With the Paris Call, Macron wants to limit cyberattacks

French President Emmanuel Macron gave a speech at the Internet Governance Forum at UNESCO in Paris. While the IGF has been around for a while, it hasn’t been as active as some would have hoped.

That’s why the French government is issuing the Paris Call, a short three-page document on cybersecurity. President Macron hopes to foster the IGF and create a subgroup of countries (and companies) that can agree on cybersecurity issues.

“First, internet works and is here. And even though news bulletins are riddled with cyber incidents, we blindly trust tech tools,” Macron said.

And yet, according to him, if the global community can’t agree on appropriate regulation, there’s a risk for the integrity of democratic processes. He thinks that there are currently two sides. Authoritarian governments already filter internet requests to restrict the web to a subset of the internet, while democratic countries let anyone browse a (mostly) unfiltered web.

“Today’s cyberattacks can compromise health services. And if we don’t know for sure that the system is secure at all times, the system is going to fragment into multiple spaces.”

In other words, cyberattacks could lead democratic countries to imitate China and block many web services in order to protect the network.

“That’s why I came today to suggest a new collegiate method. This forum should produce more than debates and talks. It should become something new to support concrete decisions,” Macron said.

He’s suggesting that the IGF should report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations directly. And he’s also supporting the Paris Call, an agreement between countries, companies and NGOs.

Hundreds of organizations have already signed the Paris Call, such as most European countries, Microsoft, Cisco, Samsung, Siemens, Facebook, Google, the ICANN, the Internet Society, etc. But China and the U.S. have yet to sign the Paris Call.

You can read the full text of the Paris Call here. Members of the Paris Call mostly agree to prevent cyberattacks of all sorts — it’s a peace offer.

When it comes to content, Macron didn’t want to say that he was against the web. He mentioned that the web enabled the Democratic Spring, greater mobilization against climate change and women’s rights. But he also said that extremists are now leveraging the web for hate speech.

“Giant platforms could become not just gateways but also gatekeepers,” Macron said.

There have been efforts in the past when it comes to removing terrorist content and hate speech. But Macron now thinks that it should go further.

That’s why Facebook and the French government are going to cooperate to look at Facebook’s efforts when it comes to moderation:

Finally, Macron used this opportunity to talk once again about France’s digital efforts. The French government has been working hard on a new way to tax tech giants in Europe so that tech giants are taxed more fairly. Macron framed it as a way to protect smaller companies from unfair competition. But negotiations are stuck for now.

Macron also defended a third way when it comes to artificial intelligence investments and innovation.


Source: Tech Crunch

Enterprise shopping season starts early with almost $50B in recent deals

Black Friday may still be 10 days away, but shopping season started early in the enterprise this year. We have seen acquisitions totaling almost $50 billion in the last couple of months alone, topped by the mega $34 billion IBM-Red Hat deal two weeks ago. What exactly is going on here?

While not every deal has been for that kind of money, we are seeing an unusually large number of mega deals this year, something that some folks were predicting would happen when the big tech companies were allowed to repatriate their money as part of last year’s tax deal.

Let’s look at some of the multi-billion deals we have seen so far this year:

Supply and demand

Big companies are opening their checkbooks in a big way right now, buying everything from marketing to analytics to security. They are grabbing open source and proprietary. They are looking at ways to bridge the cloud and on-prem. There is a whole host of software and not much rhyme or reason across the deals.

What they have in common is that they are enormous offers that are simply too huge to refuse. These companies flush with cash see opportunities to fill holes, and they are going for one piece after another.

One of the reasons the prices are going so high is that there is a limited number of companies available to buy, and that is driving up the price, says Ray Wang, founder and principal analyst at Constellation Research. As he sees it, there are only 3-5 decent players per category right now. He compares that with 10 years ago when we were seeing 10-15 players per category. With a limited number of viable startups, companies seem to be going after these companies harder. Combine that with fat wallets full of cash, and you suddenly have this wave of super-sized deals.

The companies being acquired by large organizations can justify selling in the usual ways. They can reward shareholders and investors. These larger organizations allow them to push their product roadmaps much more quickly than they could on their own. They give them access to international markets and mega sales teams.

Buy versus build

Still, companies have been spending unusually large sums for relatively small amounts of revenue. In deals over the last 3 weeks, we have seen IBM pay $34 billion for a company with around $3 billion in revenue. We saw SAP paying $8 billion for a mere $400 million in revenue.

This certainly seems on its face to be a massive overpay, but Constellation’s Wang says ultimately this often comes down to a classic build versus buy decision. SAP could build a similar product to Qualtrics, or they could simply buy it and put the massive SAP salesforce to bear on it. “SAP can sell into 100,000 customers. They only have a 10 percent overlap with Qualtrics. The numbers work, and it beats taking a new product to market,” Wang told TechCrunch.

