Category: UNCATEGORIZED

07 Dec 2020

Apple reportedly testing Intel-beating high core count Apple Silicon chips for high-end Macs

Apple is reportedly developing a number of Apple Silicon chip variants with significantly higher core counts relative to the M1 chips that it uses in today’s MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and Mac mini computers based on its own ARM processor designs. According to Bloomberg, the new chips include designs that have 16 power cores and hour high-efficiency cores, intended for future iMacs and more powerful MacBook Pro models, as well as a 32-performance core top-end version that would eventually power the first Apple Silicon Mac Pro.

The current M1 Mac has four performance cores, along with four high-efficiency cores. It also uses either seven or eight dedicated graphics cores, depending on the Mac model. Apple’s next-gen chips could leap right to 16 performance cores, or Bloomberg says they could opt to use eight or 12-core versions of the same, depending primarily on what kinds of yields they see from manufacturing processes. Chipmaking, particularly in the early stages of new designs, often has error rates that render a number of the cores on each new chip unusable, so manufacturers often just ‘bin’ those chips, offering them to the market as lower max core count designs until manufacturing success rates improve.

Apple’s M1 system on a chip.

Regardless of whether next-gen Apple Silicon Macs use 16, 12 or eight-performance core designs, they should provide ample competition for their Intel equivalents. Apple’s debut M1 line has won the praise of critics and reviewers for significant performance benefits over not only their predecessors, but also much more expensive and powerful Mac powered by higher-end Intel chips.

The report also says that Apple is developing new graphics processors that include both 16- and 32-core designs for future iMacs and pro notebooks, and that it even has 64- and 128-core designs in development for use in high-end pro machines like the Mac Pro. These should offer performance that can rival even dedicated GPU designs from Nvidia and AMD for some applications, though they aren’t likely to appear in any shipping machines before either late 2021 or 2022 according to the report.

Apple has said from the start that it plans to transition its entire line to its own Apple Silicon processors by 2022. The M1 Macs now available are the first generation, and Apple has begun with its lowest-power dedicated Macs, with a chip design that hews closely to the design of the top-end A-series chips that power its iPhone and iPad line. Next-generation M-series chips look like they’ll be further differentiated from Apple’s mobile processors, with significant performance advantages to handle the needs of demanding professional workloads.

07 Dec 2020

Berlin’s Wonder raises $11M for a new approach to video chat where you wander and join groups

If this year has taught us a lesson about the world of of work, it’s that collectively, we weren’t very well equipped in terms of the technology we use to translate the in-person experience seamlessly to a remote version. That’s led to a rush of companies launching new services to fill that hole, and today one of the latest startups in the area of videoconferencing is announcing a round of funding to see its business scale to the next level.

Wonder, a Berlin startup that has built a video platform for people to come together in video-based groups to meet up, network and collaborate, while also having a birds-eye view of a larger space where they can more serendipitously, or more intentionally, interact with others — not unlike an office or other business venue — is today announcing that it has raised $11 million in a substantial seed round of funding.

The seed round was led by European VC EQT Ventures, with BlueYard Capital — which led a pre-seed round in the startup when it was previously called “YoTribe” — also participating.

It comes on the heels of the young startup seeing some impressive traction this year. Wonder now has 200,000 monthly users from a pretty diverse set of organizations, including NASA, Deloitte, Harvard and SAP, which are using it for a variety of purposes, from team collaboration through to career fairs. The company will use the funding both to add in more features as requested by current users, as well as to hire more people for its team.

Now, you may be thinking: another workplace video app? Hasn’t this $14 billion space race already been “won” by Zoom (which some of us now use as a verb for videoconferencing, regardless of which app we actually use)? Or Microsoft or Google or BlueJeans, or whatever it is that your organization has inevitably already signed up and paid for?

But it turns out that for all the growth and use that these other platforms have had, they are sorely lacking in their overall experience. One of the key points, it turns out, is that a lot of solutions are not really built with the user experience of the larger group in mind.

