Posted on

A false start for foldables in 2019

A year from now, this is likely to have all blown over. A year from now, the Samsung Galaxy Fold’s turbulent takeoff may well be a footnote in the largest story of foldables. For now, however, it’s an important caveat that will come up in every conversation about the nascent product category.

How history remembers this particular debacle will depend on a number of different factors, the ultimate success of the category chief among them. If foldables do takeoff, the Galaxy Fold’s very public false start will be remembered as little more than a blip. There’s plenty of reasons to root for this — devices have seemingly hit the upper threshold of product footprint. If the trend toward larger screens continues, it’s going to take a clever form factor like this to accommodate that need. 

If foldables are relegated to the dustbin of history, however, the Fold misfire will take much of the heat. It’s clear that a trail of broken units will have little impact on Samsung’s bottom line. Two Galaxy Note 7 recalls were a testament to the hardware giant’s resilience in the public eye, after serving as a rounding error in the company’s bottom line that year. Sending some half-baked models to a handful of reviews wasn’t nearly as major of a mistake, but the category, much like the Fold itself, is in a fragile state.


Source: Tech Crunch

Posted on

China Roundup: Ant Financial’s new boss and Tencent’s army of new apps

Hello and welcome back to TechCrunch’s China Roundup, a digest of recent events shaping the Chinese tech landscape and what they mean to people in the rest of the world. This week, we are looking at what Ant Financial’s executive shakeup could give to Alibaba’s financial affiliate and why Tencent has gone on an app-launching spree.

Return of the old boss

This week, Ant Financial, the online financial services company, 33% of which is owned by Alibaba and controlled by Jack Ma, announced Hu Xiaoming as its new chief executive. Management reshuffles aren’t rare at Alibaba, which prides itself on rotating executives every few months to stay fresh and agile in a competitive environment. The latest reshuffle is providing some clues to where Ant, the world’s most valuable private fintech company, is headed in the coming years.

Hu will take the lead in growing Ant’s domestic payments and financial services units while his predecessor and current chairman Eric Jing will manage overseas expansion and development of new technologies. Having worked at several major Chinese banks, Hu joined Alibaba in 2005 to expand the firm’s budding financial services and has since been credited with helping Ant identify paths to monetization.

Around 2009, Hu made a bold move to initiate a microloan service targeted at small and medium sellers on Alibaba’s e-commerce platform. It was a boon to millions of merchants who otherwise would not be able to borrow from traditional financial institutions because they lacked banking history. Instead, Alibaba assessed their creditworthiness based on digital records, such as online sales and customer ratings. Today, small loans are just one of the many offerings from Ant’s ever-expanding financial empire, which also operates the billion-user Alipay payments app, the world’s largest money market fund and credit-rating system Sesame Credit.

In 2014, the storied executive was assigned to lead Alibaba’s cloud business and later grew it into one of the firm’s fastest-growing segments and a serious contender to Amazon Web Services. Hu was no stranger to Alibaba Cloud, which had already been working to introduce cloud computing to the fintech unit’s existing IT environments (in Chinese). In fact, most of Alibaba Cloud’s early applications happened internally at Alibaba as the company felt the urgency to develop an IT system that was more scalable and customizable than most large international vendors could provide.

Under Hu’s helm, the cloud arm struck a major deal with the government of Hangzhou, Alibaba’s hometown in Eastern China, to ease traffic congestion using data analytics and cloud computing solutions. Government contracts are an important lever for businesses developing costly state-of-the-art technologies, for as soon as an innovation is proven in practice, private demand will pick up over time.

Hu Xiaoming, new CEO of Alibaba’s financial affiliate Ant Financial (Ant Financial via Weibo)

Hu’s experience with commercializing new technologies and cooperating with state agencies makes him the ideal leader of Ant at a critical time. Last year, Ant’s highly anticipated IPO plans were pushed back reportedly because Beijing worried the private firm had amassed too much influence. To allay concerns among regulators and big banks, Ant has in recent times pivoted to focus more on selling technology solutions rather than financial services, per se.

