viernes, 25 de enero de 2019

Airbnb acquires Denmark’s Gaest to expand in bookings for meetings and offsites

Airbnb, now valued upwards of $30 billion and inching to an IPO possibly as early as this year, has made an acquisition to continue to diversify its revenues beyond basic booking services for overnight accommodations in private homes. It has acquired Gaest, a startup out of Aarhus, Denmark that provides a marketplace-style platform for people to post and book venues in hourly or daily increments for meetings and other work-related events like offsites in Europe and elsewhere.

Gaest’s team — it was founded in 2015 by Anders Boelskifte Mogensen (the CEO), Chris Kjær Sørensen, Christian Schwarz Lausten and Jonas Grau Sigtenbjerggaard — will be joining Airbnb and will report to President of Homes Greg Greeley. Airbnb says the service — which currently has listings for some 3,000 venues from hotels to co-working spaces and other rooms — will remain operational on its own platform “for the foreseeable future”. It’s not clear if the Gaest brand will remain as a part of that.

“We’re thrilled to join one of the world’s most innovative companies and become an integral part of their mission to make it easier for professionals to feel a sense of belonging at work,” said Mogensen in a statement. “Our dream from day one has been to make it easier, faster, and more cost-effective to list, discover, and book unique spaces that spark creativity, motivate interaction and encourage knowledge sharing.”

Terms of the deal are not disclosed but we are trying to find out. According to Crunchbase, Gaest had raised $3.5 million.

The acquisition points to two strategic developments at Airbnb, both aimed at helping the company diversity and grow its revenues.

The first is that it will build on Airbnb’s expansion into services for the business market.

This is an area where Airbnb has already been building inroads: it’s had a program in place since last year called Airbnb for Work, aimed at the business travel market and booking accommodations for business travellers, and it says that to date some 700,000 companies have seen employees sign up and book accommodation through the programme.

Even before that, Airbnb had inked partnerships with corporate travel apps like Concur that are standard tools in large enterprises, so that its listings can also be discoverable alongside more classic hotels. That’s before you consider the number of people who may be booking on Airbnb for work trips but using their personal accounts to do so.

The idea of Airbnb for Work also taps into the trend of “consumerization” and how it has played out in the world of business travel. While some people will prefer to stay in business hotels and the amenities that come with that, others will opt for more individualised options that tap into local life.

That’s before you consider the average price differences between the two, where business hotels tend to reach into premium price points and Airbnb homes tend to come at a wider range of prices. To be sure, Airbnb is not the only one eyeing up ways of serving business users with their travel and meeting needs. A number of startups like 2nd Address and Homelike have sprung up to address the growth of business travellers looking for Airbnb-style options instead of business hotels for longer-term work trips.

And you can’t not consider the competitive threat here also from We (FKA WeWork), which had its start in co-working and meeting spaces, but now has ambitions to extend into providing space to companies and business types to cover other needs like sleeping and more. Like Airbnb, it’s also going to be working hard to expand and diversify its business to capture more revenues from existing and new customers.

And this leads to the second area where Gaest will help Airbnb: providing more value to existing and future hosts on the platform.

Today, the mainstay of making money on Airbnb if you’re a host is to offer your house for overnight stays. But Airbnb has been adding options beyond that, for example by giving hosts the chance to offer paid experiences to visitors, to help them increase their options for monetizing guests.

Homes head Greeley, Airbnb notes, is “leading a robust and aggressive plan to both support the hosts who have always powered Airbnb and expand our accommodation and service offerings into new areas.”

Airbnb noted in September 2018 that informally, some business users had already started to use Airbnb for Work to book homes for offsites. This Gaest acquisition could help formalise some of that by providing a platform for Airbnb hosts to list their homes specifically for this use case, and of course a pool of potential customers to make bookings.