Wonder is built around the idea of a “shared space” that you enter. That space comes not from a VR experience as you might expect, but something much simpler that takes a tip from more rudimentary but very effective older game dynamics. You get single window where you can “see” from an aerial view, as it were, all of the other people who are in the same space, and the areas within that space where they might cluster together.

Those clusters could be designed around a around specific interest (such as marketing or HR or product) or — if the product is being used at a career fair, for example, at a list of different companies taking part; or — at a conference — different conference sessions, plus an exhibit.

You can move around all of the clusters, or start your own, or sit in the margins with another person, and when you do come together with one or more people, you can join them in a video chat to interact. In the future, the plan is to do more than just join a video chat; you might also be able to access documents related to that cluster, and more.

The clusters can be “public” for anyone to join, or set to private, as you might have in a physical meeting room. The overall effect is that, without actually being in a physical space, you get the sense of a collective group of people in motion.

The startup was the brainchild of Leonard Witteler, who built a version of this last year as a coding project at university before showing it to friends and family and getting a lot of positive feedback.

As Pascal Steck describes it, he, Witteler and a third person, Stephane Roux, had been looking to build a startup together, but around a completely different idea — a portal for photographers and other creatives in the wedding industry. Given how drastically curtailed weddings and other group gatherings have been this year, that didn’t really go anywhere at all, but the three could see an opportunity, a very different one, with the software that Witteler had built while still a student. So in the grand tradition of startups, they pivoted.

Wonder had previously been called YoTribe, which sounds a little like YouTube and also plays on the idea of groups of friends who come together around special interests. And from how Steck and Roux described it to me in an interview (over Wonder of course), it didn’t sound like the initial idea was to target enterprises at all, but people who found themselves a bit at a loss when music festivals and other events like that suddenly died a death.

Indeed, they themselves were all too aware of the state of the market for videoconferencing apps: it was very, very crowded.

“The space is very busy and some great products already out there. But as soon as you zoom into this space” — no pun intended, he said — “when it’s about large group meetings, these other tools do not allow for serendipitous conversations or bottom-up gatherings, and the list gets very thin very quickly,” Steck said. “Our focus is around improving presentations, but in the case of large groups, there is just not a lot out there. Especially something building an association as we know it to how we do things in the offline world. We think we have a unique spot in the market.

“A meeting for three people can use Zoom or Teams perfectly. There is no need for anything else, but for larger groups, that is not the case and it seems like the market is really open for something like Wonder.”

The name “Wonder” is an interesting choice when it did rebrand from YoTribe. Wonder’s main meaning is surprise and discovery, but it has long been thought and assumed that “wonder” also connected to the word “wander”. (In fact, the two are not related etymologically, but have often crossed paths and wandered into each other’s territories over the centuries.) Similarly, the idea with Wonder the app is that you can “wander” around a room, and find who and what you are looking for in the process.

Wonder is not the only upstart video app that has picked up some attention in the last several months. In fact, there has been a wave of startups launching or announcing funding (or both) in 2020 to try to address the gaps — or opportunities — that exist as a result of the features from the current leaders.

Other notable launches have included mmhmm (Phil Libin’s latest startup that adds lots of bells and whistles to make the presentations more than just a talking head); Headroom (founded by ex-Google and ex-Magic Leap entrepreneurs, using AI to get more meaningful insights from the video conversations); Vowel (which lets people search across video chats to follow up items and dig into what people said across different calls); Descript, Andrew Mason’s audio effort, now also has video features.

In any case, Wonder has found, serendipitously, a lot of traction from people who have identified and lamentedthe problems with so much else out there today, and that has in turn piqued the interest of investors who are interested to see where it might go next.

“Throughout Covid-19, real-time video has become the default for both private and professional interactions, and hybrid working is here to stay,” said Jenny Dreier, investor at EQT Ventures Berlin, in a statement. “No other video tools come anywhere near as close to replicating real-life interactions as Wonder, so the product has explosive potential, already foreshadowed with the platform’s stellar organic growth. It’s incredibly exciting to be working with the team and to be part of the journey; I can’t wait to be a part of their next chapter.”

