Tag Archives: Blog

News: How Coupang is “out-Amazoning even Amazon,” according to Goodwater Capital

Korean e-commerce giant Coupang is expected to hold one of the biggest tech IPOs of the year on March 11. The company disclosed earlier this month that it is seeking up to $3.6 billion at a potential $51 billion valuation on the New York Stock Exchange. Founded in 2010, Coupang is sometimes described as the

Korean e-commerce giant Coupang is expected to hold one of the biggest tech IPOs of the year on March 11. The company disclosed earlier this month that it is seeking up to $3.6 billion at a potential $51 billion valuation on the New York Stock Exchange. Founded in 2010, Coupang is sometimes described as the Amazon of South Korea, but for years it has managed the impressive feat of achieving an even higher dollar retention rate than Amazon, according to a report by Goodwater Capital.

Goodwater’s S-1 teardown of Coupang, released today, is based on a combination of proprietary consumer research and information from Coupang’s S-1 filing. Before launching Goodwater, co-founder Eric Kim was managing director at Maverick, an early investor in Coupang, and served on the company’s board from 2011 to 2017. Neither he nor Goodwater have holdings in Coupang, however, and are releasing the teardown as third-party research.

According to the report, Coupang is not only the current market leader in South Korea, but also “the only player making major market share gains, widening its lead over competitors” like G Market, 11 Street, Auction, WeMakePrice, Naver Shopping and TMON. In 2020, it increased its market share to 24.6%, up from 18.1% in 2019.

Coupang market share

Coupang market share

Notably, Goodwater’s research found that shoppers are more likely to return and spend money on Coupang than other e-commerce sites—not just compared to its South Korean competitors, but also other major e-commerce players around the world. Based on dollar retention rate (or the amount of money a group spends each year after they first use a platform), Coupang customers return and spend more money than shoppers on eBay, Etsy, Walmart or Alibaba in the U.S.

“Customers are coming back and spending at a rate that easily exceeds those platforms and closely matches the behavior on Amazon,” the report says. “But more surprising is that as early as 2017, Coupang’s performance already started to exceed Amazon, with year 3 dollar retention of 346% with Amazon at 278%. Later cohorts have already improved on that. The value of these customers are not only best-in-class in Korea, but likely the highest in the world.”

Coupang's dollar retention rate compared to other e-commerce players

Coupang’s dollar retention rate compared to other e-commerce players

This is due in large part to Coupang’s heavy investment in logistics. When the company was founded in 2010, there were no major third-party logistics providers in South Korea comparable to UPS or FedEx in the U.S. Coupang had to build its own infrastructure and now has 100 fulfillment and logistics centers in 30 cities and 15,000 delivery drivers.

As a result of this aggressive focus, about 70% of South Korea’s population now lives within seven miles of a Coupang logistics center. This means it can offer free next-day delivery, same-day deliveries for items like groceries, and its trademark Dawn Delivery (order by midnight for packages that arrive before 7AM) for millions of products. This makes it especially attractive to shoppers in a country where “the work culture rivals that of the 996 work culture in China,” the report says.

Coupang consumer research by Goodwater Capital

Coupang consumer research by Goodwater Capital

In order to catch up, Kim told TechCrunch in an email that “a competitor would need to figure out a way to invest billions into logistical and technical infrastructure to try to compete with Coupang. Even with the necessary resourcing, you’ll notice that in South Korea, similar to other developed geographies, market leaders tend to build on their leads over time. We’ve seen this with Kakao, Naver, and now Coupang.”

“The moats from scale are quite strong in a market like South Korea because you’ve done something right to win over the South Korean consumer,” he added. 

Despite its high market penetration already, Kim said Coupang still has two main areas of growth. These are Rocket Fresh, its fresh grocery delivery business, and Coupang Eats, similar to Uber Eats. “Both leverage Coupang’s vast logistics network and Coupang has the largest directly employed delivery fleet in South Korea with over 15,000 directly employed drivers.”

Coupang was also able to grow quickly thanks to South Korea’s very high internet penetration rate of 96% and relatively high gross domestic product per capita. In addition, its logistics infrastructure benefits from the country’s geography.

Coupang’s model is very unique because of the density of South Korea. You have 50 million+ people in the landmass the size of the state of Indiana, but when you look specifically at just inhabitable land, it’s really the size of Rhode Island, about 2,700 square kilometers,” Kim said. “This allows Coupang to innovate on delivery in a way the world has never seen before.”

Coupang’s IPO is drawing comparisons to Alibaba’s debut on the New York Stock Exchange in 2014, since both are Asian e-commerce giants. But there are also several noteworthy differences between the two companies including “the amount of capital intensity between the two at the time of the IPO, where Alibaba had a capital-light model that didn’t require having a lot of infrastructure investment at the time,” Kim said. “That shows mainly in the operating margins at the time, where it was 31% for Alibaba vs. -4% for Coupang (Coupang was still operating cash flow positive from in 2020 with $302M).”

