The human role in a bot-dominated future

Imagine a world where bots are ubiquitous… a world where nearly every online interaction takes place with a Siri, Alexa, Cortana or some soon-to-be-named artificial being. Here, banking is a breeze, as a customer service bot can quickly extrapolate your banking preferences from your online search history. In this world, your cupboards and refrigerator are always full, because your groceries are reordered every week automatically, based on consumption data.

But in such a world, where bots provide the ultimate convenience of a futuristic lifestyle, is there still room for human help?

At the most recent F8 Conference, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made some bold claims about a bot’s place in the future of commerce. Using 1-800-Flowers as an example, Zuckerberg argued that by integrating bot chats into the sales process, a customer would never have to dial 1-800-Flowers or speak to a human again. In theory, using chat with bot support can expedite the buyer-seller interaction and bring the consumer closer to a sale. While Zuckerberg may be correct to say that customers much prefer chat interaction to using the phone, we can’t necessarily leap to the conclusion that their preference includes chatting with a robot.

Human interaction is, and has always been, vital to a high-quality customer experience. Even Facebook supports this claim, as they’ve partnered with several companies to help with the hand-off from bot to human during live chats. Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg, has publicly stated that, “…we simply don’t have the technology yet to actually imagine that a bot could replace humans in the sales process.”

So, what is the human role in a bot-dominated future?

Remember that frustration every time you call customer service and end up with an automated voice (IVR)? That’s where we are with bot chats. And guess what happens every time a bot fails? You end up talking to a real, live customer service representative — back to square one.

There’s no doubt we’ve come a long way with artificial intelligence, but for the strides we’ve made, we’re still a ways away from the creation of a bot that can successfully pass all facets of the Turing test. While a bot can handle a good portion of a conversation with a human, there will undoubtedly be times when it gets confused and fails (especially when it comes to switching from one topic/area to another). In these situations, your bot chat gets handed over to a human to complete your engagement.

Even with all the buzz today, the bot is nothing new. In the late 1990s, when AOL Instant Messenger was all the rage, I remember chatting with SmarterChild. At its core, SmarterChild was essentially an early version of a bot. You could chat with it about school, life or sports — much like you would do with your real friends. SmarterChild worked great (most of the time) and seemed quite sophisticated. Though, in fairness, a majority of the chats were conducted by twelve-year-olds.

So, the real question today is whether the bot is really going to define the future, or are we all just falling for the same hype we did when we were ‘tweens?

To answer this question, it’s important to understand the technology behind a bot. While we’ve seen tremendous strides and advances in computer technology and software development over the last 20 years, bot technology has essentially been siloed into two categories: those based on simple logic trees (SLT) and those that rely on natural language processing (NLP) or machine learning (ML).

An SLT bot relies on the traditional logic tree to gather information and redirect the user. For example, an insurance bot may ask several questions to determine which policy is ideal for you. If your answers match what the bot has anticipated, the experience will be seamless. However, if your answers stray from those predicted and stored in the bot database, you might hit a dead-end. If you’re lucky, you’ll be handed off to a human to complete the interaction. If you’re not, you’ll end up in bot purgatory. Most bot technology today relies on SLT.

An NLP and machine learning (ML) bot is meant to function more like a real conversationalist by picking up keywords and phrases from the user’s input to gather information, instead of requiring direct answers to specific questions. In theory, this category of bot sounds like the better option. Examples of this type of bot are Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa.

While Siri and Alexa are pretty good at simple functions like giving the weather or telling a joke, they still have a ways to go with complex functions and lengthy commands.

Regardless of whether you are engaging with an SLT or NLP bot, the likelihood of ending up needing to speak to a real person is incredibly high. SLT bots often lack the complexity we expect from technology today, while we are unable to fully utilize the technology necessary for NLP or ML bots at this point.

Fortunately, customers enjoy the efficiency of interacting with a real person. While the trend is moving away from long, formal conversations, customers still expect the same quality of service from chat, whether live or bot. In fact, a recent study by American Express found that 78 percent of customers have bailed on a transaction or not made an intended purchase because of a poor service experience. The same study also found that 67 percent of customers have hung up the phone out of frustration when they could not talk to a real person. In most of those cases, the customer was forced to endure a dialogue with a bot.

We will likely see a two-stage industry transition as we attempt to adopt bot technology into daily transactions. The first will be very human interaction-intensive, as real people will be required to take over every interaction that a bot fails to handle. The risk of a poor customer experience is simply too much for top brands to stomach, so staffing their engagement centers to take over when the bot fails will be a very real side effect.

It seems inevitable that at some point ML and NLP will allow for a bot to become more intelligent, to a point where the failure rate is minimal. At that time, it isn’t unreasonable to believe that a majority of interactions will take place on bot channels. Will the bot channels stand alone, or will they be integrated into the existing channel landscape? If they exist on their own, what happens to the other channels?

In a scenario where the preferred customer engagement moves away from a brand’s website and onto a bot channel like Facebook Messenger, a question of scale is presented. Even with low failure rates, the number of human hand-offs will most likely grow because of the sheer volume of engagements that will likely occur.

It’s more than likely that we’ll see exponential adoption of bot technology, but human capital for engagement is both inevitable and necessary for sales and customer support. Depending on the lifetime value of the customer and the margin of the product, the specific value of an engagement with a real person can be very significant.

As we prepare for a more automated future, it’s important to not forget about the role of the human in engagement. And, as great as R2-D2 was in “A New Hope,” we all must remember that there was a human in that bot.

Read More

It’s okay for Pikachu to watch you — as long as you want it to

Millions who downloaded the new Pokémon Go app are living in a brave, new, augmented reality world. For the early adopters (meaning apparently everyone you know) on iOS devices, it meant unknowingly granting Pokémon Go the permission to fully access their Google accounts.

You’ve got to risk it all to catch ‘em all, right?

Wrong. Thankfully Niantic, the company that developed Pokémon Go, acknowledged the mistake and issued a fix. Pokémon Go modified its implementation to request only “basic profile data” — user ID and email address — from Google accounts.

This brings me some peace of mind as my 15-year-old roams the park, my office, the supermarket and the park again in search of furry creatures. Yet, although the company’s privacy policy is thorough, I am left with the lingering sense of unease I feel with almost every other app. I am okay with their treatment of my son’s data today, but it’s up to the company if they want to change the way they use or share his data tomorrow.

