Category: UNCATEGORIZED

22 Jul 2020

Tesla picks Austin for its next U.S. factory to build Cybertruck, Semi truck, Model Y

Tesla has picked a site near Austin for its next U.S. factory, a 4- to 5-million square foot $1.1 billion plant that will assemble the automaker’s futuristic Cybertruck, the Tesla Semi and the Model Y and Model 3 for sales to customers on the East Coast. 

The decision announced Wednesday during the Tesla second-quarter earnings call marks the end of a fast and furious hunt for the best location — and accompanying incentives deal — for its next U.S. factory. Construction on the factory, which is located east of Austin near the airport, is expected to begin this year. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk described the future factory as an “ecological paradise,” with a boardwalk and bike lanes and where the public will be welcome.

Once completed, the factory in Austin will join a growing portfolio of factories and parts facilities in the U.S., China and Europe. Tesla’s first U.S. factory in Fremont, Calif., is where the Model S, Model X, Model 3 and Model Y are assembled. Tesla’s other U.S. factories include it’s so-called Gigafactory 1 near Reno, Nevada, which produces battery packs and electric motors for the Model 3, as well as a solar panel assembly plant in Buffalo, New York. Tesla opened its factory in China late last year and is building another large assembly plant in Berlin, Germany. 

The scouting mission for this latest factory first became public in March when Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted that the company was seeking out a location for the central part of the United States. Tesla was eyeing Nashville, but later dropped those plans to focus on a location east of Austin in Travis County as well as land in Tulsa, Oklahoma. While Austin was largely believed to be the frontrunner from the beginning, that didn’t stop speculation or Oklahoma’s efforts to attract the company. 

Oklahoma never made its proposed incentives package public. In Texas, details of two incentives deals became known as the proposals wound their way through the public hearings process. 

Musk thanked Tulsa and Oklahoma and noted on the call that he and the team were “super impressed” by the state and would consider it for a future site.

Tesla has promised Texas officials it will employ at least 5,000 people. About 25 of those workers are categorized as “qualifying” jobs and would be paid a minimum of $74,050, while the remaining would be middle income jobs with an annual salary of $47,147.

The Del Valle School District was the first to approve incentives for Tesla in a property tax abatement package worth $46.6 million. Commissioners in Travis County followed the district’s lead. The county approved July 14 property tax breaks worth at least $14.7 million — and potentially more — over 10 years.

Under terms of the agreement with Travis County, Tesla must invest $1.1 billion in the new factory within the first five years. In exchange, Travis County will rebate 70% of the property taxes Tesla will pay. Once Tesla’s investment in the factory eclipses that $1.1 billion mark, the property taxes rebates will increase to 75%. Any investments in the factory beyond $2 billion, will give Tesla 80% in property tax rebates.

Travis County has estimated that a $1.1 billion investment by Tesla would generated $8.8 million in new tax revenue over a 10-year period, a figure that takes into account the property tax rebates.

If Tesla fails to hit the investment goal or if its falls 75% short of its jobs requirement in any year, the company won’t receive any property tax relief. The county will also have the ability to recoup tax rebates if Tesla breaches its contract.

Together, Tesla will receive at least $61 million in property tax abatement. It’s possible that Tesla could receive more from the state. 

22 Jul 2020

Tesla stretches profit streak to four quarters, gains 6% in after-hours trading

Tesla extended its profitability streak to four quarters today, its longest period of profitability to date according to Q2 earnings it disclosed after the market closed.

The automaker reported that it earned $104 million million in net income, or $0.50 a share, compared with a $408 million loss, or a $2.31 per share loss, in the same period last year. Tesla’s adjusted EBITDA in in the second quarter, a heavily-shaped profit metric, was $1.21 billion in the quarter, up from $572 million in the year-ago period.

Excluding certain costs, the company’s adjusted net income was $451 million in Q2, worth $2.18 per share.

Analysts had expected a loss of 11 cents per share and revenue of $5.23 billion, according to data compiled by Yahoo Finance. Tesla shares around 7% in after-market trading on the news, to $1,698 per share. (Other data sources had higher per-share profit and revenue expectations.)

Tesla reported revenue of $6.04 billion, more than the $5.985 billion generated in the previous period and around $300 million less than the same quarter last year, or about 5%. Tesla generated $6.3 billion in revenue in the second quarter of 2019.

Its automotive gross margins grew to 25.4% in the second quarter, up from 18.9% in the same period last year. Tesla includes regulatory credits in its automotive revenues, which figure into its gross margins.