07 Dec 2020

Tech growth fund Highland Europe raises €700M to ‘double-down’, strengthens team

Highland Europe — the tech growth fund best known for backing high profile late-stage startups like GetYourGuide, Huel, WeTransfer, Wolt and Zwift — has closed its fourth fund, raising €700M in a comparatively short space of time compared to previous fund closes. Highland plans to ‘double-down’ on its strategy of being one of the few tech-focused growth funds honing in exclusively on tech startups, a sector of the financing world which in Europe, still to this day, is underserved.

The fund has also strengthened its team with the promotion of Jean Tardy-Joubert, Gajan Rajanathan and Ronan Shally to Partner. Tardy-Joubert and Rajanathan joined Highland in 2017/18 from Qatalyst, the San Francisco-based boutique investment bank serving the global tech sector, while Shally has been with the firm since 2014 and is Highland’s Chief Financial Officer.

The new fund means Highland Europe’s assets under management have risen to €1.8bn.

Over the past 12 months, the firm has backed seven founding teams, investing nearly €200M in Alkemics, Cobalt, DominoDatalab, Farewill, Meditopia (the ‘Calm for the Middle East’), Modulr and Supermetrics as well as the existing portfolio.

Highland Europe’s portfolio companies attracted external investment, with €730M follow-on investment in the last 12 months, some of which fueled seven M&A transactions completed by portfolio companies.

The firm said it had also helped the founding teams behind Spot and Smartly.io to navigate strategic and private equity interest, resulting in “substantial liquidity events,” it said.

Fergal Mullen, co-founder and partner at Highland Europe, said in a statement: “During 2020 we have seen 10-year trends in tech adoption compressed into one year across both consumer and business segments. Software has gone mainstream and it is mission-critical. The opportunity at the growth stage in Europe has never been more evident or more urgent.”

The lack of growth funds in Europe is stark when you look at the data. Figures from Dealroom.co show that European companies raised 38% of global venture capital at Seed, but this figure dropped to 21% at Series B and 14% at Series C (rounds of €40-100M). According to one estimate, just one in eight European companies reaches scale, compared with one in four in America, suggesting that European firms are starved of funding at the growth stage.

Speaking exclusively to TechCrunch, Mullen said: “We raised this fund in record time. We started raising on July, 26 and we finished on September 24. So it was very, very quick. We have an extraordinary group of investors. They didn’t just come back, they came back with substantially more capital.

“We’re delivering good returns, and we’re sticking to our strategy. We make commitments on what we’re going to do, we don’t deviate, we’re very focused, and our investors like that. We don’t go down to early stage, we don’t jump up into PE deals and we don’t jump off into things outside pure tech. They know what they’re backing and that’s what they get and the returns are there. The fund is in profit, meaning, they’ve already received back well over more than the capital that they contributed. And there’s still 12 active companies in that portfolio, so there’s a lot of value still to come.”

Mullen pointed out that GetYourGuide, a portfolio company hit hard by the destruction of the travel market during the pandemic had stepped up to the challenge: “They probably got hit the hardest light of anybody. So imagine last year, you’re cruising towards well over a billion euro, a billion of bookings for the year. And you move from that, in a two week period to zero. Right? And when I say zero like I mean zero, rock bottom. And worse than that, bookings that already have been made for the future, months, disappeared. But they survived because, for one, they had a lot of cash on hand from the big fundraise last year. Number two, they made sacrifices early that were initiated by the founding team.”