Wang believes this could be the strategy behind many of these acquisitions, while admitting that the numbers sound a bit crazy. As he says, the formula used to be three times, three years trailing revenues. Now it’s 15-20 times. While those may be hard numbers to justify, he believes it’s a win-win for buyer and acquired — and investors win big too, of course.

Staying the course

In many instances like Red Hat, GitHub and Qualtrics, the companies will likely remain separate, independent units inside the larger organization, at least for the time being, while looking for meaningful crossover inside the larger company when it makes sense.

But Tony Byrne, founder and principal analyst at Real Story Group, says these large companies tend to listen to Wall Street and customers should be wary of what they hear when it comes to their favorite products and services. “You cannot trust the initial pleasantries about continuity that come out of the first press release. These are huge vendors that listen first and foremost to Wall Street. If there’s an offering that doesn’t totally align with their story to investors, it is not going to get much love and is at risk for getting eliminated or calved off,” Byrne explained.

It’s also hard to know how well two companies are going to fit together until the deal actually closes. Sometimes the acquiring company doesn’t know what they have or how to sell it. Sometimes the two companies don’t fit well together or the founders or key executives don’t fit smoothly into the new hierarchy. They try to figure this all out beforehand, but it’s not always easy to know how it will play out in reality.

Regardless, we are seeing an unusually high level of massive acquisitions, and chances are, there are more coming.


Source: Tech Crunch

Facebook simulates itself up a better, more gradual product launch

When you’re launching a new social media product, like an image-sharing app or niche network, common wisdom is to make it available to everyone as soon as it’s ready. But simulations carried out by Facebook — and let’s be honest, a few actual launches — suggest that may be a good way to kneecap your product from the start.

It’s far from a simple problem to simulate, but in the spirit of the “spherical cow in a vacuum” it’s easy enough to make a plausible model in which to test some basic hypotheses. In this case the researchers crafted a network of nodes into which a virtual “product” could be seeded, and if certain conditions were met it would either spread to other nodes or “churn” permanently, meaning this node deleted the app in disgust.

If you’re familiar with Conway’s Game of Life it’s broadly similar but not so elegant.

In the researchers’ simulation, the spread of the product is based more or less on a handful of assumptions:

  • User satisfaction is largely governed by whether their friends are on the app
  • Users start using the app at a low rate and use it either more or less based on their satisfaction
  • If a user is unsatisfied, they leave permanently

Based on these (and a whole lot of complex math) the researchers tried various scenarios in which different numbers and groups nodes were given access to the product at once.

It wouldn’t be unreasonable to guess that under these basic conditions, giving it to as many people as possible (not everyone, since that’s not realistic) would be the right move. But the model showed that this isn’t the case, and in fact creating a few concentrated clusters of nodes had the best results.

If you think about it, it becomes clear why: When you make it available to a large number of people, the next thing that happens is a large die-off of nodes that didn’t have enough friends at the start or whose friends weren’t active enough. This die-off limits the reach of other nearby nodes, which then die off as well, and although it doesn’t start an extinction-level event for the virtual app, it does permanently limit its reach due to the number of people who have churned.

On the other hand, if you seed a few clusters that are self-sufficient and keep usage high, then introduce it to others adjacent at a regular rate, you see steady growth, low churn, and a higher usage cap since far fewer people will have bounced off the product at the beginning.

You can see how this would work in real life: get the app to a few small, active communities (socially active photographers, celebrities, or influencers and their networks) and then create adjacent nodes through invitations sent out by existing users.

Turns out, lots of apps already do this! But now it’s supported by science.

Will this affect the next big Facebook product rollout? Probably not. Chances are the people in charge have a few other factors that figure into these decisions. But research like this, simulating crowds and group decision-making, will surely only increase in accuracy and usage.

The study, by Facebook’s Shankar Iyer and Lada A. Adamic, will be presented at the International Conference on Complex Networks and their Applications.


Source: Tech Crunch

Alibaba sets new Singles’ Day record with $31B in sales, but growth is slowing

Alibaba scored another blockbuster Singles’ Day after customers around the world shopped in stores and online on the tenth edition of its November 11 shopping festival. That puts this year’s gross merchandise volume – a measure for the dollar value of total transactions – at a staggering $30.8 billion, although the company recorded its lowest-ever annual growth rate for the event.

The figure makes the spending bonanza more than twice the size of Cyber Monday and Black Friday combined in 2017.

