Author: azeeadmin

02 Sep 2018

Used car site Vroom is raising $70M six months after a big round of layoffs

After cutting a big portion of its staff in March, Vroom is back pitching investors. Yesterday, the site for buying and selling used cars filed to raise $70 million in new equity funding.

Vroom has already secured $30 million of that $70 million target, signaling confidence from investors that it’ll become profitable and beat out key competitors in the space, like Carvana and Shift.

The startup wants to make the process of buying a used car as easy as ordering a pizza. With more than 3,000 cars for sale on the site, Vroom delivers directly to its customers’ doorsteps. Since it was founded in 2013, Vroom has brought in $320 million from General Catalyst, T. Rowe Price, Altimeter and others, reaching a valuation of $655 million in July 2017.

We’ve reached out to the company for comment. 

As part of the March layoffs, Vroom, which is headquartered in New York City, also shuttered its Dallas, Texas and Whitestown, Indiana locations. The official number of employees Vroom let go is unclear, though when news of the layoffs broke, the company listed 845 employees on its website. Today, the site list “600+” or about 30% fewer employees.

The cuts, the company said, were part of a restructuring that would allow Vroom to focus on profitability. This is what the company had to say in March:

“While Vroom’s business is healthy and financially stable, we’re always looking to align our resources to fulfill our long-term vision and deliver on our mission,” the statement said. “In sharpening our focus on profitability, we recently made some adjustments to our strategy that has impacted our headcount. While decisions like this are never easy, we are putting the company in a better position to become the leader in online car buying and continue to invest in future areas of growth.”

It’s not surprising Vroom is back in the fundraising game. Buying and selling cars is a capital-intensive business. 

Vroom’s competitors have similarly raised a lot of capital. Carvana brought in more than $300 million in equity funding, as well as $400 million in debt, before hitting the stock markets in 2017. Shift has raised roughly $110 million to date. Beepi, a cautionary tale in the business of selling used cars online, landed $150 million in VC funding, then failed to sell its business twice, ultimately selling for parts to multiple buyers, including Vroom.

01 Sep 2018

It’s time for Facebook and Twitter to coordinate efforts on hate speech

Since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, there has been burgeoning awareness of the hate speech on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. While activists have pressured these companies to improve their content moderation, few groups (outside of the German government) have outright sued the platforms for their actions.

That’s because of a legal distinction between media publications and media platforms that has made solving hate speech online a vexing problem.

Take, for instance, an op-ed published in the New York Times calling for the slaughter of an entire minority group.  The Times would likely be sued for publishing hate speech, and the plaintiffs may well be victorious in their case. Yet, if that op-ed were published in a Facebook post, a suit against Facebook would likely fail.

The reason for this disparity? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which provides platforms like Facebook with a broad shield from liability when a lawsuit turns on what its users post or share. The latest uproar against Alex Jones and Infowars has led many to call for the repeal of section 230 – but that may lead to government getting into the business of regulating speech online. Instead, platforms should step up to the plate and coordinate their policies so that hate speech will be considered hate speech regardless of whether Jones uses Facebook, Twitter or YouTube to propagate his hate. 

A primer on section 230 

Section 230 is considered a bedrock of freedom of speech on the internet. Passed in the mid-1990s, it is credited with freeing platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from the risk of being sued for content their users upload, and therefore powering the exponential growth of these companies. If it weren’t for section 230, today’s social media giants would have long been bogged down with suits based on what their users post, with the resulting necessary pre-vetting of posts likely crippling these companies altogether. 

Instead, in the more than twenty years since its enactment, courts have consistently found section 230 to be a bar to suing tech companies for user-generated content they host. And it’s not only social media platforms that have benefited from section 230; sharing economy companies have used section 230 to defend themselves, with the likes of Airbnb arguing they’re not responsible for what a host posts on their site. Courts have even found section 230 broad enough to cover dating apps. When a man sued one for not verifying the age of an underage user, the court tossed out the lawsuit finding an app user’s misrepresentation of his age not to be the app’s responsibility because of section 230.

Private regulation of hate speech 

Of course, section 230 has not meant that hate speech online has gone unchecked. Platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter all have their own extensive policies prohibiting users from posting hate speech. Social media companies have hired thousands of moderators to enforce these policies and to hold violating users accountable by suspending them or blocking their access altogether. But the recent debacle with Alex Jones and Infowars presents a case study on how these policies can be inconsistently applied.  

Jones has for years fabricated conspiracy theories, like the one claiming that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax and that Democrats run a global child-sex trafficking ring. With thousands of followers on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, Jones’ hate speech has had real life consequences. From the brutal harassment of Sandy Hook parents to a gunman storming a pizza restaurant in D.C. to save kids from the restaurant’s nonexistent basement, his messages have had serious deleterious consequences for many. 

Alex Jones and Infowars were finally suspended from ten platforms by our count – with even Twitter falling in line and suspending him for a week after first dithering. But the varying and delayed responses exposed how different platforms handle the same speech.  

