Sunday, 2 May 2021

What can you attach Airtags to to track?

Apple finally launched the long-rumored AirTags at its Spring Loaded event on April 20 alongside the purple iPhone in the latest iPhone lineup.. It is essentially an extension of Apple’s Find My app. If you misplace your item and it is within Bluetooth range, you can use the Find My app to play a sound from the AirTag to help locate it. You can also put AirTag into Lost Mode and be notified when it is in range or has been located by the vast Find My network. However, there is still some confusion regarding what you can track with AirTags. Can you use it to track people or pets? Or is it limited to items?

Apple AirTags are designed to track items. You can attach the AirTags to keyrings, backpacks, purses, and more. However, they are not designed to track humans and pets. Kaiann Drance, Apple’s VP of Worldwide iPhone Product Marketing, and Ron Huang, Apple’s Senior Director of Sensing and Connectivity, have stressed in an interview with Fast Company that the tracker hasn’t been designed to track people or pets but instead focuses on items.

So, it seems like the answer to the question “Will I be able to track people using an AirTag?” is no.

You can track up to 16 items with AirTags on them using a single Apple ID

They said that if you need to track your child as a parent, it is better to use an Apple Watch with Family Setup. As for pets, if you want to attach AirTags to pet collars, you will have to make sure that the pet gets into range of a device in the Find My network to locate its precise location. However, Apple is not suggesting the use of AirTags in a pet collar. That said, it understands that people will eventually do it. So putting down some ground rules is a good move.

airtag in action

Apple says that the setup for AirTags is similar to that of AirPods. Here’s how you can set up your AirTag:

  1. Locate the Find My app on your compatible iPhone or iPad.
  2. Pair your AirTag with your iPhone by bringing it close to your iPhone, and it should connect.
  3. Follow the onscreen steps to name your new item.
  4. Register it to your Apple ID.
  5. You should now see the AirTag under Items in the app since it is now paired.
  6. Now, you can attach the AirTag with whatever item you want to track.

What if I lose my item with AirTag on it?

Once you set up an AirTag, it will appear in the new Items tab in the Find My app. Here, you can view the item’s current or last known location on a map. If you lose your item and it is within Bluetooth range, you can use the Find My app to play a sound from the AirTag to help locate it. Plus, you can also ask Siri to find your item. It will make the AirTag play a sound if it is nearby.

What if the AirTag isn’t in the Bluetooth range? Well, Apple has that figured out too. If you lose a device with AirTag on it, and it is out of Bluetooth range, the Find My network can help track it down. It can detect Bluetooth signals from a lost AirTag and relay the location back to its owner.

Furthermore, if a lost AirTag is found by someone, they can tap it using their iPhone or any NFC-capable device and be taken to a website that will display a contact phone number for the owner, if they have provided one.


Prakhar Khanna

I’ve been associated with the tech industry since 2014 when I built my first blog. I’ve worked with Digit, one of India’s largest tech publications. As of now, I’m working as a News Editor at Pocketnow, where I get paid to use and write about cutting-edge tech. You can reach out to me at [email protected]

Source

The post What can you attach Airtags to to track? appeared first on abangtech.



source https://abangtech.com/what-can-you-attach-airtags-to-to-track/

Apple's battle with Fortnite could change the iPhone as we know it – CNET

fortnite-decade-review-2997Angela Lang/CNET

Sherlock and Watson, peanut butter and jelly, Netflix and chill. Since 2008, Apple has created that sort of inextricable link between its iPhones and its App Store. The company’s “there’s an app for that” ad campaign drew millions of people, who over the years have bought more than a billion iPhones. And since the App Store was the only place to get programs for the iPhone, millions of developers flocked to Apple too. Now the tech giant is facing questions about whether it’s running a monopoly, forced into the topic by Fortnite maker Epic Games and Epic’s lawsuit alleging an abuse of power. 

On Monday, Apple will face off against Epic in a California court over a seemingly benign issue around payment processing and commissions. In short: Apple demands app developers use its payment processing whenever selling in-app digital items, like a new look for a Fortnite character or a celebratory dance move to perform after a win.

The iPhone maker says that using its payment processing setup guarantees security and fairness, and it takes up to a 30% commission on those sales in part to help run its App Store. Epic, however, says Apple’s policies are monopolistic and its commissions too high.

On its surface, the lawsuit reads like a corporate slap fight about who gets how much money when we all buy stuff in apps. But the outcome of this case could change everything we know not just about the App Store, but about how mobile transactions work on other platforms like the Google Play store. It could invite further scrutiny from lawmakers, who are already looking at whether companies like Apple and Google wield too much power.

“This is the frontier of antitrust law,” said David Olson, an associate professor who teaches about antitrust at the Boston College Law School.

Now playing: Watch this: Epic Games v. Apple: Trial preview

6:47

What makes this case unusual, Olson said, is that it attempts to challenge how modern tech companies work. Apple touts its “walled garden” approach — where it’s approved every app that’s offered for sale on its App Store since the beginning in 2008 — as a feature of its devices, promising that users can trust any app they download because it’s been vetted.

Aside from charging an up to 30% fee for in-app purchases, Apple requires app developers to follow policies against what it deems objectionable content, such as pornography, encouraging drug use, or realistic portrayals of death and violence. Apple also scans submitted apps for security issues and spam.

“Apple’s requirement that every iOS app undergo rigorous, human-assisted review — with reviewers representing 81 languages vetting on average 100,000 submissions per week — is critical to its ability to maintain the App Store as a secure and trusted platform for consumers to discover and download software,” the company said in one of its filings.

For its part, Epic has argued that Apple’s strict control of its App Store is anticompetitive and that the court should force the company to allow alternative app stores and payment processors on its phones. “Apple is bigger, more powerful, more entrenched and more pernicious than monopolies of yesteryear,” Epic said in an August legal filing. “Apple’s size and reach far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history.”

