Author: azeeadmin

17 Aug 2018

Google gives its AI the reins over its data center cooling systems

The inside of data centers is loud and hot — and keeping servers from overheating is a major factor in the cost of running them. It’s no surprise then that the big players in this space, including Facebook, Microsoft and Google, all look for different ways of saving cooling costs. Facebook uses cool outside air when possible, Microsoft is experimenting with underwater data centers and Google is being Google and looking to its AI models for some extra savings.

A few years ago, Google, through its DeepMind affiliate, started looking into how it could use machine learning to provide its operators some additional guidance on how to best cool its data centers. At the time, though, the system only made recommendations and the human operators decided whether to implement them. Those humans can now take longer naps during the afternoon, because the team has decided the models are now good enough to give the AI-powered system full control over the cooling system. Operators can still intervene, of course, but as long as the AI doesn’t decide to burn the place down, the system runs autonomously.

[gallery ids="1693037,1693038,1693039,1693040"]

The new cooling system is now in place in a number of Google’s data centers. Every five minutes, the system polls thousands of sensors inside the data center and chooses the optimal actions based on this information. There are all kinds of checks and balances here, of course, so the chances of one of Google’s data centers going up in flames because of this is low.

Like most machine learning models, this one also became better as it gathered more data. It’s now delivering energy savings of 30 percent on average, compared to the data centers’ historical energy usage.

One thing that’s worth noting here is that Google is obviously trying to save a few bucks, but in many ways, the company is also looking at this as a way of promoting its own machine learning services. What works in a data center, after all, should also work in a large office building. “In the long term, we think there’s potential to apply this technology in other industrial settings and help tackle climate change on an even grander scale,” DeepMind writes in today’s announcement.

17 Aug 2018

Tesla shares tumble in early trading, after another Elon Musk-powered PR blunder

Elon Musk, the embattled chief executive of electric automaker and sustainable energy company Tesla, tried to “set the record straight” about his recent behavior in an hour-long exclusive interview with the New York Times. Instead, it only served to further underscore how out-of-touch the billionaire chief executive seems from the ongoing operations at his company. The fallout has already begun with shares falling in early trading.

His erratic behavior could cost investors billions and potentially destroy a company that has, in fact, revolutionized the automotive industry in America.

In the wide-ranging interview, Musk acknowledged the personal and physical toll running Tesla was taking on him and tried to explain away his recent behavior.

The latest drama began with a simple midday tweet last week indicating that Musk had secured funding to take Tesla private at a price of $420 per share.

The number (which is both within the range of a 20% premium of Tesla shares at the time, and a code with special significance for people who smoke marijuana), the timing of the announcement, and the medium on which it was issued all raised eyebrows.

From there, it has pretty much been all downhill for Musk and Tesla as the company’s executive bounced from one public relations blunder to another.

There are the allegations of illegal drug use, which Musk feebly addresses in his interview, saying:

“I was not on weed, to be clear,” he said.

“Weed is not helpful for productivity. There’s a reason for the word ‘stoned.’ You just sit there like a stone on weed.”

Reporting from the Times also contradicts another assertion that Musk made in the interview — which is that Tesla’s board is not seeking someone to take the reins as a chief operating officer at the company. Something which would indubitably help take some of the pressures of running the business off of Musk’s shoulders.

The chief executive acknowledged the physical toll that managing Tesla has taken on him, but said that he does not regret any of his recent actions.

Given that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the circumstances around the tweet, that may be another position that is subject to revision.

It’s been a long, hot summer for Tesla’s operations and Musk has only exacerbated problems for the company with his very public complaints about short sellers, whistle-blowers, reporters, analysts and others who have openly questioned the company’s viability.

There are very real concerns about production of the company’s newest model, alongside claims from whistleblowers that the pressures of meeting deadlines for the new car have led to cutting corners on safety.

Throughout all of it, Tesla’s board has remained firmly committed to protecting Musk and preserving his role as chief executive officer.

