Category: StartUps

The smash dockless scooter rental startup, Bird, is expanding beyond its Southern California nest with a new rollout in San Francisco, San Jose, Calif. and Washington, DC, the company said today.

And as his company makes its migration across the country, Bird chief executive Travis VanderZanden is determined not to make the same mistakes that bedeviled his former bosses at Uber .

As part of the rollout, Bird is offering to remit $1 daily for each of its scooters deployed in every city it’s operating in. That’s all part of an outreach effort that Bird is framing as a commitment to “Save Our Sidewalks.”

The initiative, which Bird is encouraging other scooter sharing services like LimeBike, Mobike, Ofo, and Spin to join, includes a commitment to collect vehicles every night; reposition them to meet demand in the mornings; provide regular maintenance; and only add capacity when every vehicle in a fleet is used three times per day.

The dollar per day commitment is a nice attempt by Bird to get in front of tariffs or fees that may be imposed by local jurisdictions which could be far higher. For instance, cities would make far more money charging bird a smaller fee per ride rather than per day.

Bird prices its rides at $1 to rent the scooter and then 15 cents per minute traveled.

The company’s services are already available in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Monica, Calif.

Source: Tech Crunch

Dropbox’s surge on the stock market has continued, with the company going up another 7% on its second day on the stock market.

The company saw its shares close at $30.45, giving the company above a $13 billion market cap, fully diluted.

When it priced its IPO, there was a question as to whether Dropbox would surpass the $10 billion valuation it achieved in its last private round. It eliminated those concerns overnight.

The first few days have been a strong indicator of investor demand for the cloud storage company.

To recap, Dropbox initially hoped to price its IPO between $16 and $18, then raised it from $18 to $20. Then it ultimately priced its IPO at $21, closing the day above $28. And it still continues to go up.

Investors like Dropbox’s improving financials.

It brought in $1.1 billion in revenue in its most recent year. This is up from $845 million in revenue the year before and $604 million for 2015.

Yet while it’s been cash flow positive since 2016, it is not profitable. Dropbox lost nearly $112 million last year. But its margins are looking better when compared with losses of $210 million for 2016 and $326 million for 2015.

Although Dropbox is very different than Spotify which intends to list next week, investors will view this favorable debut as a sign that the IPO window is “open,” meaning that there is strong demand for newly public tech companies.

Source: Tech Crunch

Lerer Hippeau Ventures, the New York-based early-stage venture firm, is taking over the $125 million debut fund created by Binary Capital, a young San Francisco-based venture firm whose cofounder’s misdeeds became the talk of Silicon Valley last summer.

Axios reported the development earlier this morning. Lerer Hippeau tells us it’s not commenting on the news.

The portfolio includes 25 startups, including Bellhops, a five-year-old, Chattanooga, Tn.-based local moving services startup, and Unikrn, a three-year-old, Bellevue, Wa.-based e-sports wagering service that raised $31.4 million via an initial coin offering last fall. (Billionaire Mark Cuban is also an investor.)

What happens to Binary’s second fund is apparently an open question. Jonathan Teo, a cofounder of Binary, didn’t respond to our requests for more information this morning, but Recode reports that firm has “bogged down in various legal matters, including an attempt by Teo to have his fate decided in arbitration.”

Teo’s cofounder, Justin Caldbeck, had brought the firm to the brink of ruin. Last summer, an in expose published by The Information, Caldbeck, who’d previously been an investor with Lightspeed Venture Partners, was accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward six women who said they were groped and propositioned during their professional relationship with him.

Caldbeck initially denied the claims, telling The Information’s reporter, “Go f— yourself.” A day later, he was apologizing for his behavior and, within short order, was forced to resign under pressure.

Teo had apparently hoped to hang on to the firm, which he’s created with Caldbeck in early 2014. Judging by Recode’s report, he’s still fighting to stay involved.

Caldbeck meanwhile showed up at his alma mater, Duke University, last fall to discuss the male-dominated world of finance. “If we’re going to make change, men need to behave better,” Caldbeck told the school newspaper afterward. “Part of what needs to happen is more education around these issues.”

Caldbeck separately told Bloomberg that he planned to release a website dedicated to the topic of “bro culture” and how to address it.

