The Planetary Society’s crowdfunded LightSail 2 deploys its solar sail in orbit

Crowdfunded spacecraft LightSail 2 is making good on its name, after successfully unfurling its solar sail in orbit so that it can begin propelling itself using the force of light alone. The sail’s Mylar surface reflects photons from the Sun, accumulating velocity gradually thanks to the additive effect of countless sub-atomic impacts. The team confirmed sail deployment initiated at 11:47 AM PT (2:47 PM ET), and full sail deployment completed at 11:50 AM PT (2:50 PM ET).

LightSail 2 got its ride to space with the Falcon Heavy launch on June 25, sharing a ride with a variety of payloads, including NASA and Air Force experiments. The spacecraft is the product of The Planetary Society, a nonprofit organization devoted to the advancement of space exploration that’s led by Bill Nye . Its goal is to study solar sailing in practice — a technology whose conception goes back centuries, but whose actual field use is extremely limited, with only a few examples existing previously, including JAXA’s IKAROS mission from 2010.

The sail’s total propulsion power is astonishingly small, despite its size (it’s about the size of a boxing ring) — it provides about as much power as a housefly landing on your hand. But it also will never theoretically run out of fuel, and can gradually increase its speed over time to very high velocities thanks to the friction-free environment of the vacuum of space.

“Things are great, things are nominal,” explained The Planetary Society’s chief scientist, Bruce Betts, on a live stream of the sail’s deployment, indicating that everything is to plan so far. The Planetary Society will attempt to get back images from the deployment the next time the craft is within range of a grand station, and we’ll update when those become available.


Source: Tech Crunch

MIT develops a new sensor that could help diagnose sepsis in mere minutes

Researchers at MIT have developed a new type of sensor that could make diagnosing sepsis much quicker, easier and more affordable than ever before. This could have a huge potential impact, as sepsis is one of the leading causes of death in hospitals, and is responsible for almost 250,000 patient deaths per year in the U.S. alone.

The method developed by MIT employs microfluidics to detect the presence of key proteins in the blood that act as early warning signs about the onset of sepsis. One in particular, called “interleukin-6” or IL-6, appears hours before any other symptom appears in a patient. Ordinary “assay” or blood test devices aren’t able to pick it up that quickly, however, because, despite the fact that it can spike early on, these spikes don’t actually represent significantly high levels relative to what these traditional methods are able to pick up.

MIT’s system can automatically detect these higher concentrations very early, using less blood than you’d get from even just a finger prick. Results are available in just 25 minutes, which contrasts with hours for traditional methods, or half an hour for more modern “point-of-care” systems that have been brought to market recently, which can nonetheless use higher quantities of blood and are much more expensive overall.

The way that MIT was able to work around these limitations was by using a testing method that mirrors a lab-based detection method for IL-6 that uses tiny magnetic beads to show the presence of the protein, while reducing the size so that it’s actually field-deployable. Existing field methods use high-quality optics, which are expensive and don’t allow for much in the way of cost-saving innovations, keeping the price of these tests and the hardware needed to run them prohibitive for wide use.

Researchers plan to continue their work by developing a full panel of proteins that act as early markers for sepsis detection to reinforce the accuracy of their diagnosis. The system could be tuned to detect a range of different biomarkers, however, so its potential applications could extend to other diagnostics as well.


Source: Tech Crunch

UK to toughen telecoms security controls to shrink 5G risks

Amid ongoing concerns about security risks posed by the involvement of Chinese tech giant Huawei in 5G supply, the UK government has published a review of the telecoms supply chain which concludes that policy and regulation in enforcing network security needs to be significantly strengthened to address concerns.

However it continues to hold off on setting an official position on whether to allow or ban Huawei from supplying the country’s next-gen networks — as the US has been pressurizing its allies to do.

Giving a statement in parliament this afternoon, the UK’s digital minister, Jeremy Wright, said the government is releasing the conclusions of the report ahead of a decision on Huawei so that domestic carriers can prepare for the tougher standards it plans to bring in to apply to all their vendors.

“The Review has concluded that the current level of protections put in place by industry are unlikely to be adequate to address the identified security risks and deliver the desired security outcomes,” he said. “So, to improve cyber security risk management, policy and enforcement, the Review recommends the establishment of a new security framework for the UK telecoms sector. This will be a much stronger, security based regime than at present.

“The foundation for the framework will be a new set of Telecoms Security Requirements for telecoms operators, overseen by Ofcom and government. These new requirements will be underpinned by a robust legislative framework.”