Developers need to collect data from users to create apps and experiences like Pokémon Go, but we often feel resigned to choose between Pikachu or privacy. A University of Pennsylvania study published last year found that 58 percent of Americans have come to accept that they have little control over what companies can learn about them, even though they would like to be in control.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Businesses must be intentional, responsible and clear about the data they collect, and provide their customers with real choices. Powerlessness breeds mistrust, and a system based on mistrust benefits no one. On the other hand, earned trust drives adoption and lasting success.

There are three simple steps companies can take to earn trust:

-Stay lean. Do you need to know when someone is scheduled for a doctor’s visit? Do you need access to their 27 selfies in front of a national monument? Focus on the data you need and leave the rest alone.

-Build in security. There is no one-size-fits-all security solution. The volume and type of data to which your company has access will determine the appropriate security measures.

-Engage your consumers. Help people see the value you’re bringing to them by using their data. Chances are they will be happy to trade in their data for a customized experience.

This doesn’t mean consumers are off the hook. We shouldn’t just shrug and breeze through privacy notices accepting whatever permission levels are required. We don’t realize just how powerful we can be if we take full ownership of our data. Replace “data” with the word “dollars” and the value exchange becomes a lot more tangible. Indifference and inaction toward data collection become a lot more absurd. Information is currency.

As the lifeblood of any business, consumers have a unique opportunity to leverage their trust as a way to regain control of their data. Opting out is the most direct path, but not necessarily the right one for you (or the most fun).

Here are a few other things people can do to take back control of their data:

-Learn about and use the privacy and security settings on your computer and phone and help others to understand how they work.
-Take it to social media and spread the word about the companies that do great things, as well as those that do “bad things” around data.
-Support organizations that advocate for better privacy, and use products built with a focus on privacy.

Today I am choosing to trust Pokémon Go with my son’s data, because I have read and understood the terms. But I am just one person, and I happen to be a lawyer. In the long term, we need a commitment from both companies and consumers to make conscious choices about data.

Read More

SurveyMonkey study finds social media apps ruled mobile in first half of 2016

A new study from SurveyMonkey Intelligence revealed the 30 most-downloaded and most-used apps in the American iOS and Android app stores so far this year.

Social media apps like Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram ruled over mobile games in the first six months of 2016.

Because Pokémon Go was released in the U.S. on July 6, that wildly popular new title didn’t even show in the rankings. Only one game cracked the top-10-most-downloaded list, Slither.io. And no game titles appeared under the top 30 most-used apps in the U.S.

Music apps made a strong showing, ranging from expected entrants like Pandora and Spotify to newer entrants (Musical.ly).

As well-intentioned as their developers may be, health and fitness apps didn’t crack the top 30 in either most-downloaded or most-used rankings.

The report found that, as is typical, the most-downloaded apps are not the most used.

The top five most-downloaded apps were Messenger, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram and Color Switch, whereas the top five most-used apps were Facebook, YouTube, Messenger, Google Maps and Play Store.

To find something that isn’t owned by either Facebook, Apple or Google on the most-used app list, you need to go down to the 13th slot where Snapchat is ranked.

“Fully 40 percent of the most-used apps come pre-loaded on the operating system, highlighting the importance of Android and iOS to Google and Apple, and giving some insight into Facebook’s ongoing desire to control this deeper layer of the stack,” the report said.

Here are the full charts:

Read More

Facebook crushes Q2 earnings, hits 1.71B users and record share price

Coming off an all-time high stock price of $123.34, Facebook in Q2 2016 smashed earnings again. The social network continued steady growth just slightly slower at 3.63% compared to last quarter’s 3.77%, adding 60 million monthly users this quarter to reach 1.71 billion. It scored $6.44 billion in revenue and $0.97 EPS, blowing past estimates of $6.02 billion and $0.82 EPS.

This is Facebook’s 16th beat out of 17 quarters since it went public at $38 per share. Wall Street reacted to the positive earnings with a 7.5% bump in after hours trading to $132.60. It also hit another milestone: 1 billion daily mobile user.

Revenue growth was 59% year over year, which looks favorable compared to competitor Twitter, who yesterday announced its YOY revenue growth sunk to 20% from 60% a year ago. With 84% of ad revenue from mobile, total ad revenue was $6.24 billion.

Though the big monthly user count gets the spotlight, Facebook’s daily active user count is a better measure of its health. Total DAUs reached 1.13 billion up 17% for the year, with 1.57 billion mobile MAUs up 20%. What’s especially remarkable is that Facebook’s stickiness, or DAUs divided by MAUs, stayed steady at 66%. That means people aren’t using Facebook less even as it grows and ages.

On the earnings call, the most exciting reveal was that Facebook now sees 2 billion searches per day, up from 1.5 billion a year ago. Zuckerberg said people searching for what others are saying about certain topics is driving that growth, which highlights Facebook’s on-going quest to win public chatter — as space Twitter has long ruled. However, Facebook doesn’t plan to rush to monetize search.

Facebook’s efficient social network operation raked in $2.05 billion in profit, compared to $719 million a year ago, while average revenue per user is now $3.82, up a big 15% from last quarter. As we detailed last quarter, Facebook has found a way to squeeze more cash out of the developing world, where ARPU grew a sharp 24% to $1.13.

And after years of success, Facebook has stockpiled $23 billion in cash on hand in case it wants to make any other big acquisitions.

Facebook hit with bad press while product keeps winning

Facebook’s Q2 was marred by several bouts of negative press. Allegations from anonymous sources suggested it was purposefully suppressing conservative news Trends. Facebook denied the allegations and its internal investigation found no proof, but it vowed to better train Trend curators to avoid bias.

Later, on the behalf of its users, it changed the News Feed algorithm to prioritize posts from friends and family over stories from news publishers and brands. It’s still too early to draw conclusions on the size of the drop in reach and referral traffic for publishers, though Facebook admitted it’d be significant.

Facebook Live continued its growth, pulling some attention from Twitter’s acquisition Periscope that beat it to market last year. Live got new creative expression features and an API to help broadcasters use professional equipment. Meanwhile, video on Facebook continued its ascension, becoming a legitimate YouTube competitor. Mark Zuckerberg wrote in his letter to shareholders that “We’re particularly pleased with our progress in video as we move towards a world where video is at the heart of all our services.”

Facebook’s secondary products enjoyed big milestones. Facebook Messenger hit 1 billion active users, thanks to constant product iteration like the new addition of an end-to-end encryption option, though also the fact that Facebook removed chat from its main app and forced users to download Messenger.