To the relief of his many critics, he appears not to have moved forward with those plans.

Pictured above, left to right: Teo and Caldbeck.

Source: Tech Crunch

Snapchat has ephemeral messages, and now Facebook has ephemeral friend requests. The big blue social network feeds off your social graph, and every time you expand it, it has more content to show you. But if you leave a questionable friend request in limbo for too long, you’ll probably never confirm or delete it. So Facebook is betting that by making those friend requests into exploding offers, you’ll be more likely to accept than lose the opportunity to connect. And if you didn’t want that friend request in the first place, it will self-destruct even if you don’t bother to manually reject it.

On Friday, TechCrunch reader Christine Hudler provided screenshots of a new expiring friend requests feature that gives you a 14 day countdown to make a decision. Now a Facebook spokesperson has confirmed the feature to TechCrunch, writing “I can confirm that this is a test to help surface the most recent requests.” Facebook tells me it’s a way to assist people with managing unwanted friend requests by eventually deleting those people saw but didn’t accept. It’s currently only appearing to a subset of users, not to everyone.

Those in the test group will see a “14 days to respond” countdown on their friend requests. A ‘Learn More’ link leads to this Help Center article we’ve screenshotted here, as it only shows details about expirations to those in the test.

Keeping people’s friend request queue clean is critical to the company because if you can’t find the legitimate ones from people you know amongst all the randos and spam, you might stop growing your graph. Expiring friend requests could also solve a problem for social media stars and other public figures on Facebook. The app only lets you have up to 5000 friends, and a limited number of pending requests that seems to be 5000 minus your friend count (Facebook wouldn’t say). After that, you won’t receive inbound friend requests any more. The expiration date makes it much less likely that you’ll ever hit the pending friend request maximum.

The “limited time offer” trick has been around in shopping forever as way to boost your sense of urgency. Humans love optionality but hate to miss out. People buy things off of infomercials they don’t actually want because if they “ACT NOW!” they’ll get a discount before it disappears. This same approach compels people to open Snapchat so they don’t miss their friends’ Stories that delete themselves after 24 hours.

The feature comes at a time when Facebook is especially sensitive about appearing respectful of your data, following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Friend requests from total strangers can make users feel like they’re already sharing too much public information, and that one wrong click could expose their friends-only photos and posts. Keeping these requests from piling up could make users feel safer while ensuring they can keep adding real friends.

For more on what’s up with Facebook, read our feature pieces:

Source: Tech Crunch

Smartsheet is the latest company to file to go public, now that the IPO window is open. 

The Bellevue, Washington-based company offers enterprise software for communication and collaboration.

It describes itself as the “leading cloud-based platform for work execution, enabling teams and organizations to plan, capture, manage, automate, and report on work at scale, resulting in more efficient processes and better business outcomes. ”

Smartsheet says it has 3.6 million users and its products are utilized at 90% of the Fortune 100 companies around the world.

It touts clients like Cisco and Starbucks. Smartsheet says Cisco uses it to keep tabs on spending and Starbucks uses it send product and business updates to its thousands of stores.

The company brought in $111.3 million in revenue for its fiscal 2018 year. It’s a big jump from $67 million for 2017 and $40.8 million for 2016.

But losses are also growing, totaling $49.1 million for 2018, up from negative $15.2 million and $14.3 million in prior years.

“We have a history of cumulative losses and we cannot assure you that we will achieve profitability in the foreseeable future,” the company warned in its prospectus.

Smartsheet acknowledges that it competes with Microsoft and Google on spreadsheets and other productivity tools. Its products also compete with Asana, Atlassian, Planview and Workfront.

“The market in which we participate is highly competitive, and if we do not compete effectively, our operating results could be harmed,” reads the “risk factors” section of the filing.

The largest shareholder is Insight Venture Partners, which owned a sizeable 32.1% of the company prior to the IPO. Madrona Ventures owned 28.4% of the company and Sutter Hill Ventures owned 5.4%.

Smartsheet had raised at least $106 million in venture funding, dating back to 2010, according to Crunchbase data. Last year, TechCrunch reported that it had an $800 million valuation.