A major commonality is that both companies became pioneers by focusing on making it easier to buy from their platforms in their respective markets, he added. “The road to solving for the consumer experience in China was different than the road for solving it in Korea, where the biggest friction points for consumers are different. This led Alibaba to embrace initiatives like digital payments early on, and why Coupang went to solve consumer logistics.”

News: Apple to invest $1.2 billion in silicon design center in Germany

Apple has announced that it plans to increase its corporate spendings in Germany. In particular, the company wants to set up a new facility in Munich, Germany. Called the European Silicon Design Center, the team will focus on 5G and potentially future wireless technologies. The company said that Munich is already its largest engineering hub

Apple has announced that it plans to increase its corporate spendings in Germany. In particular, the company wants to set up a new facility in Munich, Germany. Called the European Silicon Design Center, the team will focus on 5G and potentially future wireless technologies.

The company said that Munich is already its largest engineering hub in Europe. There are already 1,500 engineers working there. In particular, Apple has been putting together its own team of engineers working on power management chips.

Overall, half of Apple’s engineers working on power management are located in Germany. Since then, Apple’s teams in the country have expanded beyond power management to work on other chip designs.

Now, Apple plans to invest $1.2 billion (€1 billion) over the next three years on a new building and new R&D investments. While Apple is partnering with Qualcomm for the 5G modems in the iPhone 12 lineup, the company has also acquired most of Intel’s smartphone modem business.

In addition to in-house chip development, Apple’s teams also work on integrating third-party hardware with its devices, such as the iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch.

The company is also using this announcement to remind everyone that it is investing a lot of money in Germany as a whole. Apple works with many German providers, such as DELO, Infineon and Varta. Overall, Apple has spent $17.8 billion (€15 billion) with 700 German companies over the past five years

Here’s a rendering of the new building in Munich’s Karlstrasse. It should open in late 2022:

Image Credits: Apple

News: Lawmakers want to empower publishers to collectively negotiate with Facebook

On the heels of a heated standoff between platforms and publishers in Australia, U.S. lawmakers reintroduced a piece of legislation that would allow the news industry to collectively negotiate content deals with tech companies. The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act is sponsored in the Senate by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) and in

On the heels of a heated standoff between platforms and publishers in Australia, U.S. lawmakers reintroduced a piece of legislation that would allow the news industry to collectively negotiate content deals with tech companies.

The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act is sponsored in the Senate by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) and in the House by David Cicilline (D-RI), Ken Buck (R-NY) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA.). The legislation was first introduced in 2019, but the bipartisan cluster of lawmakers hope to breathe new life into it during the Biden era.

The bill would create an exemption from existing antitrust laws that would allow news organizations to collectively negotiate favorable terms with tech companies like Facebook and Google. That special treatment would open a 48-month window for publishers, in theory boosting their leverage to better the industry as a whole.

The U.S. isn’t the only country grappling with tech platforms’ publishing dominance. Last month, Facebook dramatically pulled links to news content in Australia as it pushed back against new regulations that could force tech platforms to pay for more content. Specifically, Facebook objected to a final arbitration clause that would set the price for news automatically if tech platforms and news publishers couldn’t agree on terms.

“We must enable news organizations to negotiate on a level playing field with the big tech companies if we want to preserve a strong and independent press,” Sen. Klobuchar said of the bill, which she argues would give publishers a “fighting chance” in dealing with tech platforms.

“A strong, diverse, free press is critical for any successful democracy,” Rep. Cicilline said. “Access to trustworthy local journalism helps inform the public, hold powerful people accountable, and root out corruption.”

Both Cicilline and Klobuchar sit in powerful positions, chairing the House and Senate’s respective antitrust subcommittees. In the coming months, those committees will play a major role in shaping legislative proposals that could rein in big tech’s many excesses. Balancing the power of colossal tech platforms against the priorities of a shrinking news industry is just one piece of that puzzle.

News: SoftBank-backed Volpe Capital raises $80M to invest in LatAm

In recent years, the tech and venture scene in Latin America has been growing at an accelerated pace. More global investors are backing startups in the region and certain sectors in particular, such as fintech, are exploding. Global investors are not only pouring money into companies. They’re also investing in funds. Today, Volpe Capital  announced

In recent years, the tech and venture scene in Latin America has been growing at an accelerated pace. More global investors are backing startups in the region and certain sectors in particular, such as fintech, are exploding.

Global investors are not only pouring money into companies. They’re also investing in funds.

Today, Volpe Capital  announced the $80 million first close of its fund targeting high growth technology investments in Latin America. Notably, Japanese investment conglomerate SoftBank, BTG and Banco Inter affiliates are anchor investors in the new fund, which is targeting aggregate commitments of $100 million with a hard cap of $150 million. Volpe also received a “large anchor investment” from its management team.

Andre Maciel, Gregory Reider and Milena Oliveira are the fund’s founding partners, and are based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Notably, Maciel is the former managing partner at SoftBank’s $5 billion Latin America-focused innovation fund. He launched Volpe in 2019 primarily with SoftBank’s backing. Reider formerly invested at Warburg Pincus.

