Monthly Archives: December 2020

News: Reliance’s Jio Platforms says it will roll out 5G in second half of 2021

Reliance’s Jio Platforms, the largest telecom operator in India, plans to roll out a 5G network in the country in the second half of 2021, top executive Mukesh Ambani announced on Tuesday. “India is today among the best digitally connected nations in the world. In order to maintain this lead, policy steps are needed to

Reliance’s Jio Platforms, the largest telecom operator in India, plans to roll out a 5G network in the country in the second half of 2021, top executive Mukesh Ambani announced on Tuesday.

“India is today among the best digitally connected nations in the world. In order to maintain this lead, policy steps are needed to accelerate early rollout of 5G, and to make it affordable and available everywhere. I assure you that Jio will pioneer the 5G revolution in India in the second half of 2021,” said Ambani, who controls Jio Platforms’ parent firm Reliance Industries, at a trade conference.

The announcement comes as a surprise as India has yet to grant spectrum for 5G network to telecom networks in the country. At this moment, it is also unclear when India will begin auctioning the 5G spectrum.

Ambani, who is India’s richest man, said he was hopeful that the rollout of 5G network in India will enable the world’s second largest internet market to lead what he termed as the fourth industrial revolution. “Jio Platforms, with its family of over 20 start-up partners, has built world-class capabilities in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, big data, machine learning, internet of things, blockchain, etc,” he said.

The telecom operator, which has raised over $20 billion this year from a roster of high-profile investors including Facebook and Google, said the company is also hopeful that its bouquet of services in education, healthcare, financial services and new commerce categories “once proven in India, will be offered to the rest of the world to address global challenges.”

Gopal Vittal, the chief executive of Airtel (India’s second largest telecom operator), said the company was hopeful that India would have established a nation-wide 5G network in two to three years. He, however, did not share a timeline for when the rollout of 5G on his network would begin. (In a recent earnings call, Vittal had warned that the proposed price of the spectrum of 5G was “very, very expensive” — something that won’t support any kind of business model.)

During his speech, Ambani also urged industry players to rely on locally produced hardware and components. “As the digitalisation of the Indian economy and Indian society picks up speed, the demand for digital hardware will grow enormously. We cannot rely on large-scale imports in this area of critical national need.”

Airtel has previously said that it is open to the idea of collaborating with global firms for components. “Huawei, over the last 10 or 12 years, has become extremely good with their products to a point where I can safely today say their products at least in 3G, 4G that we have experienced is significantly superior to Ericsson and Nokia without a doubt. And I use all three of them,” said Sunil Mittal, the founder of Airtel, at a conference earlier this year. In the same panel, US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross had urged India and other allies of the US to avoid Huawei.

Vittal today also urged that India should adopt the global 5G standard. “There is sometimes talks that India must have its own 5G standard. This is an existential thread which could lock India out of the global ecosystem and slow down the pace of innovation. We could let down our citizens if you allow that to happen.”

On today’s panel, which was attended by Mittal as well as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Ambani said stakeholders also need to think about ways to serve nearly 300 million people who are still on 2G networks in India. “Urgent policy steps are needed to ensure that these underprivileged people have an affordable smartphone, So that they too can benefit from Direct Benefit Transfer into their bank accounts, and actively participate in the Digital Economy,” he added.

News: Angling to be the Carfax for EV batteries, Recurrent raises $3.5 million

The Seattle-based startup Recurrent said today it has closed on $3.5 million in financing as it looks to become the Carfax for electric vehicle batteries.  The battery system is arguably the most important part of any electric vehicle and as the market for used electric vehicles expands, independent verification on battery life and range can

The Seattle-based startup Recurrent said today it has closed on $3.5 million in financing as it looks to become the Carfax for electric vehicle batteries. 

The battery system is arguably the most important part of any electric vehicle and as the market for used electric vehicles expands, independent verification on battery life and range can help car buyers with their purchasing decision, the company said.

Investors including Wireframe Ventures, PSL Ventures, Vulcan Capital, Prelude Ventures, Powerhouse Ventures, Ascend.VC and the American Automobile Association’s (AAA) Washington chapter.

“Used car sales are at least double new car sales every year. With the third anniversary of Tesla’s Model 3 and the rapid introduction of new electric models across all vehicle makers, used EV sales are about to grow substantially,” said Paul Straub, Managing Director of Wireframe Ventures, said in a statement. “The timing is right for a first mover with a strong data and technology advantage to bring confidence and transparency to these transactions.”

The company said it will use the money to invest in continued product development as it refines its third-party condition reports for used electric vehicle shoppers and battery analytics stats for current electric vehicle owners.

Recurrent collects its data from 2,500 volunteer electric vehicle drivers who currently use the Recurrent service for monthly battery reports on their own vehicles

“While there’s clearly a market-driven opportunity here, we’re particularly excited about the potential impact of Biden administration’s policies on EV adoption,” said Emily Kirsch, Founder and Managing Partner of Powerhouse Ventures, said in a statement. “We’ve seen the huge impact that favorable policies are having in the EU and think there’s a lot of upside potential in a similar acceleration in the U.S.”

.

News: German secure email provider Tutanota forced to monitor an account, after regional court ruling

German e2e encrypted email provider Tutanota has been ordered by a regional court to develop a function that allows it to monitor an individual account. The encrypted email service provider has been fighting a number of such orders in its home country. The ruling, which was reported in the German press late last month, contradicts

German e2e encrypted email provider Tutanota has been ordered by a regional court to develop a function that allows it to monitor an individual account.

The encrypted email service provider has been fighting a number of such orders in its home country.

The ruling, which was reported in the German press late last month, contradicts an earlier Hanover court finding that Tutanota, a provider of web-based email, is not a telecommunications service.

