Saturday, November 30, 2013

Yahoo Users Anonymous: A Transcript

This is what happened:

Scene: A Silicon Valley church basement. Folding chairs, coffee, cigarettes tucked behind ears. Jon EVANS, a tall man with a shaved head and an Arsenal FC T-shirt, steps forward to the podium. He has a slight Canadian accent.

Jon: Hi, my name's Jon, and I'm a Yahoo! user.

Room, in unison: Hi, Jon!

Jon: I guess…I mean, this is so embarrassing, obviously…I guess my story's like a lot of yours. I got into Yahoo! when I was young, because back then it seemed really cool. If only I had known then what I know now. But I went for a six-month trip across Africa and Yahoo was the only web-mail service that could access my Unix shell account via POP. Gmail didn't exist yet, Hotmail was a joke, and I was sending friends emails from Cameroon and Zimbabwe, they were amazed, they were jealous. So I got hooked. And then…

He falls into grim silence for a moment.

Moderator (a pale, gaunt woman with nails bitten to the quick): Then what?

Jon: Then I guess I went all the way down the rabbit hole. I registered my domain with them. I used them to host my vanity site. I was in so much denial that when they bought Flickr, you're not going to believe this, but when they bought Flickr I was excited about it. I thought it would be great.

(Hollow laughter echoes through the room.)

Jon: Now, though â€" I mean, you all know what it's like to be a Yahoo! user now.

Pained yet sympathetic expressions ripple across the crowd.

Jon: The things that work haven't changed in like ten years, and the things that have changed don't work any more. Or they look prettier, like the Flickr redesign, or their new NFL game reports, but then you try to use them and you realize that actually they're just more broken than ever. I used to be proud that I was a Yahoo! user. Now it's shameful. I have to hide it from all my friends. (glances at camera in corner of the room) That thing isn't on, is it?

Moderator: (hastily - too hastily) No.

Jon: Good. (under his breath) I'm totally going to bury this post on a holiday weekend when no one will read it.

Moderator: Excuse me?

Jon: Uh, nothing. Anyway, the thing is, I even know what their problem is. I'm an engineer, and a long-term user, so I can tell Yahoo!'s engineering is just terrible. I mean, maybe their engineers are pretty good and they're just hamstrung by their process and bureaucrats and what have you, I don't know about that, but the results are terrible. Paul Graham said it years ago: “Yahoo treated programming as a commodity.” I mean, consider Yahoo! Mail â€"

(A loud, angry groan erupts around the room.)

Jon: Last year they mixed secure and insecure JavaScript files on my inbox page for months. Months! Can you imagine Google doing that for so much as a day? Or even Microsoft? And just this week I've been getting half-a-dozen copies of every email, but the first one arrives hours late half the time, and that's if the page loads at all! For days! It's ridiculous!

Moderator: So why have you stuck with them?

Jon: I…I really don't know. Partly it was because I was uncomfortable about how much of my online information Google has, but now I've lost so much faith that I'm backing up all my mail to one of my Gmail accounts anyway, which kind of fundamentally defeats that purpose. Partly because moving would be such a hassle. But the thing is - well â€"

Moderator: Go on.

Jon: The thing is, I somehow still want Yahoo not to suck. Every time they say things will get better, I want to believe them, even though every time it's been a lie. Oh, we've licked the peanut butter problem, now everything will be fine. Oh, Marissa Mayer's CEO, now everything will be fine. But the truth is â€"

Moderator: What?

Jon: The truth is that it's not going to be fine. Not now, not ever. Because their engineering sucks, so they're like a sprinter wearing leg irons starting 50 metres behind the competition. And you know what? It's too late for even Marissa Mayer to fix that.

Moderator: So you're quitting? Cold turkey?

Jon: Iâ€"

(Chairs creak as their occupants lean forward, with bated breath, hanging on his words)

Jon: you know what, I'm going to give them one more chance. I don't even know why. Just one more. But this time, I swear, this time if it doesn't work out, I'm done.

(Disappointment is written loudly across every face in the room, including his.)

Moderator: (with deep sadness) OK. We understand. Thanks, Jon.

Jon: I'm sorry.

Image credit: Dave Ward, Flickr.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Amid Some Fistfights, Walmart Sells 1.4M Tablets On Thanksgiving, iPad Mini A Top Seller

Walmart is already crowing about Black Friday and we're only a couple of hours into the actual day itself. That's because depressingly, Black Friday has somehow subsumed Thanksgiving Thursday and become the Day That Spans Many Days. Oh well; at least they sold a huge boatload of tablets. Walmart puts its one day sales of those mobile computing devices at 1.4 million, and while it doesn't break down by brand or model, the company also cites the iPad mini as one of a short list of top-selling items.

Also included in that list are the generic categories of big screen TVs and laptops, so you can imagine that the iPad mini likely accounted for a significant portion of those 1.4 million slates to be called out by name. Other top-selling items included Microsoft's new Xbox One, and Sony's PlayStation 4, indicating that the home console market is still alive and kicking despite the rise of mobile game and sluggish sales for Nintendo's Wii U console, which made its debut last year.

It's worth noting that Walmart sold twice as many towels as it did tablets, at 2.8 million moved on the day when Americans get together to give thanks, stuff themselves with turkeys and buy towels. And of course, Walmart's press release sort of glosses over the fact that its stores have become sites for riots, fights, bad manners and all sorts of various reminders that humans are essentially the worst. At least some of those 1.4 million tablets sold went to the victors of squabbles, according to Twitter.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Google's Rumored YouTube Streaming Music Service Shows Up In Android App Code

Google has been rumored to be building a streaming music service into its YouTube property, which is a little confusing because it also has its catalogue-spanning Google Play Music All Access service. But there's even more evidence it's going forward with that plan in the latest YouTube app for Android, which contains code (via Android Police) indicating that a service called “Music Pass” is in the works for the online video site.

Details from the code included suggest the name “Music Pass,” which comes complete with offline playback, background listening so that you can listen while using other apps, and uninterrupted music, which means no ads played while you're listening, unlike on standard YouTube offerings. And of course, unlike the Google Play Music All Access streaming offering, you'd get videos in the mix, too.

Later code suggests that videos will be able to be saved for up to 48 hours, and saved in either standard (360p) or HD (720p) resolution. There's still a lot up in the air, like how much subscriptions will cost and what exactly subscribers will get vs. free users. Still, it looks pretty clear that Google is working on this in earnest, with a launch intended for the not so distant future. As with most products that involve giant media companies, the delay is probably down to figuring out licensing arrangements with all parties involved.

Google having two separate music streaming services under one roof could get confusing, but they're clearly hoping that they can get some users to double-dip thanks to the added value of getting videos with the YouTube service, although from this vantage point, there looks to be little benefit to going for the music-only version, unless there's a significant price difference.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Edible Instagrams, Brought To You By Boomf

Studies have shown that constantly viewing certain types of food, on your Instagram feed for instance, can make you feel tired of those foods.

But what if your Instagram pictures were actually printed on food?

A company out of the UK is looking to answer that question by letting you print out Instagram pictures on marshmallows.

True story.

For a mere $2 per marshmallow, Via a web app, Boomf lets you choose the most edible Instagrams in your feed. Later, the company delivers a box of these art-flavored marshmallows right to your doorstep.

You can get a box of 9 for £12, which comes out to around $19.

Of course, the image quality isn't going to be perfect, but how many pictures can you eat? You win some and you lose some, right?

And bonus points for the first person to Instagram a picture of a marshmallow and print it on a Boomf marshmallow. Unless it unmakes existence as we know it.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Priceonomics Dumps Price Guides To Marry Its True Love, Blogging (And Data Crawling)

Stop what you're doing and read “Diamonds Are Bullshit” or “What Happens To Stolen Bicycles?“. This is content marketing, and Priceonomics is very good at it. So good that today the Y Combinator startup announced it's pivoting from price guides to blogging, or more accurately, the web scraping and research it does to inform its blogging.

If only we could all quit our* crummy jobs and do what we love. That's what Priceonomics co-founder Rohin Dhar has done. He launched the startup in December 2011 with a mission to bring new information into the world. It offered price guides for over 70 types of used goods. How much should I pay for an old iPhone 4S now? How much should I sell my Bianchi Pista fixie bike for? The idea was that if it was where people went to research big purchases, it could coin off of sponsored search results, traditional display ads, or affiliate links.

