Rivian to begin deliveries of electric pickup truck in June 2021

Rivian has started to run a pilot production line at its factory in Normal, Illinois, as the electric vehicle startup prepares to bring its pickup truck and SUV to market in summer 2021.

In an email sent to prospective customers, Rivian said deliveries of its R1T electric pickup truck will begin in June 2021. Deliveries of the R1S electric SUV will start in August 2021.

Rivian said in May that deliveries of the R1T and R1S would be pushed to 2021. It wasn’t clear — until today’s email — exactly when deliveries would begin.

Running a pilot production line is a critical step necessary to root out potential problems ahead of a full production launch. The two vehicles were supposed to come to market at the end of 2020. That timeline was extended to 2021 after the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Rivian to suspend construction work on the factory, a former Mitsubishi plant that the company acquired in 2017. The factory was where Mitsubishi in a joint venture with Chrysler Corporation called Diamond-Star Motors produced the Mitsubishi Eclipse, Plymouth Laser and Dodge Avenger, among others.

The factory will produce its R1T and R1S electric vehicles for consumers, as well as 100,000 delivery vans for Amazon. Rivian has said it is still on track to begin deliveries of electric vans built for Amazon in early 2021. About 10,000 of these electric vans will be on the road as early as 2022, and all 100,000 vehicles will be on the road by 2030, Amazon previously said.


Source: Tech Crunch

New York legislature votes to halt facial recognition tech in schools for two years

The state of New York voted this week to pause any implementation of facial recognition technology in schools for two years. The moratorium, approved by the New York Assembly and Senate Wednesday, comes after an upstate school district adopted the technology earlier this year, prompting a lawsuit in June from the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of parents. If New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signs the legislation into law, the moratorium would freeze the use of any facial recognition school systems in the state until July 1, 2022.

Earlier this week, a school district in Topeka, Kansas announced that it would employ facial recognition technology at a temperature check kiosk for staff as part of its plan to reopen schools. Unfortunately, such a system would not be capable of preventing asymptomatic spread of the virus—one of COVID-19’s most challenging features.

With the pandemic still ravaging the U.S., the issue of school reopening has become deeply politicized. In a briefing earlier this month, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany argued that “science should not stand in the way” of reopenings.

“Facial recognition companies will use any angle they can to market their product to schools—but this one is just absolutely ridiculous,” Fight for the Future Campaign Director Caitlin Seeley George said of the technology’s proposed school implementation in Kansas. “Facial recognition will not stop the spread of COVID-19, and schools shouldn’t buy into this hokum.”

New York’s moratorium was viewed as a major victory by digital privacy advocates, who call into question not only the surveillance technology’s potential concerns for civil liberties but also the tech’s ability to accomplish its stated goals at all. The efficacy of such technology has come under fire repeatedly in studies demonstrating high false positive rates and racial biases coded into the systems themselves.

“We’ve said for years that facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies have no place in schools, and this is a monumental leap forward to protect students from this kind of invasive surveillance,” NYCLU Education Policy Center Deputy Director Stefanie Coyle said.

“Schools should be an environment where children can learn and grow, and the presence of a flawed and racially-biased system constantly monitoring students makes that impossible.”


Source: Tech Crunch

HBO Max reached 4.1M subscribers in first month, despite lack of distribution on Roku and Fire TV

HBO Max, the AT&T-owned streaming service that combines HBO with WarnerMedia content, has grown to 4.1 million subscribers, since its launch on May 27. Combined, HBO and HBO Max reached a total of 36.3 million U.S. subscribers by the end of the second quarter, according to statements made by AT&T CEO John Stankey on today’s earnings call. That figure has grown 5% from the 34.6 million subscribers the properties together had at the end of last year.

The 4.1 million figure breaks down as around 3 million retail subscribers and over 1 million were wholesale subscribers who came to the new service via one of AT&T wireless plans, where the service is bundled.