Inconsistent application of hate speech rules across platforms, compounded by recent controversies involving the spread of fake news and the contribution of social media to increased polarization, have led to calls to amend or repeal section 230. If the printed press and cable news can be held liable for propagating hate speech, the argument goes, then why should the same not be true online – especially when fully two-thirds of Americans now report getting at least some of their news from social media.  Amid the chorus of those calling for more regulation of tech companies, section 230 has become a consistent target. 

Should hate speech be regulated? 

But if you need convincing as to why the government is not best placed to regulate speech online, look no further than Congress’s own wording in section 230. The section enacted in the mid-90s states that online platforms “offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops” and “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”  

Section 230 goes on to declare that it is the “policy of the United States . . . to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet.”  Based on the above, section 230 offers the now infamous liability protection for online platforms.  

From the simple fact that most of what we see on our social media is dictated by algorithms over which we have no control, to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, to increased polarization because of the propagation of fake news on social media, one can quickly see how Congress’s words in 1996 read today as a catalogue of inaccurate predictions. Even Ron Wyden, one of the original drafters of section 230, himself admits today that drafters never exempted an “individual endorsing (or denying) the extermination of millions of people, or attacking the victims of horrific crimes or the parents of murdered children” to be enabled through the protections offered by section 230.

It would be hard to argue that today’s Congress – having shown little understanding in recent hearings of how social media operates to begin with – is any more qualified at predicting the effects of regulating speech online twenty years from now.   

More importantly, the burden of complying with new regulations will definitely result in a significant barrier to entry for startups and therefore have the unintended consequence of entrenching incumbents. While Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter may have the resources and infrastructure to handle compliance with increased moderation or pre-vetting of posts that regulations might impose, smaller startups will be at a major disadvantage in keeping up with such a burden.

Last chance before regulation 

The answer has to lie with the online platforms themselves. Over the past two decades, they have amassed a wealth of experience in detecting and taking down hate speech. They have built up formidable teams with varied backgrounds to draft policies that take into account an ever-changing internet. Their profits have enabled them to hire away top talent, from government prosecutors to academics and human rights lawyers.  

These platforms also have been on a hiring spree in the last couple of years to ensure that their product policy teams – the ones that draft policies and oversee their enforcement – are more representative of society at large. Facebook proudly announced that its product policy team now includes “a former rape crisis counselor, an academic who has spent her career studying hate organizations . . . and a teacher.” Gone are the days when a bunch of engineers exclusively decided where to draw the lines. Big tech companies have been taking the drafting and enforcement of their policies ever more seriously.

What they now need to do is take the next step and start to coordinate policies so that those who wish to propagate hate speech can no longer game policies across platforms. Waiting for controversies like Infowars to become a full-fledged PR nightmare before taking concrete action will only increase calls for regulation. Proactively pooling resources when it comes to hate speech policies and establishing industry-wide standards will provide a defensible reason to resist direct government regulation.

The social media giants can also build public trust by helping startups get up to speed on the latest approaches to content moderation. While any industry consortium around coordinating hate speech is certain to be dominated by the largest tech companies, they can ensure that policies are easy to access and widely distributed.

Coordination between fierce competitors may sound counterintuitive. But the common problem of hate speech and the gaming of online platforms by those trying to propagate it call for an industry-wide response. Precedent exists for tech titans coordinating when faced with a common threat. Just last year, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube formalized their “Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism” – a partnership to curb the threat of terrorist content online. Fighting hate speech is no less laudable a goal.

Self-regulation is an immense privilege. To the extent that big tech companies want to hold onto that privilege, they have a responsibility to coordinate the policies that underpin their regulation of speech and to enable startups and smaller tech companies to get access to these policies and enforcement mechanisms.

01 Sep 2018

This is the GoPro Hero 7

GoPro’s latest action camera isn’t expected to be revealed until later this month, but we just caught a pretty good glimpse of the thing. The Hero 7 made an early appearance as part of an in-store display posted by an Imgur user (though the link appears to no longer be active) and spotted by The Verge.

There’s not a lot to go on, save for a few display images on top of a display of older Hero models. The shots feature three different colors — black, white and silver — and note that the devices are waterproof up to 10 meters. That’s the same as the Hero 6.

There also appear to be two distinct SKUs — one with a simple front-facing screen (the black model) and the other without. Likely there will be a price gulf between the two, as well. That’s something the company has done in the past with the line. Really, there’s not much in the way of revelations here.

Introduced roughly this time last year, the Hero 6 was capable of shooting 4K video at 60 FPS and boasted a custom built GP1 processor. The action camera has long been GoPro’s bread and butter and has, in fact, become synonymous with the brand. Of course, plenty of other companies have tried their hands at competing (and often cheaper) devices, causing the company to diversify its offerings.