As the board said in a statement it released to the Times: 

“There have been many false and irresponsible rumors in the press about the discussions of the Tesla board,” the statement said. “We would like to make clear that Elon’s commitment and dedication to Tesla is obvious. Over the past 15 years, Elon’s leadership of the Tesla team has caused Tesla to grow from a small start-up to having hundreds of thousands of cars on the road that customers love, employing tens of thousands of people around the world, and creating significant shareholder value in the process.”

Perhaps the best thing that the company’s caretakers can do now, is ensure that Musk gets some help (in the c-suite — and potentially outside of it).

It seems from the interview that Musk is asking for the same thing.

“[If] you have anyone who can do a better job, please let me know. They can have the job. Is there someone who can do the job better? They can have the reins right now,” Musk told the Times. 

17 Aug 2018

Google said to be releasing its own smart display this year

Back at CES in January, Google put on a big show with the launch of a new product category designed to take on Amazon’s Echo Show and Spot. Three companies — LG, Lenovo and JBL — were waiting in the wings with their own take on the screen-powered smart speaker.

Google itself, on the other hand, was conspicuously absent. The company seemed content to rely on third-party hardware makers to do the heavy lifting in taking on Amazon. According to a new report from Nikkei Asian Review, however, the company is planning a screen sporting Home device before year’s end.

Lenovo’s Smart Display — the best looking of the original trio — launched late last month. Google, meanwhile, has been actively courting hardware makers to develop their own take on the product. At I/O, the company even handed out prototyping kits to attendees.

The strategy seemed a bit surprising, given the success Google has had with its own Home line. A recent report from Canalys shows a 449 percent year over year growth in global shipments, putting the company comfortably ahead of Amazon. If nothing else, however, letting manufacturers go first here was a vote of confidence that Google would continue to support third-party use of Google Assistant, even as it expands its own Home line.

Given the expected launch of the Pixel 3 in October, Google could well have the perfect platform to showcase new Home products just in time for the holidays.

17 Aug 2018

Facebook’s Kodi box ban is nothing new

According to recent reports, Facebook has updated its Commerce Policy to specifically ban the sale of Kodi boxes on its site – that is, devices that come with pre-installed Kodi software, which are often used for illegally streaming digital content. However, the ban is not a new one – Facebook confirms its policy on Kodi box sales hasn’t changed since last summer, and its external Policy Page – the one being cited as evidence of the new ban – was updated in December.

It’s true that the changes have flown under the radar until now, though.

The policy change was first reported by Cord Cutters News, and later linked to by TorrentFreak and Techdirt.

The original report claims that Facebook added a new rule on its list of “Digital Media and Electronic Devices” under “Prohibited Content,” which specifically calls out Kodi boxes. It says that Facebook posts “may not promote the sale of devices that facilitate or encourage streaming digital content in an authorized manner or interfering with the functionality of electronic devices.”

The Policy page lists a few examples of what this means, including wiretapping devices, jamming or descrambling devices, jailbroken or loaded devices, and, then “promoting the sale or use of streaming devices with Kodi installed.” (The only permitted items are “add-on equipment for Kodi devices, such as keyboards and remotes.”)

But this ban on Kodi boxes, Facebook says, is not a recently implemented policy.

According to a Facebook spokesperson, it launched a new policy last summer that prohibited the sale of electronic devices that facilitate or are intended for unauthorized streaming or access to digital content – including Kodi boxes. This policy has not changed since last summer, but its external Policy Page – this one being cited by the various reported – was updated in December 2017 to offer additional illustrative examples and more detailed information on all its policies, including the one related to unauthorized streaming devices.

In other words, Facebook has been banning Kodi boxes since it decided to crackdown on unauthorized streaming devices last year. It’s just now being noticed.

The ban affects all posts on Marketplace, Buy and Sell Groups, and Shop Sections on Pages.

Facebook explains it takes a very strong enforcement approach when “Kodi” is mentioned with a product for sale.

As Techdirt pointed out, that’s problematic because the Kodi software itself is actually legal.

However, device makers like Dragon Box or SetTV have been using the open-source Kodi platform and other add-ons to make copyright infringement easier for consumers.