Maciel said the fund’s raise was “significantly oversubscribed with firm commitments” and believed to be “among the best capital raises for a first-time fund in its asset class in Latin America.”

Volpe Capital plans to invest in about 15 companies over a two and half year time span, according to Maciel, who expects its average check size to be around $5 billion.

So far, it’s backed Uol Edtech, a subsidiary of Grupo Uol that aims to redefine the digital learning experience in Brazil. 

“We are in no rush,” Maciel told TechCrunch. “We are happy with our first deal and will take capital preservation in consideration. We believe markets are hot now and plan on taking advantage of the cycle by being patient.”

The fund’s strategy is to go after the companies that are not actively raising capital.

We want to invest in companies that are not necessarily raising capital when we approach them,” Maciel said.

The fund views itself as agnostic regarding stage and primary versus secondary.

It is seeking to back early-stage companies with less than $50 million in valuation as well as some later stage, high growth companies. The fund’s first investment — Uol Edtech — falls in the latter category with EBITDA margins above 30%, according to Maciel.

Volpe plans to avoid capital intensive industries, even if related to tech.

“Those are more suitable to investors with deeper pockets than Volpe,” Maciel said. 

Instead it’s eyeing edtech, healthtech, software and fintech investments (that are not credit-related).

“We like sectors that are prone for disruption in Latin America and that require local customization,” Maciel said. “Given the stage of the vc/growth industry in Latin America, we believe it is better to be a generalist.”

SoftBank International CEO Marcelo Claure describes Maciel as one of his “amazing founding partners for SoftBank in Latin America.”

“We are very happy to be one of Volpe’s anchor investors and look forward to continuing our relationship with them,” he added in a written statement.

Another anchor investor has a SoftBank tie. João Vitor Menin, CEO of Inter, a publicly traded fintech platform in Brazil with a market cap of over  $7 billion, points out that Maciel led an investment in Inter’s platform through SoftBank. He also “made valuable contributions” as a board member, according to Menin.

News: ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt dives into tech’s reckoning with online hate

On January 6, America watched in horror as groups that recruited and organized on major social media sites violently attacked the seat of American democracy. Within a matter of hours, tech companies took actions they’d said we’re out of the question for years. But real change requires thoughtful policy and a clear-eyed look at the

On January 6, America watched in horror as groups that recruited and organized on major social media sites violently attacked the seat of American democracy. Within a matter of hours, tech companies took actions they’d said we’re out of the question for years.

But real change requires thoughtful policy and a clear-eyed look at the choices that allowed dangerous extremism to thrive in the first place. We spoke with Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt on proposed policy solutions and tech’s coming era of accountability at TechCrunch Sessions: Justice 2021.


On how the ADL ramped up its efforts in Silicon Valley:

Given the rise of online hate, harassment and dangerous misinformation, tech companies are increasingly on the radar for civil rights organizations. It’s now common to see organizations like the ADL to participate in pressure campaigns aiming to change platforms’ policies and sign onto legislation proposing regulations for the industry.

“So at the ADL, we’re the oldest anti hate organization in the world. But we deeply believe that today, the frontline and fighting hate is really on Facebook. I mean, there’s just no question that social media has become a breeding, breeding ground for kind of bigotry, that is offensive and ugly in all respects. Now, we’ve known this for years. But when I came on board, about five and a half years ago, I really wanted to focus on this, and try to get causal and right to the heart of the problem. So we could finally turn it around. So in 2017, we actually opened an office in Silicon Valley, our Center for Technology and Society, we were the first civil rights group with an actual presence in the valley. And for me, that was sort of second nature, because I had worked in the valley for years before taking this job, you know, both raising money on Sandhill road, managing teams of engineers building products.” (Timestamp: 0:53)


How algorithms make social media uniquely dangerous:

Algorithms are what sets social networks apart from more traditional media sources. Rather than seeking it out, the average internet user has extreme ideas served directly to them through algorithms that decide what they see. This is particularly an issue with Facebook and YouTube’s way of keeping users engaged for as long as possible.

Algorithmic amplification has a lot to do with the dilemma that we found ourselves in, and extremists are, if nothing else innovative, they exploit loopholes. And indeed, they have used the kind of libertarian laissez faire attitude of the companies to their own advantage for a number of years. And so from Facebook groups to YouTube channels to kind of accounts on Twitter, let alone all the other platforms, they’ve used them with tremendous depth, depth. So what’s interesting is, and many people that I know have seen this, I’ve seen this myself, you may have to I’m sure your audience has. It wasn’t too long ago that you might watch a YouTube video and one click or two clicks over, suddenly find yourself down the rabbit hole of some crazy QAnon or anti vaxxer you know, Boogaloo content. Same thing on Facebook.

