Category: UNCATEGORIZED

09 Mar 2020

Twitter applies its new “manipulated media” label to video retweeted by Trump

A video retweeted by Donald Trump is the first to be marked with Twitter’s new “manipulated media” tag. The company formally unveiled a new policy last month that said media that has been “significantly and deceptively altered or fabricated” is likely to be labeled if it is determined to be deliberately misleading.

The video, originally tweeted by White House director of social media Dan Scavino and shared by Trump, used footage taken during a speech by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and was edited to make it appear as if Biden, speaking in Kansas City on Saturday, misspoke and accidentally endorsed Trump for re-election.

In the edited version of the video, Biden appears to say “Excuse me. We can only re-elect Donald Trump.” What Biden actually said was “Excuse me. We can only re-elect Donald Trump if in fact we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It’s gotta be a positive campaign.”

The manipulated media label began appearing on the video to some users on Sunday evening. Twitter first announced a draft of its new policy in November, which it said was created after gathering user feedback and consulting with academic experts like Witness, the Reuters Institute and New York University researchers.

In order to determine if a piece of media violates the policy, Twitter says it looks at its metadata, the tweet’s context and the Twitter user’s public information.

Twitter’s new policy was enacted after years of criticism that the company has not done enough to prevent harassment on the platform. It has also faced calls from Democrats and other critics of Trump to remove the president from this platform, including last October after they said he posted tweets meant to intimidate individuals involved in the impeachment investigation against him, and in 2018 when he made a tweet that antagonized North Korean leader Kim Jong-un over a potential nuclear war.

In each case, Twitter said it would reveal questionable tweets by public leaders, but believes keeping them on the platform is a part of public discourse.

09 Mar 2020

Telecom operators in India warn people of coronavirus outbreak, share tips

Telecom operators in India have started to warn users of Covid-19 spread after more than three dozen cases have been detected in the nation.

Subscribers of Reliance Jio, Airtel, and state-run BSNL were greeted with a warning in Hindi and English when they attempted to make a phone call on Sunday.

“Always protect your face with a handkerchief or tissue while coughing or sneezing. Regularly clean hands with soap. Avoid touching your face, eyes, or nose. If someone has cough, fever, or breathlessness maintain one metre distance. If needed, visit your nearest health centre immediately,” the pre-recorded message said.

Vodafone, the top telecom operator in India, is in the process of implementing the warning message, while Airtel is looking to broaden the reach of its alert, people familiar with the matter told TechCrunch. The initiative is being overseen by the nation’s ministries of health and telecommunications.

The coronavirus outbreak, which has made severe impact in many industries worldwide, is beginning to disrupt several businesses and livelihoods in India as well. Solar companies, and manufacturing and pharmaceutical firms, all of which source materials from China, are looking at the government for help.

To date, 43 cases of Covid-19 have been detected in the nation, three of whom have recovered fully.

A handful of firms have also advised their employees to work from home, in line with recent actions of several American giants. Financial services startup Paytm urged its employees in Noida and Gurgaon last week to not come to the office after one of the employees was tested positive with the new virus.

Chennai-headquartered cloud services firm Zoho told all its employees to work from home out of abundance of caution. IT conglomerate Tech Mahindra has made a similar push.

08 Mar 2020

U.S. response to the COVID-19 coronavirus moves from “containment” to “mitigation”

In interviews across major television networks on Sunday, U.S. officials all-but-admitted that efforts to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, have failed and that the country now needs to move to mitigate the effects of the continuing spread of the disease on the nation’s health and economy.

“We now are seeing community spread and we’re trying to help people understand how to mitigate the impact of disease spread,” U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday.

Dr. Adams’ concerns were echoed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“There comes a time,” Fauci said in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, “when you have containment which [sic] you’re trying to find out who’s infected and put them in isolation. And if and when that happens — and I hope it’s if and not when — that you get so many people who are infected that the best thing you need to do is what we call mitigation in addition to containment.”

