Benedict's Newsletter

 

PREMIUM EDITION / Sunday 1 Aug, 2021
What mattered in tech this week?

I'm in New York for the next month - let me know if we should connect!

NEWS / IDEAS / OUTSIDE / DATA / COLUMN

The China tech crackdown

Tencent's WeChat has suspended new signups. The $100bn tutoring industry has been told to go non-profit. Didi might delist. Chinese tech indices are down 15% in the last two days. Remember when this was all about Jack Ma? Remember when WeChat was going to go global?

I'm not a China analyst, but there's a lot going on, from the CCP asserting its authority to overdue intervention into some under-regulated spaces, with a dose of turf wars as well (what do the financial regulators think of the cyberspace agency deciding who can list overseas?). This also overlaps with China's intensified push for tech sovereignty, with some people suggesting it wants to rebalance from consumer internet to semiconductors and the other primary tech it depends on foreign companies for today (your iPhone is assembled in China, but all the high-value parts are made elsewhere).

But if it's not clear what's going on inside China, it's even less clear what this means for the rest of us. Will Chinese Internet giants be forced to make serious efforts to expand internationally? Does the creative torrent of Chinese consumer tech innovation slow down? Could it affect consumer electronics supply chains? šŸ¤·šŸ»ā€ā™‚ļø Link
 

Square builds its own bundle

Square is spending $27bn in stock (about 25% of market cap) to buy Afterpay, an Australian fintech that helps merchants do 'buy now pay later'. Square is unbundling traditional banks and credit cards, while expanding out from its start in card-taking to make a quite different bundle of its own. (Also - Square is a $112bn company. Remind me again big tech companies are stifling completion.) Link
 

Disney, Scarlett Johansson and channel conflict

Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney for releasing 'Black Widow to streaming at the same time as the cinema release. Her contact gives her a percentage of box office, but the streaming release would have weakened that. This is a big and general issue: the movie and TV industries pay top talent based on revenue per title, but an all-in subscription doesn't have revenue per title: the financial return on a streaming release comes in driving retention and new subscriptions that aren't directly tied to one property (even if there's a PPV element). This was the row at Warner recently, and the main answer has been to buy out the talent up front - but that means they no longer have a share in the upside. Link
 

The week in regulation

Three interesting stories in techreg this week. First, the French competition agency 'fined' Google ā‚¬500m for not negotiating 'in good faith' to pay newspapers whenever they appear in search results. Of course, if the newspapers were in good faith they wouldn't be asking for money, and if the competition regulator was in good faith it would acknowledge that this is a disguised tax and subsidy, not a competition or copyright issue at all (I wrote about that here).

Second, Luxembourg fined Amazon $746m for interpreting GDPR differently (Amazon is headquartered in Luxembourg so that's where GDPR is applied). Bizarrely, we only know because Amazon disclosed this in the 10Q, and plans to appeal. My general theory is that GDPR is so vague and so general that it could theoretically ban almost anything, and it's impossible to know whether you're in compliance, even if you have as many lawyers as Amazon.

Third, and on the opposite tack, Google is suing in Germany over a new expansion to the 'NetzDG' hate speech law, which requires platform companies to give law enforcement all available user information whenever any illegal content is suspected, without first checking if the content is actually a problem.

Links: Google in France, Amazon GDPR, Google in Germany
 

Intel partners with Qualcomm

Intel will make chips for Qualcomm and Amazon (for data centres), to their designs. Intel has never done so-called 'foundry' manufacturing for other companies before, making only its new chips, but this is part of the turnaround strategy: it's way behind TSMC on manufacturing process and ARM on chip architecture and needs to realign itself. Link
 

Netflix on games

Interesting discussion in the Netflix quarterly call on their approach to games. Putting AAA console games in the cloud and streaming them doesn't seem to work (Stadia) - creating IP and mechanics that are native to the form and to the business model might work better. Link
 

Instagram on child safety

Instagram is flipping accounts for anyone under 16 or 18 to default private, with narrower ad options, after a wave of concern about how easy and widespread inappropriate contact from adults might be. Link
 

Twitter experiments with shopping

Twitter has definitely pivoted from stasis to 'making decisions' - launching and then killing a Stories product, buying into newsletters and experimenting with payment, and now it's working on ecommerce tools. There does seem to be a rule at the moment that all social apps must add a store, but that's partly because a lot of people use Instagram etc to follow brands and influences around their taste, so there's an organic link to recommendations and buying. I'm not sure how many people use Twitter like that. Link
 

Ebay harassment

Update to a bizarre story: a group of eBay staff and execs who stalked and harassed a blogger who annoyed the CEO have been sent to prison. Link

NEWS / IDEAS / OUTSIDE / DATA / COLUMN

Ideas from around the web

Foreign Policy on China's industrial policy for tech. Have US export restrictions catalysed a new wave of investment in self-sufficiency? Well yes, obviously, but how much? Link

Jay Goldberg on China's tech crackdown. Link

The pandemic has been a great case study of the limitations of machine learning: it is very very hard to make sure that the traning data is as clean as you think, and very hard to generalise from training data from one context to use in another context. Link

When tech companies try to standardise content moderation rules. Link

Is AR clothing try-on nearly here? Link

A brief profile of Shein, the latest hot (Chinese) e-commerce app with a huge ad budget and no public voice at all. Link