Social networking anxiety

Tencent has launched at least seven new social networking apps since the beginning of 2019. Each comes with a slightly different focus, whether it’s targeting college students or specializing in video-based chatting. Industry observers said Tencent made these moves to defend challengers, particularly ByteDance of which TikTok (or Douyin in China) has taken the world by storm. Although short videos don’t directly compete with Tencent’s messengers WeChat, they certainly are consuming more of people’s screen time. And there are signs that ByteDance is encroaching on Tencent’s core markets after the upstart pushed into video games and messaging.

Tencent might also worry about WeChat’s slowing growth. The slowdown is in part attributed to the app’s already enormous base — more than 1 billion monthly users — so growth has inevitably cooled. WeChat gave Tencent a timely boost at the start of the mobile internet revolution when QQ, Tencent’s messenger that dominated China’s PC era, had seen its day. Now Tencent appears to be in need of a new growth engine, be it a groundbreaking feature of WeChat to rejuvenate the app or a brand new social network to replicate the success of WeChat and QQ.

It’s worth keeping in mind that Tencent, like all other large internet companies in China, is always testing new products to meet shifting landscapes in the tech industry. Tencent is famous for pitting different departments against each other in what it calls an internal “horse race,” which spawned WeChat almost 10 years ago. In most cases, these projects failed to catch on, but the cost of making new apps is negligible for a behemoth like Tencent because much of the development process has been standardized. All it needs is a skunkworks team of a dozen employees, ideally headed by a visionary such as WeChat’s Allen Zhang.

Also worth your attention

Nvidia, the chipmaker known for its GPUs, is already working with some 370 automakers, tier-1 suppliers, developers and researchers in the field of autonomous driving. This week to its family of partners it added China’s largest ride-hailing company, Didi Chuxing . Together the pair will work on developing GPUs for Didi’s Level 4 autonomous cars (which can operate under basic situations without human intervention), the companies said in a statement. Didi, which peeled its autonomous driving unit into a separate company in August, said last month (in Chinese) at an industry conference that it had plans to soon begin testing autonomous vehicles on Shanghai streets.


Source: Tech Crunch

Posted on

Whatever happened to the Next Big Things?

In tech, this was the smartphone decade. In 2009, Symbian was still the dominant ‘smartphone’ OS, but 2010 saw the launch of the iPhone 4, the Samsung Galaxy S, and the Nexus One, and today Android and iOS boast four billion combined active devices. Smartphones and their apps are a mature market, now, not a disruptive new platform. So what’s next?

The question presupposes that something has to be next, that this is a law of nature. It’s easy to see why it might seem that way. Over the last thirty-plus years we’ve lived through three massive, overlapping, world-changing technology platform shifts: computers, the Internet, and smartphones. It seems inevitable that a fourth must be on the horizon.

There have certainly been no shortage of nominees over the last few years. AR/VR; blockchains; chatbots; the Internet of Things; drones; self-driving cars. (Yes, self-driving cars would be a platform, in that whole new sub-industries would erupt around them.) And yet one can’t help but notice that every single one of those has fallen far short of optimistic predictions. What is going on?

You may recall that the growth of PCs, the Internet, and smartphones did not ever look wobbly or faltering. Here’s a list of Internet users over time: from 16 million in 1995 to 147 million in 1998. Here’s a list of smartphone sales since 2009: Android went from sub-1-million units to over 80 million in just three years. That’s what a major platform shift looks like.

Let’s compare each of the above, shall we? I don’t think it’s an unfair comparison. Each has had champions arguing it will, in fact, be That Big, and even people with more measured expectations have predicted growth will at least follow the trajectory of smartphones or the Internet, albeit maybe to a lesser peak. But in fact…

AR/VR: Way back in 2015 I spoke to a very well known VC who confidently predicted a floor of 10 million devices per year well before the end of this decade. What did we get? 3.7M to 4.7M to 6M, 2017 through 2019, while Oculus keeps getting reorg’ed. A 27% annual growth rate is OK, sure, but a consistent 27% growth rate is more than a little worrying for an alleged next big thing; it’s a long, long way from “10xing in three years.” Many people also predicted that by the end of this decade Magic Leap would look like something other than an utter shambles. Welp. As for other AR/VR startups, their state is best described as “sorry.”