But in trying to gain traffic for its price guides, Priceonomics found its true calling: Blogging. The startup would investigate a topic like Airbnb rates, wine prices, where couples meet, and the rent of neighboring cities. Then it would write a data-driven blog post about it hoping virality would kick in and bring new users to its guides.

Screenshot 2013-11-26 at 6.52.56 PM

The problem was that at the end of the day, it was Google that determined the fate of Priceonomics. It needed to appear at the top of search results for queries about used good pricing. Dhar tells me “The only way the price guide would work is if we dominated SEO. We decided that a business model where we control our own destiny opposed to relying on Google to send us traffic was something we felt better about.”

As Dhar wrote in a post announcing the pivot today, “Since we crawled such varied sources of data, we started building generalizable tools for data extraction from the web so that our lives would be easier. We got pretty good at crawling data.”  So, ”Today, we're launching Priceonomics Data Services, our new data arm that helps companies crawl and structure data from the web. If you're a company that needs to get data from the web, we can help.”

It seems like a smart move, considering Priceonomics still had a good chunk of the $1.5 million seed round it raised from Andreessen Horowitz and SV Angel in the bank. And it's already making more than it ever did in price guides. Thanks to clients including its Y Combinator brethren and contracts that typically run from $1,000 to $5,000 dollars a month, Dhar writes “Within a month, we booked over six-figures in (annualized) revenue.”

Dhar lays out the future of his company in certain terms:

“So what does all this mean for this blog? Good things! We just need to write smart things and hopefully a small fraction of our audience will hire us for data-related services. Making great content matters to us and we're going to double down on it. What does this mean for our original consumer price guide for used products? Bad things! We got rid of it over a month ago. Its traffic and engagement was small relative to this blog and its revenue was negligible relative to our data crawling service.”

But can the web crawling business be a home run for investors if it has to work individually with each client? Dhar claims its can. “Typically the way companies get data is starting from scratch every time. They used to have an engineer or two full-time working on this. That's what we were doing, but then we started building the tools to make it more scalable.”

Priceonomics Data Services will be going up against competitors like PromptCloud and Scrapinghub. It sees plenty of use cases for its services, though, such as investors tracking all the little moves made by big public companies. Dhar tells me “People are using [Priceonomics Data Services] the way they use Bloomberg - to make better investment decisions.”

Structured data crawling tools might not be as glamorous as helping people buy their next iPhone or sell their last one. And perhaps the best-case scenario for its new B2B model isn't quite as financially lucrative for the startup and its investors. But at some point you have to know when Plan A is failing and go with your gut. Dhar concludes “This is a manifestation of bringing new information into the world, but for businesses.”

Some of my favorite Priceonomics blog posts:

Diamonds Are Bullshit

Making A Living Collecting Cans

What Happens To Stolen Bicycles?

Airbnb Vs Hotels

*Your crummy job. I get to write like this for a living and I love it.

Monday, November 25, 2013

6Wunderkinder, Maker Of To-Do App Wunderlist, Has Raised A $30M Series B, In Sequoia's First Step Into Germany

Wunderlist, a popular task management app from Berlin-based 6Wunderkinder, has built up a loyal following of some six million users, with about one-third of them in the U.S. and nearly 241 million “to-do”s logged to date. Now TechCrunch understands that the startup is close to closing a round of investment that could help it ramp up even more.

6Wunderkinder has raised a Series B round of around $30 million, which it plans to use in part to open up an office in the U.S.. The round sees Sequoia Capital come on as a new investor alongside existing backers Earlybird and Atomico. It’s Sequoia’s first investment in Germany.

While term sheets have been signed, there are still some formal German clearances that need to be finalized before the company goes public with the news, we’ve heard. We’ve heard one source peg the company at a $60-65 million valuation; another disputes that. If the $30 million funding number is accurate, that may have been pre-money. Prior to this, 6Wunderkinder had raised some $4.86 million in publicly disclosed funding. In addition to Earlybird and Atomico, that also includes T-Ventures, the investment arm of Deutsche Telekom, participating in a seed round of an undisclosed amount.

Wunderlist said in September that it had passed 5.3 million users, but we have heard that the number is over 6 million now. More importantly, the company has been seeing a strong rise in engagement on the app, specifically for its team-focused, paid Pro product introduced in April of this year, and enhanced since then with features such as comments to encourage more collaboration.

It was apparently the growing conversion and loyalty from existing users that was behind the investor enthusiasm. Sequoia, we have heard, took all of a week to meet and then decide to invest in the company â€" in September, perhaps?

While this looks like it might be Sequoia’s first investment in Germany, the company â€" with newly knighted Welshman Sir Michael Moritz as chairman â€" is not exactly a stranger to Europe. Others include Songkick in the UK, Skyscanner in Scotland, and Klarna in Sweden.

When you consider how many task management and productivity apps are on the market today, it’s a testament to 6Wunderkinder that it has managed to make one that is so easy to use, and so well used. It’s also a strong reminder of just how easy it is to make apps that appear similar to others, but it is far more difficult to make just one that works just as it should â€" that attention to making a perfect product has sometimes kept Wunderlist from getting tons of upgrades in short succession.

Wunderlist sits alongside and complements other mobile-centered productivity/organization apps like Dropbox and Evernote â€" coincidentally also Sequoia portfolio companies. If Dropbox is where you store large files, and Evernote is where you log notes about what you are doing during the day, then Wunderlist is where you can track and remind yourself of when you are supposed to get there, and other things that you have to do. I’d wager that over time we’ll see Wunderlist add even more dynamic functionality to that central premise, focusing specifically on premium features to drive more conversion on its paid products.

We at TechCrunch have just returned from a week in Berlin for our first Disrupt event in Europe (it was fun). Speaking to startups based in the city, one theme I heard more than once was that Berlin is great for hatching ideas and bootstrapping (relatively cheap to live there compared to somewhere like London; a vibrant community of creative people). But, the thinking goes, when you are serious about scaling, then you need to look West, specifically to the U.S.

This seems to be what Wunderlist has been doing and what it will be doing more of in the future. The U.S. has long been a focus for the German startup, both in terms of marketing itself to new users, and even in its office culture, with English the lingua franca at the HQ.

6Wunderkinder has had a good run with Wunderlist so far, but not everything has run as smoothly. 6Wunderkinder last year shut down Wunderkit, a project management app it had built and was still in beta, because it wasn’t scaling fast enough â€" especially in comparison to Wunderlist.

Going forward, 6Wunderkinder’s CEO and co-founder Christian Reber will be spending significantly more time over there building a business development team in a new office in Silicon Valley. The product and technical folks, meanwhile, will remain based in Berlin. Even in Germany, though, there will be a strong U.S. influence, by way of Chad Fowler, joined as CTO from Living Social in February of this year and will be running the team there.

Life-Tracking App Expereal Is Your Personal Weapon Against Cognitive Biases

Emotions play tricks on our memories, making our recollections of events much happier or heart-wrenching than they actually were. Smartphone app Expereal seeks to cut through those cognitive traps by allowing you to rate your day on a 10-point scale and organizing that data into easy-to-read charts.

The iOS app (Android and Web-based versions are planned) is the brainchild of Brooklyn-based digital strategist Jonathan Cohen, who was inspired by psychologist Daniel Kahneham’s 2010 TED talk “The riddle of experience vs. memory.” Kahneham argues that our memories are often distorted by cognitive biases. For example, one bad day can completely spoil someone’s memory of an otherwise pleasurable two-week vacation.

When designing Expereal, Cohen decided to stick to a 10-point scale to help users keep their ratings objective.

Capture_Expereal

“I could have potentially asked people to pick a word to describe their mood, but what I like about numbers is that in order to get the full breadth and benefit you also have to enter tags and give meaning to it,” says Cohen.

Expereal’s first screen allows you to rate your day (or part of the day, depending on how often you use the app). Then you can note your location and the people you are with, add tags and snap a photo. A drop-down menu takes you to a set of charts that visualize your ratings by day, week or month, and compares your numbers to all of Expereal’s users or your Facebook friends who also use the app (data is aggregated anonymously). The “Expereotype” option is an album of your in-app photos with embedded ratings, tags and locations.

