Author : zebethcontrol

Play Store revamp, Google antitrust suit updates, BeReal’s real traction • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 15, 2022Posted in app stores, Apple, Apps, Google, Mobile, mobile apps, This Week In AppsNo Comments

Welcome back to This Week in Apps, the weekly ZebethMedia series that recaps the latest in mobile OS news, mobile applications and the overall app economy. Global app spending reached $65 billion in the first half of 2022, up only slightly from the $64.4 billion during the same period in 2021, as hypergrowth fueled by the pandemic has slowed down. But overall, the app economy is continuing to grow, having produced a record number of downloads and consumer spending across both the iOS and Google Play stores combined in 2021, according to the latest year-end reports. Global spending across iOS and Google Play last year was $133 billion, and consumers downloaded 143.6 billion apps. This Week in Apps offers a way to keep up with this fast-moving industry in one place with the latest from the world of apps, including news, updates, startup fundings, mergers and acquisitions, and much more. Do you want This Week in Apps in your inbox every Saturday? Sign up here: techcrunch.com/newsletters. Epic Games and Match attempt to expand their antitrust lawsuits against Google Image Credits: Alex Tai/SOPA Images/LightRocket / Getty Images Epic Games and Match Group are looking to fortify their antitrust lawsuits against Google by adding new counts to their initial complaint, filed last year, which illustrate the lengths Google supposedly went to in order to dominate the Android app market. The companies, a week ago, filed a motion to amend their complaints in their cases against Google, which now allege that Google paid off business rivals not to start other app stores that would put them in competition with Google Play. This would be a direct violation of U.S. antitrust law known as the Sherman Act, the amended complaint states. Epic Games and Match Group had originally detailed Google’s plans in a filing last year, where they detailed a Google program known as “Project Hug,” or later, the “Apps and Games Velocity Program.” This effort was focused on paying game developers hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives to keep their games on the Google Play Store, it had said. Now, Epic Games and Match Group are looking to add to their complaint with two new allegations specifying how Google had either paid or otherwise induced its potential competitors to agree to not distribute apps on Android in competition with the Play Store, including through their own competing app stores. Google, it reads, had identified developers who were “most at risk … of attrition from Play” and then approached them with an offer of an agreement. The complaint now deems this a “per se” violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,” it says. (You can read the full story here on ZebethMedia.) Google Play revamp continues Image Credits: Google Google announced this week new features for its Play Store that are designed to put more of developers’ store listing assets “front and center.” The company says that on large-screened devices, like tablets, foldables and Chromebooks, the Play Store redesign will make better use of app screenshots, videos and descriptions directly in the Apps and Games Home. This will help Android users when they’re browsing for new apps and games to install, Google says. It’s also adding the ability for developers to upload Chromebook-specific screenshots in the Play Console, to better portray the Chromebook experience. Developers can upload up to eight screenshots, in the recommended 16:9 screenshots for landscape, with dimensions of 1080-7690px. Google is updating its quality guidelines for tablets for consistency across large screens, as well, but notes that previous uploads won’t be impacted by the changes. Google additionally published a set of content quality guidelines to help developers learn best practices about how to showcase apps on large screens. The changes announced this week follow an earlier revamp of the Play Store that offered users the ability to filter search results by device, making it easier for them to discover and download apps for non-phone devices like smartwatches, TVs and cars, including through remote installs. The feature was timely, given Google’s recent debut of its first Pixel-branded smartwatch this month. BeReal’s real traction Gen Z social media app BeReal encourages its users to take a photo every day — a format designed to create a daily habit. But only a small number of the app’s users are currently doing so, new estimates from a third-party app intelligence firm indicate. According to research from Sensor Tower, BeReal is demonstrating significant traction across some metrics — it topped 53 million worldwide installs across the App Store and Google Play and has seen its monthly active users jump by 2,254% since January 2022, for example. But only 9% of its active Android installs are opening the app every day as of the third quarter of this year, the firm found. Active users are a better indication of an app’s adoption than downloads, as many people will install an app out of curiosity to check it out, but then abandon the app if they don’t end up enjoying the experience. On this front, BeReal is still trailing established social media giants, Sensor Tower says. Today, 9% of BeReal’s active installs on Android (users who downloaded the app and are actively using it) are now launching the app daily. That’s far behind Instagram and TikTok. Instagram leads this category with 39% of its active installs opening the app every day, while TikTok comes in second with 29%. This is followed by Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube and Twitter at 27%, 26%, 20% and 18%, respectively. Image Credits: Sensor Tower Of course, BeReal proponents point out that the app’s Android adoption is not at the same pace as iOS, as we said in our initial report. With many of its new installs being from young people in the U.S. — where iOS is preferred — this figure may not present a full picture of the app’s current usage.

