Month: January 2023

Here’s another edition of “Dear Sophie,” the advice column that answers immigration-related questions about working at technology companies.

“Your questions are vital to the spread of knowledge that allows people all over the world to rise above borders and pursue their dreams,” says Sophie Alcorn, a Silicon Valley immigration attorney. “Whether you’re in people ops, a founder or seeking a job in Silicon Valley, I would love to answer your questions in my next column.”

TechCrunch+ members receive access to weekly “Dear Sophie” columns; use promo code ALCORN to purchase a one- or two-year subscription for 50% off.

Dear Sophie,

I am RESOLVED: this is the year I finally live my dream and create my startup! I currently have an H-1B for my full-time engineering role at another company.

How can I transfer my visa to my startup? How do we structure the startup for immigration success?

—Restless & Resolved

Dear Restless & Resolved,

Congrats on embarking on this exciting new adventure and taking the first step toward living your dreams!

H-1B transfer is tricky, but it’s possible!

The short answer to your first question is: yes, you can transfer your H-1B visa to your new startup. However, it’s a tricky process, and it’s important to establish the correct, compliant foundation before proceeding.

This set-up process can take time (several months), but the peace of mind you’ll have from knowing that everything is correct will be priceless. You should talk to both a corporate attorney and an immigration attorney. A corporate attorney can help you set up your company, including drafting bylaws, and an immigration attorney can help you determine the best strategy for you and any co-founders based on your personal and business goals.

You will need to take steps to qualify your company to petition you for the H-1B transfer, such as taking on a co-founder and getting funding for your startup.

Structuring your startup

To transfer your H-1B to your startup, you may need to give up control of your startup, (sometimes but not always) give up a major stake in it, and ensure it is structured to meet all immigration visa requirements.

To meet the sponsorship qualifications, you must demonstrate to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that:

Your startup and you have an employer-employee relationship. This often means you must not own more than 50% of your company, and someone else must formally hire you, supervise you and your work, and have the ability to fire you.
Your startup has the ability to pay you the prevailing wage based on your position and geographical location as well as cover operations for the term of the visa petition (usually up to 3 years for an H-1B transfer).

Start planning now and map out your role at your startup, how many co-founders you will have, how much equity everybody else would receive, the roles of your co-founders, and prospective investors. This will enable your attorney to see if your plan is viable and offer any alternatives.

Dear Sophie: How can I transfer my H-1B to my new startup in 2023? by Ram Iyer originally published on TechCrunch

I am not sure about you, but lately I’ve been hearing the same chatter from friends and colleagues at startups. It’s usually a version of: “Will my equity ever be worth something?”

Let me start with the harsh truth: Nobody has a crystal ball to anticipate what the market will do or how it will impact private company stock. That may not be the most comforting thing to hear, but I also don’t believe it’s all doom and gloom. Another truth is that this is not the first market reversal, and it won’t be the last either.

For me, the comforting thing to do is look at the data. To better understand where we could end up, I like looking at the past and let history inform where we are now.

So, I looked at five market downturns over the past 20 years and analyzed how they affected private stock, and, most importantly, how long it took the IPO market to reopen. After all, at the end of the day, we’re all searching for the same answer: When will my paper wealth become liquid?

The crisis of 2002: The dot-com bubble

What happened?

Starting in the late ’90s, tech stocks started skyrocketing and were trading at all-time highs. Sound familiar?

Capital was extremely cheap to borrow as interest rates dipped as low as 1.67% (compared to rates in the last few years bottoming out at 0.25%). That spurred investments in riskier assets.

When the market started to collapse, prices were dragged down even further by accounting scandals, such as Enron in 2001, Arthur Andersen in 2002 and WorldCom in 2002.

While there aren’t as many financial scandals today, the environment back then was somewhat similar to what we’re seeing now.

What was different?

The similarities between today’s market and the dot-com bubble end there.

The dot-com bubble was not an economic crisis per se, and it was only contained to the financial markets. Plus, inflation wasn’t part of the molotov cocktail that is a major driver of what’s happening today.

What was the impact on startups?

