TechCrunch+

Bradley Tusk — who spent his early career in Democratic politics and later became a consultant and lobbyist for private companies battling regulators — spends much of his time these days as a venture capitalist. But while Tusk is a generalist, he insists he isn’t interested in just any startup; his expertise, he says, is at the intersection of tech and regulation, and his firm adds the most value to startups in sectors where changing regulations are bound to alter the scale of the opportunity they are chasing.

As a service to Tusk Ventures’s current portfolio — and a kind of calling card for potential founders — Tusk every year puts together some thoughts about the changes he sees coming over the next 12-year period. Because he’s often proven right in retrospect, we hopped on a call with him late last week to discuss some of his many 2023 predictions, and these three stood out to us in particular, so we thought we’d share them here.

1.) Major CPG brands start selling cannabis products, wiping out a lot of cannabis startups that were operating in the relative shadows. Here Tusk is, discussing why:

Big brands [sell] alcohol all of the time and cannabis, many people would argue, is a less harmful substance than alcohol. We’ve got this real disconnect between the close to two-thirds of the states and the federal government, where cannabis is legal recreationally and medicinally. Yet it’s on Schedule 1 at the DEA [along with] heroin and meth and cocaine . . which really doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially as states keep legalizing it entirely.

President Biden has said, ‘Let’s remove this from Schedule 1.’ Once that happens all of a sudden all kinds of interstate commerce that so far has not been allowed will open up. So you’ll be able to have real banking, trucking of [plants] across state lines, advertising . . . All the things that a normal, really big company — a Kraft or Unilever and Anheuser-Busch or Philip Morris — might engage in, they can’t really do under the current system, but once the federal restrictions are loosened, then all of a sudden it opens up for them.

One [question I’ve asked cannabis founders over the years is] how are they going to compete with Unilever? Why would Unilever choose to buy them as opposed to just burying them? And most of the time, the answer is they can’t [compete]. They’re really just racing against the clock, hoping the federal government doesn’t actually do the right thing. But I think once cannabis goes off Schedule 1, and I don’t know if it happens in six months or two years, big companies will get into the game [because] there’s money to be made. And a lot of cannabis startups that were highly valued or overvalued or that traded at really high multiples on the Canadian stock exchange are going to feel a lot of pain.

2.) Instead of drive further crypto regulation, Sam Bankman-Fried and the abrupt implosion of FTX actually winds up playing a minor role in any new regulations that get enacted (and he does think we’ll see more regulation at the state and federal level in the next 12 months). Here’s Tusk:

When the FTX thing blow-up started happening, my take was, ‘Okay, this is going to lead to a lot of very harsh crypto regulation that will be bad for the sector, because SEC chief Gary Gensler has been pushing for this for a long time and it hasn’t happened yet because crypto is very popular among a lot of actual real people.’ I thought FTX would give him the cover to move very aggressively against the industry as a whole.

In a weird way since then, as the story gets crazier and crazier and just more and more like Sam Bankman-Fried was just a criminal mastermind who was defrauding people out of tens of billions of dollars and [that this debacle] is not something specifically related to crypto per se, it actually shifts the argument again. It [shifts from], ‘This whole industry is out of control’ to ‘this person was out of control.’ It’s almost gotten so extreme that it’s actually helping [tamp down talk of overregulation].

3.) Twitter ends up costing Musk far more than the $44 billion he and his investors paid for it . . .

What Musk did is consistent with things that we’re seeing across the cultural zeitgeist right now, which is in this world with 24/7 media coverage and social media activity, the people who really need attention and can’t get enough of it just have to keep doing more and more outrageous things to try to get it right. We saw that with Donald Trump. We saw that with Kanye West. And the main reason why Musk bought Twitter is so that people would be talking about him, just as we are right now. From that standpoint, I suspect he’s achieved his goal.

What worries me for him is when you look at the market cap of Tesla, for example, it is significantly higher than Toyota or General Motors, companies that sell a lot more cars,. Tesla makes a great car and they’re growing and it’s okay for them to lean into the future. But the differential between what [Tesla] probably should be valued at and where it is valued is that Elon Musk hype and pixie dust. He managed to create such an image of being so far in the future and so much better than everyone else that really drives retail investment in the stock. The same is true of SpaceX. While that’s still a private company, I saw a piece yesterday saying that it’s now valued at $140 billion, [yet] there’s no way SpaceX could be [worth] $140 billion given its revenue. So his genius in some ways is that he manages to create this perception that what he’s doing is so innovative and so unique, and that only he can do it; it drives tremendous amounts of value and investment toward his companies.