Zombie startups • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 15, 2022Posted in EC Newsletter, Startups, Startups WeeklyNo Comments

Welcome to Startups Weekly, a fresh human-first take on this week’s startup news and trends. To get this in your inbox, subscribe here. People leave jobs for all kinds of reasons, but when it’s a CFO departing a richly valued company as the company itself conducts layoffs, the exodus can be a sign of a larger issue. This was one of the takeaways I had when chatting with Continuum CEO and co-founder Nolan Church about a recent spree of CFO resignations, including but not limited to OpenSea, Noom and Brex. The founder reiterated that we don’t know the exact reasons that people are leaving, but he also noted that it’s a red flag from a recruitment perspective. He also introduced me to the idea of zombie companies, which I appreciated as it is officially spooky season and we love a festive framework. Zombie companies are basically companies that raised a ton of money over the boom cycle but aren’t producing nearly enough revenue to justify the valuation. The late-stage market is full of them, Church said, and it will take awhile for us to realize this because many got overcapitalized and have enough runway to hide behind. It’s an interesting idea and colors in why some executive shake-ups sound louder than others. For more thoughts, read my full ZebethMedia+ column, “Are CFOs OK? (Answer: Yes, but CEOs? That’s complicated).” In the rest of this newsletter, we’re going to talk about the do-it-all startups and Sarah Guo’s new VC fund. If you like this newsletter, do me a quick favor? Forward it to a friend, share it on Twitter, and follow my personal blog for more content. The do-it-all’s This week I wrote about Getaway, which is taking on Pacaso with its own spin on the vacation home ownership market. Being in the business of convincing people that they deserve a vacation is hard. Being in the business of convincing people that they can co-own a vacation house and enjoy it at the same time can be deceptively harder. Here’s why it’s important: When you’re a seed-stage startup, the best way to stand out against a unicorn competitor is to try to do it all. I’ve been seeing a lot of startups recently that want the best of both worlds for consumers, and Getaway is no different — combining both an investment and an enjoyment in one product. While I’m all for entrepreneurial energy, I do wonder how this maps out with the larger conversation of growth-stage startups realizing they need to buckle down and focus. In other words, if the behemoths are turning inward and focusing on what makes them revenue, are the early-stage startups about to get some time to run wild thanks to cushion capital? Food for thought. Image Credits: Talashow (opens in a new window) / Shutterstock (opens in a new window) High conviction, why not? For Equity this week, Alex and I interviewed former Greylock partner Sarah Guo about her new firm, Conviction. She raised $101 million in 10 weeks for her inaugural fund, a process she thinks took too long but, clearly, resonated with a number of investors. We extracted key passages from the conversation for TC+, so take a read. Here’s why its important: Sensationalist AI aside, Guo’s framework for interesting applications in this space is helpful when trying to divvy up what she is and isn’t interested in. Below you’ll see how she thinks about it. I think you can take a very clear-eyed view to the landscape and say, what’s valuable to a customer? I think there’s one way go sort of bottoms-up, and be modality by modality, right? We can classify things. We can generate code. We can do math. We can generate images. And I think that’s an interesting one. [But] I think the way I tend to look at the world is to be interested in a set of problem domains that I know well because I know the customer well. Nails, not hammers first. So you will see me invest in security infrastructure, developer tools, productivity applications, creative apps, generally enterprise-like sort of relational database applications that keep records, [and] verticals where I think the vertical is large, interesting and the data is affected by this, like comp bio. The reason I think that software 3.0 is a really apt term is I’m just naming certain categories of software that I know well, but I fail to see a future where all of those [categories], given the advances in compute and data and algorithms, don’t get more intelligent. I think that there are going to be completely novel applications of AI that don’t fit well into the existing categories. Visual generation is not an existing software category. Autonomy is not a software category that exists without AI. So I think there are going to be net new application categories … but I’m following the customer more than anything else. Image Credits: Sarah Guo A few notes ZebethMedia Disrupt is next week, somehow. Safe travels to those of you traveling into town, and apologies to those of us who are already based in San Francisco and now definitely won’t be able to get a table at Che Fico. It’s going to be a blast, a pep talk, a realization and a week not to miss. Here’s the full agenda, and here’s where you can get your tickets. Remember that you can use code “STARTUPS” for a special reader discount for Disrupt tickets. We also have a special for those impacted by layoffs. If you were laid off, go here to get a free ticket to ZebethMedia Disrupt’s Expo. As you know, I co-host Equity, which goes out thrice a week and is TC’s longest-running podcast. We have some besties to listen to, too: including our crypto-focused show that goes by Chain Reaction, and founder-focused show that goes by Found. The ZebethMedia Podcast is also a can’t miss, so pay attention to all the good shows that they’re putting