“We imagine a world where anyone can share their space for professional events and, in the longer term, for celebrations,” said David Holyoke, Global Head of Airbnb for Work, in a statement. “Bringing in a leadership team with strong domain knowledge allows us to accelerate our work in this area, and more importantly Gaest.com and Airbnb share a vision of helping every space owner become entrepreneurs through sharing their spaces with those who need it.”



from TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2FP8RBR
via IFTTT

jueves, 24 de enero de 2019

A brand called Liquid Death wants to sell mountain water to the cool kids

Inventive packaging is more crucial than ever when it come to launching a new brand into a world already clogged with every product imaginable. Think, for example, of the sugary energy drinks that began to appear on the scene roughly 20 years ago — Rockstar, Monster, and Red Bull — that are stuffed with so much caffeine, sugar, legal stimulants and L-Carnitine that you kind of know intuitively that they probably aren’t great for your health, even if they’re no worse than traditional sodas.

Indeed, one West Coast agency creative-turned-entrepreneur, Mike Cessario, is hoping consumers’ love of cans and brands that sound like heavy-metal musical acts can be combined to sell something else: mountain water from the Austrian Alps. The name of his company? Liquid Death.

It’s a bit of a joke, but one in which Cessario very much includes the customer. After all, if people are buying water anyway —  it was a $240 billion market as of 2017 and is expected to continue growing along with fears about contaminated water — why not put in an aluminum can, which can be recycled far more easily than a plastic bottle, and why not give it a brand that’s grimly funny?

The question now is whether people will drink it in. Liquid Death, which is backed with an undisclosed amount of seed funding from the L.A. incubator and fund Science Inc., is about to find out, too, by beginning to sell the cans directly to consumers from its website today and on Amazon.

We talked a couple of weeks ago to Cessario and Science cofounder Mike Jones to learn more about how Liquid Death came together, and how they intend to ensure it sticks around.

TC: I understand Liquid Death started a a side project on Indiegogo but didn’t really catch anyone’s attention until you posted a funny video on Facebook that may remind some of Dollar Shave Club’s earliest video.

MC: Liquid Death was this idea that we thought would be a cool thing if it existed, so we made a funny video that made it seem like it was real on the Internet to see what kind of interest came from it before we started investing money into it. AdWeek picked it up, thinking it was a neat idea. And so we spent the last year building a following online before gearing up to launch an actual product to the people, which happens [today].

TC: And Mike Jones, what was Science’s role in making that happen?

MJ: We partnered with them inside our incubator, and our fund is also an investor in the company. Our team on the incubation side is very focused on direct-to-consumer goods and products, working with aspects of CPG, strategy, growth, finance, margins, etc. So our team fell in love with brand, and as a fund, we recognized what could be a big market opportunity.

TC: Tell us about the manufacturing.

MC: Liquid Death comes 500 milliliter cans that manufactured in Austria because of a lot of things that fell together, including finding a bottler there who could make our product for us and was willing to do it. It was kind of a happy accident that we have a great producer — a contract manufacturer — in a cool place.

TC: You’re marketing this product partly to kids, joking that water is way more dangerous than energy drinks. Kids love flavors. Are there flavored waters in the works?

MC: We don’t have any planned yet. We’re just going to stick with one SKU until it makes sense for us as a brand [to expand].

TC: You’re selling directly to consumers now. What’s the plan for distribution down the road?

MC: After we get the ball rolling, we’ll be in select bars and barber shops and tattoo parlors in L.A. and Philadelphia and potentially Austin, Texas. It’s a little more of a lifestyle play for us, which is why we’re targeting bars and more adult places. After that, we’ll figure out where else it makes sense to offer Liquid Death.

TC: Mike Jones, you’ve worked with launching a number of consumer brands, including Dollar Shave Club, for example. How hard is it to get onto retailers shelves?

MJ: Retail is having challenging time right now and retailers are excited about differentiated brands that get people excited about getting into their stores. One thing that Mike and I talk about a lot is how to introduce the brand to the audience. Similar to the early days of energy drinks. his team is thinking about where are the right places for this. Last night, I was invited to a charitable fundraising event at the [Hollywood] Palladium with the Red Hot Chili Peppers and had Aquafina all night, and I was like, this is the type of environment where this brand would make sense.

TC: Is it fair to say this is a product for teens ultimately?

MC: Possibly. We don’t want to tell people what to do. The healthy food space is generally all about telling people, ‘you need to do this,’ or ‘without these minerals, you aren’t doing it right.’ We’re trying to be a healthy brand that’s not too preachy. I don’t think you need to preach to people to drink more water. I think they get it. But we are taking a jab at all these unhealthy brands that own youth marketing.

