l
l
blogger better. Powered by Blogger.

Search

Labels

blogger better

Followers

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews

Labels

Download

Blogroll

Featured 1

Curabitur et lectus vitae purus tincidunt laoreet sit amet ac ipsum. Proin tincidunt mattis nisi a scelerisque. Aliquam placerat dapibus eros non ullamcorper. Integer interdum ullamcorper venenatis. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas.

Featured 2

Curabitur et lectus vitae purus tincidunt laoreet sit amet ac ipsum. Proin tincidunt mattis nisi a scelerisque. Aliquam placerat dapibus eros non ullamcorper. Integer interdum ullamcorper venenatis. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas.

Featured 3

Curabitur et lectus vitae purus tincidunt laoreet sit amet ac ipsum. Proin tincidunt mattis nisi a scelerisque. Aliquam placerat dapibus eros non ullamcorper. Integer interdum ullamcorper venenatis. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas.

Featured 4

Curabitur et lectus vitae purus tincidunt laoreet sit amet ac ipsum. Proin tincidunt mattis nisi a scelerisque. Aliquam placerat dapibus eros non ullamcorper. Integer interdum ullamcorper venenatis. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas.

Featured 5

Curabitur et lectus vitae purus tincidunt laoreet sit amet ac ipsum. Proin tincidunt mattis nisi a scelerisque. Aliquam placerat dapibus eros non ullamcorper. Integer interdum ullamcorper venenatis. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas.

Saturday, February 8, 2020

‘A city where you can pilot almost anything and figure out if it’s going to work’

As founding executive director of Tech:NYC, Julie Samuels is one of the state’s most prominent advocates for the tech sector, both in Albany and at City Hall.

Samuels, a lawyer by training, came to New York after serving as executive director of Engine, a San Francisco organization on which Tech:NYC is modeled. In an interview with TechCrunch, Samuels spoke about several issues, including her rationale for why, despite the controversy over Amazon’s decision not to build its second headquarters in Queens, the area is well-positioned for the next wave of tech innovation.

TechCrunch: What is the need for organizations like Tech:NYC and Engine?

Julie Samuels: As the tech industry matures, it is incredibly important that there are organizations [that] represent these companies politically, civically, making sure they have a seat at the table with so many public policy debates. There is no shortage of public policy debates surrounding technology.

It is also incredibly important that there are organizations who are talking from the viewpoint of smaller companies and startups. There are a lot of organizations that represent the biggest and most well-known companies, including Tech:NYC. But [we] also have hundreds of members who are small and growing startups. We think that diversity of the ecosystem is what really sets the technology sector apart and it is something we want to foster and celebrate.

Who are your members, then?



https://ift.tt/eA8V8J ‘A city where you can pilot almost anything and figure out if it’s going to work’ https://ift.tt/2OFqhUm

Facebook has acquired Scape Technologies, the London-based computer vision startup

Scape Technologies, the London-based computer vision startup working on location accuracy beyond the capabilities of GPS, has been acquired by Facebook, according to a regulatory filing.

Full terms of the deal remain as yet unknown, although a Companies House update reveals that Facebook Inc. now has majority control of the company (more than 75%). However by looking at other filings, including a recent share issue, I understand the price could be about $40 million.

Further filings show that Scape’s previous venture capital representatives have resigned from the Scape board and are replaced by two Facebook executives.

Scape’s backers included Entrepreneur First (EF) — the startup is an alumni of the company builder program — along with LocalGlobe, Mosaic Ventures, and Fly Ventures.

Noteworthy is that EF and Fly Ventures have both already had a joint exit to Facebook of sorts, when Bloomsbury AI was acqui-hired by the social networking behemoth (a story that I also broke).

Founded in 2017, Scape Technologies was developing a “Visual Positioning Service” based on computer vision which lets developers build apps that require location accuracy far beyond the capabilities of GPS alone.

The technology initially targeted augmented reality apps, but also had the potential to be used to power applications in mobility, logistics and robotics. More broadly, Scape wanted to enable any machine equipped with a camera to understand its surroundings.

Scape CEO and co-fonder CEO Edward Miller previously described Scape’s “Vision Engine” as a large-scale mapping pipeline that creates 3D maps from ordinary images and video. Camera devices can then query the Vision Engine using the startup’s “Visual Positioning Service” API to determine their exact location with far greater precision than GPS can ever provide. The Visual Positioning Service was made available to select developers via Scape’s SDK.

Meanwhile the acquisition by Facebook, no matter what form it takes, looks like a good fit given the U.S. company’s investment in next generation platforms, including VR and AR. It is also another — perhaps, worrying — example of U.S. tech companies hoovering up U.K. machine learning and AI talent early.

More to follow as and when I learn more.



https://ift.tt/eA8V8J Facebook has acquired Scape Technologies, the London-based computer vision startup https://ift.tt/378ZFl5

Friday, February 7, 2020

3 unicorn takeaways from the Casper and One Medical IPOs

With Casper’s public offering earlier this week, we’ve closed the book on the first two venture-backed IPOs of note in 2020. Casper, joined by One Medical, carried over $870 million of private capital, venture and otherwise, across the finish line.

Even though each IPO featured an unprofitable tech-enabled business that had posted sub-30% growth and gross margins under 50% (far more, in the case of One Medical), they wound up miles apart in terms of their market reception and resulting valuation, measured in revenue multiples terms.

So what can we learn from the two IPOs as we look ahead to other unicorn debuts in 2020? A great number of things that help set the stage for the rest of 2020’s IPO class. Let’s discuss three observations that stick out the most.

Tech-enabled businesses can secure high-flying valuations in public offerings

The surprise of the year so far has been the public market’s reaction to One Medical’s IPO. The company, today worth $3.13 billion, is trading at 11.3x times the top end of its 2019 revenue projections (the company has yet to close the books on its Q4 accounting).



https://ift.tt/eA8V8J 3 unicorn takeaways from the Casper and One Medical IPOs https://ift.tt/2Oz41f6

Senators attempt to force Twitter to ban Iranian leadership

Four Senators, including Ted Cruz (R-TX), have asserted that, as a consequence of sanctions placed on Iran, Twitter must cease providing its services to Ayatollah Khamenei and other leaders in the country. “The Ayatollah enjoys zero protection from the United States Bill of Rights,” he wrote in a letter to the company.