Blockchains: I mean, Bitcoin’s doing just fine, sure, and is easily the weirdest and most interesting thing to have happened to tech in the 2010s; but the entire rest of the space? I’m broadly a believer in cryptocurrencies, but if you were to have suggested in mid-2017 to a true believer that, by the end of 2019, enterprise blockchains would essentially be dead, decentralized app usage would still be measured in the low thousands, and no real new use cases would have arisen other than collateralized lending for a tiny coterie — I mean, they would have been outraged. And yet, here we are.

Chatbots: No, seriously, chatbots were celebrated as the platform of the future not so long ago. (Alexa, about which more in a bit, is not a chatbot.) “The world is about to be re-written, and bots are going to be a big part of the future” was an actual quote. Facebook M was the future. It no longer exists. Microsoft’s Tay was the future. It really no longer exists. It was replaced by Zo. Did you know that? I didn’t. Zo also no longer exists.

The Internet of Things: let’s look at a few recent headlines, shall we? “Why IoT Has Consistently Fallen Short of Predictions.” “Is IoT Dead?” “IoT: Yesterday’s Predictions vs. Today’s Reality.” Spoiler: that last one does not discuss about how reality has blown previous predictions out of the water. Rather, “The reality turned out to be far less rosy.”

Drones: now, a lot of really cool things are happening in the drone space, I’ll be the first to aver. But we’re a long way away from physical packet-switched networks. Amazon teased Prime Air delivery way back in 2015 and made its first drone delivery way back in 2016, which is also when it patented its blimp mother ship. People expected great things. People still expect great things. But I think it’s fair to say they expected … a bit more … by now.

Self-driving cars: We were promised so much more, and I’m not even talking about Elon Musk’s hyperbole. From 2016: “10 million self-driving cars will be on the road by 2020.” “True self-driving cars will arrive in 5 years, says Ford“. We do technically have a few, running in a closed pilot project in Phoenix, courtesy of Waymo, but that’s not what Ford was talking about: “Self-driving Fords that have no steering wheels, brake or gas pedals will be in mass production within five years.” So, 18 months from now, then. 12 months left for that “10 million” prediction. You’ll forgive a certain skepticism on my part.

The above doesn’t mean we haven’t seen any successes, of course. A lot of new kinds of products have been interesting hits: AirPods, the Apple Watch, the Amazon Echo family. All three are more new interfaces than whole new major platforms, though; not so much a gold rush as a single vein of silver.

You may notice I left machine learning / AI off the list. This is in part because it definitely has seen real qualitative leaps, but a) there seems to be a general concern that we may have entered the flattening of an S-curve there, rather than continued hypergrowth, b) either way, it’s not a platform. Moreover, the wall that both drones and self-driving cars have hit is labelled General Purpose Autonomy … in other words, it is an AI wall. AI does many amazing things, but when people predicted 10M self-driving cars on the roads next year, it means they predicted AI would be good enough to drive them. In fact it’s getting there a lot slower than we expected.

Any one of these technologies could define the next decade. But another possibility, which we have to at least consider, is that none of them might. It is not an irrefutable law of nature that just as one major tech platform begins to mature another must inevitably start its rise. We may well see a lengthy gap before the next Next Big Thing. Then we may see two or three rise simultaneously. But if your avowed plan is that this time you’re totally going to get in on the ground floor — well, I’m here to warn you, you may have a long wait in store.


Source: Tech Crunch

Posted on

Boeing’s Starliner crew spacecraft nails desert landing, a first for a U.S.-made, human-rated capsule

The Boeing Starliner CST-100 spacecraft, which will be one of the first new human-rated spacecraft to carry astronauts from the U.S. to space, has successfully returned from orbit and landed at its target landing site in White Sands, New Mexico. The capsule touched down at 7:58 AM EST, right on time for the mission’s planned schedule as detailed at a news conference on Saturday.

