Connect with us

Tech & AI

Apple Store co-creator Ron Johnson talks about Apple’s huge retail gamble

Published

on

Steve Jobs and Ron Johnson were mocked by business and finance press over the Apple Store, and in an interview with AppleInsider, Johnson reveals that if they hadn’t opened them, Apple itself would not have survived.

You’ve been in an Apple Store, or at least if you haven’t, the odds are that there is one near you. These stores are everywhere, they are an unquestioned and unparalleled success, plus Apple has enough money that if a store fails, it isn’t the end of the world.

Back in the late 1990s, though, Apple was only slowly climbing back away from what had seemed like a death spiral. It was close to bankruptcy when Steve Jobs returned to the company, and the stories that the iMac and the iPod saved Apple are true.

Yet as great as those devices were, Apple could not get customers to buy them. At that point, they were only really sold in big box retailers alongside PCs that couldn’t match what the Mac could do, but invariably beat it on price.

Advertisement

What Jobs saw then was that Apple Stores could be the answer. It was a gamble costing many millions of dollars at a time when Apple couldn’t really afford to lose that much.

So the story of the Apple Store is fantastic. It’s a slice of Apple history, it’s an example of invention and risk taking saving the day. And it’s as much the story of how Apple makes products as any account of the iPhone or Mac is.

This is why Ron Johnson’s new book, “Shop Different,” is significant. There’s so much to this story that you will be left wanting more, but the book is the inside man’s account of what went right, and what went wrong.

Johnson spoke with William Gallagher for the AppleInsider podcast. Here’s A lightly edited and condensed transcript of their conversation.

Advertisement

Speaking with Ron Johnson

WILLIAM GALLAGHER: Actually, I would like, if you don’t mind, to just forget everything you’ve done and leap forward to write now because just as your book is coming out, Apple has had this massive launch, yet we’re not going to have queues outside Apple stores anymore. Do you think we’re missing out on something now? Have we lost something?

RON JOHNSON: Well, I do. [But] I do think when the iPhone Duo comes out, the stores will be as busy as they’ve been in years. Because it’s been since 2015, really when Apple Watch was announced, that you had a dramatically different form factor for people to check out.

But everyone uses an iPhone. And whether you’re gonna buy this new duo or not, you’re gonna want to check it out. And the stores will be packed.

Apple’s done such a fabulous job since I left. But I loved lines, you know, and Apple got to a point where they just didn’t like the idea of having lines outside, but, you know, customers chose to line up. They didn’t have to. [It] was an event for them.

Advertisement

We used to see families gather outside and fathers and sons and grandparents and grandsons, and they would stay overnight and we’d bring them water and it was a beautiful thing. It was a beautiful thing, I thought, and the employees loved it. It got energy.

I remember line at our Ginza store in Tokyo went 10 subway stations long – in a typhoon warning. You know, those were the days. Those were the days.

WG: I know from your book that you saw queues, but did you ever actually join the line to see what it was like?

RJ: Oh, I would walk. I love to go out in the lines. Every day when I was at an opening, I would go out and talk to people in the line, just to get to know them, to understand why they came. Right before the launch, I just walked the line with a couple of other employees to see how long it was and to thank people for coming.

Advertisement

I’ll never forget, we opened a store at Shibuya-ku in Tokyo, and we went out. It was a super hot summer day. We walked the line, and then we realised we couldn’t get back in time for the opening. So we had to run back by the time I got there, I was sweating from just being outside in the warm heat. But those were moments that you never forget.

WG: You say in your book that Apple reached out to you, that Steve Jobs’s recruiter was the first one to contact you. But as a retail man at that moment, did it seem sensible to you that Apple would want stores?

RJ: Well, I understood why Apple would want stores. In 2000 when I joined Apple, Apple had been a company for 25 years, and the perspective was that Microsoft had won. Microsoft had 95% market share.

And arguably, Apple had beautiful products and great software and they were a little overpriced or higher price than the PCs, but the market here was way too [small]. And so if you looked at the go to market strategy where you could buy Max.

Advertisement

Well, in the US, you couldn’t buy them at Best Buy or Circuit City, they didn’t carry the Mac, and they are the two most popular consumer electronics stores.

So if Apple was going to win, Steve concluded that it had to take the experience directly to the customer. So it had to do its own stores. And I believed it because I was a retail guy and I just brought design to all at Target.

I had this dream. Why does good design have to be expensive? And we did this big design initiative that a lot of people thought was kind of crazy in its own right. But it succeeded. It was fabulous. Customers loved it.

And I figured if we could bring design to Target, we could figure out how to sell a great product like a Mac to customers.