The company plans to list on the New York Stock Exchange, under the ticker “SMAR.”

Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan are managing the offering. Fenwick & West and Wilson Sonsini served as counsel.

The floodgates have opened for enterprise tech IPOs. Last week we saw Dropbox debut and now we’ve seen filings for Zuora and Pivotal. DocuSign is also expected to file in the coming months.

Many of last year’s enterprise tech IPOs performed well, giving pipeline companies confidence in their debuts.

Spring also tends to be an active time for IPOs, with companies looking to debut before the summer slowdown.

And while consumer tech IPOs have been slow for several years now, one of the more anticipated companies looking to debut is Spotify, which is expected to go public next week via a “direct listing.”

 

Source: Tech Crunch

After weeks of speculation, Uber has concluded a deal that will see it sell its business in Southeast Asia to local rival Grab . The company plans to announce the agreement this coming week and potentially as soon as Monday, two sources have confirmed to TechCrunch.

Full details of the arrangement aren’t fully clear at this point, but TechCrunch understands that Singapore-based Grab will take over Uber’s ride-sharing in the eight markets in Southeast Asia where it is operational. It will also take ownership of Uber Eats, which is available in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. Bloomberg reported today that Uber will take 25-30 percent equity in Grab in exchange.

Both Uber and Grab declined to comment when contacted separately for comment.

The successful conclusion of negotiations comes less than two months after SoftBank, an early investor in Grab, secured a long-drawn-out deal to become an Uber shareholder.

SoftBank is thought to have favored consolidating Uber’s businesses in emerging markets, with Southeast Asia — a loss-making geography for all — one of its apparent targets. That’s despite significant growth potential as more of the regions 600 million consumers come online for the first time.

Revenue from taxi apps is said to have more than doubled over the past two years to cross $5 billion in 2017, according to a recent report co-authored by Google. The industry is expected to reach $20 billion by 2025, the same report found.

Uber previously exited China in 2016 after striking an equity exchange deal with Chinese market leader Didi. The U.S. firm also quit Russia last year after it sold its business in the country to local rival Yandex.

Unlike those two deals, however, Uber had held a decent position in Southeast Asia in recent times although it appeared to lose considerable market share last year. Issues inside Uber, including the resignation of founding CEO Travis Kalanick and investor squabbles, seemed to divert its attention away from Southeast Asia. All the while, Grab marched on and it notably refueled its tanks with over $2.5 billion in additional funding from investors.

Grab isn’t the only rival in Southeast Asia, however. Go-Jek leads the Indonesian market and it recently gained the backing of Google, JD.com and Tencent at a valuation of some $5 billion. Despite winning in Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s largest economy and the world’s fourth most populous country, Go-Jek is yet to venture overseas. This Uber-Grab consolidate certains gives it a good reason to expedite those plans.

Source: Tech Crunch

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has taken out a full page ad in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and six UK papers today to apologize Cambridge Analytica scandal, according to CNN’s Brian Stelter.

The ad starts in bold letters, saying:

“We have a responsibility to protect your information. If we can’t, we don’t deserve it.”

The ad was published on Sunday, following Zuck’s first public acknowledgement of the issue on Facebook and a subsequent media tour earlier this week.

Congress has also put Mark Zuckerberg on notice to potentially come speak with them, with Senator Kennedy of Louisiana encouraging Zuck to “do the common sense thing and roll up his sleeves and take a meaningful amount of time talking to [them].”

For those of you still unsure what’s going on with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, you can see a full play-by-play here.

Here’s the full transcript from the print ad:

We have a responsibility to protect your information. If we can’t, we don’t deserve it.

You may have heard about a quiz app built by a university researcher that leaked Facebook data of millions of people in 2014. This was a breach of trust, and I’m sorry we didn’t do more at the time. We’re now taking steps to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

We’ve already stopped apps like this from getting so much information. Now we’re limiting the data apps get when you sign in using Facebook.

We’re also investigating every single app that had access to large amounts of data before we fixed this. We expect there are others. And when we find them, we will ban them and tell everyone affected.

Finally, we’ll remind you of which apps you’ve given access to your information — so you can shut off the ones you don’t want anymore.