Regulatory credits in the second quarter were $428 million. Revenue from credits dropped after the first quarter of last year, hovering between $111 million and $134 million, before popping again this year. Tesla reported $354 million in regulatory credits in the first quarter, a 64% increase from the first quarter of 2019.

Tesla reported positive free cash flow of $418 million in the second quarter, up from a negative Q1 2020 result, but down 31% from a year-ago result of positive $614 million. Tesla has previously targeted being free cash-flow positive for 2020. The company didn’t hit that goal in the first quarter of the year, reporting a negative free cash flow of $895 million.

22 Jul 2020

Tesla stretches profit streak to four quarters, gains 6% in after-hours trading

Tesla extended its profitability streak to four quarters today, its longest period of profitability to date according to Q2 earnings it disclosed after the market closed.

The automaker reported that it earned $104 million million in net income, or $0.50 a share, compared with a $408 million loss, or a $2.31 per share loss, in the same period last year. Tesla’s adjusted EBITDA in in the second quarter, a heavily-shaped profit metric, was $1.21 billion in the quarter, up from $572 million in the year-ago period.

Excluding certain costs, the company’s adjusted net income was $451 million in Q2, worth $2.18 per share.

Analysts had expected a loss of 11 cents per share and revenue of $5.23 billion, according to data compiled by Yahoo Finance. Tesla shares around 7% in after-market trading on the news, to $1,698 per share. (Other data sources had higher per-share profit and revenue expectations.)

Tesla reported revenue of $6.04 billion, more than the $5.985 billion generated in the previous period and around $300 million less than the same quarter last year, or about 5%. Tesla generated $6.3 billion in revenue in the second quarter of 2019.

Its automotive gross margins grew to 25.4% in the second quarter, up from 18.9% in the same period last year. Tesla includes regulatory credits in its automotive revenues, which figure into its gross margins.

Regulatory credits in the second quarter were $428 million. Revenue from credits dropped after the first quarter of last year, hovering between $111 million and $134 million, before popping again this year. Tesla reported $354 million in regulatory credits in the first quarter, a 64% increase from the first quarter of 2019.

Tesla reported positive free cash flow of $418 million in the second quarter, up from a negative Q1 2020 result, but down 31% from a year-ago result of positive $614 million. Tesla has previously targeted being free cash-flow positive for 2020. The company didn’t hit that goal in the first quarter of the year, reporting a negative free cash flow of $895 million.

22 Jul 2020

Don’t let VCs be the gatekeepers of your success

I have struggled for years about whether or not to write a piece like this.

Speaking out about racism goes against every lesson I have learned since I was the only Black kid in my first-grade class in the Boston suburbs:

Save candid conversations about race for Black people. You’re being a victim. People will think you’re whining or making excuses. They’re not interested. Don’t make white people feel uncomfortable.

In a professional environment, speaking up could be career suicide. But now is not the time to be silent.

The startup I founded, Indenseo, is a data and analytics software insurtech company that provides automated underwriting services, software and analytics services to the insurance industry.

Despite strong customer relationships and support from angel investors, we didn’t complete building solutions and moving the company forward until we stopped taking unproductive pitch meetings with VCs. Some of my [white] colleagues who attended those meetings characterized these encounters as disrespectful and dismissive, but for me, they were par for the course.

Black founders have a better chance playing pro sports than landing VC funding

I was raised by a single mother in West Medford, Massachusetts, and worked my way through Harvard, located about five miles away. Before starting Indenseo, I worked for @Road, a fleet management telematics company that was acquired by Trimble, a company that says it transforms “the way the world works by delivering products and services that connect the physical and digital worlds.” There, I led a team that pioneered the sale of telematics data, which started with using data for traffic predictions and expanded to other markets, including insurance.

At Trimble, I saw the difficulty legacy insurance carriers faced when they tried to incorporate new types of data into their underwriting and business processes; I started Indenseo to solve this problem by combining deep insurance industry experience with the nimbleness of a startup.

I knew fundraising would be a challenge: Commercial auto insurance has been unprofitable for years, and industry executives would be naturally skeptical that my solution would make it better. As my insurance industry friends said, “you sure picked a hard problem to solve.”

Even as a first-time founder, I did not anticipate how difficult it would be to raise venture funding, but the experience offered some insights into why so few Black entrepreneurs are funded by VCs.