Although the move comes as relations between Iran and the U.S. grow ever more strained following a series of violent incidents connected with the country, it is also clearly an attempt to exert executive power over tech companies that have resisted the yoke of federal regulation.

In a letter (PDF) sent to Twitter, the U.S. Attorney for Northern California, and others, the Senators explained the rationale for their demand. The Obama administration created rules in 2014 that specifically made an exception to export rules allowing free messaging and social media type services to be offered to Iranians. The idea being that, though Twitter and many other such apps are mostly banned in Iran, it could not hurt to offer tools for free expression and communication to its citizens.

But there are exceptions even to exceptions, and this is what Cruz et al. claim now apply to Twitter. Specifically, they say that following Trump’s executive order in June imposing additional sanctions on Iran, the Khamenei and foreign minister Javad Zarif have lost the protection the law previously offered.

“All Americans — including you and Twitter — are prohibited from ‘the making of any contribution of provision of…goods[] or services’ to them,” the letter reads. “While the First Amendment protects the free speech rights of Americans… the Ayatollah and any American companies providing him assistance are entirely subject to U.S. sanctions laws.”

Not being an expert in import/export law myself, I can’t judge the merits of this argument, though on its face it seems sound. But it may not be a question of whether Twitter can or can’t “offer services” to persons blacklisted by the federal government. There is the possibility that Twitter choosing to offer the use of its platform to others is itself a protected act of Free Speech.

After all, the White House could just as easily have issued an E.O. blacklisting the leaders of the countries subject to the travel ban. Should that be a possibility? Is it the right of a U.S. company to extend its platform for free speech to anyone in the world, regardless of their legal status in the eyes of the government?

Senators Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn (, Tom Cotton (R-AR), Marsha Blackburn (R-MS), and Marco Rubio (R-NJ) think otherwise. It is unlikely Twitter will simply let the matter rest. I have contacted the company for comment and will update this post if I hear back.



from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/eA8V8J Senators attempt to force Twitter to ban Iranian leadership Devin Coldewey https://ift.tt/2ve3Y1r
via IFTTT

Our.News fights misinformation with a ‘nutrition label’ for news stories

A startup called Our.News is working to make its users smarter consumers of the news.

In other words, it’s confronting some big, seemingly intractable problems. For one thing, there’s a tremendous amount of disinformation online — as Our.News founder and CEO Richard Zack put it, “Unfortunately, you have thousands of people all over the world who intentionally make it hard for people to know what’s true.

At the same time, many people don’t trust the media and don’t trust fact-checkers. (Also, facts don’t actually change people’s minds.)

All of this adds up to an environment where no one is quite sure what to believe, or they simply accept the stories that reinforce their existing beliefs.

“You can’t fight misinformation by telling people what’s true, because they don’t believe it,” Zack said. His solution? Something that he described as a “nutrition label for news”: “It doesn’t tell you it’s good or bad, it doesn’t say buy it or don’t buy it, it leaves the buying decision in the hands of the consumers.”

In some ways, the approach is similar to NewsGuard, which rates online news sources. In fact, Zack said, “We really support NewsGuard and what they’re doing.” Still, he suggested that evaluating publishers isn’t enough, which is why Our.News provides labels for individual articles — he compared it to “trying to choose between Lucky Charms and Cheerios,” where it’s not to know that both cereals are manufactured by General Mills.

To put it another way, you don’t want to just accept what a publisher tells you. Even the best publisher can make mistakes, so you also want to understand what claims they’re making, what their sources are and whether those claims have been vetted by independent fact checkers.

Our.News screenshot

An Our.News label is accessible through Firefox and Chrome browser extensions, as well as an iOS app. The label includes publisher descriptions from Freedom Forum, along with bias ratings from AllSides; information about an article’s sources, author and editor; fact-checking information from sources like Politifact, Snopes and FactCheck.org; labels like “clickbait” or “satire”; and user ratings and reviews.

Zack said Our.News has created around 600,000 labels to date, generating about 5,000 new ones every day. Of course, there’s still a good chance that the article you’re reading won’t have a label, but if that’s the case, Our.News might still be able to show you publisher information, and users can also click a button to add the article into the system.

“We’ve intentionally combined objective facts [about the article] with subjective views,” Zack added. “We think that’s the solution … If you go purely subjective, then it’s just a popularity contest. If it’s just objective, then who’s the determiner of truth? We’re mixing the two together, condensing it all into the nutrition label, so news consumers can more quickly make their own decision.”

He also acknowledged that different users will treat the labels in different ways. Some, for example, may still not trust the fact-checkers, but even then, Zack argued that there’s still value in giving them a way to provide feedback to publishers in a way that’s more structured than a regular comments section.

He also noted that user ratings will be weighted based on their interaction with the label — if you skip the publisher information, skip the sources and skip the fact-checking, then your rating won’t be worth as much someone else who carefully considered all of that information.

In addition to its current, consumer-focused distribution, Our.News just launched a way for publishers and other businesses to incorporate its labels. Zack said this could be used by “news publishers, content aggregators, social networks, anywhere that’s displaying articles.” (This is also how he plans to make money.)

The hope is that Our.News partners can use these labels to make readers more comfortable trusting their content, and to collect feedback from those readers. There will be some degree of customization available, but Zack emphasized that publishers won’t be able to change the actual content of the labels.



https://ift.tt/2vdpm6O Our.News fights misinformation with a ‘nutrition label’ for news stories https://ift.tt/2v9X90T

AssoConnect is a service that helps you manage your nonprofit organization

Meet AssoConnect, a French startup that is building a software-as-a-service application to give you all the tools you need to manage your non-profit organization (association in French).

The company just raised a $7.7 million (€7 million) funding round with XAnge and ISAI leading the round. Various business angels, such as Nicolas Macquin, Rodolphe Carle, Michaël Benabou, Thibaud Elzière and Phil Tesler are also participating in today’s funding round.

Many non-profit organizations use tools and services that aren’t really designed for this type of organizations. Some manage members in an Excel spreadsheet, waste a ton of time with accounting tasks and leave money on the table by making it hard to accept donations and memberships.

AssoConnect combines multiple services in its web interface. First, it lets you centralize information about your members in a single database. It acts as a light CRM and you can create multiple groups of members depending on what they do in the organization.