TC: How did you settle on cost, and is there a subscription component?

MC: The cans retail for $1.85 a piece for a 16.9 ounce can, which is right around the same price as other premium water brands. And yes, it can be delivered to your door via 12-packs. You save 10 percent by buying [in bulk].



from TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2CIMFp0
via IFTTT

martes, 22 de enero de 2019

Netflix joins the Motion Picture Association of America

Hollywood’s highest-profile lobbying group, the Motion Picture Association of America, has announced the addition of a new member: Netflix.

The trade group’s membership includes the major Hollywood studios, including Disney, Paramount, Sony, Fox, Universal and Warner Bros. Netflix is the first internet streaming service to join.

To regular moviegoers, the MPAA is probably best-known (to the extent it’s known at all) for its occasionally mystifying ratings system, but the group actively lobbies for the studios on a range of issues.

The news underlines the ways in which Netflix is increasingly becoming a part of the Hollywood establishment — or at least, finds its interests aligned with that establishment. (The company recently departed another trade group, the Internet Association.) This comes just a few hours after Netflix scored a record 15 Oscar nominations, including its first for Best Picture.

In fact, Politico (which first broke the news) notes that Netflix and Amazon have already been pushing alongside MPAA members for anti-piracy measures, as part of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment.

One Netflix practice that remains controversial is its resistance to windowing — in other words, giving its films an exclusive theatrical release before making them available for streaming. While the company has softened its stance somewhat, allowing “Roma” and other titles to have a brief period of theatrical exclusivity, this wasn’t enough for the major theater chains, which refused to show the films. However, the MPAA mostly stays out of those discussions.

“On behalf of the MPAA and its member companies, I am delighted to welcome Netflix as a partner,” said MPAA chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin in a statement. “All of our members are committed to pushing the film and television industry forward, in both how we tell stories and how we reach audiences. Adding Netflix will allow us to even more effectively advocate for the global community of creative storytellers, and I look forward to seeing what we can all achieve together.”



from TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2T3wqdg
via IFTTT

martes, 15 de enero de 2019

TikTok is giving China a video chat alternative to WeChat

ByteDance, the world’s most-valued startup, just launched a new social media product under its Douyin brand in what many people see as a serious attempt to challenge WeChat.

Tencent has long dominated China’s social networking space with WeChat and QQ. WeChat claims to have one billion monthly active users worldwide, most of whom are in China. Its older sibling QQ managed to survive the country’s transition from PC to mobile and still have a good chunk of 800 million MAUs at last count.

The news has got many people excited. Some of the top trending words on Weibo, China’s closest answer to Twitter, today are linked to ByteDance’s move, such as “social”, “waging a war” and “Zhang Yiming,” who founded ByteDance in 2012.

Over the years Tencent has drawn contenders from all fronts. Ecommerce behemoth Alibaba was one, whose app “Laiwang” to take on WeChat later pivoted to a Slack-like product for enterprise communication.

Now ByteDance is in the spotlight with its new brainchild, Duoshan. The app comes as a mix of TikTok, which is called Douyin in China, and Snap, to bet on a 5G-powered future in which new generations prefer using ephemeral videos to communicate.

Unlike TikTok, which incentivizes users to follow celebrities and strangers, Duoshan is built for private messaging. It offers a dazzling selection of special effects and filters as most other short-video apps do these days. The twist is that videos disappear after 72 hours to provide stress-free, off-the-cuff sharing, a need that WeChat also noticed and prompted the giant to come up with its own Snap-like Stories feature recently.

duoshan bytedance tiktok

Screenshots of Duoshan. Image: ByteDance

“We are seeing more and more Douyin users share their videos through other social media platforms and channels,” Douyin’s president Zhang Nan said in a statement. “With the launch of Duoshan, we are creating our first video-based social messaging app to allow users to share their creativity and interact directly with their family and friends.”