Startups certainly took a hit. Private markets aren’t as transparent as the public ones, so to get better insight into what was happening, I like to look at the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (ticker IGV). This is an ETF that tracks technology companies — IGV is a basket of 119 software and interactive home entertainment and media stocks (Microsoft, Adobe, Salesforce, Oracle, etc.).

Even though it is not a 1:1 representation of private markets, since it is an ETF based on public companies, we can infer how multiples evolved during this time because there is a correlation between public and private markets.

Here’s what happened:

The stock market dropped by 55% before the first IPO happened following the crisis.
The EV/revenue multiple of IGV — a measurement that shows how much every $1 of revenue translated into valuation — dropped by 57%.
The IPO market stayed shut for about 15 months.
The first company to go public was Callidus in October, 2003, though it wasn’t the most successful exit.
In June 2004, eight months later, Salesforce went public.
One month after that, Google made its public debut on July 29.

We’re all pretty familiar with the stories of the latter two.

The crisis of 2008: The housing bubble pops

What happened?

Now let’s look at 2008, when we had our most recent major recession. Loan originators, propelled by cheap credit and lax mortgage policies, enabled the fast growth of subprime loans. That caused demand and valuations to skyrocket, creating a feedback loop of further investor demand and origination incentives.

But as interest rates began to rise and liquidity dried up, over-leveraged banks and funds began to rapidly unwind their portfolios. Valuations began to spiral and leverage levels started exploding.

When will IPOs return? The past may hold some clues by Ram Iyer originally published on TechCrunch

Meta is kicking off the New Year with more privacy fines and corrective orders hitting its business in Europe. The latest swathe of enforcement relates to EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) complaints over the legal basis it claims to run behavioral ads.

The Facebook owner’s lead data protection watchdog in the region, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), announced today that it’s adopted final decisions on two of these long-running enquiries — against Meta owned social networking site, Facebook, and social photo sharing service, Instagram.

The DPC’s press release today announces financial penalties of €210 million (~$223M) for Facebook and €180M (~$191M) for Instagram — and confirms the European Data Protection Board (EDPB)’s binding decision last month on these complaints that contractual necessity is not an appropriate basis for processing personal data for behavioral ads.

These new sanctions add to a pile of privacy fines for Meta in Europe last year — including a €265M penalty for a Facebook data-scraping breach; €405M for an Instagram violation of children’s privacy; €17M for several historical Facebook data breaches; and a €60M penalty over Facebook cookie consent violations — making for a total of €747M in (publicly disclosed) EU data protection and privacy fines handed down to the adtech giant in 2022.

But now, in the first few days of 2023, Meta has landed financial penalties worth more than half last year’s regional total — and more sanctions could be coming shortly.

Corrective measures are also being applied, per the PR — with Meta being ordered to bring its processing into compliance with the GDPR within three months.

This means it can no longer rely on a claim of contractual necessity to run behavioral ads — and will instead have to ask users for their consent. (And cannot profile and target users who do refuse its surveillance ads.)

Commenting in a statement, Max Schrems, the founder of the European privacy rights group (noyb) that filed the original GDPR complaints, said: “This is a huge blow to Meta’s profits in the EU. People now need to be asked if they want their data to be used for ads or not. They must have a ‘yes or no’ option and can change their mind at any time. The decision also ensures a level playing field with other advertisers that also need to get opt-in consent.”

Given how central Meta’s tracking and targeting ad model remains to its business, the tech giant is extremely likely to appeal the decisions — and if it does that it could open up fresh delays while legal arguments against the now ordered enforcement play out in the courts. So there could still be years of wrangling ahead before Meta submits to correction via EU privacy law.

The DPC’s final decisions on these inquiries also still have not been published, so full details on differences of views between data protection authorities — and other interesting tidbits, such as on how the size of the fines have been determined — remain tbc.

But in a press release announcing the two final decisions, the DPC offers its own spin on the regulatory disagreements — writing:

On the question as to whether Meta Ireland had acted in contravention of its transparency obligations, the CSAs [concerned supervisory authorities] agreed with the DPC’s decisions, albeit that they considered the fines proposed by the DPC should be increased.