Second, AssoConnect handles memberships and donations directly. You can create a form that interacts directly with your database to help new users join your organization. You can also create a donation module that can automatically generate tax forms. You can also create an online store if you’re selling goods.

If you don’t have a website already, you can use AssoConnect’s template-based website builder. You can also create events and email your members from AssoConnect using Mailgun.

Finally, the startup tries to generate accurate accounting reports based on donations, membership fees, ticket sales, etc. That’s why it makes sense to centralize everything through AssoConnect.

The service offers a free tier for organizations with 30 members or less. But you’ll have to pay a monthly subscription fee if you have higher needs. It’s a tough sell given that non-profit organizations usually don’t have a ton of money to spend on tools and services.

But the company has managed to convince 10,000 French organizations to switch to AssoConnect so far. Up next, AssoConnect wants to hire 80 people in 2020 and launch its service in the U.S.



https://ift.tt/eA8V8J AssoConnect is a service that helps you manage your nonprofit organization https://ift.tt/2UxTUuF

What to expect when pitching European VCs

Fundraising is the single most important thing you can do for your business, but I know very few founders who enjoy the process.

It’s inherently stressful: you’re running out of capital, which is why you’re trying to get more of it. There’s also no clear roadmap to getting funding and almost every company goes through the process differently. I’ve talked a lot about what makes a successful early-stage pitch deck and what you can expect when you’re trying to close a funding round. But do those same best practices still apply when you’re fundraising outside of the United States?

Before we continue, the research project that we’ve completed is opt-in, and we don’t look at anyone’s data without their express permission. We take privacy very seriously, but we also work with an amazing group of founders who are willing to pass on what they’ve learned to the next generation of founders going through the process. If you want to be included in our next round of research, you can find the survey links at the bottom of this blog post.

So what can you expect while sending your pitch deck out to European VCs?

Have a 9-12 month runway

When DocSend conducted this study previously, we found that the average length of a Series seed or pre-seed was about 11-15 weeks. In fact, according to our research, if you’re in the United States and you’re sending your pitch deck to investors, you can expect about 50 percent of your views to come in just the first nine days. You’ll also hit 75 percent of your visits in just over a month, which is very much in line with the 11-15 week average window.

However, when we look outside of the U.S., the numbers change dramatically.

Sending out your pitch deck in Europe, you can expect to wait over two weeks (15 days) for the first 50 percent of your visits. And you’ll likely wait nearly two months (53 days) for 75 percent of your visits. There are a lot of reasons for the discrepancies. It could be that your potential investors are more spread out. We also don’t see the same level of urgency in EU funding rounds as we often see in the U.S. No matter the reason, you’re going to want to have enough runway to survive the fundraising gauntlet in your region. While I usually recommend having at least six months in the bank, you may want to look at having 9-12 months of runway so you’re not desperate by the end of your fundraising round.

However, your round speed will most likely vary depending on the type of company you are. There has been a trend in recent years of U.S. investors looking to make deals with European startups. We also know American investors are looking for 100x companies to make solid returns for their funds. There are only so many 100x-type companies in the U.S you can invest in, but Europe is an emerging market. But American VCs have a different pace and rounds for hot startups can last weeks, not months. So if you think you have a unicorn in the making (and are comfortable with a more aggressive growth plan and the burn rate that goes with it), you can use U.S. investors to help create a sense of urgency. But even if that’s your plan, I would still recommend having a healthy runway to get you through in case the round doesn’t go as you expect.

VCs are likely to spend more time on your deck — you should too

A clear indicator of VC interest is the amount of time they spend reading your deck before they request a meeting. Knowing how long they spend reading your deck and what pages they stop on (which isn’t necessarily a good thing) can help you gauge VC interest.

We’ve seen an interesting trend in Europe over the last few years. The average amount of time VCs are spending reading a deck has increased and not by a small amount. We’ve seen an increase of more than 20 seconds between 2018 and now, even while the length of the standard fundraising deck has stayed stable. It’s still within the industry average (both in and outside of the U.S.) of 19-20 pages. With page length staying stable, that extra time on a deck means VCs are willing to spend more time assessing an investment.

If you know your slides will be scrutinized, make sure you have content in each of the key sections VCs expect to see in your deck. Be very clear with the goal for each page and don’t include too much information. If your page is describing the problem your company is solving, you don’t need to add in your market size and the traction you’ve already gotten. Remember, the pitch deck is just there to get you the meeting; you don’t need to include every detail about your business. Your goal is to build an understandable narrative that will make a VC want to know more.

You could face more competition for European VCs’ attention

Investments are heating up outside of the U.S.

With fund sizes increasing, especially in the earlier rounds, there’s more money being invested. But with the continual focus on unicorns, that money is being concentrated in fewer companies. In fact, in the U.S., we’ve seen the number of decks with six or more views drop by nearly a full percentage point from 2018 to 2019. But the trend is the opposite in Europe. The number of pitch decks that are being viewed six or more times is actually on the rise.

We’ve also seen the number of pitch decks being viewed only once drop outside of the U.S. by 1.2 percent. This could be due to several factors. The number of VC firms in Europe viewing decks has grown by 56 percent on our platform in the last year. In the U.S., it’s only grown by 35 percent since 2018. Having more active VCs means there are more opportunities to pitch your company. But with a decrease in pitch decks that aren’t getting any action, it could be that the quality of startups is increasing, so VCs are saturated with opportunities. With well over 250 accelerators in Europe, it isn’t hard to imagine that with more and more resources available, startups are further along when looking for that initial investment than they were just a few years ago.

Takeaways

Raising a funding round is completely different in Europe than it is in the U.S.

Investors in Europe aren’t in a rush to view your deck, but when they do, they will likely spend more time reading it through and considering it. Combine that with the fact that the number of highly-viewed decks is increasing, and you have the makings for a long and potentially arduous round pitching to VCs who have multiple good investments on offer.

If your business will support a more aggressive growth plan and investment, it may be worth it to court outside investment. But if you’d like to play it safe, aiming for a U.S. VC may be a waste of time.



https://ift.tt/eA8V8J What to expect when pitching European VCs https://ift.tt/2vi8T15

New Early Stage speakers to tackle growth marketing, media strategy and M&A

In a little less than three months, TechCrunch will bring its Early Stage event to SF for the very first time. Early Stage is meant to bring together more than 50 experts across startup core competencies, from funding to marketing to operation.