Though it’s still early days for HBO Max, these numbers indicate that the vast majority of traditional HBO customers have not yet tried HBO Max, even though it’s free for them to use. Currently, HBO customers can authenticate with HBO Max using their cable or satellite TV provider account information. HBO Now subscribers, meanwhile, are automatically upgraded to Max across Hulu, mobile apps, select ISPs, and the HBO Now site.

The HBO strategy, from a consumer perspective, has been confusing. HBO is known as premium channel with mostly adult content. This chanel had been distributed across mobile devices as HBO GO for traditional pay TV customers and HBO Now for over-the-top users. With the launch of HBO Max, the goal has been to transform HBO into a broader offering for the whole family, similar to Netflix. To do so, HBO, WarnerMedia and other licensed content was combined under one roof.

AT&T said today that HBO Max customers spent, on average, 70% more time viewing the service on a weekly basis, compared with HBO Now. It also stressed the popularity of its original content, noting that all 6 of its new originals found themselves ranked among the top 25 viewed series on the platform. By August, HBO Max will have 21 new original series on the platform.

But WarnerMedia still wants to distribute “standard” HBO to its larger, existing customer base, and has a number of deals in place to do so across a variety of streaming TV services, like Hulu, and platforms, like Apple TV, in addition to numerous pay TV providers. In addition, HBO is sold as an add-on premium subscription across some platforms, like Amazon and Roku.

That makes it difficult for consumers to understand which version of HBO they can get and where it will work.

That significant challenge is made worse by the fact that WarnerMedia has not yet been able to ink deals for HBO Max with the two top streaming media platform providers in the U.S.: Amazon and Roku, which control 70% of the market. That means consumers who have heard of the new service won’t be able to find the app on these devices.

Stankey addressed this problem today when speaking to investors.

“We’ve tried repeatedly to make HBO Max available to all customers using Amazon Fire devices, including those customers that have purchased HBO via Amazon,” he said. “Unfortunately, Amazon has taken an approach of treating HBO Max and its customers differently than how they’ve chosen to treat other services, and their customers.”

The comments, which notably skip over any mention of Roku, come only days before Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is set to testify before the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee, along with CEOs from Apple, Google and Facebook, as part of the Committee’s ongoing investigation of potential anti-competitive practices in the digital marketplace.

One area of concern for the Committee is the power and control the tech companies have over their digital marketplaces, where they set terms, ban apps and services from distribution, and take commissions from businesses that compete with their own.

AT&T’s issue with Amazon, in this case, has to do with how it wants to distribute HBO Max across the media platforms. With its shift in strategy, AT&T aims to offer consumers a standalone app, similar to Netflix — as it does now on Apple TV and Android TV. But Amazon and Roku want to also sell subscriptions to HBO Max like they currently do for HBO through the Amazon Prime Video Channels platform and Roku’s Premium Subscription platform on The Roku Channel.

With Roku’s investment in The Roku Channel it’s been distancing itself from being the neutral platform it once was, as it’s now motivated to make deals that benefit its own goals around The Roku Channel’s subscription marketplace, the same as other non-neutral players, like Amazon. This is not a problem unique to HBO Max, either. NBCU’s new streaming service Peacock also failed to offer Roku and Fire TV support at launch, for similar reasons. Unfortunately, the consumer is the one who ultimately loses here as tech giants grapple over not only the dollars, but who will own the customer relationship in the long run.

Without distribution, AT&T’s WarnerMedia could be challenged to meet its goals for HBO Max.

The company, however, claims it’s still on track for 50-55 million HBO Max subscribers in the U.S by 2025. As part of this strategy, WarnerMedia also plans to launch HBO Max internationally and offer a lower-cost, as-supported version of the service sometime next year.

 


Source: Tech Crunch

Hear how three startups are approaching quantum computing differently at TC Disrupt 2020

Quantum computing is at an interesting point. It’s at the cusp of being mature enough to solve real problems. But like in the early days of personal computers, there are lots of different companies trying different approaches to solving the fundamental physics problems that underly the technology, all while another set of startups is looking ahead and thinking about how to integrate these machines with classical computers — and how to write software for them. At Disrupt 2020 on September 14-18, we will have a panel with D-Wave CEO Alan Baratz, Quantum Machines co-founder and CEO Itamar Sivan and IonQ president and CEO Peter Chapman. The leaders of these three companies are all approaching quantum computing from different angles, yet all with the same goal of making this novel technology mainstream.