Wright said the government plans to legislate “at the earliest opportunity” — to provide the regulator with stronger powers to to enforcement the incoming Telecoms Security Requirements, and to establish “stronger national security backstop powers for government”.

The review suggests the government is considering introducing GDPR-level penalties for carriers that fail to meet the strict security standards it will also be bringing in.

“Until the new legislation is put in place, government and Ofcom will work with all telecoms operators to secure adherence to the new requirements on a voluntary basis,” Wright told parliament today. “Operators will be required to subject vendors to rigorous oversight through procurement and contract management. This will involve operators requiring all their vendors to adhere to the new Telecoms Security Requirements.

“They will also be required to work closely with vendors, supported by government, to ensure effective assurance testing for equipment, systems and software, and to support ongoing verification arrangements.”

The review also calls for competition and diversity within the supply chain — which Wright said will be needed “if we are to drive innovation and reduce the risk of dependency on individual suppliers”.

The government will therefore pursue “a targeted diversification strategy, supporting the growth of new players in the parts of the network that pose security and resilience risks”, he added.

“We will promote policies that support new entrants and the growth of smaller firms,” he also said, sounding a call for security startups to turn their attention to 5G.

Government would “seek to attract trusted and established firms to the UK market”, he added — dubbing a “vibrant and diverse telecoms market” as both good for consumers and for national security.

“The Review I commissioned was not designed to deal only with one specific company and its conclusions have much wider application. And the need for them is urgent. The first 5G consumer services are launching this year,” he said. “The equally vital diversification of the supply chain will take time. We should get on with it.”

Last week two UK parliamentary committees espoused a view that there’s no technical reason to ban Huawei from all 5G supply — while recognizing there may be other considerations, such as geopolitics and human rights, which impact the decision.

The Intelligence and Security committee also warned that what it dubbed the “unnecessarily protracted” delay in the government taking a decision about 5G suppliers is damaging UK relations abroad.

Despite being urged to get a move on on the specific issue of Huawei, it’s notable that the government continues to hold off. Albeit, a new prime minister will be appointed later this week, after votes of Conservative Party members are counted — which may be contributing to ongoing delay.

“Since the US government’s announcement [on May 16, adding Huawei and 68 affiliates to its Entity List on national security grounds] we have sought clarity on the extent and implications but the position is not yet entirely clear. Until it is, we have concluded it would be wrong to make specific decisions in relation to Huawei,” Wright said, adding: “We will do so as soon as possible.”

In a press release accompanying the telecoms supply chain review the government said decisions would be taken about high risk vendors “in due course”.

Earlier this year a leak from a meeting of the UK’s National Security Council suggested the government was preparing to give an amber light to Huawei to continue supplying 5G — though limiting its participation to non-core portions of networks.

The Science & Technology committee also recommended the government mandate the exclusion of Huawei from the core of 5G networks.

Wright’s statement appears to hint that that position remains the preferred one — baring a radical change of policy under a new PM — with, in addition to talk of encouraging diversity in the supply chain, the minister also flagging the review’s conclusion that there should be “additional controls on the presence in the supply chain of certain types of vendor which pose significantly greater security and resilience risks to UK telecoms”.

Additional controls doesn’t sound like a euphemism for an out-and-out ban.

In a statement responding to the review, Huawei expressed confidence that it’s days of supplying UK 5G are not drawing to a close — writing:

The UK Government’s Supply Chain Review gives us confidence that we can continue to work with network operators to rollout 5G across the UK. The findings are an important step forward for 5G and full fibre broadband networks in the UK and we welcome the Government’s commitment to “a diverse telecoms supply chain” and “new legislation to enforce stronger security requirements in the telecoms sector”. After 18 years of operating in the UK, we remain committed to supporting BT, EE, Vodafone and other partners build secure, reliable networks.”

The evidence shows excluding Huawei would cost the UK economy £7 billion and result in more expensive 5G networks, raising prices for anyone with a mobile device. On Friday, Parliament’s Intelligence & Security Committee said limiting the market to just two telecoms suppliers would reduce competition, resulting in less resilience and lower security standards. They also confirmed that Huawei’s inclusion in British networks would not affect the channels used for intelligence sharing.

A spokesman for the company told us it already supplies non-core elements of UK carriers’ EE and Vodafone’s network, adding that it’s viewing Wright’s statement as an endorsement of that status quo.

While the official position remains to be confirmed all the signals suggest the UK’s 5G security strategy will be tied to tightened regulation and oversight, rather than follow a US path of seeking to shut Chinese tech giants out.