Visualize_Expereal

Cohen says Expereal fills the gap left by journaling apps and life-tracking wearable tech products like Jawbone UP and Nike Fuelband.

“None of these services in my mind really address the fundamental questionâ€"’how is my life going and how is it trending over time?’ I thought that by having a better understanding of this over time, it would be an interesting way to look back in order to move forward,” says Cohen.

Of course, Expereal is only as useful as the data you enter into it. The app’s notifications can be set to remind you to use it 1-5 times per day. While testing the app out, I found I was more likely to enter a rating if I was having a bad day because adding tags allowed me to vent. If my day was going okay, however, it was tempting to ignore Expereal’s prompt on my iPhone.

“It’s not immediately sticky,” Cohen admits. “But for many of us who are relatively happy in our lives, I think there is value in those moments of self-reflection.” He adds that Expereal is meant to “counterbalance to the immediate promises of contemporary best-selling self-help books and programs.”

I committed to using the app five times a day for two weeks and was surprised by my data charts. A couple days I had written off in my memory as a total waste of time (because of a headache or a task left undone) were actually rated quite high, and I realized I’m much more pessimistic than I thought I was. I already use Timehop as a scrapbook and Step Journal to keep track of my daily activities, but I like Expereal’s focus on mood tracking because it’s already motivated me to stop being so negative.

Cohen tells me he is continually working on the app’s data analysis so that the aggregate numbers aren’t skewed toward any particular part of the day or people who log onto the app more consistently than other users. He declined to give me specific numbers, but says Expereal currently has several thousand users.

Aside from being a handy life-tracking tool, Expereal is also beautiful, with minimalist graphics inspired by mid-century California design, graphic designer Reid Miles and Monocle magazine. The app was bootstrapped by Cohen, who is currently looking for investors and investigating several revenue models. Cohen envisions Expereal as part of a larger ecosystem that will eventually include books, seminars and other tools that tap into people’s desires to improve their lives.

“If you look at the world of self-help, that segment of the marketplace, there are all of these amazing books by behavioral psychologists out there,” says Cohen. “If Expereal can capture a piece of that marketplace, I think the potential is huge.”


Expereal is an iPhone app that allows you to rate and analyze your life through data visualization and analytics, and anonymously compare your ratings with friends and other users. In the version 2.0, released March 20, 2013, you will be able to: -Login with Facebook (Only means of login) -Rate your life in the moment on a 10 point scale -Capture location, description tags, people and a photo -Crop & Scale the photo with rating, tags and location embedded -Share photo with embedded rating,...

â†' Learn more

The Genius Of Twitter: A Paean

It’s the first app I launch in the morning, and the first I install on a new phone, and my most-visited web site. Which is strange, because I don’t much like most social media. I’m on Facebook only reluctantly; 90% of my posts there are automatic reposts from my tweet stream. I want to like Google+, but I keep failing. Twitter, though, is the hub of my online life.

Now that Twitter is officially on track to IPO it’s being lavished with praise, which irks me. The implication is that an IPO is somehow a culmination and a triumph, whereas to me it’s pretty much a meaningless business-space phase change. I don’t really care about the business of technology, except inasmuch as the businesses are vehicles for the promulgation of new and/or cool and/or interesting and/or important technology; and if I’m being honest, I don’t think other people should care either.

Granted, the spectacle of venture capital and business machinations and public offerings can be appealing, and I’m sure it’s extremely interesting indeed to the small number of people in line to receive large sums of money1 or the enormously larger number who aspire to do so themselves some day. But what matters far more than money is how and how much you changed the world.

Now, I think that we can all agree that while Twitter is a pretty big deal it hasn’t changed the world as much as Apple or Facebook or Google, or (less visibly) ARM or Cisco. What I’d like to point out, though, is that Twitter is far weirder, much less inevitable, and way more out-of-left-field than all of the above. For that reason its accomplishment is in many ways more extraordinary than any of their.

Some company was always going to get huge and rich building routers, or smartphones, or the low-power chips inside them, or the world’s primary social network, or the world’s finest search engine and/or distributed computing network. Once the technology got to the point where such things were possible, that was basically inevitable. If Apple had gone bust in the 1990s (as it very nearly did), today’s phones wouldn’t be as near as slick and well-designed, but they would still basically do what they do. Who knows? Maybe BlackBerry would have taken up the torch of design.

But Twitter? Twitter was never inevitable. The world was in no way crying out for the platform that gave us @horse_ebooks, @DRUNKHULK, and @BoredElonMusk (to say nothing of @twentitled.) If Twitter had never existed, Facebook would still have eventually adopted its News Feed; blogs and RSS would probably have expanded; and maybe Google+ would have been a stronger competitor. But we would feel no aching Twitter-shaped void in our world. Twitter was always surprising, always the dark horse, always counterintuitive.

Hell, it’s still counterintuitive. I was talking to friends of mine not so long ago, both of whom are smarter than me (and better writers too) but who still fundamentally don’t get Twitter’s appeal. Of course they don’t. I didn’t either, until my sister somehow talked me into signing up for it five years ago. Thanks, Jen. Now I’d prefer not to imagine life without it.

To an extent Twitter is like the elephant examined by blind men, different things to different people. To me, at least, it’s where I simultaneously bookmark links of interest, keep track of scores of my friends’ lives, converse with those friends without knowing or caring where they are, share pictures and articles with them and with hundreds of people I don’t know, do research (“Dear LazyTwitter…”), and follow a small number of interesting people and/or news filters I’ve never met.

Of course I could do all these things elsewhere; but the whole appeal of Twitter is that I do them all at the same time, in the same place, with terse brevity. For me it’s like being able to dive into a sparkling river of (usually) witty, pithy, gem-laden conversation whenever I want to, engage with it however I like, and leave again at my leisure. People say we live in the attention economy; well, Twitter offers some of the best value-for-attention you can get. Like everybody else at first I thought that famous 140-character limit was a flaw. Now, though, I believe it’s their finest feature.

So here’s to Twitter, and to their real accomplishment: not their IPO, but using today’s technology to give the whole world something that we didn’t know we wanted, and making it so delightful that it now seems very nearly indispensable. All this while trying to be, to their eternal credit, “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” I hereby call for a long, loud round of applause.


Image credit: Twitter’s fail whale has become something of an endangered species; truth be told, on the rare occasions I do see it nowadays, I find myself feeling more nostalgia than irritation.

1 Disclaimer/disclosure: while I don’t know for sure, I expect this number includes an acquaintance of mine who was/is a very early Twitter employee.

Samsung's Music Partner 7digital Picks Up $1.6M Loan, Enters Into Reverse Takeover Talks With UBC

Screen Shot 2013-11-25 at 14.02.45

Some developments for 7digital, the UK-based music platform that powers download and streaming services for the likes of Samsung, HTC, T-Mobile and Pure: it has entered into acquisition talks and a “reverse merger” with UBC Media, a radio program producer, developer of interactive audio technology, and software investor (it’s the largest shareholder in Audioboo, a platform where you can make and share audio recordings). As part of the deal, UBC is providing 7digital with a £1 million ($1.6 million) loan that can be converted into shares in UBC â€" which is publicly traded in London on the AIM exchange.

On top of that, 7digital is announcing a couple of expansions of its service â€" confirmation that it is powering a new streaming service from HMV in the UK and Ireland; and a deal with Apple/Intel-backed Imagination Technologies‘ Pure to power a streaming service in the U.S. to complement its Jongo wireless speakers.

Imagination Technologies, in fact, is a strategic investor in 7digital â€" one of the two undisclosed companies in its last $10 million venture round (Dolby is the other).

The news comes amidst a lot of other shifts in the digital music marketplace: among them, Spotify securing a $250 million investment; Rdio laying off employees; Deezer apparently making a stronger move to tackle the U.S.; AOL shutting down more of its own music services; and Turntable pivoting into live events. Taken together, these are all signs of consolidation in the market, with the big fish vying to become stronger, and the smaller among them falling by the wayside.