Starlink isn’t a charity, but the Ukraine war isn’t a business opportunity • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 15, 2022Posted in Government & Policy, Opinion, Space, SpaceX, starlink, Ukraine warNo Comments

What appeared earlier this year to be a selfless act of technotopianism, the widespread deployment of Starlink terminals in Ukraine, has soured as SpaceX and governments disagree on who ultimately should foot the bill of this unprecedented aid campaign. Some expect Elon Musk — one of the richest men in the world — to cough up, while others say the world’s richest military should as well. Both claims have merit, but this game of financial chicken will cost Ukrainian lives. The effort began in late February, just days after Russia invaded Ukraine. Musk said Starlink terminals were “on the way” but provided little detail. Many took this minimal, rather promotional approach to mean what it clearly implies: that SpaceX was providing the terminals itself, either gratis or with some understanding as to their purchase. The latter proved to be the case as it came out that the U.S. Agency for International Development had paid for some, the Polish and other European governments for more, and various militaries and NGOs contributing for the cost of transport, installation, and apparently the monthly fees for the service itself. USAID described “a range of stakeholders” providing a first wave of support totaling around $15 million at the time. But the costs weren’t a one-time thing. Musk recently tweeted that 25,000 terminals have been deployed in Ukraine, 5 times the original shipment — thousands have been destroyed in the fighting, and more are needed. The connectivity costs $4,500 per month, supposedly, for the highest tier of service. Going by estimates noted by CNN, that adds up to around $75 million per month in ongoing costs. Some understandably questioned the wisdom of relying on this new and unproven tech in a battlefield, but reports from the country’s military suggest it has been very helpful. The fact is the capability was accepted in the spirit it was offered, and used to the most of its capacity, but the length and scale of the war have caused the situation around Starlink to evolve beyond its original scope. It’s true that SpaceX can’t be held completely accountable for tens of millions of dollars in costs, free service, or lost income (however the money should be defined). But it’s no good playing the victim either: they went into this eyes open with the intention of providing an expensive and essential service in a war-torn country, apparently with no real plan to cover the cost. On the other hand, the governments walked into this too. They can’t possibly have expected SpaceX to cover the cost of the hardware and software on its own, or if they did, they should have gotten it in writing. But having funded part of it, does that mean they’re on the hook for all of it? Meanwhile Ukraine’s military has come to rely on the service, and are right in saying that whatever happens, whoever has to write whomever an I.O.U., the terminals must stay on — or soldiers defending their country will be put in direct and immediate danger. This 3-way standoff has no easy resolution, so let’s start with what we know needs to happen: Starlink connectivity must continue in Ukraine at nominal cost to them, not forever but indefinitely. Any other outcome is too disastrous for everyone involved. So the internet stays on. Who pays for it? If SpaceX wants anyone to take its request seriously, it needs to play ball, and that means transparency as to the actual costs and payments involved. It goes without saying that Musk must discontinue his vexatious, narcissistic antics — too much is at stake for him indulge in his usual egotism. Taxpayers in a dozen countries have already paid for it and will in all likelihood continue to for months, if not years. What are the actual costs involved? $4,500 per terminal for access seems excessive, for one thing — that’s retail rate for early adopters, not a bulk rate for government partners in a life-saving operation. The Pentagon may not be a paragon of thrift but to charge full price in this situation is unseemly. (Not to mention this is probably the best possible PR the company could get while it’s trying to drum up demand for its real consumer service. Money cannot buy this kind of exposure.) Governments also need to pick a number and be firm about what can and can’t be provided as part of the aid package. Ukrainian officials would no doubt love it if every available Starlink terminal was shipped next day to the country, but that’s not possible, the way other forms of aid that would be helpful are not possible, for instance certain military assets that are too costly or difficult to spare. The cost of supporting the Ukrainian defense is large, and the U.S. is dedicating billions to that cause. How much of that money will be earmarked for Starlink connectivity? Pick a number and start negotiating. Is it $10 million per month? $20 million? What do those costs depend on, how will they be tracked? SpaceX can take that sum and provide an agreed-upon level of service and hardware. As much as everyone appreciates the fast movement on this back in February, a few hasty phonecalls and “we can make that happen” conversations does not constitute a long-term plan for covering the cost of a deployment that has grown to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and numerous Ukrainian lives. Like any compromise, it will leave everyone a bit unhappy — but it won’t leave anyone disconnected, shafted, or dead. This complicated and awkward situation is the result of inadequate preparation and communication by a constantly shifting group of stakeholders. What is needed from SpaceX and its government partners is not finger-pointing but transparency and commitment.