Starliner didn’t have anyone on board, but was instead on its first test flight intended to launch, dock with the International Space Station and then return to Earth. The uncrewed flight didn’t go exactly as planned, however – that docking with the ISS never happened because of an error with the mission timer on board the spacecraft, which caused the Starliner to burn too much fuel during an early orbital maneuver and subsequently forced Boeing and NASA to change the mission parameters.

The flight still represents a number of successes for Boeing, however, as it was able to gather a lot of data on its trip, and did execute other maneuvers as planned and designed, including this landing. The landing itself is also significant because it’s the first time a capsule made in the U.S. has landed on land after returning from space ever – earlier American capsule spacecraft like Mercury, Gemini and the Apollo command module all splashed down on water.

Starliner began its deorbit burn at around 7:23 AM EST, re-entered Earth’s atmosphere and deployed all three of its descent control parachutes as planned. It’ll now be recovered by Boeing and NASA and examined, with more data gathered from its onboard computers. The capsule also carries ‘Rosie,’ a flight test dummy that will help the teams working on the commercial spacecraft approximate how the landing would’ve gone for a human on board.


Source: Tech Crunch

Posted on

Boeing’s Starliner crew spacecraft will attempt a landing on Sunday

Boeing launched its Starliner CST-100 commercial crew spacecraft to the International Space Station (ISS) for the first time on Friday morning in an uncrewed test, and while an error with the onboard mission clock meant that the Starliner didn’t reach its target orbit as intended and subsequently didn’t have enough fuel on board to actually meet up and dock with the ISS, it’s still doing as much testing as it can to complete other mission objectives. One of those objectives is landing the Starliner spacecraft, and Boeing and NASA have scheduled that landing for Sunday at 7:57 AM EST (4:57 AM PST).

The landing will take place at White Sands, New Mexico, and will involve a controlled de-orbit and descent of the Starliner capsule. The spacecraft will begin its de-orbit burn at 7:23 AM EST if all goes to plan, and NASA will begin a live broadcast of the entire landing attempt starting at 6:45 AM EST (3:45 AM PST) on Sunday morning if you want to tune in to the stream embedded below.

Boeing and NASA held a press conference today to provide updates about the mission status after the unplanned mission timer incident on Friday. Boeing SVP of Space and Launch Jim Chilton said during the conference that the team has managed to successfully run a number of its test objective with the mission despite the setback, including extending the docking system to see that it performs as expected, and testing the abort system on board the crew capsule.

The landing is another key test, and could even be more crucial to crew safety in terms of its execution. Both NASA and Boeing have said that were astronauts on board the Starliner during this mission, the mission clock timer incident that occurred would not have put them in any actual danger at any time. Problems with the automated landing sequence would be a different story, potentially – though astronauts are trained to do everything manually in case of any issues encountered while they’re actually in the spacecraft.

Should anything warrant skipping the first attempt at landing tomorrow, NASA and Boeing have a back-up landing opportunity about eight hours after the first. Tune in tomorrow to see how this spacecraft, which will still hopefully carry its first human passengers next year, does with its landing maneuvers.


Source: Tech Crunch

Posted on

Luminance and Omnius are bringing AI to legacy industries

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool, but it’s not a magic wand. Applying the technology requires thought and dedication, especially with legacy industries like law and insurance, which are being taken on in this way by Luminance and Omnius respectively. The companies’ founders, Emily Foges and Sofie Quidenus-Wahlforss, spoke with great insight on this on stage at Disrupt Berlin.

Luminance uses AI and natural language processing to help law firms process documents more quickly, not replacing the lawyer but providing additional intelligence and analysis of what may be hundreds or thousands of pages and saving time and money. Omnius applies AI not just to the text of insurance claims, but to the process of handling them, ensuring rapidity not only in documentation but in results like payouts.

Omnius has raised about $30 million in multiple small rounds and grants, while Luminance has raised some $23M mainly in its A and B rounds.

I’ve edited and contextualized our conversation here, but you can also watch the full panel below. I’ve made some slight changes for readability but left things mostly intact. Pull quotes belonging to Emily are on the left, Sofie’s are on the right.