Advertisement

WG: Yes, but Target is a more familiar, more typical retailer with shelves and shelves of products. As you say in the book, Apple had four products or something. So a lot of empty space to fit.

RJ: I was surprised, I honestly was surprised. The night I met Steve, that first interview, after about two hours of chatting, he said, well, do you want to see the product line? And I said, sure. And we walked down to another room, actually the boardroom.

And there were four products on a little credenza. Two [Mac] portables and two desktops. And we were going to build these big, beautiful stores.

Several children sit around a clover-shaped table, each using colorful bulky desktop computers with keyboards and mice, playing or working together in a bright, modern room.

Children playing on iMacs in the first Apple Store on the first day. They will now be 25 years old but it’s not recorded whether they ever bought a Mac.

Advertisement

But it actually was the opportunity. Because most retail stores back then were just packed with products, and they were almost overwhelming to a customer, right?

And because we had all that space, we could get a lot of products for people to try, [and] we could create all these other services that became important to getting someone to decide to buy a Mac. Theaters and Genius Bars and things like that that ultimately became the support the stores became famous for.

WG: It took a while to get the name Genius Bar, though, I’ve just learned from your book. What were the other ones you went through?

RJ: Well, Steve wanted to call it the Geek Bar. Because he said, you’ve been to a bar before, [it can be] kind of fun to go up to a bar. Bartenders are conversational and they can make any drink you want. It’s kind of fun. We thought, what if you could get advice for technology, like you’re going up to a bar?

Advertisement

That would demystify the fear that a lot of people had of having to talk to someone about technology because it’s over people’s heads. I told Steve, we’re going to get these people who are really good at technology, but they love people in their conversational.

And he said, they don’t exist. Everyone who knows technology is kind of geeky. Maybe you call it the geek bar.

But then I’d seen Apple’s genius campaign, and I felt like if we called a Genius Bar, People would come out of the woodwork wanting that job. Because who wouldn’t want to be the smartest Apple person in every city?

Large crowd of people tightly packed inside an Apple Store, many standing in organized lines near a glowing Apple logo, suggesting a product launch or major retail event

The queues are not completely gone. This is a Shanghai Apple Store so busy that this is the queue just to get in — image credit: Apple

Advertisement

After a minute, Steve, yeah, after a minute, basically called up our general counsel, and said, hey, could you trademark the name Genius Bar? So I knew we had a chance to go do it.

WG: You opened two stores at the same time, but before then, you had this famous warehouse where you were trying things out. It’s often been reported that there was a massive change right towards the end, but in your book, you specified that it was around the iMac and that basically it was your fault.

RJ: Well, it was all what happened was we were ready to open our first store and we had spent a lot of time designing it.

Then I had this interesting conversation with Steve because Steve, you know, had been positioning the iMac as one, two, three, you’re on the internet. It was the easy getting on the internet.

Advertisement

But we were starting to make these apps, like iMovie, an iPhoto, and I told Steve that this is so interesting. I was still commuting back to Minneapolis on the weekends and [there] I’m in an analogue world. Then in Cupertino. I’m in a digital world all day long and I kind of go between these two things.

And I said, you know, if the Mac’s success, it’ll be the center of your digital life. And he came into the executive team meeting the next Monday, and I’m not saying it was solely that conversation, he probably had a lot of conversations about similar things, but he got all excited and stood at the whiteboard and drew a picture.

He goes, “I figured out the future of the Mac, we’re going to call it the digital hub. And the Mac will be at the centre of your devices and our software will bring it together and that’s how we’ll market the Mac.”

After I heard that, that night I was thinking about it, I woke up and I thought, well, if Steve’s going to market the Mac as the digital hub, our store’s [need to do that]. Our store was like any retail store, it was is built around products. We had portables and desktops.

Advertisement

I told Steve, well, maybe we ought to organize a store on movies and music and photos and the things you do. And he got really upset. I mean, it we’re going to the warehouse for our weekly design meeting.

And he said, “Ron, do you know how much time I put into the store?” And “I don’t know if I had the energy to do another one. So you might be right, but don’t bring it up today.”

I said, okay. And we would drive together and we rode over in the car and it’s perfectly quiet. And we walked into the warehouse and the store was pretty much done. Everything’s laid out and Steve looked, everyone’s standing there, about 15 people, and he’s looking around.

Then he goes, “you know, Ron thinks we’ve got this store all wrong, and he’s right. So I’m going to leave now and you guys can figure it out how.”

Advertisement

But then he told a story before he left about everything great he had done, especially with the Pixar movies. He said, “I had to hit the rewind button at some point when I knew it could be better. And it often involved a delay, but you get one chance to do something, so you’ve got to do it right.