Meanwhile, Instagram reached 500 million users. Its community bristled at the announcement that an algorithmic feed would start highlighting the most popular posts instead of showing a purely reverse chronological stream. But that backlash hasn’t seemed to hurt Instagram too bad.

Overall, it looks like Facebook keeps winning despite its massive size and old age for a social product. It’s got a diversified set of products thanks to acquisitions, and plenty of cash to buy more. The company has figured out how to squeeze more cash out of each user while still adding tons per quarter thanks to emerging markets and its internet access initiatives.

While Snapchat might be pulling away daily life-casting, and Twitter is combining the first and second screens with its livestream deals, Facebook remains the core social network and messaging product of the world.

Read More

Will Facebook be your next call center operator?

How would you describe Facebook?

Historically, it’s been the social hub of billions of global users looking to stay connected with friends and family through shared content. Yet in recent years, it’s become more difficult to describe Facebook in a few words — depending on who you ask, it’s a place for businesses to share information with consumers, advertisers to market to target audiences, media to deliver news and, as early as last year, it’s became a place to conduct real business.

Full disclosure: I’m not an avid Facebook user. But when the site announced plans last year to socially sell to consumers through Messenger, I couldn’t ignore just how powerful this business transformation could be for both consumers and businesses. The announcement was a strategic move for Facebook, and an extremely attractive offering to business users, because it allowed them to tap into something that few have access to on their own: a billion-person global market.

Other online platforms like Google and Pinterest quickly followed suit, launching “buy” buttons, allowing consumers to make purchases through these non-traditional e-commerce sites. Over the past year, you may have even made your own purchase through one of these platforms, reveling in a customer experience that is real-time, on a platform you have already adopted and that is more tailored to your location. But most importantly, it’s an experience that gives you complete control of your interaction with a business, because you choose when, how and where you’re receiving this communication.

Just recently, Facebook launched a new capability within Messenger that experts believe will expand the site’s business offerings beyond social selling and into the world of customer service. Chatbots offer a new capability within the Messenger platform that will allow a consumer to chat with an automated system, similar to online chat support you may have previously used on an e-commerce site.

Since the launch of chatbots, reports have shown a flock of business developers using the new capabilities, and end users adopting the developed applications. In just one month, almost 5,000 businesses have used chatbots to send order confirmations and automated alerts through Messenger. Even video game franchise Call of Duty has used a chatbot to send upwards of six million messages to its gamers.

These numbers are no joke. With the widely accepted and hugely popular business application of Messenger, it begs the question: Will Facebook become the new call center operator?

Absolutely

Here’s why: As I mentioned, Facebook has a global footprint unmatched by any other business online. More so, because of the vast amounts of personal data they’ve gathered about individuals, they have the ability to create personalized experiences that consumers today demand. But probably the most important technology they’re leveraging right now is video — which for online and offline businesses is now the hottest ticket to customer engagement.

Video is the new communication channel everyone is trying to get their hands on. For Facebook alone, consumers are viewing 100 million hours of video a day via Facebook mobile. In fact, daily views have skyrocketed from one billion to eight billion in a single year. Nicola Mendelsohn, vice president for Facebook in Europe, the Middle East and Africa was just quoted as saying Facebook will probably be all video in the next five years.

Consumers want to consume through video. But consumers also want to engage through video. There are new video solutions available today that go beyond pause and play. Recently, Shoplandia, a video-enabled e-commerce marketplace, launched the first end-to-end shoppable video creation and streaming platform. For sellers, they can create a story behind their product. For the buyer, they can imagine what it means for them. They can see how a product actually works or how an outfit can come together.

Real businesses outside the e-commerce space are using interactive and personalized videos to engage with consumers at unprecedented levels. These aren’t your static YouTube videos. No, these videos offer consumers a self-guided journey, giving all control to the viewer. Viewers can click through the video, choosing a journey they want to experience.

Some insurance businesses have returned an 80 percent increase in revenue after deploying the videos, and one telecommunications company experienced a 12-point jump in Net Promoter Score. A services company even saw $85 million in sales revenue through deployments of videos. So why haven’t e-commerce businesses begun to capitalize on this technology, too?

Facebook is leading the charge for social commerce done right. They’ve proven success as both a social and business platform, but their success as both a social seller and customer service provider will depend on their ability to leverage new video technologies. The use of self-service video technologies that are interactive and engaging will digitally transform any social platform from what it is today to what it wants to be tomorrow.

I believe we’re in the midst of a profound period of digital transformation. Through the integration of social platforms, e-commerce and interactive, personalized video, I will soon hear the words, “Hi, Gregg. Thank you for contacting your call center support, brought to you by Facebook.”

Read More

Security experts have cloned all seven TSA master keys

Key escrow — the process of keeping a set of keys for yourself “just in case” — has always been the U.S. government’s modus operandi when it comes to security. From the disastrous Clipper chip to today, the government has always wanted a back door into encryption and security. That plan backfired for the TSA.

The TSA, as you’ll remember, offers a set of screener-friendly locks. These locks use one of seven master keys that only the TSA can use — until 2014. In an article in The Washington Post, a reporter included a shot of all seven keys on a desk. It wasn’t long before nearly all the keys were made available for 3D printing and, last week, security researchers released the final key.

At last week’s HOPE Conference in New York, hackers calling themselves DarkSim905, Johnny Xmas, and Nite 0wl explained how — and why — they cracked the TSA keys.

“This was done by legally procuring actual locks, comparing the inner workings, and finding the common denominator. It’s a great metaphor for how weak encryption mechanisms are broken — gather enough data, find the pattern, then just ‘math’ out a universal key (or set of keys),” said Johnny Xmas. “What we’re doing here is literally cracking physical encryption, and I fear that metaphor isn’t going to be properly delivered to the public.”

The keys, should you be interested, are here and can be printed on a 3D printer.

The TSA, for their part, doesn’t care, telling The Intercept that “The reported ability to create keys for TSA-approved suitcase locks from a digital image does not create a threat to aviation security. These consumer products are ‘peace of mind’ devices, not part of TSA’s aviation security regime.”

In other words, you might as well not use locks at all.

Read More

What the NTSB knows about the fatal Tesla crash, so far

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a preliminary report on the fatal crash involving a 2015 Tesla Model S and a 2014 Freightliner Cascadia truck in Williston, Florida in May.

Unfortunately, the report yields no major new insights.

The report confirms that the driver of the Tesla was going 74 miles per hour just prior to the crash, and on a highway where the speed limit was 65 miles per hour. It also confirms that he was using Tesla’s “advanced driver assistance features,” a.k.a. Autopilot, including “Traffic-Aware Cruise Control” and “Autosteer lane keeping assistance.”