D-Wave may just be the best-known quantum computing company thanks to an early start and smart marketing in its early days. Alan Baratz took over as CEO earlier this year after a few years as chief product officer and executive VP of R&D at the company. Under Baratz, D-Wave has continued to build out its technology — and especially its D-Wave quantum cloud service. Leap 2, the latest version of its efforts, launched earlier this year. D-Wave’s technology is also very different from that of many other efforts thanks to its focus on quantum annealing. That drew a lot of skepticism in its early days but it’s now a proven technology and the company is now advancing both its hardware and software platform.

Like Baratz, IonQ’s Peter Chapman isn’t a founder either. Instead, he was the engineering director for Amazon Prime before joining IonQ in 2019. Under his leadership, the company raised a $55 million funding round in late 2019, which the company extended by another $7 million last month. He is also continuing IonQ’s bet on its trapped ion technology, which makes it relatively easy to create qubits and which, the company argues, allows it to focus its efforts on controlling them. This approach also has the advantage that IonQ’s machines are able to run at room temperature, while many of its competitors have to cool their machines to as close to zero Kelvin as possible, which is an engineering challenge in itself, especially as these companies aim to miniaturized their quantum processors.

Quantum Machines plays in a slightly different part of the ecosystem from D-Wave and IonQ. The company, which recently raised $17.5 million in a Series A round, is building a quantum orchestration platform that combines novel custom hardware for controlling quantum processors — because once quantum machines reach a bit more maturity, a standard PC won’t be fast enough to control them — with a matching software platform and its own QUA language for programming quantum algorithms. Quantum Machines is Itamar Sivan’s first startup, which he launched with his co-founders after getting his Ph.D. in condensed matter and material physics at the Weizman Institute of Science.

Come to Disrupt 2020 and hear from these companies and others on September 14-18. Get a front-row seat with your Digital Pro Pass for just $245 or with a Digital Startup Alley Exhibitor Package for $445. Prices are increasing next week, so grab yours today to save up to $300.

( function() {
var func = function() {
var iframe = document.getElementById(‘wpcom-iframe-bc5e644f85a11b970469253c6a947a65’)
if ( iframe ) {
iframe.onload = function() {
iframe.contentWindow.postMessage( {
‘msg_type’: ‘poll_size’,
‘frame_id’: ‘wpcom-iframe-bc5e644f85a11b970469253c6a947a65’
}, “https://tcprotectedembed.com” );
}
}

// Autosize iframe
var funcSizeResponse = function( e ) {

var origin = document.createElement( ‘a’ );
origin.href = e.origin;

// Verify message origin
if ( ‘tcprotectedembed.com’ !== origin.host )
return;

// Verify message is in a format we expect
if ( ‘object’ !== typeof e.data || undefined === e.data.msg_type )
return;

switch ( e.data.msg_type ) {
case ‘poll_size:response’:
var iframe = document.getElementById( e.data._request.frame_id );

if ( iframe && ” === iframe.width )
iframe.width = ‘100%’;
if ( iframe && ” === iframe.height )
iframe.height = parseInt( e.data.height );

return;
default:
return;
}
}

if ( ‘function’ === typeof window.addEventListener ) {
window.addEventListener( ‘message’, funcSizeResponse, false );
} else if ( ‘function’ === typeof window.attachEvent ) {
window.attachEvent( ‘onmessage’, funcSizeResponse );
}
}
if (document.readyState === ‘complete’) { func.apply(); /* compat for infinite scroll */ }
else if ( document.addEventListener ) { document.addEventListener( ‘DOMContentLoaded’, func, false ); }
else if ( document.attachEvent ) { document.attachEvent( ‘onreadystatechange’, func ); }
} )();


Source: Tech Crunch

What your company can learn from the Bank of England’s resilience proposal

The outages at RBS, TSB and Visa left millions of people unable to deposit their paychecks, pay their bills, acquire new loans and more. As a result, the House of Commons’ Treasury Select Committee (TSC) began an investigation of the U.K. finance industry and found the “current level of financial services IT failures is unacceptable.” Following this, the Bank of England (BoE), Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) decided to take action and set a standard for operational resiliency.