Commenting on the government’s telecoms supply chain review in a statement, Ciaran Martin, CEO of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, said: “As the UK’s lead technical authority, we have worked closely with DCMS [the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport] on this review, providing comprehensive analysis and cyber security advice. These new measures represent a tougher security regime for our telecoms infrastructure, and will lead to higher standards, much greater resilience and incentives for the sector to take cyber security seriously.

“This is a significant overhaul of how we do telecoms security, helping to keep the UK the safest place to live and work online by ensuring that cyber security is embedded into future networks from inception.”

Although tougher security standards for telecoms combined with updated regulations that bake in major fines for failure suggest Huawei will have its work cut out not to be excluded by the market, as carriers will be careful about vendors as they work to shrink their risk.

Earlier this year a report by an oversight body that evaluates its approach to security was withering — finding “serious and systematic defects” in its software engineering and cyber security competence.


Source: Tech Crunch

Onward raises $1.5 million to offer round-trip rides to older adults needing assistance

Uber and Lyft aren’t designed to transport people who need a little help getting out of the house or need someone to help get them from the doctor’s waiting room back to their home. While Uber, for example, has launched Uber Health to help patients get to their appointments, the drivers are not vetted with patient assistance in mind. This is where Onward comes in.

Onward, with $1.5 million in seed funding from Royal Street Ventures, Matchstick Ventures and JPK Capital, launched a few months ago in the San Francisco Bay Area to help seniors safely get from point A to point B. Unlike Uber and Lyft, Onward offers roundtrip, door-to-door rides and aims to provide freedom for older adults who may feel isolated, Onward co-founder Mike Lewis told TechCrunch.

The idea for Onward emerged from Lewis’ experience with his mother-in-law who had Alzheimer’s. It got him and his co-founder, Nader Akhnoukh, thinking about the idea of aging in place and how older people may feel isolated as they become unable to do the tasks they’ve spent their whole lives doing, like driving.

“The minute you can’t do that, it’s sad and scary,” Lewis said.

Onward has three types of customers: older adults who are no longer able to drive, someone who can’t drive for medical reasons (surgeries, eye exams, etc.) and caregivers who are unable to provide transportation to their loved ones.

Similar to Uber and Lyft, Onward drivers are 1099 contractors but a key difference is that they are paid hourly — at least $20 per hour. Currently, there are more than 25 drivers on board who are all trained in CPR, dementia, and have gone through a background check and car inspection.

Onward also ensures its drivers know how to fold wheelchairs, though, only some drivers have the ability to transport those in powered wheelchairs. This time next year, Onward expects to have hundreds of drivers. Lewis says he also expects the number of vehicles with the ability to transport people in powered wheelchairs to increase as the company grows.

For riders, they can expect to pay $35 per hour. The minimum charge for the trip is one hour, so this is definitely geared toward people who may need the driver to wait for them during a doctor’s appointment, for example. After the first hour, Onward charges by the minute.

That hourly fee gets riders round-trip rides with the driver waiting for you at the destination, door-to-door assistance at each stop and the ability to request favorite drivers.

Onward completed its first ride in March in the San Francisco Bay Area.  For the rest of the year, Onward plans to focus on San Francisco for the rest as well as one other launch market. To date, Onward has completed more than 500 trips.


Source: Tech Crunch

What Vidcon means for the future of social media platforms

This month marked the 10th annual VidCon, a digital content conference in Anaheim. VidCon is catered toward online creators, their fans and the brand marketers & entertainment companies that want to leverage their influence. The conference drew 75,000+ attendees last year (we’d guess it was even bigger this year!) with teens and tweens flying in from around the globe to meet their favorite online stars.

VidCon 2019 featured a rainbow slide, a terrifying snow cone/ice cream/cotton candy concoction called “The Unicorn,” and a giant Invisalign-branded gum and candy dispenser.

This was our second year at VidCon (read our recap of VidCon 2018 here). We’ve found there’s nothing quite like it if you want to understand teen culture, influencer marketing, and the future of social platforms, and are excited to share five of our key takeaways from the event. We’d love to hear from you about anything we missed — and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for more millennial and Gen Z insights.

TL;DR — here were our five main takeaways!