The first thing I wanted to hear from the founders was why they chose these industries, and why now? After all, law and insurance are notoriously old-fashioned, some would even say backwards in many ways. How could they be sure this was an opportunity, and not a folly?

Emily Foges (Luminance): It had more to do with the capabilities of the technology, actually. We started with technology that can read a lot of language, and then we looked at what industry would benefit most from that. It was that way around.

I think the timing is 80 percent of the battle; The fact that the legal profession had got to a point of being ready to accept the use of that kind of technology was more luck than anything. But there’s been such an explosion in enterprise data that lawyers just can’t possibly cope with reading and all of the documentation that they need to — so the market was ready.

Sofie Quidenus-Wahlforss (Omnius): I think we come from a very similar background. We started on a horizontal level, with deep document understanding, and at some point we understood, if you really want to ship business value, you need to dive into one vertical.

We have different verticals to choose: manufacturing, legal, pharma… so then we were like, okay, which area is the biggest that is not transformed yet? And do we see decision makers aware of the of the need to do something? And do they have money?

The insuretech world is of course making a lot of pressure, all the new insurance companies like Lemonade, WeFox, Coya, because they claim to settle a claim in minutes. So the big guys like Alliance, they got nervous. And on the other hand you see, on the technology side, improvements in the areas of computing power, way more access to data, more flexible models. So we thought, the industry is ready, the technology’s ready, I was ready to build a big company. It’s my fourth company and I was like, this time I’ll build something huge. So everything fell into place.

They don’t call them legacy industries for nothing, though. These domains, and some companies, that have existed for decades or even a century or more. That means legacy systems and legacy people, to put it kindly, that may not be amenable to change. Emily had some surprising stats on that, while Sofie advocated an AI-like approach to classifying and selecting clients.

Emily: Some of them are more ready than others, and I think the ones who aren’t ready need to really catch up, because we got to critical mass really quickly. We’re only three and a half years old, but we’ve got 185 law firms around the world signed up. The interesting thing was the most ready people were the law firms outside of the UK, outside of the US. It was European law firms, APAC-based law firms, South and Central American law firms who got on board first. They were more ready because to be honest, the commercial pressure was greater. And then the pressure on the US and UK law firms came from them.

This is something I can really recommend for every startup trying to transform an industry from scratch: classifying your customers. We had 16-17 criteria, how we defined the companies we really want to spend time with.

Sofie: We thought, cool, the transformation is happening already. But after a while, 2018, we were like, okay, this market is not moving as fast as we thought . We looked at our proof of concept, our pilots we did with insurance companies and were like, wow, every big insurance company in Europe wants to have an AI pilot project but who’s really ready to start with AI full production?

And this is something I can really recommend for every startup trying to transform an industry from scratch: classifying your customers. Who is a laggard, who is an early adopter, who is early mainstream, is an innovator? Then we decided together with the board, okay, we’ll only focus on innovators and early adopters, and the rest should wait, or we can both wait for each other — but we cannot waste our time.


Source: Tech Crunch

Posted on

Should you pay $50K for your pitch deck? Yes, why the hell not?

Every once in a while on VC Twitter, a comment or statement seems so outlandish, so completely outrageous, that it must be — certainly has to be — false. Such as it was for Primary Ventures investor Jason Shuman, who commented on the recent prices for pitch deck advice in the Valley today:

You can almost hear that plaintive scream, “My mind is officially blown” (Shuman doesn’t scream, mind you). And indeed, in a world where more and more founders are worried about a bubble; assets are more, let’s say, Notionally expensive than ever before; and everything just seems a little bit crazy these days, it seems downright, fucking insane to think that a PowerPoint file and some “thoughts” are worth tens of thousands of dollars, and a goddamn term sheet to boot.

But they are.

Or at the very least, they can be. And I say that as the guy who wrote an article last week entitled, “How to avoid the startup trap of the parasitic consultant.”

How to avoid the startup trap of the parasitic consultant

For sure, not every pitch deck consultant is worth top dollar, any more than not every croissant in New York’s West Village is worth $10. But some are, and certainly an elect chosen set of consultants are worth every penny they demand.