In the case of the Karma drone, however, that didn’t go according to plan, causing the company to reduce its headcount and redouble its efforts on its core business.

01 Sep 2018

This is the GoPro Hero 7

GoPro’s latest action camera isn’t expected to be revealed until later this month, but we just caught a pretty good glimpse of the thing. The Hero 7 made an early appearance as part of an in-store display posted by an Imgur user (though the link appears to no longer be active) and spotted by The Verge.

There’s not a lot to go on, save for a few display images on top of a display of older Hero models. The shots feature three different colors — black, white and silver — and note that the devices are waterproof up to 10 meters. That’s the same as the Hero 6.

There also appear to be two distinct SKUs — one with a simple front-facing screen (the black model) and the other without. Likely there will be a price gulf between the two, as well. That’s something the company has done in the past with the line. Really, there’s not much in the way of revelations here.

Introduced roughly this time last year, the Hero 6 was capable of shooting 4K video at 60 FPS and boasted a custom built GP1 processor. The action camera has long been GoPro’s bread and butter and has, in fact, become synonymous with the brand. Of course, plenty of other companies have tried their hands at competing (and often cheaper) devices, causing the company to diversify its offerings.

In the case of the Karma drone, however, that didn’t go according to plan, causing the company to reduce its headcount and redouble its efforts on its core business.

01 Sep 2018

Payday startups are increasing access to wages, but is “make any day payday” the right choice?

Imagine you get a monthly paycheck on the 15th of the month but your bills come in on the 1st of the month.  Between the 15th and 1st you must set a portion of your check aside to pay bills.  This becomes a complicated budgeting equation. How much can I spend today vs how much do I need to set aside?

In a perfectly rational world people would reduce their consumption by the amount needed to afford their bills and have money left over to make it to the next payday.  Sadly, this isn’t what happens. When income and bills are farther apart, we struggle to make the math work.

Researchers Brian Baugh  and Jialan Wang found that financial shortfalls – payday loans and bank overdrafts – happen 18% more when there is a greater mismatch between the timing of someone’s  income and the bills they owe.

We come up short.

Baugh offers some reasoning: When we get paid, we spend money. More money than usual.  Research from Arna Olafsson and Michaela Pagel supports this. They find that both poor and rich households respond to the receipt of income, with the poorest households spending 70 percent more when they get paid than they would on an average day and the richest households spending 40 percent more.  This inclination to spend more on payday makes the monthly budget harder to balance – and sometimes makes it unable to balance at all.

Many fintech companies are starting to address pay period timing, in hopes they can close the gap between income and consumption needs.  Apps like Even, Earnin and PayActive provide people with instant access to their paycheck.  Gig economy employers like Uber and Lyft have features that allow drivers to cash out immediately after they drive.  For people who would otherwise get paid on a monthly schedule, this is critical.  Jesse Shapiro of Harvard  found that food stamp recipients consume 10 to 15 percent fewer calories the week before food stamps are disbursed.   Even a few days matter. In Baugh’s study, the difference between a paycheck period of 35 days vs a paycheck period of 28 days resulted in 9% more instances of financial distress.

The question we should be asking now is what is the optimal timing for pay periods?  Too long between checks causes hardship, but how short should pay periods become?  These fintech companies are offering to “Make Any Day Payday” with promises that people can “Get your paycheck anytime you want.”  While this smooths the gap between pay periods, given Olassof’s research, it may also serve to increase spending if everyday is payday.

To dive deeper into this problem, our team sought to understand what employees preferred.  As a reminder, our preferences don’t always represent what’s best for us. You may want to eat that chocolate cake, but that doesn’t mean it will help you with your summer dieting goals.  However, we were curious: do people have the intuition that more frequent pay periods are better, and how frequent is optimal?   To do this we asked 384 people making less than median income ($30,000 a year) to tell us their preferred pay schedule. Using Google Consumer Surveys, we gave them six payment schedules to choose from: Annual, Monthly, Bi-weekly, Weekly, Daily or Hourly.

What should people say? If everyone acts rationally, we would expect people to say they want to get paid hourly – immediately after working. It’s their money and they would be best off with unfettered access to it.

This is not what we found. Instead, people prefer to get paid on a bi-weekly or weekly schedule.  Aggregating everyone’s responses, people preferred bi-weekly (37.2%), followed by weekly (26.6%).

Why aren’t more people choosing hourly or daily?  While we can’t be sure, one guess is that Baugh’s findings ring true. Weekly and biweekly paychecks can act as a self control device for spending. If paydays were every day, they may be more tempted to spend on non-critical items, leaving less money for bills.  Weekly and biweekly paychecks also serve as a way to fix the misalignment of income and bills that Baugh cites drives overdrafts and payday loans.  Our team interviewed 40 people in Fresno, California and found this to be a popular budgeting strategy – one paycheck is used for the family car payment and one is used for rent.