The order by the Cologne court comes under a German law (known as “TKG”) which requires telecommunications service providers to disclose data to law enforcement/intelligence agencies if they receive a lawful intercept request.

The Cologne court ruling also runs counter to a 2019 decision by Europe’s top court, the CJEU, which found that another web-based email service, Gmail, is not an ‘electronic communications service’ as defined in EU law — meaning it can’t be subject to common EU rules for telcos.

Tutanota co-founder Matthias Pfau described the Cologne ruling as “absurd” — and confirmed it’s appealing.

“The argumentation is as follows: Although we are no longer a provider of telecommunications services, we would be involved in providing telecommunications services and must therefore still enable telecommunications and traffic data collection,” he told TechCrunch.

“From our point of view — and law German law experts agree with us — this is absurd. Neither does the court state what telecommunications service we are involved in nor do they name the actual provider of the telecommunications service.

“The telecommunications service cannot be email, because we provide it completely ourselves. And if we were to participate, we would have to have a business relationship with the actual provider.”

Despite the absurdity of a regional court treating an email provider as an ISP — in apparent contradiction of earlier CJEU guidance — Tutanota is nonetheless required to comply with the order, and develop a surveillance function for the specific inbox, while its appeal continues.

A spokeswoman for Tutanota confirmed it has told the court it will develop the function by the end of this year — whereas she suggested its appeals process is likely to take “months” more to run its course.

“We are going to the higher court in parallel. We are already preparing an appeal to the Bundesgerichtshof [Germany’s Federal Court of Justice],” she added.

The Cologne court order is for a surveillance function to be implemented on a single Tutanota account that had been used for an extortion attempt. The Tutanota spokeswoman said the monitoring function will only apply to future emails this account receives — it will not affect emails previously received.

She added that the account in question appears to no longer be in use.

While after-the-fact monitoring seems unlikely to make any difference to the specific case the suspicion is that court wants to create a precedence — raising the hackles of security watchers who are worried about the risk of digital service providers being compelled to bake backdoors into their services in the region.

Last month a draft resolution of the Council of the European Union triggered substantial concern that EU lawmakers are considering a ban on e2e encryption as part of an anti-terrorism security push. However the draft document discussed only “lawful and targeted access” — while expressing support for “strong encryption”.

Returning to the Tutanote surveillance order, it can only be made to apply to unencrypted emails linked to the specific account.

This is because the email service provider applies e2e encryption to its own users’ content — meaning it does not hold decryption keys so is unable to decrypt the data — though it also allows users to receive emails from email services that do not apply e2e encryption (hence it can be compelled to provide that data in plain text).

However, if the EU were to legislate to compel e2e encryption service providers to provide decrypted data in response to lawful intercept requests, it would effectively outlaw the use of e2e encryption.

That’s the scenario of most concern — though no such law has yet been proposed by any EU institutions. (And would very likely face fierce opposition in the European parliament, as well as more broadly, from academia, civil society, consumer protection, and privacy and digital rights groups, among others.)

According to the ruling of the Cologne Regional Court, we were obliged to release unencrypted incoming and outgoing emails from one mailbox. Emails that are encrypted end-to-end in Tutanota cannot be decrypted by us, not even after the court order,” noted Pfau.

“Tutanota is one of the few mail providers that encrypts the entire mailbox, also calendar and contacts. The encrypted data cannot be decrypted by us, because only the user has the key to decrypt it.”

“This decision shows again why end-to-end encryption is so important,” he added. 

News: Nielsen plans to combine traditional and digital TV ratings

Nielsen is updating its TV ratings to reflect a world which audiences are watching TV both live and on-demand, across a variety of different streaming services and devices. While the firm has long provided the standard measure for TV audiences, things are more fragmented when it comes to digital viewing. So the upcoming Nielsen One

Nielsen is updating its TV ratings to reflect a world which audiences are watching TV both live and on-demand, across a variety of different streaming services and devices.

While the firm has long provided the standard measure for TV audiences, things are more fragmented when it comes to digital viewing. So the upcoming Nielsen One platform isn’t just another digital measurement product — it’s an update to Nielsen’s core metrics.

“Our main objective is, we want measurement to be no longer be a barrier to cross-media [ad] buying,” said Scott Brown, Nielsen’s general manager of audience measurement.

So when Nielsen One launches in fall 2022, the numbers that Nielsen reports about a TV program’s viewership should reflect the true size of the audience, not just the number of people watching on traditionally.

And given the online world’s programmatic ad-buying, as well as similar tools beginning to expand into linear traditional TV, Brown said it’s also time to abandon the idea that “everybody sees the same ads.”

That means the platform will be “moving away from” Nielsen’s C3 and C7 ratings, which are supposed to measure how many people saw a TV program’s ads within three and seven days of airing, respectively. Brown said Nielsen One will be much more granular, measuring how many people saw each ad across different platforms: “Each individual advertisement will get an audience estimate number,” with the goal of fully abandoning the older metrics by fall 2024.

Nielsen One

Image Credits: Nielsen

The Nielsen One launch will also include what Brown called a “new data backbone,” allowing the firm’s clients to get more direct access to the data that Nielsen uses to report these numbers.

To offer this data, Nielsen will continue relying on the panels that it uses to create its existing TV ratings, except Brown said the data will now be “truly cross-platform.” The firm will be drawing additional data from its partners, who already include Amazon, Hulu, Roku, Vizio and Google/YouTube.

Brown suggested that with many networks and media companies launching or acquiring streaming services of their own, all of them should want to work with Nielsen to validate their viewership and ads — though some, like Netflix and Disney+, have less of an incentive since their business models rely on subscriptions, not ads.

“Everyone will be measured,” he said. “The ones that lean in and do an integration with us will get more granular measurement and more comprehensive coverage.”