Insurance is not the most mainstream venture category, though in recent years many insurtech companies have received funding. And VCs are not accustomed to seeing Black founders in this space. The overall scarcity of Black founders suggests that they’re not used to seeing many of us, period.

The odds of winning a venture round are low for everyone, but Black founders have a better chance playing pro sports than they do landing venture investments.

The odds of winning a venture round are low for everyone, but Black founders have a better chance playing pro sports than they do landing venture investments.

According to a Harvard study, between 1990 and 2016, just 0.4% of the entrepreneurs who received funding were Black. That’s 188 Black entrepreneurs, versus 34,000 white entrepreneurs in total, or about seven per year. In 2016, nine Black NFL quarterbacks started at least one game during the season. Should anyone wonder why ambitious young Black men pursue sports careers?

I got the meetings and pitched Indenseo to investors in Silicon Valley, New York City, Chicago and Boston. I expected that my experience, my best-in-class team, the compelling Indeseo proposition, market fit, and the financial and advisory backing of notable insurance executives would land the dollars, despite the odds. I was wrong.

One recurring phenomenon we frequently encountered were dismissive and disrespectful investors (in the words of a white colleague). When I had one disappointing meeting after another, people in my multiracial network — many with extensive fundraising experience — told me it didn’t make sense. I’d resisted getting distracted by race as a factor, but white colleagues were saying that something wasn’t adding up.

As Toni Morrison said, “The very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work.” My own lived experience is that it’s an added factor that Black entrepreneurs have to manage.

I assumed most investors were jerks, but my white colleagues were shocked

I followed advice given to many Black founders: take a white colleague to your pitch meeting. I brought colleagues who had done a lot of fundraising themselves; some of these meetings were with their contacts. I tried this strategy dozens of times, and my colleagues were repeatedly shocked at the treatment we received.

I assumed most investors were jerks in pitch meetings, but they told me the level of disrespect and dismissiveness I received was not typical.

But if I lose my temper, I’d likely be labeled as just another angry Black man.

I did let my frustration show once when I directed a VC’s attention to the milestones we’d met and industry support we had gathered.

“What does it take for us to get a check from you?” I asked. His response: There is nothing you can say or do to get me to invest, but if you get another VC to lead the round, call me.

In another conversation with a VC, I pointed out the lack of diversity in both the ranks of investors and the entrepreneurs they choose to fund. He replied that Silicon Valley has produced the greatest accumulation of wealth in human history in the last 25 years. Why do we need to change anything?

GW Chew is a friend and a Black founder who was also having difficulty getting VC funding for his vegan meat company, Something Better Foods. He approached investors to raise funds to meet the fast expanding demand for his products. Talk about traction.

A white investor told Chew that if the founder/CEO were white, the company would have raised millions already. My friend told me he’s no longer talking to VCs and is raising funds from alternative sources.

Then there are the grifters. I don’t think Black founders are the only ones whose ideas get stolen after pitch meetings, but it happened to me.

We pitched a VC firm that had a consultant with an insurance background on their team to help evaluate the Indenseo opportunity. VCs don’t sign NDAs, but we did sign one with the consultant, who said Black founders can’t get companies funded but white founders can. (Yes, he said it.)

He later tried to ingratiate himself by saying he was considering investing too. Instead, he founded a company that copied our ideas. (So much for our NDA.)

Eventually, he told me, “I like your team. Call me when the wheels fall off.” When he announced his new company, we saw that he was backed by the VC who brought him into our meeting. He has since gone on to raise more than $40 million.

So why didn’t I sue him for violating the NDA? I consulted with some of our angel investors and they said we would be better off fighting them in the marketplace, given our limited time and resources. It wasn’t the first time our ideas were stolen.

When another company we pitched appropriated some of our ideas, my contact there informed his executives that they’d signed an NDA with Indenseo. Their reply: Indenseo doesn’t have the money to sue us. But they weren’t domain experts and we had left out much about our plans: They announced their launch in The Wall Street Journal, but as I expected, they failed.

I’ve never pitched at a VC firm that had a Black person in the room

Am I calling VCs racists? I don’t know what’s in their hearts, but I do know what’s in their numbers. Dealing with unconscious bias is difficult because as a Black entrepreneur trying to build a company, you know it exists and you have to figure out a way to manage around it. But it’s a subtle problem.

I don’t think VCs wake up in the morning and consciously decide not to invest in Black entrepreneurs or businesses intentionally choose not to buy from companies founded by Black entrepreneurs. But, the results of who receives investment and who doesn’t are quantifiable: few VC funds have Black employees or invest in companies started by Black founders.