When you search a piece of content, suddenly, you’re served up Facebook groups that may be from accelerationist, or white supremacists, or other racist and anti Semites. But the reality that we’ve got to confront is that algorithms aren’t our right, if you will, algorithmic amplification isn’t a privilege which should be accorded to everyone. It’s a responsibility that the companies have to make sure that their products give users what they want, but that they’re also not abused. And that the users themselves are not abused, to seeing the kind of things to which they might be very viable. Robots are susceptible. So we deeply believe that algorithmic amplification is very problematic. That’s why we’ve been supporting legislation on Capitol Hill that will finally address this… If you could basically turn off the algorithms for some of these worst elements, you could have curbed these issues a long time ago. (Timestamp: 13:35)


How social media companies failed before the Capitol attack:

In the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Capitol, social media companies suddenly made a number of changed that belied how reluctant they’d been to address the hate and extremism brewing on their platforms all along.

To those of us who’ve been tracking violent extremists for years. This was not a surprise at all, this was the most predictable terror attack in American history. Literally, these groups told us in advance what they were going to do. And the attack itself was sort of the culmination of years and in the last in the months prior intense campaigning by the President himself, to undermine the integrity of the election, to question the democratic process, to call on individuals to interrupt the certification of the election based on this big lie, this totally contrived idea that somehow the election was rigged. I mean, truly, it was bananas.

… The tech companies who for years have told us there was a political exemption, and they wouldn’t necessarily take action when presidents or other politicians said things that were outrageous, and committed slander or incited violence on the platform, suddenly, because of the public pressure from groups like Stop Hate for Profit and the ADL, from internal pressure from their own employees, and I believe, you know, their boards — suddenly they took action instantaneously, overnight. All their other concerns sort of fell by the wayside. I think it was really important that in order Facebook and Twitter and YouTube took down President Trump, that was critical, we called for them to do that. And I’m really pleased that they did. We called for them previously to take down armed militia groups, to take down QAnon content. And I’m really glad that they did and it had a huge impact.

You know, we’ve seen like on Twitter QAnon content drop 97% you know, just days after the attack, because the company actually took action. So I think it really laid bare the myth that somehow, some way the companies couldn’t do anything about this, clearly they could. And they did. And I think their services and society as a whole is better for it. (Timestamp: 7:53)


On Silicon Valley exceptionalism

The tech industry doesn’t think of itself like other traditional sectors of business, instead often casting its own grand pursuits as for the greater good — not just for profits. Those attitudes can contribute to some extraordinary innovations, but they also permeate its products and cultures in ways that create some serious problems.

I think Silicon Valley is almost like, rooted in this American tradition of like, Manifest Destiny, right? conquering the frontier. It’s, it’s ironic, but altogether appropriate, that’s happening in California, right in the land where they have the Gold Rush, right again, where people went to make their fortunes. And now they’re doing it today in Silicon Valley, in tech, and even that’s continued to evolve, right? It was the internet 15 years ago, five years ago, with social media. Today, it’s Clubhouse, and I don’t know what comes next. But I do think that the whole industry does need to undergo a serious self examination.

And I think you’ve seen people like who’ve come out of the industry, I think about Chris Sacca, the former Googler, I think about Alexis Ohanian, the Redditor, and a few others start to grapple with these issues. You know, trust, my friend, Tristan Harris, at the Center for Humane Technology has also done this in his film — The Social Dilemma really plays this out. Whereas Silicon Valley often has a very short memory, the reality is that we there will be a long road ahead of us. And if we don’t wrestle with these demons, and if we don’t sort again, through the wreckage to what they’ve wrought, I think the future is very unclear. (Timestamp: 20:15)


On policy solutions to rein in big tech

There’s a huge swath of policy proposals on the table that could put some real restrictions on how tech companies operate.  From proposed changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to federal and state antitrust suits, tech companies are on notice in 2021.

So look, the ADL, I mean, we’ve been literally fighting for a more just country, we’ve been fighting for civil rights, we’ve been fighting hate for over 100 years. And we are fiercely, ferociously, defenders of the First Amendment. But freedom of speech isn’t the freedom to slander people, right to freedom of expression isn’t the freedom to incite violence against individuals or groups of people based on their immutable characteristics? And so I think what we’ve seen is the first amendment been warped and weaponized online in ways that are, you know, completely beyond the pale of what the founding fathers ever would have, you know, could have imagined.

Section 230 does need to be addressed. And I think that Warner Hirono bill that you pointed out is a step in the right direction, it is definitely not sufficient… It might actually not be the federal government, but the states that actually pushed the companies to do more, we’ve seen California, do some innovative stuff on privacy that’s pushed the companies and you may see, I think more state action. (Timestamp: 16:28)

You can read the entire transcript here and review the full lineup from Justice 2021 [here].


Early Stage is the premier ‘how-to’ event for startup entrepreneurs and investors. You’ll hear first-hand how some of the most successful founders and VCs build their businesses, raise money and manage their portfolios. We’ll cover every aspect of company-building: Fundraising, recruiting, sales, product market fit, PR, marketing and brand building. Each session also has audience participation built-in – there’s ample time included for audience questions and discussion. Use code “TCARTICLE at checkout to get 20 percent off tickets right here.