I also brought up one of the big debates in the online world: With Facebook counting three seconds of viewing time as a video play, while Netflix focuses on viewers who “chose to watch” at least two minutes of a show, what actually constitutes an impression?

“We don’t have a final answer in terms of, this is what we’re rolling out,” Brown said. Instead, Nielsen plans to create a working group to hash this out next year. And in the meantime, it’s building technology that will “measure on a second-by-second level of granularity,” allowing the platform to support whatever the final rule might be.

“Today’s fragmented measurement landscape makes planning, implementing, and validating cross-platform campaigns overly complex and increasingly less predictable,” said Adam Gerber, chief media officer at the agency Essence, in a statement. “As we shift to addressable models, prioritize reach, and optimize to outcomes, it’s critical that we develop and adopt consistent, single-source measurement solutions. Nielsen’s new cross-media approach is an important step in delivering the confidence and transparency that advertisers require to support holistic campaigns.”

News: Finch raises $3.5M to build out its HR and payroll-focused API business

The old saw about finding a place where companies still use spreadsheets, and then building a startup to solve the problem, was a good way to dream up new software as a service (SaaS) companies. But the next generation of that idea may be to instead find a place where data is locked, fragmented or

The old saw about finding a place where companies still use spreadsheets, and then building a startup to solve the problem, was a good way to dream up new software as a service (SaaS) companies. But the next generation of that idea may be to instead find a place where data is locked, fragmented or both, and build an API to unleash the information.

That’s the thesis behind companies that TechCrunch has covered like Noyo, which wants to free health insurance data and raised $12.5 million in September. And it’s the apparent concept behind Finch, a recent Y Combinator graduate that is looking to liberate HR and payroll data.

General Catalyst led the round, which saw participation from a number of industry executives, including the founders from Ramp and Brex, two competing startups, and Digits. The company’s round comes after the startup had targeted a smaller, $1.5 million sum but wound up taking more capital aboard.

Finch was founded by Jeremy Zhang and Ansel Parikh. Zhang moved from robot R&D for a big tech company to SmartCar, which is building an API for what it self-describes as “mobility applications.” Parikh, Zhang told TechCrunch, worked in venture on API-related deals. So, the pair had experience with startup products that were delivered through a developer endpoint, not by an application coupled to a contract.

Zhang and Parik initially worked on a product that would have allowed other companies to embed consumer lending into their own service. But, in Zhang’s telling, the pair ran into the pandemic, the early period of which was anathema to interest in extending more credit to regular folks. (Notably Upstart, a fintech focused on facilitating consumer lending, is in the process of going public; how rapidly 2020 has spun industries around.)

However, a design partner wanted to offer PPP loans to SMBs on its platform, so the pair wound up looking into what was required for the project on the data side of the ask; Finch was born out of those learnings.

Finch connects customers to payroll and HR data via an API, offering both a free version of its product to entice developers, and a paid version of the product that is priced either as a pay-as-you-go service, or with a SaaS-like pricing provision.

Something notable about Finch is its age. Even for a startup, it’s young. The founding group put up a landing page for the company in April, and wrote the first code for the project in July. That’s rapid scaling from zero to in-market traction. Today Finch is growing 50% month-over-month in terms of both revenue and “employers connected,” giving it the sort of growth that investors flock to.

What might one be able to build with Finch’s API? Past a few basic ideas, my brain was bereft, so I asked Zhang to dole out the future to me. In the co-founder’s estimation, there are three core buckets where Finch can have a role: financial software, inside the lending and insurances spaces, and supporting the burgeoning HR and benefits software market.

In each area, having access to what Zhang called a “source of truth,” namely HR and payroll data about employees and their employment, would allow other companies to better make decisions; tenure at a job could help one determine creditworthiness, HR services need to know who works where, and in the realm of finance apps that are working to help or supplant CFOs need to understand current headcount.

Still, Finch’s path won’t be an easy one. Part of the problem that its founders discovered is that there are myriad payroll and HR systems. Building out an API to support as many as its market requires will take time and investment. Raising more capital than it initially intended will help, we’re sure, but even with deeper coffers, the scale of the challenge in front of the young company will require yeoman’s work.

The company told TechCrunch that it can support the systems of 1.4 million employers today, though it intends to “10x” that number in the next year. Finch’s capital event is similar to the round raised recently by fellow YC graduate BuildBuddy, a SaaS play, in which both startups took aboard more than $3 million in funding after initially targeting a raise in the $1 million range.

The startup has six staff today, with Zhang expecting the the company to scale to 15 or 20 by the end of next year.

News: Dragos raises $110M Series C as demand to secure industrial systems soars

Cybersecurity firm Dragos has raised $110 million in its Series C, almost triple the amount that it raised two years ago in its last round. Dragos was founded in 2016 to detect and respond to threats facing industrial control systems (ICS), the devices critical to the continued operations of power plants, water and energy supplies,

Cybersecurity firm Dragos has raised $110 million in its Series C, almost triple the amount that it raised two years ago in its last round.

Dragos was founded in 2016 to detect and respond to threats facing industrial control systems (ICS), the devices critical to the continued operations of power plants, water and energy supplies, and other critical infrastructure. The company’s threat detection platform — its moneymaker — helps companies with industrial control systems defend against hackers trying to get into important operational systems. Its platform kicks out hackers that could shut down manufacturing lines or control energy supply systems, while its research arm keeps tabs on the hackers that can break into these highly complex and segmented industrial networks in the first place.

The startup’s latest round was led by National Grid Partners and Koch Disruptive Technologies, with both firms adding a member each to Dragos’ board. The round also saw participation from Saudi Aramco Energy Ventures and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, as well as return investors Allegis Cyber, Canaan Partners, DataTribe, Energy Impact Partners and Schweitzer Engineering Labs.