Epic isn’t the only company making this case. Music streaming service Spotify notably complained to European Union regulators, saying that Apple’s 30% commission and App Store rules breached EU competition laws. On Friday, the EU’s competition commissioner said that a preliminary investigation found “consumers losing out” as a result of Apple’s policies. Apple will have an opportunity to respond to the commission’s objections ahead of a final judgment on the matter. If it loses, Apple could be slapped with a fine of up to 10% of its annual revenue and be required to change how it applies fees to streaming services, at least within the EU.

Apple is also facing increasing scrutiny in the US, where lawmakers earlier in April held a hearing with representatives from the iPhone maker and Google, as well as from Spotify, dating app maker Match and tracking device maker Tile. During the hearing, both Spotify and Tile argued that Apple’s moves were monopolistic. (They made similar arguments about Google too.)

If Apple loses its lawsuit with Epic, it could be forced to change how apps are distributed and monetized across its iPhones and iPads.

“I’ll be really interested to see how much Apple argues, “This is our successful business model and this is what’s at stake,'” Olson said. Judges are typically wary of completely upending a successful business on a theory that it could promote more competition and lower prices. But not always. “If you’re a certain judge, you might say, ‘Great! Let’s do it,'” he added.

apple-store-iphone11-app-9820

apple-store-iphone11-app-9820

Apple’s App Store helped make the iPhone what it is today.

Angela Lang/CNET

Monopoly or not?

Legal experts and people behind the scenes of the trial say the hardest argument Epic will need to make is proving that iPhone users have been harmed by Apple’s policies.

Antitrust laws in the US outlaw “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” according to a summation of the rules written by the Federal Trade Commission, which oversees many of the antitrust issues for the US government. Antitrust laws also outlaw “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” The FTC notes that a key part of judging these issues is is whether a restraint of trade is “unreasonable.”

In the Apple case, that translates to its payment processing. Epic, and other critics, say Apple’s requirement that developers use its payment processing is in itself monopolistic. 

Apple argues that its commission is fair, and thus the payment processing structure isn’t unreasonable. Apple has kept its 30% commission consistent since the App Store’s launch in 2008, and the iPhone maker says industry practices before then charged app developers much more. Furthermore, it hired a team of economists to help prove its practices aren’t anticompetitive.

In their report, the economists Apple hired said commission rates lower “the barriers to entry for small sellers and developers by minimizing upfront payments, and reinforce the marketplace’s incentive to promote matches that generate high long-term value.” They didn’t look into whether the fees stifle innovation or are fair, concerns that Epic and other developers have raised. 

Agitating change

fortnite-decade-review-2867

fortnite-decade-review-2867

Fortnite is one of the most popular games ever made.

Angela Lang/CNET

Up until last year, Apple and Epic appeared to have a good relationship. Apple invited the software developer on stage at its events to show off games like Project Sword, a one-on-one fighting game later called Infinity Blade.

But Epic wasn’t just a popular developer. It also began pushing the industry for change. In 2017, Epic briefly allowed Fortnite players on Sony’s PlayStation and Microsoft’s Xbox to compete with one another. This was a feature Sony in particular had resisted with other popular games, like Rocket League and Minecraft. So when Epic removed the function, players blamed Sony and began a social media pressure campaign against the company. Sony relented a year later.

In 2018, Epic opened its Epic Games Store for PCs, a competitor to the industry-leading Valve Steam store. Its key feature was charging developers 12% commission on game sales, far below the industry standard of 30%. Epic also paid for exclusivity rights to highly anticipated games, forcing gamers to use its store to play highly anticipated titles like Gearbox Software’s sci-fi shooter Borderlands 3, Deep Silver’s postapocalyptic thriller Metro: Exodus and the epic story game Shenmu 3.

Gamers, though, bristled at the move. They didn’t like having to install another app store to get access to some of their games. They complained that Epic’s store didn’t have social networking, reviews and other features they preferred from Valve’s store. And now they’d have to go through all that if they wanted to buy these hot new titles.

“I wish there were a more popular way to do this,” Tim Sweeney, Epic’s CEO, said in a 2019 interview with CNET. But a survey by the Game Developers Conference, released just before our interview, underscored Sweeney’s point, finding among other things that a majority of game developers weren’t sure Valve’s Steam justified its 30% cut of revenue. “I feel like the ends are more than worth the means,” Sweeney said.

yt-vs-fortnite-banned-b

yt-vs-fortnite-banned-b

Apple iPhone and iPad owners haven’t been able to download the game since last August.

CNET

Project Liberty

Epic’s next target was big. In 2019, the company convened executives, lawyers and public relations experts to plan a public fight with Apple. Epic wanted to run its own app store and payment processing on the iPhone, according to documents filed with the courts. Epic even gave the initiative a name: Project Liberty.

To help make its case, Epic planned to lower the price for Fortnite’s “V-Bucks” in-game currency, which people used to buy new looks for their characters and weapons. It prepared a hashtag campaign, #FreeFortnite. And it helped form an advocacy group, the Coalition for App Fairness.

Epic also devised a marketing push, with a video reminiscent of Apple’s famous Super Bowl ad, which, in a tech-inspired spin on George Orwell’s novel 1984, had painted the original Macintosh as the savior. Now, though, Epic cast Apple as the evil Big Brother.

The project was organized in secret, according to depositions filed with the court. Epic “didn’t want anybody — Apple notwithstanding, anybody, users included, to — to understand that we were thinking about doing this until we decided to actually pull the trigger,” David Nikdel, lead of online gameplay systems for Epic, said in his testimony. Project Liberty was on a “need-to-know basis.”

Early on Aug. 13, Sweeney sent an email informing Apple it would no longer adhere to Apple’s payment processing restrictions, and turned on hidden code that allowed users to buy V-Bucks directly from Epic for a 20% discount. Epic made the same move with Google too, and both companies swiftly removed Fortnite from their respective app stores that day. Though Epic sued both companies in response, the Project Liberty marketing campaign was squarely aimed at Apple.

