Tech – Page 13 – shiqiv.com

「Video of the Week」a16z Talk by Benedict Evans

A Glimpse into Instagram’s Commercial Efforts

I will keep this updated
Based on personal ins screenshots

Effort One – Bis/Org official page and promotion

E.g.

Similar to FB’s news feed ads; similar to ads in Wechat Moments, etc.

Effort Two – Ads in Instagram Stories, in three forms: Learn More, Shop Now, Subscribe

E.g.

Currently Instagram hasn’t provide direct shopping/subscription function; it is linking to third-party websites.

But I could see it is possible to bypass Amazon or Apple ID subscriptions.

Effort Three – cosponsored

E.g. (from a public account through search)

This is more like a platform and pairing influencers with businesses. Provide a way for influencer to monetize and change the way businesses used in promotion.

Effort Four – cross suggestion/reference

It is not formally introduced to users. But it is enabled by Instagram’s ecosystem.

E.g., after I followed an independent hotel in Palm Spring, I got three likes from JW Marriott Desert Springs (a nearby hotel).

Also, I got followed by collegehousephilly after following DailyPennsylvania (student-run newspaper at Penn, mostly seen by Penn students); Philly is short for Philadelphia, where Penn is located.

Will keep updating this post.

Stretched Valuation in Ride-Hailing – Uber’s financials and others

Uber reported some 2018 Q3 quarterly financial numbers on Wednesday.

As similar ride-hailing companies across the globe may go public in the coming 2019-2020, here I compiled some publicly available numbers together.

While Uber’s revenue growth is slowing down, at least it can target a 2019 full year revenue over $15 billion with 25%+ growth rate (an implied valuation multiple of 8x revenue).

Similar for Lyft – at least it needs an annualized revenue of $3 billion (an implied valuation multiple of 10x revenue), which means ~$750 million per quarter. It seems easier to achieve to me in Lyft’s case.

And Didi… its take rate from GMV is said to be much lower than Uber’s (~23%). Assuming a GMV of ¥120 billion in 2019 and a take rate of 10%, Didi will achieve an annual run rate of ~$1,700 million. Then it will be valued at 50x revenue multiple for a $85 billion valuation…

No comments on specific company. But overall, this space seems to have stretched valuation.

However, some other factors need to be counted in, such as low risk of competition (the market structure is mature or foreseeable I would say), the definite future of transportation-as-a-service (with growing market share in overall transportation), upcoming initiatives (e.g. autonomous car services, autonomous on-demand truck, etc.)

It seems that certain future is coming for sure in many investors’ eyes. Or they are just made to believe in it.

「Video of the Week」DeepMind founder and CEO Demis Hassabis: creativity and AI

从高通今天 Q4 财报回看与苹果的争端

高通财报 FY Q4 收入低于预期，净利高于预期，苹果手机不采用高通芯片的影响在数字上反映得很明显，包括对于下个季度的预期（9-12月）。

回顾一下智能手机和苹果手机的近几年发展，到与高通的关系，有这么一个逻辑：

2014年开始全球智能手机增量市场感受到相当大阻力，以出货量增长放缓乃至不增长为标志。苹果依靠iphone建立起的帝国开始面临一系列问题。这在苹果公司内部或高层应该被经常讨论，也早已市场感受或预料到（比如2011/2012年）。苹果整体利润水平开始有下滑，尤其用2016&2017年比较之前。收入无非是单价*数量。数量增上不去，只能在单价上做文章，iphone的提价路线开始清晰。另一方面，高通芯片和技术授权的成本开始变得更重要。在高增长时期，大家合作共赢，有问题拖到后面再说；增长放缓，则要把分蛋糕的事情再拿出来讨论。如果高通定价为固定数额，那iphone提价是妥妥地提高苹果利润空间；但事实并非如此。高通以手机单机为基础的计价方式让苹果很头大。2015甚至更早的时候，高通苹果应该就有过相关讨论。但作为行业风向标，苹果的谈判结果势必影响高通与其它手机厂商的合同；从这点上说，高通也绝对不想让。大家都盯着这一代智能手机最后的赚头不放手。矛盾爆发在2016，苹果让生产商拒付高通部分费用。也是为2017年iphone X提价到$999做了铺垫。经过两年多准备和研究，2018年起的iphone已经不再采用高通，转用英特尔。

整个事件对与高通来说自然是不好过。苹果手机卖得最贵，贡献的收入自然多。高通不希望失去苹果这个大客户和行业巨头。但同时，高通很明确自己作为供应商的角色。想成为有话语权的供应商，一定要保证下游客户数量和平衡。苹果固然重要，但这一代智能手机的后半场苹果的声音越来越小。虽然苹果依旧可以赚很多钱，依然是最受欢迎，整体体验最好的手机；但在后半场里，印度中国等市场中购买力不出众的消费者撑起了半片天。苹果做不到的，抓不到的消费者，高通可以通过其它OEM捕捉到。另一个角度来说，苹果高通的纠纷让高通提前跳下了有点下沉的巨轮。即使再往前开，高通从苹果身上也赚不到多少。