 

News: NFTs are changing cultural value creation

Hello and welcome back to Equity, TechCrunch’s venture capital-focused podcast, where we unpack the numbers behind the headlines. This is our Wednesday show, where we niche down and focus on a single topic, or theme. This is our sweet spot: going beyond definitions and into the dirty and deep impact of how a phenomenon could impact

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

This is our Wednesday show, where we niche down and focus on a single topic, or theme. This is our sweet spot: going beyond definitions and into the dirty and deep impact of how a phenomenon could impact startups and tech. We are hoping to explore more than answer, and debate more than agree.

NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, is this week’s topic! This is something that you have nearly certainly heard of in the past few weeks but probably don’t understand with perfect clarity. While we’ve all seen the Twitter threads of basic definitions, consider this episode the appetizer to your aperitif understanding.

The Equity team put on our research caps, dug in, and found quite a lot to like. But we did not tread alone: our EIC Matthew Panzarino joined Chris and Alex and Danny and Natasha to help us out. Panzer was early to the NFT world and has contributed some of TechCrunch’s reporting on the matter.

So, what did we get into? More than a little:

We spent a few minutes on the NFT basics, including historical examples and how NFTs are minted, as well as some examples of how they have been used recently.

From there we riffed on use-cases more broadly, and where we might find NFTs in the wild. Sure, we talked about visual art, but also music, tickets and sports moments. The NFT world has the possibility of a large remit if it plays its, ahem, tokens correctly.

Then we talked culture. What could it mean that NFTs are in the market? Could residual incomes from the reselling of NFTs constitute a material revenue base for future artists, and how broad can the value-experiment go? Depending on which side of the NFT hype-cynicism divide you land, there’s plenty of room for discussion. A point made by Panzer:

NFT’s and the architecture of smart contracts and the way that social tokens work, these are all opportunities for the creators and originators of culture, to finally take part and participate in their rewards of the platforms of that culture — you know, that hosts that culture. Because we’ve seen it over and over again: Artist blows up on TikTok, and you know, somebody does a dance to them, and then that video blows up. What does the artist get out of it? Sometimes they get a recording deal. Many times they get nothing. Right? In Vine, famously built on Black creators and brown creators and Latino creators and Latino creators. You know, TikTok, very much the same. Black Twitter one of the early driving forces of engagement on Twitter and culture on Twitter — how many of them were actually able to participate in the economic rewards of Twitter as a platform selling advertising and making millions of dollars and their stock going bonkers? Besides, of course, you know, maybe they were able to purchase stock, right? So the, the remapping of how creators can participate in that economy directly by saying, “Hey, I’ve created something of value, and I’d love to connect directly with the people that enjoy that and they can provide me value back” — that’s what’s so exciting about this.

And we chatted just a minute about the weight, or carbon footprint, of different blockchains. There’s real nuance to this point of argument, but it was also something we couldn’t avoid. Panzer again:

And this is probably the biggest negative blowback on Ethereum and NFTs is that Ethereum is by nature a very heavy chain, which means that it takes a lot of work to prove that a block has been written to the chain. Not quite as heavy as Bitcoin, but it’s up there. And that energy usage that was used to mine that Ethereum that’s being spent on the chain to confirm a new transaction is being sort of credited forwards in– for lack of a better term to the artists minting on it. I don’t think that’s absolutely fair. But it’s absolutely fair to acknowledge that it does have an ecological impact.

Every week Equity will bring you something special on Wednesdays, adding to our regular Monday (weekly kickoff!) and Friday (news roundup!) shows. The world of tech is large, diverse, and variously dangerous and delightful. We’re excited to keep talking through it with you.

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

News: SIP Global Partners announces first close of its $150M fund to bring U.S. startups into Japan

Japan is often under discussed as an expansion target for American startups, but in the past few years it has become a top market for companies like Slack, Salesforce, Twitter and, more recently, Clubhouse. Today SIP Global Partners is announcing a new fund to invest in early-stage U.S. startups that have the potential to expand

Japan is often under discussed as an expansion target for American startups, but in the past few years it has become a top market for companies like Slack, Salesforce, Twitter and, more recently, Clubhouse. Today SIP Global Partners is announcing a new fund to invest in early-stage U.S. startups that have the potential to expand into Japan, and potentially other Asian markets, too. The fund has raised a $75 million first close of its $150 million target, and already invested in five companies.

SIP’s new fund will look at late seed to Series B-stage companies that have a product, or one about to come to market, that is ready to expand internationally. The team will work closely with portfolio companies, helping them launch operations in Japan and other Asian markets.

Managing partner Justin Turkat told TechCrunch that Japan is a promising market for foreign startups partly because an undercapitalized venture capital ecosystem means there is a smaller pool of entrepreneurs, with many of the country’s top tech talent opting to join conglomerates or the government instead.

While Japan’s startup market has a lot of potential, he added, it is still nascent. On the other hand, Japan is now the largest source of outward foreign direct investment in the world, and with about 125 million consumers and large corporations in need of scalable solutions, it’s a ripe market for new tech.