Ten of the 47 CSAs raised objections in relation to other elements of the draft decisions (one of which was subsequently withdrawn in the case of the draft decision relating to the Instagram service). In particular, this subset of CSAs took the view that Meta Ireland should not be permitted to rely on the contract legal basis on the grounds that the delivery of personalised advertising (as part of the broader suite of personalised services offered as part of the Facebook and Instagram services) could not be said to be necessary to perform the core elements of what was said to be a much more limited form of contract.

The DPC disagreed, reflecting its view that the Facebook and Instagram services include, and indeed appear to be premised on, the provision of a personalised service that includes personalised or behavioural advertising. In effect, these are personalised services that also feature personalised advertising. In the view of the DPC, this reality is central to the bargain struck between users and their chosen service provider, and forms part of the contract concluded at the point at which users accept the Terms of Service.

The DPC’s PR also confirms the EDPB found an additional breach by Meta of the GDPR fairness principle (i.e. in addition to the transparency breach the DPC found which the Board upheld) — hence it being directed to (further) increase the level of fines imposed.

A third decision against Meta-owned messaging platform WhatsApp (also over this legal basis issue) remains on the DPCs desk — but is slated to arrive in a week or so. (We’re told by the regulator this is owing to a short delay in the DPC receiving the binding decision on that complaint from the EDPB.)

noyb says it’s expecting a fine for WhatsApp in that parallel procedure to be announced in mid January.

Enforcement on forced consent

This clutch of Meta-focused complaints date back to May 2018, when the GDPR came into application across the European Union — after the European privacy rights campaign group targeted the tech giant’s use of so-called “forced consent” (aka, pushing sign-up terms on users that mean they either ‘agree’ to their data being processed for behavioral ads or they can’t use the service).

The Irish regulator’s draft decision on the complaints leaked back in October 2021 — and, in contrast to the EDPB’s binding decision, the DPC did not object to Meta’s reliance on contractual necessity for running behavioral ads. Although it did find violations of the GDPR’s transparency requirements, saying users were unlikely to have understood they were signing up to a Facebook ad contract when they clicked agree on its terms of service.

Hence the DPC originally proposed a smaller penalty (of just $36M) vs the more than 10x larger financial sting in final decisions emerging now (still with the WhatsApp final decision pending).

This far tougher enforcement has been arrived at through the GDPR’s cooperation mechanism — which loops in other EU data protection authorities (who can, and in this case several did, object to a lead supervisor’s draft decision); and casts the EDPB as final arbiter when regulators can’t agree among themselves. So, in this case (and not for the first time), the DPC has been instructed to reach a different outcome than if it had been left to decide alone.

And — as has happened several times before — the standard of enforcement flowing from a collective regulatory process baked into GDPR is higher (and tougher) than it would have been with Ireland acting on its own.

The DPC’s press release frames the outcome rather differently — as a difference of legal interpretations — with the regulator writing that the EDPB “took a different view on the ‘legal basis’ question, finding that, as a matter of principle, Meta Ireland was not entitled to rely on the ‘contract’ legal basis as providing a lawful basis for its processing of personal data for the purpose of behavioural advertising”; and adding: “The final decisions adopted by the DPC on 31 December 2022 reflect the EDPB’s binding determinations as set out above. Accordingly, the DPC’s decisions include findings that Meta Ireland is not entitled to rely on the ‘contract’ legal basis in connection with the delivery of behavioural advertising as part of its Facebook and Instagram services, and that its processing of users’ data to date, in purported reliance on the ‘contract’ legal basis, amounts to a contravention of Article 6 of the GDPR.”

It will be interesting to see whether Meta’s lawyers seek to make hay with the DPC’s (now publicly) stated view that Facebook and Instagram are “premised on, the provision of a personalised service that includes personalised or behavioural advertising” — and its (convenient-for-Meta) conflation of personalised services and personalised advertising via an expressed stance that such a conjoined pairing is “central to the bargain struck between users and their chosen service provider, and forms part of the contract concluded at the point at which users accept the Terms of Service”, as it puts it — as the tech giant seeks to overturn this GDPR decision against the legal basis it’s relied upon to run behavioral ads in the EU since 2018.

Curiously, the DPC’s view on this ignores the existence of other forms of (non-privacy) violating ads which Meta could use to monetize its service — such as contextual ads.