The really big risk with Twitter is that every time he does something really high profile and public, he puts that reputation on the line. He has taken over Twitter, which no one has really ever figured out how to make it a successful business, and now it’s in his hands. And so far, the ideas that he’s put out there don’t sound that new or interesting to me; they feel like variations of things that people have already done before in different ways. And if he does not succeed with Twitter, the question is, does it puncture the balloon for Tesla, and SpaceX and all his other projects? He may have paid $44 billion for Twitter, but ultimately, this could cost him $100 billion or more if there’s a risk that Tesla and SpaceX and other companies that he owns lose value because he’s exposed as being a mere mortal.

. . . and no, it doesn’t create great opportunities for startups looking to capitalize on the chaos at the company, per Tusk. More here:

There’s just not a great revenue model for all of this to begin with. To make matters worse for them, I still think that there’s a risk eventually that Section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act does get changed or repealed. Right now, it exempts platforms from liability from content posted by the user, so I can defame you on Twitter, and you could sue me personally but you couldn’t sue Twitter. And as a result, Twitter, Facebook, all the platforms, their real economic incentive is to move toward negative and toxic content, because as much as we hate it, that drives eyeballs and drives clicks and thus drives advertising rates and revenue. So effectively, the lack of liability by the platforms is creating a world where the Internet has to be as toxic and awful as possible.

But if [we repeal] Section 230, it’ll be a lot like what happened with the tobacco companies beginning in the 1980s, where all of a sudden they were vulnerable to litigation and started receiving these multi-billion-dollar judgments, and as a result, they felt real economic pain and had to finally get a hold of their [marketing practices] because it was costing them more money than otherwise. Right now Facebook will pay the little fines that it gets from the FCC, because ultimately, they make so much money driven by negative content. Repealing Section 230 would change that.

Three counterintuitive 2023 predictions about Musk, SFB, and even Kraft by Connie Loizos originally published on TechCrunch

The bad blood between tech boot camp MyTechBestfriend and many of its former students is anything but finished, according to nearly a dozen people who spoke to TechCrunch.

In November, TechCrunch detailed the fallout between Mary Awodele, the founder of the Texas-based MTBF, and her students. Students accused Awodele of bullying and harassment while alleging that the MTBF program, which cost up to $6,000, consisted of plagiarized courses that could be found online for a more affordable price. At the time, Awodele told TechCrunch she couldn’t comment on those allegations “due to ongoing legal proceedings.”

Since then, those who spoke up against Awodele and the program said they are struggling to obtain refunds and facing continued harassment.

Awodele, meanwhile, posted online in an Instagram story screenshot seen by TechCrunch that she plans to rebrand the company in the new year. She also hired a Texas-based lawyer, Kim Daily, and brought on Curt Bender, a Florida attorney who is consulting for MTBF. Neither Awodele nor Daily directly responded to TechCrunch’s requests for comment, but Bender replied to a set of questions sent to Awodele. Bender said MTBF has no imminent plans to rebrand.

To request refunds, students said they began contacting Stripe, which was, per receipts seen by TechCrunch, one of MTBF’s payment processors. MTBF then posted an Instagram story saying that the new program it hopes to launch would be for those who are an “Affirm, Klarna, or Afterpay kinda person.” MTBF also said it wanted to venture into career services and would vet prospective students to ensure the new program had a more “mature crowd.”

The #MyTechFallout continues

A major point of contention between Awodele and her students remains the fees paid to participate in MTBF’s courses. Awodele told students she would grant refunds to those who wished to drop out after the fallout in late November, even though the course contract students signed said MTBF would not process any refunds. Students told TechCrunch that the refund process has been inconsistent with Awodele’s promises.

A November 18 email forwarded to TechCrunch shows an MTBF employee agreeing to refund Shay, a former student who requested to go by their nickname, within 10 days. After 10 days passed, Shay followed up, but MTBF responded: “Hi. Call your bank, and please do not email us again. Thank you.”

Allegations about the program’s deceit also continued to spread. Some students sent TechCrunch their receipts from MTBF, showing that their transactions were processed as gifts rather than services, which can be a tactic to avoid paying a tax on generated revenue. If these purchases were indeed processed as gifts, it would be a revenue misclassification that impacts the way MTBF is taxed and could land Awodele in serious trouble with the law, including jail time, two financial experts and attorney David Reischer of Reischer & Reischer told TechCrunch.