Today, I’m pleased to announce another four experts being added to the agenda. We’re thrilled to be joined by Priti Youssef Choksi, Brooke Hammerling, Ethan Smith and Susan Su.


Priti Youssef Choksi

Choksi is a partner on the Norwest Venture Partners consumer internet team. Before joining Norwest, she spent nine years in executive roles at Facebook around corporate and business development, leading the company’s M&A efforts. Before Facebook, Choksi spent six years at Google in strategic partnership roles. She was one of the people responsible for setting up the search partnerships with Apple and Mozilla, with top-line revenue from these deals growing from $0 to $4 billion on her watch.

How To Get Your Company Acquired, Not Sold

Learn how to think about M&A as a possible exit opportunity from a former Facebook corporate development executive turned investor. Understand what acquirers are looking for and what questions you should be asking. Create optionality for yourself as you build and grow your company.


Brooke Hammerling

Brooke Hammerling is the founder of The New New Thing, a strategic communications advisory that works with founders to shape the brand narrative. She also founded Brew Media Relations, which was acquired by Freuds in 2016 for a reported $15 million. She has 20 years of experience in the communications field, with a focus on authenticity and relationships at the core of her business. Brands she’s worked with include Live Nation, Framebridge, Refinery 29, Sonos, Splice, GroupMe, Eko and Oracle.

How To Tell The Story Between The Stories

The news never sleeps. Hear from communications veteran Brooke Hammerling, founder of Brew PR and The New New Thing, about how to build a narrative that isn’t driven by press releases and announcements.


Ethan Smith

Ethan Smith is the founder and CEO of Graphite, an SEO and growth marketing agency based out of San Francisco. He’s served as a strategic advisor to Ticketmaster, MasterClass, Thumbtack and Honey. Before Graphite, Smith held several executive roles in product management and marketing, and has been tapped by organizations like VenturebBeat, MarketWatch and INC to speak and write about SEO and growth marketing.

How To Build A High-Performance SEO Engine

Hear from Ethan Smith, who has worked with brands like MasterClass, Ticketmaster and Thumbtack, as he shares some of the most effective modern SEO strategies. Starting with a deep understanding of the user and their intent, the most successful modern SEO strategies focus on building a data-driven approach to drive user experience, content and conversion to ultimately beat the competition.


Susan Su

Susan Su is a startup growth advisor and EIR at Sound Ventures. Su has led startup growth at Stripe, served as an in-house growth advisor at 500 startups and led the growth marketing as a founding team member at Reforge. After a career that spanned both product and marketing, Su has combined the two to take advantage of the rise of scaled distribution platforms.

Minimum Viable Email

Love it or hate it, email is here to stay. But understanding where it fits into the conversion funnel, and how to maximize its impact, can be arduous. Learn from Sound Ventures advisor and EIR Susan Su how to optimize open rates, deliverability, unsubscribes and conversions for consumer and enterprise products alike.


There will be about 50+ breakout sessions at the show, and attendees will have an opportunity to attend at least seven. The sessions will cover all the core topics confronting early-stage founders — up through Series A — as they build a company, from raising capital to building a team to growth. Each breakout session will be led by notables in the startup world on par with the folks we’ve announced today.

Don’t worry about missing a breakout session, because transcripts from each will be available to show attendees. And most of the folks leading the breakout sessions have agreed to hang at the show for at least half the day and participate in CrunchMatch, TechCrunch’s great app to connect founders and investors based on shared interests.

Here’s the fine print. Each of the 50+ breakout sessions is limited to around 100 attendees. We expect a lot more attendees, of course, so signups for each session are on a first-come, first-serve basis. Buy your ticket today and you can sign up for the breakouts we are announcing today. Pass holders will also receive 24-hour advance notice before we announce the next batch. (And yes, you can “drop” a breakout session in favor of a new one, in the event there is a schedule conflict.)

We’re absolutely thrilled for this event, and we hope you are, too. Buy a pass to Early Stage SF 2020 right here!

Interested in sponsoring Early Stage? Hit us up here.



https://ift.tt/eA8V8J New Early Stage speakers to tackle growth marketing, media strategy and M&A https://ift.tt/31yXdmR

Attempt to fold Motorola’s Razr 100,000 times doesn’t go great

{rss:content:encoded} Attempt to fold Motorola’s Razr 100,000 times doesn’t go great https://ift.tt/2vYVPyc https://ift.tt/2SxzJKW February 07, 2020 at 04:36PM

The Galaxy Fold felt like an omen for a burgeoning category. The fascinating and promising product was plagued by broken review units that forced Samsung to go back to the drawing board with a reinforced model. But even that version ultimately ran into issues, as I can personally attest.

No doubt other companies readying their own devices took the opportunity to reconsider their strategy. Huawei, for one, very publicly noted that it would push back the release of the promising Mate X, just to be on the safe side. Perhaps it was the compelling form factor coupled with an assumed abundance of caution, but many no doubt expected the Razr’s arrival to be different.

Like clockwork, CNET was on the scene for the Razr’s arrival with the same folding machine it used to stress test the Galaxy Fold. While that device made it a bit over 100,000 folds, The Motorola Razr fell significantly short in testing this week. The original head “Motorola Razr fails to reach 100,000 folds in our test” doesn’t quite capture how short the device fell. The hinge started going wonky in a little over 27,000 folds. That’s just under four hours into the video — a pretty big gulf compared to the 14 hour marathon for the Fold.

Certainly one test shouldn’t be regarded as the end-all, be-all. The truth is, however, that in spite of the product currently being available for sale, there aren’t many review units out there. Of course, that seems reason enough to approach with caution, as it would with any first-gen product and new form factor. Those who did purchase the foldable have already taken to Twitter to complain about a loud hinge sound. Again, not a deal breaker, perhaps, but also not great.

I suspect the device will come with warnings about treating it with an abundance of caution, similar to the paperwork that started shipping with the Fold. But while the device is more affordable than the Fold, it’s still $1,500 — a big price to pay for something you need to hold with kid gloves. Follow this space to see how things play out in the coming weeks, but after a good deal of excitement following the original unveil, this probably isn’t the kind of press Motorola was banking on.

Meantime, can I interest you in a nice, $300 Moto G?