Thank you for believing in this community. I promise to do better for you.

Mark Zuckerberg

Source: Tech Crunch

Earlier this year, the business community received a wake-up call issued with all of the might that $6 trillion can muster.

The call came from Laurence Fink, the founder and chief executive of the global investment firm, BlackRock, and was delivered as a letter to the CEOs of the world’s largest companies.

Aptly titled, “A Sense of Purpose,” the letter informed business leaders that driving record profits is no longer enough to garner BlackRock’s support. Companies must also positively contribute to society, or in Mr. Fink’s words, “Companies must benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate.”

I was elated when I read the letter. I’ve spent my entire career as a social entrepreneur advocating for businesses—specifically technology businesses in Silicon Valley—to use their technology, wealth, and influence for social good. After reading the letter in the New York Times and seeing the extensive coverage in major business publications, I turned to the leading Silicon Valley tech blogs to get their take on this blockbuster announcement. After all, the Bay Area is home to many of BlackRock’s largest clients.

Crickets. Fink’s letter wasn’t covered by the technology press. Well, to be accurate, I checked the first ten pages of Google results as well as all of the tech pubs in Techmeme’s top ten list. Nothing.

Guys (I hate to say it, but it’s mostly guys here in the Valley), Fink’s point is that ignoring society’s voice will lead to the loss of our “license to operate.” Putting the Valley’s collective hands over our ears and saying “we can’t hear you” only works for so long.

Instead, what if Silicon Valley embraced the letter to commit good for the better of society as a whole, not just the interests of the software and data industrial complex? What if Fink’s letter served as a constant reminder to build products that make the world a 10x more equitable place to live and prosper and not just to build products that deliver 10x profit?

With those questions in mind, here are two interrelated and crucial ways to commit good on purpose while making sure Silicon Valley technology companies embrace “A Sense of Purpose.”

Put People Before Algorithms. The goal of algorithms must not be to replace, manipulate, or deceive in the name of profit. This is all too often the case as black-box algorithms use massive amounts of data to attract eyeballs, encourage clicks, and, in more dire circumstances, even determine if someone goes to prison.

We must always ask up front how unaccountable algorithms impact individuals and society as a whole. Instead of eyeballs, clicks, and even prison time served, algorithms should be optimized to make people better—more efficient in their jobs, more informed in their daily lives, and more connected to their communities. We must make a cognizant effort to analyze and identify the risks of algorithms-gone-rogue before they result in disasters. Let’s not only ask, “How can we make more money?” but also, “What could go wrong?”

Risk-benefit analysis already takes place around boardroom tables by those with monetary interests, but those conversations fail to include the diverse voices of the communities that will feel the decision’s impact. There will never be perfect clarity around what will unfold after a decision is made. That’s exactly why decisions that impact thousands, millions, and even billions of people must include all company stakeholders—shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate—if we are ever to prevent a world where algorithms reign supreme in the name of profit.

Treat Diversity as Our Greatest Asset. It’s very easy to discount points of view, values, and even someone’s humanity when the voice of diversity is not present. Establishing diversity as a core company principle is a good start, but it’s not enough. Diversity must be omnipresent and it must be truly embraced across an organization as an asset, not a statistic.

Many in Silicon Valley will tell you that diversity has been a top priority for years, only to follow with reports that cite a 2% increase in women employees, 0% increase in black employees, and no data at all on the number of employees with disabilities. Let’s not conflate transparency with priority. We must increase diversity now while investing in STEM education and training to create a more diverse pipeline of workers for tomorrow’s technology jobs. By making the workforce of today and tomorrow more diverse, we make our communities more diverse. We are then one step closer to never discounting a point of view, value, or someone’s entire humanity due to a lack of voice.

It’s not too late to use Mr. Fink’s letter as a wake-up call for Silicon Valley to commit good on purpose. While the two proposals detailed in this article are aspirational, they have at their core something much more valuable than $6 trillion. These ideas are about regaining Silicon Valley’s conscience. They are about investing in a collective future that prizes diversity and equality, not a future that allows technology, data, and algorithms to further entrench the inequality that we face today in Silicon Valley and everywhere that feels our impact.

Source: Tech Crunch