You may not know ByteDance, but its suite of media apps are turning heads all over the world thanks to millions of dollars spent on advertising. TikTok, which swallowed up Musical.ly last year, claims to have more than 250 million daily active users with MAUs reaching 500 million. That solid user base will surely help Duoshan during its initial user acquisition as the app allows easy login for existing Douyin users.

While TikTok is not a direct threat to WeChat — for it’s built for media consumption and WeChat is more of a tool for communication and a platform to run daily errands — Tencent did respond with a dozen of video apps over the past year to play catch-up. Now, Duoshan appears to be going after WeChat’s core — instant messaging.

“We hope WeChat doesn’t see [Duoshan] as a competitor. What they do in essence is to build an ‘infrastructure’. We, on the other hand, is only going after people who are closest to you,” Chen Lin, the newly appointed chief operating officer of ByteDance’s news app Jinri Toutiao said at a press event today.

Two other high-profile entrepreneurs are joining ByteDance to roll out their own social apps today. Smartisan, who backed a WeChat rival that turned out to be a blip, is announcing the product tonight in China. The other challenger is Wang Xin, a pioneer in China’s online video-streaming space who was sentenced to jail in 2016 after being charged with providing easy access to pornography. His take on social media — Matong — is already live and is greeted with such warm reception that its server went down.



from TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2FwzdYF
via IFTTT

jueves, 10 de enero de 2019

The rise of (societal) resilience tech

If you follow millennials on Twitter (and god help you), then you know that Anne Helen Petersen’s piece this past weekend “How Millennials Became The Burnout Generation” struck a deep chord for many.

It’s longform and detailed, but Petersen’s primary thesis is that my generation has been dumped into one of the worst moments for economic and social mobility in recent memory (global financial crisis, etc.), which has led us to massively over-optimize our lives to try to extract any value we can. Baby boomers could work at a big company for thirty years at 40-50 hours a week with stable and increasing pay (with pensions!), while millennials have to simultaneously hold down four gigs and make their Instagrams and LinkedIns look great lest they fail to land their next gig, all while operating under the pressure of horrific levels of student loans.

Nod or shake your head, but I also think Petersen is getting at a much tougher challenge for society, one that I think will be one of the richest areas for investment in the coming years for founders and venture capitalists.

That thesis is around wellness and resilience, but not just of the health/physical variety. It also encompasses the reliability of our products, the level of income we receive each week, whether a storm might knock out our power, and how we read the news. Modern life is complicated and also chaotic, jumping from crisis to crisis we can barely understand. The question then becomes whether there are solutions that can absorb some of that complexity and chaos to simplify and satisfy our lives.

This week, rivers of glistening ink flowed over Lambda School, a Y Combinator alum that is using income share agreements to fund tuition at its schools. ISAs as a financial model are reasonably simple: if you go to a school, you agree to repay that school a fixed percentage of your income over a set period of time (let’s say purely for ease 10% of income for 10 years). Lambda School argues that this provides incentive alignment, because the school wants its graduates to be as successful as possible, while the Twitterati snarks that the startup has invented “taxes.”

First, fuck the snarkers who don’t spend any time learning about new, innovative models for offering services.

That aside, Lambda School is really offering a pathway to a more resilient life. If the economy collapses, student debt today still has to be paid on a fixed schedule, regardless of employment opportunities. Yet Lambda’s take ebbs and flows with the changes in the macroeconomy, offering to absorb the complexity and chaos around us. Want to take a year away from a high-paying job to work at a non-profit? You can, and Lambda adjusts without you even having to make a phone call.

This resilience tech isn’t limited to just education — it touches pretty much every facet of innovation. Just take a look at some startups I have profiled in the past year. Gremlin is using “chaos engineering” to reduce downtime and increase software reliability for web applications. Even is building out a savings model so that anyone can plan for financial independence. Wild Type is manufacturing salmon that can provide more sustainability to our environment and absorb climate change shocks.

There has been an enormous academic debate for more than two decades about the meaning of GDP, and whether there are alternative models worth exploring like Gross National Happiness. There are deep intricacies in that debate, but I would offer you this conclusion: we can wait for top-down permission to make a more resilient society, or we can create bottoms-up solutions that take some of the complexity and chaos out of modern life today. In a world of constant change and disruption, it’s the startups that increase stability that will reap rewards this decade.