I have never pitched at a VC firm that had a Black person in the room. And the pipeline excuse doesn’t work. There are Black people with technical degrees who aren’t hired at VC firms and white VC investment partners who earned liberal arts degrees.

Sure, there are funds started by Black VCs, but they encounter unconscious bias too when raising money. While more Black VCs with more capital is a crucial element of addressing underrepresentation, does that mean VC firms that aren’t founded by Black investors don’t have to change anything?

Deciding to stop the time-consuming VC pitch process and go in another direction to fund and develop the company was quite liberating. Moving forward, we’re free to manage our startup without wondering how VCs will view our decisions in the future when we seek funding.

We raised money from angel investors (including the former CEO of one of the world’s leading analytics software companies and his wife). In addition to money, it expanded our knowledge and it improved our products. Another lesson learned: Angel investors may be more helpful to your company than VCs.

The ultimate judgment on Indenseo’s products and team will be rendered by customers, partners and domain experts. The insurance industry has unique metrics that determine a company’s profitability. If you’re selling analytics software and services, either your solution is helping improve those metrics or it isn’t. The insurance industry is validating our market fit and survival skills.

Don’t let VCs be the gatekeepers of your success

I was able to build Indenseo without VCs because the insurance industry operates differently from VCs. One of the keys to success in the insurance industry is developing trust. Insurance isn’t a tangible product. It offers the promise that when a customer pays its premiums the insurance company will be able to support them when they file a claim. Without trust, a company can’t succeed in the industry.

There is a process to get insurance industry trust, and many senior executives in the industry are reluctant to invest the time in startups that’s necessary for them to get that trust. That’s because they aren’t convinced the startup will persevere to get through the process of getting that trust. We are able to get time with those executives because they trust our team and they don’t doubt that it’s worth their time to talk to Indenseo. They know we won’t fold when times are difficult.

A change I’ve seen since I started Indenseo that works in our favor is insurers don’t rely on VCs to act as a de facto screen for which insurtechs have the best teams and solutions. That’s because they don’t have confidence in investors’ judgments about insurtech companies.

Another lesson I’ve learned from my experiences: Don’t let VCs be the gatekeepers of your success. There are other funding sources, such as angel investors, corporate strategic investors, crowdfunding and more. There is funding outside the United States. Don’t overlook international investors: There is wealth in African countries. I found a way of funding the company that works for Indenseo.

We’ve developed Indenseo with angel investors and sweat equity. The key to our success is the amazing team, our advisory board and using capital efficiently. They remind me that you’re not the only one with an emotional investment in this company. When I started this company the only people in the insurance industry I knew were the people I had interacted with when I worked at Trimble.

Most of the people on our advisory board and team with insurance industry backgrounds are people I’ve met since I started Indenseo. It takes time to build those relationships. Because of them there is no corner of the commercial property casualty insurance industry we can’t access. The head of insurtech at a global reinsurance company told me that ours is the best balanced team of any insurtech company they’ve seen.

We are in the early stages of showing our flagship product, and it isn’t available for general release yet. Our VP of Engineering is telling me about a new concern: that we don’t take on too many customers too quickly.

22 Jul 2020

YC-backed Glimpse helps Airbnb hosts make money through product placement

Glimpse is giving Airbnb hosts a way to make extra money while also supplying their accommodations with new products.

The startup was founded by CEO Akash Raju, COO Anuj Mehta and CPO Kushal Negi, who all recently graduated from Purdue University. It’s part of the current batch of startups at accelerator Y Combinator — where, coincidentally or not, Airbnb is the most famous alum.

Raju said that he and his co-founders came up with the idea while they were still in school and working with brands to create pop-up shops on campus. They realized that many new, direct-to-consumer brands are looking to increase awareness, and they decided that Airbnbs were the perfect place to convince someone to try (for example) a new mattress or a new kind of coffee. After all, hotels are already in the product placement business.

If you’re an Airbnb host, you can sign up and then browse offers for free product samples. (If you really want to stock up, you can buy larger quantities at a discounted price.)

Glimpse works with you to showcase the products on your properties, and to email a digital “lookbook” highlighting the various products to guests at the beginning and end of their stay. You then earns a commission fee (Raju said $100 to $500 on average, though it can be even higher for big-ticket items) when these samples lead consumers to make a purchase.

Glimpse

Glimpse founders

Brands who have marketed themselves through the platform include the GhostBed mattress and Liquid Death water.