The NTSB made no promises about when a final report will be issued, but noted that it typically takes a full year to complete data analysis and answer questions about the probable cause of a crash in such investigations.

A professor at George Washington University Law School, Wayne Cohen, who is also a founding partner of personal injury law firm Cohen & Cohen, said fatality reports are usually investigated by state police, not federal authorities.

The Tesla crash in Williston, Florida has garnered federal intervention, he said, because, “We are in an environment with vehicles on the road using increasingly complex technology, artificial intelligence that goes beyond the cruise control and event data recorders we’ve had for decades. The waters are muddied and unchartered with this technology when it comes to civil and criminal liability.”

Results of investigations will help answer questions for the families of those harmed or killed in accidents, perhaps most importantly. But they will also help the U.S. establish a framework for law and legislation to bring those vehicles into everyday use domestically, Cohen suggested.

Tesla did not yet respond to inquiries about how it is working with the NTSB, NHTSA and Florida state police to complete their various investigations into the fatal crash.

Since the crash occurred, the company has been called upon by Consumer Reports to “disable” and rename its Autopilot feature until it is made safer.

Tesla responded with a resounding “no,” to Consumer Reports, and really all its critics, with this statement:

“Tesla is constantly introducing enhancements, proven over millions of miles of internal testing, to ensure that drivers supported by Autopilot remain safer than those operating without assistance. We will continue to develop, validate, and release those enhancements as the technology grows.”

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk has also repeatedly pointed out that Tesla Motors vehicles have driven 130 million miles on Autopilot with one confirmed fatality, which is a safety record better than that of human drivers.

Last week, Musk published a “Master Plan” for Tesla’s future, including the goal of making Autopilot 10 times safer than traditional driving. In the plan, Musk said at the current rate, the company would see 6 billion miles driven by Tesla vehicles with Autopilot engaged in about 5.5 years. That’s the point at which he expects the technology will be ready for “global,” mainstream approval.

And of course, it’s not just Tesla’s technology that is under scrutiny. The company works with other vendors.

For example, it has used Mobileye image analysis processors to enable semi-autonomous driving. Today, Mobileye announced that partnership was coming to an end.

Read More

Deep learning software knows that a rose is a rose is a rosa rubiginosa

We can’t all be botanists, unfortunately, but most of us do have smartphones, and that may be a start. A computer vision system built by Microsoft Research Asia can identify thousands of species of flowers with nothing but a picture.

The Smart Flower Recognition System (Microsoft always did have a way with branding) began serendipitously, with the chance meeting of MSRA’s Yong Rui and botanists from the Chinese Academy of Science at a seminar. Rui’s image analysis work was a perfect match for the botanists, who were trying to figure out how to sort through millions of publicly submitted images of local flowers.

Ah, spring! When a young researcher’s fancy turns to inter-disciplinary collaboration.

The system is built on – what else? – machine learning, specifically a Caffe convolutional neural network trained in 800,000 flower images. Different species of flowers are differentiated enough that, like faces, they can be told apart by running them through a series of filters made to highlight certain features.

Certain curves, certain dark spots, certain proportions – the subtle reasoning of the neural network mirrors our own intuitive recognition of familiar shapes and colors.

“The flower-recognition engine enables domain experts to acquire plant distribution in China in an efficient way. Not only that, this engine can help ordinary people who have a strong interest in flowers to gain more knowledge.”

I asked Rui when the Smart Flower Recognition System will make its way into some kind of web service or app, like so many other experimental machine learning systems. If I hear back, you’ll be the first to know.

Read More

Australia’s largest banks unite to challenge Apple Pay

A number of Australia’s largest banks have come together to challenge Apple and its Apple Pay service in the country.

Apple’s digital payments solution landed in Australia in April with Samsung Pay and Android Pay following thereafter, but the banks are unhappy that — unlike the latter two services — they are unable to rival Apple Pay by offering their own digital payments service for iPhone-owning customers. That’s because Apple outlaws third-party digital payment solutions on iOS, instead preferring to integrate banks and payment providers into Apple Pay.

National Australia Bank, Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Westpac — the one, two and three lenders respectively — and Bendigo and Adelaide Bank filed an application with the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission seeking permission to collectively negotiate with Apple to enable their respective services without violating anti-competition laws.

Just one major bank, ANZ (Australia and New Zealand Bank), partnered with Apple for Apple Pay in Australia and, unsurprisingly, it isn’t part of this complaint.

Here’s the summary of the submission, which was first reported by Reuters:

The applicants seek authorisation on behalf of themselves and potentially other credit and debit card issuers to engage in limited collective negotiation with providers of third-party mobile wallet services on conditions relating to competition, best practice standards, and efficiency and transparency. The applicants also seek authorisation to enter into a limited form of collective boycott in relation to a third-party mobile wallet provider while collective negotiations with that provider are ongoing.

Apple did not reply to our request for comment.

This appears to be the first action of this kind against Apple and Apply Pay. The U.S. firm has generally had success bringing banking partners to the service. It began with just six in the U.S. where it now covers 2,500 bank locations, while in China the 12 partners it launched with in February is now at 19.

Apple Pay is currently available in nine countries: the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, China, Singapore, Switzerland, France and Hong Kong. Back in May, Jennifer Bailey, VP of Apple Pay, told us that the company was working “rapidly” to launch in more countries, and a number of those launches have occurred since her comments.

Read More

Pokémon Go Plus wearable launch date pushed back to September

With Pokémon Go, delays are inevitable it seems. The game’s much-hyped launch in Japan was subject to cancelations last week, many people across Asia still don’t have the title — including China — and now it seems that the even Pokémon Plus, a wearable that accompanies the smash hit game, has had its arrival date pushed back.

Pokémon Plus sits on a player’s wrist to help detect and catch Pokemon. It will costs $34.99 and, given the game’s success, it looks likely to be popular.

Niantic, Nintendo and the Pokémon Company — the trio behind Pokémon Go — originally advised that Pokémon Plus would be released at the end of July. But now, July 27 with time running out, the Pokémon Go Japan website was quietly updated to note a new release date of September, as Wall Street Journal’s “Pokemon reporter” Takashi Mochizuki first noticed. Nintendo confirmed the delay via Twitter.

Pokémon Go is estimated to have surpassed 75 million downloads worldwide, with the record for most App Store downloads in a launch week. Nintendo investors got antsy when the company explained that it isn’t making as much money from Pokémon Go as many first thought, but, even if just a small portion of users buy a Plus then that’ll be more money in the bank — and that’s not even mentioning the lucrative in-app purchases and “sponsored locations” like McDonalds in Japan.