Its PR is also silent on the question of whether Meta will be ordered to delete all the data it’s been illegally processing since 2018. But litigation funders are unlikely to ignore the opportunity to scale privacy class actions.

There’s further drama unfolding around the DPC’s announcement today, too: Schrems has tweeted to complain that the DPC told it it will not be sent the final decision until after Meta has had a chance to redact the document… “Never seen something like that in 10 years of litigation,” he added. “F*cking crazy.”

(Reminder: noyb filed a complaint of criminal corruption against the DPC back in 2021 — accusing the regulator of corruption and “procedural blackmail” in relation to attempts to shut down the public release of documents related to GDPR complaints so this issue was already more than fraught.)

In a press release of its own, noyb’s Schrems further hits out at what he described as the DPC’s “very diabolic public relations game” — writing: “Getting overturned by the EDPB is a major blow for the DPC, no[w] they seem to at least try to gain the public perception of this case. In ten years of litigation I have never seen a decision only being served to one party but not the other. The DPC plays a very diabolic public relations game. By not allowing noyb or the public to read the decision, it tries to shape the narrative of the decision jointly with Meta. It seems the cooperation between Meta and the Irish regulator is well and alive — despite being overruled by the EDPB.”

In a further unusual move by the Irish regulator — which only looks set to crank up criticism of its friction-generating approach to GDPR enforcement — the DPC has announced it’s launching an annulment action against certain “jurisdictional” elements of the EDPB decision.

It told TechCrunch it’s not seeking to annul the Board’s decision on the consent vs contractual necessity issue. Rather it claims it’s unhappy about other elements of the direction the Board issued, via the GDPR Article 65 dispute resolution process, and is accusing the steering body of overreaching its jurisdiction.

This action appears to have been instigated because the Board’s binding decision also directs the DPC to conduct what the Irish regulator couches as “a fresh investigation that would span all of Facebook and Instagram’s data processing operations and would examine special categories of personal data that may or may not be processed in the context of those operations”.

Such an investigation — were it to actually take place — could really drive a stake through the heart of Meta’s privacy-sucking business model in the EU, where legal experts have been warning for yearsthe tech giant’s consent-less tracking and profiling of citizens is in breach of the bloc’s legal framework on data protection.

So it’s certainly interesting that the DPC is keen to avoid having to open a wide-ranging investigation of Meta’s data handling on the EDPB’s instruction.

Its PR states that the decisions it’s announced today “naturally do not include reference to fresh investigations of all Facebook and Instagram data processing operations that were directed by the EDPB in its binding decisions” — with the regulator explaining its objection thusly:

The EDPB does not have a general supervision role akin to national courts in respect of national independent authorities and it is not open to the EDPB to instruct and direct an authority to engage in open-ended and speculative investigation. The direction is then problematic in jurisdictional terms, and does not appear consistent with the structure of the cooperation and consistency arrangements laid down by the GDPR. To the extent that the direction may involve an overreach on the part of the EDPB, the DPC considers it appropriate that it would bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice of the EU in order to seek the setting aside of the EDPB’s directions.

It remains to be seen what the EU’s General Court will make of the DPC’s complaint.

However a legal challenge by WhatsApp to an earlier EDPB binding decision on a separate GDPR inquiry — which also substantially dialled up the level of enforcement it would have faced from an earlier DPC draft decision — was ruled inadmissible by the court last month.

Meta’s New Year kicks off with over $410M in fresh EU privacy fines by Natasha Lomas originally published on TechCrunch

Holoride, the Audi-backed startup, is ready to take its in-vehicle virtual reality entertainment system into the mainstream.

The company unveiled Wednesday at CES 2023 in Las Vegas a device about the size of a smart speaker that can be retrofitted into any vehicle to make it VR ready. The product marks a turning point for a company that has been reliant on partnerships with automakers for its growth.

Today, Holoride’s in-car VR technology is only available in certain 2022 model year (and newer) Audi vehicles. This new product would greatly expand its market reach — if consumers opt to plop down the $799 for package.