  1. TikTok is blowing up among Gen Z, and features much more diverse and “real” creators than other platforms. Brand marketers are still figuring out their place in the TikTok ecosystem, but some early adopters (like Chipotle) have had extremely strong results.
  2. Top creators are now talking openly about mental health, and how exhausting it is to constantly churn out unique and high-quality content. They’re encouraging new creators to seek more “stable” platforms (less algorithm-dependent) and try not to measure their self-worth in metrics.
  3. Creators are increasingly careful about brand partnerships, and many are choosing to launch their own products. Many creators have business managers to handle production, or can do it online reasonably easily. If done right, this yields higher revenue and a warmer reception from fans.
  4. Five years ago, digital creators aspired to be celebrities. Now celebrities aspire to be digital creators. Actors and athletes may soon be more famous among Gen Z for their digital work than for their “real jobs.”
  5. With new tech that democratizes content creation, everyone wants to be an influencer. VidCon has shifted from a pure fan event towards more of a strategic business conference, with aspiring influencers seeking tactical tips and new connections to grow their careers.

TikTok and a New Wave of “Authentic” Creators

Short-form video app TikTok, which hosts 15-second clips, was undoubtedly the star of VidCon — almost every TikTok panel was standing room only. Since launching in 2016, the app has grown to 500M monthly active users globally, far surpassing its predecessor, Musical.ly (which maxed out at 100M).

In contrast to perfectly curated Instagram feeds, the content on TikTok can be best described as “weird.” Videos are intended to induce a quick laugh or smile, often via comedy skits, dances, or odd skills that come in handy in TikTok’s “challenges.” At events like VidCon, where YouTubers travel with security and interact with fans through paid meet-and-greets, high-profile TikTokers are more accessible. They are also more diverse in apperance — many TikTokers look more like Billie Eilish than an Instagram model.

On the “Stars of TikTok panel,” only one of the six creators had hair that wasn’t bright blue or pink.

TikTok differentiates itself through a focus on authenticity — one of the company’s promo videos boldly claimed they want activists, not influencers. While YouTubers spend dozens of hours filming and editing, TikTokers say their work is more spontaneous. According to Chris Kerr of dance duo OurFire, “TikTok is all about living in the moment. Since it’s only 15 seconds, you just do it and put it up right away.” TikToker Andrea Okeke (“dreaknowsbest”) likes TikTok because she “doesn’t feel the need to fit in a box like I do on other platforms. I can just be Drea and they love me like that.” She purposefully keeps flaws in her TikTok videos for fans to find and share.

“People don’t realize the incredible diversity of the platform — all races, ages, careers. Firefighters, grandmas, nurses, 12 year olds. We see a lot of people who don’t have voices on other platforms.” — Vanessa Pappas, TikTok GM

The authenticity of TikTok also appeals to many brands trying to reach Gen Z. Chipotle senior digital manager Candice Beck said that when the company decided to incorporate more “relatable” content into their marketing strategy, they partnered with influencer David Dobrik on a TikTok #LidFlipChallenge that amassed 200M+ views. Chipotle had its top digital sales day ever after creating a “Dobrik” burrito. Other brands to check out on TikTok? Jimmy Fallon, the NBA, and the Washington Post.

Reaching a Breaking Point on Mental Health

The floodgates have opened for creators to talk about burnout and their struggles with mental health. In a panel on this topic, five creators swapped stories about having mental breakdowns after making it big on YouTube. Gabbie Hanna spoke about having panic attacks between takes of her videos, and collapsing in tears when she thought she wouldn’t meet her regular Wednesday upload timeline. Elle Mills said a frenetic schedule of constant tours and videos caused a “very public mental breakdown” less than a year after her ascent to stardom.

“It was hard for me because I felt like no one was going to watch, that everything I worked for was going to be taken away from me. That’s why a lot of YouTubers have breakdowns, they have that mentality.” — Elle Mills

Being a YouTuber may look easy and fun, but top creators have grueling schedules. Natalie Alzate, who has nearly 8M subscribers on her channel Natalies Outlet, works 18 hours a day to produce two videos every week. She warned aspiring creators that it’s “very taxing on your body,” and said that she eventually wants YouTube to be a hobby instead of her full-time job. Mikey Murphy, who started on YouTube at age 11, said that at 21 he is “out of ideas.” He referred to the YouTube standard of weekly videos as “unhealthy,” and advised young creators to ignore analytics because “it will crush you.”

Beyond the typical mean comments, creators who speak openly about mental health also feel pressure in representing a community of fans who face the same struggles. YouTuber Natalie Wynn (ContraPoints), who makes videos about topics like gender, race, and politics, said that her most angry comments come from fellow trans people — which is “really hard” to deal with. Because YouTube’s algorithms distribute her videos far beyond her own fans, she also feels a responsibility to make content that appeals to viewers with negative views of trans people — which means she has to adopt a playful and “non-threatening” tone even when discussing serious issues.