An Apple Store in Oklahoma City votes to unionize • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 15, 2022Posted in Apple, Apps, labor, unionizationNo Comments

A majority of retail workers at the Apple Store at Penn Square in Oklahoma City have voted to unionize. The second Apple Store to win union representation in the U.S., the workers voted 56-32 in favor of forming a union, and will be represented by the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Per National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules, Apple has five business days to file an objection to the election. If not, the company must now recognize the union and take part in the collective bargaining process, which allows the workers to negotiate their contracts. Before the union election, the CWA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, accusing Apple of illegally surveilling, threatening and questioning workers at the Oklahoma City store. The complaint is currently under investigation. “Like Starbucks, Amazon, and other corporations, Apple execs have spent months violating labor law and intimidating their workforce. Workers are seeing these tactics for what they are — desperate attempts to prevent them from having a real say in their working conditions. Money is no match for workers who are ready to claim their power,” said CWA Secretary-Treasurer Sara Steffens in an emailed statement. “Apple workers are determined to organize for better wages and dignity on the job. Despite Apple’s illegal and aggressive anti-union campaign, Apple retail workers across the country will continue to organize, especially after this momentous victory. The Penn Square Apple retail workers are an amazing addition to our growing labor movement, and we are thrilled to welcome them as CWA members.” In a statement to the New York Times, an Apple spokesperson said: “We believe the open, direct and collaborative relationship we have with our valued team members is the best way to provide an excellent experience for our customers, and for our teams.” In June, an Apple Store in Towson, Maryland became the first of the tech giant’s U.S. retail locations to win union recognition. Leading up to that vote, the trillion-dollar company’s vice president of people and retail Deirdre O’Brien sent a video to 58,000 retail staff warning them about the perceived drawbacks of unionizing. O’Brien reiterated anti-union talking points, stating that it would be more difficult to enact change in stores with a union standing between Apple and employees — but some workers don’t think that meaningful change is possible without having a formally recognized bargaining unit. Now, as Apple rolls out more educational perks to its retail workers, the company says that the unionized store in Maryland will have to negotiate for the benefits. This same withholding of benefits has occurred at unionizing Starbucks locations, who employ the same anti-union law firm as Apple, Littler Mendelson. In the case of Starbucks, the NLRB found merit in the complaint that this behavior was a violation of U.S. labor law. The video game company Activision Blizzard also attempted to withhold raises from employees who were in the midst of unionizing, arguing that the company was following labor laws that prohibit employers from changing compensation in the midst of elections. But in that case, the NLRB also found merit in the union’s complaint.