When we break out responses by income, we find some correlational differences across income groups. People reporting less than $6,000 income (50% below poverty line) are more likely to opt for an immediate pay schedule.  As people’s income level rises above poverty (or part time status), the preference for weekly and bi-weekly pay schedules increases.

We also asked people to tell us how they would describe their personal need for money when paying their bills over the past year. No surprise, but the more people felt they needed money for immediate bills (or feeling scarce) the higher the demand for more frequent paychecks (hourly or weekly).

The verdict?

More research is needed to determine the effects of the growing trend to offer instant access to your paycheck. These apps can bridge critical gaps for people living paycheck to paycheck, but they may also have some detrimental effects if Baugh and Olafsson’s findings hold. If apps help people make everyday payday, and each payday results in higher spending, the end of the month may be much harder to get to.

Key insights for companies trying to improve people’s financial lives

  1. Help move people off a monthly pay cycle. Our study suggests that lower income individuals don’t prefer monthly and other research suggests it has costly implications for their financial lives.
  2. Help people match up their income and their bills. Lenders can do this upon loan origination or fintech apps (like EarnUp) can help people automate timing.
  3. Provide (thoughtful) access to the paycheck. Apps could ask people up front to precommit to when they want to take money from their paycheck. This would still allow people to have access, but could possibly slow down an urge to withdraw too frequently.
01 Sep 2018

Alexa is now available on 20,000 devices

That large number comes courtesy of Amazon’s press event at IFA in Berlin this week. It’s an impressive jump, given that the company was only boasting around 4,000 the last time it reported a number at the beginning of the year.

“Just this year,” exec Daniel Rausch told the crowd, as reported by CNET. “Alexa has sung Happy Birthday millions of times to customers, and she’s told over 100 million jokes.”

That’s a lot jokes — at least one or two of them must have been good, right?

Alexa confirmed the number with TechCrunch, noting that Alexa is on “20k+ devices you can control with Alexa, from 3500+ brands.”

Amazon’s own devices only make up a small portion of the overall number, of course. There just aren’t that many Echo smart speakers, the Fire TV and Fire tablets. But the company has been making an extremely aggressive push to get the assistant on as many third-party devices as possible.

In many cases working closely with manufacturers on integration, both as partnerships and part of the company’s Alexa Fund, designed to invest in hardware startups. These days, the list of categories Alexa access is big and only getting bigger, from phones to thermostats to TVs to cars. At IFA this week, both Huawei and Netgear brought the assistant to home routers.

Google, too, has been pushing hard on manufacturers for third-party integration with its own offering — though it’s not hitting Alexa-type numbers just yet. In May, the company announced that 5,000 devices supported Assistant, up from 1,500 in January.

01 Sep 2018

Uber’s chief diversity officer is coming to TechCrunch Disrupt 2018

At TechCrunch Disrupt 2018, Uber’s Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Bo Young Lee will be joining us to talk about the ride-sharing company’s efforts to put detoxify its corporate culture and promote a more inclusive environment for employees.

Lee was hired as the company’s first chief diversity and inclusion officer this past January, after leaving insurance company Marsh LLC where she held a similar role.

Uber has obviously had its fair share of issues with fostering an inclusive culture, they’ve made some public efforts to showcase that the company was making active efforts to promote internal change and they seem to at least be having a more peaceful 2018 than 2017 — in terms of news surrounding the company’s culture. Nevertheless, there has still been plenty of movement surrounding diversity at the company even after Lee’s hire.

In April, the company released its first diversity report under new Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi showing some slight improvements with the percentage of female employees (38 percent) at the company, while there was a slight drop in black representation and a bump in Latinx representation.

In June, the company’s Chief Brand Officer Bozoma Saint John left the company, noting in an interview with TechCrunch that Uber had made some improvements but still had work to do. “I’m not saying the corporate culture has righted itself 100 percent,” John said. “Or it’s where it needs to be today. It isn’t. There’s still a lot to be done in that regard.”

In July, the company’s Chief People Officer Liane Hornsey, whom Lee reported to, resigned from the company following a racial discrimination investigation that targeted how the executive was handling complaints.

There’s obviously plenty to talk about in terms of the company’s own diversity efforts, we’re also looking forward to picking Lee’s brain about broader trends around inclusion in the tech industry and where her cautious optimism lies.

Disrupt SF will take place in San Francisco’s Moscone Center West from September 5 to 7. The full agenda is here, and you can still buy tickets right here.

01 Sep 2018

Getting personal: Funding rises for software-driven tastemakers

It has the feel of a science fiction plot. A young man heads online to look up deals on things he likes.

Slowly, the tables turn. Now, it’s the computer that starts telling him what he wants. Buy these pants. Play this song. Eat this pizza. Date this girl. Read news with this political spin…

OK, I lied. This isn’t sci-fi at all. It’s the current reality. And it’s the kind of thing venture capitalists seem keen on funding.