“Epic Games has defied the App Store Monopoly. In retaliation, Apple is blocking Fortnite from a billion devices,” Epic wrote in its ad, called Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite and posted to YouTube. “Join the fight to stop 2020 from becoming ‘1984.’”

Messy fight

gettyimages-1125995207

gettyimages-1125995207

Before the pandemic, people filled stadiums by the thousands to watch Fortnite competitions.

Getty Images

Apple’s and Epic’s case is being argued before a judge, in a “bench trial,” and not before a jury. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who’s overseeing the case, has indicated she’s closely read the filings and learned the technical sides of Apple’s and Epic’s arguments. As a result, both camps are likely to dive into the legal weeds much faster than they would with a jury, whose members would need to get up to speed on the law and the details behind the case. 

No matter the decision, it’s almost certainly going to be appealed. And in the meantime, regulators, lawmakers and competitors will be watching closely to see how much Apple’s and Epic’s arguments could shape new approaches to antitrust.

“Concerns regarding anticompetitive behavior among tech companies are being heard worldwide,” said Valarie Williams, a partner with law firm Alston & Bird’s antitrust team, in an analysis of the case. “While the outcome of Epic Games v. Apple is not expected to rewrite the nation’s antitrust laws, it could be the tip of the iceberg.”

With so much on the line, the companies could consider settling before a judgment is handed down. But people connected to the lawsuit don’t think that’ll happen, in part because there isn’t much middle ground between the two companies’ arguments.

Apple could lower its payment processing fees, which it’s already done for subscription services and developers who ring up less than $1 million in revenue each year

wwdc2010-preview-10.jpg

wwdc2010-preview-10.jpg

Apple frequently points to its App Store as a key selling point of the iPhone.

James Martin/CNET

But allowing another payment processing service onto the iPhone could be a first crack in Apple’s argument that its strict App Store rules are built for the protection and trust of its users. If app developers could use any payment processor they wished, why couldn’t they use different app Stores too?

Epic has also argued that price isn’t the only issue it’s focused on. The company wants to choose technologies it uses in its Fortnite game as well.

That’s all why industry watchers say they expect the case to continue. Both Apple and Epic are large, well funded and notoriously obstinate.

“It’s easy to say it’s David vs. Goliath, but this is like Goliath vs. Godzilla,” said Michael Pachter, a longtime video game industry analyst at Wedbush Securities. “Tim Sweeney is a moral, ethical and quite opinionated person who genuinely believes he’s right, and will tilt at windmills because he’s convinced he’s right and it’s the right thing to do.”

Pachter predicts Apple’s argument around security of payment processes won’t hold up, considering Epic already successfully takes payment for V-Bucks on its own website and platforms. And when it broke Apple’s rules, Epic didn’t try to become a payment processor for games from other companies. Epic only tried to sell the same V-Bucks it offers for Fortnite on PCs and game consoles. 

“Tim did not say you can come into the Epic store and buy Clash of Clans currency or Candy Crush currency or whatever else,” Pachter added. “He was offering Epic currency.”

Epic’s lawsuit against Apple is set to begin Monday, May 3, at 8:30 a.m. PT/11:30 a.m. ET. The audio of the in-person courtroom proceedings will be carried live over a teleconference, and chosen pool reporters will be in the room. 

CNET will be covering the proceedings live, just as we always do — by providing real-time updates, commentary and analysis you can get only here.

Source

The post Apple's battle with Fortnite could change the iPhone as we know it – CNET appeared first on abangtech.



source https://abangtech.com/apples-battle-with-fortnite-could-change-the-iphone-as-we-know-it-cnet/

The most disastrous sales cycle in the world

Startups constantly talk about being mission-oriented, but it’s hard to take most of those messages seriously when the mission is optimizing cash flow for tax efficiency. However, a new generation of startups is emerging that are taking on some of the largest global challenges and bringing the same entrepreneurial grit, operational excellence, and technical brilliance to bear on actual missions — ones that may well save thousands of lives.

ClimateTech has been a huge beneficiary of this trend in general, but one small specialty has caught my eye: disaster response. It’s a category for software services that’s percolated for years with startups here and there, but now a new crop of founders is taking on the challenges of this space with renewed urgency and vigor.

As the elevator pitch would have it, disaster response is hitting hockey stick growth. 2020 was a brutal year, and in more ways than just the global COVID-19 pandemic. The year also experienced a record number of hurricanes, among the worst wildfire seasons in the Western United States, and several megastorms all across the world. Climate change, urbanization, population growth, and poor response practices have combined to create some of the most dangerous conditions humanity has ever collectively faced.

I wanted to get a sense of what the disaster response market has in store this decade, so over the past few weeks, I have interviewed more than 30 startup founders, investors, government officials, utility execs and more to understand this new landscape and what’s changed. In this four-part series on the future of technology and disaster response, to be published this weekend and next, we’ll look at the sales cycle in this market, how data is finally starting to flow into disaster response, how utilities and particularly telcos are dealing with internet access issues, and how communities are redefining disaster management going forward.

Before we get into all the tech developments in disaster response and resilience though, it’s important to ask a basic question: if you build it, will they come? The resounding answer from founders, investors, and government procurement officials was simple: no.

In fact, in all my conversations for this series, the hell of the emergency management sales cycle came up repeatedly, with more than one individual describing it as possibly the toughest sale that any company could make in the entire world. That view might be surprising in a market that easily runs into the tens of billions of dollars if the budgets for procurement are aggregated across local, state, federal, and international governments. Yet, as we will see, the unique dynamics of this market make almost any traditional sales approach useless.

Despite that pessimism though, that doesn’t mean sales are impossible, and a new crop of startups are piercing the barriers of entry in this market. We’ll look at the sales and product strategies that startups are increasingly relying on today to break through.