Yes, but CEOs? That’s complicated) • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 15, 2022Posted in Brex, CFO, noom, OpenSea, StartupsNo Comments

There’s no one who knows a company’s inner workings like a chief financial officer. So, when three high-profile CFOs leave their jobs at richly valued, late-stage startups in quick succession, we notice it. This week, OpenSea CFO Brian Roberts left the web3 company less than a year after taking the job. Days later, Brex CFO Adam Swiecicki left the expense management company to join Rippling, another company that recently expanded into the expense management space. The shuffle came on the heels of Brex announcing it had to slash 11% of staff. (Its former CFO, who stepped down so Swiecicki could take the helm, is back in his original position). “The first person who is going to know if it’s possible to grow into these valuations is the CFO.” Continuum CEO Nolan Church But that’s not all. Noom, a diet and health coaching platform, confirmed that its CFO, Mike Noonan, is leaving the job two years after joining, hours before ZebethMedia learned that the company was executing a round of layoffs. While the CFO departures are reportedly unrelated to the layoffs, is anything ever that simple? After all, layoffs were a result of needing to strengthen financials ahead of an uncertain market, quite literally the job of a chief financial officer.

Sugar Lab buys back its tech to take 3D-printed foods mainstream • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 15, 2022Posted in 3d printing, 3d systems, food tech, Hardware, sugar labNo Comments

Original founder raises a sweet round at a $16M valuation, wants another stab at the market The 3D printing world can print in concrete, plastic, metal and pretty much everything else that starts off gooey and turns solid after a while. That includes a bunch of different types of foods, as Sugar Lab demonstrates. The company was originally acquired by 3D Systems in 2013, but co-founders Kyle von Hasseln and Meagan Bozeman decided to reverse course. Together, they wrestled the company loose again from its corporate overlords and they are having another go at growing it — and the Currant 3D printer the company sells — by themselves. The genesis for the company was von Hasseln’s sister’s birthday party, and an absence of regular cooking tools. He hacked an old 3D printer to print cupcake decorations, and he’s been on a mission to create unusual cakes and sweets ever since. The company describes what it does as a “digital bakery,” and much of the tech involved is there to make the printers food-safe — not typically a huge consideration for most 3D printing applications. “I recognized straight away that 3D printing with extruded food paste was too slow and rudimentary for wide adoption in the culinary world. That realization led me to immediately pivot to another 3D printing engine where thin layers of dehydrated food powder are bound layer after layer by water jetted from a printhead — which allows for precise, fast, full-color 3D printing,” says von Hasseln. “That invention, now called the CURRANT 3D Printer, solves the fundamental problem in the 3D-printed food space: mass adoption.” Weird and wonderful custom-printed sugar cubes for the sweet, sweet win. Image Credits: Currant 3D The new company acquired the 3D printing tech back in May, and now the race is on to raise more money and bring the products to market. The company claims its printers are able to 3D-print complex foods in full color, with the ability to scale the production for large batches of tasty treats. The pritners can print a number of ingredients, including dehydrated fruits, vegetables, spices and plant proteins. The result is that the company has what appears to be the only NSF-certified commercial-scale 3D food printing solution. “It may seem trivial, but our success is predicated on a simple design theory that every chef knows by heart — beautiful food is enticing, fun and engaging. And our 3D printer is best-in-class at creating beautiful food because we leverage all the promise of 3D design and 3D printing — color, precision and speed,” says von Hassln. “I am personally driven to make this new technology accessible to chefs everywhere. Chefs are artists at heart, and more than anyone they understand that well-designed food can create a completely new culinary experience.” The company raised $5 million, most recently at a $16 million post-money valuation. The money is being used to take back full ownership of the tech and company, and spin up operations. “After Kyle developed his culinary 3D printer, it was quickly acquired by 3D Systems, where he and I teamed up to create and run the Culinary Technology division that built the CURRANT 3D Printer from scratch. We left 3D Systems in 2019, backed by our investor group, to found our company and quickly became the largest purchaser of the 3D printing technology. When an opportunity to acquire the tech arose this year, we went back to our investor network, which was hugely supportive, and raised capital to wholly acquire the CURRANT 3D Printer platform,” explains Meagan Bozeman, COO at Currant 3D and Sugar Lab. “We’re extremely proud and grateful that the technology is back in the hands of its original inventors and champions. This has put us in complete control of our future; we’re 3D printing food faster than ever, expanding into a much larger commercial kitchen where we will manage a 20+ printer fleet for this next rapid growth chapter, and enabling others to build their own 3D production kitchens through the purchase of our printers and supplies.” The company says its ultimate goal is to take 3D-printed food from novelty to “indispensable ubiquity”. That doesn’t mean replacing how existing, well-loved foods are made, but to give chefs new powers to experiment and make new types of food. “Adoption of digital design and 3D printing is critically important for a more sustainable and secure food future,” claims von Hasseln. “If you can download a new 3D design into a regional 3D printing kitchen, and 3D-print onsite with local labor and ingredients, you can cut deeply into the inefficiencies of legacy food production that rely on trucking ingredients all over the country — both to and from factories.”