This is by far the largest-ever Singles’ Day to date. Just 15 hours and 49 minutes into the spending spree, transactions leapfrogged that of 2017’s tally of $25 billion, the company announced on Twitter.

As the world anticipates when the supercharged shopping day will hit a ceiling, sales are already cooling. The final total of 2018 represents a 27 percent increase from last year. That’s the lowest Alibaba has seen in the history of Singles’ Day sales, and a drop from 36 percent in 2017 — still, it remains impressive given how large the target is each year.

The slowdown came on the heels of Alibaba’s weakest revenue growth since seven quarters ago and a cut in annual revenue forecast – though revenues were still increasing at a healthy rate of 54 percent year-over-year in its latest quarter.

New growth fuel

Consumers are expected to tighten their purse strings as an economic downturn hits China. The ecommerce giant is, however, unconcerned for it’s betting on the country’s rising middle class in the long run.

Shoppers “are looking for new ways to upgrade their lifestyles and make their lives better,” Alibaba executive chairman Joe Tsai said at a media event on Sunday. “This will really offset a lot of the short-term cyclical effects.”

More than 300 million of China’s 1.4 billion people have entered the middle-income bracket, according to the national statistics bureau. That means discretionary items will drive much of the growth in the Chinese retail titan – and the upmarket trend is already underway. Health supplements, small home appliances, and skincare items are among the fastest growing categories by GMV during Singles’ Day this year.

Alibaba has also tapped into physical stores. The online retailer is poised to “digitize the whole consumer retail market,” Daniel Zhang, current CEO and incoming chairman as Jack Ma hands over the helm next year, told media on Sunday. Over the past two years, Alibaba has been jostling with close rival JD.com to snap up strategic partnerships with brick-and-mortar retailers who remain keen to reach Chinese consumers.

Alibaba CEO Daniel Zhang started the Singles’ Day shopping festival in 2009 when he was in charge of the company’s Tmall business (Photo Vivek Prakash/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

There are nuances in the sheer size of GMV, however, as it doesn’t reflect final revenues. A slew of factors could boost the figure. For one, refunds cannot be processed on November 11. Many vendors run pre-sales weeks in advance, taking deposits for items at the time but only processing full payments on Singles’ Day.

Alibaba also aired a star-studded gala on the night of November 10 to drum up sales. It said that over 240 million people – that’s almost one in five people in China – watched the show and its Singles’ Day commercials through two of China’s top TV broadcasters and Alibaba’s own Youku video streaming site.

Next ten years

As Alibaba enters its 19th year, it’s turning to new channels to sell. “Voice will be an important entry point,” said Zhang. The firm’s efforts to brace for China’s transition from a mobile-first age into an AI-powered one include a tie-up with voice assistant startup Rokid.

Alibaba also has its sights set on international consumers. This year, merchants from over 200 countries participated in Singles’ Day, including those on Alibaba’s Southeast Asia-based Lazada platform. “From day one, our dream was to create a global shopping day,” suggested Zhang.

An 11.11 advertisement in New York

Alibaba celebrated another big milestone this year: over one billion packages were shipped throughout the shopping day. But the company is also under mounting pressure to address its packaging waste problem.

“We have to redefine packaging,” said Zhang. That means more than using recycled material. More important, the CEO wants items to travel at a closer distance. This is made possible by algorithms that optimize inventory management. Alibaba could also lean on Ele.me, which it acquired this year and runs a fleet of food delivery staff, to process neighborhood orders which may require less or no packaging at all.

Singles’ Day was first popularized as an antidote to Valentines’ Day for the way the date is written numerically: 11.11, which represents four single people. Nearly a decade after Zhang first turned it into a sales promotion for Tmall, Alibaba’s online sales platform for brands, the one-day event has swollen into the world’s largest online shopping festival.

“We created this day for people who are lonely. Today, we totally redefined the day for how people shop,” concluded Zhang.


Source: Tech Crunch

How issues of microtransit, congestion and parking are closing in on cities

Earlier this week in a new experimental newsletter I’ve been helping Danny Crichton on, we briefly discussed transit pundit Jarrett Walker’s article in The Atlantic arguing against the view that ridesharing and microtransit will be the future of mass transit. Instead, his thesis is that a properly operated and well-resourced bus system is much more efficient from a coverage, cost, space, and equality perspective.

Consider this an ongoing discussion about Urban Tech, its intersection with regulation, issues of public service, and other complexities that people have full PHDs on.  I’m just a bitter, born-and-bred New Yorker trying to figure out why I’ve been stuck in between subway stops for the last 15 minutes, so please reach out with your take on any of these thoughts: @Arman.Tabatabai@techcrunch.com.