This latest round of funding will help the company with its go-to-market efforts, as well as growing its customer support team with 30 staff and building up its sales and marketing team. Lee said the company’s priority had been to work on its threat platform, and less selling it.

About one-third of the company’s employees work in software engineering to build its threat platform.

Dragos founder and chief executive Robert Lee said the pandemic, which forced vast swathes of the world to work remotely from home under lockdown restrictions, served as a wake-up call for companies with critical infrastructure.

“When you’re talking about critical infrastructure sites and people’s utilities, you need to put your best foot forward on the tech first,” he said.

Many companies were already trying to adapt with the digital age, but Lee said many companies realized they had underinvested in ICS security.

Dragos team picture

A team photo of Dragos employees. Image Credits: Dragos

Based just outside Washington D.C., Dragos now has over 220 employees and will be adding more, close to doubling its headcount since last year, and adding new offices in Melbourne, Dubai and in the United Kingdom.

Lee said the U.K.’s transition out of the European Union would all but ensure that the new U.K. office could not serve as an EU hub for the company, but that it was necessary to “to go where the problems are.”

Another one of those places is Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers, where Dragos has an office and now draws an investment. Saudi oil and gas manufacturing plants have been the target of several cyberattacks, including the Trisis malware in 2017 that shut down one of the kingdom’s biggest petrochemical plants. But the country has faced extensive criticism for its human rights record by international rights groups. Lee said the company works to protect infrastructure that serves civilians and has actively rejected military contracts that would fall afoul of those values. “I don’t want to put asterisks on that mission,” he said.

Lee told TechCrunch that the company has grown at a rapid pace since it was founded four years ago.

“Our goal was never to get acquired,” he said. Echoing remarks he made last year, Lee said that the company’s plan was to continue growing and investing in the problems that Dragos sees — with an eventual goal to take the company public. “But we’re not rushed,” he said.

“The hallmark of Dragos being successful won’t be a successful IPO,” said Lee. “The hallmark will be having validated and built the market large enough that there can be other companies that come behind us serving the other more niche aspects of the ICS market and building out the community, and making sure our infrastructure is safer.”

News: Making sense of Klarna

Sebastian Siemiatkowski, the co-founder and CEO of Klarna — the Swedish fintech “buy now, pay later” sensation that is currently Europe’s most valuable private tech company — is dismissive of the suggestion that non U.S. companies should relocate to Silicon Valley if they really want to grow. “We did hear that and I think it’s

Sebastian Siemiatkowski, the co-founder and CEO of Klarna — the Swedish fintech “buy now, pay later” sensation that is currently Europe’s most valuable private tech company — is dismissive of the suggestion that non U.S. companies should relocate to Silicon Valley if they really want to grow.

“We did hear that and I think it’s very poor advice,” he says. An overheated market for tech talent and the fickle nature of employees that are constantly job-hopping, he argues, make it harder to build a company for the long term.

Then he goes further.

“When I went to San Francisco for the first time about 10 years ago, [it] was a magical place. It was the early days of Facebook, there was an amazing vibe. When I go to San Francisco today, it’s changed to become, in my opinion, fairly cold.”

Siemiatkowski, a Swedish national and the son of two immigrants from Poland, is also sceptical of the “American dream.” In contrast to America, he points out how Sweden is among the most successful societies in the world from a social mobility perspective — referencing its free education and free health care, which sets up as many people as possible for success. But there is one caveat: he doesn’t think first-generation immigrants in Sweden do nearly as well as their children.

“We didn’t have a lot of money,” he tells me. “My father was driving a cab, he was unemployed for many years, even though he had basically a doctorate in agronomy. That’s kind of the unfortunate part of this, but that has obviously created a massive amount of hunger with me.”

As second generation success stories go, the rise of Klarna is up there with the best, even if it has already been 15 years in the making.

Backed by the likes of Sequoia, Silverlake, and Atomico, a new $650 million funding round in September gave the company a whopping $10.65 billion valuation — almost double the price achieved a year earlier, cementing its status as a poster child for Europe’s ability to build tech companies valued far above $1 billion. Siemiatkowski still owns an 8.1 percent stake.

Klarna is also, perhaps, even more mythical than a unicorn: a fintech that has been profitable nearly from the get-go. That only changed in 2019, when it decided to incur losses in favor of investing millions trying to conquer the U.S. market, choosing New York and L.A. over San Francisco for its American offices.

The company has been built on the concept of giving consumers a way to buy things online without having to pay for them upfront, and without resorting to a credit card. It does this both by offering online retailer integrations where Klarna appears as an option at check out, and through its own “shopping mall” app, where users can browse all the stores that let you pay with Klarna. On the back of this, the company hopes to foster a bigger financial relationship with its users as a fully-fledged bank.

If a bank is partly about corralling enough users on to your platform to pay money in and out, Klarna is well on its way. Today, the company boasts a registered customer base of 90 million, 11 million of which are in the U.S. In the last year alone, 21 million users were added globally. Klarna’s direct to consumer app, which sits alongside its 200,000 strong merchant point of sale integrations, has 14 million active users globally. Combined, Klarna is processing over 1 million transactions per day through its platform.

Image Credits: Klarna

This growth has continued apace as Klarna rides one macro trend and bucks another: Prompted by the pandemic, e-commerce has gone gangbusters, while, conversely, consumer credit as a whole has been in decline as people are paying down longer-term debt in record numbers. Even before COVID-19, Klarna and other buy now, pay later providers had been successfully picking up the slack created by a credit card market that, in some countries, has been steadily contracting.

Yet with a business model that generates the majority of its revenue by offering consumers short-term credit — and against a backdrop where the idea of easy credit and infinite consumption is increasingly criticised — the fintech giant is not without detractors.