The sale from hell

Few will be surprised that government sales are hard. Generations of govtech startup founders have learned that slow sales cycles, byzantine procurement processes, cumbersome verification and security requirements, and a general lassitude among contract officers makes for a tough battlefield to close on revenue. Many government agencies now have programs to specifically onboard startups, having discovered just how hard it is for new innovations to run through their gauntlet.

Emergency management sales share all the same problems as other govtech startups, but then they deal with about a half dozen more problems that make the sales cycle go from exhausting to infernal hell.

The first and most painful is the dramatic seasonality of the sales in the emergency space. Many agencies that operate on seasonal disasters — think hurricanes, wildfires, winter storms, and more — often go through an “action” period where they respond to these disasters, and then transition into a “planning” period where they assess their performance, determine what changes are needed for next season, and consider what tools might be added or removed to increase the effectiveness of their responders.

Take Cornea and Perimeter, two startups in the wildfire response space that I profiled recently. Both of the teams described how they needed to think in terms of fire seasons when it came to product iteration and sales. “We took two fire seasons to beta test our technology … to solve the right problem the right way,” Bailey Farren, CEO and co-founder of Perimeter, said. “We actually changed our focus on beta testing during the [2019 California] Kincaid fire.”

In this way, disaster tech could be compared to edtech, where school technology purchases are often synchronized with the academic calendar. Miss the June through August window in the U.S. education system, and a startup is looking at another year before it will get another chance at the classroom.

Edtech might once have been a tougher sale to make in order to thread that three-month needle, but disaster response is getting more difficult every year. Climate change is exacerbating the length, severity, and damage caused by all types of disasters, which means that responding agencies that might have had six months or more out-of-season to plan in the past are sometimes working all year long just to respond to emergencies. That gives little time to think about what new solutions an agency needs to purchase.

Worse, unlike the standardized academic calendar, disasters are much less predictable these days as well. Flood and wildfire seasons, for instance, used to be relatively concentrated in certain periods of the year. Now, such emergencies can emerge practically year-round. That means that procurement processes can both start and freeze on a moment’s notice as an agency has to respond to its mission.

Seasonality doesn’t just apply to the sales cycle though — it also applies to the budgets of these agencies. While they are transpiring, disasters dominate the eye of the minds for citizens and politicians, but then we forget all about them until the next catastrophe. Unlike the annual consistency of other government tech spending, disaster tech funding often comes in waves.

One senior federal emergency management official, who asked not to be named since he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly, explained that consistent budgets and the ability to spend them quickly is quite limited during “blue sky days” (i.e. periods without a disaster), and agencies like his have to rely on piecing together supplementary disaster funds when Congress or state legislatures authorize additional financing. The best agencies have technological roadmaps on hand so that when extra funding comes in, they can use it immediately to realize their plans, but not all agencies have the technical planning resources to be that prepared.

Amir Elichai, the CEO and co-founder of Carbyne, a cloud-native platform for call handling in 911 centers, said that this wave of interest crested yet again with the COVID-19 pandemic last year, triggering huge increases in attention and funding around emergency response capabilities. “COVID put a mirror in front of government faces and showed them that ‘we’re not ready’,” he said.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, next-generation 911 services (typically dubbed NG911), which have been advocated for years by the industry and first responders, is looking at a major financing boost. President Biden’s proposed infrastructure bill would add $15 billion to upgrade 911 capabilities in the United States — funding that has been requested for much of the last decade. Just last year, a $12 billion variant of that bill failed in the Senate after passing the U.S. House of Representatives.

Sales are all about providing proverbial painkillers versus vitamins to customers, and one would expect that disaster response agencies looking to upgrade their systems would be very much on the painkiller side. After all, the fear and crisis surrounding these agencies and their work would seem to bring visceral attention to their needs.

Yet, that fear actually has the opposite effect in many cases, driving attention away from systematic technology upgrades in favor of immediate acute solutions. One govtech VC, who asked not to be named to speak candidly about the procurement process his companies go through, said that “we don’t want to paint the picture that the world is a scary and dangerous place.” Instead, “the trick is to be … focused on the safety side rather than the danger.” Safety is a much more prevalent and consistent need than sporadically responding to emergencies.

When a wave of funding finally gets approved though, agencies often have to scramble to figure out what to prioritize now that the appropriated manna has finally dropped from the legislative heaven. Even when startups provide the right solutions, scrying which problems are going to get funded in a particular cycle requires acute attention to every customer.

Josh Mendelsohn, the managing partner at startup studio and venture fund Hangar, said that “the customers have no shortage of needs that they are happy to talk about … the hardest part is how you narrow the funnel — what are the problems that are most meritorious?” That merit can, unfortunately, evolve very rapidly as mission requirements change.

Let’s say all the stars line up though — the agencies have time to buy, they have a need, and a startup has the solution that they want. The final challenge that’s probably the toughest to overcome is simply the lack of trust that new startups have with agencies.

In talking to emergency response officials the past few weeks, reliability unsurprisingly came up again and again. Responding to disasters is mission-critical work, and nothing can break in the field or in the operations center. Frontline responders still use paper and pens in lieu of tablets or mobile phones since they know that paper is going to work every single time and not run out of battery juice. The move fast and break things ethos of Silicon Valley is fundamentally incompatible with this market.

Seasonality, on-and-off funding, lack of attention, procurement scrambling, and acute reliability requirements combine to make emergency management sales among the hardest possible for a startup. That doesn’t even get into all the typical govtech challenges like integrating with legacy systems, the massive fragmentation of thousands of emergency response agencies littered across the United States and globally, and the fact that in many agencies, people aren’t that interested in change in the first place. As one individual in the space described how governments approach emergency technology, “a lot of departments are looking at it as maybe I can hit retirement before I have to deal with it.”