Read More

Xiaomi’s first laptop is a Macbook Air rival that’s as cheap as $540

Chinese smartphone and smart device maker Xiaomi just announced its first laptop — and boy does it look familiar to products belonging to a company that begins with the letter ‘A’.

The Chinese tech giant is holding a press event to unveil its new Redmi Pro smartphone today, but it also dropped a surprise with the unveiling of the Mi Notebook Air. Even the name sounds familiar, right?

The laptop comes in two sizes — 13.3-inch and 12.5-inch — running Windows with a full-HD display, full-metal body and type-C USB charging and two USB slots. There’s a full-sized keyboard with Apple-esque keys that are individually backlit. The company’s ‘Xiaomi Sync’ software is pre-installed to pair data from a Xiaomi smartphone, and you can unlock the laptop using a Mi Band wearable.

The starting price is 3599 CNY, or around $540, for the 12.5-inch model with the larger, flagship model coming in at 4,999, or $750. Don’t hold your breath on an international launch, since many of Xiaomi products — particularly its first forays into new categories — are China-only affairs. What we know so far is it will go on sale in China from August 2.

Under the hood, Xiaomi is promising an Intel Core i5 Processor with 8GB DDR4 RAM and 256GB PCIe SSD, and an expandable SSD slot. For games, there’s a dedicated NVIDIA GeForce 940MX graphics card. Size-wise, we are talking 306.9 mm x 210.9 mm x 14.8 mm with an apparent weight of 1.28 kg.

Those specs slip a little for the smaller model, which includes an Intel Core M3 processor with integrated graphics, with 4GB RAM and 128GB in expandable SSD.

As is so often the case, Apple is the standard for Xiaomi’s product comparison. The Chinese company said the Mi Notebook Air is thinner (13 percent) than its equivalent Macbook Air, and 11 percent smaller than its rival thanks to a 5.56 mm bezel.

There was plenty of speculation about a Xiaomi laptop last year, and now that has materialized into a physical product it’ll be interesting to see how many units Xiaomi ships. Let it not be forgotten that the company has struggled to justify its huge $45 billion valuation. It sold “over 70 million devices” in 2015 and, while that figure is very respectable, an increase on its previous year while many in the industry are seeing volumes fall, it was some way behind Xiaomi’s original target. Added to that, there’s been no indication that its smart home focus — the idea that Xiaomi can build an ecosystem of products for Chinese consumers — has come to fruition yet.

That focus was a key driver for Xiaomi’s colossal valuation. Because, with hardware a fiercely competitive business with low margins despite Xiaomi’s smart approach to sourcing components, the potential for a data and services business that connects the dots can help Xiaomi stand apart from its rivals.

Some may see a laptop as a unnecessary product line, particularly in China where the audience is mobile-first internet users, but does fit into Xiaomi’s ambition to own every connected device in a Chinese consumer household. Or at least to offer an attractive option for any kind of internet-connected hardware product.

Read More

Watch TechCode’s Demo Day here

TechCrunch is pleased to bring you TechCode‘s Demo Day today, Tuesday July 26th from Mountain View, California.

TechCode’s U.S. accelerator program focuses on artificial intelligence and hardware startups that already have a prototype. The goal is to help expedite commercialization for these startups by introducing them to partners and investors. TechCode also provides supply chain support, distribution, manufacturing and retail connections in the U.S., China and Europe, with a strong focus on China.

Investors and press will hear pitches from 12 companies. Mark your calendars, the demos run from 6:10-9:00pm PT tonight and include a 6-minute pitch followed by 4 minutes of Q/A. You can watch it live right here.

ActiveScaler – Builds innovative connected car products and services to help transform any car into a smart car within a few minutes.

The Apollo Box – Machine learning and AI to discover new tech products.

AquaSeca – Creates leak detection and water use optimization technology to address undetected or delayed detection of water leaks that often lead to significant property damage or water loss.

ChemiSense – Using a proprietary sensing platform, develops indoor air quality monitors that detect all the major components that make up air pollution.

Intelligent IOT – Builds advanced weather sensors, AI and APIs for faster severe weather recognition and warning.

Mage – Builds augmented reality (AR) solutions for showcasing products in real time and real size.

Metron Force – Builds wearable technology that lets users tap into the dynamic use of gesture control for products such as drones or remote-controlled cars.

Mirama – Builds smart eyeglasses.

Nimb – Builds a smart ring that helps you feel safe and sound.

Palo Alto Scientific – Builds a smart insole and shoe pod for runners and other athletes.

Siliconic Home – Builds a voice recognition robot and AI for kids.

Slick – Builds a smart camera stabilizer, compatible with a GoPro or any camera, that helps users capture steady footage.

Read More

N26 launches its investment product in Germany

A few days after announcing its banking license, N26 (formerly known as Number26) is partnering with fellow German fintech startup vaamo to add a new service to its banking offering with its first investment product for German customers. vaamo manages different portfolios of risky and not-so-risky assets thanks to robo-advisors so that you don’t have to micro-manage these portfolios.

Starting today, German customers can invest some of their money using the N26 app in a new N26 Invest section. You don’t have to talk to any financial advisor, you don’t have to visit a bank branch.

“With N26 invest we hope to set a new standard in investing on your mobile phone. Our customers can invest with just a few taps and no paperwork, right on their phones,” N26 co-founder and CEO Valentin Stalf told me. “We offer them full transparency regarding fees and a great user experience with graphics that let you track the performance of the investment in real time.”

In many ways, vaamo works a lot like Betterment or Wealthfront in the U.S. Coincidentally, both Betterment and N26 took part in our Startup Battlefield at TechCrunch Disrupt. This kind of companies are providing a hands-off, digital-first approach to investment.

The hardest part is signing up. In the N26 app, you can swipe right from your current account to go into the savings & investment screen. While the company is still working on savings accounts, this is where you can sign up to vaamo and upload some money.

You can then choose between three different plans ranging from low returns and low risk to high return potential and greater risk. After setting up a one-time deposit, you can also set up monthly deposits. All of this will sound familiar if you’ve dealt with investment funds. And then you’re good to go. vaamo portfolios are based on five different funds that hold 15,000 securities altogether.

N26 promises transparency when it comes to fees. And this is important as we’re talking about multi-year investment plans — compounded fees can add up. You can add or withdraw money at any time.