When I mention Klarna to people who work in the European tech industry, the reaction tends to fall into one of three camps: those who reference the company’s “weird” above the line advertising and social media campaigns; those who use the service regularly and talk in terms of guilty pleasures; and those who are outright scornful of the impact on society they perceive Klarna to be making. And it’s true: You can’t help but be suspicious of something that gives consumers the feeling that they can spend money they might not have. And those “Smoooth” ads (below) certainly don’t offer much reassurance.

Delve a little deeper, however, and it becomes clear that the company’s business model can be misunderstood and that the arguments playing out in the media for and against buy now, pay later is only one part of the Klarna story.

In a wide-ranging interview, Siemiatkowski confronts criticisms head on, including that Klarna makes it too easy to get into debt, and that buy now, pay later needs to be regulated. We also discuss Klarna’s business model and the balancing act required to win over consumers and keep merchants onside.

We also learn how, under his watch and as the company began to scale, Klarna missed the next big opportunity in fintech, instead being usurped by Adyen and Stripe. Siemiatkowski also shares what’s next for the company as it ventures further into the world of retail banking after gaining a bank license in 2017.

And, told publicly for the first time, Siemiatkowski reveals how he once sought out PayPal co-founder Max Levchin as an advisor, only to learn a little later that he had started Affirm, one of Klarna’s most direct U.S. competitors and sometimes described by Europeans as a Klarna clone.

But first, let’s go back to the beginning.

Klarna’s first ever transaction took place at 11:06:40 am on April 10, 2005 at a Swedish bookshop called Pocketklubben, according to the abbreviated history published on the company’s website. However, what is made less explicit is that there was likely very little technology involved. The real innovation was a business one, with Klarna’s young and non-technical founders, Sebastian Siemiatkowski, Niklas Adalberth and Victor Jacobsso, taking an old idea and reconfiguring it for the burgeoning e-commerce industry.

By enabling customers that shopped online to be mailed an invoice with 30 days to pay, online shopping could be made easier and safer for consumers, which in turn helped increase sales for retailers.

“The invoicing company”

“When they started, they didn’t position themselves so much as a startup or as a tech company,” recalls Skype founder Niklas Zennström, whose venture capital firm Atomico would eventually become a Klarna investor in 2012. “People referred to them as the invoicing company.”

Today, Klarna is most certainly a tech company, employing 1,300 software engineers out of a staff of over 3,500. The company is now entirely cloud based and with various fully automated processes, from credit risk processing to algorithms in the Klarna shopping app to personalize content for individual consumers to AI/machine learning for 24 hour customer service.

Crucially, however, even this early and rudimentary version of what would become ‘buy now, pay later’ ticked two important boxes. Consumers, especially those who were distrusting of e-commerce, could be sure they’d receive goods before being charged, and if for any reason a product needed to be returned, customers wouldn’t have to wait weeks to be reimbursed as they hadn’t outlaid cash in the first place. Arguably both problems were already solved by credit cards, but in countries like Sweden, credit card take up was low, while the humble debit card doesn’t carry the same consumer protections as a credit card.

“The reason that we were able to launch it and be successful was because we were in a market where debit cards were much more prevalent than credit cards,” says Siemiatkowski. “And most people who have credit cards don’t reflect on the fact that if you have a debit card and you shop online, you face a number of struggles that a credit card holder does not.”

Those “struggles” include tying up your own money for the time it takes to return an item and process a refund. In contrast, when you spend on a credit card, the merchant is effectively holding your credit card company’s money.

“If I am buying some items and feel a bit unsafe about the merchant I’m using, if there’s a credit card, I don’t feel like I’m risking my money. If it’s my salary money you’re actually holding as a merchant for three weeks while you’re processing the return, that’s a problem,” Siemiatkowski argues.

Instead, Klarna would step in and offer to pay the merchant up front while providing customers 30 days to settle their invoice. Later this would be extended to include installments as an option. In return for taking on all of the risk and promising to increase conversions, merchants would give the Swedish upstart a percentage cut of the transactions.

“They wanted to make it really simple by just putting in your name, your Social Security number, and then you can instantaneously get an option to get an invoice sent to you later on. So what it did was remove a lot of friction from buying,” says Zennström.

Meanwhile, the more retailers sold, the more revenue Klarna would generate, all without consumers having to be charged interest on what might otherwise be described as a short-term loan. Pitch perfect, you might think. However, in early 2005 and before the company was incorporated, the concept was stress-tested at a “Shark Tank”-style event held at the Stockholm School of Economics and attended by the King of Sweden. The judging panel, made up of prominent Swedish financiers, were not convinced and Klarna’s invoicing idea came last in the competition. Despite the loss, Siemiatkowski held on to feedback from an unknown member of the audience, who surmised that banks would never launch something similar. Siemiatkowski left undeterred.

Angel investment from a former Erlang Systems sales manager, Jane Walerud, followed and she put Klarna’s founders in contact with a team of developers who helped build the first version of the platform. However, it soon surfaced that there was a misunderstanding in relation to the equity promised and how it should be linked to a longer commitment to the project.

Reflects Siemiatkowski: “One of the drawbacks that we had at the company was that none of the three co-founders had any engineering background; we couldn’t code. We were connected to five engineers that by themselves were amazing engineers, but we had a slight misunderstanding. Their idea was that they were going to come in, build a prototype, ship it, and then leave for 37% of the equity. Our understanding was that they were going to come in, ship it, and if it started scaling they would stay with us and work for a longer period of time. This is the classic mistake that you do as a startup.”

Eventually, the original five engineers quit, leaving Siemiatkowski to manage something he didn’t understand. “We obviously hired a CTO, but I also needed to be able to evaluate his decision making and all of these things in order to be able to assess whether we had the right setup to achieve what we want to achieve,” he says.