The strategies for breaking out of limbo

So the sales cycle is hell. Why, then, are VCs dropping money in the sector? After all, we’ve seen emergency response data platform RapidSOS raise $85 million just a few months ago, about the same time Carbyne raised $25 million. There are quite a few more startups at the earliest phases that have raised pre-seed and seed investment as well.

The key argument that nearly everyone in this sector agreed on is that founders (and their investors) have to throw away their private-sector sales playbooks and rebuild their approach from the bottom up to sell specifically to these agencies. That means devising entirely different strategies and tactics to secure revenue performance.

The first and most important approach is, in some respects, to not even start with a company at all, but rather to start learning what people in this field actually do. As the sales cycle perhaps indicates, disaster response is unlike any other work. The chaos, the rapidly changing environment, the multi-disciplinary teams and cross-agency work that has to take place for a response to be effective have few parallels to professional office work. Empathy is key here: the responder that uses paper might have nearly lost their life in the field when their device failed. A 911 center operator may have listened to someone perish in real-time as they scrambled to find the right information from a software database.

In short, it’s all about customer discovery and development. That’s not so different from the enterprise world, but patience radiated out of many of my conversations with industry participants. It just takes more time — sometimes multiple seasons — to figure out precisely what to build and how to sell it effectively. If an enterprise SaaS product can iterate to market-fit in six months, it might take two to three years in the government sector to reach an equivalent point.

Michael Martin of RapidSOS said “There is no shortcut to doing customer discovery work in public service.” He noted that “I do think there is a real challenge between the arrogance of the Silicon Valley tech community and the reality of these challenges“ in public safety, a gap that has to be closed if a startup wants to find success. Meanwhile, Bryce Stirton, president and co-founder of public-safety company Responder Corp, said that “The end user is the best way to look at all the challenges … what are all the boxes the end user has to check to use a new technology?”

Mendelsohn of Hangar said that founders need to answer some tough questions in that process. “Ultimately, what are your entry points,” he asked. “Cornea has had to go through that customer discovery process … it all feels necessary, but what are the right things that require the least amount of behavior change to have impact immediately?”

Indeed, that process is appreciated on the other side as well. The federal emergency management official said, “everyone has a solution, but no one asked me about my problem.” Getting the product right and having it match the unique work that takes place in this market is key.

Let’s say you have a great product though — how do you get it through the perilous challenges of the procurement process? Here, answers differed widely, and they offer multiple strategies on how to approach the problem.

Martin of RapidSOS said that “government does not have a good model for procuring new services to solve problems.” So, the company chose to make its services free for government. “In three years, we went from no agencies using our stuff to all agencies using our stuff, and that was based on not making it a procurement problem,” he said. The company’s business model is based on having paid corporate partners who want to integrate their data into 911 centers for safety purposes.

That’s a similar model used by MD Ally, which received a $3.5 million seed check from General Catalyst this past week. The company adds telehealth referral services into 911 dispatch systems, and CEO and founder Shanel Fields emphasized that she saw an opportunity to create a revenue engine from the physician and mental health provider side of her market while avoiding government procurement.

Outside of what might be dubbed “Robinhood for government” (aka, just offering a service for free), another approach is to link up with more well-known and trusted brand names to offer a product that has the innovation of a startup but the reliability of an established player. Stirton of Responder said “we learned in [this market] that it takes more than just capital to get companies started in this space.” What he found worked was building private-sector partnerships to bring a joint offering to governments. For instance, he noted cloud providers Amazon Web Services and Verizon have good reputations with governments and can get startups over procurement hurdles (TechCrunch is owned by Verizon Media, which is owned by Verizon).

Elichai of Carbyne notes that much of his sales is done through integration partners, referencing CenterSquare as one example. For 911 services, “The U.S. market is obviously the most fragmented” and so partners allow the company to avoid selling to thousands of different agencies. “We are usually not selling direct to governments,” he said.

Partners can also help deal with the problem of localism in emergency procurement: many government agencies don’t know precisely what to buy, so they simply buy software that is offered by companies in their own backyard. Partners can offer a local presence while also allowing a startup to have a nimble national footprint.

Another angle on partners is building out a roster of experienced but retired government executives who can give credibility to a startup through their presence and networks. Even more than in enterprise, government officials, particularly in emergency management, have to work and trust one another given the closely-coupled work that they perform. Hearing a positive recommendation from a close contact down the street can readily change the tenor of a sales conversation.

Finally, as much as emergency management software is geared for governments, private sector companies increasingly have to consider much of the same tooling to protect their operations. Many companies have distributed workforces, field teams, and physical assets they need to protect, and often have to respond to disasters in much the same way that governments do. For some startups, it’s possible to bootstrap in the private sector early on while continuing to assiduously develop public sector relationships.

In short, a long-term customer development program coupled with quality partnerships and joint offerings while not forgetting the private sector offers the best path for startups to break through into these agencies.

The good news is that the hard work can be rewarded. Not only are there serious dollars that flow through these agencies, but the agencies themselves know that they need better technology. Tom Harbour, who is chief fire officer at Cornea and formerly national director of fire management at the U.S. Forest Service, notes that “These are billions of dollars we spend … and we know we can be more efficient.” Government doesn’t always make it easy to create efficiency, but for the founders willing to go the distance, they can build impactful, profitable, and mission-driven companies.

Source

The post The most disastrous sales cycle in the world appeared first on abangtech.



source https://abangtech.com/the-most-disastrous-sales-cycle-in-the-world/

Did you know: The first smartphone to drop the headphone jack wasn’t an iPhone – Android Authority

Ask many people when the headphone jack started disappearing from smartphones and they’ll likely point to the iPhone 7 from 2016. It’s certainly the best-known example, the one that prompted many Android phone makers to follow suit.

However, Apple wasn’t the first. As it turns out, Oppo was the first major brand to ditch the headphone jack with the Oppo Finder a full four years before the iPhone, and again with its mid-tier Oppo R5 in fall 2014. Here’s why Oppo pulled the 3.5mm port first, and why Apple’s move ultimately resonated more with the public.