Motorola embraces the stylus life on its budget G series

{rss:content:encoded} Motorola embraces the stylus life on its budget G series https://ift.tt/2v9nSL1 https://ift.tt/3bk1Plq February 07, 2020 at 03:00PM

Motorola’s long been a kind of quiet workhorse on the mobile scene. Aside from the occasional razzle-dazzle of a Moto Z or Razr, the Lenovo subsidiary mostly trades in budget handsets. The G line is probably the best example of the bunch. The devices aren’t flashy and the specs are often a year or two old, but you can’t really argue with the sub-$300 price point.

To its credit, however, the brand does a solid job introducing compelling features into the mix, even while keeping the cost down. This morning, at an event in Chicago, Motorola introduced two new entries into the line: the Moto G Power and Moto G Stylus, which will run $300 and $250, respectively.

The devices are similar in a number of ways, including the addition of a macro lens, borrowed from last year’s Motorola One Macro. It’s a curious addition — one that certainly sets the device apart from a million other multi-camera systems. How handy a macro lens will be on a phone is another question entirely, of course — though the company is convinced that users will appreciate the option.

Certainly it will help mix up the photos they do shoot, moving from your standard shots of people and landscapes to flowers and food, I suppose.

Both products also sport beefy batteries — a longtime and welcome staple of Motorola’s devices. There’s a beefy 4,000 mAh battery on the Stylus and even more massive 5,000 mAh on the Power. Those are listed at 19 and 27 hours, respectively. Less impressive is the Snapdragon 665 processor found on each. It’s a cost-cutting measure, honestly.

There are, after all, trade-offs to keeping budget phones budget — and Qualcomm’s decision to go all in on 5G for the 765 is no doubt going to sting some budget device makers. On the positive side of things, the headphone jack is still clinging on for dear life.

The biggest distinction factor between the two is, of course, in the name. Nearly a decade after Samsung proved that the world (or parts of it, at least) still wanted a stylus, the technology never really went mainstream. Sure, plenty of companies have tried it, but none found anywhere near the success of the S-Pen.

Motorola takes a cautious leap here with the inclusion of a stylus and the Moto Note app (which it tells me has cleared all of the legal hurdles in spite of sounding quite similar to an existing product). Perhaps there’s room for the tech at a far lower price point.

Another feature worth noting (as it were) was also inherited by the Motorola One line. The clever dedicated action camera allows users to shoot wide screen while holding the phone portrait mode. That way you can move the phone around with a single hand while shooting action scenes.

Both devices start shipping this spring.

Why is One Medical worth more than Casper?

Hello and welcome back to Equity, TechCrunch’s venture capital-focused podcast, where we unpack the numbers behind the headlines.

This week was something fun. First, we were back as a group in the San Francisco studio, which is always fun. Even better, we had NEA’s Rick Yang on hand to chat with Danny and Alex about the week. Yang, as old-school Equity listeners will recall, was back on the show in 2017. (Equity turns three soon, which is somewhat amazing.)

All that aside, let’s talk about what we talked about. As always, we kicked off with three rounds:

After that we chugged through a mountain of news. First up, the confirmation of a story that we had mentioned on the show before, namely the existence of a new venture fund (angel pool, perhaps) from the CEO of email startup Superhuman Rahul Vora and Eventjoy founder Todd Goldberg. The $7 million vehicle is going to cut pre-seed sized checks ($75,000 to $200,000) which should make it a popular pit stop for pre-revenue companies.

What next? Well, Casper of course. The company’s IPO pricing and debut was this week, something that we’ve had something to say about. That and the latest from One Medical’s strong post-IPO performance, and the news that Asana has filed privately to go public in a direct listing.

That last item was of particular interest as the company hasn’t raised as much cash as other companies that we’ve seen direct list, the Spotifys and Slacks of the world. So has it raised capital that we haven’t heard about, or has it simply not spend the capital it has raised? If it had spent the money, then, wouldn’t it want to raise some like with a traditional IPO? Mysteries! Riddles that will be solved when we get to see the damn filing.

Oh, and Spotify continues to pour money into podcasting. Which everyone ’round the table thought was pretty smart.

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



https://ift.tt/eA8V8J Why is One Medical worth more than Casper? https://ift.tt/2SlUxVu

Carta debuts fund to invest in startups that tap into its platform

This morning Carta, a startup that helps private companies manage equity, announced it has created an investing vehicle called Carta Ventures. The well-funded unicorn wants to invest in young startups that it sees building off of its data-driven perspective into the world of private companies, helping to foster an ecosystem around its core products and services.

As TechCrunch has reported, the world of corporate venture capital has seen an enormous rise in the number of players active in the category, as cash-rich incumbents of all sizes deploy cash as a way to both keep an ear to the ground in their market and surrounding areas, and perhaps drive some cash-on-cash returns to boot. Companies like Slack have also compiled investing entities while private to put capital to work in companies that plug into their platform.

With all the activity in corporate venture capital, why do we care about Carta Ventures? Mostly because Carta itself is of growing importance in the expanding and increasingly crucial world of private companies, and the company has some pretty specific things it’s looking to invest in.

Why private companies matter

Carta works with private companies to help with certain valuation varietals, cap tables and reporting. It also offers tools and services for the venture class. This puts it squarely in the middle of the private market, which is in the midst of a long crescendo.

Investment into private companies is growing. The number of public companies is falling, and it’s taking longer for private companies to go public. The companies staying private are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Hell, even The Economist dug into the private company boom, noting that “[i]nstitutional investors are rushing headlong into private markets, especially into venture capital, private equity and private debt.”

And Carta provides behind-the-scenes sinew and tissue to both the players (startups and other private companies) and their fuel (investors of all stripes). Efforts that sum to the startup working to expand the world of companies supporting those same firms through its new venture fund.

Carta wants to accelerate (and even instigate, as we’ll see) companies that add to its own platform, making investing and participating in the private markets a bit more limpid and simple — two things that the world of private capital and its constituent bets have never had in abundance.

Capital for whom?

To get a grip on who Carta wants to fund and why, TechCrunch caught up with James McGillicuddy, who heads up strategy for the company. Starting with the basics, the capital that Carta Ventures plans to invest will come out of Carta’s own accounts. McGillicuddy said that the entity will invest “balance sheet capital, with no outside structure,” meaning that the setup is “very much from the corporate ventures playbook.”