The best consultants are not luxuries to plaster on your WeWork’s walls, but critical tools to invest in your startup. Framing a startup’s thesis, product, team, and market exactly right is a qualitative skill that can’t be learned from reading a book or scanning through a founder friend’s deck or two. Get a single slide wrong, or hell, a single bullet point wrong and the whole thing can blow up in a pitch meeting in thirty seconds or less.

Trust me. As a former VC investor, I have gotten hung up on single sentences before. A founder has put their life’s work into a company, synoptically condensed it to a handful of slides, and I am stuck on eight words. But those eight words make no sense, and once something doesn’t make sense, the whole edifice of excitement and confidence comes crashing down. Eight words — one badly chosen verb and adjective.

A good pitch deck consultant may barely move the needle on a fundraise, while a superstar may not just get you a better term sheet, they may fundamentally transform the entire course of your startup’s trajectory. Those are the stakes.

And of course, it’s not just pitch deck consultants who can do this. The right PR consultants can potentially get you traction that no one else can. The right sales consultants may lock in those critical early design customers that represent the difference between an orderly liquidation and a massive Series A. The right product marketing specialists or pricing experts may be what drives conversions and eliminates churn.

What’s so hard today for founders is that the Valley has indeed matured, and all these consultants and more are available. There are the hucksters and the tricksters, the bon vivants thriving on naive capital, the idiot clowns cloaked in their own compelling pitch decks.

But as the market has expanded for these services, at least some superstars are emerging from the marketplace, people who can offer more value for you in a week or two than the mediocrities can in a year.

Your job as founder is to constantly probe and find those diamonds, and get them working on your idea at any cost — even costs that might at times seem insane.

The thing with tech startups today is that they are built upon strata of superstardom. Superstar talents lead to superstar products, superstar VC capital, and ultimately, superstar exits. Superstar momentum is real. Yes, yes, yes, not every time, and every stage in the pipeline is multiplied by a stochastic chance of failure, for sure. But idiocy has rarely been a path to success.

And so as with all parts of innovation, it’s all about making the right investments in the right people and the right ideas. $50K or even $500K for a consultant won’t do anything if they are the wrong person working on the wrong idea — parasites are parasites after all. But leverage that early seed capital into the right people working on the right problems, and that’s where the magic happens.

And so I can understand some of the outrage over these figures, as well as the lingering presumption behind them that VCs care more about a startup’s deck than the underlying startup itself. Those frustrations are palpable and not insane, but let’s not avoid the tough question: everything has some value attached to it. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that top experts in their fields, who understand their own leverage, would take advantage of their expertise and drive their own prices higher.

Paying tens of thousands of dollars for a pitch deck consultant isn’t a prerequisite for securing a venture capital round. There are founders whose entire skill is securing capital for their companies who have never paid a penny for this skill.

Yet ultimately, all early-stage startups face the same challenge: too many activities, too little time. Something, somewhere is going to have to get outsourced today and the quality of that external work is largely going to be determined by how much you are willing to pay for it. What you choose to spend whatever capital you have will determine the trajectory of your startup. So whether it is pitch decks or another activity, never blink from those top dollars. It may very well be what gets you the top dollar in the end.


Source: Tech Crunch

Posted on

Original Content podcast: ‘The Rise of Skywalker’ makes some questionable choices

“Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” opened Friday to mediocre reviews, though it’s not clear whether those reviews will put any real damper on audience enthusiasm.

In the meantime, all three of your hosts of the Original Content podcast have seen the movie. And we all agree that “The Rise of Skywalker,” while flawed, is a largely entertaining and satisfying experience.

Things get a little more complicated in our spoiler discussion, where we weigh in on the film’s big reveals. The trilogy’s previous installment, “The Last Jedi,” polarized fans with its bold storytelling choices (bold for Star Wars, at least). But we’re squarely in the pro-“Last Jedi” camp, so we were disappointed to see “The Rise of Skywalker” back away from some of those choices.