Creators Rethink #SponCon, Build Their Own Brands

Sponsored content has long been a tricky subject for creators — when they get big enough to start signing brand deals, many are accused of “selling out” or being “inauthentic.” Fans complain that they can’t trust a creator’s product recommendations or reviews if they’re being paid by the brand, leading some creators to disguise the fact that a post is sponsored (which is illegal).

We noticed a shift this year in how creators are thinking about sponsorships — many said they no longer consider a brand’s proposal unless they are already a genuine fan of the brand and their viewers know it. Sierra Schultzzie, a fashion YouTuber with 580k subscribers, said that her fans often tagged American Eagle in her posts because she talked about their jeans so frequently. When she signed a deal with the company, her viewers celebrated the fact that the brand “finally” sponsored her.

Sierra Schultzzie’s fans are receptive to her American Eagle sponsorship (and trust her endorsement of the products) because they know she loved the brand before she was paid.

Marketers have also had to get comfortable with giving up creative control of their campaigns. Creators know what kind of content will resonate, and don’t want to read a list of corporate talking points. Matt Nelson, the human behind WeRateDogs, did a Twitter campaign with Disney to promote the new Dumbo movie. He credits the campaign’s success to the fact that “Disney respected me as a creator enough to let me do my own posts with what I knew my audience wanted” — he “obsesses” over his analytics and knows what will perform well. He ended up getting 22k comments and nearly 70k likes on a post seeking dogs with ears like Dumbo.

Many creators are taking it a step further by launching their own brands. With new services that help anyone spin up a product line, this option is no longer limited to YouTube’s mega stars. 15-year-old Fiona Frills, who has 800k YouTube subscribers, said it was an easy decision to launch her own skincare line when she couldn’t find clean products on Sephora or Ulta for her acne. Shaun McKnight, whose wife runs the Cute Girls HairstyleYouTube channel (5.6M subscribers), said the family turned down lucrative hair brand deals for almost ten years because they eventually planned to launch their own brand.

McKnight’s twin daughters Brooklyn and Bailey (6.2M subscribers) also launched their own mascara brand — which was developed in-house and partially funded on Indiegogo. They have since extended their brand to other beauty and accessory products, and have sold more than 250,000 sets of scrunchies. If an influencer can launch their own products, why would they take a partnership deal where they get a smaller cut of the revenue, have limited creative control, and get accused of “selling out”?

Celebrities Now Aspire to be Creators

Over the past five years, we’ve seen influencers replace “traditional” celebrities for Gen Z. This generation is watching significantly less linear TV than older generations and spending more time on their phones — the average Gen Zer watches 3.4 hours of online video every day. It’s not surprising that Gen Z’s biggest stars are more likely to emerge on YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok than on Disney or Nick. And we’re now seeing mainstream celebrities become digital creators to make themselves more Gen Z-friendly.

Will Smith is a perfect example of this — he created an Instagram account in late 2017 and a YouTube channel last year. He’s now a prolific poster, participating in viral teen challenges and earning the title “King of Instagram.” Professional athletes are also making use of social media to grow their younger fan base. Asani Swann, who leads Carmelo Anthony’s business strategy team, said that Anthony spends time on YouTube watching “a lot of things that kids watch.” He’s constantly asking himself, “How are the kids consuming content? He wants to figure out what the next move is.”

In Will’s Instagram post celebrating 10M followers, he noted that he avoided social media for most of his career because “in the past, to be a movie star you needed mystery and separation.”

YouTuber Kristopher London, who has nearly 3M followers across two accounts, has become famous on the platform for his basketball content. Though he’s never played professionally, he’s often more popular than NBA players at events like the NBA Summer League. He noted that it’s always strange to him when “kids are coming to take photos with me and not acknowledging the NBA players,” and he gets inbounds from the biggest names in the NBA about appearing in his videos.

Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson now posts twice a week on YouTube — she regularly does challenges, “storytime” videos, and collabs with teen influencers. She’s also not afraid of a clickbait-y title. It’s not hard to imagine a world where kids know Shawn Johnson as a YouTuber, not an athlete!

From Idolizing Creators to Empowering a New Generation

In years past, VidCon was mostly a fan fest, an opportunity for viewers to interact with their favorite creators. There’s still a lot of that behavior, but now many of these fans are aspiring creators themselves. VidCon’s young attendees seem to be increasingly focused on learning how to build a career online — one recent study found that “influencer” is now the #2 dream job for 11–16 year olds in the UK.