TechCrunch is experimenting with new content forms. This is a rough draft of something new — provide your feedback directly to the author (Danny at danny@techcrunch.com) if you like or hate something here.

What’s next & obsessions

After a bit of a hiatus from the holidays and avoiding CES, I am back. Arman and I are still exploring our obsessions from last year, including 5G deployments, China tech geopolitics, next-gen semiconductors, and GPS.

But the new direction we are going to spend some cycles on is this resiliency theme described above. How do we innovate for climate change? How do we handle the increasing complexity of modern life, whether it is educational/informational, financial, or health? What does water security mean, and how is the world going to adapt and innovate to ensure ten billion people have access to safe drinking water?

I love hearing from readers, so if you have thoughts, opinions, articles or books, share them with me: danny@techcrunch.com.

Stray Thoughts (aka, what I am reading)

  • The Planet Remade – Oliver Morton takes an imaginative look at geoengineering and its potential to solve climate change. Recommended to me by futurist writer (and reader) Eliot Peper.I read the first two chapters last night, and I enjoyed Morton’s framework around innovation and climate change. He poses two key questions: 1) should we take serious action on climate change, and 2) do you believe that taking action is very hard? He posits that if you are in the “yes/yes” camp, then today’s solutions offer nothing that will slow let alone reverse the effects of climate change. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to start exploring alternatives — i.e. geoengineering. I found the framework and his explanations lucid and compelling, and I’m looking forward to sharing more notes in the coming days/weeks.
  • The melting pot of JavaScript – I found this essay by well-known JavaScript engineer Dan Abramov quite compelling. He argues that the messiness of JS is a feature and not a bug, representing the flourishing of human creativity rather than a militarized top-down “BDFL” model that you see in other languages. That leads to complexity and “fatigue,” but also to much more rapid innovation. He has some suggestions on how to ameliorate that complexity’s worst effects, including improving default configurations to reduce cognitive load on engineers. Sounds like resiliency if you ask me.
  • On a more personal front, I wrote a long list of my personal favorite reads and writes of 2018.

Reading docket

What I’m reading (or at least, trying to read)



from TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2TDzI6U
via IFTTT

domingo, 6 de enero de 2019

Apple’s increasingly tricky international trade-offs

Far from Apple’s troubles in emerging markets and China, the company is attracting the ire of what should really be a core supporter demographic naturally aligned with the pro-privacy stance CEO Tim Cook has made into his public soapbox in recent years — but which is instead crying foul over perceived hypocrisy.

The problem for this subset of otherwise loyal European iPhone users is that Apple isn’t offering enough privacy.

These users want more choice over key elements such as the search engine that can be set as the default in Safari on iOS (Apple currently offers four choices: Google, Yahoo, Bing and DuckDuckGo, all U.S. search engines; and with ad tech giant Google set as the default).

It is also being called out over other default settings that undermine its claims to follow a privacy by design philosophy. Such as the iOS location services setting which, once enabled, non-transparently flip an associated sub-menu of settings — including location-based Apple ads. Yet bundled consent is never the same as informed consent…

As the saying goes you can’t please all of the people all of the time. But the new normal of a saturated smartphone market is imposing new pressures that will require a reconfiguration of approach.

Certainly the challenges of revenue growth and user retention are only going to step up from here on in. So keeping an otherwise loyal base of users happy and — crucially — feeling listened to and well served is going to be more and more important for the tech giant as the back and forth business of services becomes, well, essential to its fortunes going forward.

(At least barring some miracle new piece of Apple hardware — yet to be unboxed but which somehow rekindles smartphone-level demand afresh. That’s highly unlikely in any medium term timeframe given how versatile and capable the smartphone remains; ergo Apple’s greatest success is now Apple’s biggest challenge.)

With smartphone hardware replacement cycles slowing, the pressure on Cook to accelerate services revenue naturally steps up — which could in turn increase pressure on the core principles Cupertino likes to flash around.

Yet without principles there can be no brand premium for Apple to command. So that way ruin absolutely lies.