The admissions are supported by data from Johns Hopkins University, which indicates that despite government efforts to contain the novel coronavirus from spreading in the U.S. there are now at least 474 people infected with the virus across at least 31 states.

Exact information is difficult to ascertain since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said earlier this week that it would no longer be able to provide an official tally of tests conducted or under investigation. The CDC made the decision because states and private institutions are now authorized to conduct their own tests — making it difficult for the agency to keep up with the latest information.

“We are no longer reporting the number of PUIs or patients under investigation nor those who have tested negative,” said Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the Center for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the CDC. “With more and more testing done at states, these numbers would not be representative of the testing being done nationally. States are reporting results quickly and even — states are reporting results quickly and in the event of a discrepancy between CDC and state case counts, the state case counts should always be considered more up to date.”

A coronavirus (COVID-19) test kit from the CDC.

Mistakes were made

Faulty test kits and internal divisions over how to respond the spread of the virus in the United States hamstrung early efforts to get an accurate picture of how rapidly the virus was moving through the population, according to multiple reports.

“They’ve simply lost time they can’t make up. You can’t get back six weeks of blindness,” Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development and an Obama-era administration staffer involved in the government’s response to the spread of the ebola virus, told The Washington Post. “To the extent that there’s someone to blame here, the blame is on poor, chaotic management from the White House and failure to acknowledge the big picture.”

There is a world in which a coordinated U.S. response to the outbreak of the coronavirus, which the Chinese government first reported to the World Health Organization in late December, would have been led by the global health security team within the National Security Council, but that group was dissolved in 2018 by the National Security Advisor at the time, John Bolton.

In that world, perhaps the U.S. could have ramped up the production and acquisition of testing kits, provisioned facilities in communities deemed to be more at-risk with the necessary equipment, and issued emergency authorizations to enable public institutions to administer tests without undergoing formal approval processes. In that world, the CDC would not have needed to impose severe restrictions on who could be tested for the virus, because they would not have needed to limit the number of tests they could conduct to only the most pressing — or obvious — cases.

Instead, as reporting in both The Washington Post and the New York Times indicates, a series of poor decisions, slow responses, and technological missteps limited the government’s ability to respond effectively to the threat.

The problems seem to have been threefold — the Centers for Disease Control did not move quickly enough to manufacture test kits at scale (either because of lack of funding or political will) nor did it open up testing options to other institutions that could have worked to develop tests — and because of the limited availability of tests, the CDC rationed how many tests were performed. Those issues were compounded by the initial release of faulty tests by the CDC in early February.

As former U.S. Food and Drug Administration official Scott Gottlieb wrote on Twitter in early February, “Since CDC and FDA haven’t authorized public health or hospital labs to run the tests, right now #CDC is the only place that can. So, screening has to be rationed. Our ability to detect secondary spread among people not directly tied to China travel is greatly limited.”

There are many reasons to have testing kits run through the CDC and state labs affiliated with the center. Chiefly, tests developed and distributed by the CDC can be conducted free-of-charge at public health labs, while corporate labs and private healthcare facilities can charge for the tests they develop.

(There has already been one story involving a man from Florida who was stuck with a $3000 bill for his decision to be pre-emptively tested for the coronavirus after returning from a trip to China.)

However, the inability of the CDC and federal public health officials to respond quickly enough was soon apparent throughout February.

A system for tracking travelers who were returning from China went down just as federal officials were directing state agencies to track their movements, according to a report in The New York Times.  Meanwhile, the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, was estimating that the U.S. needed at least 300 million respirator masks for healthcare workers — the national emergency stockpile only had 12 million on hand, and many of those were expired, according to the Times.

Meanwhile, the CDC’s coronavirus test had a flawed component that led to inaccurate tests, which limited the testing efforts even further. And the limitations imposed on who could receive the tests have meant that there is still no accurate picture of how widely the disease has spread.

As recently as Friday, a nurse at a hospital in California was being denied access to the coronavirus test.