An analysis of Crunchbase data shows that global venture funding for personalization and recommendation platforms has surged in recent quarters. Investors are pouring billions into the space, creating a string of newly minted unicorns relying on algorithms to customize music streams, news feeds and much more.

Exits are also riding high for software-driven tastemakers. Recent ones include Spotify’s smash IPO, along with China-based news aggregator Qutoutiao, which is poised to go public at a multi-billion-dollar valuation.

Herein we take a look at where the money is going, how it could accelerate and the changing nature of how we find new things to like.

Getting personal

Before we go further, let’s define the personalization category. Essentially, we’re looking at business models that involve using software to match humans with things they might want to consume. This could be music, news, handbags, wine, other humans and lots more.*

Personalization isn’t generally considered a discrete sector. To use a cooking metaphor, it’s sort of like chicken. It’s not a cuisine so much as an ingredient you can dress up in almost any culinary style. Likewise, you can add software-driven personalization and recommendations to a wide variety of businesses focused on e-commerce, digital media, food delivery and so on.

It’s apparently a useful ingredient for driving up valuations. In the table below, we lay out some of the recent and most significant funding rounds for companies in a range of sectors that are deploying software-driven personalization and recommendation models.

The list represents more a sampling than a comprehensive data set, as a significant number of companies incorporate some form of software-driven personalization. We also mostly left out the enormous and heavily funded set of startups that rely on a combination of software and actual humans to deliver recommendations.

As you can see from the selected list above, those securing the largest rounds are a globally diverse bunch. Having a computer tell you what you want is a market niche that transcends national boundaries.

News and entertainment

Lately, the biggest chunk of funding is going to China-based news and entertainment aggregators.

Six-year-old Toutiao is climbing the unicorn ranks at a remarkable pace. Its parent company, Beijing-based Bytedance, has raised more than $3 billion to date and is reportedly seeking new funding at a $75 billion valuation. With active users in the hundreds of millions, its success stems from the use of machine learning to figure out people’s interests and offer up content they’ll click on.

At least three other China-based news and entertainment aggregators have raised $50 million or more in fresh funding since last year, including public market-bound Qutoutiao, loosely translated as “fun headlines.” The company describes its value add as providing technology-based “content personalization” to help users navigate the exponential growth in online offerings.

And then there’s iQiyi, the company sometimes called the Netflix of China. It scored one the year’s largest IPOs, and it was recently trading at around a $21 billion valuation.

Mature markets for personalization

For the U.S. market, meanwhile, the companies most closely associated with software-driven personalization have been public for quite some time.

Netflix, now valued at around $160 billion, went public 16 years ago. Google acquired YouTube back in 2006. And Amazon.com has been serving up algorithm-driven suggestions of what to buy for two decades.

Articles on the oddities of software-driven video recommendations date back to at least 2002. By now, Americans are pretty used to apps attempting to make our shopping and binge-watching selections. While occasionally creepy, it can also be convenient.

So what’s next on the personalization horizon? Looking at funded startups, it’s apparent there’s an ongoing drive among retailers other than Amazon to take back some market share by offering a more customized shopping experience.

One startup working in the area is New York-based Dynamic Yield, which has raised $63 million since last summer to scale a machine learning-based platform used by retailers like Stitch Fix and Urban Outfitters to match shoppers with things to buy. Another is True Fit, which has raised more than $110 million to work with prominent apparel brands and retailers to match consumers with styles that fit and flatter.

There’s a lot at stake. Research firm Boston Consulting Group predicts that personalization will push a revenue shift of some $800 billion to the 15 percent of companies that get it right.

That’s a big number, and it underscores a rapidly changing shift in consumer behavior. Call it the age of the tasteful machine.

Of course, it’s still possible to cultivate personal style and taste on your own. However, startup entrepreneurs, tech giants and venture capitalists seem to share a unified vision of software making a much bigger contribution to that effort.

As a result, what was once science fiction is now just becoming the way we shop.

* We decided not to include recommendation engines for financial services products and insurance. These are generally not so much tastemaking as matching products to an existing credit history and questionnaire answers.

01 Sep 2018

An ode to Apple’s awful MacBook keyboard

Yes I am very late to this. But I am also very annoyed so I am adding my voice to the now sustained chorus of complaints about Apple’s redesigned Mac keyboard: How very much it sucks. Truly, madly, deeply.

This is the keyboard that Apple “completely redesigned” in 2015, in its quest for size zero hardware, switching from a scissor mechanism for the keys to what it described then as the “new Apple-designed butterfly mechanism” — touting this as 40% thinner and 4x more stable.

Reader, there is nothing remotely beautiful and butterfly-esque about the experience of depressing these keys. Scattershot staccato clattering, as your fingers are simultaneously sucked in and involuntarily hammer out a grapeshot of key strikes, is what actually happens. It’s brutalist and unforgiving. Most egregiously it’s not reliably functional.