“And when I say sacrifices: imagine a group of founders taking 50% pay cuts across the board. They asked people if they were willing to participate in a ‘salary cut for equity’ programme. They expected 50 people to maybe put their hands up. They had 157 people take a 30% pay cut. And in return, they get over compensated in new equity. All this added up to the point where instead of having hundreds of millions of revenue in the year, they had, you know, 40 or something like that. But will still end up the year with the same cash year-end. And then on top, we put another 15 million on top. So they’re now in a better place. Once things pick up I think in the spring, summer period, they’re ready to accelerate and really get on with it. It’s a fantastic story and it deserves a mention,” said Mullen.

Highland’s 2020 investment highlights:
* ContentSquare – $190m Series D with participation from Highland Europe
* Featurespace – £30m with participation from Highland Europe
* Zwift – $300m with participation from Highland Europe
* Modulrfinance – £18.9m Series B led by Highland Europe
* Wolt – €100m follow on Series D co-led by Highland Europe
* Domino Data Labs – $43m Series E co-led by Highland Europe
* Alkemics – €21m Series C led by Highland Europe
* Meditopia- $15m Series A led by Highland Europe
* Farewill- £20m Series B led by Highland Europe
* CobaltAI- $29m Series B led by Highland Europe
* Supermetrics – €40m Series B led by Highland Europe
* Contentsquare, Wolt, & Zwift raised €100m+

07 Dec 2020

How Alibaba and JD.com compare in their healthcare endeavors

China’s tech circle is shifting its attention to online healthcare this week as JD Health is set to go public in one of Hong Kong’s largest IPOs this year.

Like Amazon, China’s e-commerce firms Alibaba and JD.com have been working to conquer the massive healthcare industry. The offerings are wide-ranging, reaching everything from around-the-clock delivery of medicines, sale of consumer health services like plastic surgery, online diagnosis for patients, to digital solutions for hospitals (like appointment-booking) and advertising services for drugmakers.

Alibaba Health began as an investment portfolio of the e-commerce firm and grew into a subsidiary through episodes of consolidations over the years. JD Health, on the other hand, was spun out from JD.com in 2019 and quickly began to attract flows of large investments.

The move into healthcare is part of the behemoths’ goal to be a one-stop-shop for everything. Here are some numbers for gauging how the digital health giants compare with each other:

Revenue

In terms of revenue sources, both companies rely mostly on the sales of medicines (both over-the-counter and prescription) and other healthcare products like vitamin supplements. Both have a direct-to-consumer drug business, whereby they are more involved in the supply chains, but they also serve as a marketplace for third-party suppliers, in which case they monetize by charging commission fees. They each have a smaller but growing services segment targeting consumers, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.

Alibaba Health – 7 billion yuan or $1.07 billion (six months ended September)

JD Health – 8.8 billion yuan or $1.35 billion (six months ended June)

Profitability

Alibaba Health posted its first profitable earnings this year, pocketing 278.6 million yuan in the six months ended September, up from a loss of 7.6 million yuan from the same period last year.

In the six months ended June, JD Health incurred a loss of 5.4 billion yuan, compared to a profit of 236.3 million yuan in the same period of 2019. The loss was mainly due to fair value changes after issuing additional convertible preferred shares.

Active users

Though Alibaba Health generated less revenue, the platform enjoys a larger user base, thanks to Alibaba’s sprawling ecosystem. In the year ended June, a total of 250 million users made purchases through the online pharmacy of Tmall, Alibaba’s business-to-consumer marketplace. Meanwhile, Alibaba Health’s direct-to-consumer drugstore saw 65 million annual active users.

In comparison, 72.5 million people had at least made one purchase through JD Health’s platform in the past year.

Doctor resources

Both companies provide online health consultation services, which saw a surge in demand during the COVID-19 outbreak. Alibaba Health had a network of over 39,000 doctors by September, compared to JD Health’s pool of over 65,000 doctors, both in-house and third-party.

07 Dec 2020

Singapore’s government launches blockchain innovation program with $8.9 million in funding

A group of Singaporean government agencies is launching a new research program for blockchain technology with $12 million SGD (about $8.9 million USD) in funding. Called the Singapore Blockchain Innovation Programme (SBIP), the project is a collaboration between Enterprise Singapore, Infocomm Media Development Authority and the National Research Foundation Singapore. It has support from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the country’s central bank and financial regulator.