“I am currently sick, in quarantine, after caring for a patient who tested positive. I am awaiting permission from the federal government to allow for my testing even after my physician and county health professional ordered the test,” the nurse said in an issued statement. “The national CDC would not initiate the test. They said they would not test me, because if I was wearing the recommended protective equipment, then I wouldn’t have the coronavirus… Later they called back and now it’s an issue with something called the identifier number. They claim they prioritize running samples by illness severity and that there are only so many to give out each day. So I have to wait in line for the results. This is not a ticket dispenser at a deli counter, it’s a public health emergency…. I’m appalled at the level of bureaucracy that’s preventing nurses from getting tested. Delaying this test puts the whole community at risk.”

“When the CDC test was delayed, then the cases started appearing outside of China, there should have been a quicker response to get diagnostic testing going,” Melissa Miller, a director of the clinical molecular microbiology laboratory at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, told the Washington Post.

“We have an epidemic underway here in the United States”

The Federal Government is now facing an epidemic, according to health experts, and the question now is how can it help states and local governments respond.

“We have an epidemic underway here in the United States,” said former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, in an interview on Face the Nation.

Gottlieb, who recently returned to his position as a managing partner at the venture capital firm NEA, has been monitoring the government’s response from afar and was once rumored to be a candidate for the position of “Coronavirus Czar” overseeing the Administration’s response to the outbreak.

“We have to implement broad mitigation strategies. The next two weeks are really going to change the complexion in this country. We’ll get through this, but it’s going to be a hard period. We’re looking at two months probably of difficulty,” said Gottlieb. “To give you a basis of comparison, two weeks ago, Italy had nine cases. Ninety-five percent of all their cases have been diagnosed in the last 10 days. For South Korea, 85 percent of all their cases have been diagnosed in the last 10 days. We’re entering that period right now of rapid acceleration. And the sooner we can implement tough mitigation steps in places we have outbreaks like Seattle, the- the lower the scope of the epidemic here.”

Part of mitigation involves continuing to track the spread of the disease, and Gottlieb has been encouraging the FDA to move quickly to get new tests approved for weeks. Already, the Gates Foundation and private companies are rushing to bring an at-home coronavirus test kit to market — and ways to share the results from testing with appropriate government agencies.

But testing alone isn’t enough, says Gottlieb. The U.S. needs to “[close] businesses, close large gatherings, close theaters, cancel events,” Gottlieb said.

Businesses have started to cancel large conferences and events, and universities like Stanford are turning to remote classes for the remainder of their winter term. No city or state has yet to take measures as drastic as Italy, which closed down the entire Northern region of the country over the weekend in an effort to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

“I think we need to think about how do we provide assistance to the people of these cities who are going to be hit by hardship, as well as the localities themselves to try to give them an incentive to do this.”

His recommendations align with policy suggestions issued recently by the International Monetary Fund, which are all steps that the U.S. government could take should it choose to proactively approach its response to the virus’ spread.

Indeed, the over $8 billion coronavirus response package approved by Congress last week goes a long way to addressing the first suggestion from the IMF, which is to spend on the prevention, detection, control, treatment and containment of the virus.

Equally as important, according to the IMF, is to provide cash flow relief to the people and firms that are most affected — either in the form of wage subsidies, accelerated and expanded unemployment benefits, or tax benefits for companies affected by the virus outbreak.

“We’re going to end up with a very big federal bailout package here for stricken businesses, individuals, cities and states,” said Gottlieb. “We’re better off doing it upfront and giving assistance to get them to do the right things than do it on the back end after we’ve had a very big epidemic.”

Meanwhile, leadership in the U.S. at the highest level insists that there’s nothing to worry about.

08 Mar 2020

Burn the EARN IT Act

I want to talk about malignant incompetence on the part of our elected officials, and this isn’t even about the pandemic. Rather, it’s about the spectacularly misguided, counterproductive, expensive, and overbearing approach to end-to-end encryption by the USA along with Australia, Canada, the UK, and New Zealand — the so-called “Five Eyes.”