Bender said that MTBF “was not aware that transactions regarding scholarships were being processed as gifts, and it is correcting and remedying the situation.”

According to correspondence seen by TechCrunch, Awodele also threatened to report multiple students to credit bureaus in instances where she lost bank disputes. Bender, however, said MTBF “never sent anyone to a credit bureau” but “engaged with Fidelity Information Corporation in two instances.”

Victoria, a former student, using a pseudonym for fear of retribution from Awodele, successfully disputed MTBF’s tuition with her bank. Then she received, according to documents seen by TechCrunch, what appears to be a letter from Fidelity Information Corporation, a debt collector. The letter, an attempt to retrieve tuition money on behalf of MTBF, said to mail payments directly to MTBF and listed an address associated with an apartment building in Houston, not FIC, which is based in Los Angeles. (Bender said this is due to FIC’s engagement terms. FIC could not be reached for comment.

Many students have continued reporting MTBF to the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), the FBI and the IRS, all of which, according to some students, have reached out to students regarding the allegations against MTBF. (The IRS declined to comment, while the FBI and TWC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) Bender said “MTBF is in the process of meeting [TWC] regulatory demands” and is aware that “at least one former student saying the FBI and FTC reached out to them.”

Students who initially spoke out about allegations against MTBF say they continue to face harassment. On December 15, Charlie, a former student, awoke to text messages, one reading that her name was in a pot somewhere in Haiti.

“Make sure you pray for the wickedness that’s in your heart. When a stream of bad luck starts to come your way. Just know it’s us. What’s done is done. So let it be. Ashe,” the text message read, followed by a photo of what appears to be an object used for voodoo.

Bender told TechCrunch that “the founder of MTBF is a Christian and Nigerian and neither practice[s] nor participate[s] in voodoo.” He added that MTBF does, however, employ “hippie-esque practices with students, including lighting candles and manifestation for personal success.

“But never anything against enemies,” he noted.

Charlie, whose last name is being withheld, believes Awodele gave her number out to people for them to harass her. TechCrunch previously reported that Awodele had a group called #MTBFSPECIALFORCES, which she sent out to pester people who spoke up against her or the company. Two hours after TechCrunch reached out to Awodele and her lawyer for comment, Charlie received a message from Bender, who wrote that MTBF “nor its affiliates” were involved with the alleged threats — which was the question TechCrunch posed to them just hours before.

“Please report those threats to law enforcement, and MTBF will assist with any investigations,” Bender wrote in the email seen by TechCrunch. Charlie responded, “There is nothing else to be said other than I’ll see you in court.”

The voodoo incident has scared many people, adding to the fear that is keeping most students enrolled in the program, one current student, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from Awodele, told TechCrunch. Though MTBF is back in session, it’s unclear how many students have dropped out — and how many remain.

“She’s a narcissist with a God complex who believes she’s untouchable and needs to be shut down,” Amber, a former student using a pseudonym for fear of retribution from Awodele, said of the founder. “We won’t stop until she’s unable to do this to anyone else.”

The #MyTechBestfriend fallout continues by Dominic-Madori Davis originally published on TechCrunch

According to a survey sent to creators in the Spotify for Podcasters program, the streaming giant might be doing away with the Anchor brand. Anchor, which Spotify acquired for $340 million in a deal that included the studio Gimlet, is a free podcast hosting service. In 2020, Anchor said that its service was used to create 1 million new podcasts, accounting for 80% of new shows uploaded to Spotify that year.

But now that Anchor has been part of Spotify for almost three years, the company appears to be considering a rebrand. In the survey, sent to some podcasters who have claimed their show on Spotify for Podcasters, Spotify’s user research team shared information about the possible rebrand, which is still being tested with potential users.

“Anchor and Spotify for Podcasters are now Spotify Creator Studio, the all-in-one platform for creators of all kinds (and sizes) to express themselves and find success on Spotify,” the sample announcement in the survey reads.

Currently, podcasters can join Spotify for Podcasters to access analytics about their show, even if they host with another service like Libsyn, Podbean, or Buzzsprout. Those who host via Anchor have access to features like subscription monetization and video podcasts, but only listeners using Spotify are able to interact with that content.