Read more: The best phones with a headphone jack

Why Oppo removed the headphone jack

Simply put, Oppo removed the headphone jack for the sake of bragging rights. At 6.65mm thick, the Finder was dubbed the thinnest smartphone in the world when it was announced, and Oppo ditched the headphone jack to attain that slender build. History repeated itself two years later with the even thinner R5, which — at 4.85mm (0.19in) thick — was barely thicker than the micro-USB port you used to charge it, and a 3.5mm port would have been a difficult fit. The R5 lost the slimmest smartphone crown to the 4.75mm Vivo X5 Max (which included a jack, we’d add), but it was clearly an attention-grabbing device at a time when flagships like the Galaxy S5 and iPhone 6 were comparatively chunkier.

To its credit, Oppo did include an adapter with the R5 so users could use existing headphones with a 3.5mm jack. Sadly for those that couldn’t stomach dongles and tangled wires, the R5 arrived well before Bluetooth earbuds were truly ready for the mainstream. You were making a conscious sacrifice in the name of aesthetics.

Apple’s reasons for pulling the headphone jack were more practical. While you likely remember the company justifying the removal as a matter of “courage,” the tech giant also noted that dropping the legacy port freed up valuable internal space. Apple could fit a stronger Taptic Engine (haptic feedback) or a larger battery, for example. Whether or not you bought that argument at the time, the iPhone X and future Android phones made a better case by cramming loads of features into designs that remained relatively thin.

Why Apple made the concept “popular”

Lightning cable connected to an iPhone 7

Lightning cable connected to an iPhone 7

But why did Apple spur the phone industry to drop the headphone jack when Oppo’s effort gained little ground? Apple’s clout certainly helped, for a start. As a massive phone brand with a long history of trendsetting, it could make the concept palatable to rivals that were reluctant to take the lead. Even Samsung, which blasted Apple for abandoning the 3.5mm port, quietly pulled its criticism after releasing the Galaxy Note 10 series.

That wasn’t the only explanation, mind you. Apple paired the iPhone 7 launch with the debut of the original AirPods, giving buyers a set of wireless earbuds that were easy to set up and convenient to use. Whether or not you saw this move as a cynical ploy to drive accessory sales, it made the removal of the headphone jack easier to swallow by making wireless audio nearly pain-free. AirPods certainly resonated with the public, becoming wildly successful and inspiring a wave of copycats.

In that light, Oppo’s move was too little, too soon. The company didn’t have enough influence in 2012 or 2014 to shake up the industry by removing the headphone jack, and the Finder and R5 neither gained much from the choice. Apple succeeded by making a stronger argument and having all the pieces in place at the right time.


This is the thirteenth post in our “Did you know” series. In it, we dive into the history books of Android and consumer technology to uncover important and interesting facts or events that have been forgotten over time. What do you want to see us cover next? Let us know in the comments and check out our previous entries in the series below.


Correction, May 2, 2021: This article originally stated that the Oppo R5 was the first smartphone from a major brand without a headphone jack. However, while Oppo was the first big name to pull the jack, it actually did so two years prior to the R5’s launch with the Oppo Finder. The text has been amended to note this.

Source

The post Did you know: The first smartphone to drop the headphone jack wasn’t an iPhone – Android Authority appeared first on abangtech.



source https://abangtech.com/did-you-know-the-first-smartphone-to-drop-the-headphone-jack-wasnt-an-iphone-android-authority/

What is robotic process automation?

Join Transform 2021 this July 12-16. Register for the AI event of the year.


Robotic process automation (RPA) — technology that automates monotonous, repetitive chores traditionally performed by human workers — is big business. Forrester estimates that RPA and other AI subfields created jobs for 40% of companies in 2019 and that a tenth of startups now employ more digital workers than human ones. According to a McKinsey survey, at least a third of activities could be automated in about 60% of occupations. And in its recent Trends in Workflow Automation report, Salesforce found that 95% of IT leaders are prioritizing workflow automation, with 70% seeing the equivalent of more than four hours of savings per employee each week.

Switching repetitive tasks to RPA functions not only eliminates errors, it also garners significant cost savings. That’s because RPA addresses bottlenecks with workflows, data, and documentation while providing audit trails and reducing compliance expenses and risks. RPA can also boost legacy integration and record digitization and enable data-driven decisions and “path-to-cognitive” technologies, according to Technologent’s Kevin Buckley.

But as RPA expands to increasingly complex domains, the technology itself grows more complicated. This makes it harder for business decision-makers to understand where and when RPA might be appropriate, factoring in their industry and particular challenges.

RPA: What is it?

RPA is the category of software that automates tasks traditionally done by a human, using software robots that follow a set of rules and interact with enterprise systems via user interfaces. These robots can complete repeatable tasks, perform system integrations, and automate transactions from task-level to enterprise-level via scheduled orchestration.

There’s nuance within this definition, however. RPA often begins with what’s called backend task discovery, or process mining. An RPA client pulls log data from existing systems — including desktop, IT, and email apps and workflows — to identify root cause issues through recommendations, KPIs, and more. Task capture is the next step in the onboarding chain. It comes as employees move through a work process they’d like to automate by taking screenshots, using drag-and-drop designers, and pulling data like window names and descriptions together into a process definition document.

Most RPA platforms leverage AI to map tasks to automation opportunities and identify the most frequent patterns from the data, recording metrics from apps, including steps and execution time. Document understanding capabilities allow these platforms to ingest, analyze, and edit PDFs and images, even those with handwriting, checkboxes, signatures, rotated or skewed elements, and low resolutions.

Computer vision algorithms enable RPA software to recognize and interact with on-screen fields and components like Flash and Silverlight. Drawing on AI, optical character recognition, and approximate string matching, RPA robots can “see” virtual desktop interfaces via clients like Citrix, VMWare, Microsoft RDP, and VNC.