Consider the TSA Lock program. (Bear with me; this is important.) It’s an initiative to ensure all luggage locks can be opened by universal keys, held by the TSA and other aviation security agencies, so that any luggage can be searched at any time. The cited purpose is to prevent terrorism, which of course we all want. Unfortunately, the TSA master keys have been publicly leaked, such that anyone could make copies. Furthermore, TSA agents are numerous, fallible, and prone to misusing their authority.

Still, preventing terrorism is a good thing which we all want, right? Some people may feel that TSA Locks are an unacceptable intrusion into personal liberties, but a majority seem basically OK with them. They’re a trade-off between public security and personal privacy which we have collectively more-or-less agreed on.

Suppose, however, that the situation was tweaked slightly. Suppose that anyone who really wanted to could, at the cost of some slight inconvenience, instead use invulnerable luggage, proof against keys, scans, and external access of any kind, all for free … and airlines were required to convey that luggage anyhow. Call it the “TSA Locks Except For People Willing To Take An Extra Half Hour To Pack” program.

Suddenly that whole program sounds completely insane, doesn’t it? Suddenly this isn’t a trade-off at all. Clearly people with anything to hide, such as terrorists, drug smugglers, etc., would immediately switch to using the invulnerable luggage, and the rest of the TSA Lock mandate would become a gratuitous invasion of personal privacy.

Suddenly the program’s chief impact would be the imposition of significant and unnecessary risks, such as leaked master keys, rogue TSA agents, and misuse by tyrannical governments, on the entire flying public who don’t go to the inconvenience of using invulnerable luggage. Suddenly the program brings no benefit whatsoever. Suddenly it is a poster child for malevolent government overreach, negligence, and authoritarianism.

Well, “TSA Locks Except For People Willing To Take An Extra Half Hour To Pack” is, I am appalled to report, a perfect and exact metaphor for what the Five Eyes want to do with end-to-end encryption. They want a ‘golden key‘ back door — aka a TSA Lock — for all messages sent over messaging systems like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, iMessage, etc., despite the inescapable fact that unbreakable encryption — aka invulnerable luggage — has long been widely available, open-source, and free to all.

Even if you wanted to put that genie back in the bottle (and you really shouldn’t, as it has granted us many wishes which protect us all) it is far too late now. Even if you wanted to prevent messages with strong encryption from being transferred (which you really really shouldn’t) you couldn’t; there are too many ways to disguise them as other messages, e.g. encode them in images. Invulnerable luggage is a fact of life, and has been for decades.

And yet governments keep trying to legislate it out of existence, withlegislation that will only harm people who use the metaphorical TSA locks, courtesy of leaked keys, rogue government workers, and authoritarian governments everywhere. The latest attempt is the EARN IT act, introduced Thursday by a bipartisan coalition. Here is a summary of its most grievous flaws, by Riana Pfefferkorn, he Associate Director of Surveillance and Cybersecurity at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, who previously described the bill as “how to ban end-to-end encryption without actually banning it.”

The cited intent of the bill is to fight “child sexual abuse material,” or CSAM. Which of course is a most laudable goal, which we all desire. Just like the goal of preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes. But as with the TSA Locks metaphor, this will simply drive awful people to use their own encryption — their own invulnerable luggage — while giving authoritarian governments, people with leaked keys, and rogue agents access to potentially trillions of previously secure private messages worldwide. It is a catastrophically dumb idea crafted by people who don’t understand what they’re doing. Let’s hope, just as with the pandemic, there’s still time enough to convince them of the reality.

08 Mar 2020

China Roundup: Enterprise tech gets a lasting boost from coronavirus outbreak

Hello and welcome back to TechCrunch’s China Roundup, a digest of recent events shaping the Chinese tech landscape and what they mean to people in the rest of the world. This week, a post from Sequoia Capital sounding the alarm of the coronavirus’s impact on businesses is reaching far corners of tech communities around the world, including China.

Many echo Sequoia’s observation that the companies that are the “most adaptable” are the likeliest to survive. Others cling to the hope of “[turning] a challenging situation into an opportunity to set yourself up for enduring success.”