This shift was reflected in the setup of VidCon itself — the “creator” sessions, largely focused on practical advice for making content and building an audience, were moved to larger venues. At a creator session on live-streaming featuring model/IRL streamer Bri Teresi, attendees skipped past the typical “fan” questions and instead quizzed Bri on what tech she uses for overlays in her streams, what platform is the most friendly to new streamers, and how to avoid doxxing.

Brands have caught on to the fact that lifting up aspiring creators will increase engagement on their own content. Michelle D’Antonio, a senior manager at e-sports media platform Super League Gaming, said that encouraging young gamers has been key to growing the brand. Super League now hosts a daily show called Spawn Point that curates the best user-submitted plays: “[Kids now] are like, ‘Ninja’s great, but I want this to be about me.’ ”

This shift was also apparent in VidCon’s giant Expo Hall, where brands set up booths to draw in young consumers. Most of the influencer merch booths were surprisingly empty, except for the hour or so when the influencer themselves stopped by. The more popular booths allowed visitors to record their own content and potentially draw an audience — brands from Barbie to Best Buy created pseudo-studios to put attendees in the creator seat. These booths often had lines with dozens or even hundreds of people waiting in line for their chance in the spotlight. We expect this trend to accelerate, and are therefore particularly excited about new tech that helps consumers create content and grow businesses around it (we call this “creator infrastructure”).

Dozens of kids lined up for the chance to play video games on an esports truck in front of a live audience, with their gameplay broadcast on huge screens that mimicked a professional event.

And finally, we wanted to wrap up with a few of the more surface-level trends we noticed at the VidCon expo hall and in the “community” sessions:


Source: Tech Crunch

In spite of slowing growth, Microsoft has been flexing its cloud muscles

When Microsoft reported its FY19, Q4 earnings last week, the numbers were mostly positive, but as we pointed out, Azure earnings growth has stalled. Productivity and business, which includes Office 365, has also mostly flattened out. But slowing growth is not always as bad as it may seem. In fact, it’s an inevitability that once you start to reach Microsoft’s market maturity, it gets harder to maintain large growth numbers.

That said, AWS launched the first cloud infrastructure service, Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud in August, 2006. Microsoft came much later to the cloud, launching Azure in February, 2010, but so were other established companies in Microsoft’s market share rearview. What did it do differently to achieve this success that the companies chasing it — Google, IBM and Oracle — failed to do? It’s a key question.

Let’s look at some numbers

For starters, let’s look at the most numbers for Productivity & Business Processes this year. This category includes all of its commercial and consumer SaaS products including Office 365 commercial and consumer, Dynamics 365, LinkedIn and others. The percentage growth started FY19 at 19% but ended at 14%

Screenshot 2019 07 19 14.34.00

When you look at just Office365 commercial earnings growth, it started at 36% and dropped down to 31% by Q4.


Source: Tech Crunch

Daily Crunch: Microsoft invests $1B in OpenAI

The Daily Crunch is TechCrunch’s roundup of our biggest and most important stories. If you’d like to get this delivered to your inbox every day at around 9am Pacific, you can subscribe here.

1. Microsoft invests $1 billion in OpenAI in new multiyear partnership

OpenAI was founded three years ago by Elon Musk, Sam Altman and others with the aim of performing research and development that steers artificial intelligence in a “friendlier” direction.

Its deal with Microsoft is an “exclusive computing partnership,” with new AI technologies built for Microsoft’s Azure platform and existing OpenAI services ported over.

2. UVeye snaps up $31M for its hyper-detailed, AI-based drive-thru vehicle-scanning platform

UVeye’s technology can be used to assess the state of rental and used cars, help with insurance adjustments, inspect vehicles to diagnose mechanical or other problems and as part of wider security efforts.

3. Amazon is opening a pair of new robotic fulfillment centers in Ohio

The two warehouses will be located in the north of the state, in Akron and Rossford, respectively. They’ll function much like Amazon’s other shipping centers, providing a collaborative workspace between human employees and the company’s growing army of shipping robots.

logo for Slack is displayed on the a monitor at the New York Stock Exchange

NEW YORK, NY – JUNE 20: The logo for Slack is displayed on the a monitor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), June 20, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

4. Slack speeds up its web and desktop client

Slack’s latest update doesn’t introduce any new features or a new user interface. Instead, it’s almost a complete rebuild of the underlying technology that makes its web and desktop experiences work.