If the proposed rebrand from the survey were to go through, Spotify for Podcasters would be rebranded to “Spotify Creator Studio – Unhosted.” Anchor would be rebranded to “Spotify Creator Studio – Hosted.” Both products would remain free.

Spotify’s survey of podcasters about this potential change indicates an interest in the rebrand, but that doesn’t mean it will come to fruition.

“At Spotify, we routinely conduct a number of surveys and tests in an effort to improve our user experience. Some of these end up paving the path for our broader user experience and others serve only as an important learning. We have no news to share on future plans at this time,” a Spotify spokesperson told TechCrunch.

Over the last few years, Spotify has made a number of podcasting acquisitions like Anchor and Gimlet. These include Podz, a podcast discovery platform, and Megaphone, a podcast ads company. For four of its recent acquisitions — Findaway, Podsights, Chartable and Sonantic — the company paid about $295 million.

Spotify considers rebranding Anchor to Spotify Creator Studio by Amanda Silberling originally published on TechCrunch

Tesla is being accused of firing two California-based employees for being part of a group that was discussing and drafting letters that were critical of CEO Elon Musk’s strict return-to-office policy and Musk’s tweets, according to complaints filed by their attorneys and a Bloomberg report.

One draft letter asked Tesla executives to reconsider making all workers return to the office, a policy that was put in place at the end of May. Another said Musk’s tweets violated Tesla’s anti-harassment policy. Both employees who filed complaints were fired in June. One had just gotten a raise the month prior, and the other was told their discussions were “an attack” on the company, according to filings with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The draft letters were never sent internally, reports Bloomberg, but both employees said they were fired for merely discussing the issues.

The case represents yet another example of a Musk-owned company facing allegations of retaliating against workers who take collective action related to working conditions, which is in violation of federal labor laws. Employees have the right to engage in “protected concerted activities,” which include speaking to each other to enlist support in a matter of shared employee concern. Earlier this year, eight former SpaceX employees claimed they were illegally firing after writing a letter calling for stronger “zero-tolerance policies” following sexual harassment allegations against Musk.

Those employees also filed a complaint with the NLRB, retaining the same San Francisco law firm as the former Tesla employees.

Around the time of that complaint, hundreds of SpaceX employees signed an open letter castigating Musk’s behavior on Twitter, calling it an embarrassment and a distraction for the company.

Tesla has been the subject of lawsuits and complaints for a number of employee-related issues over the years, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, racial discrimination and harassment, and failure to provide 60 days advance notice of layoffs.

Tesla could not be reached for comment because it disbanded its public relations department in 2019.

Tesla accused of illegally firing employees critical of Musk by Rebecca Bellan originally published on TechCrunch

“Passion investments” can sound like an oxymoron: What do feelings have to do with optimal returns? Yet, from art and cars to StockX, collectibles are a fixture in rich people’s portfolios.

Not wanting to put all eggs in one basket is not a new impulse. But while it is easily forgotten in good times, a recession is a great recipe to put diversification back on the agenda. In recent months, this has created tailwinds for alternative investments, also known as “alts.”

The Exchange explores startups, markets and money.

Read it every morning on TechCrunch+ or get The Exchange newsletter every Saturday.

Not all alts can be described as passion investments; I doubt anyone feels very passionate about private equity funds or debt, for instance. But the category also includes assets that overlap with hobbies and collectibles, such as wines, spirits, handbags and watches.

In sharp contrast with retail investors overall, those who invested in these categories were in for strong returns last year: “Watches and wine led the Knight Frank Luxury Investment Index results Q4 2021 to its strongest annual performance since 2018,” the property consultancy firm reported.

Concomitantly, the number of investors dabbling in these categories is also growing.

Investors’ flight to safety and regulation creates tailwinds for passion assets by Anna Heim originally published on TechCrunch

Hello and welcome back to Max Q! Last week was a week of milestones and landmarks. This week I was going to add Rocket Lab’s first Virginia launch to the list, but (sigh) they scrubbed the Sunday attempt because of high winds… we’ll see if they can nail it today.