Two weeks ago I wrote about how the private sector and the government in China are working together to contain the epidemic, bringing a temporary boost to the technology industry. This week I asked a number of investors and founders which of these changes will stand to last, and why.

B2B on the rise

The business-to-business (B2B) space was rarely a hot topic in China until online consumer businesses became relatively saturated in recent times. And now, the COVID-19 epidemic has unexpectedly breathed life into the once-boring field, which stretches from virtual meetings, online education, digital healthcare, cybersecurity, telecommunications, logistics to smart cities, analysis from investment firm Yunqi Partners shows.

For one, there is an obvious opportunity for remote collaboration tools as people work from home. Downloads of indigenous work apps like Dingtalk, WeChat Work, TikTok’s sister Lark as well as America’s Zoom jumped exponentially amid the health crisis. While some argue that the boom is overblown and will dissipate as soon as businesses are back to normal, others suggest that the shift in behavior will endure.

Like other work collaboration services, Zoom soared in China amid the coronavirus outbreak, jumping from No. 180 in late January to No. 28 as of late February in overall app installs. Data: App Annie 

“People are reluctant to change once they form a new habit,” suggests Joe Chan, partner at Hong Kong-based Mindworks Ventures. The virus outbreak, he believes, has educated the Chinese masses to work remotely.

“Meeting in person and through Zoom both have their own merits, depending on the social norm. Some people are used to thinking that relationships need to be established through face-to-face encounters, but those who don’t hold that view will have fewer meetings. [The epidemic] presents a chance for a paradigm shift.”

But changes are slow

Growth in enterprise businesses might be less visible than what China witnessed over the SARS epidemic that fueled internet consumer verticals such as ecommerce. That’s because software-as-a-services (SaaS), cloud computing, health tech, logistics and other enterprise-facing services are intangible for most consumers.

“Compared to changes in consumer behavior, the adoption of new technologies by enterprises happen at a slower pace, so the impact of coronavirus on new-generation innovations [B2B] won’t come as rapidly and thoroughly as what happened during SARS,” contended Jake Xie, vice president of investment at China Growth Capital.

Xie further suggested that the opportunities presented by the outbreak are reserved for companies that have been steadily investing in the field, in part because enterprise services have a longer life cycle and require more capital-intensive infrastructure. “Opportunists don’t stand a chance,” he concluded.

As for changing consumer behavior, such as the uptick in grocery delivery usage by seniors trapped indoors, the impact might be short-lived. “The only benefit that the epidemic brings to these apps is getting more people to try their services. But how many of them will stay? The argument that people will keep using these apps over concerns of getting sick in offline markets is unsubstantiated. The strength of a business lies in its ability to solve user problems in the long term, for example, providing affordability and convenience,” suggested Derek Shen, chairman of Danke Apartment, the Chinese co-living startup slated to list on NYSE.

Summoned by Beijing

The adjacent sector of enterprise services — at-scale technologies tailored to energizing government functions — has also seen traction over the course of the epidemic. Private firms in China have teamed up with regional authorities to better track people’s movements, ramp up facial recognition capacities aimed at a mask-wearing public, develop contact-free consumer experience, among other measures.

Tech firms touting services to the government are no stranger to criticisms concerning the lack of transparency in how user data is used. But the appeal to private firms is huge, not only because state contracts tend to provide a steady stream of long-term revenue, but also that certain public-facing projects can be billed as a fulfillment of corporate social responsibilities. Following the virus outbreak, Chinese tech companies of all sizes hastened to offer contributions, with efforts ranging from making monetary donations to building tools that keep the public informed.

On the flip side, the government also needs private help in emergency management. As prominent Chinese historian Luo Xin poignantly pointed out in podcast SurplusValue’s recent episode [1:00:00], some of the most efficient and effective responses to the public health crisis came not from the government but the private sector, whether it is online retailer JD.com or logistics firm SF Express delivering relief supplies to the epicenter of the outbreak.