Control shift

It’s true that controlling the iOS experience by applying certain limits to deliver mainstream consumer friendly hardware served Apple well for years. But it’s also true iOS has grown in complexity over time having dropped some of its control freakery.

Elements that were previously locked down have been opened up — like the keyboard, for instance, allowing for third party keyboard apps to be installed by users that wish to rethink how they type.

This shift means the imposed limit on which search engines users can choose to set as an iOS default looks increasingly hard for Apple to justify from a user experience point of view.

Though of course from a business PoV Apple benefits by being able to charge Google a large sum of money to remain in the plum search default spot. (Reportedly a very large sum, though claims that the 2018 figure was $9BN have not been confirmed. Unsurprisingly neither party wants to talk about the terms of the transaction.)

The problem for Apple is that indirectly benefiting from Google eroding the user privacy it claims to champion — by letting the ad tech giant pay it to suck up iOS users’ search queries by default — is hardly consistent messaging.

Not when privacy is increasingly central to the premium the Apple brand commands.

Cook has also made a point of strongly and publicly attacking the ‘data industrial complex‘. Yet without mentioning the inconvenient side-note that Apple also engages in trading user data for profit in some instances, albeit indirectly.

In 2017 Apple switched from using Bing to Google for Siri web search results. So even as it has stepped up its rhetoric around user privacy it has deepened its business relationship with one of the Western Internet’s primary data suckers.

All of which makes for a very easy charge of hypocrisy.

Of course Apple offers iOS users a non-tracking search engine choice, DuckDuckGo, as an alternative choice — and has done so since 2014’s iOS 8.

Its support for a growing but still very niche product in what are mainstream consumer devices is an example of Apple being true to its word and actively championing privacy.

The presence of the DDG startup alongside three data-mining tech giants has allowed those ‘in the know’ iOS users to flip the bird at Google for years, meaning Apple has kept privacy conscious consumers buying its products (if not fully on side with all its business choices).

But that sort of compromise position looks increasingly difficult for Apple to defend.

Not if it wants privacy to be the clear blue water that differentiates its brand in an era of increasingly cut-throat and cut-price Android-powered smartphone competition that’s serving up much the same features at a lower up-front price thanks to all the embedded data-suckers.

There is also the not-so-small matter of the inflating $1,000+ price-tags on Apple’s top-of-the-range iPhones. $1,000+ for a smartphone that isn’t selling your data by default might still sound very pricy but at least you’d be getting something more than just shiny glass for all those extra dollars. But the iPhone isn’t actually that phone. Not by default.

Apple may be taking a view that the most privacy sensitive iPhone users are effectively a captive market with little option but to buy iOS hardware, given the Google-flavored Android competition. Which is true but also wouldn’t bode well for the chances of Apple upselling more services to these people to drive replacement revenue in a saturated smartphone market.

Offending those consumers who otherwise could be your very best, most committed and bought in users seems short-sighted and short-termist to say the least.

Although removing Google as the default search provider in markets where it dominates would obviously go massively against the mainstream grain that Apple’s business exists to serve.

This logic says Google is in the default position because, for most Internet users, Google search remains their default.

Indeed, Cook rolled out this exact line late last year when asked to defend the arrangement in an interview with Axios on HBO — saying: “I think their search engine is the best.”

He also flagged various pro-privacy features Apple has baked into its software in recent years, such as private browsing mode and smart tracker prevention, which he said work against the data suckers.

Albeit, that’s a bit like saying you’ve scattered a few garlic cloves around the house after inviting the thirsty vampire inside. And Cook readily admitted the arrangement isn’t “perfect”.

Clearly it’s a trade off. But Apple benefitting financially is what makes this particular trade-off whiff.

It implies Apple does indeed have an eye on quarterly balance sheets, and the increasingly important services line item specifically, in continuing this imperfect but lucrative arrangement — rather than taking a longer term view as the company purports to, per Cook’s letter to shareholders this week; in which he wrote: “We manage Apple for the long term, and Apple has always used periods of adversity to re-examine our approach, to take advantage of our culture of flexibility, adaptability and creativity, and to emerge better as a result.”