From an output perspective, Walker argues that by operating along variable routes based on at-your-door pick ups, microtransit actually takes more time to pick up fewer people on average. Walker also gives buses the edge from a cost and input perspective, since labor makes up 70% of transit operating costs in a pre-autonomous world and buses allow you to service more customers for the price of one driver.

“The driver’s time is far more expensive than maintenance, fuel, and all the other costs involved.  In almost every public meeting I attend, citizens complain about seeing buses with empty seats, lecturing me about how smaller vehicles would be less wasteful. But that’s not the case. Because the cost is in the driver, a wise transit agency runs the largest bus it will ever need during the course of a shift. In an outer suburb, that empty big bus makes perfect sense if it will be mobbed by schoolchildren or commuters twice a day.”

But transit is not solely an issue of volume and unit economics, but one of managing public space. Walker explains that to ensure citizens don’t use more than their fair share of space, cities can either provide vehicles that are only marginally bigger than a human body, i.e. bikes and scooters, or have many people share large-scale vehicles, i.e. mass transit. Doing the latter through a mass fleet of on-demand microtransit solutions, Walker argues, increases congestion and makes it harder to manage scheduling and allocate infrastructure.

While the article offers an effective comparison of unit economics and acts as a useful primer on the various considerations for city transit agencies, some of the conclusions are a bit binary.  The discussion is a bit singular in its focus of microtransit as a replacement of public transit rather than an additive service and doesn’t give much credit to the trip planning and space management capabilities of many microtransit services, nor changes in consumer expectations towards transportation.

But despite some of the gaps in the piece, Walker highlights two ideas that spill over to some broad areas that have caught my interest lately: Tolls and Parking.

Tolls

Photo by Michael H via Getty Images

“To succeed, microtransit would have to help people get around cities better, not just make them feel good about hailing a ride on a phone. Full automation of vehicles, if indeed it ever arrives, might solve the labor problem—although it would put thousands of drivers out of work. But the congestion problem will remain.”

Like many, Walker argues that ridesharing aggravates city traffic rather than alleviates it.  Even though ridesharing’s long-term impact on traffic is widely contested, nearly everyone agrees that a solution to urban congestion is desperately needed.

What’s interesting is that regardless of the discourse that surrounds them, trends in US tolling mechanisms seem to suggest American cities may be moving closer to congestion pricing methods.

As an example, solutions to congestion are top of mind behind the New York state election that saw Democrats taking control of both state legislative houses. Though it seems like the argument resurfaces every few years, the elections have brought renewed debate over the possible implementation of congestion pricing in New York City.  In essence, congestion pricing is a system where drivers would pay higher prices for using high-traffic streets or entering high-traffic zones, allowing cities to better dictate the flow of drivers and reduce congestion.   

Outside of the obvious political tension created by effectively implementing a new tax, some lawmakers have pushed back on the effectiveness of a congestion pricing policy, with some arguing that it can aggravate income inequality or that a policy addressing construction and pedestrians, rather than vehicles, would have a bigger impact on traffic.

However, over the past year or so, an increasing number of states have been rolling out highway tolls that are priced dynamically, instead of using traditional fixed-price tolls. The exact drivers behind the toll prices vary, with some cities charging prices based on traffic conditions and others charging varying prices for the use of express and HOV lanes.

Several new technologies and companies have also made it easier for local governments to implement more sophisticated, adjustable toll pricing or congestion fees at a much lower cost. In the past, congestion pricing systems around the world have required physical detection systems that can be extremely costly to implement.

Now, companies like ClearRoad are helping governments use a wide range of connected vehicle technologies to establish and collect road usage pricing from any location without the need for physical infrastructure. Oregon is one geography working with ClearRoad to manage its new opt-in road usage program where the state is able to calculate drivers’ usage of certain roads and their gas consumption, and then reimburse them for gas taxes they’re paying.

So even though people are still screaming at each other in state capitols, it seems like we may be closer to seeing congestion pricing in major cities than we think. And while executing these programs can be difficult and painfully slow (often needing to satisfy city regulations and tax laws forty layers deep), if these smaller-scale programs we’re seeing in the US are actually effective, congestion pricing may be a solution to plug chunky budget gaps, better finance infrastructure projects and replace lost gas tax revenue in an electric vehicle future.

Parking

In his piece, Walker goes back to some basic principles of urban design, highlighting that at their core, functioning cities come down to how millions of people share a comparatively tiny amount of space.  

Walker explains that city dwellers that travel with cars and solo rideshare trips rather than with large-scale shared transit are effectively taking up more than their fair share of public space.  While the argument is made in the context of ridesharing and congestion, the same idea applies to the less-discussed impact mass-transit ridesharing can have on city parking.