That said, Luo argued there are signs that some local authorities’ tendency to centralize control is getting in the way of private efforts. For example, some government offices have stumbled in their attempts to develop crisis management systems from scratch, overlooking a pool of readily available and proven infrastructure powered by the country’s tech giants.

08 Mar 2020

Original Content podcast: ‘Love is Blind’ adds a touch of reality to a silly premise

Even by the standards of romantic competition reality shows, “Love is Blind” has a doozy of a concept: A group of men and women “date” by talking in pods where they can only hear each other’s voices. In just a little over a week, they’re expected to start proposing marriage to someone who they’ve never seen.

On this week’s episode of the Original Content podcast, we’re joined by TechCrunch marketing director (and reality TV expert) Alexandra Ames to review the just-wrapped first season of the Netflix show. As we explain, the series actually moves beyond its initial high concept pretty quickly — after the first few episodes, the newly-engaged couples leave the pods and to see if their relationships can survive in the real world.

So the show prompted plenty of discussion about relationships and reality TV in general. At the same time, we’re happy to gossip about the most and least interesting couples, and about who left who at the altar.

And we also some thoughts about the choice of Nick and Vanessa Lachey as the hosts. (Hey, at least most of their material appears to have been left on the cutting room floor.)

You can listen in the player below, subscribe using Apple Podcasts or find us in your podcast player of choice. If you like the show, please let us know by leaving a review on Apple. You can also send us feedback directly. (Or suggest shows and movies for us to review!)

And if you’d like to skip ahead, here’s how the episode breaks down:

0:00 Intro
0:59 “Love Is Blind” spoiler-free review
28:12 “Love Is Blind” spoiler discussion

16 Dec 2019

The top mobile apps and games of 2019

Mobile consumers worldwide will have downloaded a record 120 billion apps from Apple’s App Store and Google Play by the end of 2019, according to App Annie’s year-end report on app trends. This represents a 5% increase from 2018 — a notable achievement given that the number doesn’t include re-installations or app updates. Consumer spending on apps, meanwhile, approached $90 billion in 2019 across both apps stores, up 15% from last year. The new report also examined the year’s biggest apps, including the most downloaded apps and games as well as the most profitable.

Worldwide, the most downloaded non-game apps remained relatively consistent in 2019, with only one new entry on the list of the most downloaded apps — a short-form video creation and sharing app called Likee, which is benefitting from the overall popularity of short-form video. Elsewhere on the chart, TikTok came in at No. 4, beating out Facebook-owned Instagram, plus Snapchat, Netflix and Spotify.

However, Facebook still owned the top of the charts. Its Messenger app was the most downloaded non-game app of 2019, followed by Facebook’s main app, then WhatsApp.

The top 10 games chart showed more volatility in 2019, as 7 out of the top 10 games were new to the chart this year. This included the hyper-casual title Fun Race 3D as well as the anticipated Call of Duty: Mobile, representing the battle royale genre.

While mobile gaming drives the majority of consumer spending on apps, the subscription economy in 2019 played a big role in increasing app revenues, as well.

Specifically, the non-game apps driving revenue growth this year included those in the Photo & Video and Entertainment categories — a trend App Annie predicts will continue in 2020, as new video services, like Disney+, continue to rise. 2020 will additionally see the launch of several other video services, including HBO Max, NBCU’s Peacock, and Jeffrey Katzenberg’s Quibi, which could aid in those increases.

Already, many of the top apps are subscription-based, App Annie had previously noted. During the 12 months ending in September 2019, over 95% of the top 100 non-gaming apps by consumer spend were offering subscriptions through in-app purchases. Publishers’ growing use of subscription services will continue in 2020 to drive consumer spending even higher, the firm says.

 

This year, Tinder switched places with Netflix for the No. 1 spot on this chart — last year, it was the other way around. HBO NOW, which saw a surge in spending thanks to “Game of Thrones” also fell out of the top chart this year, allowing LINE Manga to take its spot. Tencent Video and iQIYI have the same positions as 2018, while YouTube grew from No. 7 to No. 5, and Pandora slipped from No. 5 to No. 6, compared with last year.