If Google’s search product is the best and Apple wants to take the moral high ground over privacy by decrying the surveillance industrial complex it could maintain the default arrangement in service to its mainstream base but donate Google’s billions to consumer and digital rights groups that fight to uphold and strengthen the privacy laws that people-profiling ad tech giants are butting hard against.

Apple’s shareholders might not like that medicine, though.

More palatable for investors would be for Apple to offer a broader choice of alternative search engines, thereby widening the playing field and opening up to more pro-privacy Google alternatives.

It could also design this choice in a way that flags up the trade-off to its millions of users. Such as, during device set-up, proactively asking users whether they want to keep their Internet searches private by default or use Google?

When put like that rather more people than you imagine might choose not to opt for Google to be their search default.

Non-tracking search engine DDG has been growing steadily for years, for example, hitting 30M daily searches last fall — with year-on-year growth of ~50%.

Given the terms of the Apple-Google arrangement sit under an NDA (as indeed all these arrangements do; DDG told us it couldn’t share any details about its own arrangement with Apple, for e.g.) it’s not clear whether one of Google’s conditions requires there be a limit on how many other search engines iOS users can pick from.

But it’s at least a possibility that Google is paying Apple to limit how many rivals sit in the list of competitors iOS users can pick out an alternative default. (It has, after all, recently been spanked in Europe for anti-competitive contractual limits imposed on Android OEMs to limit their ability to use alternatives to Google products, including search. So you could say Google has history where search is concerned.)

Equally, should Google actually relaunch a search product in China — as it’s controversially been toying with doing — it’s likely the company would push Apple to give it the default slot there too.

Though Apple would have more reason to push back, given Google would likely remain a minnow in that market. (Apple currently defaults to local search giant Baidu for iOS users in China.)

So even the current picture around search on iOS is a little more fuzzy than Cook likes to make out.

Local flavor

China is an interesting case, because if you look at Apple’s growth challenges in that market you could come to a very different conclusion vis-a-vis the power of privacy as a brand premium.

In China it’s convenience, via the do-it-all ‘Swiss army knife’ WeChat platform, that’s apparently the driving consumer force — and now also a headwind for Apple’s business there.

At the same time, the idea of users in the market having any kind of privacy online — when Internet surveillance has been imposed and ‘normalized’ by the state — is essentially impossible to imagine.

Yet Apple continues doing business in China, netting it further charges of hypocrisy.

Its revised guidance this week merely spotlights how important China and emerging markets are to its business fortunes. A principled pull-out hardly looks to be on the cards.

All of which underscores growing emerging market pressures on Apple that might push harder against its stated principles. What price privacy indeed?

It’s clear that carving out growth in a saturated smartphone market is going to be an increasingly tricky business for all players, with the risk of fresh trade-offs and pitfalls looming especially for Apple.

Negotiating this terrain certainly demands a fresh approach, as Cook implies is on his mind, per the shareholder letter.

Arguably the new normal may also call for an increasingly localized approach as a way to differentiate in a saturated and samey smartphone market.

The old Apple ‘one-sized fits all’ philosophy is already very outdated for some users and risks being caught flat-footed on a growing number of fronts — be that if your measure is software ‘innovation’ or a principled position on privacy.

An arbitrary limit on the choice of search engine your users can pick seems a telling example. Why not offer iOS users a free choice?

Or are Google’s billions really standing in the way of that?

It’s certainly an odd situation that iPhone owners in France, say, can pick from a wide range of keyboard apps — from mainstream names to superficial bling-focused glitter and/or neon LED keyboard skins or indeed emoji and GIF-obsessed keyboards — but if they want to use locally developed pro-privacy search engine Qwant on their phone’s native browser they have to tediously surf to the company’s webpage every time they want to look something up.

Google search might be the best for a median average ‘global’ (excluding China) iOS user but in an age of increasingly self-focused and self-centred technology, with ever more demanding consumers, there’s really no argument against letting people who want to choose for themselves.

In Europe there’s also the updated data protection framework, GDPR, to consider. Which may yet rework some mainstream ad tech business models.