At least in the near-term, certain cities have seen ridesharing actually increase vehicle usage rather than reduce it (a claim rideshare companies dispute), resulting in an even wider gap between the supply and demand for available parking spots.  And if people are using ridesharing but still choosing to own cars regardless, in an indirect fashion, they are similarly reducing the stock of available parking space by more than their fair share.

And while it makes sense that rideshare vehicles should receive a larger portion of the parking stock, given that it serves more passengers, the use of available parking by these vehicles can and has caused tension with local residents that have to store their cars further away.

There are companies like the mobility-focused data platform, Coord, that are working on tools geared towards helping cities and citizens more effectively allocate and plan parking strategies for the future multi-modal transportation network. And theoretically, ridesharing should reduce the number of vehicles in search of parking in the long-term. But at least for now, the impact on parking congestion is just another unintended consequence that weakens the argument for ridesharing as mass transit.

And lastly, some reading while in transit:


Source: Tech Crunch

Bubble lets you create web applications with no coding experience

Meet Bubble a bootstrapped startup that has been building a powerful service that lets you create a web application even if you don’t know how to code. Many small and big companies rely on Bubble for their website.

I have to say I was quite skeptical when I first heard about Bubble. Many startups have already tried to make coding as easy as playing with Lego bricks. But it’s always frustratingly limited.

Bubble is more powerful than your average website building service. It recreates all the major pillars of web programming in a visual interface.

It starts with a design tab. You start with a blank canvas and you can create web pages by dragging and dropping visual elements on the screen. You can put elements wherever you want, resize maps, text boxes, images and more. You can click on the preview button to see the development version of your time whenever your want.

In the second tab, you can create the logic behind your site. It works a bit like Automator on the Mac. You add blocks to create a chronological action. You can set some conditions within each block.

In the third tab, you can interact with your database. For instance, you can create a sign up page and store profile information in the database. At any time, you can import and export data.

There are hundreds of plugins that let you accept payments with Stripe, embed a TypeForm, use Intercom for customer support via chat, use Mixpanel, etc. You can also use your Bubble data outside of Bubble. For instance, you can build an iPhone app that relies on your Bubble database.

Many small companies started using Bubble, and it’s been working fine for some of them. For instance, Plato uses Bubble for all its back office. Qoins and Meetaway run on Bubble. Dividend Finance raised $365 million and uses Bubble.

The startup takes care of hosting your application for you. Every time you resize your instance as your application gets bigger, you pay more.

Even though the company never raised any money, it already generates $115,000 in monthly recurring revenue. Bubble is still a small startup, which can be scary for bigger customers. But the company wants to improve the product so that customers don’t see the limitations of Bubble. Now, the challenge is to grow faster than customers’ needs.


Source: Tech Crunch

Placing bets beyond the venture hubs of New York and Silicon Valley

If geographies were companies, Silicon Valley and New York would be the incumbents — successful today and possibly impregnable — and, like all incumbents, their outsized advantages obscure significant vulnerabilities. Not least of these are high prices and entrenched thinking that can make adapting to new situations difficult.

A dozen venture capitalists spent three days in the South — Charlotte, Columbia, and Atlanta — to learn what it might take to begin investing in the region as an alternative. It was the sequel to a trip some of us took earlier this year to the heartland. And yet again, we saw places and met people with assets Silicon Valley can only dream about.

The cities we visited represent a new breed of challenger to the geographic dominance of venture capital’s leading centers, who — if they can cover the table stakes — bring advantages the Valley may struggle to capture.

First; diversity. It helps startups to bring people together with a range of life experiences, so places like Columbia, Charlotte, and Atlanta should be natural winners. Racial diversity, yes — anchored in part by the strong presence of historically black colleges and universities, of which we visited several — and also diversity of their economies.

In Atlanta (the second-largest majority-black metro in the country) in particular, there’s a wide range of corporate partners (read: customers for startups). Atlanta has the third-most Fortune 500 companies of any city, and you need to go down to #11 before you get any two in the same industry. (Think UPS, Coca-Cola, Delta, Home Depot, and so forth.)

Second; these places have a history of overcoming adversity. Many students we met were first-generation college kids, whose parents and grandparents learned to climb over the brick wall of racism and passed on that grit. The startups that thrive despite the rocky soil become less fragile, less precariously perched on the peak of this month’s hype cycle.

If a startup can make it in Orangeburg, SC, a manufacturing town with a median household income of $29k, it can make it anywhere. Many founders in Silicon Valley have had it so good they can no longer smell money. Startups, unlike many other kinds of projects (like learning to play music), simply require the right timing and dosage of adversity.

What will it take for these places to realize their potential?