3 growth levers every SaaS founder should know about • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 15, 2022Posted in Column, EC Cloud and Enterprise Infrastructure, EC Column, EC How To, growth tactics, SaaS, StartupsNo Comments

Christian Owens Contributor Christian Owens is CEO and co-founder of Paddle, a payments infrastructure provider for SaaS businesses. Scaling a SaaS company is tougher today than in the past few years. Whatever stage your company is at, a near 70% drop in the value of public SaaS stocks, increasingly limited access to funding and shrinking company tech stacks all point toward a more challenging road ahead for a sector that got used to rapid growth almost by default. By nature, ambitious SaaS founders and operators do not want to give up on their growth ambitions even amid an economic downturn. There is no reason why they should do so. The fact is, VC funding isn’t a prerequisite for retaining customers and scaling steadily. However, there is no doubt that traditional growth levers like digital advertising and bigger sales teams are likely to be proving too costly or unreliable in the current climate. There are still opportunities for growth out there, but founders and operators will need a new strategy if they want to continue growing through the downturn. The key is to focus on scaling sustainably by tapping into more overlooked and underrated sources of revenue. If your CX isn’t tailored for international customers, you are leaving critical gaps in your offering and will see potential sales fall through the cracks. As the founder of a payments infrastructure provider for SaaS businesses, I have helped thousands of software companies over the last 10 years, and we see the financial metrics of 30,000 subscription companies. Based on this experience and analysis of our data, I believe there are three growth levers often overlooked by SaaS leaders that every company should be exploring. Focus on expansion for recession-proof revenue Encouraging businesses to deprioritize acquiring new customers might seem counterintuitive, but the truth is, keeping existing customers happy — and generating new sales from them — is far easier and much cheaper than acquiring new clients. This is especially true now, as many buyers will be hesitant to spend money trying out new tools. That’s why SaaS companies should be paying attention to expansion revenue — the additional revenue generated after the customer’s initial purchase. This basically means getting your customers to spend more than they did the month before. Our data shows that the most successful subscription companies worldwide have 20% of their new revenue coming from existing customers, but many businesses have close to zero. This is a consequence of what we call “sales brain” — a flawed mindset that views the sale as the end goal rather than the start of a long-term process. Here are a few ideas SaaS leaders can use to supercharge their expansion revenue: Add upsell tiers to your pricing, pushing valuable features into more premium tiers. Our research shows that the top 1% of growing apps have 16 pricing tiers, so don’t be afraid to charge for the most popular tools in your platform.

Inside Sono Motors’ family-friendly $25,000 solar EV • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 15, 2022Posted in Climate, electric vehicle, Sion, solar-powered EV, Sono Motors, TransportationNo Comments