5. Cyber threats from the US and Russia are now focusing on civilian infrastructure

Although both sides have been targeting each other’s infrastructure since at least 2012, according to The New York Times, the aggression and scope of these operations now seems unprecedented.

6. How to go to market in middle America

There comes a time for many startup companies where they either realize they need to do a nationwide rollout, or they need to actively target buyers in the middle of the country. (Extra Crunch membership required.)

7. This week’s TechCrunch podcasts

The latest episode of Equity looks at whether it’s possible to predict the next generation of unicorns, while Original Content reviews the brilliantly titled Netflix special “Frankenstein’s Monster’s Monster, Frankenstein.”


Source: Tech Crunch

Lyft’s dockless e-bikes have made their way to SF, but it wasn’t easy

When tech companies sue cities, it’s rare to see a resolution — albeit a temporary one — in favor of the tech company happen so quickly, if at all. Lyft sued San Francisco in early June, claiming the city was in violation of a 10-year contract that would give Lyft exclusive rights to operate bike-share programs.

Now, the city has granted Lyft an interim permit to deploy its dockless e-bikes, and is holding off on granting to permits to other operators. Lyft officially deployed its bikes on Friday.

“We’re thrilled to share our new ebikes with riders in San Francisco,” Lyft Head of Micromobility Policy Caroline Samponaro said in a statement. “We’ll be rolling out bikes starting today and appreciate our riders’ patience as we waited for the green light from SFMTA.”

In its lawsuit, Lyft sought a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to prevent the city from issuing permits to operators for stationless bike-share rentals. While the court denied Lyft’s request for a TRO, it did approve a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency from issuing dockless permits to operators other than Lyft, without at least giving Lyft the first opportunity to submit a proposal.

The whole process, called “Right of First Offer,” may take months, according to the SFMTA. That’s why it decided to offer Lyft an interim permit to operate up to 1,900 of its dockless, hybrid e-bikes in addition to its classic bikes offered through its station-based service, once known as Ford GoBike.

“These new bikes will allow Lyft to address the severe bicycle availability issues that Bay Wheels has faced since Lyft removed e-bikes from service in April,” the SFMTA wrote in a blog post. “Essentially, the interim permit allows the existing system to return to functionality even as we negotiate with Lyft for a potential future expansion.”

The lawsuit was in light of SF announcing it would take applications for operators seeking permits to deploy additional stationless bikes. San Francisco, however, said the contract does not apply to dockless bike-share, but only station-based bike-share. Well, a judge sided with Lyft, saying the agreement did “not draw a distinction between docked/stationed and stationless/dockless bikes…Plaintiff therefore is entitled to unconditional exclusivity for stationed or stationless ‘traditional’ bikes during the term of the agreement.”

While the process continues in court, the SFMTA has also extended JUMP’s permit for up to 500 stationless bikes in order to ensure more reliable services.

I’ve reached out to Uber/JUMP and will update this story if I hear back.


Source: Tech Crunch

In healthcare these days, ‘There’s an app for that’… unless you really need it

When a digital health company announces a new app, everyone seems to think it’s going to improve health. Not me.

Where I work, in San Francisco’s public health system, in a hospital named after the founder of Facebook, digital solutions promising to improve health feel far away.

The patients and providers in our public delivery system are deeply familiar with the real-world barriers to leveraging technology to improve health. Our patients are low-income (nearly all of them receive public insurance) and diverse (more than 140 languages are spoken). Many of them manage multiple chronic conditions. The providers that care for them struggle with fragmented health records and outdated methods of communication, like faxes and pagers.

So when companies tell us they will cure diseases, drive down costs, and save lives with state-of-the-art technology, I am often hesitant. 

More than thirty billion dollars have been invested in digital health since 2011. The resulting technological innovations, such as mobile applications, telemedicine, and wearables, promise to help patients fight diabetes, treat chronic disease, or lose weight, for example.

However, we have yet to see digital health drive meaningful improvements in health outcomes and reductions in health expenditures. This lack of impact is because digital health companies build products that often don’t reach beyond the “worried well” – primarily healthy people who make up a small proportion of health expenditures and are already engaged in the healthcare system.

If we’re designing health apps for those who already have access to healthcare, nutritious food, clean air to breathe, and stable housing, we’re missing the point.

It’s no surprise that health apps are incongruous with the needs of low-income, diverse, and vulnerable patients when these populations are unlikely to be a part of user testing. In addition, the science that technology developers draw from is generated by clinical trials conducted on participants who often do not reflect the diversity of the United States.