Their engines are warm and running. We were floored by the consistently exceptional quality of the startups marshalled by Kathryn Finney at Atlanta’s digital undivided, and felt right at home with the founders who Collective Hustle’s Sam Smith gathered around a table in Charlotte.

A few drops of mentorship and capital will crystallize even more progress. We met students who devoured every word of the tech blogs we all read, and still craved someone with first-hand knowledge, to warn them away from dead ends or confirm their intuitions. Several of us said we’d be happy to videoconference in to classes, or come back again and visit.

We invited our hosts in the South to spend a few days with us in the bubble. We realize that providing mentorship at scale is another matter, and we’re thinking about how to do that. We did notice that big technology companies — Google, Microsoft, Bloomberg — have already done a good job of showing up for recruiting or startup-support programs.

While there are angel investors in every market, it’s clear that most rich people (understandably) need a basic understanding of that strange bird of startup investing. We heard story after story of angels who focus on safe bets (good luck!), ask for control over startups in modest five-figure investments, and fail to take advantage of the worthwhile standards from more developed ecosystems. Even the local angel groups, where they exist, tended to reinforce bad behavior as often as they shared good ones (as organized angel groups often do).

Government participates more actively in these ecosystems — starting with the hosts of our trip, Representatives Tim Ryan (OH), Ro Khanna (CA), and Jim Clyburn (SC). Creating an environment for startups is a completely different beast than traditional “smokestack chasing” economic development (where a city tries to lure big employers to bring a massive facility).

It’s more about identifying individual champions (one mayor struggled to tell us who the active investors were in their community), creating the living conditions that technology employees want (art, food, and fast, reliable internet among others), and protecting the green shoots that bust their way through the concrete. Governments can use the bully pulpit to draw attention to nascent victories at zero cost to taxpayers.

Investors from Silicon Valley or New York need to stop asking founders to relocate. So many founders had heard the tired “I’ll consider investing… if you move” story. This is borderline bad behavior — asking a founder to uproot their life because it’s more convenient for the investor. While investors might believe they’re making a recommendation in the company’s best interest (“it’s easier to succeed in a more established place”), founders have unfair home court advantages (knowing talent, customers, etc.).

What will we investors need to learn, if we’re to participate in the growth of these markets?

We need to watch the assumptions our words reveal. People who live in coastal cities talk like a duck. We’ll benefit from reading the room when words like “SaaS” or “LP” need explanation. Getting “ramen profitable” may assume a founder has family with whom they can live — one founder told us that “it feels like you need $500k in funding to even try to do that.”

Often the first step is something other than a direct investment. Investors might participate in a few local events, or encourage a portfolio company to open a second office (as one did from our last trip to South Bend), or build relationships through mentoring and coaching. Direct investments can start small — we had founders asking for investment rounds in the tens of thousands of dollars, i.e., with one fewer zero than the smallest rounds in bubbleland.

We’ll need to embrace the communities that hold these places together: Churches are especially important outside the coasts. More than one founder told us about the role The Creator plays in their startup’s creation. Baptist, AME, and Methodist churches have long undergirded economic development in these cities. Startups harness those trusted networks to find teammates and customers. Investors who see the importance of churches will find deals. (Silicon Valley’s atheist streak makes this a new muscle for us out-of-towners.)

Every place has its own shape. Charlotte, despite being near Research Triangle, gets relatively little flow of talent from Raleigh-Durham. The economic boom there also, ironically, can make it harder for a startup to compete for talent and attention. In Orangeburg, we saw a strong startup that planned to move to Baltimore — and none of us could fault those founders for choosing to go to a more active startup place. Several others in Columbia banded together to occupy SOCO, in a new real estate development, planting seeds.

Atlanta almost has it all right now — talent, experienced angels, role model founders who actively mentor rookies, and quality of life (the BeltLine felt like what the High Line wishes it were). Atlanta has that most-important and elusive startup quality: momentum. (Fund LPs may actually have some of the best opportunities there, because just a couple of slightly bigger local venture funds would smooth the transition between different stages in a company’s life. More investors might get to bet on a Mailchimp before it prides itself on not needing them.)

In our country, where everyone is supposed to have a real chance at extraordinary opportunity, one question hung over our trip: is geography… destiny? Can a kid at Benedict College in Columbia create one of the world’s defining startups? Fast forward the clock, and we believe we may see that. Our goal is to participate and support it. Some of the places we visited — with their combination of diversity and overcoming adversity — are irresistible bets on the future of startups in America, maybe even on the future of America.

Additional credit to Karin Klein, Bloomberg Beta; Shiyan Koh, Hustle Fund; and Scott Shane, Comeback Capital. 