SBIP’s funding comes from the National Research Foundation, and will be used to develop, commercialize and encourage the adoption of blockchain technology by companies. The program will first focus on the use of blockchain in trade, logistics and the supply chain.

According to a press release, the program “will engage close to 75 companies” over the next three years. It is already working with Dimuto, a global supply chain platform, to use blockchain technology to trace perishables with the goal of improving farmers’ creditworthiness.

The program’s other plans include finding ways to help blockchain systems and networks collaborate with one another, and growing the blockchain sector’s talent pool.

While companies ranging from startups to giants like IBM have been exploring the use of blockchain technology to create more transparent and cohesive supply chains for years, the issue has become more urgent as the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted vulnerabilities in international logistics and supply chains.

In a statement, Peter Ong, the chairman of Enterprise Singapore, said “COVID-19 has emphasized the need for trusted and reliable business systems in the new digital world. Blockchain technology helps embed trust in applications spanning logistics and supply chains, trade financing to digital identities and credentials.”

Singapore’s government is positioning itself as a partner to blockchain developers and companies, with the goal of becoming a “crypto hub” that is more open to the technology than other countries. Other blockchain-related government initiatives include the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Project Ubin. Launched in 2016, Project Ubin announced in July that its multi-currency payments network had proved its commercial potential after tests with more than 40 companies.

07 Dec 2020

Luko raises $60 million for its home insurance products

French startup Luko has raised a $60 million Series B funding round (€50 million). The round is led by EQT Ventures, with existing investors Accel, Founders Fund and Speedinvest also participating.

Some angel investors with a background in insurance and technology are also investing in the startup, such as Assaf Wand, the co-founder of Hippo Insurance.

Luko is selling home insurance products for both homeowners and renters. And the company has managed to attract 100,000 clients so far. Over the past year or so, the company has grown quite rapidly, jumping from 15,000 customers to 100,000.

In addition to a speedy on-boarding process, Luko has been refining its insurance product to make the experience better for the client. For instance, Luko doesn’t want to benefit from unused premiums.

Luko has a straightforward revenue model. It takes a 30% cut on monthly payments. Everything else is pooled together to pay compensation. This way, the startup isn’t always trying to generate bigger margins from premiums.

At the end of the year, you can choose to donate your portion of what’s left of the 70% share. Luko is also B-Corp certified.

This model is reminiscent of Lemonade, another insurtech company that recently went public and that should launch in France soon. Let’s see whether Luko can keep growing at the same pace with Lemonade entering the market.

In order to speed up repayments, Luko can send you money through Lydia, the leading peer-to-peer payment app in France. This way, you get your money back in just a few seconds.

With 85 employees, Luko plans to expand beyond its home country. It also wants to proactively protect homes by providing water meters to detect leaks, door sensors to detect when somebody is trying to get in, etc.

Image Credits: Luko

06 Dec 2020

SpaceX launches new cargo Dragon to Space Station for 100th successful Falcon 9 flight

SpaceX launched its 21st Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) mission for NASA to the International Space Station on Sunday, using a brand new variant of its Dragon capsule spacecraft. This new cargo Dragon has greater carrying capacity and can dock fully autonomously with the Space Station, both improvements over the last iteration.

This is the first launch for this redesigned cargo Dragon, and also the first mission for SpaceX’s new series of CRS missions under a renewed contract with NASA. It’s carrying 6,400 lbs of both supplies for the Space Station and its crew, as well as experimental supplies and equipments for the research being done on the Station. This version of Dragon can carry 20% more than the last cargo spacecraft from SpaceX, and it also has twice the number of powered lockers for climate controlled transportation of experimental material.