While policies can often feel burdensome and detached from reality, these guidelines are reasonable steps that any company across any industry can exercise to improve the resilience of their software systems.

The BoE standard breaks down to these five steps:

  1. Identify critical business services based on those that end users rely on most.
  2. Set a tolerance level for the amount of outage time during an incident that is acceptable for that service, based on what utility the service provides.
  3. Test if the firm is able to stay within that acceptable period of time during real-life scenarios.
  4. Involve management in the reporting and sign-off of these thresholds and tests.
  5. Take action to improve resiliency against the different scenarios where feasible.

Following this process aligns with best practices in architecting resilient systems. Let’s break each of these steps down and discuss how chaos engineering can help.

Identify critical business services

The operational resilience framework recommends focusing on the services that serve external customers. While internal applications are important for productivity, this customer-first mentality is sound advice for determining a starting place for reliability efforts. While it’s ultimately up to the business to weigh the criticality of the different services they offer, the ones necessary to make payments, retrieve payments, investing or insuring against risks are all recommended priorities.


Source: Tech Crunch

More evidence of increasing militarization of space as U.S. claims Russia satellite weapon test

The U.S. Space Command has released details about an alleged anti-satellite weapons test it suspects Russian of conducting using an existing probe already on orbit, The Verge reports. The Russian satellite in question is the same one that made headlines back at the beginning of 2020 when it seemed to be tailing an existing orbital U.S. spy satellite. That same spacecraft appears to have deployed some kind of projectile according to Space Command, which monitors objects currently in orbit around Earth.

General John Raymond of U.S. Space Command told the Verge that this represents “further evidence of Russia’s continuing efforts to develop and test space-based systems,” and pursing a strategy that could but U.S. and allied in-space assets at risk.

The militarization of space isn’t new, and parties on all sides have been pursuing development of both offensive and defensive in-space weapons technologies. One of the biggest potential risks lies in weapons that, like this one in theory, could be deployed from satellites to destroy others – potentially disabling key ground communications, intelligence or observation space-based infrastructure that is used to support command and control operations on terrestrial battlegrounds and in the defense or observation of key military assets.

Russia isn’t the only global power unnerving the U.S. when it comes to the militarization of space: An April test by India saw that nation demonstrate a ground-to-orbit anti-satellite missile system, which NASA Administrator denied as being “not compatible with human spaceflight.” India is hardly the first country to demonstrate this kind of capability, however, as the U.S., China and Russian have all performed similar tests.

The growing risk of orbit-to-orbit offensive weapons has had a dramatic effect on how militaries including that of the U.S. has changed its priorities for in-space assets. For instance, the Department of Defense and other U.S. defense and intelligence agencies appear to be shifting focus away from the large, geosynchronous satellites that were massively costly and relatively unique upon which they used to rely, and towards smaller, more nimble satellites that might operate in low Earth orbit and consist of constellations with built-in redundancy. They’ve also been actively funding the development of commercial small-scale launcher startups, which can offer more response orbital launch services even than SpaceX and other existing providers.

While there are obviously many vocal detractors regarding the militarization of space, the fact remains that it’s an area where a number of global superpowers have spent billions, since the potential tactical advantage it provides is immense. Based on the increasing frequency and more public nature of tests like this one, it’s a segment where the U.S. in particular will be only too happy to look for support from the private sector, including technology startups, that can provide creative and advanced solutions.

 


Source: Tech Crunch

Don’t let VCs be the gatekeepers of your success

I have struggled for years about whether or not to write a piece like this.

Speaking out about racism goes against every lesson I have learned since I was the only Black kid in my first-grade class in the Boston suburbs:

Save candid conversations about race for Black people. You’re being a victim. People will think you’re whining or making excuses. They’re not interested. Don’t make white people feel uncomfortable.