In that context, 7digital has been something of a minnow. Although it has its own consumer-facing service, it has perhaps more importantly played a role in how other, bigger-name companies have been able to build out digital music plays to compete against the likes of iTunes from Apple. By way of an API, 7digital takes on all the infrastructure management, licensing and reporting for these third parties, which include Samsung’s MusicHub, BlackBerry’s music store, and the Pure Music service. Former partners include Spotify (which used it to power a download service, which it then took in-house and then axed altogether). In total, 7digital says that these wholesale-style services and its own consumer-facing product are growing, with traffic up 225% in the last six months to pass 1 billion requests per month.

Still, given that part of this deal involved a £1 million loan, it’s unclear whether that existing business was providing lucrative enough returns, or at least enough to help the company fuel its next stage of growth. UBC notes that in 2012 7digital’s revenues were £11 million ($18 million), compared to £3 million ($4.9 million) in 2009, making it about four times the size of UBC, with a combined valuation of about £50 million ($80 million). Before today, 7digital in total raised some $18.5 million in venture funding, with other backers including Balderton Capital (formerly Benchmark in Europe) and Sutton Place Managers.

In fact, Ben Drury, CEO and co-founder of 7digital, notes a couple of reasons for tapping UBC instead of going it alone. First there is funding: with 7digital founded in 2004, it’s not really playing in startup territory anymore. “We may call ourselves that, or others may call us a startup, but we’ve been around for almost 10 years,” he told me in an interview. Then there is speed of execution: “Going on to AIM by way of a reverse takeover of UBC is a way to accelerate our development,” he told me. “This is a faster path.”

Third â€" and perhaps most interesting for those watching how the digital music space is evolving â€" is what UBC would bring to 7digital in terms of product. The company owns several patents, it has an extensive catalog of audio archives, and it has infrastructure in place to create original content â€" “a skillset that could be adapted for the kinds of customers that we work for,” Drury noted.

What could that mean? Right now, he says, the buzzword in digital music is “curation” and how to whittle down and shape the huge mass of music that customers have at the tips of their fingers but without much shape about what to listen to next. (Yes, the old water, water everywhere conundrum.) It sounds like what 7digital might be looking to do is help produce original content, or at least services that help point users to more tailored listening experiences that cut through the 7digital catalog.

His example: UBC currently produces a show for BBC Radio, called “Pick of the Pops,” which picks a year and then runs through music from it. “Imagine that strong editorial role being adapted for the on-demand age,” he told me. Along with that will come an evolution of the streaming music business model to offer more targeted “microsubscriptions” around particular genres or even playlists â€" not unlike the vision that Deezer is also eyeing up, creating deals that cut up the typical $10/month, all-you-can-eat offerings.

“Our platform and partnership roster has been growing steadily over time and we see continued interest in music globally, across online radio, subscription streaming, and downloads.  We will continue to develop and scale the platform, and to innovate with new products and features,” Ben Drury, CEO of 7digital, noted in a statement. “Radio, in particular, is an area where we see a lot of future opportunities, and we are thrilled that our new strategic investor and partner, UBC, shares this vision.”

UBC says that the deal will play into a wider strategy that it has to develop more digital services around audio content, with the interactive media market offering “the best opportunity for growth as so-called ’connected’ devices became more important for the consumption of content.”

UBC and 7digital’s non-legally binding Letter Of Intent says that the two will outline terms of a potential acquisition of 7digital by UBC by no later than December 16, 2013, “with a view to entering into a definitive sale and purchase agreement by 30 April 2014.”

UBC says the new publicly-listed company would combine its existing UBC assets, its investment in Audioboo, and 7digital, with 7digital’s Drury would become the CEO and UBC’s CEO Simon Cole taking on the role of chairman. Customers would include the BBC and Yahoo (two of UBC’s current clients) and Samsung and HTC (two of 7digital’s), with business operations in 42 countries and covering 5 million registered users and services pre-loaded on 60 million mobile devices. “In content terms, the new company will have an archive of thousands of hours of entertainment programming, producing 1,200 hours of new material a year and have a licensed catalogue of 25 million music tracks and audiobooks,” UBC notes.

Updated throughout with comments from 7digital CEO Ben Drury.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

The Battle For The Connected Home Is Heating Up

Editor’s note: Matt Turck is a managing director of FirstMark Capital. Follow him on Twitter at @mattturck.

Almost 15 years ago, a friend of mine at McKinsey spent a few nights writing a document called “The Battle for the Home”. The thesis at the time was that with broadband, the home PC was gradually going to challenge the TV as the core home digital system. Over the following few years, that battle gradually grew more complex, as the home saw the adoption of a new generation of HDTV sets, game consoles, set-top boxes and DVR options. But fundamentally, the discussion was about who was going to control the home entertainment system.

Now, the battle has expanded to the rest of the home. With the emergence of connected devices, the entire home is being reinvented as a data product, opening great opportunities to entrepreneurs.  A whole new generation of startups is rushing in. Nest, with its beautifully-designed home products, has become the poster child for this phenomenon, but many others are producing exciting new connected devices and platforms, at an outstanding pace.

The irony of this market, not always acknowledged, is that a number of large companies with big brands and existing “pipes” in our homes, have been unusually innovative. From connected locks to mobile-controlled home automation platforms, large companies such as GE, Comcast or Philips have been offering connected home products for a while now, sometimes at the risk of cannibalizing their own analog products. As a result, the new wave of connected home startups finds itself in the fairly unusual position of having to not only execute and build consumer brands, but also out innovate dynamic incumbents. The home is once again at the crossroads of a major battle between startups, cable companies, telcos, industrial conglomerates, and large technology companies.

As VC money is starting to pour into the space (SmartThings, August and Arrayent all announced significant rounds just in the last two weeks, as did Quirky, as part of an increased focus on the Internet of Things), a new battle for the home is heating up between startups, cable companies, telcos, industrial conglomerates, and large technology companies.

The first battle for the home was not always kind to startups. Many found that, once past the sheer difficulties of building a hardware product, consumers often preferred the convenience of package deals offered by cable companies to best-of-breed point solutions, resulting in many failures or tepid exits.
While this new generation of startups has an exciting opportunity in front of it, the path to success will also be narrow. To succeed long term, startups will need to maneuver shrewdly among the giants in the space, and do what startups do best: deliver truly ground breaking products, build developer networks, bet on openness and interoperability, and leverage data in innovative ways.

The new household brands

There are plenty of reasons to be excited about the emergence of new connected home startups. For reasons I discussed in an earlier post, there’s been an explosion of activity in the space, initially financed by crowdfunding and now increasingly by institutional money â€"  SmartThings and August, for example, both just announced large Series A rounds. Each category is seeing rapid innovation: thermostats (Nest), locks (August, Lockitron), security (Canary, Doorbot), lights (LIFX), home automation (SmartThings, Zonoff, Ninja Blocks, Ube, Berg, Twine, Xively, etc.), garden products (Bitponics, Click & Grow), bathroom appliances (Withings), nursery products (Sproutling, in which I’m an investor), and many others.

This is a big opportunity. Beyond the fact that it’s already a significant market ($13 billion, say some estimates), connected home entrepreneurs have an opportunity to create, quite literally, new household brands. The emergence of connected devices is one of those disruptive waves that define entire new product categories. Consumption habits change and reform around a handful of brands that become leaders in the space. Some wonder why smart and ambitious entrepreneurs are scrambling to build products in those seemingly mundane home categories; in fact, those entrepreneurs are attracted like heat-seeking missiles by the opportunity to build category-defining brands. At the current pace, this window of opportunity may not last more than a couple of years, and successful first movers will have a strong brand advantage.

Clearly, the adoption of those connected home products is still largely the province of hobbyists and tech enthusiasts. Interestingly however, large retailers seem to be excited about distributing those products to their mainstream audiences.  Many entrepreneurs I speak with report engaging with some of the biggest players, such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, Staples, Apple stores and AT&T.

While this is not a recipe for long-term success, there’s an element of self-fulfilling prophecy here, where the combination of entrepreneurial energy, investor money and retailer interest could lead to rapid growth for the connected home startups.

Not so fast

However, for all the enthusiasm on crowdfunding platforms and in the press, this is already a crowded space. Many of the existing players are large companies that come equipped with deep distribution networks and a whole ecosystem of service providers that make a living installing and maintaining their products.