Standard so far, then. Next we wanted to know about how many general partners Carta Ventures would muster to go into the market. Instead of answering that directly, McGillicuddy discussed a number of existing internal staffers, and a collection of folks that he considers a “pretty good group of folks in the classical sense on the investment committee that will be able to help these entrepreneurs and guide them towards a business that we think should exist now that we [are] programmatically opening up access to the markets.”

Carta Ventures intends to write seed checks, according to a pre-release copy of a blog post shared with TechCrunch. McGillicuddy added that Carta Ventures’ “first priority is helping folks think through how to leverage our platform to build things that we think should exist, that we don’t have the expertise [in].”

As you can tell from McGillicuddy’s last two answers, there is intentionality afoot at Carta Ventures in terms of what it wants to see built.

In a blog post written by Carta CEO Henry Ward, three companies are mentioned: A startup focused on helping other companies come up with fair and market-fitting “total compensation” for employees including both cash and stock; a startup focused on “build[ing] analytic investment tools for venture as an asset class;” and one final startup focused on executing and publishing research on private companies.

I was curious why Carta wouldn’t just build this out itself, given how precise its anticipation of what it wants to be built. McGillicuddy said that the best people for all things that Carta wants to see aren’t inside its offices (true), and that even if some of those folks were already working for Carta, his company has “many other priorities and so many things to build.” 

Fair enough. But it indicates that Carta isn’t just building a corporate venture arm to go out and put money to work in companies that could later eat its lunch. Instead, it wants to put to use capital as a lever to power particular firms that could extend its reach.

What else?

Carta’s venture fund is willing to put money to work in idea-stage companies, provided that you’re doing stuff that it finds enticing (see above). And Carta is willing to put you up in its office and so forth. It’s there to help if you want it.

Why is all this happening? Carta isn’t public and probably isn’t profitable. How can it afford to have its own venture arm? This is how:

 

That was back in mid-2019 when it raised $300 million at a $1.7 billion valuation.

When the private capital markets are wiling to throw that much money at you, why not put it to work funding smaller companies who may profit off of your private company platform?1

  1. If you say “private companies” four times fast, you have to accept a check from Carta Ventures. It’s the rule.


https://ift.tt/eA8V8J Carta debuts fund to invest in startups that tap into its platform https://ift.tt/375Q2DK

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Instagram prototypes letting IGTV creators monetize with ads

Instagram may finally let IGTV video makers earn money 18 months after launching the longer-form content hub. Instagram confirms to TechCrunch that it has internally prototyped an Instagram Partner Program that would let creators earn money by showing advertisements along with their videos. By giving creators a sustainable and hands-off way to generate earnings from IGTV, they might be inspired to bring more and higher quality content to the destination.

The program could potentially work similarly to Facebook Watch, where video producers earn a 55% cut of revenue from “Ad Breaks” inserted into the middle of their content. There’s no word on what the revenue split would be for IGTV, but since Facebook tends to run all its ads across all its apps via the same buying interfaces, it might stick with the 55% approach that lets its say creators get the majority of cash earned.

Previously, Instagram only worked with a limited set of celebrities, paying “to offset small production costs” for IGTV content Bloomberg reported, but not offering a way to earn a profit. That left creators to look to sponsored content or product placement to generate cash, or to try to push their followers to platforms like YouTube where they could earn a reliable cut of ads.

A lack of monetization may have contributed to the absence of great content on IGTV. Many of the videos on the Popular page are low-grade rips of YouTube content or TV, or are clickbaity teasers. That in turn has led to mediocre view counts, only 7 million of Instagram’s billion-plus users downloading the standalone IGTV app, and Instagram dropping the homescreen button for opening IGTV.

That’s all disappointing considering TIkTok is blowing up on the back of more purposeful, storyboarded mobile video entertainment. Instagram has been looking at other ways to boost the quality of content users see, including today’s launch unfollow suggestions.

But today, reverse engineering master and perennial TechCrunch tipster Jane Manchun Wong tipped us off to the IGTV monetization prototype she dug out of the code of Instagram’s Android app. She tells TechCrunch she first saw signs of the program a week and ago and was then able to generate screenshots of the unreleased feature. It shows an “Instagram Partner Program” with “Monetization Tools”. This seems to be different from the old “Partner Program” for business tool developers.

Users who are deemed “Eligible” according to criteria we don’t have info about could choose to “Monetize Your IGTV Videos”. The screen explains that “You can earn money by runing short ads on your IGTV videos. When you monetize on IGTV, you agree to follow the Partner Program Monetization Policies.”

It’s not clear IGTV’s monetization policies would be different, but on Facebook, they require that users:

  • Follow all its normal Community Standards about decency
  • Share authentic content without misinformation, false news, clickbait, or sensationalism
  • Share original content they made themselves
  • Avoid restricted content categories including debated social issues, tragedy or conflict, objectionable activity, sexual or suggestive activity, strong language, explicit content, misleading medical information, and politics and government

Instagram confirmed to TechCrunch the authenticity of the prototype it’s been working on and provided the following statement “We continue to explore ways to help creators monetize with IGTV. We don’t have more details to share now, but we will as they develop further.” Given the company is confirming this as a prototype rather than a feature being beta tested, there are no public mentions, and that there’s no Instagram Help Center information published about it, Instagram might not be testing the program externally yet. There’s still a chance Instagram could change directions and never launch the monetization program or alter it entirely before any eventual launch.

Creator monetization has been a slow-going evolution on many of the major social networks. While YouTube was early to the space with ads, it as well as Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat are now testing an array of ways for influencers to earn money. Those include ads splits, subscriptions to exclusive content, tipping, connections to brands for sponsorship, merchandise sales, and more.

Bloomberg’s Sarah Frier and Nico Grant reported this week that Instagram brought in $20 billion in revenue during 2019. It gets to keep that revenue since it currently doesn’t split any with creators. That contrasts with YouTube, which says it took in $15.1 billion in 2019 revenue this week in the first time it’s revealed the stat, though it has to pay out a substantial portion to creators. With Instagram now running ads in feed, Explore, and Stories, only IGTV and Direct remain as major surfaces lacking ads.