The startup first launched in March of this year — not exactly the best time for the travel business. Raju recalled, “We actually launched right before COVID started. After that, what we really spent a lot of time on was empathizing with hosts.”

In fact, some of the Glimpse’s early partners stopped listing their properties for a while. But travel is on the rise again, including (or even especially) via Airbnb, and Raju said many of Glimpse’s 750 current properties are now fully booked through September. And given the lost income of the past few months, hosts might be even more interested than usual.

He added that the team will continue building out the platform with new features for product discovery and attribution, but he said, “The key thing that makes us unique is our emphasis on that in-home experience.”

22 Jul 2020

Go SPAC yourself

Hello everyone, it’s a busy week with TechCrunch Early Stage underway and a slew of tech earnings to parse through. But that didn’t stop the Equity crew from sitting down to chat about the recent wave of SPAC commentary

Danny and I wanted to talk about what a SPAC is — the acronym stands for special purpose acquisition company — and why everyone seems to be chatting them up.

Why do you care? Here’s some context, in simple bullet-point format:

  • Yesterday, after raising its IPO price range, Jamf priced at $26 per share, selling more shares than it had previously anticipated.
  • Today it opened trading around $48, and is currently worth $40.18 per share, far above its IPO price.
  • Recent first-day gains, like Jamf’s own, have peeved elements of the venture classes who think that the gap between an IPO price and where a company first trades is money that Wall Street bankers, and the IPO process itself, have stolen.

Enter SPACs, which could offer a way for unicorns and other venture-backed companies to go public through a different pricing mechanism. If that alternative method of pricing the company would be better is not clear, but we tried to talk it through.

Equity is back Friday morning, of course. And please bear in mind that when I referred to “Robinhood dipshits,” I was talking about all retail investors as a cohort, not merely the folks at any one particular trading platform. Thanks to the in-market prestige of Robinhood, however, I did use it as short-hand for retail investors more broadly.

Oh, and follow the show on Twitter.

Equity drops every Monday at 7:00 a.m. PT and Friday at 6:00 a.m. PT, so subscribe to us on Apple PodcastsOvercastSpotify and all the casts.

22 Jul 2020

WhatsApp to pilot projects to deliver credit, insurance and pension to users in India

WhatsApp plans to offer credit, insurance and pension products to lower income individuals and those in rural areas in India and help digitize local small and medium-sized businesses as the Facebook -service looks to make a digital payments push in its biggest market by users.

The instant messaging app maker has been working with banks — including ICICI, Kotak Mahindra, and HDFC– in India for the past one year to explore ways to bring financial services to individuals who are yet to become part of the banking population, said Abhijit Bose, WhatsApp’s head in India at Global Fintech Fest conference via video chat on Wednesday.

This work over the past year has already proven that banks can leverage WhatsApp’s reach — with ICICI Bank and Kotak Mahindra reaching more than 3 million new users, said Bose, who announced that Facebook-owned app is now planning to work with additional partners to bring insurance, micro-pension and credit to lower wage workers and the informal economy over the next one and a half year.

WhatsApp will pilot several programs with partners to test solutions to bring these services to people, he said.

“Based on the results, we will co-invest and scale. Even a small conversion of the demand will translate into an infusion of significant savings into the financial system,” he said. “Over the next two years, we are committing to opening in entrepreneurial ways we never have before. We will launch many experiments.”

Banks today face a number of roadblocks such as the level of presence they have in a small city or town and their heavy reliance on middlemen to sell financial services that have limited the number of people they can reach, said Bose.

With a reach of over 400 million users in India — more than any other app in the country — WhatsApp is uniquely positioned to bring more people into the financial ecosystem.

Abhijit Bose, WhatsApp’s head in India, delivering a speech on Wednesday.

Facebook made clear of its plan to enter India’s digital payments market in 2018 when it launched WhatsApp Pay to a small number of users in the country. But the company has been stuck in a regulatory maze since then that has prevent it from rolling out WhatsApp Pay to all its users.

The company says it has complied with all the requirements mandated by New Delhi’s central bank, signalling that it could receive the final approval for a wide rollout of WhatsApp Pay any day now.

WhatsApp also plans to digitize businesses and help them secure working capital, said Bose. Facebook invested $5.7 billion in India’s top telecom operator Reliance Jio Platforms in April this year and said the two companies had agreed to explore ways to serve small businesses such as mom and pop shops.

