technical skills are increasingly seen as necessary components for a globally competitive economy, and through a series of recent regulations (including this rescission of the International Entrepreneur Rule) the Trump Administration is blocking the U.S. from building the best engine for economic growth, according to many economists.  

“The startup and venture community is very disappointed with DHS’s short-sighted decision to turn away American jobs that would be created by the International Entrepreneur Rule,” said Bobby Franklin, President and CEO of the National Venture Capital Association, in a statement on Friday. “The facts are clear: our country needs more entrepreneurship, which is exactly what the International Entrepreneur Rule would bring. We will continue to explain to the administration why immigrant entrepreneurship benefits our country and must be supported by policymakers.”

Over the next 30 days, the public is being invited to comment on the rule change.

Less than a week before the rule was supposed to go into effect — on July 17, 2017 — the DHS said that it would be delayed and the department first stated its intention to get rid of the rule.

The NVCA and other plaintiffs argued successfully against the rule’s delay on a technicality that the DHS did not solicit public comment. In December, a judge ruled in favor of the NVCA that the DHS should lift its delay and begin implementing the rule, but there’s no indication that the DHS ever complied.

Legal proceedings are still ongoing — even as the DHS opens the door for public comment on the rule’s rescission. On May 9, 2018, NVCA and its co-plaintiffs filed a motion for discovery to find out whether DHS fully complied with the court order.

As the National Venture Capital Association noted in its statement, Canada, France, Germany and Singapore all have visas intended to draw entrepreneurs to their shores. And the historical experience of immigrants in the U.S. shows the value of more open borders.

Indeed over half of the technology companies with valuations of over $1 billion that were recently launched in the U.S. were founded by immigrant entrepreneurs, according to a 2016 study.

Immigrants have started more than half (44 of 87) of America’s startup companies valued at $1 billion dollars or more and are key members of management or product development teams in over 70 percent (62 of 87) of these companies. The research finds that among the billion dollar startup companies, immigrant founders have created an average of approximately 760 jobs per company in the United States. The collective value of the 44 immigrant-founded companies is $168 billion, which is close to half the value of the stock markets of Russia or Mexico.

Many of those company founders made their way to the U.S. as students, and as the country continues to tighten its borders and create more arduous roadblocks for immigration for everyone from students to startup founders, it’s eroding what was once a core strength, critics said.

Steps like demanding social media handles to review visa applicants’ social media historiestightening H-1B visa regulations; and things like the rescission of the entrepreneur rule all shape the ways in which potential emigres view the U.S. In a globally competitive market, roadblocks and obstacles will convince would-be job creators to look elsewhere to launch businesses.

Kirstjen Nielsen, secretary of homeland security. Photo: Evan Vucci / Associated Press

As Politico reported last month, U.S. international student enrollment dropped by an average of 7% in the 2017 to 2018 school year citing a preliminary survey of nearly 500 colleges and universities by the Institute of International Education. Meanwhile, Canada enjoyed a surge in student applications.

As John Collison, the 27-year-old billionaire founder of Stripe, told the BBC, “People are less willing to move to the United States, they don’t even want to even enter the visa process because of what they perceive to be the political climate and how welcoming the country is towards immigrants.”

28 May 2018

To truly protect citizens, lawmakers need to restructure their regulatory oversight of big tech

If members of the European Parliament thought they could bring Mark Zuckerberg to heel with his recent appearance, they underestimated the enormous gulf between 21st century companies and their last-century regulators.

Zuckerberg himself reiterated that regulation is necessary, provided it is the “right regulation.”

But anyone who thinks that our existing regulatory tools can reign in our digital behemoths is engaging in magical thinking. Getting to “right regulation” will require us to think very differently.

The challenge goes far beyond Facebook and other social media: the use and abuse of data is going to be the defining feature of just about every company on the planet as we enter the age of machine learning and autonomous systems.

So far, Europe has taken a much more aggressive regulatory approach than anything the US was contemplating before or since Zuckerberg’s testimony.

The European Parliament’s Global Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is now in force, which extends data privacy rights to all European citizens regardless of whether their data is processed by companies within the EU or beyond.

But I’m not holding my breath that the GDPR will get us very far on the massive regulatory challenge we face. It is just more of the same when it comes to regulation in the modern economy: a lot of ambiguous costly-to-interpret words and procedures on paper that are outmatched by rapidly evolving digital global technologies.

Crucially, the GDPR still relies heavily on the outmoded technology of user choice and consent, the main result of which has seen almost everyone in Europe (and beyond) inundated with emails asking them to reconfirm permission to keep their data. But this is an illusion of choice, just as it is when we are ostensibly given the option to decide whether to agree to terms set by large corporations in standardized take-it-or-leave-it click-to-agree documents.  