Our discussion also unearths a key piece of Star Wars history — the fact that while developing his now-formidable writing talents, our co-host Darrell Etherington wrote an extended piece of fanfiction with the tantalizing title “Reign of the Empress.” If you’d like to help us pressure Darrell into reading the story on a future episode of the podcast, please email or tweet at us!

It’s an Adam Driver-centric episode this week. In addition to discussing Driver’s Star Wars arc, we also review “Marriage Story,” the Netflix film where he and Scarlett Johansson play a divorcing couple. At least one of us thinks “Marriage Story” might be the best movie of the year, while others were a little more reserved in their praise.

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

And if you want to skip ahead, here’s how the episode breaks down:
0:00 Intro
1:15 “The Mandalorian” listener response
8:50 “Marriage Story” review (mild spoilers)
27:42 “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” review
45:52 “The Rise of Skywalker” spoiler discussion


Source: Tech Crunch

Posted on

This Week in Apps: The year and decade in review, gaming acquisitions and a Facebook OS

Welcome back to This Week in Apps, the Extra Crunch series that recaps the latest OS news, the applications they support and the money that flows through it all.

The app industry is as hot as ever, with 194 billion downloads last year and more than $100 billion in consumer spending. People spend 90% of their mobile time in apps and more time using their mobile devices than watching TV. Apps aren’t just a way to waste idle hours — they’re big business, one that often seems to change overnight.
In this Extra Crunch series, we help you to keep up with the latest news from the world of apps, delivered on a weekly basis.

Headlines

The top apps of the year… and the decade

App Annie this week released its list of the year’s top apps. And this time around, it also included the top apps of the past 10 years in its analysis. Outside of games, Facebook dominated the decade, the firm reported. It ran the four most-downloaded apps of the decade, including Facebook (#1), Messenger (#2), WhatsApp (#3), and Instagram (#4). Other communication and social media apps were also among the most popular over the past 10 years, claiming seven out of the 10 top spots, including Snapchat (#5), Skype (#6) and Twitter (#10). Social video platforms TikTok and YouTube also placed on the list at #7 and #9, respectively. And yes, it’s pretty notable that TikTok — an app that only launched outside of China in 2017 — is one of the most-downloaded apps of the past decade. Meanwhile, even though dating app Tinder was the most profitable app this year, Netflix was the No. 1 app by all-time consumer spend over the past decade.

2019 app downloads and consumer spending

Related to its round-up of the top apps, App Annie also offered some preliminary data on downloads and consumer spending in 2019. Its current figures don’t include calculations from third-party app stores in China, (like those referenced above), which App Annie tends to provide in its annual State of Mobile report. Instead, App Annie reports we’re on track to see 120 billion apps from Apple’s App Store and Google Play by the end of 2019, a 5% increase from 2018. Consumer spending was also up 15% year-over-year to reach $90 billion, it says. Expect a full analysis to come in Q1 2020.

Facebook still sat at the top of the charts for 2019. The company’s Messenger app was the most downloaded non-game app of 2019, followed by Facebook’s main app, then WhatsApp. Tinder switched places with Netflix for the No. 1 spot on this chart — last year, it was the other way around. (For more details, TechCrunch’s full review is here.)

2019 in Mobile Gaming

According to a year-end report by GamesIndustry.biz, mobile gaming grew 9.7% year-over-year in 2019 to reach a market value of $68.2 billion. The gaming market as a whole was worth $148.8 billion, the report said. Smartphone games were the biggest piece of this figure, at $54.7 billion, compared with $13.4 billion for tablet games. That means smartphone games are still bigger than PC, browser PC games, boxed and downloaded PC games, and console games.

Big moves in cloud gaming

To beef up its new cloud gaming service Stadia, Google this week bought game development firm Typhoon Studios, who were set to release their cross-platform title and first game, Journey to the Savage Planet. Google had said it wants to build out a few different first-party studios to release content on Stadia, which is where this acquisition fits in. Meanwhile, Facebook this week acquired the cloud gaming startup, PlayGiga, which had been working with telcos to create streaming game technology for 5G.