苹果7-9月财报和未来预期已经说明了很多；不再报告iphone销量数字也成为让投资人不安的点之一。

所以，即便平行空间里高通苹果还是朋友，有一个修改过的合作，高通这季度开始之后几个财报也不会因此亮眼。

而我觉得高通 sexy 的地方还是在于 5G 和 IoT 的时代。5G 概念下包括可下一代手机，AR/VR，车联网，自动驾驶等；IoT 概念下可以算上智能家居等，越来越多设备将连上网络/云端，但不一定需要 5G。

2019将是高通的转折年。可能看不到大涨的基础；好的话应该是为下一个5年的领导地位打下基础；差的话，很多今天挂在嘴边的应用还要过数年才能实现/实用，以及新技术新标准新共识的出现。

「Video of the Week」Elon Musk 2017 – The future we’re building and boring

The future in Elon’s world – future underground and future on Mars in conversation with TED’s Head Curator, Chris Anderson.

Some screenshots:

The underground highway.

40-story tall space-vehicle, enough to take Boeing 747 as cargo.

140 -> 280: How Twitter’s Length Limit Shapes The Language Used

Social network platforms such as Twitter and Weibo, are where we post our words/expressions, and is taking an essential role in todays’ Modern Communication.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, they are also providing a feedback loop to change our ways of communication (and our thinking – but that’s another different story). After all, we are one of those animals with natural herding inclinations.

Taking a very simple example – as Twitter was becoming more popular, people started to lean heavily towards the use of new abbreviations, partially due to its 140-word limit. (Similarly, when Blackberries were popular, certain abbreviations were created, used and spread among professionals in texts & emails)

In 2017, Twitter officially made its “140-word limit” a history [Weibo ended the limit in 2016] and doubled the character limit to 280. One resulting impact is that people are spelling out abbreviations and acronyms more often, according to Twitter’s report.

TwitterData also touted that “people are saying ‘please’ (+54%) and ‘thank you’ (+22%) more.” in the first year of doubling limit.

[Something worth noting on the data – 1) need to consider the difference in total number of tweets 2) need to consider other ways of saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’…]

It is really nice that people could be more friendly and polite (not excessively tho). It would be even nicer if people could inherit their concise and efficient use of language in the 140-word era & all the other positive impacts Modern Communication made on us.

Apple’s Pricer New Products and 2-Way Strategy

Today Apple announced new products of three lines of business – MacBook Air, iPad Pro and Mac mini.

iPad Pro 2018 11-inch and 12.9-inch | Source: Apple

Besides the new features and superior performance, Apple seems to be more addicted to aggressive price tags. Today’s event is the latest episode of a series, starting from the 10-year anniversary model iPhone X last year.

[discussion below is based on the most basic consumer version of each product]

9/12/2017 – iPhone X introduced @ $999, a 30% increase from the high-end phone (iPhone 7 Plus @ $769) one year before

5/27/2018 – updated iPad introduced @ $329, flat with the new iPad debut price in Apr. 2017.

7/12/2018 – updated MacBook Pro @ $1,799; the price seems to be the same as Oct. 2016’s debut price with Touch Bar, but is a 20% increase in terms of available low-end option (MacBook Pro with no Touch Bar @ $1,499).

9/12/2018 – iPhone XR @ $749, increased by 7% ($50) compared to the low-end phone last year (iPhone 8 @$699) ; Apple Watch Series 4 @ $399, increased by 21% ($70) from a year ago @ $329.

10/30/2018 – new MacBook Air @ $1,199, a 20% increase from the old model years ago @ $999; updated iPad Pro @ $799, a 23% ($150) increase from previous Jun. 2017 version @ $649; new Mac mini @ $799, a 60% increase from the old model years ago @ $499; redesigned Apple Pencil 2 @ $129, increased by 30% from $99 when it was introduced 3 years ago

The 2-way strategy looks clear: 1. use entry-level new products (e.g. iPad & iPhone XR) to attract new users and compete with other firm’s often lower-priced products. Educational market and some international markets are important here, especially for new-user growth, ensuring an increasing number of total active users in Apple’s ecosystem and getting more market shares in terms of shipment. So there is barely any increase in price. 2. raise prices by 20-30% in other product lines to keep margin (for example Apple Watch price increase might be more associated with costs) or to compensate lower margins in entry-level products.

Apple’s overall average gross margin from 2016 to present is actually lower than the average from 2014 to 2015 (38.44% vs. 39.63%, down ~120bp), even with higher gross margins from service revenues weighing in more recently.