First, there are all the incumbents, both in home and energy automation (Crestron, Lutron, Control4, etc) and home security (ADT, Protection 1, Vivint, etc.). Not the most exciting brands? Perhaps.

Second, many large industrial companies have already launched their own connected home products â€" think, for example, Yale’s Z-Wave deadbolt or the Philips Hue, a smartphone-controlled LED bulb. There are many other examples.

Third, the cable providers and telcos increasingly view home automation as a strategic priority. Comcast (Xfinity), Time Warner Cable, Cox, AT&T and Verizon (FiOS) all have solutions for anything from thermostat and light control to security, accessible through mobile apps.

Last but not least, the large technology companies Apple and Google are already de facto active in the space, as the mobile phone has become the remote control for the connected home. They may want to go deeper. Google’s “Android @Home” effort seems to have faltered so far, but Chromecast is intriguing. Apple is rumored to be interested in the space at the highest level of the organization, and actively meeting with startups. It has been suggested that they should acquire Nest to enter the space and re-acquire the Apple-bred talent there. Microsoft (Kinect), Samsung and HTC all have existing or emerging efforts.

Dancing with the giants

So what’s a startup to do? For those ambitious startups that are gunning for a central position in the connected home, the question is what strategy gets you there faster

One key choice is whether to go “product first” (build a consumer product, like Nest) or “platform first” (build a platform that connects all products, like Revolv). The former involves more hardware, but arguably offers a better chance of gaining rapid sales traction if the product delivers. It is also less of an immediate challenge to most of the large companies in the space. The path to control of the home involves releasing multiple products that connect to one another (which Nest is starting to do with its Protect smoke alarm), and eventually become a platform.

The “Platform First” strategy is more of a software play, and its core value proposition is home automation.  It offers strong long term defensibility if you get there, but the journey is fraught with difficulties.  First, as Lowe’s has learned with Iris and Schlage with Nexia, it is difficult to get consumers to buy and install a “hub”.  In addition, among the early adopters that are likely to do so, a non-trivial portion are Arduino and Raspberry Pi aficionados that prefer to hack their own system.   For mainstream adoption, one avenue for platform players could be to work with home developers and gradually get their systems included in new construction, obviously a long process.   Second, the Platform strategy places startups in direct competition with Comcast, Verizon FiOS and many other large companies that are also vying to become the hub for the automated home, and already have millions of customers.  The bet here for “Platform First” players is that, by promoting openness and interoperability in a way that is harder for large companies to do, they can build a strong network of developers that write to the platform â€" perhaps starting with hobbyists and the smaller “Product first” companies that need help competing with the “Product first” leaders â€" the benefit for the customer being that they will be able to connect all their best-of-breed point solutions.

Another key choice, particularly for “Platform First” players, is whether to go consumer (develop your own brand) or enterprise (be an enabling technology for other brands).  Some solid companies have chosen the latter, such as iControl Networks (which powers Comcast’s Xfinity and others) or Zonoff (which powers Staples Connect). Others like SmartThings have been building a recognizable brand in the space, which some large companies could perceive as a threat. My sense is that eventually most startups will need to work with the large companies in some capacity to be successful, so perhaps the question is what strategy puts you in the best negotiating position for a partnership (or an acquisition).

Seven Key Characteristics

Beyond positioning, connected home startups will need to combine several characteristics to build long term value and defensibility. Here is my list of seven.

  1. Design quality is hugely important in transforming those trivial products into objects of desire, and to succeed connected home startups will need to be true “design natives”: Nest, August and Canary are great examples of design done right.
  2. Simplicity of installation and usage will be essential: little effort in, maximum return out.
  3. Mission criticality and strong ROI are key in a space where some products could easily be mistaken for nice to have “gadgets”:  security, health and energy are great categories from that perspective.
  4. In the same vein, startups will need to deliver real innovation.  Simply adding connectivity to a home product doesn’t make it great.  Is the connected product 10X better than its analog equivalent? Or, even better, does it simply not have an analog equivalent?
  5. A multi-product vision and the ability to release successful products back to back will be crucial in building self-standing, long-term successes in the space â€" obviously, easier said than done.
  6. Software openness and interoperability will be necessary to successfully build developer networks and partnerships.
  7. Perhaps most importantly, startups will need to be true “data natives”.  Many connected devices offer exciting opportunities to build “data network effects”:  each device captures data that, aggregated and analyzed at the cloud level, enables the extraction of insights that in turn make each individual device smarter, through machine learning and predictive analytics.  This is one of the main reasons why the Internet of Things goes much beyond a simple hardware play, and will be a key aspect of the defensibility of the winners in the space: you pay for the hardware, but the software (and data) is what keeps you using the product.

This new battle for the home is just getting started.  It will have many twists and turns, and I’m very excited to see how it all unfolds.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Let's Kill The Aid Industry

Long have I nursed a healthy contempt for the aid industry. As I spent much of a decade wandering around the planet, taking local public transit through poor and/or unstable nations1, I kept encountering aid workers in their flashy white branded 4x4s, and was almost invariably resoundingly unimpressed. As I’ve written elsewhere:

Most development aid is actively harmful. Selling goods for less than production cost is dumping, a business practice condemned as predatory; aid is just dumping with the price set to zero.

The horror stories are legion. Donated clothes decimate local textile industries. Shells of buildings, silted dams, and unfinished “pilot projects” dot the African landscape. Young white people flock to expensive hotels for useless “conferences” that amount to paid exotic vacations. Peace Corps yahoos are flown out at great cost to teach Western hairdressing [...] But aid’s worst consequence is the continuation, and amplification, of the attitude that change must always come from outside. My friend Gavin Chait calls it “the recolonization of Africa through aid.”

To be clear, I’m criticizing the $120 billion per year spent on development aid, not disaster aid, which is critically important and saves many lives; furthermore, many medical crises, such as HIV and malaria in sub-Saharan Africa, are essentially ongoing slow-motion disasters. These folks:

poster-child
(photo credit: yours truly, Port-au-Prince, Haiti, 2007)

are absolutely on the side of the angels.

I believe we in the rich West have both a moral obligation and a practical incentive to help the world’s desperately poor. (After all, you can’t trade with someone who’s broke.) I’m hardly the first to criticize the development-aid industry, and observe that, even more than most industries, it is a hive of waste and bureaucracy, largely devoted to its own self-perpetuation. I accept that some individual aid projects are beneficial, and a few in the industry have of late been trying to innovate; in particular, moving towards simply giving needy recipients cash, in a few specific cases.

That’s a start. But it’s time to move faster towards finishing the job: to wit, eliminating aid as we know it, in favor of simply sending money directly to the poor and letting them spend it as they will. It’s both a moral imperative and the most efficient possible use of aid money.

Again, I’m far from the first to make this argument. But what I don’t see others noting is that we’re rapidly approaching the time when technology finally makes this possible on a massive scale.

Run the numbers. An estimated 2.4 billion people live on less than US$2/day. If simply we sent the today’s aid money to them directly, a family of six would receive an extra $300/year â€" a huge amount, relative to their baseline of extreme poverty. So why wouldn’t we? If both direct transfers and aid-as-we-know-it are viable options, then the latter essentially consists of taking money away from those who need it the most and giving it to the unelected aid industry instead, to spend on their alleged behalf. How can that possibly be justified?

The only answers boil down to patronizing neo-colonialism: “those weak/ignorant/stupid poor people don’t know how to spend money, so we have to spend it for them.” It’s a distressingly popular argument. Fortunately, recent evidence â€" including, in particular, an MIT study western Kenya (PDF) â€" strongly indicates that this is not the case:

Transfers allow poor households to build assets … Transfers reduce hunger … Transfers do not increase spending on alcohol and tobacco … Transfers increase investment in and revenue from livestock and small businesses … Transfers increase psychological well-being of recipients and their families … We find suggestive evidence that cash transfers reduce domestic violence and increase female empowerment in both recipient households and other households in the same village.