The redesigned mechanism has resulted in keys that not only feel different when pressed vs the prior MacBook keyboard — which was more spongey for sure but that meant keys were at reduced risk of generating accidental strikes vs their barely-there trigger-sensitive replacements (which feel like they have a 40% smaller margin for keystrike error) — but have also turned out to be fail prone, as particles of dust can find their way in between the keys, as dust is wont to do, and mess with the smooth functioning of key presses — requiring an official Apple repair.

Yes, just a bit of dust! Move over ‘the princess and the pea’: Apple and the dust mote is here! ‘Just use it in a vacuum’ shouldn’t be an acceptable usability requirement for a very expensive laptop.

Apple has also had to make these keyboards quieter. Because, as I say, the act of using the keyboard results in audible clackclackery. It’s like mobile phone keyclicks suddenly got dizzingly back in fashion. (Or, well, Apple designers got to overindulge their blue-sky thinking around the idea that ‘in space no one can hear you type’.)

Several colleagues have garnered dagger glances and been told to dial it down at conferences on account of all the key clattering as they worked. Yet a keyboard is made for working. It’s a writing tool. Or it should be. Instead, Apple has made a keyboard for making audible typos. It’s shockingly bad.

As design snafus go, this is up there with antenna-gate. Except actually it’s much worst. You can’t not ‘hold it in that way’. You can’t press keys on a keyboard radically differently. I guess you could type really slowly to try to avoid making all these high speed typos. But that would have an obvious impact on your ability to work by slowing down your ability to write. So, again, an abject mess.

I’ve only had this Oath-issued 2017 MacBook Pro (in long-held-off exchange for my trusty MacBook Air, whose admittedly grimy and paint-worn keys were nonetheless 100% functional after years of writerly service) for about a month but the keys appear to have a will of their own, whipping themselves into a possessive frenzy almost every time they’re pressed, and spewing out all manner of odd typos, mis-strikes and mistakes.

This demonic keyboard has summoned Siri unasked. (Thanks stupidly pointless Touch Bar!)  It has also somehow nearly delivered an ‘I’m not interested’ auto-response to a stranger who wrote me at length on LinkedIn to thoughtfully thank me for an earlier article. (Fortunately I didn’t have auto-send enabled so I could catch that unintended slapdown in the act before it was delivered. No thanks to the technologies involved.)

At the same time Caps Lock routinely fails to engage when pressed, as if it’s practising for when it’ll be broken. It equally countlessly fails to disengage when re-pressed. ‘Craps Out Lock’ more like. I fear it’s beset by dust motes already. Which is hard to avoid because, y’know, everything in the world is made of dust.

The keyboard also frustrates because of the jarring juxtaposition of having individual keys that depress too willingly, seeming to suck the typos from your fingers as letters get snatched out of sequence (and even whole words coaxed out of line), coupled with a backspace key that refuses to perform quickly enough (I’ve had to crank it right up to the very fastest setting) so it can’t gobble up the multiple erroneous strikes quickly enough to edit out all the BS the keyboard is continually spewing.

The result? A laptop that’s lightning quick at creating a typo-ridden mess, and slow as hell to clean it up.

In short, it’s a mess. A horrible mess that makes a mockery of the Apple catchphrase of yore (‘it just works’) by actively degrading the productivity of writing — interrupting your work with pointless sound and an alphabetic soup of fury.

The redesigned keyboard has been denounced by Apple loyalists such as John Gruber — who in April called it “one of the biggest design screwups in Apple history“.

He precision-hammered his point home with this second economical sentence: “Everyone who buys a MacBook depends upon the keyboard and this keyboard is undependable.”

Though it was Casey Johnson, writing for The Outline, who raised the profile of the problem last year, kicking up a major stink over her MacBook keys acting up (or dead) after a brush with invisible dust.

Since then keyboard-related problems have garnered Apple at least one class action lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the company has responded to this hardware headache of its own design like the proverbial thief in the night, quietly fiddling with the internals when no one was looking. Most notably it slotted in a repair earlier this year, when it added a sort of silicon gum shield to wrap the offending butterfly mechanism, which is presumably supposed to prevent dust from wreaking its terribly quotidian havoc. (Though it’s no use to me, right here, right now, with my corporate provisioned 2017 MBP.)

We know this thanks to the excellent work done by iFixit this summer, when it took apart one of Apple’s redesigned redesigned keyboards and found a thin rubberized film had been added under the keycaps. (Looking at this translucent addition, I am reminded of Alien designer HR Giger’s biomechanical concoctions. And of Ash’s robotic hard-on for poking around inside the disemboweled facehugger. But I digress.)

Shamelessly Apple tried to sell this tweak to journalists as solely a fix for those noisy key clicks. iFixit was not at all convinced.

“This flexible enclosure is quite obviously an ingress-proofing measure to cover up the mechanism from the daily onslaught of microscopic dust. Not — to our eyes — a silencing measure,” it wrote in July. “In fact, Apple has a patent for this exact tech designed to “prevent and/or alleviate contaminant ingress.”