Between 2006 and 2008, Klarna continued to grow as more people started shopping online. The company expanded beyond Sweden to neighboring Nordic countries Norway, Finland and Denmark, with a headcount that had reached 120 employees. Even though there were signs of growth, Siemiatkowski says it still took a long time to realise that if Klarna was ever going to be really successful, it needed to fully transform into a tech company.

“We were really good at sales, we were okay at marketing, [and] we were service oriented: we really delivered to our customers. But it wasn’t really that technology driven,” he concedes.

To attract the kind of tech talent required, Siemiatkowski decided he needed to woo a renowned tech investor. Further backing had come in 2007 from Swedish investment firm Investment AB Öresund, but by 2010 the Klarna CEO had two new targets in his sights: Niklas Zennström, the Swedish entrepreneur who had already achieved legend status back home after building and selling Skype, and Sequoia Capital, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm that had invested in Apple, Google and PayPal.

“Part of our thinking about how we make Klarna attractive for people with engineering backgrounds was to get an investor that really had the brand and could kind of put their mark on us and say, ‘this is a tech company,’” says Siemiatkowski.

There is every likelihood that Zennström’s Atomico would have joined Klarna’s cap table in 2010 if it weren’t for a single line of text published on the VC firm’s website, which read something like, “don’t contact us, we’ll contact you.” Europe’s startup ecosystem was still immature and what now seems like aloofness was probably nothing more than a crude way to deter cold pitches from non-venture type businesses. But whatever the intent, it would be another two years before the firm eventually had the opportunity to invest in Klarna at what was almost certainly a much higher valuation.

“That was our loss for being too arrogant,” says Zennström. “Clearly we didn’t pursue them, we didn’t discover them because we didn’t have them on our radar. When we got to know them [two years later], what we liked a lot as a firm was the pain point that they were addressing.

“E-commerce was a relatively low single digit penetration of all retail, but of course growing, and we have always believed that e-commerce is going to continue to grow and become bigger than physical retailers. We thought that if you can remove that friction of the payment, and offer people different payment methods, that’s a really big proposition.”

“I always tease Niklas about it,” admits Siemiatkowski. “They wanted to, you know, keep it exclusive and I get it. So we were like, ‘okay, we can’t get hold of them, so let’s talk to Sequoia instead.’”

However, cold calling Sequoia wasn’t going to cut it either, not only because the firm didn’t generally invest in Europe, but also by Siemiatkowski’s own admission, Klarna didn’t look much like a tech company at the time. Luckily, a mutual contact got wind that Sequoia was on the lookout for interesting companies in the region and Klarna’s name was promptly thrown into the mix.

“Chris [Olsen], who was working at Sequoia at the time, called me, [but] I had this idea that I needed to be hard to catch. So I decided to not call back for three days, which was a very nervous time where I was just sitting on my hands not doing anything,” he said. “It was like, I don’t want to look like I’m too interested in this. Eventually, after three days, I call back and we did an exclusive deal with them, which I don’t recommend companies do.”

In hindsight, the Klarna CEO advises that it’s always smarter to foster competition in a round. As the only show in town, Sequoia invested at a $100 million valuation. “They bought 25 percent of the company and that was kind of it,” he says.


Siemiatkowski believes a company is made up of three things.

The first he calls internal momentum: “How fast are we moving as an organisation? How good are the decisions we are taking? How much are we avoiding [company] politics? How much of a true meritocracy are we?”

The second is profit and loss.

And the third is valuation. In a small company these three things are closely correlated in time, he says, “so if you have great internal momentum, you will instantly see it in your P&L, and then you will instantly see that hopefully in your company valuation as well.”

But in a large company, because of its size, the challenge is that they start to become disconnected. “They’re obviously in the long term always 100% correlated, but in the short term, they can vary a lot,” cautions Siemiatkowski.

Unsurprisingly, fueled by Sequoia’s cash, Klarna continued to grow in 2010, ending the year with $54 million in annual revenue, an increase of 80%. In December 2011, General Atlantic and DST would invest $155 million in a round that gave Klarna the coveted status of a unicorn.

Siemiatkowski says, compared to the company’s subsequent $5.5 billion and $10.65 billion valuations, this is the one that put him under the most self-scrutiny.

“In just one and a half years, we went from $100 million to a $1 billion. And then I felt the pressure,” he tells me. “I felt like we made it such a competitive round because we wanted to compensate for what we saw partially as a mistake with Sequoia that we kind of went too far the other way.”

Klarna finally took Atomico’s money in 2012, and within two years had grown to over 1,000 employees. Along with multiple offices around the globe, the company moved to bigger headquarters in Stockholm and expanded to the U.K. with an office in central London. Yet, somewhere along the way, Siemiatkowski says Klarna had lost internal momentum.

“As the company scaled and we started adding more markets and growing fast, for me as CEO and co-founder, I found that very difficult,” he admits. “As long as we were up to 100 people, I found it easier, I understood how to talk to people, how to get things done, how to develop new products or features and so forth. It was all much less complex, and then we started approaching a couple of hundred people and I felt more and more lost in all of that.

“It was difficult, and at the same point of time, we still had a lot of success because we had built this product that worked really well and there was a lot of momentum coming solely from the product itself.”

Siemiatkowski says that most startups don’t recognize that “once you get the snowball rolling, you can actually do quite a lot of stupid things, and the snowball will continue rolling.”

The Klarna CEO doesn’t say it, but one of those “stupid things” came in 2012 when the startup faced a backlash in its home country. Instead of sending payment instructions in the post, the company had switched to email without considering that messages might go to spam or simply remain unread. This saw customers unintentionally defaulting and then being chased for payment, leading to accusations in the media that Klarna was tricking people so it could generate more revenue through late fees.