I think even most aid workers would agree, if pressed, that cash transfers to the people who (by definition) need money above all else are vastly preferable to haphazard aid projects, which may or may not help, and/or supporting corrupt governments / bureaucratic multilateral institutions. But can we actually make that happen? Sure, it may work in a carefully designed study in a single small village in Kenya, but the $128 billion question is â€" as it is so often these days â€" how does this scale?

Actually it’s already scaling, on a national level. Brazil’s Bolsa Familia is a much-lauded direct-cash-transfer program which reaches an estimated 46 million. Earlier this year India launched a direct-transfer program tied to its Unique ID biometric identification scheme; hundreds of millions have already been registered. If these two famously fractious nations can implement direct cash transfers, then why can’t that extend to international aid?

In many places the tools are already in place. All you’d really need, technically, is a mobile banking network â€" Kenya’s M-Pesa is the most famous and most successful example, but there are a myriad of others around the world â€" combined with an international payment processor like Xoom or (soon enough, I expect) Stripe.

I suppose you’d want to add biometric identification if you were worried about widespread fraud, eg with something like a one-time Touch ID registration at an M-Pesa booth. But for the most part, all we really need to do is follow mobile phones as they metastasize around the world into the hands of even the poorest people, and extend the reach of mobile banking in nations where it’s not yet as widespread as M-Pesa is in Kenya.

Let me address a few possible objections:

  • Remember, we’re talking about $120 billion a year in total aid; relative to that sum, the setup and maintenance costs for direct transfers would not be at all prohibitive.
  • Should the transfers be conditional (eg only go to families who keep their children in school) or unconditional? This is an issue about which reasonable people can disagree, but I side with the unconditional camp, because the differences in outcome seem fairly minimal, and unconditional transfers will be much easier to scale.
  • It’s true that we’d be eliminating the infrastructure projects built by aid â€" but if that same amount of money started bubbling up from the poor, rather than trickling down from the rich, communities and governments would be able finance those themselves. (I could also be convinced that replacing aid to NGOs and governments with direct cash transfers, but leaving eg World Bank contributions alone, would be a good first step.)
  • Yes, recipients’ governments would be able to tax this money â€" but there would be fewer layers of corruption and middlemen than exist now in most poor countries, and direct cash transfers would be far more transparent. Donors could credibly threaten to turn off the money tap if too much was taxed and wasted. Also, governments taxing income is no bad thing, as long as they are somewhat accountable to their populace…and being reliant on money which actually comes from their citizens, rather than directly from foreign governments, would drastically increase that accountability.
  • What’s more, this would also improve people’s opinions of the rich world; instead of citizens seeing Western money propping up their often-corrupt governments, that money would come directly to them.
  • Biometric identification of recipients, and master lists of accounts, are worrying potential surveillance-state tools, but this can be mitigated with the right technology (eg, off the top of my head, hashing fingerprints with passwords and storing those hashes rather than actual fingerprints.)
  • To forestall potential local-currency hyperinflation (I’m still scarred by witnessing prices double in a few weeks during my last stint in Zimbabwe) I’d be inclined to investigate the possibility of transferring money, and maintaining accounts in, foreign/hard currency. Or, OK, fine, true believers, maybe someday Bitcoin or the like, but not until it settles down.
  • Of course this change would be detrimental to some people, not least aid workers. The question is whether it would be a significant benefit for the world as a whole.

Software is eating the world; the technological mantra of our age. I for one am in favor of it eating that white elephant called the aid industry, as soon as possible â€"

â€" and while we’re at it, let’s take a real, hard, serious look at implementing an unconditional basic income scheme in the West, too. Efficiency â€" and moral obligation â€" may not begin at home…but let’s hope it returns here eventually.

Image credit: Wikimedia.

1 Bona fides: I have spent many months in the developing world, riding battered taxis, creaking colonial-era trains, overcrowded minibuses, and pickup trucks laden with livestock through Albania, Colombia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Mali, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Tibet, and Zimbabwe, to name a few nations in no particular order.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Microsoft's Next CEO Will Not Spin Off Xbox, Unless They Abdicate The Company's Larger Strategic Direction

A story published by Bloomberg floats the idea that Microsoft might spin off its Xbox business, which it calls “more likely [following current CEO Steve Ballmer's] exit.” The publication values Xbox at around $17 billion, a figure based on a comparative revenue multiple with Nintendo.

This is precisely the sort of bilge that cavorts and pretends to be serious analysis. The Bloomberg piece leans on the words of a fund manager, Todd Lowenstein, who claims that Xbox “looks like an attractive standalone business that could hold up on its own.” He continues that it “seems like it would be the most mature candidate with the best growth potential and the most established to stand on its own.”

You could argue that Xbox is currently undervalued inside of Microsoft. However, that potential is not exactly material. Presuming for the moment that the $17 billion figure is reasonable, Xbox as a group would represent 6.1 percent of Microsoft’s current market capitalization, a slim segment.

Presuming a 50 percent lower market valuation while under the aegis of the larger Microsoft corporation (the tax of being part of Microsoft, the value that could be unlocked), Xbox could represent $8.5 billion in lost value to investors. That’s about 3 percent of Microsoft’s worth. So, the potential upside isn’t too great.

The potential downside, however, is hilariously large.

Key Platform Plank vs. Un-Lucrative Short-Term Financial Ploy

Microsoft could spin off Xbox, reap a short-term financial gain from the transaction, and return that money to shareholders via stock buybacks or a special dividend. The former would have a small, but real long-term impact on Microsoft’s earnings per share, perhaps leading to a higher per-share value in the future. The latter would be a waste, as a previous Microsoft special dividend demonstrated.

So, Microsoft would gain little from the deal as a company, even though institutional investors might enjoy a special dividend boosting their quarterly numbers. That’s nice, but not what Microsoft lives to do. In fact, Microsoft’s job is not to worry about the spreadsheets of external financial entities, but instead to build great products, grow new platforms, make oodles of money, and take care of its employees as it does so.

Therefore, the short-term potential financial gain is not core to what Microsoft needs to worry itself with.

Does the idea of spinning off Xbox make product sense? No it does not. At all. Microsoft is working around the clock to expand the Windows platform to every screen that you view, from the desktop, to your laptop, tablet, phone and, you guessed it, your television.

Windows on my TV, you might think, I don’t want that! Chill fam, it’s fine. What Microsoft is up to is simple: A common set of APIs and foundational code called the Shared Windows Core will underpin all Microsoft platforms. It’s in Windows 8, and Windows Phone 8, and is also present in the forthcoming Xbox One.

As the traditional PC market declines, Microsoft is endeavoring to extend its Windows software to work everywhere. And Xbox is core piece to this gambit, which is a bet that developers matter, and that as a company Microsoft needs to cater to them.

Essentially, Microsoft wants to create a single mega platform, one in which any developer with a shared code base can reach consumers and companies on screens of every size: Tablet, phone, laptop, desktop, and TV. No company offers that, and HTML5 is far from reaching the point in which it can deliver anything similar.

Now, why does Xbox matter for Microsoft? It matters as it has high levels of developer support at the Triple A tier â€" think ‘Gears of War’ and that sort of game. Xbox has a subscription revenue system that is a key part, and has been a critical antecedent to its new services strategy. And, finally, Xbox allows Microsoft to offer music and video to a family across quite literally all their devices.

If Microsoft were to sell off or spin off or otherwise cut ties with Xbox, which, by the way, makes utterly no sense under the current reorganized structure â€" it would cede the living room to third parties. The company is not willing to do that. Just as it was not willing to fail in search, or mobile.

â€"

So the financial upside of the deal isn’t large enough for Microsoft to particularly care, especially given its ample â€" if mostly foreign â€" cash reserves. And the exit of Xbox would tear at the fabric of its company-wide plan to unite all screens under the Windows flag.

Sacrifice the end-game of Windows for the potential of a few billion in shareholder equity? No.

Top Image Credit: Marco Verch


April 4, 1974

NASDAQ:MSFT

Microsoft, founded in 1975 by Bill Gates and Paul Allen, is a veteran software company, best known for its Microsoft Windows operating system and the Microsoft Office suite of productivity software. Starting in 1980 Microsoft formed a partnership with IBM allowing Microsoft to sell its software package with the computers IBM manufactured. Microsoft is widely used by professionals worldwide and largely dominates the American corporate market. Additionally, the company has ventured into hardware with consumer products such as the Zune and...