Types of robots

Not every RPA robot is created equal. Platforms such as UiPath offer three types: attended, unattended, and hybrid robots.

Attended robots act like a personal assistant that resides on a user’s computer to take a series of user-triggered actions and complete simple, repetitive tasks. By contrast, unattended robots require very little intervention to perform intensive data processing and data management workloads. Hybrid robots, as their name implies, are a combination of attended and unattended robots and deliver user support and backend processing in a single solution.

Choosing which type of RPA robot to deploy depends on the application. Because attended robots are tailored to the requirements of the user, they are a shoo-in for contact centers, field sales, retail, service engineers, and insurance agents. The scalable nature of unattended robots makes them a fit for application, claims, and invoice processing, as well as data and documentation search and retrieval. As for hybrid robots, they tend to work best in end-to-end scenarios like HR management, application processing, service delivery, and customer support and engagement.

Regardless of the bot type, RPA platforms typically leverage scalability to their technological advantage. For instance, startup WorkFusion claims its bots aggregate and share learnings across the bot ecosystem to create network effects from which all of its customers benefit.

Orchestration

RPA software lets customers manage up to thousands — or tens of thousands — of robots from a single dashboard. Customers can view the robots’ tasks and supporting documents, take remedial actions in the event of a bottleneck, and visualize automation complexity and payback costs. Some software offers toolsets developers can use to borrow prebuilt automation activities, integrate third-party components, and share and reuse components. RPA software also typically lets customers import their own machine learning models or choose from a marketplace of prebuilt options and keep tabs on versioning.

In the areas of AI and machine learning, Indico and other RPA providers apply techniques like transfer learning — where a model tailored to one task is used for another, related task — to deploy to unstructured content more effectively. The company’s out-of-the-box models, which were trained on large datasets of documents, ostensibly learn to analyze industry-specific data from just a few hundred training examples.

Connectors also add enormous value in the world of RPA. For example, RPA startup Bizagi integrates with Azure Cognitive Services to automatically recognize new kinds of paper forms and extract data from them. Sources include contracts, claims forms, emails, spreadsheets, purchase orders, and field reports. And Blue Prism offers a library that gives partners and customers the ability to create, share, and deploy plugins for the company’s RPA solutions.

Benefits

RPA can handle a vast number of different tasks, from contract audits and customer onboarding to commercial underwriting, financial document analysis, mortgage processing, billing form reviews, and insurance claims analysis. That is one reason the overall RPA market is expected to grow by more than 7% annually over the next few years to reach $379.87 million by 2027, up from $182.8 million in 2019.

Early in the pandemic, RPA companies like Automation Anywhere worked with health care centers to implement bots and automate laborious processes. For example, Olive, a Columbus-based health care automation startup, used a combination of computer vision and RPA to support COVID-19 testing operations by simplifying manual data entry. UiPath partnered with a Dublin-based hospital to process COVID-19 testing kits, enabling the hospital’s on-site lab to receive results in minutes and saving the nursing department three hours per day, on average.

Beyond health care, Gryps, an RPA startup focused on the construction industry, is applying machine learning to organize construction project files and documents. For the Javits Convention Center in New York, Gryps’ software automatically ingested over 20,000 documents and 100,000 data points, collated them, and handed them over to the Javits team, with estimates putting the savings at hundreds of hours of staff time.

The number of industries RPA touches continues to grow, with a Deloitte report predicting the technology will achieve “near universal adoption” within the next five years. According to the same report, 78% of organizations that have already implemented RPA — which see an average payback period of around 9 to 12 months — expect to “significantly” increase their investment in the technology over the next three years.

Security challenges

This isn’t to suggest that RPA is without challenges. The credentials enterprises grant to RPA technology are a potential access point for hackers. When dealing with hundreds to thousands of RPA robots with IDs connected to a network, each could become an attack vessel if companies fail to apply identity-centric security practices.

Part of the problem is that many RPA platforms don’t focus on solving security flaws. That’s because they’re optimized to increase productivity and because some security solutions are too costly to deploy and integrate with RPA.

Of course, the first step to solving the RPA security dilemma is recognizing that there is one. Realizing RPA workers have identities gives IT and security teams a head start when it comes to securing RPA technology prior to its implementation. Organizations can extend their identity and governance administration (IGA) to focus on the “why” behind a task, rather than the “how.” Through a strong IGA process, companies adopting RPA can implement a zero trust model to manage all identities — from human to machine and application.

A privileged access management (PAM) setup that can secure and govern RPA systems can also help. PAM systems allow enterprises to secure, control, and audit the credentials and privileges RPA technology uses without compromising the return on investment (ROI).

ROI

RPA challenges don’t stop at security. Deloitte reports that 17% of organizations face employee resistance when piloting RPA and that 63% of those organizations struggle to meet time-to-implement expectations. But the RPA’s return on investment often outweighs difficulties in deployment. According to the Everest Group, top performers earn nearly 4 times on their RPA investments, while other enterprises earn nearly double. And Gartner estimates that by 2024, organizations can lower operational costs 30% by combining automation technologies like RPA with redesigned operational processes.

“The first wave of robotic process automation brought the power of technology to users’ desktops in all industries and companies of all sizes. Today, we see a second wave emerging,” WorkFusion CEO Alex Lyashok recently told VentureBeat via email. “Cloud-based, AI-enabled robots [are] bringing intelligent automation to all enterprises.”

VentureBeat

VentureBeat’s mission is to be a digital town square for technical decision-makers to gain knowledge about transformative technology and transact. Our site delivers essential information on data technologies and strategies to guide you as you lead your organizations. We invite you to become a member of our community, to access:

  • up-to-date information on the subjects of interest to you
  • our newsletters
  • gated thought-leader content and discounted access to our prized events, such as Transform 2021: Learn More
  • networking features, and more

Become a member

Source

The post What is robotic process automation? appeared first on abangtech.



source https://abangtech.com/what-is-robotic-process-automation/

Flashback: Samsung's long history of fashion phones includes Giorgio Armani and Hugo Boss

The LG KE850 Prada was the first phone with a capacitive touchscreen, beating Apple’s iPhone to the punch by a couple of months. But it’s not the only touch phone to partner up with a fashion brand – while LG was in cahoots with Prada, Samsung approached Giorgio Armani and Hugo Boss.