The new cargo Dragon is a modified version of the Crew Dragon that delivered astronauts to the ISS during May’s Demo-2 mission, and during last month’s Crew-1 flight. Its modifications include removal of the Super Draco engines that are equipped on the crew version, which provide propulsion to carry the capsule quickly away from the Falcon 9 in case of the need for an early abort to protect the astronauts on board. It can also be reused up to five times, vs. just three for the last cargo version.

This launch was SpaceX’s 100th successful Falcon 9 take-off, and the company has flown 43 of those on recovered and refurbished boosters. Today’s mission also included a recovery of the Falcon 9 first stage, which has now flown four times in total. This marks the 68th successful booster landing for SpaceX so far.

Next up for CRS-21 is a rendezvous between the cargo Dragon and the ISS, which is st to take place Monday evening. The capsule will autonomous dock with one of the Station’s new international docking adapters, which are designed specifically to make this automated docking procedure possible. It’ll be the second Dragon docked at the station when it arrives, since SpaceX’s Crew Dragon is still there from last month’s crew mission.

06 Dec 2020

SpaceX launches new cargo Dragon to Space Station for 100th successful Falcon 9 flight

SpaceX launched its 21st Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) mission for NASA to the International Space Station on Sunday, using a brand new variant of its Dragon capsule spacecraft. This new cargo Dragon has greater carrying capacity and can dock fully autonomously with the Space Station, both improvements over the last iteration.

This is the first launch for this redesigned cargo Dragon, and also the first mission for SpaceX’s new series of CRS missions under a renewed contract with NASA. It’s carrying 6,400 lbs of both supplies for the Space Station and its crew, as well as experimental supplies and equipments for the research being done on the Station. This version of Dragon can carry 20% more than the last cargo spacecraft from SpaceX, and it also has twice the number of powered lockers for climate controlled transportation of experimental material.

The new cargo Dragon is a modified version of the Crew Dragon that delivered astronauts to the ISS during May’s Demo-2 mission, and during last month’s Crew-1 flight. Its modifications include removal of the Super Draco engines that are equipped on the crew version, which provide propulsion to carry the capsule quickly away from the Falcon 9 in case of the need for an early abort to protect the astronauts on board. It can also be reused up to five times, vs. just three for the last cargo version.

This launch was SpaceX’s 100th successful Falcon 9 take-off, and the company has flown 43 of those on recovered and refurbished boosters. Today’s mission also included a recovery of the Falcon 9 first stage, which has now flown four times in total. This marks the 68th successful booster landing for SpaceX so far.

Next up for CRS-21 is a rendezvous between the cargo Dragon and the ISS, which is st to take place Monday evening. The capsule will autonomous dock with one of the Station’s new international docking adapters, which are designed specifically to make this automated docking procedure possible. It’ll be the second Dragon docked at the station when it arrives, since SpaceX’s Crew Dragon is still there from last month’s crew mission.

06 Dec 2020

Why does TechCrunch cover so many early-stage funding rounds?

Funding-round stories are TechCrunch’s bread and butter.

For early-stage companies, the fact that an investor has put thousands, millions (or billions) into an idea that will likely fail, and might never make money, is big news. That’s a story that we can tell every day.

From time to time, a debate pops up about the role of funding-round stories: Are financings the right metric to focus on? Should the trend be scratched and reinvented? After all, raising money is not indicative of making money. Let’s be real: news needs news to be published. There needs to be a tension, or a surprise, but most of all, a reason for the reader to keep reading.

It’s a healthy conversation, and one the Equity crew decided to discuss last Friday:

  • Alex Wilhelm: Funding rounds are largely rose-tinted trade journalism, but they’re worth writing
  • Danny Crichton: I hate funding announcements but write them anyway
  • Natasha Mascarenhas: The stories are so much more than the dollar signs

Alex: Funding rounds are rose-tinted trade journalism, but they’re worth covering

It’s easy to mock funding-round coverage: There are far more rounds than hands to write them, so the coverage is inherently partial; they are a poor milestone to use as a benchmark for growth; and coverage of the startup in question nearly always has an overly positive tilt, given that the piece in question centers around something that is a win for the company.