Up next, N26 plans to add real-time credit, savings and insurance products. While it’s interesting to see N26 partnering with vaamo, TransferWise and Barzahlen, I can’t wait to see what the company will come up with on its own. Now that N26 has a banking license, it can do more than facilitate transactions with third-party services.

Read More

Rocket Internet’s Jabong sold to Flipkart-owned rival Myntra for $70M

Finally, Rocket Internet has managed to sell Jabong, its fashion e-commerce site in India, after more than a year of speculation. Myntra, the fashion portal which itself was acquired by Flipkart, has stepped up and bought its rival in a $70 million deal announced today.

The deal is all in cash but it is not completed yet, it is expected to close within Q3 2016.

Flipkart CEO Binny Bansal and executive chairman Sachin Bansal both confirmed the deal on Twitter, with Sachin keen to “make history” with Jabong.

Global Fashion Group (GFG), the umbrella company that runs Rocket Internet’s fashion-focused e-commerce businesses worldwide, explained in an announcement that it spent months deliberating on which suitor to sell the Jabong business to:

Following a strategic review of its Indian operation, the GFG Board concluded that Jabong’s position as India’s leading fashion e-commerce destination would be best served through a business combination with a local player. Having reviewed multiple options over a period of several months, the GFG Board has resolved to sell Jabong to Flipkart Group.

India’s Economic Times reported that Myntra/Flipkart beat out a range of competitors, including Snapdeal and Future Group, but plenty of others have been linked with a deal in the past.

Myntra was once thought to own one-quarter of India’s fashion e-commerce market, making it the chief threat to Myntra. Back in 2014, Amazon was reportedly nearing a $1.2 billion deal to buy the company before backing out months later. Alibaba, Flipkart, Paytm and countless others have been linked with deals since then as Jabong failed to maintain its position in the market.

The (inevitable) sell-off comes amid challenging times for its parent company.

GFG raised $365 million at a drastically reduced valuation of $1.1 billion last week. We reported at the time that the group had met with as many as 90 investors and yet failed to land capital outside of its existing investor base. GFG sold off two business units belonging to Zalora, Jabong’s sister company in Southeast Asia, earlier this year, and we wrote that the sale of Jabong and other unwanted businesses is likely to happen now that this new financing is secured.

Jabong’s finances haven’t been too impressive of late. The company carded a €60 million ($66 million) loss for 2015 with €211 million ($232 million) in GMV for the year. During its most recent quarter of business, Jabong’s losses narrowed to €11.9 million ($13.1 million) from €16.3 million ($17.9 million) one year before, but its margins nearly halved from 59 percent to 36.5 percent over the same period. That shift, which GFG put down to fewer discounts, was presumably to get the business into shape for a sale.

Our source suggested that there could be other business units within GFG sold off, although that might be country-based operations like Zalora’s previous deal and not entire companies like Jabong.

“Through the sale of Jabong, we are achieving a milestone in our strategy to refocus and invest in our core markets that show both, significant growth and revenue potential but also a clear and predictable path to profitability,” GFG CEO Romain Voog said in a statement.

Read More

Democratic National Committee chair steps down following Wikileaks email release

In a massive shake up just ahead of Monday’s convention in Philadelphia, Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced today that she will be stepping down from her role as the head of the Democratic National Committee after the end of the event.

The move comes as calls for her to resign have increased in the wake of a massive release of DNC staff member emails by Wikileaks. In amongst the 20,000 messages exposed on Friday were exchanges that seemed to illustrate a strong bias against presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Over the weekend, the Vermont Senator responded to the messages — including one that suggested highlighting his religion in order to negatively impact his campaign — with calls for Wasserman Schultz to resign.

Sanders, not surprisingly, reacted positively to the news. “Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic Party,” he wrote in statement issued tonight. “While she deserves thanks for her years of service, the party now needs new leadership that will open the doors of the party and welcome in working people and young people. The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race.”

Hillary Clinton had decidedly more positive words for her “longtime friend,” writing in a statement, “I am grateful to Debbie for getting the Democratic Party to this year’s historic convention in Philadelphia, and I know that this week’s events will be a success thanks to her hard work and leadership. There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to the Republicans than Debbie.” The presumptive nominee added that Wasserman Schultz will serve as the “honorary chair” of the Secretary’s 50 state program.

In spite of the timing, Wasserman Schultz insists that she will still play a role in this week’s convention. She wrote in a statement, “as Party Chair, this week I will open and close the Convention and I will address our delegates about the stakes involved in this election not only for Democrats, but for all Americans.”

Read More

Don’t feed the trolls — tackle their abuse of platform power instead

In the ever accelerating social media feedback loops of the modern Internet age, ‘don’t feed the trolls’ is a phrase that appears to have fallen out of fashion, favor and collective memory.

The result? An impoverished quality of debate that frequently and increasingly appears to be approaching something resembling mass hysteria as trolls are delivered dining on-demand.

Simply put: you can’t have meaningful discussion if you are forever polarizing into two sides simply screaming at each other. Both apparently convinced to the threat-sending death that one worldview rules supreme.

Case in point: Just this week Twitter finally fell into the trap of the Internet’s most self-aggrandizing troll — the self-styled “supervillain” Milo Yiannopoulos — by kicking him off its platform.

Twitter had previously punished Yiannopoulos’ provocations by removing his privileged blue-tick status. It’s now gone the whole hog and ‘no-platformed’ the platform-loving self-promoter. The predictable result? Yiannopoulos gets to step up his native swagger by parading a status as the ‘victim of Internet censorship’.

Quoth he:

With the cowardly suspension of my account, Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives.

Twitter is holding me responsible for the actions of fans and trolls using the special pretzel logic of the left. Where are the Twitter police when Justin Bieber’s fans cut themselves on his behalf?

Like all acts of the totalitarian regressive left, this will blow up in their faces, netting me more adoring fans. We’re winning the culture war, and Twitter just shot themselves in the foot.

This is the end for Twitter. Anyone who cares about free speech has been sent a clear message: you’re not welcome on Twitter.

The straw that broke Jack Dorsey’s quavering resolve to let one professional troll’s tweets flow was the latter’s sophisticated ability to marshal his Twitter followers (aka his ‘adoring fans’) to fire forth a stream of targeted abuse on his behalf.

Not that Yiannopoulos takes responsibility for the actions of his followers, of course. He walks the provocateur’s fine line — ensuring the abuse he personally doles out, while horrible, remains just that: one person’s unpleasant viewpoint. So he wouldn’t admit to anything as crass as getting others to do his dirty work.