Facebook does seem to understand that Kodi software isn’t illegal, but it knows that when “Kodi” is mentioned in a product (e.g. a device) listing, it’s very often a product designed to circumvent copyright. The company tells us that its intent is not to ban Kodi software altogether, however, and it’s in the process of reviewing its guidelines and these examples to more closely target devices that encourage unauthorized streaming.

That could mean it will, at some point, not outright ban a device that includes Kodi software, but focus more on other terms used in the sale, like “fully loaded” or some sort of description of the illegal access the box provides, perhaps. (Facebook didn’t say what might change.)

As for Kodi, the company says Facebook’s move doesn’t affect them.

“It doesn’t impact us, since we don’t sell devices,” says Keith Herrington, who handles Business Relations at the XBMC Foundation (Kodi).

He said his organization would love to talk to someone at Facebook – since they’ve never been in touch – in order to ensure that devices that are in compliance with Kodi’s trademark policy are not banned. Both Amazon and eBay have worked with Kodi on similar policies, he added.

“We’ve gotten thousands of devices which were in violation of our trademark policy removed from eBay,” Herrington said.

It’s unclear how well-enforced Facebook’s ban really is – I’m in Facebook groups myself where people talk about how to jailbreak “Fire sticks” and include posts from those who sell them pre-jailbroken. (It’s for research purposes. Ahem.)

Industry crackdowns go beyond Facebook

Facebook isn’t the only company that’s attempting to crack down on these devices. Netflix, Amazon and the major studios are suing Dragon Box for facilitating piracy by making it easy for consumers to access illegal streams of movies and TV shows.

In January 2018, a U.S. District Court judge handed down a preliminary injunction against TickBox TV, a Georgia-based set-top box maker that was sued by the major studios, along with streaming services Netflix and Amazon, for profiting from the sale of “Kodi boxes.”

Google has removed the word “kodi” from the autocomplete feature of Search, along with other piracy-related terms.

And more recently, the FCC asked Amazon and eBay to stop selling fake pay TV boxes. It said these boxes often falsely bear the FCC logo to give them the appearance of legitimacy, but are actually used to  perpetuate “intellectual property theft and consumer fraud,” the FCC said in letters to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and eBay CEO Devin Wenig.

Why Streaming Piracy is Growing

There’s a reason Kodi devices are so popular, and it’s not just because everyone is being cheap about paying for access to content.

For starters, there’s a lack of consequence for consumers who do illegally stream media – it’s not like back in the day when the RIAA was suing individuals for pirating music. While there has been some activity – Comcast several years ago issued copyright infringement notices to Kodi users, for example – you can today basically get away with illegal streaming. The copyright holders are currently focused on cutting off piracy at the source – box makers and the platforms that enable their sale – not at the individual level.

The rise of cord cutting has also contributed to the issue by creating a highly fragmented streaming ecosystem. Shows that used to be available under a single (if pricey) cable or satellite TV subscription, are now spread out across services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Sling TV, HBO NOW, and others used by cord cutters.

Customers are clearly willing to pay for some of these services (largely, Netflix and maybe one or two others), but most can’t afford a subscription for each one. And they definitely don’t want to when all they’re after is access to a single show from a network. That’s another reason they then turn to piracy.

Finally, there is the fact that film distributors have forever withheld their movies from streaming services for months, creating a demand for illegal downloads and streams. Though the release window has shrunk some in more recent years, the studios haven’t yet fully bought into the idea of much smaller windows to cater to the audience who will never go to the theater to watch their movie. And when this audience is cut out the market, they also turn to piracy.

Eventually, the record industry adapted to consumers’ desire for streaming, and services like Spotify and Apple Music emerged. Eventually, streaming services may be able to make piracy less attractive, too. Amazon Channels, could become a key player here if it expands to include more add-ons. Today, it’s the only true a la carte TV service available. And that perhaps – not skinny bundles – is what people really want.

17 Aug 2018

Google updates Location History language after tracking backlash

Four days after admitting that it continues to track users even after the Location History tracking has been disabled, Google has updated its website to more accurately reflect the nature of its location policy. 