Over 80% of clinical trial participants are white, and many are young and male. Women, racial and ethnic minorities, as well as older adults must be included in clinical trials to ensure the results — drawn on not only for product development but also for clinical care and policy — are relevant for diverse populations. 

Research conducted by my colleagues at the UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations demonstrates that patients who are low-income are unable to access many digital health apps. One of our patients testing a popular depression-management app said, “I’d get really impatient with this” and expressed concern that “Somebody that’s not too educated would be like, ‘now, what do I do here?’” A caregiver testing a different app also voiced frustration, saying “Yeah, it’s an app that makes you feel like an idiot.” Yet, despite these barriers, the majority of our study participants (most of whom have smart phones) also express a high interest in using technology to manage their health.

 While the private sector is great for innovation, it will fail to improve health in a meaningful way without real-world evidence generated in partnership with diverse patients. In addition, these for-profit companies face long odds to benefit their shareholders in a substantial way without learning how to reach the 75 million patients on Medicaid (including 1 in 3 Californians) who stand to benefit from digital health solutions.

 There’s an answer, though, and it’s within reach. To truly improve health outcomes, digital health companies must partner with public health experts and patients to not only ground themselves in evidence-based research, but also build products that meet the needs of all patients. 

Along with the compelling business potential of innovating for Medicaid, infrastructure to support this work is growing. For example, organizations like HealthTech4Medicaid are bending the arc of innovation towards the patients who need it most through advocacy and key partnerships with payers, policy makers, care providers, and technology developers.

To truly revolutionize health, let’s demand that technology creators and scalers include diverse end users early and often. Otherwise, the app “for that” will be for them, not for all of us.


Source: Tech Crunch

Don’t hold your breath for the moon

In the house in which I grew up, a single framed newspaper front page loomed over us. “MAN ON MOON“, it declared jubilantly, in an enormous, suitably momentous typeface. Subheadings included “‘It’s very pretty up here … a fine, soft surface’” and, of course, “A giant leap for mankind.”

One leap forward, three steps back. That newspaper was dated fifty years ago today, as I type this. Apollo 17 — “the most recent time humans have travelled beyond low Earth orbit” — took place in December 1972, a date at which a large majority of humanity today was not yet born.

Space travel is not the stuff of science fiction. It is the stuff of history books, of yesteryear, of scratchy black-and-white TV, of that yellowing newspaper cover of my youth.

What happened? I mean, lots, but ultimately the costs were too high, the tangible benefits too nonexistent, and the Space Shuttle was too much of an unmitigated disaster from start to finish in every way.

What happens next? Well, there we have a quick answer: we’re going back! America is going to land the first woman on the moon by 2024! Absolutely!

…you’re absolutely right to be very skeptical.

There are a numerous “lunar exploration architectures,” or ways to return to the Moon. My friend Casey Handmer, a physicist, space enthusiast, and former levitation engineer, itemizes them in this excellent blog post from a few months ago. One of them is NASA’s proposed Lunar Gateway, which will place a space station into high Moon orbit, from and to which lunar landings will descent and return.

Is this a good idea? …Well, it’s an idea. But it’s better to have a plan and to be making progress on it that not, right? Right? …Except the last few months have seen a bewildering flurry of chaos and confusion which makes NASA’s lunar program more closely resemble a headless chicken than a smoothly oiled machine.

First, an unsigned five-page document, riddled with spectacular grammar and spelling errors such as

There is no feasible means to redesign it or any other heavy left rocket to more transport the lunar landing elements

(!) was shared by “the Gateway program office at Johnson Space Center in Houston,” reported Ars Technica. (Casey wrote an exegesis of this dubious document, if you want to see it deconstructed in detail.) Then, earlier this month, NASA demoted and replaced its executives in charge of human space exploration.

Does this sound like the behavior of a lunar project accelerating to an on-target, on-time landing? Or more like a bureaucratic catastrophe thrashing frantically while failing to get anywhere at all? “As it stands, few experts believe NASA’s plan for returning to the moon in 2024 is feasible,” says Vox mordantly. You don’t say.

I’d be so delighted to see a woman walk on the moon in 2024. But I’m not exactly holding my breath. By 2032 we will have gone sixty years, three generations, between human lunar excursions. Some people think we shouldn’t go back at all, that there is too much of more importance to do here on Earth. I disagree, strongly, but I think even they might still agree that it would be sad beyond belief if, if and when we next land on the Moon, there’s no one around who remembers the last time.


Source: Tech Crunch