The wider point here is that tech platforms — most especially Twitter’s broadcast network — can be trivially manipulated to magnify a particular sentiment. Whether that’s a humorous trending hashtag or vile racial abuse.

Social media platforms are already structured to disseminate information. But with a little bit of choreographed intent a relatively small set of networked connections can be chained together to hugely theatrical effect — repurposing mainstream outlets into single cause megaphones.

All the modern day Internet ‘supervillain’ (or social justice warrior/SJW, if you prefer) has to do is pout out their call to action, which will disseminate onto sympathetic fellow forums, and watch as their adoring fans pile in. Then they merely need sit back in a high backed computer desk chair and let out a devilish laugh.

And so in the latest instance of Yiannopoulos’ slickly executed social media manipulations a public critique of Ghostbusters actor Leslie Jones yields a vile stream of targeted abuse — and the understandable reaction from Jones to quit Twitter.

“I leave Twitter tonight with tears and a very sad heart,” she tweeted, before departing the platform. “All this cause I did a movie. You can hate the movie but the shit I got today… wrong.”

What do trolls crave? Attention. What do they feed on? Outrage generated by provocation. How do you accelerate trolls’ outrage cycles? By doing what they’re hoping you’ll do – firstly by paying them attention, and then by reacting in a way they can paint as unjust (e.g. shutting them down). Or which they can celebrate as a win (e.g. the shutting down of their target).

In the Leslie Jones case Yiannopoulos can chalk up two wins: his own censorship by Twitter, and the self-censorship of Jones quitting Twitter after he criticized her performance and his fans piled in to racially abuse her.

This is the ‘by the book’ formula that lurks behind the well-trodden maxim ‘don’t feed the trolls’.

Yet Twitter just fed the Internet’s self-styled king troll a two-course meal of the very finest troll dining.

Platforms, power and perspective

So what can we learn from this sorry situation? Apart from the obvious – that trolls are horrible and racial abuse is intolerable.

One clear takeaway is that the structures of social networks are being far too trivially subverted and manipulated by entities with malicious or determined intent. Twitter clearly can and should do far more to stop orchestrated pile-ins designed to amplify abuse and carry out campaigns of harassment on its platform.

Bottom line: it’s not free speech if it’s a choreographed campaign of targeted abuse.

As I’ve pointed out before, at the time of the #Gamergate saga: “…small, orchestrated online groups can magnify the impact and influence of fringe viewpoints by weaponizing mainstream digital services to repurpose these platforms as propaganda machines. This is not a new thing but the frequency with which it is happening online appears to be growing, and the toxicity being generated is becoming harder to escape as the tactics in play are honed and polished to ever greater effect.”

But arguably there’s something else we need to consider.

We can perhaps also say that certain malicious entities are holding up a (black) mirror to the political correctness they abhor – aka the modus operandi of their SJW foes – and using the same single issue megaphone method, aka the bounce back amplification made possible by follower-based tech platforms, to win (or so they would argue, as Yiannopoulos has) the Internet’s ‘culture wars’.

At this strange juncture in the evolution of the mainstream media, see also: Donald Trump achieving a similar effect by subverting the news media’s drama-seeking lens.

The point is that when debate gets closed down and nuance gets tramped underfoot and empathy gets battered to death we all lose.

That’s the ugly truth Yiannopoulos is illustrating via a sort of ‘media process deconstructing performance art’, if I can put it that way.

Point is: Any single opinion amplified via this megaphone method of follower armies intent on crushing alternative perspectives can be oppressive to those with a differing view.

Moreover, no one who self-styles as an ‘Internet supervillain’ should be taken at face value. Such a person is stating they are playing a role and inviting us to critique their melodrama. Their mission is to force their enemies to confront their own Manichean flaws, reflected in reverse.

To not deconstruct the drama is to walk right into the massive pitfall trolls exist to set. And that’s where we are now: With the self styled king troll gloating over the Twitter whale tangled up in his subtle net.

Zooming out again, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the shouting down of points of view on the Internet happens on all sides of the political spectrum – whether it’s leftwing campaigners taking up a diversity/feminist/gay rights/etc etc cause, and urging their followers (implicitly or intentionally) to shout down opposing viewpoints. Or conservative supervillains jerking liberal chains and rattling leftwing cages on mainstream tech platforms by acting out a manist, white-supremacist tantrum-pantomime in plain sight.

You could argue that neither radical left nor radical right appears willing to accept there might be more shades of grey than are allowed for by one particular entrenched perspective — as they fight their take-no-prisoners culture wars via the tech platforms that give them the power to turn a personal viewpoint into a weapon of mass media destruction, aiming to level the landscape of debate via the tribalism of fervent follower armies.

Yet the Internet is connecting more diverse viewpoints than ever, as more and more people come online. So we’re going to have to get used to confronting alternative views. Simply screaming down difference doesn’t seem to be an approach that will scale.

You might not like the message but trigger-finger shooting down of the other side’s messenger is perpetuating the Internet’s culture clashes by encouraging a ramping up of verbal violence and a reduction in the diversity of debate available on tech platforms – which are fast becoming the only mass media. (And, as others have noted, pile-in public shamings that close down debate by cementing a majority judgment are fast becoming the new majority entertainment.)

If your actions end up stripping out the possibility for nuance or individual disagreement and demanding complicated humans reduce to polarized positions then you can’t be too surprised if braindead abuse is all you’re left with. And so we are all impoverished by Twitter’s knee-jerk banning of single transgressing individuals while it fails to address the underlying problem of the hijacking of its platform by orchestrated abuse campaigns.

As tempting as it may be, censoring individual trolls is not how the technology industry wins the war against trolling. Individual stupid opinions are just that: one voice in a sea of voices. Tech platforms need to tackle those actors who would weaponize a personal viewpoint by cutting the strings to the puppet armies that give them disproportionate volume to force their views on others.

It’s not the single bad or provocative opinion that should trouble society and its technology platforms. We should not fear to engage with difference or publicly shun ignorance. Indeed, by closing down the single voice of the other you hand that entity a verified status as a persecuted individual. You gift them additional fuel to pour on the fires they live to start.

Rather you need to take away their power to turn one opinion into a mass attack. It’s the follower armies that wreak havoc on mainstream platforms that Twitter should be seeking to close down with tools that prevent pile-ins of orchestrated abuse. And with rules and structures designed to pop not promote filter bubbles.

Social discourse suffers if it can’t support an understanding of alternative views. And empathy is rarely encouraged by closing the door on a lone problem voice.