And the date on Apple’s ingress-proofing key-cap condom patent? September 8, 2016. Read that and weep, MacBook Pro second-half 2016, 2017 and first half 2018 owners.

So if, like me, you’re saddled with a 2017 (or earlier) MBP there’s sweet F.A. you can do about this fatal design flaw in the core interfacing mechanism you must daily touch. Abstention is not an option. We must typo and wait for the inexorable, dust-based doom to strike the space bar or the ‘E’ key — which will then make the typing experience even more miserable (and require a trip to an Apple store to swaddle the misbehaving keys in rubber — leaving us computerless, most probably, in the meanwhile).

There is an entire novel written without the letter E. I propose that Apple’s failed keyboard redesign be christened the ‘Gadsby‘ in its honor — because, ye gads, it’s awful.

This is especially, especially frustrating because the MacBook Air keyboard was so very, very good.

Not good — it was great. It was as close to typing perfection I’ve come across in a computer. And I’ve been typing on keyboards for a very long time.

Why mess with such a good thing?! Marginally thinner than what was already exceptionally thin hardware is hardly something consumers clamour for.

People are far more interested in having the thing they bought and/or use actually doing the job they need it for. And definitely not letting them down.

(Or “defienmtely nort letting them down” as the keyboard just reworked the line. I really should have saved every typo and posted a mutant mirror text beneath this one, containing all the thousands of organic instances of ‘found poetry’ churned out by the keyboard’s inner life/poet/drunk.)

If shaving 40% off the profile of the key mechanism transforms an incredible reliable keyboard into a dust-prone, typo-spewing monster that’s not progress; it’s folly of the highest order.

Offering free repairs to affected users, as Apple finally did in June, doesn’t even begin to fix this fuck up.

Not least because that’s only a fix for dust-based death; There isn’t a rubber film in the universe that could make typing on these keys a pleasing experience.

What does it tell us when a company starts making the quality of its premium products worse? Especially a company famed for high-end design and high quality hardware? (Moreover, a company now worth a staggering $1tr+ in market capitalization?)

It smacks of complacency, misaligned priorities and worrying blindspots — at the very least, if not a wider lack of perspective outside the donut-shaped mothership. (Perhaps there’s been a little too much gathering around indoors in Cupertino lately, and not enough looking out critically at a flaking user experience… )

Or else, well, it smacks of cynical profiteering.

Clearly it’s not a good look. Apple’s reputation rests in large part on its hardware being perceived as reliable. On the famous Steve Jobs’ sales pitch that ‘it just works’. So Apple designing a keyboard that’s great at breaking for no reason at all and lighting fast at churning out typos is a truly epic fail.

Of course consumer electronic designs won’t always work out. Some failure is to be expected — and will be understood. But what makes the keyboard situation so much worse is Apple’s failure to recognise and accept the problem so that it could promptly clean up the mess.

Its apparent inability (for so long) to acknowledge there even was a problem is a particularly worrying sign. Having to sneak in a late fix because you didn’t have the courage to publicly admit you screwed up is not a good look for any company — let alone a company with such a long, rich and storied history as Apple.

More cynical folks out there might whisper it’s design flaw by design; A strategic fault-line intended to push users towards an upgrade faster than they might have otherwise have unzipped their wallets. Though Apple offering free keyboard repairs (also, albeit, tardily) contradicts that conspiracy theory.

Yet the notion of ‘built in obsolescence’ persists where consumer computing hardware is concerned, given how corporate profits do tend to be locked to upgrade cycles.

In Apple’s case it’s an easy charge to level at the company given its business model is still, in very large part, driven by hardware sales. So Apple doing anything that risks encouraging consumers to feel it’s intentionally making its products worse is also folly of the highest order.

Apple does have some active accusations to deal with on that front too. For example, a consumer group filed a complaint of planned obsolescence in France late last year — on account of Apple performance throttling older iPhones — something the company has faced multiple complaints over and some regulatory scrutiny. So again, it really needs to tread carefully.

Tim Cook’s Apple cannot afford to be slipshod in its designs nor its communication. Jobs got more latitude on the latter front because he was such a charismatic persona. Cook is lots of good things but he’s not that; he’s closer to ‘safe pair of hands’ — so company comms should really reflect that.

Apple may be richer than Croesus and king of the premium heap but it can’t risk tarnishing the brand. The mobile space is littered with the toppled monuments of past giants. And the markets where Apple plays are increasingly fiercely fought. Chinese device makers especially are building momentum with lower priced and highly capable consumer hardware. (Huawei displaced Apple in second place in the global smartphone rankings in Q2, for example).

Apple’s rivals have mercilessly cloned its slender laptop designs and copypasted the look and feel of the iPhone. Reliability and usability are the bedrock of the price premium its brand commands, with privacy a more recent bolt-on. So failing on those fundamentals would be beyond foolish, with so many rivals now pushing cheaper priced yet very similarly packaged (and shiny) alternatives at consumers — which also often offer equal or even greater feature utility for less money (assuming you’re willing to compromise on privacy).