“These small businesses are critical to the Indian economy. If you look at Facebook as a company, there has always been a focus on helping these businesses,” Facebook India head Ajit Mohan told TechCrunch in an earlier interview. “These small businesses, first-time entrepreneurs and new ventures leverage the Facebook platform to find new customers and expand to additional markets.”

Bose said Wednesday that he is hopeful that some of its financial services bets will work in India and it will be able to replicate those models in other markets.

At stake is India’s mobile payments market that Credit Suisse estimates could reach $1 trillion by 2023. Dozens of heavily backed local startups and international giants are competing to claim a slice of this opportunity. Google Pay and Walmart’s PhonePe currently dominate the market, TechCrunch reported last month.

22 Jul 2020

Mobalytics raises $11M and adds eye tracking metrics to its automated gaming coach

Back in 2016, Mobalytics wowed the judges at Disrupt SF with its data-based coach for the exploding competitive gaming world, winning the Startup Battlefield. The company is building on the success of the past few years with a new funding round and a compelling new collaboration with Tobii that uses eye-tracking to provide powerful insights into gamers’ skills.

Mobalytics began with the idea that, by leveraging the in-game data of a competitive e-sport like League of Legends (LoL), they could provide objective feedback to players along the lines of how fast or effective they are in different situations. Quantifying things like survivability or teamplay provides an analogue to similar measures in physical sports.

“On an athlete you have all these measurements, like pulse oximeters, ECGs, the 40-yard dash,” said Amine Issa, co-founder and “Warchief of Science.” Not so much with PC games. Their challenge at that time was to take the LoL API provided by Riot and transform it into actionable feedback, which the company’s success in the years since suggests they managed to do.

But Issa had always wanted to use another, more direct and objective measurement of a gamer’s mental processes: eye tracking. And last year they began an internal project to evaluate doing just that, in partnership with eye-tracking hardware maker Tobii .

“If you know where someone is looking, it’s the closest thing to knowing what they’re thinking,” Issa said. “When you combine that with the larger picture you can put together something to help them along. So we spent six months conducting research, taking players of different levels and roles and studying their eye tracking data to find some metrics we could organize the platform around.”

Not surprisingly, there are characteristics of the highly skilled (and practiced) that set them apart, and the team was able to collect them into a set of characteristics that any player can relate to.

Well, the gif compression isn’t so hot, but you get the idea – the purple square indicates attention. Image Credits: Mobalytics

“We had to think about how to build a product that people want to use. One thing we learned after TechCrunch is that even a simple score from 0-100 doesn’t work for everyone. You need to provide the context for that. So with something like eye tracking, you’re getting 30 data points per second — how do you break that down in a way that players understand it?”

Talking to professional gamers and coaches during the study helped them form the main categories that Mobalytics now tracks with the aid of a Tobii device, like information processing, map awareness, and tunnel vision.

“It’s important to be able to tell a narrative to people. Say you get ganked a lot,” said Issa, referring to the unfortunate occurrence of being picked off by enemy players while alone. “Why are you getting ganked? If your vision score is high but map awareness is low, that’s one thing. Did you know all the information and go in arrogantly, or were you not aware? League is a very complicated game, so players want to know, in this specific fight, what did I do wrong, and what should I have done instead?”

That second question is a tougher one (though perhaps AI MOBA players may have something to say about it), but the metrics are powerful in and of themselves. “Pros are fascinated by this technology,” Issa said. “There’s a lot of ‘I had no idea’ moments. Coaches have said, these are my fastest players but it’s cool to see that as a quantifiable variable.”

A post-game dashboard lets you know your strengths and weaknesses.

Tobii’s head of gaming, Martin Lindgren, echoed this feeling: “Pro teams aren’t interested in being told what to do. They want the data so they can draw their own conclusions.”

Tobii now has a gaming-focused eye-tracker and integrates with a number of AAA games, like Rise of the Tomb Raider, where it can be used in place of fiddly aiming using the analog sticks. As someone who’s bad at specifically that part of games, this is attractive to me, and Lindgren said opportunities like that are only increasing as gaming companies embrace both accessibility and try to stand out in a crowded market.

The companies have worked together to improve the eye-tracking coaching, for instance lowering the number of games a user must play before the system can accurately track their in-game actions; Lindgren said the collaboration with Mobalytics is ongoing — “definitely a long-term partnership” — in fact Tobii’s relationship with the founders predates their startup.