At the end of the day, if you don’t offer the courtesy of listening, how can you properly articulate the valid reasons why you disagree?

Read More

Metal 3D printing takes flight

While many designers and engineers find success with 3D-printing parts in plastic for prototyping and low-volume production, producing parts out of metal using similar technology has recently led to the creation of some of the most exciting 3D-printed parts in memory.

With key patents for metal printing expiring at the end of 2016, things are looking particularly exciting. Although the mainstream consumer adoption of 3D printing might be falling behind on certain expectations, metal 3D printing for product designers and engineers seems to be delivering on all the potential that 3D printing has in store.

At its core, “metal 3D printing” is a simplified term for a metal-based additive manufacturing process; primarily either Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) or Selective Laser Melting (SLM). Unlike conventional metal fabrication techniques that rely on removing or stamping metals to arrive at an intended design, metal 3D printing builds objects up layer by layer through fusing material together with a programmed laser that literally draws each layer shape until an object has been produced.

When combined with modern and powerful design tools that optimize simulation and analysis to generate an optimal design solution — such as newer generative design tools used to produce lightweight, latticed designs that are functionally optimized and accurate for production via additive manufacturing — the resulting parts not only take less time to design, but are also significantly stronger and lighter than part designs that are produced using conventional manufacturing methods.

In space exploration, for example, industry leaders such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and NASA have fully embraced metal 3D printing as a way to produce rocket ship parts that have drastically lowered costs while highly improving performance. SpaceX, for example, relied heavily on the custom metal parts for the combustion chamber of the SpaceX SuperDraco engine.

NASA was able to develop a turbopump for their rocket engine that was put together with 45 percent fewer parts than pumps made through conventional manufacturing processes. It seems like it’s only a matter of time before an entire rocket engine is capable of being 3D printed.

Thus, 3D printing may be overhyped in some industries, but it is certainly delivering in others.

Closer to Earth, the aerospace industry is one of the fastest-growing industries to adopt 3D-printed metals because of the capability to dramatically reduce overall aircraft weight while increasing construction efficiency and allowing for design customizations. As of today, aircraft manufacturing giant Boeing has produced more than 20,000 additive manufactured parts on airplanes that have been delivered to their customers.

Similarly, Airbus is putting a wide variety of 3D printed parts into their airplanes. The company is even making their unique technology accessible to other professionals outside Airbus.

Just like 3D-printed metal parts are revolutionizing air travel both in space and on Earth, they are also allowing for breakthrough achievements in the healthcare industry. The outlook is so promising, in fact, that the American Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of 3D-printed metal implants for medical procedures.

Recent successful applications of metal 3D printing in the medical sector include a titanium 3D-printed skull implant and a 3D-printed rib cage — both of which were custom tailored for cancer patients using digital scans after tumor removal surgeries.

Subtractive metal manufacturing methods, including grinding, machining and milling helped bring us some of the most exciting products and technologies within the last 200 years, but it’s only taken us a handful of years to realize just how powerful additive metal manufacturing can be.

Paired with powerful new design capabilities from modern CAD software and the ability to create entirely new geometries that were otherwise impossible to manufacture, industries that have come to rely on complex metal products — particularly space exploration, aerospace and healthcare — are experiencing a manufacturing revolution thanks to the capabilities of 3D printing.

At its core, it seems that these industries of highly customizable, complex metal parts, produced in relatively limited amounts, are the perfect market fit for 3D printing. With new metal 3D printers and materials popping up left and right, it seems only fair that the hype for metal 3D printing continues to thrive.

Read More

Clinton launches app designed to gamify campaigning

For better or worse, preaching the gospel of your candidate no longer requires leaving the couch. As anyone who’s cracked open a social media account over the past year can corroborate, the platforms are lousy with campaign slogans, incriminating links and, um, spirited discussions.

In the lead up to next week’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is launching an app designed to turn an iPhone into a “digital HQ.” What does that mean, precisely? It’s essentially a way for the campaign to offer up a one-stop shop for outspoken followers to follow along at home, with check-ins to events and televised speeches, quizzes on the candidate’s policies and the like.

The app is designed to gamify the campaigning process, offering up virtual badges and real life prizes for activities like sharing videos through Facebook – as if eager followers needed another reason to post candidate affirming content on social media.

As Recode notes, the simply-titled Hillary 2016 app was inspired by Farmville and built by former employees of DreamWorks Animation, Charity: Water and Livestream. At the very least, it’s a decidedly more positive approach to social sharing than the campaign’s recent Trump Yourself app.

Read More

Yahoo’s board reportedly agrees to $4.8 billion Verizon bid

According to reports that are starting to trickle in, Yahoo’s board has accepted the terms of the Verizon offer we reported last week.

The core assets of the company that started life in Jerry Yang and David Filo’s 1994 Stanford dorm room as “Jerry and David’s Guide to the World Wide Web” — and at one point was one of the highest valued properties on the internet — will now join another former high-flyer of the internet’s earliest days, Aol (full disclosure: the owner of TechCrunch), in the Verizon stable.

It’s hard to overstate how dominant a player Yahoo once was. The company, which now holds most of its value in its Alibaba investment, was once a $125 billion behemoth that dominated internet search and commanded one of the highest valuations of any online business — it was Google before Google was Google.

Like Aol, Yahoo was never able to fully recover from the dot-com crash. The advent of Google (and then Facebook) pushed both early Internet portals further toward irrelevance as one Google’s search algorithm prevailed and Facebook a new method for browsing online — replacing monolithic portals with personalized feeds tailored to the tastes of social networking peers.

And in the age of mobile browsing and apps, the company’s relevance eroded even further.

Yahoo grew up with the early Internet and for a time it was the site for nearly everything. From an online directory, the site ballooned to include email providers (Four11), web hosting services (Geocities), and video and radio simulcasting through the $5.7 billion acquisition of Mark Cuban’s Broadcast.com.

The acquisition strategy that brought the company success in the late-90s foundered in the wake of the dot com crash. Marquee deals for companies like Tumblr have failed to produce much value.

Still, it looks like Yahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer will be able to enjoy a comfortable landing, whatever becomes of her after the Verizon deal.

The New York Times is speculating that she could receive a severance package worth about $57 million, after raking in cash and stock worth $218 million during her time at the top of the faltering giant.

The terms of the sale aren’t official, but The Times (among others) is reporting that the $41 billion worth of Alibaba shares that Yahoo holds will remain in the hands of its current shareholders (along with Yahoo Japan and some patents).

Read More