App Annie also took a look at a new category of apps which it’s calling the “breakout” apps of the year. These are those that saw the largest absolute growth in downloads or consumer spending between 2018 and 2019. On this list, the No. 7 most-downloaded app of the year, Likee, from YY Inc., becomes the No. 1 “breakout” app of the year, followed by YY Inc.’s Noizz and Helo. Meanwhile, Indian users drove the adoption of social gaming app Hago at No. 4, which is also popular with Gen Z users in Indonesia.

Breakout apps by consumer spending included YouTube, iQIYI, DAZN, and Tencent Video — similar to the top 10 list.

On the gaming side, hyper-casual titles were successful, claiming 7 out of 10 slots on the breakout games of the year chart. Hot releases like Mario Kart Tour and Call of Duty: Mobile also appeared. But by consumer spending, core games like No. 1 Game of Peace and No. 2 PUBG Mobile, both published by Tencent, made up the top spots.

16 Dec 2019

Buy a demo table at TC Sessions: Robotics+AI 2020 while you can

Early-stage startup founders heed this call. Lock down your opportunity to exhibit your early-stage startup in front of a veritable who’s who in the robotics and AI industries while you can. Yes, it’s only December. And yes, TC Sessions: Robotics+AI 2020 takes place months from now on March 3 in Berkeley. Here’s why timing matters.

We have a limited number of demo tables, and they’re going fast — only nine left. Get ahead of the curve and buy your Early-Stage Startup Exhibitor Package now. It includes four tickets to the event, so you and your crew can showcase your startup in front of 1,500 influential attendees. We’re talking about the exact demographic that can help move your business forward.

A one-day event, TC Sessions: Robotics+AI focuses exclusively on these two world-changing technologies. Programming features in-depth interviews, panel discussions, Q&As, workshops and networking opportunities with the industries’ leading minds, makers, technologists, researchers and investors.

As one of a select number of exhibitors, you’ll place your startup in the path of those industry leaders. Here are just a few of the luminaries scheduled to speak at this year’s event.

  • Noah Campbell-Ready, founder and CEO of Built Robotics, a company that’s developed an autonomous bulldozer
  • Tessa Lau, CEO and founder of Dusty Robotics. Her company developed a construction-site robot that helps automate building layouts.
  • Daniel Blank, CEO of Toggle, a startup that builds robots to fabricate and assemble rebar.
  • Tye Brady, Amazon Robotics’ Chief Technologist. Brady will join us to talk about Amazon’s robotics efforts and the future of the automation-driven workforce.
  • Stuart Russell, computer scientist and world-leading expert on AI, joins us to discuss how today’s researchers and founders will determine AI’s ultimate impact on humanity.

That’s an awesome start to the speaker lineup, and we’re just getting started. We’re announcing more every week, so keep checking back. Take a look at last year’s agenda to get a sense of the kind of programming you can expect.

Hey, there’s more than one way to shine at this event. Check out Pitch Night, our new pitch competition. It’s totally free and open to founders of early-stage startups focused on robotics and AI. Simply apply here by February 1.

TC Sessions: Robotics+AI 2020 takes place on March 3 at UC Berkeley’s Zellerbach Hall. Don’t miss this opportunity to step in the spotlight. Buy an Early-Stage Startup Exhibitor Package and present your product and company to the top movers and shakers in robotics and AI.

Is your company interested in sponsoring or exhibiting at TC Sessions: Robotics & AI 2020? Contact our sponsorship sales team by filling out this form.

16 Dec 2019

Robotic safety inspectors net Gecko Robotics $40 million

Gecko Robotics has landed $40 million in financing as it looks to build an additional 40 robots over the next year to meet what the company sees as growing demand for its safety and infrastructure monitoring services.