There’s also the problem of actually tracking whether companies are complying. It is likely that the regulation of online activity requires yet more technology, such as blockchain and AI-powered monitoring systems, to track data usage and implement smart contract terms.

As the EU has already discovered with the right to be forgotten, however, governments lack the technological resources needed to enforce these rights. Search engines are required to serve as their own judge and jury in the first instance; Google at last count was doing 500 a day.  

The fundamental challenge we face, here and throughout the modern economy, is not: “what should the rules for Facebook be?” but rather, “how can we can innovate new ways to regulate effectively in the global digital age?”

The answer is that we need to find ways to harness the same ingenuity and drive that built Facebook to build the regulatory systems of the digital age. One way to do this is with what I call “super-regulation” which involves developing a market for licensed private regulators that serve two masters: achieving regulatory targets set by governments but also facing the market incentive to compete for business by innovating more cost-effective ways to do that.  

Imagine, for example, if instead of drafting a detailed 261-page law like the EU did, a government instead settled on the principles of data protection, based on core values, such as privacy and user control.

Private entities, profit and non-profit, could apply to a government oversight agency for a license to provide data regulatory services to companies like Facebook, showing that their regulatory approach is effective in achieving these legislative principles.  

These private regulators might use technology, big-data analysis, and machine learning to do that. They might also figure out how to communicate simple options to people, in the same way that the developers of our smartphone figured that out. They might develop effective schemes to audit and test whether their systems are working—on pain of losing their license to regulate.

There could be many such regulators among which both consumers and Facebook could choose: some could even specialize in offering packages of data management attributes that would appeal to certain demographics – from the people who want to be invisible online, to those who want their every move documented on social media.

The key here is competition: for-profit and non-profit private regulators compete to attract money and brains the problem of how to regulate complex systems like data creation and processing.

Zuckerberg thinks there’s some kind of “right” regulation possible for the digital world. I believe him; I just don’t think governments alone can invent it. Ideally, some next generation college kid would be staying up late trying to invent it in his or her dorm room.

The challenge we face is not how to get governments to write better laws; it’s how to get them to create the right conditions for the continued innovation necessary for new and effective regulatory systems.

28 May 2018

SPACE Administration would streamline federal oversight of commercial launches

As part of an ongoing effort to improve the regulatory conditions weathered by companies doing business in space, the Commerce Department has proposed to unify several offices under a new banner: the Space Policy Advancing Commercial Enterprise Administration.

The Trump administration offered hints, but few hard details, on how it aims to streamline federal oversight of space in a statement issued this week. Space Policy Directive 1 had to do with pursuing missions to the moon and Mars, and Directive 2 is more about housekeeping.

Part of that housekeeping directs Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross Jr to “transmit a plan to create a ‘one-stop shop’ within the Department of Commerce for administering and regulating commercial space flight activities,” and he seems to have been eager to comply.

“At my department alone, there are six bureaus involved in the space industry. A unified departmental office for business needs will enable better coordination of space-related activities,” Ross wrote. “When companies seek guidance on launching satellites, the Space Administration will be able to address an array of space activities, including remote sensing, economic development, data-purchase policies, GPS, spectrum policy, trade promotion, standards and technology and space-traffic management.”

Some of these changes have been talked about for a while, so this shouldn’t come as a shock to the offices affected. In fact, they may be pleased to hear it. Space regulation is a mire of interdepartmental memos and red tape, and U.S. leadership in the launch and satellite industry has arguably been in spite of it, not because of it.

Unifying a few offices is a start, but it will take more than administrative shuffling to clear out the regulatory cobwebs. This new administration alone will need to be permanently established by Congress, funded, and oversight assigned. And the work of synchronizing, deduplicating, and otherwise improving our space policy across all the various branches of government will be the work of many years, not a season.

28 May 2018

Gillmor Gang: Auto Immunity

The Gillmor Gang — Frank Radice, Keith Teare, Denis Pombriant, Michael Markman, and Steve Gillmor . Recorded live Sunday, May 27, 2018. Digital cars, food, Hollywood, and other disruptions.

G3: Firedrills and Fascinators — Mary Hodder, Elisa Camahort Page, Francine Hardaway, Maria Ogneva, and Tina Chase Gillmor. Recorded live Friday, May 18, 2018.

@stevegillmor, @denispombriant, @fradice, @mickeleh, @kteare

Produced and directed by Tina Chase Gillmor @tinagillmor

Liner Notes

Live chat stream

The Gillmor Gang on Facebook

G3: Firedrills and Fascinators

G3 chat stream

G3 on Facebook