In this issue:

A first for NASA’s Artemis program…
…and Japanese firm ispace
News from Quantum Space, and more

More news from TC and beyond

Arianespacelaunched the Ariane 5 rocket for the third and final time this year from French Guiana. (Space)
AST SpaceMobileand NASA signed a Space Act Agreement to formalize information- and data-sharing aimed at increasing space safety. (AST SpaceMobile)
Elon Muskis turning to SpaceX’s legal team to fill the lawyer void at Twitter due to departures and layoffs. (NYTimes)
Jeff Bezoswill star in an animated series called “Blue Origins Space Rangers” aimed at kids. (TechCrunch)
Landspace, a Chinese launch firm, failed to send what would have been the world’s first methane-fueled rocket to orbit. (SpaceNews)
Pixxel has appointed Preston Dunlap, former CTO and chief architect officer of the U.S. Space Force, to its board of directors. (Pixxel)
Planetrecorded record revenues for the third quarter, as the company quickly becomes a bright spot in an otherwise dreary post-SPAC space company performance landscape. (Planet Labs)
Quantum Space, a company developing robotic platforms for cislunar space, landed $15 million in funding from Prime Movers Lab. (TechCrunch)
SpaceX’sreported tender offer could value the company at $140 billion. (Bloomberg)
TransAstra, a ’21 YC alum, landed an SBIR from NASA and an STTR from the DoD to further develop orbital debris and space domain awareness tech. (TransAstra)

Max Q is brought to you by me, Aria Alamalhodaei. If you enjoy reading Max Q, consider forwarding it to a friend.

Max Q: A week of firsts by Aria Alamalhodaei originally published on TechCrunch

Do you invest in wine and spirits? Fintech startup Vint thinks everyone should, and is hoping to facilitate this. But don’t expect bottles to be shipped to you: Investments via Vint are fractional. Depending on how deep your pockets are, this is probably for the best: A recent offering that sold out on Vint was for a Macallan 78-Year-Old Collection whisky bottle worth $130,000.

There is no doubt that alternative investments are on the rise, with financial advisors communicating that the age-old 60/40 portfolio — 60% in equities, 40% in bonds — is no longer good enough. But “alts” come in all shapes and forms, and wine and spirits aren’t necessarily the most accessible, which is what Vint and others are working on changing.

Vint also now has more funding to pursue its goals: After raising $1.7 million in October 2021, it recently closed a $5 million seed fundraising round led by Montage Ventures.

It obviously doesn’t hurt Vint’s pitch that in recent years, fine wine and spirits have often outperformed other major asset classes, such as stocks, and seem immune to some of the public markets’ recent woes.

For instance, the Financial Times recently quoted data from Scottish investment bank Noble & Co showing that “the value of ‘fine and rare’ single malts was up by more than a fifth this year, with volumes jumping 23 percent.” In contrast, it noted, the U.K.’s main stock market index, the FTSE 100, “has traded flat this year.”

However, Vint CEO Nick King said the story is also about diversification, and warns against false hopes. “This is an investment. Personally, if someone tells me ‘it’s only going to go up into the right,’ I get skeptical,” he said.

Still, King is proud that Vint has generated returns of 28.3% for asset exits on a net annualized basis since inception. This refers to wine and spirits collections that already went through Vint’s full lifecycle: “Source, Securitize, Store, Then Sell.”

Since its launch one and a half years ago by King and his co-founder, Patrick Sanders, Vint has made 50 “offerings,” which are analogous to a crowdfunding campaign. The analogy doesn’t stop here: The startup spent eight months gaining the ability to launch U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission-qualified collections.

That Vint’s offerings are acceptable to the SEC was made possible by the creation of the regulated category known as Reg A+. It is itself part of the JOBS Act, which has resulted in tailwinds for alternative investments.

The process was fairly time-consuming for a young startup, but King thinks it was worth it. “For us, this is a long-term game. You’re not going to create a new asset class overnight, so doing things the right way and working with regulators to set up a structure that adds trust to this asset class is really important.”

Despite this framing around “a new asset class,” Vint already has competitors, such as Cavissima, Cult Wine Investment, iDealWine, Vinovest and U’Wine. But more than these, the company is up against legacy options: do-it-yourself and wine exchanges.

Interestingly, King thinks that the fact that he doesn’t come from the wine world is a plus — much more than a wine company, he envisions Vint as a fintech. Sourcing exceptional bottles is still a huge part of what Vint does, though, which is why the company recently hired Adam Lapierre, who holds a master of wine certification, as its head of wine.

Vint’s recent round is now supporting the expansion of its existing team of 12, with the addition of business development and general counsel staff. As for the rest of the road map, here are some of the things King has in mind:

“We are looking at new offerings. We’ve done wine, whiskey, scotch casks, and futures, so we’re looking at potentially adding bourbon as well, and also new styles of offerings. Then we want to add more data to the platform. We look at U.S. market data, U.K. market data, auction market data to help inform our buy and sell decisions, and that’s something we want to continue to share with our users. And then finally, most importantly, is continuing to exit assets.”