The Samsung P520 Armani was launched at Giorgio Armani’s show at Milan Fashion Week in 2007. It had a small 2.6” display (240x320px, 4:3). Well, it was fairly large for a featurephone back then, but it was small for an all-touch phone. And it was a resistive touchscreen too, a far cry from the 3.0” capacitive touchscreen (240x400px) of the LG KE850 Prada.

Flashback: Samsung's long history of fashion phones includes Giorgio Armani and Hugo Boss

Anyway, the Armani was a featurephone with the Croix user interface (French for “cross”), a predecessor to TouchWiz. Not quite Sony’s XrossMediaBar, but you can see where the inspiration comes from. This phone would influence the next model, but very few people had one – it sold at a whopping €750 (this was in 2007, mind you).

Samsung's P520 Armani phone Samsung's P520 Armani phone Samsung's P520 Armani phone Samsung's P520 Armani phone Samsung's P520 Armani phone Samsung's P520 Armani phone
Samsung’s P520 Armani phone • Compared to the iPhone • The Croix (“cross”) interface

The Samsung F480 Toco from 2008 upgraded to a capacitive touchscreen, a 2.8” LCD with 240x320px resolution (with 4:3 aspect ratio). Leaving Croix behind, it ran TouchWiz and (like the Prada) wasn’t a true smartphone, though it could multitask J2ME apps.

But we wanted to focus on the fashion aspect today, so it’s really the Hugo Boss edition of the phone that interests us.

Flashback: Samsung's long history of fashion phones includes Giorgio Armani and Hugo Boss

It had the Hugo Boss logo on the front, special ringtones and came with a specially-designed Bluetooth headset (just the one, this was well before the era of TWS). There was a fancy leather flip case too. The special edition phone was sold in Hugo Boss retail outlets in Europe at a more reasonable €480.

Samsung partnered with Hugo Boss for a special edition of the F480 Toco Samsung partnered with Hugo Boss for a special edition of the F480 Toco Samsung partnered with Hugo Boss for a special edition of the F480 Toco
Samsung partnered with Hugo Boss for a special edition of the F480 Toco

2008 saw Samsung returning to Armani to make the the Samsung M7500 Emporio Armani (aka “Night Effect”). A fairly standard featurephone on the surface, it had a 2.2” AMOLED display (240x320px) and it brought the party with it.

The Samsung M7500 Emporio Armani was also known as the \ The Samsung M7500 Emporio Armani was also known as the \ The Samsung M7500 Emporio Armani was also known as the \
The Samsung M7500 Emporio Armani was also known as the “Night Effect” phone

The phone had RGB lighting and dedicated music keys on the side, plus a (not that loud) speaker embedded into the Emporio Armani logo on the back.

The RGB LED lighting on the side was always ready to light up the night The RGB LED lighting on the side was always ready to light up the night The RGB LED lighting on the side was always ready to light up the night The RGB LED lighting on the side was always ready to light up the night
The RGB LED lighting on the side was always ready to light up the night

Then in 2009 came the Samsung B7620 Giorgio Armani, a Windows Mobile 6.1 Professional phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard. Its 3.5” AMOLED display had fairly high resolution (480x800px), but still used capacitive touch. Good thing that Samsung painted over the Windows interface, which at this point was still painfully utalitarian.

Samsung B7620 Giorgio Armani asked ''Can Windows Mobile be fashionable''? Samsung B7620 Giorgio Armani asked ''Can Windows Mobile be fashionable''? Samsung B7620 Giorgio Armani asked ''Can Windows Mobile be fashionable''?
Samsung B7620 Giorgio Armani asked ”Can Windows Mobile be fashionable”?

A year later the keyboard was dropped for the Samsung I9010 Galaxy S Giorgio Armani. As you can tell, this was a fashionable version of the Galaxy S and it ran Android (2.2 Froyo). The screen was much better too, 4.0” Super AMOLED (same 480x800px resolution) with capacitive touch. It launched Europe, Russia, Dubai, China and Hong Kong with a hefty €700 price tag. By the way, we made a hands-on video with that phone a long time ago.

A Giorgio Armani edition Galaxy S Samsung I9010 Galaxy S Giorgio Armani Compared to an iPhone (left) and the original Galaxy S (right)
A Giorgio Armani edition Galaxy S • Compared to an iPhone (left) and the original Galaxy S (right)

A few years later things became a whole lot less fancy with the Samsung Galaxy Ace, a pretty basic Android phone from 2011. It too got a Hugo Boss edition with a logo on the front and a custom back cover with a matte finish (thought up by Hugo Boss designers, allegedly). This model was sold at the fashion brand’s stores at €280 a piece, just €20 the retail price of the unstylish, regular Ace.

Samsung Galaxy Ace Hugo Boss edition wanted to show that there is style in simplicity Samsung Galaxy Ace Hugo Boss edition wanted to show that there is style in simplicity Samsung Galaxy Ace Hugo Boss edition wanted to show that there is style in simplicity
Samsung Galaxy Ace Hugo Boss edition wanted to show that there is style in simplicity

We’ve barely scratched the surface of fashion-influenced phones – we haven’t even covered all of Samsung’s attempts at digital couture. If you want to see more, we’ll do a followup article.

Source

The post Flashback: Samsung's long history of fashion phones includes Giorgio Armani and Hugo Boss appeared first on abangtech.



source https://abangtech.com/flashback-samsungs-long-history-of-fashion-phones-includes-giorgio-armani-and-hugo-boss/