In a professional environment, speaking up could be career suicide. But now is not the time to be silent.

The startup I founded, Indenseo, is a data and analytics software insurtech company that provides automated underwriting services, software and analytics services to the insurance industry.

Despite strong customer relationships and support from angel investors, we didn’t complete building solutions and moving the company forward until we stopped taking unproductive pitch meetings with VCs. Some of my [white] colleagues who attended those meetings characterized these encounters as disrespectful and dismissive, but for me, they were par for the course.

Black founders have a better chance playing pro sports than landing VC funding

I was raised by a single mother in West Medford, Massachusetts, and worked my way through Harvard, located about five miles away. Before starting Indenseo, I worked for @Road, a fleet management telematics company that was acquired by Trimble, a company that says it transforms “the way the world works by delivering products and services that connect the physical and digital worlds.” There, I led a team that pioneered the sale of telematics data, which started with using data for traffic predictions and expanded to other markets, including insurance.

At Trimble, I saw the difficulty legacy insurance carriers faced when they tried to incorporate new types of data into their underwriting and business processes; I started Indenseo to solve this problem by combining deep insurance industry experience with the nimbleness of a startup.

I knew fundraising would be a challenge: Commercial auto insurance has been unprofitable for years, and industry executives would be naturally skeptical that my solution would make it better. As my insurance industry friends said, “you sure picked a hard problem to solve.”

Even as a first-time founder, I did not anticipate how difficult it would be to raise venture funding, but the experience offered some insights into why so few Black entrepreneurs are funded by VCs.

Insurance is not the most mainstream venture category, though in recent years many insurtech companies have received funding. And VCs are not accustomed to seeing Black founders in this space. The overall scarcity of Black founders suggests that they’re not used to seeing many of us, period.

The odds of winning a venture round are low for everyone, but Black founders have a better chance playing pro sports than they do landing venture investments.

The odds of winning a venture round are low for everyone, but Black founders have a better chance playing pro sports than they do landing venture investments.

According to a Harvard study, between 1990 and 2016, just 0.4% of the entrepreneurs who received funding were Black. That’s 188 Black entrepreneurs, versus 34,000 white entrepreneurs in total, or about seven per year. In 2016, nine Black NFL quarterbacks started at least one game during the season. Should anyone wonder why ambitious young Black men pursue sports careers?

I got the meetings and pitched Indenseo to investors in Silicon Valley, New York City, Chicago and Boston. I expected that my experience, my best-in-class team, the compelling Indeseo proposition, market fit, and the financial and advisory backing of notable insurance executives would land the dollars, despite the odds. I was wrong.

One recurring phenomenon we frequently encountered were dismissive and disrespectful investors (in the words of a white colleague). When I had one disappointing meeting after another, people in my multiracial network — many with extensive fundraising experience — told me it didn’t make sense. I’d resisted getting distracted by race as a factor, but white colleagues were saying that something wasn’t adding up.

As Toni Morrison said, “The very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work.” My own lived experience is that it’s an added factor that Black entrepreneurs have to manage.

I assumed most investors were jerks, but my white colleagues were shocked

I followed advice given to many Black founders: take a white colleague to your pitch meeting. I brought colleagues who had done a lot of fundraising themselves; some of these meetings were with their contacts. I tried this strategy dozens of times, and my colleagues were repeatedly shocked at the treatment we received.

I assumed most investors were jerks in pitch meetings, but they told me the level of disrespect and dismissiveness I received was not typical.

But if I lose my temper, I’d likely be labeled as just another angry Black man.

I did let my frustration show once when I directed a VC’s attention to the milestones we’d met and industry support we had gathered.

“What does it take for us to get a check from you?” I asked. His response: There is nothing you can say or do to get me to invest, but if you get another VC to lead the round, call me.

In another conversation with a VC, I pointed out the lack of diversity in both the ranks of investors and the entrepreneurs they choose to fund. He replied that Silicon Valley has produced the greatest accumulation of wealth in human history in the last 25 years. Why do we need to change anything?