“If you look at what’s happened in the last couple of years, I think Japan is open for business with U.S. startups with an urgency that I’ve never seen before, and we think there is a lot of tailwinds around it. You look at investments and partnerships with U.S. startups, it’s at record levels over the last five years and deal counts are increasing every year,” Turkat said.

The fund is being launched by four investors, based in the U.S. and Japan. Turkat and founder and managing partner Shigeki Saitoh, former director of the Japan Venture Capital Association, are in Tokyo, while general partner Jeffrey Smith and founder and managing partner Matthew Salloway are in Boston and New York, respectively.

“The reason we started this really has to do with the team. We’ve all dedicated our careers to cross border, as both operators and investors, across the U.S. and Asia,” Turkat said. “All the four partners on average have about 20-plus years of experience doing this.”

Over the years, they’ve observed global expansion happening earlier in a startup’s life, he added. “I think it used to be an axiom that if you’re a U.S. startup and you’re venture-backed, you’re not thinking of expanding overseas until your Series D round,” but companies are now eyeing foreign markets as early as their seed rounds.

SIP’s new fund is looking for startups in three areas: creativity (augmented and extended reality, synthetic media and web-based platforms), productivity (artificial intelligence and machine learning, edge computing, the Internet of Things and semiconductors) and safety (digital health and information security).

Turkat said it is focusing on companies that provide core infrastructure or the economic layer for emerging technology.

For example, “on the infrastructure layer, we’re looking at 5G being rolled out globally simultaneously, then the edge computing, semiconductors, security and AI and machine learning, all around this infrastructure layer,” he said. Companies in the fund’s current portfolio that fit into this category include OpenRAN startup Parallel Wireless and Croquet, an ultra-low latency collaboration platform.

“Then you have the economic layer with all of these advancements, the platforms and applications sitting on top of it,” Turkat added. These include the fund’s three other investments so far: Fable, a browser-based motion design platform, Tilt Five, an AR gaming platform, and Kinetic, an industrial IoT startup focused on workplace safety.

As a strategic investor, SIP works closely with startups as they expand into new countries. This includes hiring talent and finding initial business partners, including for distribution channels or potential joint ventures. After Japan, SIP also helps startups enter other Asian markets, especially in ASEAN, including Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia.

News: DataGrail snares $30M Series B to help deal with privacy regulations

DataGrail, a startup that helps customers understand where their data lives in order to help comply with a growing body of privacy regulations, announced a $30 million Series B today. Felicis Ventures led the round with help from Basis Set Ventures, Operator Collective and previous investors. One of the interesting aspects of this round was

DataGrail, a startup that helps customers understand where their data lives in order to help comply with a growing body of privacy regulations, announced a $30 million Series B today.

Felicis Ventures led the round with help from Basis Set Ventures, Operator Collective and previous investors. One of the interesting aspects of this round was the participation from several strategic investors including HubSpot, Okta and Next47, the venture firm backed by Siemens. The company has now raised over $39 million, according to Crunchbase data.

That investor interest could stem from the fact that DataGrail helps organizations find data by building connectors to popular applications and then helps ensure that they are in compliance with customer privacy regulations such as GDPR, CCPA and similar laws.

“DataGrail [is really] the first integrated solution with over 900 integrations (up from 180 in 2019) to different apps and infrastructure platforms that allow the product to detect when new apps or new infrastructure platforms are added, and then also perform automated data discovery across those applications,” company CEO and co-founder Daniel Barber explained to me. This helps users find customer data wherever it lives and enables them to comply with legal requirements to manage and protect that data.

Victoria Treyger, general partner at lead investors Felicis Ventures says that one of the things that attracted her to DataGrail was that she had to help implement GDPR regulations at a previous venture and felt the pain first hand. She said that her firm tends to look for startups in large markets where the product or service being offered is a critical need, rather an option, and she believes that DataGrail is an example of that.

“I really liked the fact that privacy management is such a hard problem, and it is not optional. As a business, you have to manage privacy requests, which you may do manually or you may do it with a solution like DataGrail,” Treyger told me.

HubSpot’s Andrew Lindsay, who is SVP of corporate and business development, says his company is both a customer and an investor because DataGrail is helping HubSpot customers navigate the complexity of privacy regulation. “DataGrail’s unique ecosystem approach, where they are integrating with key Saas and business applications is an easy way for many of our joint customers to protect their customers’ privacy,” Lindsay said.

The company has 40 employees today with plans to grow to 90 or 100 by the end of this year. It’s worth noting that Treyger is joining the Board, which already has 3 other women. That shows shows a commitment to gender diversity at the board level that is not typical for startups.

News: Tackling deep-seated bias in tech with Haben Girma, Mutale Nkonde, and Safiya Noble

Advances in technology provide all kinds of benefits, but also introduce risks — especially to already marginalized populations. AI for the People’s Mutale Nkonde, disability rights lawyer Haben Girma, and author of Algorithms of Oppression Safiya Umoja Noble have studied and documented these risks for years in their work. They joined us at TC Sessions:

Advances in technology provide all kinds of benefits, but also introduce risks — especially to already marginalized populations. AI for the People’s Mutale Nkonde, disability rights lawyer Haben Girma, and author of Algorithms of Oppression Safiya Umoja Noble have studied and documented these risks for years in their work. They joined us at TC Sessions: Justice 2021 to talk about the deep origins and repercussions of bias in tech, and where to start when it comes to fixing them.