Sono Motors, the company building an electric vehicle that’s partially powered by the sun, debuted its flagship Sion in New York City this week as part of a multi-city tour throughout the U.S. The company aims to launch the $25,000 five-seater hatchback in Europe first — production is expected to start in the second half next year, with initial deliveries to customers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland before the year is out — but wanted to explore demand for the vehicle among Americans. After a marketing event in Times Square, Sono brought its Sion to a lot in Greenpoint overlooking the East River and Manhattan’s skyline. It was a sunny day, a good omen for a car that runs off solar energy, and in a strange but happy twist of events, Whoopi Goldberg was there to check out the car, too. Even though most of the final design of the Sion has been determined, the car Sono brought to Brooklyn was still a prototype, so there were still a few kinks to work out. The company told me there would be one last design iteration before it goes to series production next year. It’s not exactly a sexy-looking car, but it looks and feels capable, sturdy even, and the semi-finished product, which Sono markets as perfect for families and commuters, was impressive. Deceptively spacious Whoopi Goldberg and Rebecca Bellan posing in front of the Sion EV. Image Credits: Rebecca Bellan “This car would be great if you have a family,” Goldberg said to me. “You can put eight people in there and the dog!” While eight people would certainly stretch the limits of what Sono is advertising, I could see what she meant. The hatchback, while small enough to drive around in an urban setting, is roomier on the inside than it looks. A tall person would certainly have enough headroom and might have just enough legroom to be totally at ease. The trunk is also large enough to fit at least one ZebethMedia reporter comfortably. Beneath the trunk is a hidden compartment for additional storage, although a spare tire wouldn’t go amiss should Sono decide to add that in. The back seats go down flat — perfect to chuck a bed in the back in case someone really wanted to test the limits of a solar powered battery and go camping with the Sion. “This can replace the mini van,” said Goldberg. “You can go shopping in it. You can feel comfortable parking it. And because it’s so inexpensive I think it makes it a lot easier for families. I have grandkids who can afford this. This is what I’d recommend for my family.” The inexpensiveness of the car also explains why the interior is, if not Spartan, then simple. The seats are comfortable enough, but nothing plush and soft like you’d find in a luxury car. I didn’t see a cupholder in the backseat, only two in the front, which may put off American families, but there were little pockets on the backs of the driver and passenger seats. The dashboard was also simple, with a 10-inch touch display screen which controls the infotainment system. The system has Apple CarPlay and Android Auto integrations, Bluetooth hands-free calling, climate control, and apps that display information about solar power, energy consumption and charging/discharging control. The only notable flourish in the cabin was a line of decorative moss, placed behind some sort of plexiglass, just ’cause. Goodbye, range anxiety? Sono Motors Sion charging port. Image Credits: Rebecca Bellan The Sion’s matte black outer shell consists of 456 integrated solar half-cells that collect energy from the sun and drip feed that energy into the battery. The car’s display features an image of the car that’s constantly updating to show how much solar power is being collected from the different panels and how that contributes to the total range. The Sion’s 54 kWh lithium iron phosphate battery — made by BYD — offers a 190-mile battery range, with an additional 70 to 150 miles extra per week from the sun. This is made possible by the Sion’s proprietary motor control unit (MCU), which Christian Scheckenbach, Sono’s head of communications, told me is the brain of the solar system. “We have low voltage coming from the solar panels, with seven circuits going to the MCU, and then you get high voltage into the DCU,” said Scheckenbach. “You can get a lot of energy yield this way compared to solar panels that are on a house. And it allows us to update in real time rather than every few minutes so we can see what is the max yield we can get out of the system. So it’s a mix of hardware engineering and software to create the overall solar system.” The battery, which charges in the front of the car, has plugs for 75 kW DC and 11 kW AC chargers, as well as a plug that allows for bidirectional charging up to 11 kW. Sono says this allows the Sion to charge your e-bike, power your home, put energy back into the grid or even charge another EV. A smooth enough ride I didn’t get to drive the vehicle myself, and we were only doing laps in an empty lot, but the drive seemed…smooth enough. It certainly seemed like it had a nice turn radius, which is always helpful when making sketchy U-turns on city streets. There was an unfortunate moment when the vehicle stopped entirely and starting making a sound not unlike the noise my freezer makes when it’s trying, and failing, to make ice. “This is why this is a prototype and not a show car,” said Scheckenbach. He also said the Sion is not designed to be an EV race car — Sono is capping the speed limit at 140 kph, or about 87 mph. So it can still go on the highway, but maybe couldn’t hold its own in the fast lane. A direct to consumer car The Sion will

Big Tech and industry lobby groups accused in EU transparency complaints • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 15, 2022Posted in Amazon, EU transparency register, Google, Government & Policy, lobbying complaints, metaNo Comments

Members of the European Parliament have lodged complaints against three tech giants, Amazon, Google and Meta, with the EU’s Transparency Register — aka, the oversight process that’s intended to track lobbying activity aimed at the bloc’s lawmakers — accusing the trio of breaching the lobbying transparency rules by using smaller front organizations to press their interests opaquely. The complaints, which were reported earlier by Politico and Bloomberg, also take aim at a series of tech industry associations and lobby groups — including a number whose names imply they represent the interests of startups and small businesses — that the MEPs allege have been involved in a Big Tech astroturfing operation targeted at two major pieces of EU digital regulation, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), per documents we’ve reviewed. Tech trade association the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), online ad industry body the IAB Europe, and SME and startup lobby groups Allied for Startups, SME Connect and the Connected Commerce Council (3C) are also named in the astroturfing complaints — which have been filed by three social-democrat lawmakers: Paul Tang, René Rapsi and Christel Schaldemose. The MEPs are calling for the accused tech giants’ access to the European Parliament to be revoked if their complaints are upheld. We understand nine complaints have been filed in total (two targeting Google). Deceiving lawmakers with fake lobby groups harms the democratic process. That’s why @SchaldemoseMEP @repasi and I tabled complaints triggering official investigations. If proven, access to parliament for involved Big Tech companies needs to be denied — Paul Tang (@paultang) October 14, 2022 While the DSA and the DMA have both now been adopted, the EU lawmakers remain concerned about the impact on future digital policymaking if non-transparent Big Tech policy influenceOps are not rooted out. The MEPs’ complaints follow a report back in April, compiled by civil society groups Corporate Europe Observatory and Global Witness using freedom of information requests, that revealed how a raft of tech giants sought to influence the two major EU digital policy files — spending big on pushing self-interested amendments to the (then) draft regulations. Some of this Big Tech lobbying activity included injecting detailed suggestions into late-stage closed-door policy discussions between EU institutions — presenting lawmakers with suggested wording for amendments aimed at watering down provisions that directly threaten their interests — such as in areas like tracking-based advertising. (In the event, the DSA and DMA were passed with some restrictions on tracking-based advertising, though not the outright ban a number of MEPs had been pushing for.) The complaints also cite a Medium post by Georg Riekeles — a Brussels-based director of the European Policy Centre think tank (which lists a few tech giants as members itself) and a former EU official himself — who warned this summer that: “As the EU debated the DSA and DMA package, front groups and other forms of hidden lobbying were swarming. I dare say never before had Brussels seen efforts at such a scale and with such brazenness. Many of practices deployed are not only totally out of line with the established code of conduct in interest representation but also with the most basic ethical and behavioural principles in society.” “As public scrutiny and research uncovered in the case of ‘Big Tobacco’, outsized vested interests create ecosystems of thought and influence to manipulate civil society and policymakers,” Riekeles’ blog post went on. “At this point, Big Tech’s interference strategies need to be systematically monitored, and actions taken to counter them. The EU’s capacity to act in defence of fundamental interests starts with the independence and transparency of EU institutions but requires also a wider societal ecosystem of tech control.” Systematic monitoring of Big Tech lobbying is exactly what the EU lacks, the MEPs’ complaints suggest, as transparency rules that are intended to spotlight corporate lobbying are being systematically circumvented by the use of a sprawling network of third parties funded by (or otherwise press-ganged into alignment with) well-resourced tech giants in order to project their interests by making their talking points resemble a grassroots lobbying campaign, rather than what is actually behind the effort: Gigantic self-interest. Such astroturfing tactics very obviously erode accountability and subvert democracy — enabling the corporate interests with the deepest pockets and greatest market power to build the most potent influence operations, by expanding the reach and interconnectedness of their third party networks through which they can channel and amplify their lobbying firepower while keeping their own brand name ‘clean’ at a safe distance. A couple of lobby campaigns cited in the complaints — one called ‘Targeting Startups‘ (which is now busy taking aim at a fresh EU digital policy proposal, the Data Act); and a second called the ‘Coalition for Digital Ads of SMEs‘, which ostensibly promoted small business interests in tracking-based advertising — are shown in one of the documents as not themselves registered in the EU transparency register but having a long list of backers/funders; some of which are in the transparency register (including some entities that list Big Tech entities as their members/backers), while others are not, so their funding sources are not declared. “You can only get an access badge for EU institutions [as a lobbyist] if you are registered [in the transparency register]. But as Google, Amazon and Meta are in the register they have agreed to abide by the codes of conduct. And the codes demand all registrees to not obstruct the register itself as well. So having another organization lobbying on their behalf is obstructing,” Tang told us, explaining how transparency concerns arise from this interlinked mesh of declared and non-declared interests lobbying EU policymakers. “What we are dealing with here is all kinds of branch organizations / national organizations / EU lobby organizations etc, that are actively promoting the narrative coming from Big Tech — and the only thing we know is that someone called the 3C contacts us and if we look them up in the transparency register they