GW Chew is a friend and a Black founder who was also having difficulty getting VC funding for his vegan meat company, Something Better Foods. He approached investors to raise funds to meet the fast expanding demand for his products. Talk about traction.

A white investor told Chew that if the founder/CEO were white, the company would have raised millions already. My friend told me he’s no longer talking to VCs and is raising funds from alternative sources.

Then there are the grifters. I don’t think Black founders are the only ones whose ideas get stolen after pitch meetings, but it happened to me.

We pitched a VC firm that had a consultant with an insurance background on their team to help evaluate the Indenseo opportunity. VCs don’t sign NDAs, but we did sign one with the consultant, who said Black founders can’t get companies funded but white founders can. (Yes, he said it.)

He later tried to ingratiate himself by saying he was considering investing too. Instead, he founded a company that copied our ideas. (So much for our NDA.)

Eventually, he told me, “I like your team. Call me when the wheels fall off.” When he announced his new company, we saw that he was backed by the VC who brought him into our meeting. He has since gone on to raise more than $40 million.

So why didn’t I sue him for violating the NDA? I consulted with some of our angel investors and they said we would be better off fighting them in the marketplace, given our limited time and resources. It wasn’t the first time our ideas were stolen.

When another company we pitched appropriated some of our ideas, my contact there informed his executives that they’d signed an NDA with Indenseo. Their reply: Indenseo doesn’t have the money to sue us. But they weren’t domain experts and we had left out much about our plans: They announced their launch in The Wall Street Journal, but as I expected, they failed.

I’ve never pitched at a VC firm that had a Black person in the room

Am I calling VCs racists? I don’t know what’s in their hearts, but I do know what’s in their numbers. Dealing with unconscious bias is difficult because as a Black entrepreneur trying to build a company, you know it exists and you have to figure out a way to manage around it. But it’s a subtle problem.

I don’t think VCs wake up in the morning and consciously decide not to invest in Black entrepreneurs or businesses intentionally choose not to buy from companies founded by Black entrepreneurs. But, the results of who receives investment and who doesn’t are quantifiable: few VC funds have Black employees or invest in companies started by Black founders.

I have never pitched at a VC firm that had a Black person in the room. And the pipeline excuse doesn’t work. There are Black people with technical degrees who aren’t hired at VC firms and white VC investment partners who earned liberal arts degrees.

Sure, there are funds started by Black VCs, but they encounter unconscious bias too when raising money. While more Black VCs with more capital is a crucial element of addressing underrepresentation, does that mean VC firms that aren’t founded by Black investors don’t have to change anything?

Deciding to stop the time-consuming VC pitch process and go in another direction to fund and develop the company was quite liberating. Moving forward, we’re free to manage our startup without wondering how VCs will view our decisions in the future when we seek funding.

We raised money from angel investors (including the former CEO of one of the world’s leading analytics software companies and his wife). In addition to money, it expanded our knowledge and it improved our products. Another lesson learned: Angel investors may be more helpful to your company than VCs.

The ultimate judgment on Indenseo’s products and team will be rendered by customers, partners and domain experts. The insurance industry has unique metrics that determine a company’s profitability. If you’re selling analytics software and services, either your solution is helping improve those metrics or it isn’t. The insurance industry is validating our market fit and survival skills.

Don’t let VCs be the gatekeepers of your success

I was able to build Indenseo without VCs because the insurance industry operates differently from VCs. One of the keys to success in the insurance industry is developing trust. Insurance isn’t a tangible product. It offers the promise that when a customer pays its premiums the insurance company will be able to support them when they file a claim. Without trust, a company can’t succeed in the industry.

There is a process to get insurance industry trust, and many senior executives in the industry are reluctant to invest the time in startups that’s necessary for them to get that trust. That’s because they aren’t convinced the startup will persevere to get through the process of getting that trust. We are able to get time with those executives because they trust our team and they don’t doubt that it’s worth their time to talk to Indenseo. They know we won’t fold when times are difficult.