â†' Learn more

Thursday, November 21, 2013

How Plain Vanilla Games, Maker Of Hit App QuizUp, Took Two Years To Create An Overnight Success

Stop me if you’ve heard this story before: A mobile game studio toils in obscurity for several years creating apps that no one seems to care about, and then one day it introduces its new project to the world… and it becomes an instant hit.

That description could be applied to Rovio’s Angry Birds and OMGPOP’s Draw Something. And it could also be applied to QuizUp, the hot new game from Icelandic game studio Plain Vanilla, which recently added a top-shelf investor, Sequoia, as part of a $2 million extension to its Series A round of funding.

For those not familiar, QuizUp is the hottest new mobile game out there. Since being launched on November 7, the game has signed up more than 1.5 million users, who have played more than 70 million matches over the past 10 days.

As a result, QuizUp has spent the past week in the #1 spot on the Apple App Store, and it’s received rave reviews from users, with a 4.5 star rating over more than 4,500 reviews. Not surprisingly, users are highly engaged, spending 40 minutes a day on average in the app.

How QuizUp Was Born

But Plain Vanilla isn’t new to the whole mobile app scene â€" it’s been around for the last three years, originally releasing a game for pre-schoolers called The Moogies. Once that game launched it was highlighted in the App Store, but as my colleague Greg Kumparak reported, once the App Store moved on it failed to generate any new interest, and Plain Vanilla was forced to either raise money or shut down.

So the team went to Silicon Valley, raised a $1 million seed round, and began development on a new product. CEO Thor Fridriksson told me in an interview that at that time â€" about a year and a half ago â€" the company was focused on building a platform that would be a hybrid between quiz games and a social network. Now back in Iceland, Plain Vanilla hired the staff it needed to get that project off the ground.

After building a few individual subject-oriented “QuizUps,” the company hit paydirt by partnering with Lionsgate to create a branded quiz game for fans of the Twilight film series. Riding on the Twilight brand, that app became hugely successful with young teens and others who are too into sparkly vampires, but it put Plain Vanilla on the map.

Making Quiz Games Asynchronous

So the team came back to Silicon Valley and raised another $2.4 million from investors that include Greycroft Partners, IDG Ventures, Tencent, BOLDstart Ventures, CrunchFund, and MESA+. Armed with that cash, Plain Vanilla was ready to begin work on its most ambitious project yet, which would use the same game mechanics as Twilight QuizUp, but would allow users to compete against anyone virtually in trivia matches about virtually anything.

Like Draw Something before it, QuizUp is all about two-person, asynchronous multiplayer competition. While users can challenge complete strangers in real-time, the more interesting game dynamic comes when you challenge another player who may not be online at the same time.

You answer a series of trivia questions, and are awarded points based on whether they’re correct and how quickly you answer them. And, when the person you challenge shows up, they are given points based on the same scale. The whole thing allows users to build trivia matches whenever one or both players has time, making trivia gaming snackable for the first time.

It also enabled users with various interests and areas of expertise to compete. With about 300 different categories and 200,000 questions, it caters to virtually any trivia fan, which is probably one of the reasons that it grew so quickly.

The Sequoia Connection

It’s always interesting to watch a mobile app team catch lightning in a bottle, but there was some evidence that it would do well even before it made it to the Apple App Store. While still in beta, Plain Vanilla began to see a number of so-called Silicon Valley influencers using the app â€" including what seemed like the entire Sequoia Capital partnership.

GX8A0738

Sequoia ended up calling Plain Vanilla a week before launch and offering to invest, leading a $2 million extension of its Series A round. Also in that round was e.Ventures, led by co-founder and managing partner Mathias Schilling.

For Sequoia, Fridriksson and company worked with Roelof Botha, who has become famous for his ability to pick social network winners like YouTube, Tumblr, and Instagram. Paperwork was quickly filed, and the company was wired the money on the day of launch, not knowing what to expect from users.

Getting Botha interested was a major coup for the startup â€" “He’s a big trivia lover and one of the smartest guys I’ve met,” Fridriksson told me â€" but the company had no idea that a few days later it would find itself at the top of the App Store charts.

“We looked at this as a risk mitigation thing,” Fridriksson said. In retrospect, if it had just waited a week or more, it might have been able to raise a lot more money, or on better terms. That said, the company isn’t too worried about that right now. Instead, it’s more concerned with keeping its servers running and hiring more employees to build out the product.

Today it has 20 employees, most of which are still in Iceland â€" although the company still has sales and business development offices in New York City and San Francisco. But it’s looking to add a few more folks, thanks to its new funding and newfound success.

Stay tuned.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

The Lean Hardware Startup: From Prototype To Production

Editor’s note: Cyril Ebersweiler is the founder of the pioneering hardware startup accelerator HAXLR8R (which is now looking for applicants) and Partner at SOSVentures. Benjamin Joffe is an expert on startup ecosystems, angel investor and Advisor at HAXLR8R. Both invest in companies around the world and spent over a decade in China and Japan. This is Part 1 of a series. 

If the printing press was about “anyone can read,” the web about “anyone can write,” the hardware ecosystem changed enough to say today “anyone can build.” This idea â€" that anyone can build â€" is the cornerstone of the new “lean hardware startup.”

Yet, despite successes like Square, Jawbone, and Fitbit, hardware startups continue to look daunting to entrepreneurs and investors alike. As investors in over 30 of them through our hardware-focused accelerator HAXLR8R (and in a number of startups outside HAXLR8R, too), we would like to share some ideas on how the landscape has changed for hardware entrepreneurs, and how it is now possible to be “lean” in hardware, too.
leanhw5

The first challenge for hardware entrepreneurs is to get from your first prototype with 3D-printed parts, duct tape and cardboard to production-ready.

Steve Blank, a key inspiration in the Lean Startup movement, famously said “No business plan survives contact with the customer.” If you’re doing hardware the lean way, “No hardware plan survives contact with a factory” should be your mantra.

Design with the right components

Hardware often starts with a “bag of parts.” This won’t cut its time to hit the factory. Non-standard components make it nearly impossible to manufacture on a larger scale. If you don’t want to be doing all the assembly work by hand with your friends in the style of Steve-Jobs-the-movie, you’d better look for the right parts as soon as possible.

A prototype is ready when it can be manufactured
leanhw6
You got the right components? Great. But you’re not quite done yet: if your prototype can’t be made or even assembled, you’re toast. Luckily, factories often know better what can or cannot be done and can help you figure it out.

Of course, it works much better if you can be on site frequently to discuss it with the people actually doing the work rather than send long emails with specifications. You can thus iterate on the design of your prototype much faster.

Many of our startups saw the design of their products evolve, the sous-vide machine Nomiku is probably one whose changes were the most radical between the moment they joined HAXLR8R and the moment they went into production (read their story here on TC).
leanhw8
Manufacturing ability is one thing but costs are often a determining factor. A quote from Alibaba is not a reliable estimate nor is asking for “Apple quality” for half the price of a reasonable request to a factory. Avoid being overcharged or being laughed at by getting a better sense of your bill of materials and the manufacturing process.

Your factory is your most important partner

Okay so you have the right components and you know your product can be made and assembled. Are you going to select the factory and handle the relationship yourself?

It’s easy to make excuses for this one: it’s complicated, it’s in China (or Mexico, or elsewhere), you don’t speak the language, it takes time.… And where to start? Overall, it is scary.
leanhw9
As a result, it is tempting to bring in a third party to handle the relationship with factories. Beyond reducing your margins, the problem is that those companies essentially end up doing both audit and consulting. You know the result of this.

You can’t do hardware for long not knowing anything about manufacturing. So while you might need advice to get started, there is an expertise in project management and quality control you need to grow to succeed in the long term. And if you still have doubts: all the startups that went through HAXLR8R learned how to do it, and so can you. It might be worth noting that our 30 startups work with 30 different factories, to suit their needs best. To each his own!

Be Memorable
Good products have good technology and design, but also good distribution and good branding. Can your brand encompass your values, mission, product and be memorable in many languages?

As an example, Axio, a company doing wearable tech for your brain and part of the second batch at HAXLR8R, did a thorough rebranding to Melon, revisiting entirely its name, logo, approach, app and look and feel.