It is too early to tell whether market conditions will be as favorable to Vint’s collection sales as recently, but the rise of wine and spirits as an asset class will be worth tracking either way. As inflation and uncertainty are on the rise, it wouldn’t be surprising to see alts become a fixture in more and more portfolios.

Fintech Vint hopes to turn wine and spirits into a mainstream asset class by Anna Heim originally published on TechCrunch

Good sound is as important to enjoying a game as any other part of the experience, and these days you have your choice of dozens of headsets for every platform. Here are a few of the latest and greatest headsets for your gaming pleasure whether you’re a PC, Xbox, PlayStation, Switch or even mobile gamer.

Many of my 2020 review’s models are still around, but new year, new roundup – we have some returning brands and a couple new ones. I focused specifically on cross-platform, over-ear headsets (i.e. PC plus console, Bluetooth and other options as a plus) that are totally wireless and cost less than $200. Personally I feel that’s where you get the most bang for your buck.

This is hardly a systematic review, just my impressions – and I left off a pair or two that didn’t make the cut. I’m going to list these in the order I’d recommend them to a friend, but every model has its pros and cons. (I based my opinion on the “normal” MSRP but some of these are discounted right now for holiday sales.)

This article contains links to affiliate partners where available. When you buy through these links, TechCrunch may earn an affiliate commission.

SteelSeries Arctis Nova 7 Wireless – $180 (on sale for $159)

Last time I did this, I was blown away by the SteelSeries 7P, which offered an enormous soundstage, great battery life, and a really comfortable fit. And I’ll just tell you right now, if you want a great deal, those headphones are on sale right now for $90 – easily the best value on this list.

But there’s a new pair in town, and I don’t know how they did it, but the company has managed to achieve more or less the same thing in a smaller, lighter package with the Nova 7.

My main issue with the 7P was that its control/port layout was messy and they are a bit bulky. The Nova 7 remedies both these with a more compact design, USB-C, and simpler layout. The volume wheel has more distance, the telescoping microphone is flush at rest, buttons are tucked away but easy to find. Although the Nova 7 is lighter and more trim, I wouldn’t say the fit has improved — the 7P earcups were very generous and these, though apparently the same size, feel smaller and not so conforming. Really they’re very comfy though, with a ski goggle strap and plush foam.

More importantly the sound is just as good as its predecessor. I’ve come to expect the highly spatial, well-balanced quality of sound that you get with both of these headsets, a real feel that the game environment or even music is surrounding you. It may not be ideal for all music but it’s great for games and it’s definitely my preference. The useful “sidetone” returns as well, piping in sound from outside the cans — you can quickly turn it up to hear what someone is saying rather than taking off the whole thing.

These work with practically every platform, plus Bluetooth, plus 3.5mm headphone jack — I’ve found this input continues to be indispensible even as wireless becomes the norm. It’s a bit bemusing how much they managed to pack in. The SteelSeries Nova 7s are my first and most unreserved recommendation.

Razer Barracuda – $160

Razer has two on this list, the Barracuda (not the Barracuda X, to be clear) and Kaira Pro. To be honest, I think the Kaira Pro (I’m not sure about the non-Pro version) is the superior set, but whether it’s worth the money is a more difficult call. I found the Barracuda to be an excellent headset, with a direct, punchy sound quality and comfy, traditional padded headband fit (compared with a goggle strap).

They seem a bit rigid when you first hold them, but they’re quite light and fit my (large) head very well with a couple headband stops to spare, plus they fold flat. The layout is simple, with just the volume dial, power and mic mute, and a switcher for Bluetooth/wi-fi. The dual slit mics are effective but you don’t get the richness of a decent boom sitting in front your face (I’ve gotten lots of compliments on the Blackshark V2 I often use for calls).

These also have the advantage of a 3.5mm port that works as a mic in (should you prefer a boom mic) or headphone jack input. Right now I’d say these are probably the best value of Razer’s wireless lineup.

Epos H3Pro Hybrid – $279 (on sale for $199)

I justified including these, with their $279 list price, on this roundup because they appear to be on permanent sale for $199. As the only headset I tested with active noise canceling (others are offered but are also quite expensive), I thought it worth having a distinct upgrade pick.