Image Credits: Tobii

The ultimate goal of the Mobalytics is to have a gaming assistant that adapts itself to your playing and preferences, making intelligent suggestions to improve your skills. That’s a ways off, but the company is getting the hang of it. Its first product the LoL assistant, took a year to build, Issa said. A more recent one, for Legends of Runeterra, took three months. Teamfight Tactics took three weeks.

Admittedly it was more difficult to design one for Valorant, which being a first-person shooter is wildly different from the other games — but now that it’s done, a lot of that work could be applied to an assistant for Counter-Strike or Overwatch.

Expansion to other games and genres is the reason for raising an $11M series A, led by Almaz Capital and Cabra VC, with HP Tech Ventures, General Catalyst, GGV Capital, RRE Ventures, Axiomatic and T1 Esports participating.

“It was a very different experience from the post-TechCrunch one, where you’re in the spotlight and everyone’s throwing money your way,” said Issa. “But we’ve built a successful product on LoL, expanded to four games, today we have more than seven million monthly active users… Our plan is to double down on what’s worked for us and create the ultimate gaming companion.”

22 Jul 2020

Apple digs in heels over its App Store commission structure with release of new study

Apple today is again taking to the press to fight back against claims of anti-competitive practices on its App Store. Last month, the company detailed the results of a commissioned study which showed how Apple wasn’t receiving a cut of revenue on the majority of App Store transactions — $519 billion in commerce. This time, Apple is touting the results of a new study that is meant to demonstrate how Apple’s App Store commission rate is similar to those of other app stores and digital content marketplaces.

The new study also comes from the Analysis Group, the same analyst group Apple used for its most recent study. The fact that Apple has tasked the firm with rolling out a series of reports to argue its case via market data indicates how seriously Apple is taking the antitrust claims.

Today, Apple is facing antitrust investigations in both the U.S and the E.U. Regulators are not only looking at Apple, but also at other top tech companies — including Google, Amazon, and Facebook — to determine whether they’ve used their size and power to limit competition. Apple CEO Tim Cook, in fact, is set to testify before the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee on Monday, July 27, making the study’s release even more timely, not to mention an obvious attempt at shifting the narrative in Apple’s favor.

The case against the App Store is a complicated one.

The argument for anti-competitive behavior stems from a number of factors: that Apple requires developers to process payments through its payments system, giving it a cut of transactions, as opposed to permitting the use of third-party payment processors; that Apple competes with third-party developers on the same platform while profiting from its rivals’ businesses; that Apple doesn’t allow developers any other means of distribution on its iOS platform besides listing on the App Store, which limits all sorts of apps from publishing; that Apple gives its own first-party apps deeper and more granular access to its operating system’s controls and features; and finally, that the cost of doing business on the App Store — typically, a 70/30 split between Apple and developers — is simply too high for the services provided, and it’s not universally enforced.

This latter point is the one Apple wants to dive into today.

The new study details the commission rate of Apple’s App Store and compares that with other two-sided marketplaces. On the iOS App Store, Apple’s commission rate is 30% for paid apps, in-app purchases of digital content and services, and the first year for in-app subscriptions. It falls to 15% after the first year for subscriptions.

This study points out that most app stores and video game marketplaces have the same commission structure as Apple’s (30%). This includes the Google Play Store, Amazon Appstore, Samsung Galaxy Store, Microsoft Store, plus game marketplaces across Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, and Steam (30% for sales below $10 million.) Some stores will drop that rate in specific cases — for example, Steam drops it for higher sales; Amazon charges 20% commissions on video streaming subscriptions; Xbox charges 15% for non-game subscriptions, and so on.

Image Credits: Analysis Group

Epic Games, the makers of Fortnite and one of the companies arguing against the current App Store model, charges 12%, however. That company has also notably stated that a lower commission can help to fuel developer innovation and increases competition.

Image Credits: Analysis Group

The new study additionally details the commission rates for a wide range of non-app store/game store platforms, including digital content platforms, e-commerce marketplaces, and even brick-and-mortar retailers. Among digital content platforms, the study looks at businesses like Roku, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video Direct, Spotify’s Anchor, Nook, Audible, Patreon, and others — many of which are 30% or higher. It points out that e-commerce marketplaces will sometimes exceed the 30% commission rate. This part of the study tracked commissions at 17 large digital marketplaces, including Amazon, eBay, Etsy, Walmart, Poshmark, Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, Stubhub, Ticketmaster, TaskRabbit and others.