News: DealShare raises $21 million to expand its e-commerce platform to 100 Indian cities and towns

DealShare, a startup in India that has built an e-commerce platform for middle and lower income groups of consumers, said on Tuesday it has raised $21 million in a new financing round as it looks to expand its footprint in the world’s second largest internet market. WestBridge Capital led the Series C round of the

DealShare, a startup in India that has built an e-commerce platform for middle and lower income groups of consumers, said on Tuesday it has raised $21 million in a new financing round as it looks to expand its footprint in the world’s second largest internet market.

WestBridge Capital led the Series C round of the three-year-old startup, which is based in Bangalore. Alpha Wave Incubation, a venture fund managed by Falcon Edge Capital, Z3Partners and existing investors Matrix Partners India and Omidyar Network India also participated in the round, bringing DealShare’s to-date raise to $34 million.

DealShare kickstarted its journey the day Walmart acquired Flipkart, the startup’s founder and chief executive Vineet Rao said at a recent virtual conference. Rao said that even as Amazon and Flipkart had been able to create a market for themselves in the urban Indian cities, much of the nation was still underserved. There was an opportunity for someone to jump in, he said.

The startup began as an e-commerce platform on WhatsApp, where it offered hundreds of products to consumers. It didn’t take long before a major consumer spending pattern was visible, Rao said. People were only interested in buying items that were selling at discounted rates, said Rao.

Over time, that idea has become part of DealShare’s core offering. Today it incentivizes consumers — by offering them discounts and cashbacks — to share deals on products with their friends. The startup, which has since launched its own app and website, now operates in over two dozen cities in India.

Consumers wanted products that were relevant to them and they wanted to buy these items at a price that instilled the most value for their bucks, said Rao. “We focused on locally produced items instead of national brands. Even today, 80% to 90% of items we sell are locally produced,” he said.

“We started building a network of these suppliers. It was very tough because none of these guys fancied joining modern retail like e-commerce. Some of them had tried to work with e-commerce firms before but the experience left a lot to be desired,” he said.

Sandeep Singhal, Co-founder and Managing Director of WestBridge, said in a statement, “Majority of Indian population is currently residing in the non-metros and there is a huge business opportunity in these regions. The buying pattern of low and middle-income group is different especially in smaller markets and DealShare seems to have understood the nuances very well. We are very impressed with how the team has scaled up in the last 2 years, while retaining a sharp focus on low cost, high impact model,” said

The startup says it spent the last 18 months to improve its finances and is nearing profitability. Now it plans to invest in its technology stack and expand its platform to 100 cities and towns in five states of India in the next one year. It did not disclose how many customers it serves today, but said it is working to reach 10 million customers and clock $339 million in annual GMV.

News: Outfund, the revenue-based finance provider for online businesses, raises £37M

Outfund, the revenue-based finance startup that wants to help online businesses fund growth without giving away equity, has raised £37 million in a “late seed” investment. A mixture of debt and equity, the round is led by Fuel Ventures, alongside TMT Investment. Outfund says it will use the funds to offer larger financing to more

Outfund, the revenue-based finance startup that wants to help online businesses fund growth without giving away equity, has raised £37 million in a “late seed” investment. A mixture of debt and equity, the round is led by Fuel Ventures, alongside TMT Investment.

Outfund says it will use the funds to offer larger financing to more businesses, and to invest in new finance products and grow the team. It is also committing to lending £100 million to e-commerce and subscription-based businesses in the next 12 months.

Co-founder and CEO Daniel Lipinski, who previously founded and sold logistics platform ParcelBright, says existing financing solutions for online businesses are far from optimum. “[There’s] organic growth which is slow and cumbersome; bank loans which force directors to give personal guarantees and put their home on the line; or venture capital, where you have to give up control of the business and dilute your shareholding. Sadly, none of these are aligned with company goals of revenue generation and equity retention,” he argues.

To remedy this, Outfund has set out to create a fairer — and better aligned — way for online businesses to grow fast. Based solely on revenues and performance, and targeting businesses that take online payments, Outfund offers between £10,000 and £2 million of funding. Companies must have a minimum of £10,000 monthly turnover and to have been trading for at least six months. Outfund then charges a share of revenue, starting from 5 percent and factoring in projected payback time, although the fee is fixed even if it takes longer to pay back the loan.

To assess risk before deploying funding, the fintech’s algorithm pulls information from multiple data sources to determine how a company is performing. “Outfund uses live data as the backbone of our lending decisions, making us non-biased and fast,” adds the Outfund CEO. “This allows us to provide funding of up to £2 million within 24 hours. And, as we use unfiltered data sources, this helps reduce risk on our side meaning we can provide the cheapest possible fees over the longest possible repayment period”.

On direct competitors, Lipinski cites Canada’s Clearbanc, which recently launched in the U.K. “They are based in Canada, [so] it’s a real challenge for them to provide the speed and responsiveness that a U.K.-based company like Outfund can provide,” he claims. Another relatively new local player is Uncapped.

“Outfund is very different in the market in that we provide one fixed fee from 5% regardless of how you spend the funds. For example, other providers in the space charge an increased fee if you use the funding for stock as opposed to marketing. We are focused on technology to make the best lending decisions and means we can advance the cheapest fixed rates on the market regardless of how you spend it”.

News: Wish wants to be the Amazon for the rest of us; will retail investors buy it?

Most people know Wish as a site that sells throwaway doodads from China, but in anticipation of its impending IPO, the ten-year-old, San Francisco-based company has begun portraying itself as a kind of Amazon for the rest of us. Judging by what we’ve read and heard from sources in recent months, Wish wants to paint

Most people know Wish as a site that sells throwaway doodads from China, but in anticipation of its impending IPO, the ten-year-old, San Francisco-based company has begun portraying itself as a kind of Amazon for the rest of us.