Yet, I still think they are worth writing and try to get to a few each week.

There are good reasons for doing so that run counter to the obvious complaints. Sure, there are more rounds than we could ever cover, but in theory we’re filtering as best we can for the most interesting, the furthest outlying and the trend-elucidating rounds that we can use as a light to better illuminate how the broader startup and technology worlds are changing.

I think TechCrunch does a reasonable job of picking the right companies to cover and we spend a good amount of time aggregating discrete funding events into trends. It’s super-hard work, as covering a single round is time-consuming and ultimately not incredibly well-read.

And yes, funding rounds are not really milestones to celebrate. The startup isn’t suddenly destined to win. Capital just means that the venture class has increased its wager on the startup generating more wealth for themselves and their backers, whom are largely already rich.

But trying to lever any information from private companies is an exercise in sadistic dentistry, and startups tend to open up the most around funding rounds. So, if you want to chat with a CEO on the record for half an hour, the next time their startup raises is probably your best chance.

And there is signal in a venture round. Someone felt strongly enough about the company’s prospects to inject it with more capital, making a funding event a reasonable signal that something is going on at the company.

Then there’s the issue of positive bias. All publications have a bias. TechCrunch has many biases, the most important and salutary of which is that we think that startups are cool. We do! Quickly-growing, private companies are inherently interesting and I came back to this publication in part so that I could keep writing about them. I am never bored.

So, yes, funding-round coverage tends to be a bit more on the positive side of balanced than I would like, but I balance that by becoming increasingly orthodox as a startup scales. When a young company raises its first few million, the chat with the CEO is her telling me about her small team, first customers and fitful progress.

By the time she raises a $50 million Series C, we’re talking gross margin expansion, YoY ARR growth and diversity metrics. Before she takes her unicorn public, I’m asking pressing questions about GAAP results, the public markets and what sort of external offers are coming in for the whole concern.

Being slightly optimistic about startups when they’re young is, then, tempered by increasing scrutiny as the company grows. That seems like a fair balance for the company and our readers.

So I won’t stop covering funding rounds. Even if I didn’t have this job I probably still would for my personal blog. I always learn something from high-growth companies; they have a window into the market that is dynamic and far from ossified. And early-stage founders tend to not be overly media-trained, so they are still interesting.

And sometimes something you write winds up changing the direction of a startup. That’s always a very weird and disconcerting feeling. But as this impact is nearly always good for the company in question, you’ve only accidentally made the lives of others a bit better for a short while. It’s not so harsh a sentence.

Danny: I hate funding announcements but write them anyway

Covering startups is one of the hardest news beats out there (trust me, I’m unbiased — I cover startups for a living).

If you cover the Senate, you report regularly on 100 individuals, their staffs and interactions. If you cover banking, you watch a handful of banks since no one gives a flying rat’s tushy about the industry’s middle market. There’s generally a limited scope in political and general business reporting where you know the key players and the key newsmakers.

In startups, you cover … everything. There are a couple of hot sectors that everyone is talking about … and then there is every other sector that might be the next hot sector, but no one has ever heard of it. It’s probably not important. But it might just be. That startup you talked to this week sounds boring. Four years later, it sells for $20 billion. The startup world is constantly changing, and unless you blow up your whole worldview on a regular basis, you’ll never keep up.

06 Dec 2020

Why does TechCrunch cover so many early-stage funding rounds?

Funding-round stories are TechCrunch’s bread and butter.

For early-stage companies, the fact that an investor has put thousands, millions (or billions) into an idea that will likely fail, and might never make money, is big news. That’s a story that we can tell every day.

From time to time, a debate pops up about the role of funding-round stories: Are financings the right metric to focus on? Should the trend be scratched and reinvented? After all, raising money is not indicative of making money. Let’s be real: news needs news to be published. There needs to be a tension, or a surprise, but most of all, a reason for the reader to keep reading.