On this front Qwant questions how even non-tracking rival DDG can protect users’ searches from government surveillance given its use of AWS cloud hosting and the U.S. Cloud Act. (Though, responding to a discussion thread about the issue on Github two years ago, DDG’s founder noted it has servers around the world, writing: “If you are in Europe you will be connected to our European servers.” He also reiterated that DDG does not collect any personal data from users — thereby limiting what could be extracted from AWS via the Act.)

Asked what reception it’s had when asking about getting its search engine on the Safari iOS list, Qwant told us the line that’s been (indirectly) fed back to it is “we are too European according to Apple”. (Apple declined to comment on the search choices it offers iOS users.)

“I have to work a lot to be more American,” Qwant co-founder and CEO Eric Leandri told us, summing up the smoke signals coming out of Cupertino.

“I understand that Apple wants to give the same kind of experience to their customers… but I would say that if I was Apple now, based on the politics that I want to follow — about protecting the privacy of customers — I think it would be great to start thinking about Europe as a market where people have a different point of view on their data,” he continued.

“Apple has done a lot of work to, for example, not let applications give data to each by a very strict [anti-tracking policy]; Apple has done a lot of work to guarantee that cookies and tracking is super difficult on iOS; and now the last problem of Apple is Google search.”

“So I hope that Apple will look at our proposal in a different way — not just one-fits-all. Because we don’t think that one-fits-all today,” he added.

Qwant too, then, is hoping for a better Apple to emerge as a result of a little market adversity.



from TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2RxIUfB
via IFTTT

miércoles, 2 de enero de 2019

Apple lowers guidance on Q1 results, cites China trade tensions

Apple CEO Tim Cook issued a letter today, revising guidance for the company’s Q1 fiscal results. Per the letter, revenue has been shifted from an initial projection of between $89 billion and $93 billion to $84 billion. The note highlights a number of reasons for dropping the number, including, perhaps most notably, lower than expected results in emerging markets.

“While we anticipated some challenges in key emerging markets, we did not foresee the magnitude of the economic deceleration, particularly in Greater China,” Cook says in the letter. “In fact, most of our revenue shortfall to our guidance, and over 100 percent of our year-over-year worldwide revenue decline, occurred in Greater China across iPhone, Mac and iPad.”

Apple has invested a lot of future growth in markets like China, and a series of factors have made for disappointing results. Among them a slowed economy and tensions with the U.S. spurred on by tariffs that many believe will spur on a full-fledged trade war. In March, Cook told the press that he took up the issue of U.S. China relations directly with Trump. China is not the only emerging market that has been an issue for Apple, however — India has also been a tough nut for the company to crack.

But that’s only one piece of the puzzle here. As Cook notes in the letter, there have been fewer iPhone upgrades than expected. The executive notes, however, that non-phone categories (including the Mac, Apple Watch and iPad) did manage to grow 19 percent, but the smartphone has long been a driving force in the company’s economic fortunes, so a blow to those sales can have a substantial impact on the company’s bottom line.

2018 marked the first down year for smartphone numbers since analyst began tracking them, and not even the might iPhone is immune from the larger trends. Pricees are going up, phone quality has improved and new features haven’t been enough to keep consumers to a shortened upgrade cycle. The industry at large is going through a reckoning as it grapples to determine the next major consumer electronics trend. Apple has continued to be a rare bright spot in a stagnant world of wearables, but the Watch alone isn’t enough to right that ship.

“While China may have played a big role in the revenue miss the reality is nearly all smartphone markets are seeing a lengthening in replacement cycles and we should expect this to be the new normal,” Ben Bajarin of Creative Strategies, tells TechCrunch. “While price is what is being mentioned, I believe there would have still been softer iPhone sales even if prices were not raised due to consumers being content with their current phones and not as interested in the premium features coming out in the latest models.”

The letter features an unusually dour tone from the chief executive, also placing some of the blame on supply chain constraints, shifting product release cycles and the strength of the U.S. dollar.

But Cook rightly notes that Apple has been through plenty of tough times before. “As we exit a challenging quarter, we are as confident as ever in the fundamental strength of our business. We manage Apple for the long term, and Apple has always used periods of adversity to re-examine our approach, to take advantage of our culture of flexibility, adaptability and creativity, and to emerge better as a result.”

 



from TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2TlTZha
via IFTTT