The retrofit pack weighs less than a half a pound and mounts via a suction cup on a vehicle’s windshield. The hardware is equipped with a lithium-ion battery that lasts for 14 hours on one charge, and an included USB-C to USB-A cord that plugs into the vehicle. Up to two headsets can be connected to holoride retrofit simultaneously, allowing two passengers to enjoy holoride at the same time in the car.

The pack includes the retrofit hardware, HTC VIVE Flow headset, a one-year subscription to the holoride platform, and a safety strap. The holoride retrofit is also available as a standalone purchase for $199.

“The release of our holoride retrofit kicks off a new chapter in holoride’s journey. Our vision of delivering a manufacturer agnostic entry point into the ‘Motorverse’ has finally arrived,” Holoride CEO and co-founder Nils Wollny said in a statement. “Now, any vehicle can serve as your gateway into holoride’s adaptive virtual experiences where each new ride becomes the blueprint for your next immersive adventure.”

Holoride retrofit works similar to its existing technology. The product connects to a VR headset via Bluetooth. Holoride’s software taps into a vehicle’s movement and location data. The virtual reality content syncs with a vehicle’s movements in real time to prevent motion sickness.

The company also announced an update its VR catalog, which includes educational apps like Einstein Brain Trainer and titles such as Cloudbreakers: Leaving Haven, from Schell Games and the Russo Brothers-founded creative firm Superconductor. Holoride announced that subscribers will now have access to a new game, Pixel Ripped 1995: On the Road (PEGI7), from the studio ARVORE. The full lineup also includes a custom web browser and an Android mirroring feature for smartphone screens.

Holoride launches new device to bring VR entertainment to any vehicle by Kirsten Korosec originally published on TechCrunch

3D printing stalwart Formlabs today showed off a series of new solutions that enables its customers to dramatically increase their 3D printing output. The result is better large-scale manufacturing options, and a significant reduction in cost-per-part, given that machines don’t have to sit around waiting for operators to fill resin tanks or remove parts.

The Automation Ecosystem, as the company is calling it, made its debut at CES in Las Vegas today. We took a closer look.

The main evolution of the system is to increase printer utilization, so users can produce parts and prototypes around the clock. It’ll no doubt be a boon for its existing customers, including a large-scale adaptation in consumer products, prototyping, product design and dental applications. The Automation Ecosystem can be used to expand a Form 3+ or Form 3B+ 3D printer to a scalable fleet of 3D printers.

“The Formlabs Automation Ecosystem is a seamless solution for ramping up production with 3D printer fleets, staying true to the ease of use of all Formlabs products, so anyone can make anything. These solutions will enable companies such as dental labs, service bureaus, and internal job shops to ramp up production without increasing labor requirements, or expensive capital investment, making 3D printing for production more cost-effective,” said Formlabs Chief Product Officer Dávid Lakatos said. “Formlabs users have recently achieved a major milestone, with more than 100 million parts printed on our 3D printers, and by adding this ecosystem, Formlabs is increasing the capacity so users can deliver further 3D printing innovation.”

The company claims that the innovations launched today provide a three-time increase in productivity while saving up to 80% on labor, lowering cost per part by 30%, and reducing packaging waste up to 90%.

The full suite of products includes Form Auto, which includes automatic part removal. Once the part is removed, the next part can start printing. Fleet Control is an improvement in the company’s existing software suite – Dashboard and PreForm – to introduce queue management and optimizes workflows. Finally, the High Volume Resin System increases resin capacity by 500%, from the 1-liter cartridge the printers use today, to a five-liter tank, compatible with the Form 3+, Form 3B+. Form 3L and Form 3BL.

Formlabs inches towards mass manufacturing with high-volume 3D printing solutions by Haje Jan Kamps originally published on TechCrunch

DoorDash is launching a new ‘Package Pickup’ offering that lets users request a delivery person to pick up their prepaid package from their home and drop it off at a UPS, FedEx or USPS location. The company began piloting this feature in March 2022 as part of a small beta test, and is now officially rolling it out. For a fee of $5 for standard users or $3 for DashPass members, users can get up to five packages picked up and dropped off in the same order.