“This setting does not affect other location services on your device, like Google Location Services and Find My Device,” the updated Google Account Help page now reads. “Some location data may be saved as part of your activity on other services, like Search and Maps. When you turn off Location History for your Google Account, it’s off for all devices associated with that Google Account.”

The update was noted by the Associated Press, which first brought the tracking issue to light earlier this week in a report. Google initially denied its own inaccurate reporting, but later backtracked, adding that it had added clarifying language.

The company told TechCrunch earlier this week,

Location History is a Google product that is entirely opt in, and users have the controls to edit, delete, or turn it off at any time. As the story notes, we make sure Location History users know that when they disable the product, we continue to use location to improve the Google experience when they do things like perform a Google search or use Google for driving directions.

Google further clarified that it had tweaked the language to offer more insight into continued tracking. The company told AP, “We have been updating the explanatory language about Location History to make it more consistent and clear across our platforms and help centers.”

Of course, fixing the language on a Help page isn’t the same as addressing the issue of continued tracking. Nor does it fully clarify the company’s tracking policy. And let’s be honest, most users will never see the Help page with that information listed. Transparency on the issues goes a long way when it comes to maintaining consumer trust.

17 Aug 2018

Klarity uses AI to strip drudgery from contract review

Klarity, a member of the Y Combiner 2018 Summer class, wants to automate much of the contract review process by applying artificial intelligence, specifically natural language processing.

Company co-founder and CEO Andrew Antos has experienced the pain of contract reviews first hand. After graduating from Harvard Law, he landed a job spending 16 hours a day reviewing contract language, a process he called mind-numbing. He figured there had to be a way to put technology to bear on the problem and Klarity was born.

“A lot of companies are employing internal or external lawyers because their customers, vendors or suppliers are sending them a contract to sign,” Antos explained They have to get somebody to read it, understand it and figure out whether it’s something that they can sign or if it requires specific changes.

You may think that this kind of work would be difficult to automate, but Antos said that  contracts have fairly standard language and most companies use ‘playbooks.’ “Think of the playbook as a checklist for NDAs, sales agreements and vendor agreements — what they are looking for and specific preferences on what they agree to or what needs to be changed,” Antos explained.

Klarity is a subscription cloud service that checks contracts in Microsoft Word documents using NLP. It makes suggestions when it sees something that doesn’t match up with the playbook checklist. The product then generates a document, and a human lawyer reviews and signs off on the suggested changes, reducing the review time from an hour or more to 10 or 15 minutes.

Screenshot: Klarity

They launched the first iteration of the product last year and have 14 companies using it with 4 paying customers so far including one of the world’s largest private equity funds. These companies signed on because they have to process huge numbers of contracts. Klarity is helping them save time and money, while applying their preferences in a consistent fashion, something that a human reviewer can have trouble doing.

He acknowledges the solution could be taking away work from human lawyers, something they think about quite a bit. Ultimately though, they believe that contract reviewing is so tedious, it is freeing up lawyers for work that requires a greater level of intellectual rigor and creativity.

Antos met his co-founder and CTO, Nischal Nadhamuni, at an MIT entrepreneurship class in 2016 and the two became fast friends. In fact, he says that they pretty much decided to start a company the first day. “We spent 3 hours walking around Cambridge and decided to work together to solve this real problem people are having.”

They applied to Y Combinator two other times before being accepted in this summer’s cohort. The third time was the charm. He says the primary value of being in YC is the community and friendships they have formed and the help they have had in refining their approach.

“It’s like having a constant mirror that helps you realize any mistakes or any suboptimal things in your business on a high speed basis,” he said.

17 Aug 2018

A new foreign investment bill will impact venture capital and the U.S. startup ecosystem

President Trump’s time in office has been punctuated by rising tension with China on a host of economic issues. He’s received bipartisan criticism for the impact of tariffs on Chinese goods and the resulting retaliation against American exports.