Pick the right business model(s)

Pure hardware is at risk of being commoditized fast, and many products now include “smart” connectivity and a service layer. Doing hardware-as-a-service means that picking the right business model is very important.

At HAXLR8R, Spark started off by making open source hardware and software, then a device-based subscription and then licensed both hardware and software. More recently, Vibease, the wearable smart vibrator, added sales of the content of a library of audio recordings to its revenue models.

Changes in the ecosystem have made it much more possible to start hardware companies at a much lower starting cost. Expect to see many new successful hardware startups, as “smart” products gradually come to replace the objects in our life!

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Right-Of-Publicity Claims And Their Impact On The Gaming Industry

Editor’s note: Sid Venkatesan and Gabriel Ramsey are IP partners specializing in disputes for internet and entertainment companies in the Silicon Valley office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. Randy Wu is a law clerk in Orrick’s IP group and a recent graduate of Stanford Law School. This column reflects the authors’ personal views on the topic; it does not constitute legal advice and does not represent the views of Orrick or its clients.

On November 8, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken partially ruled in favor of a class of former Division I college athletes in finding that their antitrust claim for an injunction against the NCAA could proceed as a class action. The players seek an injunction that, if granted, would limit the NCAA’s ability to license the players’ names, images and likenesses in various for-profit endeavors, including licensing to video-game makers.

This ruling is the latest development in a long-running dispute that originally began between the former players and both the NCAA, Electronic Arts, and a licensing entity. In late September of this year, EA exited the dispute via a highly publicized settlement with the former players that has led to EA dropping the NCAA Football franchise. The settlement followed decisions by two federal appellate courts that suggested that EA faced legal exposure from the use of the former players’ likenesses in the game.

Obviously, these cases will have significant impacts on the NCAA and EA. But the broader issue, and one that has significant implications for game developers beyond EA, is the uncertainty behind how courts will resolve right-of-publicity claims. Right-of-publicity disputes involving video game makers have popped up regularly over the years, affecting games that render realistic settings or even games that involve fantastical settings but import characters developed using real-world inspirations in their game.

This is an issue that affects large developers that have the budget to render lavish and realistic seeming worlds and even indies that now have the tools to render realistic games. Right-of-publicity issues may also impact developers that use purely hand-drawn fantasy worlds that include characters that draw inspiration from real-world personalities.

In addition, developers of MMO and similar games that involve significant use of user-generated content will face continued uncertainty and legal risk from real-world individuals that assert that user-generated avatars violate their rights of publicity.

The EA Disputes And The “Transformative Use” Test

EA was sued in the NCAA litigation due to its alleged unauthorized use of player likenesses in the NCAA Football series. The former players alleged that the EA’s use of their likenesses was unauthorized, since the NCAA’s licensing practice allegedly violated antitrust law, and therefore was a violation of their “right to publicity.” Specifically, EA was sued by former players in New Jersey and California who claimed that NCAA Football’s use of the players’ biographies, stats, and playing characteristics violated the players’ rights of publicity.

EA’s core defense before it settled was that its video game’s use of player likenesses was protected because it was a “transformative use” of the likeness, and therefore protected First Amendment speech. The transformative use test was created by a court in California and has since been followed by the Third Circuit (covering Pennsylvania, New Jersey and other mid-Atlantic states) and Ninth Circuit (covering the west coast and other western states) as a way to balance individual personage rights against the right of others to create new expression.

EA’s transformative-use argument was ultimately rejected by appellate courts because:

  • Similarity of NCAA Football’s avatars to real football players. NCAA Football offers a roster of digital college football players that closely resemble the real ones. Although the digital avatars do not take on real players’ names, they match real players in height, weight, build, skin tone, hair color, and other physical characteristics. They also have matching personal details such as home state/town, jersey number, class year, and play statistics.
  • Realism of NCAA Football’s gaming environment. In NCAA Football, virtual players do exactly what real players do â€" play college football in digital recreations of actual college stadiums filled with realistic cheerleaders, mascots and fans. Therefore, the courts said that the game environment did not significantly “transform” the identities of the real football players depicted in the game. EA pointed to the fact that there were other game modes that did not involve using historical players at all, but the courts ignored these other game modes.
  • NCAA Football’s player customization feature was probably not being used. EA argued that the extensive character-customization features made the use of real-life likenesses optional, but the courts again disagreed. The courts reasoned that most players would, at most, make minor variations to real-life players.

There were significant dissents in both the Third and Ninth Circuit cases. The dissenting judges believed that the realism in the NCAA Football series showed heightened creativity, since gamers were buying the game for the realistic playing experience provided by game developers. The NCAA has asked the Supreme Court to take this dispute up and to set uniform rules regarding the scope of right-of-publicity liability.

Implications For Video-Game Makers

The EA publicity cases have firmed up the basic rules of the road for right-of-publicity claims in the Third and Ninth Circuits: The more true the use of a celebrity is in a game to the actual context that the celebrity is known for and the more central the celebrity likeness is to the game, the greater the legal risk.

However, these guidelines are not absolute. The “transformative use” test adopted by the Third and Ninth Circuit is a multifactor test and is very fact-specific. Thus, the EA case does not provide clear guidance for non-football video games involving realistic settings. Further, as the NCAA has noted, other judicial circuits use different tests to resolve right-of-publicity challenges.

gavel1Additionally, this will not be the end of video-game right-of-publicity litigation. Video games are a fertile ground for such litigation. Just two years ago, in the No Doubt v. Activision case, the band No Doubt prevailed on a right-of-publicity claim against Activision from the unauthorized use of No Doubt as game characters in the game Band Hero. And seven years ago a court rejected musician Kierin Kirby’s (of Deee-Lite fame, which produced the hit 80s song “Groove is in the Heart”) right-of-publicity claim that Sega misappropriated her likeness and signature phrases, though the game character and setting in the game at issue was far more fantastical than the NCAA Football environment.

We can expect that right-of-publicity cases will continue to pop up as gaming technology permits more and more realistic renderings of characters and environments. In fact, a recent flare-up occurred in the Sony/Quantic Dream production of Beyond: Two Souls, in which a 3D nude rendered version of the Ellen Page game character was leaked from a debug pre-release version of the game. Though the 3D-rendered character is a computer recreation of Ms. Page (rather than a digitized photo of her), one can expect that right-of-publicity legal issues will be at play in any fallout that may occur.

This controversy shows that video game makers will continue to face uncertainty as the legal rules regarding right to publicity claims sort themselves out and as developers push the envelope in rendering realistic game settings. Beyond: Two Souls reportedly has a $27 million budget, but that does not mean this is a large developer problem. Even indie developers now have the tools to render real-world environments, and thus need to take care as to the creative choices they make regarding in-game characters.

Moreover, developers that are not rendering real-world 3D environments still need to take care of right publicity issues, as these issues may arise in fantasy environments that include characters bearing real-life likenesses (such as in the Kirby v. Sega case). Thus, right-of-publicity issues will remain on the front burner: Video games will undoubtedly get much more realistic and immersive, as game developers take advantage of the processing available on the Xbox One and PS 4 platforms set to hit the shelves this month.

Another area of legal risk comes up in the context of user-generated content, for example, through the use of realistic avatars in Massive Multiplayer Online games. Again, new technology has made it increasingly easy to project anyone’s detailed likeness into the digital world. For example, Microsoft has announced that the upcoming Kinect Sports Rivals has a “likeness capture” feature uses a new Kinect sensor to perform a detailed scan of a person’s face and body, allowing anyone to create a highly realistic three-dimensional digital avatar.

It may not be long before gamers are recreating photorealistic celebrity likenesses and controlling avatars bearing these likenesses in realistic game environments. The Ninth Circuit EA case found that a customization tool did not shield a developer from liability when the developer rendered a real-world likeness. A different court may find a developer liable where it knows that users are using sophisticated character customization tools to do the same.

Thus, this scenario could possibly lead to a right-of-publicity lawsuit against the player and/or game company under current law. The outcome is murky, to say the least, as courts have yet to apply the transformative use test in an MMO setting or to user-generated content. These games may contain the ingredients for the next wave of right-of-publicity cases.