On bias in tech versus bias in people

When it comes to identifying bias in tech, there are two ways of coming at it: the tech itself and the people who are putting it to work. A facial recognition system may be be racist itself (such as working poorly with dark skin) or used in furtherance of racist policies (like stop and frisk).

Nkonde: There is the problem of technologies which are inherently racist, or sexist, or ableist, as Haben so beautifully pointed out. But there is another part… an imagination for technologies that could actually serve all people. And if the if the scientists who are creating those technologies don’t have experience outside of their own experiences, and we’re sitting in a moment where Google AI has got rid of [Margaret] Mitchell and Timnit Gebru, both of whom were technologists from, researchers from, minoritized communities who are thinking about new and different ways that tools could be designed… then you may not see them coming to products. I’d say that the two are definitely married. (Timestamp: 3:00)


On the danger in ‘banal’ technologies

Bias does not only exist in controversial tech like facial recognition. Search engines, algorithmic news feeds, and other things we tend to take for granted also can contain harmful biases or contribute to them.

Noble: My concerns were with what we might think of as just banal technologies, things that we really don’t give a second thought to, and that also present themselves as widely neutral, and valuable. Of course this is where I became interested in looking at Google search, because Google’s own kind of declaration that they were interested in organizing all the world’s knowledge, I think was a pretty big claim. I’m coming out of the field of Library and Information Science and thinking about, I don’t know, thousands of years of librarians, for example, around the world, who have been indeed organizing the world’s knowledge, and what it means to have an advertising company, quite frankly, data mine our knowledge, but also commingle it with things like disinformation, propaganda, patently false information and ideas, and really flatten our ability to understand knowledge and good information. (Timestamp: 5:13)


On how excluding groups harms them twice over

Haben Girma, who is deaf and blind, has advocated for accessibility with the skills she learned at Harvard Law. But the lack of accessibility goes deeper than simply not captioning images properly and other small tasks.

Girma: So most of the technology that’s built was not imagined for disabled people, which is frustrating… and also absolutely ridiculous. Tech has so much potential to exist in visual forms, in auditory forms, in tactile forms, and even smell and taste. It’s up to the designers to create tools that everyone can use. (Timestamp: 0:56)

A disturbing viral trend on TikTok recently questioned the story of deafblind icon Helen Keller. Doubt that she existed as described or did the things she did was widespread on the platform — and because TikTok is not designed for accessibility, others like Keller are excluded from the conversation and effectively erased from consideration in addition to being the subject of false claims.

Girma: Deafblind people have used technology for quite a while, and were early users of technology, including being designers and engineers. We are on many of the social media platforms, there are blind and deaf blind people on Twitter. TikTok was not designed with accessibility in mind.

When you have a space where there are few disabled people, ableism grows. People on TikTok have questioned the existence of Helen Keller, because the people on the platform can’t imagine how a deafblind person would write a book, or travel around the world. Things that are well documented that Helen Keller did. And there’s also lots of information on how blind and deaf blind people are doing these things today, writing books today, using technology today. So when you have these spaces where there are no disabled people, or very few disabled people, ableism and negative biases grow more rapidly. And that’s incredibly harmful, because the people there are missing out on talented, diverse voices. (Timestamp: 12:16)


On tech deployed against black communities

The flip side of racism within tech is ordinary tech being used by racist institutions. When law enforcement employs “objective” technology like license plate readers or biometric checks, they bring their own systematic biases and troubling objectives.

Nkonde: One of the things that that really brought me to was this whole host of technologies that when used by security forces, or police, reinforce these discriminatory impacts on black communities. So that could be the way license plate readers were used by ICE to identify cars, and when they pulled people over, they would do these additional biometric checks, whether it was fingerprinting or iris readers, and then use that to criminalize these people onto the road to deportation. (Timestamp: 17:16)

And when the two forms of bias are combined, certain groups are put at serious disadvantage:

Nkonde: We’re seeing how all of these technologies on their own, are impacting black lives, but imagine when all of those technologies are together, imagine when, here in New York, I walked to the subway to take a train because I have to go to work. And my face is captured by a CCTV camera that could wrongly put me at the scene of a crime because it does not recognize my humanity, because black faces are not recognized by those systems. That’s a very old idea that really takes us back to this idea that black people aren’t human, they’re in fact three fifths of a human, which was at the founding of this country, right? But we’re reproducing that idea through technology. (Timestamp: 19:00)


On the business consequences of failing to address bias and diversity

While companies should be trying to do the right thing, it may help speed things up if there’s a financial incentive as well. And increasingly there is real liability resulting from failing to consider these problems. For instance, if your company produces an AI solution that’s found to be seriously biased, you not only lose business but may find yourself the subject of civil and government lawsuits.