Stadia has a big mobile component, as its controller can play games on compatible mobile devices like Pixel phones. Gaming has been a big part of Facebook’s mobile efforts, as not only a platform where games can be played, but also a place to watch live game streams, similar to Twitch. But the big gaming trend of the past year (which will continue into 2020) is cross-platform gaming — thanks to games like Fortnite, Roblox and PUBG Mobile, as well as devices like Nintendo Switch, gamers expect to continue playing no matter what screen they happen to be using at the time.

Apple Developer app expands support for China

Apple launched a dedicated mobile app for its developer community in November, with the arrival of the Apple Developer app, which was an upgraded and rebranded version of Apple’s existing WWDC app. The app lets developers access resources like technical and design articles, as well as read news, watch developer videos, and enroll in the Apple Developer program. Now that the program is open to China through the app, Apple announced this week.

From the app, developers in China can start and complete their Apple Developer membership and pay with a local payment method on their iPhone or iPad. They can also renew their membership, to keep their account active. Apple has been heavily investing in growing its international developer community by launching developer academies and accelerators in key regions, among other initiatives. Over the past year, Apple grew its developer community in China by 17%, the company earlier said.

So much for nostalgia, Rewound gets yanked from the App Store

We hope you downloaded this fun app when we told you to in last week’s column! Because now it’s gone.

Rewound, briefly, was a clever music player app that turns your iPhone into a 2000’s era iPod, complete with click wheel nav. The developer was able to sneak the app into the App Store by not including the actual iPod UI, which infringes on Apple’s own product design. Instead, the UI pieces were hosted off-site — on Twitter accounts, for example. Users could find them and download them after they installed the app. Technically, that means the App Store app itself wasn’t infringing, but Apple still kicked it out. The developer also charged a fee to access the Apple Music features, which may have been another reason for its removal.

It’s no surprise Apple took this step, but the developer seems confused as to how the app could be approved then pulled later on, even though it hadn’t changed. That’s actually par for the course for Apple’s subjective, editorial decisions over its App Store, however. Now Rewound, which has 170K+ users after only a few days, will focus on a web app and Android version.

Facebook is building its own OS so it can ditch Android


Source: Tech Crunch

Posted on

TikTok’s national security scrutiny tightens as U.S. Navy reportedly bans popular social app

TikTok may be the fastest-growing social network in the history of the internet, but it is also quickly becoming the fastest-growing security threat and thorn in the side of U.S. China hawks.

The latest, according to a notice published by the U.S. Navy this past week and reported on by Reuters and the South China Morning Post, is that TikTok will no longer be allowed to be installed on service members’ devices, or they may face expulsion from the military service’s intranet.

It’s just the latest example of the challenges facing the extremely popular app. Recently, Congress led by Missouri senator Josh Hawley demanded a national security review of TikTok and its Sequoia-backed parent company ByteDance, along with other tech companies that may share data with foreign governments like China. Concerns over the leaking of confidential communications recently led the U.S. government to demand the unwinding of the acquisition of gay social network app Grindr from its Chinese owner Beijing Kunlun.

The intensity of criticism on both sides of the Pacific has made it increasingly challenging to manage tech companies across the divide. As I recently discussed here on TechCrunch, Shutterstock has actively made it harder and harder to find photos deemed controversial by the Chinese government on its stock photography platform, a play to avoid losing a critical source of revenue.

In wake of Shutterstock’s Chinese censorship, American companies need to relearn American values

We saw similar challenges with Google and its Project Dragonfly China-focused search engine as well as with the NBA.

From the NBA to Sequoia to TikTok and more, a week of national security concerns with China

What’s interesting here though is that companies on both sides are struggling with policy on both sides. Chinese companies like ByteDance are increasingly being targeted and stricken out of the U.S. market, while American companies have long struggled to get a foothold in the Middle Kingdom. That might be a more equal playing field than it has been in the past, but it is certainly a less free market than it could be.

While the trade fight between China and the U.S. continues, the damage will continue to fall on companies that fail to draw within the lines set by policymakers in both countries. Whether any tech company can bridge that divide in the future unfortunately remains to be seen.


Source: Tech Crunch