A change I’ve seen since I started Indenseo that works in our favor is insurers don’t rely on VCs to act as a de facto screen for which insurtechs have the best teams and solutions. That’s because they don’t have confidence in investors’ judgments about insurtech companies.

Another lesson I’ve learned from my experiences: Don’t let VCs be the gatekeepers of your success. There are other funding sources, such as angel investors, corporate strategic investors, crowdfunding and more. There is funding outside the United States. Don’t overlook international investors: There is wealth in African countries. I found a way of funding the company that works for Indenseo.

We’ve developed Indenseo with angel investors and sweat equity. The key to our success is the amazing team, our advisory board and using capital efficiently. They remind me that you’re not the only one with an emotional investment in this company. When I started this company the only people in the insurance industry I knew were the people I had interacted with when I worked at Trimble.

Most of the people on our advisory board and team with insurance industry backgrounds are people I’ve met since I started Indenseo. It takes time to build those relationships. Because of them there is no corner of the commercial property casualty insurance industry we can’t access. The head of insurtech at a global reinsurance company told me that ours is the best balanced team of any insurtech company they’ve seen.

We are in the early stages of showing our flagship product, and it isn’t available for general release yet. Our VP of Engineering is telling me about a new concern: that we don’t take on too many customers too quickly.


Source: Tech Crunch

YC-backed Glimpse helps Airbnb hosts make money through product placement

Glimpse is giving Airbnb hosts a way to make extra money while also supplying their accommodations with new products.

The startup was founded by CEO Akash Raju, COO Anuj Mehta and CPO Kushal Negi, who all recently graduated from Purdue University. It’s part of the current batch of startups at accelerator Y Combinator — where, coincidentally or not, Airbnb is the most famous alum.

Raju said that he and his co-founders came up with the idea while they were still in school and working with brands to create pop-up shops on campus. They realized that many new, direct-to-consumer brands are looking to increase awareness, and they decided that Airbnbs were the perfect place to convince someone to try (for example) a new mattress or a new kind of coffee. After all, hotels are already in the product placement business.

If you’re an Airbnb host, you can sign up and then browse offers for free product samples. (If you really want to stock up, you can buy larger quantities at a discounted price.)

Glimpse works with you to showcase the products on your properties, and to email a digital “lookbook” highlighting the various products to guests at the beginning and end of their stay. You then earns a commission fee (Raju said $100 to $500 on average, though it can be even higher for big-ticket items) when these samples lead consumers to make a purchase.

Glimpse

Glimpse founders

Brands who have marketed themselves through the platform include the GhostBed mattress and Liquid Death water.

The startup first launched in March of this year — not exactly the best time for the travel business. Raju recalled, “We actually launched right before COVID started. After that, what we really spent a lot of time on was empathizing with hosts.”

In fact, some of the Glimpse’s early partners stopped listing their properties for a while. But travel is on the rise again, including (or even especially) via Airbnb, and Raju said many of Glimpse’s 750 current properties are now fully booked through September. And given the lost income of the past few months, hosts might be even more interested than usual.

He added that the team will continue building out the platform with new features for product discovery and attribution, but he said, “The key thing that makes us unique is our emphasis on that in-home experience.”


Source: Tech Crunch

Go SPAC yourself

Hello everyone, it’s a busy week with TechCrunch Early Stage underway and a slew of tech earnings to parse through. But that didn’t stop the Equity crew from sitting down to chat about the recent wave of SPAC commentary

Danny and I wanted to talk about what a SPAC is — the acronym stands for special purpose acquisition company — and why everyone seems to be chatting them up.

Why do you care? Here’s some context, in simple bullet-point format:

  • Yesterday, after raising its IPO price range, Jamf priced at $26 per share, selling more shares than it had previously anticipated.
  • Today it opened trading around $48, and is currently worth $40.18 per share, far above its IPO price.
  • Recent first-day gains, like Jamf’s own, have peeved elements of the venture classes who think that the gap between an IPO price and where a company first trades is money that Wall Street bankers, and the IPO process itself, have stolen.