Democrats and Republicans have also unified over concerns about how Chinese state-associated actors are using minority investments in critical technology companies to gain sensitive information — like IP and know-how — about startups, many of them VC-backed.  Policymakers are worried this technology is being used to propel Chinese advancement in emerging technology like artificial intelligence and robotics.

These concerns led to passage of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA), which was signed into law by the president on August 13. NVCA has been at the table during FIRRMA’s consideration because it stands to have a significant impact on the venture and startup ecosystem.

Who in our industry needs to understand FIRRMA going forward? Many more than you might think. VCs with foreign LPs, VCs with foreign co-investors, or startups contemplating taking foreign capital are the prime examples, but given the shifting startup landscape in recent years, FIRRMA will leave a broad mark.

FIRRMA expands the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) to scrutinize foreign investments into ‘critical technology’ companies for national security implications. Few in the startup world have dealt with CFIUS, but those who have understand its power and implications. It’s the opaque government entity that blew up the Broadcom – Qualcomm transaction for national security reasons and has been called the ‘ultimate regulatory bazooka.’

Before FIRRMA, CFIUS reviewed foreign investments for national security considerations when the investment resulted in foreign control of a U.S. entity. But minority investments used to obtain sensitive information about a company have been outside the scope of CFIUS because those investments generally don’t deliver control to the foreign investor. FIRRMA is intended to address this blind spot by greatly expanding the transactions that must be disclosed to CFIUS.

NVCA secured hard-fought changes to FIRRMA to lessen the impact on our industry. The bill has come a long way from when it was introduced. For example, under the original version we were concerned foreign LPs might need to file with CFIUS because they would not meet the exemption for passive investment. Furthermore, a sizeable chunk of foreign direct investments into startups would be picked up by the bill. Fortunately, key changes were made in the end.

Ultimately under FIRRMA the government will now be able to review—and potentially reject—any investment by a foreign entity in a critical technology company that gives the foreign entity:

  • access to any material nonpublic technical information of the company;
  • membership or observer rights on the company’s board or equivalent governing body; or
  • any involvement in substantive decision-making of the company, other than through voting of shares

Under this approach, the typical venture fund ought to be able to avoid a CFIUS filing because its foreign LPs won’t meet the above factors.  And many direct investments into startups will also avoid filing with CFIUS unless they’re leading to board seats, non-public information about the company, or decision-making capability.

Still, VCs, LPs, and startups raising capital will need to navigate FIRRMA going forward to make sure they don’t get tripped up by the new law. Doing so will likely trigger a CFIUS filing, leading to delay and expense. The fast-moving startup ecosystem will not welcome the uncertainty that comes with a 45-day initial review that is fraught with uncertainty and costs. And that expense is no small sum, as FIRRMA sets the CFIUS filing fee at 1 percent of the value of the transaction or $300,000 — whichever is less. And that doesn’t include legal fees.

It is imperative the venture industry remain vigilant on FIRRMA and related national security issues. The government is increasingly interested in how our world operates because emerging technology is impacting society and foreign capital is sometimes used to launch high-growth companies.

At NVCA, we are embracing this conversation and will hold a conference named “Emerging Technology Meets National Security” on November 14 in DC.

The NVCA will remain deeply engaged in FIRRMA as regulations are written that will define terms and set practices that affect the thrust of the bill. These issues are happening whether or not the venture industry is part of the conversation, but we only get a chance to impact decisions if we’re in the room.

17 Aug 2018

New Battlefield V trailer gives a glimpse of Battle Royale mode

Battle Royale mode is taking over the gaming sphere. Alongside Fortnite, PUBG and H1Z1, a number of big titles are adding Battle Royale to their popular games, including CoD: Black Ops IV and Battlefield V.

In fact, EA DICE just released a new trailer for Battlefield V that seems to show a glimpse of the Battle Royale mode.

The Devastation of Rotterdam trailer shows loads of in-game footage, cutscenes and general action on the Rotterdam map. But at the end, the trailer goes to an aerial shot of a ring of fire, and inside a small number of soldiers continue to battle it out.

This may very well be the first look we’re getting at Battlefield V’s Battle Royale mode, which was teased at E3 this year.