It’s a healthy conversation, and one the Equity crew decided to discuss last Friday:

  • Alex Wilhelm: Funding rounds are largely rose-tinted trade journalism, but they’re worth writing
  • Danny Crichton: I hate funding announcements but write them anyway
  • Natasha Mascarenhas: The stories are so much more than the dollar signs

Alex: Funding rounds are rose-tinted trade journalism, but they’re worth covering

It’s easy to mock funding-round coverage: There are far more rounds than hands to write them, so the coverage is inherently partial; they are a poor milestone to use as a benchmark for growth; and coverage of the startup in question nearly always has an overly positive tilt, given that the piece in question centers around something that is a win for the company.

Yet, I still think they are worth writing and try to get to a few each week.

There are good reasons for doing so that run counter to the obvious complaints. Sure, there are more rounds than we could ever cover, but in theory we’re filtering as best we can for the most interesting, the furthest outlying and the trend-elucidating rounds that we can use as a light to better illuminate how the broader startup and technology worlds are changing.

I think TechCrunch does a reasonable job of picking the right companies to cover and we spend a good amount of time aggregating discrete funding events into trends. It’s super-hard work, as covering a single round is time-consuming and ultimately not incredibly well-read.

And yes, funding rounds are not really milestones to celebrate. The startup isn’t suddenly destined to win. Capital just means that the venture class has increased its wager on the startup generating more wealth for themselves and their backers, whom are largely already rich.

But trying to lever any information from private companies is an exercise in sadistic dentistry, and startups tend to open up the most around funding rounds. So, if you want to chat with a CEO on the record for half an hour, the next time their startup raises is probably your best chance.

And there is signal in a venture round. Someone felt strongly enough about the company’s prospects to inject it with more capital, making a funding event a reasonable signal that something is going on at the company.

Then there’s the issue of positive bias. All publications have a bias. TechCrunch has many biases, the most important and salutary of which is that we think that startups are cool. We do! Quickly-growing, private companies are inherently interesting and I came back to this publication in part so that I could keep writing about them. I am never bored.

So, yes, funding-round coverage tends to be a bit more on the positive side of balanced than I would like, but I balance that by becoming increasingly orthodox as a startup scales. When a young company raises its first few million, the chat with the CEO is her telling me about her small team, first customers and fitful progress.

By the time she raises a $50 million Series C, we’re talking gross margin expansion, YoY ARR growth and diversity metrics. Before she takes her unicorn public, I’m asking pressing questions about GAAP results, the public markets and what sort of external offers are coming in for the whole concern.

Being slightly optimistic about startups when they’re young is, then, tempered by increasing scrutiny as the company grows. That seems like a fair balance for the company and our readers.

So I won’t stop covering funding rounds. Even if I didn’t have this job I probably still would for my personal blog. I always learn something from high-growth companies; they have a window into the market that is dynamic and far from ossified. And early-stage founders tend to not be overly media-trained, so they are still interesting.

And sometimes something you write winds up changing the direction of a startup. That’s always a very weird and disconcerting feeling. But as this impact is nearly always good for the company in question, you’ve only accidentally made the lives of others a bit better for a short while. It’s not so harsh a sentence.

Danny: I hate funding announcements but write them anyway

Covering startups is one of the hardest news beats out there (trust me, I’m unbiased — I cover startups for a living).

If you cover the Senate, you report regularly on 100 individuals, their staffs and interactions. If you cover banking, you watch a handful of banks since no one gives a flying rat’s tushy about the industry’s middle market. There’s generally a limited scope in political and general business reporting where you know the key players and the key newsmakers.

In startups, you cover … everything. There are a couple of hot sectors that everyone is talking about … and then there is every other sector that might be the next hot sector, but no one has ever heard of it. It’s probably not important. But it might just be. That startup you talked to this week sounds boring. Four years later, it sells for $20 billion. The startup world is constantly changing, and unless you blow up your whole worldview on a regular basis, you’ll never keep up.