Enter SPACs, which could offer a way for unicorns and other venture-backed companies to go public through a different pricing mechanism. If that alternative method of pricing the company would be better is not clear, but we tried to talk it through.

Equity is back Friday morning, of course. And please bear in mind that when I referred to “Robinhood dipshits,” I was talking about all retail investors as a cohort, not merely the folks at any one particular trading platform. Thanks to the in-market prestige of Robinhood, however, I did use it as short-hand for retail investors more broadly.

Oh, and follow the show on Twitter.

Equity drops every Monday at 7:00 a.m. PT and Friday at 6:00 a.m. PT, so subscribe to us on Apple PodcastsOvercastSpotify and all the casts.


Source: Tech Crunch

WhatsApp to pilot projects to deliver credit, insurance and pension to users in India

WhatsApp plans to offer credit, insurance and pension products to lower-income individuals and those in rural areas in India and help digitize local small and medium-sized businesses as the Facebook service looks to make a digital payments push in its biggest market by users.

The instant messaging app maker has been working with banks — including ICICI, Kotak Mahindra, and HDFC — in India for the past year to explore ways to bring financial services to individuals who have yet to become part of the banking population, said Abhijit Bose, WhatsApp’s head in India at Global Fintech Fest conference, via video chat on Wednesday.

This work over the past year has already proven that banks can leverage WhatsApp’s reach; ICICI Bank and Kotak Mahindra have reached more than 3 million new users, said Bose, who announced that the app is now planning to work with additional partners to bring insurance, micro-pension and credit to lower-wage workers and the informal economy over the next year-and-a-half.

WhatsApp will pilot several programs with partners to test solutions to bring these services to people, he said.

“Based on the results, we will co-invest and scale. Even a small conversion of the demand will translate into an infusion of significant savings into the financial system,” he said. “Over the next two years, we are committing to opening in entrepreneurial ways we never have before. We will launch many experiments.”

Banks today face a number of roadblocks, such as the level of presence they have in a small city or town and their heavy reliance on middlemen to sell financial services that have limited the number of people they can reach, said Bose.

With a reach of over 400 million users in India — more than any other app in the country — WhatsApp is uniquely positioned to bring more people into the financial ecosystem.

Abhijit Bose, WhatsApp’s head in India, delivering a speech on Wednesday.

Facebook made clear its plan to enter India’s digital payments market in 2018 when it launched WhatsApp Pay to a small number of users in the country. But it has been stuck in a regulatory maze since then that has prevented it from rolling out WhatsApp Pay to all its users.

The company says it has complied with all the requirements mandated by New Delhi’s central bank, signaling that it could receive the final approval for a wide rollout of WhatsApp Pay any day now.

WhatsApp also plans to digitize businesses and help them secure working capital, said Bose. Facebook invested $5.7 billion in India’s top telecom operator Reliance Jio Platforms in April this year and said the two companies had agreed to explore ways to serve small businesses, such as mom and pop shops.

“These small businesses are critical to the Indian economy. If you look at Facebook as a company, there has always been a focus on helping these businesses,” Facebook India head Ajit Mohan told TechCrunch in an interview earlier this year. “These small businesses, first-time entrepreneurs and new ventures leverage the Facebook platform to find new customers and expand to additional markets.”

Bose said Wednesday that he is hopeful some of its financial services bets will work in India, and that it will be able to replicate those models in other markets.

One platform from India that Facebook wishes to help bring to other markets is UPI, a payments infrastructure built by a coalition of banks in the country and backed by the local government, said Bose.

UPI has amassed over 100 million users on its platform in fewer than four years, and the infrastructure — which allows users to exchange money with one another across any bank in India as easy and fast as sending a text message — is being used to facilitate more than 1.3 billion transactions a month.

At stake is India’s mobile payments market that Credit Suisse estimates could reach $1 trillion by 2023. Dozens of heavily backed local startups and international giants are competing to claim a slice of this opportunity. Google Pay and Walmart’s PhonePe currently dominate the market, TechCrunch reported last month.


Source: Tech Crunch