Ghost kitchen platforms are moving downstream. Link

Ray Ozzie's latest venture: a cheap IoT board with bundled flat rate connectivity. Link

Apparently Zello was the must-have messaging app in the recent South African riots. Link

Conversely, worth reading this Wired piece on social media's moderation of Palestinians. Silicon Valley cultural diversity runs on very narrow axes. Link

Prada's plan to put NFC/RFID into every single item it sells, linked to a a provenance database (though I have no idea why that needs blockchain). Link

Dentsu study on the future of ads without cookies. Link

Fun profile of Sriram Krishnan and Aarthi Ramamurthy, Clubhouse show-hosts. Link

"Antitrust populism", by the just-resigned lead economics expert in the FTCā€™s antitrust suit against Facebook. Link

NEWS / IDEAS / OUTSIDE / DATA / COLUMN

Outside interests

Tangerine Dream and electronic music at the Barbican. Link

All ships are required to broadcast their location and heading. Warships fake the system. This is both understandable and... problematic. Link

NEWS / IDEAS / OUTSIDE / DATA / COLUMN

Market data

Facebook disclosed that it's sold up to 4m units of the Oculus Quest 2 in the last 12 months (due a to a product recall around some people getting rashes). Glass half empty or half full? I don't think VR had a cultural moment in lockdown. Link

BBC video on-demand stats for H1 2021. Link

Ofcom stats on UK news consumption. Link

NEWS / IDEAS / OUTSIDE / DATA / COLUMN

LVMH, Skype and Shein

I donā€™t think many people in tech have really heard of Bernard Arnault, creator of LVMH and the world's richest man. Heā€™s worth $200bn because both he rode and contributed to the huge growth of the global luxury goods industry, which in the last 50-60 years has turned from a world of mostly small family-owned artisan businesses to global mass-manufacturing conglomerates. He said recently that the key is to control the factories and hence the quality, and the distribution and hence the perception. New York and London are full of stores for LVMH, Kering and Richemont, even if they donā€™t have those labels.

However, while the internet lets anyone anywhere buy anything that you could buy in London or New York, it doesnā€™t let you shop the way you can there, and it doesnā€™t quite let LVMH sell the way it can in its own boutiques. Weā€™re still working out how luxury works on smartphones.

Shein might have worked out how to do fast fashion on smartphones. It reminds me a little of WhatsApp, or Skype: there are no public numbers and itā€™s not on the front page of the tech news sites, but itā€™s at the top of the global App Store charts (itā€™s the top shopping app in 61 countries and top 5 in 128), itā€™s overtaken Zara and H&M in Google Trends, and on some estimates itā€™s bigger than either of those in US spending. I also hear respectful noises about its ad budget (another way it reminds me of TikTok). Shein is doing what Zara and H&M did before at physical retail, and Asos did online: changing its products in weeks rather than months, with a vast range, driven by data, and selling them as well.

So, something I wonder for both luxury and fast fashion, and indeed all of D2C: if 'the world is flat' do we have fewer bigger winners, because there arenā€™t the barriers of geography and physical distribution to slow down a formula that really works from taking over the world (Walmart only has 20% of US grocery sales, after all). Can Shein scale globally massively faster than Zara? Skype could build a completely new kind of calling card business because it didnā€™t need access points or scratch cards. It went viral, and so perhaps can Shein. What does it mean for a retailer to go viral, globally (even if itā€™s buying virality, like Tiktok)?

Or does gravity take over, and you have to slow down and open shops? Or, conversely, does this mean thereā€™s room for massively more brands, each finding their audience in micro-targeting and underserved niches, or optimising for pennies in Amazon Marketplace and SEO?

Meanwhile, LVMH might have two dozen boutiques in Manhattan, but it canā€™t do that in Milwaukee, and the department stores that its ā€˜maisonsā€™ sold to in the 1950s are long gone. It canā€™t build those boutiques because the density isnā€™t there, but there are some customers there, so could there be more? If the internet lets you sell anywhere, and merchandise and communicate and create the demand for that product, then might the internet mean that markets that historically were concentrated in big cities spread a lot more and create a lot more customers - not just books, but things that really didn't sell outside Soho?

I don't know the answer, though I don't think anyone else does either. But I've taken to comparing the impact of the internet to the impact of cars - lots of things changed once everyone had a car, and there were plenty of problems as well, and not much of that was anything to do with the actual car industry. Mass car ownership created far more millionaires in retail and real estate that it did in the actual car industry. Now the internet is doing that again, changing now retail works, what it can be and what kinds of companies you can create. We're got the GM and Ford of the internet and Amazon is the new Walmart, but lots of other stuff happened in retail, and lots more is happening now.

NEWSLETTER

 

Welcome

Was this forwarded to you by a friend? Sign up, and get your own copy of the news that mattered sent to your inbox every week.

Sign up now

This was sent to Jean-Charles Samuelian at jcs@alan.com on Sunday 1 Aug, 2021 as part of a paid subscription. Itā€™s fine to forward things occasionally, but not to share accounts or send this to your whole company every week. For group plans or anything else, please get in touch.

Copyright Ā©2021 Benedict Evans. All rights reserved.

You subscribed to this at http://www.ben-evans.com/newsletter. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

To manage your paid subscription, go here. You can read the privacy policy

Our mailing address is: Benedict Evans, 2 Golden Square, London, W1, United Kingdom