And event notes that developers can make more money through digital distribution than through brick-and-mortar, which is an odd point of comparison, really.

The report, in fact, is handy in terms of having all this commission data centralized for easy reference in one place, as often these companies hide their commission structure deep in their Help documentation, if they publish it at all. But it’s also, broadly speaking, common knowledge and entirely missing the point. The antitrust issues surrounding Apple’s App Store are not about whether or not Apple is charging more than other digital marketplaces. It’s about whether that commission structure is hindering competition, given Apple’s size, wealth, and power.

Apple could have gotten ahead of this whole problem by simply lowering its commission rate and more expanding its existing carve-out for what it calls “reader apps” — those that allow users to access previously-purchased content or subscriptions. Today, reader apps include magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and other approved services like classroom management apps. This is, for example, how streaming services like Netflix are allowed to distribute an app that doesn’t offer sign-up, only a login.

But instead, Apple is doubling down. That the company is battling over its 30% commission, arguing openly that the commission is both commonplace and fair, is an indication of the growing importance of the company’s Services businesses to its bottom line. That business is led by its Digital Content and Services segment, which includes the App Store. In Q2 2020, Apple’s Services revenue hit an all-time high of a $13.35 billion, up from $11.45 billion in the same quarter last year. With every quarter, Services grows more critical to Apple’s overall growth as a company, particularly as the smartphone market itself becomes more saturated and newer economic pressures, like the pandemic, dampen iPhone sales.

22 Jul 2020

Apple starts giving ‘hacker-friendly’ iPhones to top bug hunters

For the past decade Apple has tried to make the iPhone one of the most secure devices on the market. By locking down its software, Apple keeps its two billion iPhone owners safe. But security researchers say that makes it impossible to look under the hood to figure out what happened when things go wrong.

Once the company that claimed its computers don’t get viruses, Apple has in recent years begun to embrace security researchers and hackers in a way it hadn’t before.

Last year at the Black Hat security conference, Apple’s head of security Ivan Krstic told a crowd of security researchers that it would give its most-trusted researchers a “special” iPhone with unprecedented access to the the device’s underbelly, making it easier to find and report security vulnerabilities that Apple can fix in what it called the iOS Security Research Device program.

Starting today, the company will start loaning these special research iPhones to skilled and vetted researchers that meet the program’s eligibility.

These research iPhones will come with specific, custom-built iOS software with features that ordinary iPhones don’t have, like SSH access and a root shell to run custom commands with the highest access to the software, and debugging tools that make it easier for security researchers to run their code and better understand what’s going on under the surface.

Apple told TechCrunch it wants the program to be more of a collaboration rather than shipping out a device and calling it a day. Hackers in the research device program will also have access to extensive documentation and a dedicated forum with Apple engineers to answer questions and get feedback.

These research devices are not new per se, but have never before been made directly available to researchers. Some researchers are known to have sought out these internal, so-called “dev-fused” devices that have found their way onto underground marketplaces to test their exploits. Those out of luck had to rely on “jailbreaking” an ordinary iPhone first to get access to the device’s internals. But these jailbreaks are rarely available for the most recent iPhones, making it more difficult for hackers to know if the vulnerabilities they find can be exploited or have been fixed.

By giving its best hackers effectively an up-to-date and pre-jailbroken iPhone with some of its normal security restrictions removed, Apple wants to make it easier for trusted security researchers and hackers to find vulnerabilities deep inside the software that haven’t been found before.

But as much as these research phones are more open to hackers, Apple said that the devices don’t pose a risk to the security of any other iPhone if they are lost or stolen.

The new program is a huge leap for the company that only a year ago opened its once-private bug bounty program to everyone, a move seen as long overdue and far later than most other tech companies. For a time, some well-known hackers would publish their bug findings online without first alerting Apple — which hackers call a “zero-day” as they give no time for companies to patch — out of frustration with Apple’s once-restrictive bug bounty terms.

Now under its bounty program, Apple asks hackers to privately submit bugs and security issues for its engineers to fix, to help make its iPhones stronger to protect against nation-state attacks and jailbreaks. In return, hackers get paid on a sliding scale based on the severity of their vulnerability.

Apple said the research device program will run parallel to its bug bounty program. Hackers in the program can still file security bug reports with Apple and receive payouts of up to $1 million — and up to a 50% bonus on top of that for the most serious vulnerabilities found in the company’s pre-release software.

The new program shows Apple is less cautious and more embracing of the hacker community than it once was — even if it’s better late than never.