Social apps are wising up that if they want to keep their creators from straying to competitors and bringing fans with them, they need to offer ways for people to turn their passion for creating content into a profession. IGTV spent a year and a half trying to get video makers to volunteer for free, and the result wasn’t entertaining enough. Now Instagram seems ready to share the proceeds if they can bring in viewers together.



from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/31vuY8H Instagram prototypes letting IGTV creators monetize with ads Josh Constine https://ift.tt/2S6cYic
via IFTTT

Instagram prototypes letting IGTV creators monetize with ads

{rss:content:encoded} Instagram prototypes letting IGTV creators monetize with ads https://ift.tt/2S6cYic https://ift.tt/31vuY8H February 07, 2020 at 07:58AM

Instagram may finally let IGTV video makers earn money 18 months after launching the longer-form content hub. Instagram confirms to TechCrunch that it has internally prototyped an Instagram Partner Program that would let creators earn money by showing advertisements along with their videos. By giving creators a sustainable and hands-off way to generate earnings from IGTV, they might be inspired to bring more and higher quality content to the destination.

The program could potentially work similarly to Facebook Watch, where video producers earn a 55% cut of revenue from “Ad Breaks” inserted into the middle of their content. There’s no word on what the revenue split would be for IGTV, but since Facebook tends to run all its ads across all its apps via the same buying interfaces, it might stick with the 55% approach that lets its say creators get the majority of cash earned.

Previously, Instagram only worked with a limited set of celebrities, paying “to offset small production costs” for IGTV content Bloomberg reported, but not offering a way to earn a profit. That left creators to look to sponsored content or product placement to generate cash, or to try to push their followers to platforms like YouTube where they could earn a reliable cut of ads.

A lack of monetization may have contributed to the absence of great content on IGTV. Many of the videos on the Popular page are low-grade rips of YouTube content or TV, or are clickbaity teasers. That in turn has led to mediocre view counts, only 7 million of Instagram’s billion-plus users downloading the standalone IGTV app, and Instagram dropping the homescreen button for opening IGTV.

That’s all disappointing considering TIkTok is blowing up on the back of more purposeful, storyboarded mobile video entertainment. Instagram has been looking at other ways to boost the quality of content users see, including today’s launch unfollow suggestions.

But today, reverse engineering master and perennial TechCrunch tipster Jane Manchun Wong tipped us off to the IGTV monetization prototype she dug out of the code of Instagram’s Android app. She tells TechCrunch she first saw signs of the program a week and ago and was then able to generate screenshots of the unreleased feature. It shows an “Instagram Partner Program” with “Monetization Tools”. This seems to be different from the old “Partner Program” for business tool developers.

Users who are deemed “Eligible” according to criteria we don’t have info about could choose to “Monetize Your IGTV Videos”. The screen explains that “You can earn money by runing short ads on your IGTV videos. When you monetize on IGTV, you agree to follow the Partner Program Monetization Policies.”

It’s not clear IGTV’s monetization policies would be different, but on Facebook, they require that users:

  • Follow all its normal Community Standards about decency
  • Share authentic content without misinformation, false news, clickbait, or sensationalism
  • Share original content they made themselves
  • Avoid restricted content categories including debated social issues, tragedy or conflict, objectionable activity, sexual or suggestive activity, strong language, explicit content, misleading medical information, and politics and government

Instagram confirmed to TechCrunch the authenticity of the prototype it’s been working on and provided the following statement “We continue to explore ways to help creators monetize with IGTV. We don’t have more details to share now, but we will as they develop further.” Given the company is confirming this as a prototype rather than a feature being beta tested, there are no public mentions, and that there’s no Instagram Help Center information published about it, Instagram might not be testing the program externally yet. There’s still a chance Instagram could change directions and never launch the monetization program or alter it entirely before any eventual launch.

Creator monetization has been a slow-going evolution on many of the major social networks. While YouTube was early to the space with ads, it as well as Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat are now testing an array of ways for influencers to earn money. Those include ads splits, subscriptions to exclusive content, tipping, connections to brands for sponsorship, merchandise sales, and more.

Bloomberg’s Sarah Frier and Nico Grant reported this week that Instagram brought in $20 billion in revenue during 2019. It gets to keep that revenue since it currently doesn’t split any with creators. That contrasts with YouTube, which says it took in $15.1 billion in 2019 revenue this week in the first time it’s revealed the stat, though it has to pay out a substantial portion to creators. With Instagram now running ads in feed, Explore, and Stories, only IGTV and Direct remain as major surfaces lacking ads.

Social apps are wising up that if they want to keep their creators from straying to competitors and bringing fans with them, they need to offer ways for people to turn their passion for creating content into a profession. IGTV spent a year and a half trying to get video makers to volunteer for free, and the result wasn’t entertaining enough. Now Instagram seems ready to share the proceeds if they can bring in viewers together.

Ride-share startup HopSkipDrive raises $22 million to focus on school transportation

It’s no secret that it’s hard to make the economics work at drive-share companies. That may explain the success to date of HopSkipDrive, a six-year-old, L.A.-based company that pairs drivers with both families but also, crucially, school districts. Specifically, the now 100-plus person company has deals in place with school districts in 13 markets across eight states where it works with more than 7,000 contractors. All, says cofounder and CEO Joanna McFarland, have at least five years of childcare experience before they are allowed to drive for the startup.

Interestingly, McFarland says the school systems’ most burning need is to ensure the safe arrival of both homeless and foster children, whose numbers in the U.S. have reached an astonishing 2.5 million and 440,000, respectively. On the heels of a brand-new funding round, we asked her what’s going on and why.

TC: You’re just announcing $22 million in new venture backing, congratulations. I wonder if your story was harder to tell investors than it might have been a year ago, when they were more bullish on car-share companies.

JM: We’ve never considered ourselves comparable to Uber or Lyft. We’re really caregivers on wheels, providing a very different service. We work with families, but we also contract with school districts and counties, and that has a strong path to profitability. We can predict supply and demand; we’re [enjoying] contracted revenue. It’s very different.

TC: How do you describe the market opportunity?

JM: U.S school districts spend $25 billion a year on transportation, yet only one-third of kids take a bus to school, so it’s expensive and inefficient and meanwhile districts are being asked to do more with less.

Particularly challenging for them are children with specialized needs or homeless children who are moving around a lot but have the same right to get to school. It’s hard to re-route school buses, so we help schools with alternative transportation. Once we’ve contracted with them, we’re available, including to pick up a student who might be in foster care and moved to a new place at 10:30 at night. We can still pick them up the next morning.

TC: There are thousands of homeless children attending San Francisco schools. Are you serving other markets where housing prices are forcing more families on to the streets? 