When it comes to the Mac specifically, it clearly has not been Apple’s priority for a long time. The iPhone has been its star performer of the past decade, while growing its services business is the fresh focus for Cook. Yet when Cook’s Apple has paid a little attention to the Mac category it’s often been to fiddle unnecessarily — such as by clumsily reworking a great keyboard for purely cosmetic reasons, or to add a silly strip of touchscreen that’s at best distracting and (in my experience) just serves up even more unwanted keystrikes. So thrice blighted and the opposite of useful: A fiddly gimmick.

This is worrying.

Apple is a company founded with the word ‘Computer’ in its name. Computing is its DNA. And, even now, while smartphones and tablets are great for lots of things they are not great for sustained writing. For writing — and indeed working — at any length a laptop remains the perfect tool.

There’s no touchscreen in the world that can beat a well-designed keyboard for speed, comfort and typing convenience. To a writer, using a great keyboard almost feels like flying.

You wouldn’t have had to explain that to Jobs. He honed his Mac sales pitch to the point of poetry — famously dubbing the Mac a ‘bicycle for the mind’.

Now, sadly, saddled with this flatfooted and frustratingly flawed mechanic, it’s like Apple shipped a bicycle with a pair of needles where the pedals should be.

Not so much thinking different as failing to understand what the machine is for.

01 Sep 2018

Paul Graham on why he doesn’t like seeing college-age and younger founders

Yesterday, as part of some of its newest programming for startup founders, the startup incubator Y Combinator posted a new interview with its widely revered founder Paul Graham. The apparent idea was for Graham to share some deep thoughts about startups with fellow founder and current YC partner Geoff Ralston, though the two spend much of the (entertaining) interview discussing Graham’s formative career and his cofounders in his early startup Viaweb, and no wonder; one of them is famous hacker Robert Morris, who became the first person convicted under the then-new Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Much of the advice that Graham did eventually dispense to founders in the audience was interesting to us, however. Graham talked, for example, about his views on competition, which can essentially be boiled down to the idea that companies fail owing to poor execution, not because of me-too startups. In fact, said Graham, though companies worry about competitors, YC’s dataset suggests that “maybe one out of 1,900” of its portfolio companies has been killed by a rival that’s tackling the same problem.

Graham also repeated another point that we’ve heard him make in the past, which is that determination is far more important than intelligence when it comes to becoming a successful startup founder. Take away determination bit by bit, and you have “this ineffectual but brilliant person,” said Graham. But subtract out intelligence bit by bit and “eventually you get to some guy who owns a bunch of taxi medallions but he’s still rich. Or [who has] a trash hauling business, or something like that. You can take away a lot of smart.”

Yet our favorite part of the sit-down centered on the audience’s questions. One of these was a question about how founders deal with the varying commitment levels of their cofounders, which often change over time based on how the company is faring, as well as external events. Graham’s answer was simply for founders to ask themselves: “Would I rather have 30 percent of this [one] person, or 100 percent of another person?” (He said in the case of Morris, he would have taken 10 percent of him over 100 percent of another individual.)

Asked about the right founder DNA, Graham also offered up an unsurprising insight but one we personally hadn’t heard him say before, which is that YC isn’t so crazy about funding people who’ve worked at “certain” large companies for long periods, as it has learned over the years that they aren’t natural founders. He didn’t specify what the tipping point if for YC, but he offered that “if you’ve worked for a large company for 20 years, you might not be a founder, unless you were forced to [stay there] for visa reasons. Because if you were the kind of person who would make a good founder, you wouldn’t be able to stand working for a large company for 20 years.”

Related to this same question, Graham was asked about the trend in Silicon Valley to employ — and fund — ever-younger individuals. It’s clearly a trend that Graham finds objectionable.

Noting that he doesn’t “think on behalf of YC anymore” — not since handing the reins to President Sam Altman in early 2014 — he said YC “better not be [funding high school students], because that would be an evil thing to do, There are plenty of high school students who could start successful startups,” he said, “but they shouldn’t . .  . Because if you start a successful startup, like, the footloose and fancy-free days of your life are over. You’re working for that company.”

At this point, Ralson piped in to say that YC has “funded high school students,” adding that it isn’t looking to encourage them but has funded them “only because they are already going” with their companies. That didn’t stop Graham from warning that people who start companies at too young an age are engaging in “premature optimization. When you’re in high school and even in college, you should be figuring out what the options are, not picking one option and running with it . . . it’s good to mess around with a whole bunch of things in your early 20s, whether this messing around takes the form of college or something else.”

It’s not just a matter of losing out on precious time that could be better spent on exploration, he suggested. The real risk in taking the leap too soon is that it could work. “Starting is startup is like catching a dragon by the tail if it works. Be careful at what point you do that.”

You can check out the full interview here.