To get started, you need to select the Packages hub on the top of the DoorDash homepage and select the carrier that corresponds to the package you’re returning. Or, you can type “package” into your search bar. Then, you need to get your packages ready and attach a prepaid shipping label to them. If you have a shipping QR code, you can send the QR code directly to your delivery person in the DoorDash app. Your delivery person will send you a confirmation photo after dropping off your package at the designated store.

During the beta testing, DoorDash said it wanted to help users avoid the tedious task of taking a package to a post office in order to fulfill a return. The company noted that although returns are common, they can be time-consuming, which is why it wanted to create a way to simplify the return process by leveraging its current local logistics infrastructure. DoorDash also said delivery people on its app are always looking for new ways to earn through the platform and that this new feature will give them an additional option to do so.

DoorDash says it plans to continue to explore new ways to offer more convenience for its users, while giving its delivery people additional chances to earn money on its platform.

DoorDash isn’t the only delivery company that has worked to offer such a service. Back in 2015, Uber offered a“limited-time” optionfor customers to send return packages to post offices. The feature was called “Returns” and was powered by UberRush, whichshut downin 2018. Similarly, a former on-demand shipping startup called Shyp offered a service that picked up packages and delivered them to their destination. The companyended operationsin 2018 after struggling to find a scalable model beyond its launching point in San Francisco.

DoorDash will now return your packages for you by Aisha Malik originally published on TechCrunch

The performance of a mobile app can impact how customers perceive a brand. According to a survey from Dimensional Research sponsored by HP, 53% of app users who responded said they’ve uninstalled a mobile app with issues like lag, while 37% said that they hold an app responsible for performance problems.

Given the pace of development, good performance isn’t always easy to maintain. Searching for an automatable solution, four siblings — David, Daniil, Anna and Maria Liberman — co-founded Product Science, a startup that develops performance management software for apps. Product Science’s platform analyzes app code to find flaws in the execution, aiming to minimize perceptible crashes, freezes and errors.

“Every couple of years, phones are at least 50% faster, and that’s what distorts our view since we don’t notice how much our apps degrade. But for long-tail users, their experience worsens significantly,” David and Daniil, who serve as Product Science’s co-CEOs, told TechCrunch via email. “At Product Science, our mission is to eliminate delays caused by software inefficiency for people worldwide.”

The Liberman siblings have long been close. In 2005, Daniil and David co-founded Sibilant Interactive, which developed massively multiplayer RPG games. After Sibilant closed up shop in 2008 due to illiquidity, David and Daniil — together with Anna and Maria — co-launched Concept Space, a vendor for motion capture and CGI animation software. The brothers moved to the U.S. a few years later to co-found the fintech startup Frank.Money and AR firm Kernel AR, which Snap acquired for an undisclosed amount in October 2016.

At Snap, the Liberman siblings — including Anna and Maria — oversaw an animation studio and worked on Snapchat’s 3D Bitmoji feature, which let users create full-body versions of their avatars. While at Snap, David and Daniil said that they were tasked with production operations as well, specifically solving performance issues with Snap’s app for Android.

That’s when they had the idea for Product Science. Together with Anna and Maria, David and Daniil launched the Libermans Company, a holding company in which each sibling has a 25% stake, and started Product Science as a venture under the holding company.

Through the Libermans Company, the siblings pledged to investors all the projects they might start through 2051, allowing them to fund Product Science at the pre-seed stage. The Libermans Company includes any debts and assets the siblings might gain as well as profits; investors get a proportional share of whatever wealth the siblings create, but don’t have say over how they allocate their time and effort.

“We realized that existing performance and observability tools were ineffective and decided to reinvent the application performance management industry,” David and Daniil said. “By replacing manual instrumentation and embedding right into the build processes, Product Science enables anyone to identify causes of app performance issues.”

Product Science — which has raised $18 million in seed funding to date from backers including Slow Ventures, Coatue, K5 Global, Mantis Ventures, Benchmark’s Peter Fenton, Insight Partners co-founder Jerry Murdock and unnamed Snap VPs — analyzes pre-production code using AI. The company’s tools and plugins for integrated development environments show video recordings of apps next to performance traces, providing insights into what’s happening behind the screen.