“We are growing fast solving a critical infrastructure problems that affect our lives, and can even save lives,” says Jake Loosararian, Gecko Robotics’ 28-year-old co-founder and chief executive officer, in a statement. “At our core, we are a robot-enabled software company that helps stop life threatening catastrophes. We’ve developed a revolutionary way to use robots as an enabler to capture data for predictability of infrastructure; reducing failure, explosions, emissions and billions of dollars of loss each year.”

In the three years since its launch in 2016, Gecko Robotics has managed to grow from a small team of Pittsburgh robotics experts hailing from Carnegie Mellon the company has added over 100 new employees. The hiring push has been largely around creating a team of qualified experts in particular market segments who can operate the robots that Gecko deploys to industrial worksites.

There’s been something of a robotics revolution in the safety and compliance market over the past few years. From automated assembly lines to warehouses and now to chemical plants and refineries, robots are making their presence felt.

And Gecko isn’t the only company that’s trying to tackle the market. Other companies like Invert Robotics, a Christchurch, New Zealand-based company has built its own competitive robotic safety inspector.

The initial pitch from Gecko managed to attract angel investors like Mark Cuban, Deep Nishar (a managing partner at Softbank), Josh Reeves, and Jake Seid, the managing director at Stone Bridge Ventures.

Now the company adds the midwestern venture capital juggernaut, Drive Capital, to its stable of investors.

“We are very excited for the future of robotics in industrial inspection. The Gecko Robotics team are revolutionizing an industry that is in need of a real upgrade and will save lives,” said Mark Kvamme, lead investor and partner at Drive Capital. “I see amazing potential for Gecko’s business model, they are on the path to become a market leader in their industry.”

Gecko Robotics has already opened a 20,000 square foot office in Houston, and offices Houston, Austin, and Pittsburgh.

“The robots are amazing but they’re not going to be able to complete the job done by these experts who have experience in thirty to forty years,” says Loosararian. “We have thought leaders who go out in the field… they take the robots out and they use their own manual ability and knowledge to provide these expertise to the clients.”

Gecko currently has 60 robots in its stable of robots and will add at least another 40 over the course of the year. “The product at the end is the software license that they pay for annually,” Loosararian says.

16 Dec 2019

How many unicorns will exit before the market turns?

Hello and welcome back to our regular morning look at private companies, public markets and the grey space in between.

Today we’re digging into unicorns: how many will find an exit through an acquisition (selling themselves to a larger company) or an IPO (starting to trade as a public company) before the market turns?

When the business cycle does eventually turn ill, it’s generally expected that private capital will become scarcer, something that could harm yet-unprofitable unicorns. In turn, backers of private companies worth at least $1 billion could see the value of their investments decline or implode. The number of unicorns that manage to exit before a market turn is, therefore, something to keep an eye on.

This is doubly true as the number of un-exited unicorns continues to rise. Despite unicorn IPOs and acquisitions (more on that in a moment), the number of private companies worth $1 billion (unicorns that need an eventual exit to return capital to their backers who expect eventual, profitable liquidity) has risen each quarter for years now.

This has led to hundreds of unexited unicorns worth more than $1 trillion in total, according to the Crunchbase leaderboard. That’s a lot of corporate value to shift before the business cycle heads negative, possibly closing the IPO window and bringing winter to the sort of private finance that unicorns have long depended on.

Scale

In Q3 of 2017, there were 250 unexited unicorns according to the leaderboard, 39 unicorns that had gone public and 24 more that had been acquired. A year later those numbers rose to 307 unexited unicorns, 79 unicorns that had gone public and 40 more that had been sold.

In its most recent update for Q3 2019, the same dataset indicates that there are 400 unexited unicorns, 112 that have gone public and 50 that have been sold.

Doing the math, in Q3 2017 80 percent of unicorns were still private and independent (unexited). In Q3 2018, that improved to 72 percent. And, at the end of Q3 2019, the percent improved modestly to a little over 71 percent.

We can see, then, that the portion of unicorns that have managed to find an exit has improved over the last few years. Less encouraging, however, is that the raw number of unicorns still in hunt of an exit has grown by leaps and bounds.

In chart form, it looks like this: