Dozen Worthy Reads 📰 (No. 157)
Dozen Worthy Reads 📰 (No. 157)
This week : Biden & Tech, Prop 22, 3P App stores, Hardware-as-a-service, content moderation, Facebook and oversight and some interesting finds ...
Hi All,
I hope you all are doing well and welcome (if you aren’t new then again) to Dozen Worthy Reads. A newsletter where I talk about the most interesting things about tech that I read the past couple of weeks or write about tech happenings. You can sign up here or just read on …
Well, that thing called the US Presidential elections happened and the end outcome is good news! America had really lost her way back in 2016, not because it was a Republican candidate, not because of who that person was but he said and did. For those of you that know me, know I am not one to discuss politics or religion and generally stay away from both topics. Over the last four years I guess I was jolted, flabbergasted, exasperated, worried, and angry -- all at the same time. At the end of it as the President you have to be empathetic and a little less like a wild “shotgun” if you will. The more I think about this it matters a bit less to me who the winning party is -- Democrat or Republican - what matters more is how that person sees the other side. As wrong or just having a different opinion. I think President Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris are the right people for the job. Good luck to both of them!
Biden & Tech? Good or Bad? Neither …
A Biden government will take a moderate approach to tech companies so they have some breathing room (for now)
Throughout his campaign Biden did not advocate for or rally against tech, instead keeping them at arm’s length. The other issue is that Biden will likely have to lead a divided congress with the House being controlled by Democrats and perhaps the Senate being controlled by Republicans. Here is what I think:
Overturn several executive orders related to immigration (signed by Trump)
Not overhaul the H1B visa or at least if there is an overhaul it will likely be positive
Reinstitute Obama-era net neutrality rules (Biden’s FCC chair)
Section 230 reform - Unsure how the Biden government will impact this but it likely will be something that the Biden government pays attention to
Antitrust - The Biden government will likely continue on the path of antitrust lawsuits against BigTech
How is Biden going to respond to tech?
Technology and Government : Gig Economy companies win Prop 22
Speaking of the election I have to say I was mighty upset that Prop 22 was passed. All the gig economy companies Uber and Doordash included had way more money. Interesting data point here is that most of the Bay Area counties did not vote in favor of passing Prop 22.
The below graph is from The Times.
The other very interesting thing to note about this is that Uber and Lyft used their apps to promote to no end Prop 22. From Andrew Hawkins at the Verge:
But the gig companies’ digital reach and their use of in-app messages to reach voters was unique, setting it apart from ballot fights of the past. In the weeks leading up to the vote, Uber and Lyft served users with a pop-up message threatening longer wait times and higher prices if Prop 22 failed. They also claimed drivers would lose their livelihoods. In order to request a ride, users had to tap the “confirm” button on the message.
Uber and Lyft’s use of their apps to push a political message may be legal, but it still felt improper, said Erica Smiley, executive director of Jobs for Justice, a nonprofit that opposed Prop 22. “If anyone else collected data from people for one reason, and then used it for another political purpose, they would be in a world of trouble,” she said.
The fact of the matter is that people (as users) do love gig economy companies such as Uber and Lyft. What is not to love, it’s a beautiful, brilliant product that serves a user every time.
California Proposition 22 Election Results: Define App-Based Drivers as Contractors
Uber and Lyft had an edge in the Prop 22 fight: their apps
Tech Monopoly : 3rd party App Stores? Traction, Regulation, Content
This article about atmanirbhar (self sufficient which is India’s new plan for tech) app stores prompted me to think about what a fair app store could look like? I do like the fact that App stores (especially Apple) protect my security. So lets talk a bit about what options are possible:
Manufacturer app stores. As the article says All leading manufacturers like Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo have their own app stores. But they don’t have the traction
Android does allow for sideloading an APK (Android Package which is nothing but an app) but really is this the 1990’s? I sure as hell would not want to do that but lots of people do install apps this way
You could build a progressive web app
Now these are all workarounds for the restrictions that Google and Apple have placed on their operating systems, devices, agreements. One of the options that keep coming up is to have these operating systems (iOS and Android) allow 3rd party app stores. In fact Google has announced that in Android 12 (2021) there will be third party stores. I can’t help but think that the very reason that Google wants to do this is that they clearly understand that this is a this is a 2 sided marketplace and even if you allow 3rd party app stores they wont get traction for the right reasons. Just ask Huawei who has an AppGallery with 80k+ apps now. Of course for Huawei this isn’t a choice (they are blocked from access to the Play Store). The point is that they don’t have traction or all the apps. Developers build when there are users to use the product and it almost seems like this a trick that is similar to the “competition is a click away” though not exactly the same. The point is I wonder if by offering alternative app stores would users switch to a new app store? There are network effects and play here and really no demand for differentiation (except for nefarious apps - think an app store for child pornography or violence apps or extremist views) all freely available as apps to download. As a last point Google too, like Appleis asking for a 30% handout
I somehow can’t see the Apple app store offer an alternative. It feels uhhhh less Apple-y? And I can’t somehow see Apple conceding to allowing 3rd party payments without regulation/being forced to. So we’ll see where all this ends.
Tech Biz models : Evolution of Hardware : Hardware-as-a-Service
Hardware isn’t easy to make. What’s more is that the product is “good enough” to not require frequent upgrades for most people. It's harder to attract new customers as well.
Just ask hardware companies such as GoPro. GoPro is (was?) a beloved hardware device that provided high end camera equipment for recording sporty/adventurous activities. In 2019 they introduced a subscription that bundled cloud storage, damage replacement, and warranties which is the right way to go. The strategy appears to be paying off. From GoPro stock blasts off after big profit beat, as shift to DTC model pays off:
“In Q3 2020, our direct-to-consumer and subscription-centric strategy expanded margin, increased subscribers and significantly lowered our operating expenses, resulting in GAAP and non-GAAP profitability,” said Chief Financial Officer Brian McGee. “This approach is also enabling efficient working capital management as we drove [days sales outstanding] down 25% sequentially, lowered channel inventories and reduced our own investments in inventory.” (GAAP refers to generally accepted accounting principles and non-GAAP refers to adjusted earnings.)
Subscriptions are the way to go and companies are starting to realize this. The first version of this is going to be a hardware product bundled with a “free one year of some software enabled service”
We saw incredible growth in our digital business or premium business. We reached 500,000 paid subscribers… We realized that people’s engagement with their health is lifelong, yet the way that we structured our business with device sales was very episodic. The way that we were making money was just not in sync with how people view the value of these types of products and services.
We felt to be better oriented with how our consumers view health, we needed to move to a model that engages with them constantly, whether it’s monthly or annually, rather having this transactional relationship maybe once a year or once every two years or three years. We needed to align the business model with the way that people viewed health.
The next evolution is bundling hardware into the subscription. The next set of hardware companies are going to do just that. You pay one bundled price for the device and a specific service level each month. You turn in the device for a new device when there is one.
Content Moderation : Is the issue the Technology? The Company? The people posting?
Content moderation starts off light or non existent for any media platform but over time this changes. This was always true in a controlled media environment (where there was little to no UGC). Music and Podcasts are slightly different especially in this case the Joe Rogan podcast. The issue at hand is that Joe Rogan invited Inforwars host and conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones to his show. Spotify might think this is a one off but it will happen again and again. This is also now 1st party content (they pay Joe Rogan!) and so they are responsible for him.
Casey Newton makes this point in The Same Movie, Over and Over Again: Platformer's Casey Newton on Spotify
I think you’re going to start to see that turn with the Joe Rogan thing. This is their show pony. This is their biggest original content deal ever, and he is a problematic figure. In this Alex Jones situation, Rogan brought on somebody who has been de-platformed by many of the biggest platforms in the world. So I suspect this is the moment where Spotify is crossing over being understood as infrastructure towards being regarded as a publisher in a big way. Because they’re paying Joe Rogan’s salary, they’re responsible for him in a way that even YouTube is not responsible for hosting Joe Rogan, as he was just uploading videos there.
Spotify is going to have to contend with this problem sooner or later, create policies (which should be easier for a podcast since it's only voice?) but if they accept their issues, start creating content such policies they will get a head start before the proverbial s*it hits the ceiling. As I was writing this I found an interesting parallel with App Stores who to a certain extent do ensure that only “clean” apps are available but they get (almost) no flak for “keeping it clean” however social platforms get a lot for “keeping it clean”. Obvious reasons but nevertheless interesting
BigTech : Apple searches for Apple search?
A few months ago I’d written about why Apple should not get into Search Ad’s but this week there was a piece from FT : Apple develops alternative to Google search. I now don’t think this is completely off the table for two reasons:
Having their own search capability is important in the event that regulators block their partnership with Google.
It is unlikely that they can acquire a competitor (probably due to scrutiny) and let's face it no one else does search so well
Apple given its high quality bar will not want subpar results
The $ on the table is a lot larger than I’d originally anticipated
Tech Wars: Oracle v/s Google
If you’ve been a little confused by the details of the case, this article : Google v Oracle: The Copyright Case of the Decade broke it down really well I have to say. This is not a code “copy” issue but rather the fact that Android copied the structure of java and not the actual code. The real question is : Is the structure patentable? I mean seriously? Is that the same as the concept of stories? If Facebook can copy stories are we really saying that Google cannot copy the structure and hierarchy of java code? An example below:
From the article:
Stepping back, in simple terms the Java API is a collection of methods which are carefully organised into a logical hierarchy. There are organisational units above methods: classes and packages. The first instance judge described this as “like a library. Each package is like a bookshelf in the library. Each class is like a book on the shelf. Each method is like a how-to-do-it chapter in a book.”[6] As well as the method declarations, Google replicated the functionality and organisational structure of parts of this library in Android. Google argues that to preserve the functionality of Java in Android (thereby helping developers already familiar with Java) the rules of Java required these aspects to be identical: “to work on the Android platform, Google had to replicate the syntax and structure of the Java API declarations exactly”.[7]The copyright issue at the heart of Google v Oracle lies in the tension between Google’s literal copying on the one hand, and the prescriptive rules of Java on the other.
“In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”
The real question then is, is idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery how one would define the method definition (ie the code structure). To me this seems like an idea v/s anything else. The likely candidate from this list is “method of operation”
Facebook and Oversight
Suddenly Facebook wants regulation? They know so well that this will completely cripple any possible competition. Facebook can handle the costs of being compliant primarily because of how much $ they make.
I think Facebook’s strategy is two-fold:
Cripple competitors before they have legs
Avoid content decisions and allow external “wisdom of the crowds” to make content moderation decisions.
As Senator Ted Cruz put it “ “Mr. Dorsey who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear”?
So then how does this play out? If the oversight committee blocks something that Sen. Cruz does not like to be blocked? Who is responsible? The oversight board? Jeez what a cluster! Who’s responsible?
Zuck : At Facebook, we don’t think tech companies should be making so many decisions about these important issues alone. I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators, which is why in March last year I called for regulation on harmful content, privacy, elections, and data portability. We stand ready to work with Congress on what regulation could look like in these areas. By updating the rules for the internet, we can preserve what’s best about it—the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things—while also protecting society from broader harms. I would encourage this Committee and other stakeholders to make sure that any changes do not have unintended consequences that stifle expression or impede innovation.
Some reads on this topic which I think are really good!
Zuckerberg And Facebook Throw The Open Internet Under The Bus; Support Section 230 Reform - Mike Masnick
At Hearing, Republicans Accuse Zuckerberg and Dorsey of Censorship
The Problem With (All) The Tech Hearings - Zeynep Tufekci
A new study finds that Facebook is not censoring conservatives despite their repeated attacks - KAYLA GOGARTY & SPENCER SILVA
Great Reads this week
Waymo released a lot of metrics about how their self driving cars are performing
Bob Moesta (JTBD framework fame) on Sales as a superpower
Stitch Fix's Long Thread - The Flywheel : Stitchfix’s flywheel
OSINT: how to find anything on the internet : Hacks to become a better internet explorer (oh dang not that explorer)
Premonition : A good read on a variety of trends related to Culture, Brands, Spaces, Entertainment, Tooling/Platforms, Politics -- including takes on what will last and what wont. Toby Shorin (the author) concludes with “We are all going online in a new way, and we will never entirely leave again”. So true.
Thank you for reading. Stay safe, be well! If you enjoyed reading this please consider sharing with a friend or two (or sign up here if you came across this or were forwarded this)