David and Daniil say one company, Saturn, used Product Science’s platform to reduce their app’s start time from 4 seconds to 0.7 seconds. “Engineers can see the video recording of their app synchronized with the profiler data recorded on any mobile device [using Product Science’s tools],” the brothers added. “[They can] scrub through a video recording and dive into the code executed behind the scenes.”

Product Science counts Fortune 500 companies across sectors like social media, travel, e-commerce and banking as customers, although David and Daniil wouldn’t disclose how many customers the startup has at present. Annual recurring revenue stands north of $3 million, according to David and Daniil, while Product Science — which was recently valued at $200 million, a source familiar with the matter tells TechCrunch — aims to grow from 40 employees to roughly 100 by the end of the year.

“We realize that the industry will slow down and want to make sure we are more flexible with our enterprise offerings and can rapidly grow the AI vision of the product,” David and Daniil said. “Product Science will use the money to fuel its growth: we equally distribute raised capital between attracting new customers, getting key hires and refining our proprietary AI algorithm.”

One of those refinements will come in the form of a new capability that suggests optimizations while engineers write code in their IDE of choice. The long-term vision is to train Product Science’s AI to automatically fix underperforming app code, David and Daniil said.

That continued differentiation will likely be the key to Product Science’s success. There’s plenty of rivals in the app performance monitoring space, after all, including platforms like Groundcover, ServiceNow (through its acquisition of Lightstep), Instabug, Sentry, Embrace and even Cisco.

The market for app performance monitoring was worth over $5.9 billion in 2021, byone estimate.

“There is both an opportunity and a challenge in the current environment,” David and Daniil added. “The challenge is that most software-as-a-service startups are experiencing longer sales cycles and enterprise is actively reducing their spending; the opportunity for Product Science is that since users are also reducing their spending, the tool is becoming more and more of a must-have for business-to-consumer companies since you can now solve your performance issues pre-production and retain customers and reduce churn significantly.”

Product Science, which develops mobile app performance monitoring tools, lands $18M by Kyle Wiggers originally published on TechCrunch

Roku today is expanding its product line to include a range of smart TVs that are the first ever to be both designed and built by Roku itself. The RokuSelect andRoku Plus Series TVs will be Roku-branded HD and 4K TVs available across 11 models, ranging from 24” to 75” in size, and made to work well with Roku’s growing line of audio products, like its Roku TV Wireless Soundbar, as well as other Roku accessories, like its Voice Remote.

All of Roku’s new HD TVs will include the Roku Voice Remote, while the Plus models will come with the higher-end Roku Voice Remote Pro. All models will support popular features like “Find My Remote” and Private Listening.

The TVs, like those from Roku’s partners, will run the Roku OS — the company’s own smart TV operating system that provides access to ad-supported movies and shows through The Roku Channel, live content through the Live TV Channel Guide, a curated selection of free in-season movies and shows through its “Featured Free” collection, voice search, and the ability to add on various streaming channels, both free and subscription-based.

The company says its new Roku Select and Plus Series TVs will be available in the U.S. beginning spring of 2023 with retail prices that range from $119 to $999 for the lineup of 24” – 75” models.

The company will also make an OLED TV reference design available to its Roku TV partners, to supplement the 11 reference designs that have already gone into production, including those for 2K, 4K, and 8K TVs.

The new product announcements come on the heels of Roku’s third-quarter earnings, which worried investors despite topping Wall Street estimates with revenue of $761.4 million, up 12% year over year, and a net loss of 88 cents per share, below the $1.28 expected. The company was then projecting a weak Q4 — typically a top quarter — with expectations of total net revenue of around $800 million or a decline of 7.5% year over year, Variety reported at the time. Roku said the decline was related to “macroeconomic headwinds” and advertisers’ tightened budgets.

New Roku-branded TVs could, in theory, help to boost device sales as consumers could opt for the company’s own brand other others, while also allowing Roku to generate revenue from its own hardware.

“Our goal is to continue to create an even better TV experience for everyone,” said Mustafa Ozgen, Roku’s President of Devices. “These Roku-branded TVs will not only complement the current lineup of partner-branded Roku TV models, but also allow us to enable future smart TV innovations,” Ozgen added.

Roku unveils its first-ever TVs designed and built by the company by Sarah Perez originally published on TechCrunch