Judging by what we’ve read and heard from sources in recent months, Wish wants to paint itself as a patriotic alternative to the trillion-dollar juggernaut and is positioning itself as the better option for the estimated 60% of families in the U.S. without enough liquid savings to get through three months of expenses. Such cost-conscious customers can’t afford Amazon Prime and are — at least in Wish’s telling — willing to wait an extra week or three for a product if it means paying considerably less for it.

We’ll know soon enough if public market investors buy the pitch. Wish registered plans this morning to sell 46 million shares at between $22 an $24 per share in an offering that’s expected to take place next week. The current range would value Wish at up to $14 billion, up from the $11.2 billion valuation it was last assigned by its private investors.

Wish has a lot of reasons to feel optimistic about its story heading into the offering. For one thing, people are clearly still discovering its business. According to Sensor Tower, Wish’s mobile shopping app was downloaded 9 million times last month, compared with the 6 million downloads that Amazon’s shopping app saw and the 2 million downloads seen by Walmart. In 2019, across all types of apps, Wish was the 16th most downloaded app.

There’s a lot to discover once potential customers do check out Wish. According to the company’s prospectus, its more than 100 million monthly active users across more than 100 countries are now shopping from 500,000 merchants that are selling approximately 150 million items on the platform.

While many of these are the nonessential tchotchkes that Wish has long been identified with, from tattoo kits to pet nail trimmers, a growing percentage of the mix also includes essential goods like paper towels and disinfectants — the kinds of items that keep customers coming back in reliable fashion.

It’s a bit of an evolution for the company, whose early focus was almost exclusively on cheap items that didn’t weigh much. First, Wish has always worked with unbranded merchants, mostly in China, that don’t have marketing costs built into the products and like the platform because it enables them to reach new customers for free without cannibalizing their existing market.

But Wish — which takes 15% of each transaction —  had also been relying heavily on a partnership with the USPS and China called ePacket that long enabled it to send items overseas to the U.S. for $1 to $2 as long as the items weren’t unusually large or heavy. Yet that changed on July 1, with a new USPS pricing structure that now requires companies like Wish to pay more to ship their goods or else move to more costly commercial networks.

Unsurprisingly, Wish had back-up plans. One of these has involved packing together multiple orders in China based on customers’ locations, then sending them in bulk to the U.S. to a designated location where they can be picked up.

Relatedly, dating back to early 2019, Wish began partnering with what are now tens of thousands of small businesses in the U.S. and Europe that stock its products, trading their storage space for access to Wish’s customers along with a small financial bonus for every in-store pickup. (Wish will pay store owners even more if they can deliver orders directly to customers’ homes.) According to Forbes, these partnerships provided Wish with an “inexpensive distribution network practically overnight.”

It happens to fit neatly into a larger anti-Amazon narrative wherein the Goliath (Amazon), unable to disrupt convenience stores, is now trying to supplant them with its own branded convenience shops, while Wish may be helping them prosper.

It is also a very asset-lite model compared with Amazon. Wish doesn’t hold inventory; it also doesn’t have to buy or maintain a fleet of planes or trucks or warehouses.

None of these developments completely counter the challenges that unprofitable Wish is still facing, beginning with its scale, which remains tiny compared with the towering giants it faces.

While the company is showing moderate revenue growth, its filings also show steady losses owing in part to its marketing spend. (In 2019, Wish reported revenue of $1.9 billion, up 10% year over year, but it saw a net loss of $136 million.)

The company has been making inroads into new geographies around the world, but it is still heavily dependent on China-based merchants. To address this, it has reportedly begun partnering increasingly with more U.S.- and Europe-based retailers, including those with overstocked or returned items that big retailers are looking to offload, along with those looking to sell refurbished electronics. “We’d love to diversify,” Szulczewski told Forbes this summer.

Wish has always been plagued by quality control issues, too, which it has yet to fully resolve. In fact, there are YouTube channels — some very funny —  focused entirely around what Wish products look like in reality versus how they are presented to shoppers online. (See below.)

Largely, it’s a cultural issue. For example, at a 2016 event hosted by this editor, cofounder and CEO Peter Szulczewski talked about having to educate Chinese merchants about American customers’ expectations.

“It’s true that consumer expectations in China are very different,” Szulczewski explained at the time. “Like, if you order a red sweater and you get a blue one, [shoppers are] like, ‘Eh, next time.’ So we have a lot of merchants that have only sold to Chinese consumers and we have to educate them that it’s not okay to ship a blue sweater because you don’t have any red sweaters in stock.”

Wish has been working to close the gap, as well as to tackle outright fraud on the platform. Just one of many moves has involved hiring a former community manager at Facebook as its own director of community engagement, a task that reportedly involves organizing Wish users to weed out bad apples. But Wish has surely lost plenty of shoppers burned by their experience along the way.

In the meantime, plenty of public market investors will be watching and waiting. So will the venture capitalists who have provided the company with $2.1 billion in funding over the years, including Formation 8, Third Point Ventures, GGV Capital, Raptor Group, Legend Capital, IDG Capital, DST Global, 8VC, 137 Ventures and Vika Ventures.

For her part, Anna Palmer of Boston-based Flybridge Capital Partners — who does not have a stake in Wish but who is focused very much on so-called commerce 3.0 — thinks that Wish “serves a different use case and a different customer need” than the Amazon shopper.

“If you look at the strong retail performance of the off-price and discount market —  think of retailers like Dollar General and Dollar Tree — it bodes well for the continued growth of Wish, especially since the discount market has been a tough one to bring online because of the additional logistics costs involved.”

WordPress Image Lightbox Plugin