The picture doesn’t do them justice… but still the Epos design aesthetic is not really to my liking (they look almost military) but I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the H3Pro’s quality and comfort. They’re less rigid than they look due to a single headband attachment point, but don’t fold up. I would describe their sound as immediate and intense but with a good sense of space, not as wide as the SteelSeries but plenty big. And the noise-canceling, while it won’t beat your Boses or your Sonys, works well and may be attractive to the traveling gamer who’d rather not keep 2 or 3 pairs of cans for different situations.

Their controls and inputs are where they fall down, though. I found the volume dial on the earcup to be unresponsive, spinning for a while with no response and then a sudden jump or drop in volume. The buttons and ANC switch are fine, if a bit haphazardly placed. The bulky boom mic attaches via a magnet. Most irritatingly, the headphone jack is 2.5mm, so you’ll need to keep an eye on the included cable for it.

While the sound and ANC for the Epos were great, the hardware feels dated and simultaneously over- and under-thought. But if the comfort, sound, and ANC outweigh my quibbles, you could do a lot worse than the H3Pro.

PDP Victrix Gambit – $130

I hadn’t used any PDP headphones before, but the Gambits — a slightly older, fancier model than the newer Airlite Pro — impressed me. Their punchy, bass-heavy sound probably isn’t the best for music, but it definitely felt powerful and accurate in action games. It also has a respectably wide soundstage, not as big or balanced as the Nova 7 but very good. They look a bit plasticky but the fit is good, though not particularly “isolating” compared to the others.

The headset has a dial-based volume control that’s a little fiddly at first but refreshingly analog-feeling and ultimately precise, and a quick mic monitor button that lets you quickly set or turn off hearing your own voice. The boom mic is non-removable but pretty minimal and feels both strong and flexible. There’s a 3.5mm input as well, always a plus.

On the negative side, not much: a micro-USB instead of type-C connector is a minor grievance, and they don’t fold up. This is a solid headset going for a specific sound,

Razer Kaira Pro – $199 (on sale for $150)

These things are great, but for my taste they’re a bit over the top. The sound is excellent, but similar to what you get in the Barracuda. The fit is an improvement over that headset, with a bigger, softer earcup you won’t be adjusting as often.

What the Kaira Pro adds is the always-dubious RGB lighting (I prefer not to), and a truly compelling but ultimately kind of exhausting haptic engine. I hear you asking: what – haptics in your ears? Believe me, I thought it sounded weird too. But what the headset basically does is monitor the waveform and emphasize peaks and intense periods with a sort of physical pulse.

To be honest I thought I would hate it. But when I tried it on a boss fight in God of War Ragnarok, it felt cool: more like a subwoofer kicking in than something rattling my skull. The pulse strength can be adjusted on the fly or turned off completely — which is what I ended up doing after an hour or so.

While it’s interesting, I found it a bit too intense combined with the already visceral sound the headphones provide. Your mileage may vary, but ultimately I decided that the extra money, battery drain (it takes hours off), and fuss wasn’t something I cared enough about. I personally think the Barracuda is a better deal — but if you want the same sound in a somewhat superior package and don’t mind spending another $30, by all means.

(As I was writing this, though, they went on sale for $130, and at that price I would definitely recommend them, even over the Barracudas, which are were not reduced. If you can catch them at that price, go for it.)

PDP Airlite Pro – $80

These headphones lived up to their name – they’re extremely light and quite comfortable, and fold flat-ish. That plus the USB-C port would make them something of a sidegrade to the Gambits listed above, but I wasn’t a fan of the sound. Like the Gambit, it was fairly enveloping and powerful, but I feel the Airlites push the bass even further than those, to the point where I felt it was overwhelming other details.

It’s definitely a matter of taste, though. If you like bass-heavy music or like to have a sub and bump the low EQ, these might be great for you. I will say they lose a point for not having the 3.5mm jack their cousin does, though.

Gift Guide: A look at some of the best gaming headphones of 2022 by Devin Coldewey originally published on TechCrunch

CNBC reported on Friday that Marc Benioff sent a message on the company Slack channel that newer employees weren’t as productive. He questioned if this was due to working from home since COVID, and a lack of training and sharing of tribal knowledge that was previously part of the in-office culture.

Here’s partially what he said, according to the report: “New employees (hired during the pandemic in 2021 & 2022) are especially facing much lower productivity. Is this a reflection of our office policy? Are we not building tribal knowledge with new employees without an office culture?”