JM: Unfortunately, there’s a large and growing population in a lot of places. Districts might not even know how many students are homeless or in foster care because their situations can change so significantly throughout the year. It might start with 500 students at the beginning of the year and end with 1,000. Because it fluctuates so much, it puts a ton of demand on these transportation directors to figure it out.

We’re partnered with L.A. County, for example, and it has the largest child welfare system in the country, with 88 districts and between 20,000 and 30,000 kids in foster care at any one time. It’s not a great statistic for L.A., but it’s the reality.

TC: And it’s one driver, one child?

JM: Sometimes there will be two or three kids. We can do carpools. If there are group homes, we’ll take them to their different schools.

TC: What do your contracts look like then with these school districts?

JM: We dictate the ride price, then it’s really on as as-needed basis. They pay for what they need. We talk with them about their needs last year and this year and that does help us tremendously with supply and demand.

TC: How much of your business is coming from school partnerships versus from families that hire your company to take their kids to soccer games?

JM: Our business for families is growing organically, there’s such a need for it, but 70 percent of our revenue comes from [school districts].

TC: Your drivers are 1099 workers, so presumably they are working for other ride-share or other gig-economy companies? How busy can you keep them?

JM: They are contractors. Because they must have five years of caregiving experience and because of the vetting we do, 90 percent of them are female,  and they love what they do because they’re driving in communities where their kids grew up and they’re tied to the mission of what we’re doing.

We have some overlap with other gig companies, but with [HopSkipDrive] there’s safety on both sides of the platform, meaning they are driving kids, they aren’t driving late at night, they aren’t driving anyone who is drunk. They also have control over where they drive and when, based on personal preferences. They can choose some rides before school so they can take care of an elderly relative or grandchildren. They can see rides that are available up to a week in advance and select which ones they want depending on their schedule. Many are semi-retired and not looking for full-time income.

TC: How can parents be certain their kids are safe?

JM: We have a dual authentication process so drivers confirm a code word with the child and another piece of information that the child will know. Parents can track the rides in real time. We also have tech that monitors rides and can detect anomalies and provide support as needed. For example, they know via GPS and sensors if a driver is hitting traffic or has stopped owing to a flat tire and can react proactively, whether it is to send another car (in the case of a flat tire) or let the school and parents know that the child will be late. We designed the whole system for when a passenger may not have a phone.

TC: Why start this company?

JM: I started in finance then went into product management, working for tech companies. But as I was working, I was also growing my family, and I couldn’t get my son to karate at 3 o’clock. It was so frustrating. I didn’t need a nanny. I just needed to get him to karate.

All the moms I knew had their own version of this transportation story. [At a school function] I suggested we put out money in a pot and hire a driver, and another mom said, ‘How do we do that?’ She’s one of my cofounders.

Pictured above from left to right: HopSkipDrive cofounders Carolyn Yashari Becher. Joanna McFarland, and Janelle McGlothlin



https://ift.tt/eA8V8J Ride-share startup HopSkipDrive raises $22 million to focus on school transportation https://ift.tt/2vYcl1p

Twitter-backed ShareChat eyes fantasy sports in India

The growing market of fantasy sports in India may soon have a new and odd entrant: ShareChat.

The local social networking app, which in August last year raised $100 million in a financing round led by Twitter, has developed a fantasy sports app and has been quietly testing it for six months, two sources familiar with the matter told TechCrunch.

ShareChat’s fantasy sports app, called Jeet11, allows betting on cricket and football matches and has already amassed more than 120,000 registered users, the sources said. The app, or its website, does not disclose its association with ShareChat.

A ShareChat spokesperson confirmed the existence of the app and said the startup was testing the product.

Jeet11 is not available for download on the Google Play Store due to the Android maker’s guidelines on betting apps, so ShareChat has been distributing it through Xiaomi’s GetApps app store and the Jeet11 website, and has been promoting it on Instagram. It is also available as a web app.

Fantasy sports, a quite popular business in many markets, has gained some traction in India in recent years. Dream11, backed by gaming giant Tencent, claimed to have more than 65 million users early last year. It has raised about $100 million to date and is already valued north of $1 billion.

Bangalore-based MPL, which counts Sequoia Capital India as an investor and has raised more than $40 million, appointed Virat Kohli, the captain of the Indian cricket team, as its brand ambassador last year.

In the last two years, scores of startups have emerged to grab a slice of the market, and the vast majority of them are focused on cricket. Cricket is the most popular sport in India, just ask Disney’s Hotstar, which claimed to have more than 100 million daily active users during the cricket season last year.

Or ask Facebook, which unsuccessfully bid $600 million to secure streaming rights of the IPL cricket tournament. It has since grabbed rights to some cricket content and appointed the Hotstar chief as its India head.

So it comes as no surprise that many sports betting apps have signed cricketers as their brand ambassador. Hala-Play has roped in Hardik Pandya and Krunal Pandya, while Chennai-based Fantain Sports has appointed Suresh Raina.

But despite the growing popularity of fantasy sports apps, where users pick players and bet real money on their performances, the niche is still sketchy in many markets that consider it betting. In fact, Twitter itself restricts promotion of fantasy sports services in many markets across the world.

In India, too, several states, including Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Sikkim and Telangana, have banned fantasy sports betting. Jeet11 currently requires users to confirm that they don’t live in any of the restricted states before signing up for the service.

“It doesn’t help matters either that the fantasy sports business’ attempts at legitimacy involve trying to be seen as video games — a cursory glance at a speakers panel for any Indian video game developer event is evidence of this — rather than riding on its own merits,” said Rishi Alwani, a long-time analyst of Indian gaming market and publisher of news outlet the Mako Reactor.

An executive who works at one of the top fantasy sports startups in India, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that despite handing out cash rewards to thousands of users each day, it is still challenging to retain customers after the conclusion of any popular cricket tournament. “And that’s after you have somehow convinced them to visit your website or download the app,” he said.

For ShareChat, which has been exploring ways to monetize its 60 million-plus users and posted a loss of about $58 million on no revenue in the financial year ending March 31, that’s anything but music to the ears. In recent months, the startup, which serves users in more than a dozen local languages, has been experimenting with ads.



from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/3787uYe Twitter-backed ShareChat eyes fantasy sports in India Manish Singh https://ift.tt/31xgrcs
via IFTTT

blogger better Headline Animator