Source: Tech Crunch

The top 10 cities for $100M VC rounds in 2018 so far

Crunchbase News recently profiled a selection of U.S. companies’ largest VC raised in 2018, and no surprise here: the 10 largest rounds all topped out well north of $100 million.

A major driver of global venture dollar growth is the relatively recent phenomenon of companies raising $100 million or more in a single venture round. We’ve called these nine and 10-figure deals, which shine brightly in the media and are hefty enough to bend the curve of VC fund sizes upwards, “supergiants” after their stellar counterparts.

And like stars, venture-backed companies tend to originate and co-exist in clusters, while the physical space between these groups is largely empty.

We noticed that many of the companies behind these supergiant rounds are headquartered in just a few metro areas around the United States. In this case, it’s mostly just the SF Bay Area, plus others scattered between Boston, Los Angeles, San Diego and one (Magic Leap) in the unfortunately named Plantation, Florida.

The San Francisco Bay Area is perhaps one of the best-known tech and startup hubs in the world. Places like Boston, NYC and Los Angeles, among others, are perhaps just as well-known. But how do these cities stack up as clusters for companies raising supergiant rounds?

Superclusters

That question got us wondering how these locales rank against other major metropolitan areas throughout the world. In the chart below, we’ve plotted the count of supergiant venture rounds1 topping out at $100 million or more through November 5. These numbers are based off of reported data in Crunchbase, exclude private equity rounds and do not account for deals that may have already been closed but haven’t been publicly announced yet.

Although U.S.-based companies have raised more supergiant rounds (168 year to date) than their Chinese counterparts (160 year to date), Chinese companies raise much bigger rounds, even at this supergiant size class.

How much more? U.S. companies have raised $38.4 billion, year to date, in nine and 10-figure venture rounds alone. Chinese companies have raised $69 billion across their 160 supergiant deals, which includes the largest-ever VC deal: a $14 billion Series C round raised by Ant Financial.

2018 in perspective

2018 is already a record year for venture funding worldwide. With more than $275 billion in projected total venture dollar volume so far, 2018’s year-to-date numbers have already eclipsed 2017’s full-year figures (a projected $220 billion, roughly) by more than $55 billion.2

And there’s still about eight weeks left to go before it’s New Year’s Eve.

  1. We use the same classification rules for what is and is not a “venture” round as we’ve used in our quarterly reports. Check out the methodology section of our most recent global VC report, from Q3 2018, to learn more about how Crunchbase News categorizes rounds.
  2. We’re referring to the same type of projected data we use in the quarterly reports. Check out the methodology section of our most recent global VC report, from Q3 2018, to learn more about how Crunchbase News uses projected and reported data.


Source: Tech Crunch

Growing pains at venture-backed Moogsoft lead to layoffs

Eight months after bringing in a $40 million Series D, Moogsoft‘s co-founder and chief executive officer Phil Tee confirmed to TechCrunch that the IT incident management startup had shed 18 percent of its workforce, or just over 30 employees.

The layoffs took place at the end of October; shortly after, Moogsoft announced two executive hires. Among the additions was Amer Deeba, who recently resigned from Qualys after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged him with insider trading.

Founded in 2012, San Francisco-based Moogsoft provides artificial intelligence for IT operations (AIOps) to help teams work more efficiently and avoid outages. The startup has raised $90 million in equity funding to date, garnering a $220 million valuation with its latest round, according to PitchBook. It’s backed by Goldman Sachs, Wing Venture Capital, Redpoint Ventures, Dell’s corporate venture capital arm, Singtel Innov8, Northgate Capital and others. Wing VC founder and long-time Accel managing partner Peter Wagner and Redpoint partner John Walecka are among the investors currently sitting on Moogsoft’s board of directors.

Tee, the founder of two public companies (Micromuse and Riversoft) admitted the layoffs affected several teams across the company. The cuts, however, are not a sign of a struggling business, he said, but rather a right of passage for a startup seeking venture scale.

“We are a classic VC-backed startup that has sort of grown up,” Tee told TechCrunch earlier today. “In pretty much every successful company, there is a point in time where there’s an adjustment in strategy … Unfortunately, when you do that, it becomes a question of do we have the right people?”

Moogsoft doubled revenue last year and added 50 Fortune 200 companies as customers, according to a statement announcing its latest capital infusion. Tee said he’s “extremely chipper” about the road ahead and the company’s recent C-suite hires.

Moogsoft’s newest hires, CFO Raman Kapur (left) and COO Amer Deeba (right).