Noble: I think that first of all, there’s a tremendous amount of risk by not taking up these issues. I’ve heard that the risk management profile, for example for a company like Facebook, in terms of harm, what they can’t solve with software and AI, that they use human beings, quite frankly to sort through, for example, the risk that they face is probably estimated around $2 billion, right?

If you’re talking about a $2 billion risk, I think then this is a decision that exceeds the design desires and software engineers. (Timestamp 24:25)

Not just bias but unintended consequences need to be considered, such as how an app or service may be abused in ways the creators might not have thought of.

Noble: I think you have to think far beyond, you know, like, what you can do versus what you should do, or what’s ethical and responsible to do and I think these conversations now can no longer be avoided. This is a place where founders, venture capitalists, everything, every VC in the Valley on Sandhill road should have a person who is responsible for thinking about the adverse effects of the products that they might invest in. (Timestamp: 25:43)


On getting people in the room before, not after the crisis

The tendency to “ship it and fix it” rather than include accessibility from the ground up is increasingly being questioned by both advocates and developers. Turns out it’s better for everyone, and cheaper in the long run, to do it right the first time.

Girma: The answer to most of these questions is have the people involved. ‘Nothing about us without us’ is the saying in the Disability Justice Movement, so if these seas and companies are thinking about investing in a solution that they think will be good for the world? Ask disability justice advocates, get us involved. (Timestamp: 29:25)

We need the VCs to also connect with Disability Justice advocates, and really find someone who has knowledge and background in accessibility and tech. Same thing for any company. All the companies should have, technology existing and tech in the process of being built, should be consulting on accessibility. It’s easier to make something accessible if you design for accessibility, rather than trying to make it accessible afterwards. It’s like having an elevator in a physical building. You don’t build the structure, and then think about adding an elevator. You think about adding an elevator before you design it. (Timestamp: 30:55)

Read the full transcript here.


Early Stage is the premier ‘how-to’ event for startup entrepreneurs and investors. You’ll hear first-hand how some of the most successful founders and VCs build their businesses, raise money and manage their portfolios. We’ll cover every aspect of company-building: Fundraising, recruiting, sales, product market fit, PR, marketing and brand building. Each session also has audience participation built-in – there’s ample time included for audience questions and discussion. Use code “TCARTICLE at checkout to get <a href=”http://techcrunch.com/events/tc-early-stage-2021-part-1?promo=tcarticle&display=true”>20 percent off tickets right here.

News: Populus AI plots expansion with $5M in new funding

The wave of shared electric scooters that swept through cities several years ago helped Populus AI get its start. Now, surging demand for delivery — and the pressure it places on curb space — is helping the transportation data startup attract new capital and expand to more cities. Populus, a San Francisco-based startup founded in

The wave of shared electric scooters that swept through cities several years ago helped Populus AI get its start. Now, surging demand for delivery — and the pressure it places on curb space — is helping the transportation data startup attract new capital and expand to more cities.

Populus, a San Francisco-based startup founded in 2017, has raised $5 million from new investors Storm Ventures and contract manufacturing and supplier company Magna along with existing backers Precursor, Relay Ventures and Ulu Ventures. The company has raised nearly $9 million to date.

Populus plans to use that capital to expand to more cities, growth that the company believes will be driven by demand for street and curb management. Populus has contracts with more than 80 cities, including Oakland, San Diego, and Tel Aviv, and works with more than 25 micromobility operators. Co-founder and CEO Regina Clewlow said their aim is to triple the number of cities over the next 18 months.

The Populus platform is a software as a service product that operates like a two-way street. The company pulls data from fleets of shared ebikes, scooters, mopeds and car-sharing and delivers that information to cities to help planners and regulators understand and manage how streets and curbs are used. Cities can also use the Populus API to share its rules of the road — restrictions on motorized vehicles, preferred scooter parking areas and information on bike lanes, for instance — to mapping platforms and any other third party.

“In recent years, there has been significant growth in venture-backed startups delivering software to cities, especially as transportation becomes increasingly connected and automated,” Frederik Groce, a partner at Storm Ventures and founder of BLCK VC said in a statement “Populus is uniquely positioned as the market leader to support cities’ digital transformation.”

Last year, Populus added a street manager to the platform to allow cities to communicate new policies such as slow or shared streets that prioritize bikes and pedestrians, areas designated for outdoor dining and construction closures.

The curb management feature, which was also added last year, will be the main driver of growth in 2021, Clewlow said. Cities can use that data to set dynamic pricing for curb space, for example.

“What most cities really want to use our digital technology for is managing commercial fleets including delivery,” Clewlow said. Curb space is being used by both scheduled and on-demand vehicles, she said, adding that these areas are not designed for the volume of deliveries that occur today.

“Cities are continuing to see a boom in delivery; that’s a trend that predated COVID and obviously accelerated during COVID,” Clewlow said. “A real pain point for cities is managing how that space is used by commercial delivery vehicles.”

WordPress Image Lightbox Plugin