It’s a pretty odd position for a guy whose company spent $27 billion for Slack two years ago, precisely because it allows easy communication among employees regardless of where they are.

The company even has a name for it: Digital HQ. It means you can operate digitally, so location doesn’t matter. It’s a catch phrase they use almost as often as Customer 360, a term that every executive seems to be contractually obligated to use several times in every encounter with customers or the press.

When TechCrunch asked for clarification, Salesforce PR had this to say:

“We have a hybrid work environment that empowers leaders and teams to work together with purpose. They can decide when and where they come together to collaborate, innovate, and drive customer success.”

That seems at least partially to conflict with Benioff’s questions in Slack last week, and adds to the general turbulence we’ve been seeing from the company over the last several weeks. We’ve seen the company refuse to provide a forecast for next fiscal year, and several key executives leave including co-CEO Bret Taylor, amid reports of tension between him and Benioff.

Now we have the remaining CEO, and face of the company, suggesting that a model that is core to its business approach could be failing his own company. It’s a confusing message at best.

It’s worth noting that it has been a rough year for SaaS companies, and Salesforce is no exception, with its stock price down just under 50% for the year.

Benioff’s reported Slack statement muddles message about Salesforce’s view of WFH by Ron Miller originally published on TechCrunch

Activision Blizzard COO Daniel Alegre is leaving the gaming giant to take over as CEO of Yuga Labs, the company behind the Bored Ape Yacht Club. Yuga’s first and current CEO Nicole Muniz will stay on as a strategic advisor.

“Nicole, Greg, and I have been on the hunt for someone with Daniel’s skill set for some time,” said Yuga co-founder Wylie Aronow in a press release. The crypto company wanted to appoint a gaming veteran as CEO to help work on projects like Otherside, its metaverse gaming platform. As an executive who oversaw franchises like “Call of Duty,” “World of Warcraft” and “Candy Crush,” Alegre fits the bill. He also worked at Google for over sixteen years, in roles such as President of Global and Strategic Partnerships.

In March, prior to crypto meltdowns like the implosion of FTX and Terra’s UST, Yuga Labs raised$450 million from Andreessen Horowitz at a $4 billion valuation. After last month’s FTX bombshell dropped, the price to buy your way into the Bored Ape Yacht Club had decreased by 82% since its peak in April, according to Decrypt. But the greater industry concerns haven’t seemed to stall Alegre.

“Since exploding onto the scene with Bored Ape Yacht Club in 2021, Yuga Labs has quickly made a name for itself through a powerful combination of storytelling and community-building,” said Alegre in a statement. “The company’s pipeline of products, partnerships, and IP represents a massive opportunity to define the metaverse in a way that empowers creators and provides users with true ownership of their identity and digital assets.”

Alegre is not the first major gaming executive to jump over to crypto. In January, Ryan Wyatt left his role as head of YouTube Gaming to become CEO of Polygon Studios.

The jump from an established executive role into a volatile industry might seem risky, but Activision Blizzard has been riddled with conflict itself. A report from the Wall Street Journal last year found that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick knew for years about rampant sexual harassment at the company, but failed to act. For over a year, Activision Blizzard employees have protested against the company’spoor handling of ongoing sexual harassment allegations, which in part inspired an historic union movement for the gaming industry. But on employees’ way to establishing two formally recognized unions, Alegre was caught in the crossfire.

In October, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Activision Blizzard illegally withheld wages from workers who were in the process of unionizing. In testimony, the NLRB learned that Alegre offered to fly to Wisconsin to speak with unionizing QA testers at subsidiary Raven Software. This practice would be barred by the National Labor Relations Act, though, since it can lead to coercion. At the time, Activision Blizzard told TechCrunch that the company denied the accuracy of the complaint, since Alegre’s proposed meeting would not be mandatory and not address grievances. Furthermore, the meeting never took place.

Activision Blizzard’s future ownership is also up in the air. Microsoft has an agreement with the gaming company to acquire it for $68.7 billion, one of the most expensive tech acquisitions in history. But now, the Federal Trade Commission is suing to block the deal, claiming that it would stifle competition.

Alegre’s term at Activision Blizzard concludes at the end of March, per an SEC filing. Yuga says that Alegre will take the helm in the first half of 2023.

Bored Apes creator Yuga Labs appoints Activision’s Daniel Alegre as CEO by Amanda Silberling originally published on TechCrunch