Moogsoft announced its latest executive hires on November 2, only one week after completing the round of layoffs, a common strategy for companies looking to cast a shadow on less-than-stellar news, like major staff cuts. Those hires include former Splunk vice president of finance Raman Kapur as Moogsoft’s first-ever chief financial officer and Amer Deeba, a long-time Qualys executive, as its chief operating officer.

Deeba spent the last 17 years at Qualys, a publicly traded provider of cloud-based security and compliance solutions. In August, he resigned amid allegations of insider trading. The SEC announced its charges against Deeba on August 30, claiming he had notified his two brothers of Qualys’ missed revenue targets before the company publicly announced its financial results in the spring of 2015.

“Deeba informed his two brothers about the miss and contacted his brothers’ brokerage firm to coordinate the sale of all of his brothers’ Qualys stock,” the SEC wrote in a statement. “When Qualys publicly announced its financial results, it reported that it had missed its previously-announced first-quarter revenue guidance and that it was revising its full-year 2015 revenue guidance downward. On the same day, Deeba sent a message to one of his brothers saying, ‘We announced the bad news today.’ The next day, Qualys’s stock price dropped 25%. Although Deeba made no profits from his conduct, Deeba’s brothers collectively avoided losses of $581,170 by selling their Qualys stock.”

Under the terms of Deeba’s settlement, he is ineligible to serve as an officer or director of any SEC-reporting company for two years and has been ordered to pay a $581,170 penalty.

Tee, for his part, said there was never any admission of guilt from Deeba and that he’s already had a positive impact on Moogsoft.

“[Deeba] is a tremendously impressive individual and he has the full confidence of myself and the board,” Tee said.

 


Source: Tech Crunch

Can the startup building a Fortnite for VR become the Fortnite of VR?

Virtual reality hasn’t proven itself to be the lucrative escape of the every-man, but the medium has done a fairly good job enticing the gaming community and keeping that niche (mostly) happy. While a couple of big titles have gotten some halfway-decent ports to VR, for the most part VR users are confined to whatever indies can build or whatever Oculus can fund.

BigBox VR has been trying to capture attention in the space by not building solo adventures that lead users to find themselves, but instead by trying to match VR’s physicality and immersion with social gameplay that leads users to gain greater appreciation for the medium’s scale.

The company just closed a $5 million funding round led by Shasta Ventures with participation from GSR Ventures and Pioneer Square Labs Ventures. As part of the round, Shasta partner Jacob Mullins will be getting a seat on the board.

Venture cash for VR content hasn’t exactly been free-flowing in 2018, more so for startups that aren’t caught up in building out a “platform play.” Co-founders Chia Chin Lee and Gabe Brown are more interested in just building out titles and hopefully creating one so successful that they don’t have to stop evolving it. The team at BigBox VR got its start with a cartoonish shooter title called Smashbox Arena; the small team has been really interested in finding what VR enables when it comes to competitive online play.

The BigBox VR team

Funding rounds aren’t often about the achievements of the past; however, the company is currently going full-steam ahead with its next ambitious title, a battle royale title called “POPULATION: ONE.”

I had a chance to suit up in VR and dive-in with Jacob and the founding team. I got my ass kicked a couple times, but then they let me win at some point, which I admit I was pretty okay with.

To say the game shares some similarities with Fortnite is an understatement. Not only is it a battle royale title with a shrinking environment, but certain mechanics like gliding in at the beginning to scrounge for weapons and even Fortnite’s building feature are central to the gameplay. That being said, battle royale titles have exploded in the wake of PUBG and they seem to all share a lot among each other. For BigBox, VR is the distinguishing feature, with motion controls and the general feeling that everything is life-sized and in your control.

To be honest, a lot of it really does work. Every surface in the game is climbable (by physically grabbing surfaces with the controllers and then doing the arm-work to scale) but more central movements like turning and moving are left to buttons, a technique that ultimately isn’t for the faint of stomach but is a lot more fluid than teleporting around. There are certainly mechanics which could have felt smoother, but this is a private beta game with a lot of room to finesse.

One of the really powerful things about the game was what happened after I was repeatedly sniped and killed off early on in the first couple rounds. The spectator mode is great and it’s interesting how much the precise controls of VR lend to allowing you to get more actively enveloped in matches that you aren’t even competing in. There are companies in the VR space working exclusively on this, but for a gaming audience obsessed with streamers, adapting traditional games with a VR spectating workflow or doing so natively seems like a huge opportunity.

Battle royale games remain white-hot, and VR game studios have been trying to find the right way to get a slice of the pie. Perhaps the key is knowing where to innovate while also realizing that the multi-platform grandiose of Fortnite has yet to find its way to VR, so maybe finding a title that scratches that itch is the best place to start.


Source: Tech Crunch