The game doesn’t come out until October 19, at which point it will be available on PS4, Xbox, and PC.

Check out the trailer below:

17 Aug 2018

Taking Tesla private, WeWork and Uber earnings, and what happened to crypto

Hello and welcome back to Equity, TechCrunch’s venture capital-focused podcast where we unpack the numbers behind the headlines.

This week was a corker. We had Alex Wilhelm in-studio with our guest Minal Hasan, founder of K2 Global, and TechCrunch’s Danny Chriton jumped in from New York to help the crew dig through the biggest and best stuff from the last seven days.

It’s been busy, to say the least. First, we took a look at the Elon-Musk-taking-Tesla-private-situation, which has kept Markets Twitter in suspense for days. We didn’t really get to talk about the Grimes-Azealia Banks stuff, but, hey, stay in your lane and what not. Don’t forget that the latest Tesla upheaval comes on the heels of the firm’s pretty good earnings report.

Next, we took a look at earnings. Not of public companies, mind, but two unicorns that have become so large as to require regular financial disclosure. So, we took a peek into what Uber and WeWork had cooking. In short:

Put into simple terms, WeWork’s long-term lease situation has us worried, while Uber’s losses compared to its net revenue seem kinda alright given other financial metrics. Place your own bets, of course.

Moving along we took a dig into the NIO IPO, which you probably haven’t heard about yet. It’s another electric car company, but this time from China. And it’s raising a lot after having essentially zero history as a revenue-generating company. What could go wrong!

And finally, crypto and all that has happened to your favorite coin recently. Hasan was on hand with a grip of good points on the matter. She was a pretty damn great guest.

That’s it for this week, hang tight and come see us at Disrupt.

Production note: Alex’s mic was a bit whack until the 16-minute mark. Please forgive the issue, we noticed and fixed it as fast as we could. Hugs and love! 

Equity drops every Friday at 6:00 am PT, so subscribe to us on Apple PodcastsOvercast, Pocket Casts, Downcast and all the casts.

17 Aug 2018

Get your tickets to TechCrunch Startup Battlefield MENA 2018

Calling all entrepreneurs, techies, aspiring startup founders and anyone else who loves the thrill and excitement that comes from seeing innovative startups compete head-to-head. TechCrunch Startup Battlefield MENA 2018, our premier startup pitch competition, takes place October 3 in Beirut, Lebanon.

Come and watch as 15 of the region’s top early-stage startup founders vie for the title of the Middle East and North Africa’s best startup. Tickets to this event — our first in this part of the world — cost $29 (including VAT), and you can buy your tickets right here.

If you’ve never seen one of our Startup Battlefield competitions, this the perfect opportunity to learn what it’s all about and experience it up close and personal. Who knows? It might even inspire you to apply for the next Startup Battlefield. Here’s what you can expect to see onstage.

During three preliminary rounds, 15 teams — five startups per round — have only six minutes to pitch and present a live demo to a panel of expert technologists and VC investors. After each pitch, the judges have six minutes to grill the team with tough questions. Thanks to the free pitch coaching they received from TechCrunch editors, the founders will be ready to handle anything that comes their way.

Next, the judges confer, thin the herd and allow only five teams to move on to the next round — a new panel of judges, another pitch and more Q&A. After expending a lot of blood, sweat and maybe a few tears, one startup will emerge the winner of TechCrunch Startup Battlefield MENA 2018 — receive a US$25,000 no-equity cash prize and win a trip for two to compete in the Startup Battlefield at TechCrunch Disrupt in 2019 (assuming the company still qualifies to compete at the time).

Now, pay attention, because this is where you come in. All of this “techcitement” goes down in front of a live audience. You and hundreds of other people, including entrepreneurs, distinguished technologists, eager investors and media will cheer them on to victory. Great exposure for them, a ton of fun — and maybe even a networking opportunity — for you.

TechCrunch Startup Battlefield MENA 2018 takes place in the Beirut Digital District in Lebanon on October 3. A mere $29 gets you in the door, so don’t miss your chance to watch 15 startups launch to the world. Buy your ticket here today.