So it took us about six extra months to get the store ready. But we launched and it was a much better store.

The front half of the store [was] about the products. So iBook was here, the PowerBook pro computer was there. We had it spread out like that, with the iMac was in a bay. But we said, no, let’s not do that.

Let’s have a bay for photography where we put together digital cameras with a Mac, digital cameras with an iBook with each of our products to show how you would do digital photography on a Mac.

Advertisement

And it actually is really interesting because that’s what got people to want to buy Macs. Because it was pretty easy to communicate.

They could buy online, but nobody understood how the product could really allow you to do great things with movies and photography and music. And so it became a much more inviting store

WG: Retail space is expensive. Had you already bought the Tyson’s corner site before you delayed six months?

RJ: We had already hired all the store leaders, so we had a lot of cost to carry. We had to carry the leases, but it opened up a great opportunity because the Ritz Carlton, who we were inspired by because they delivered the best service in the world in hospitality, invited our first store leaders to go help them open Ritz Carlton hotels.

Advertisement

And so we sent half of the group down to a hotel in Dallas, another half to a hotel, I think, was in Washington, DC, and they spent better part of a week just learning how to launch a hotel. And a lot of the things that the Ritz did from a service perspective, we incorporated into our service strategy.

If you look at the Apple stores, what they’re really famous for is the experience you have from an employee [and], how these really smart, nice people take care of things for you. We learned a lot of that from Ritz.

Busy Microsoft retail store with large colorful square logo above glass entrance, many people walking in and out, and customers inside trying computers and devices along bright display tables

The way to tell that this is a Microsoft promotional photo for its stores is to count the people. There were never this many in real Microsoft Stores – image credit: Microsoft.

So if we had opened on time, not only would we have had an inferior store design, we wouldn’t have had the culture ready to go the way we did six months later. So it turned out to be a great delay.

Advertisement

WG: Why did you start by opening two stores? Wouldn’t it have been better to try one first and see if it worked?

RJ: The reality is, Steve and I both believed Apple wouldn’t work without stores. I had this conviction that a great Apple store in a high traffic location would get traffic and people would buy products.

Then Apple is a global company. At that time, Apple was big in Japan, big in France, big in many of the countries in continental Europe, big in the United States, big in the Canada. And we had to get on with this, you know? So we concluded that we would open 25 stores a year every year.

After four years, you know, it was interesting after 4 years, we had around 100 stores. That’s when we opened our Fifth Avenue store.

Advertisement

They were getting bigger and better, but we had the footprint that when Apple launched a great product, wow, everyone could experience that, you know, because we did a really good job.

Our real estate team found all these great sites and we used to get packed stores with these new product launches.

WG: Today, if someone didn’t know any of this, they would shrug: 25 stores a year is easy for Apple with its trillions of dollars. But back then, it was a huge and expensive gamble.

RJ: When Steve came back three years before the stores, we had 30 days of cash. And, you know, Tim [Cook] did a lot of things on inventory management to generate cash and Bill Gates wrote a $100 million check, as you recall, you know, to help Apple stay afloat.

Advertisement

Steve understood how important cash was. Steve never delivered a dividend during his time as CEO, he never bought back stock. He had been too close to the edge [so] he wanted to protect all the money Apple had.

When Tim came in, Tim had a different approach to the balance sheet and a big part of one of his good financial moves was buying back stock all the time, you know, which helped the stock price did a lot of benefits.

But Steve was [always saying] let’s protect our cash, you never know where you need it. We might have a rainy day. You just never know. So it was a big bet, but it was the only bet Apple could make.

WG: You mentioned the Fifth Avenue store, it’s an amazing store, and a fantastic location, except it isn’t on Fifth Avenue. It’s underground. Who’s made idea was that?

Advertisement

RJ: It’s one of my favorite chapters in the book. George Blankenship [who found Apple Store locations] had a site right in the heart of Fifth Avenue, closer to Rockefeller Plaza. You only get one chance to open a star on Fifth Avenue as a retailer, it’s a a dream.

It’s the world’s most famous shopping street. You want to get it right.

But that [first site considered] was like most Fifth Avenue stores in a tall 55-story building filled with columns. You couldn’t do anything special. You could just put a store in and have traffic.

But we had this other site that was where we ended up putting this door underground, which was basically taking over a parking garage in the General Motors building. The space hadn’t been leased for 7 years because nobody wanted to put a store there.

Advertisement
Evening city plaza with people walking around a glass cube displaying a giant virtual reality headset, surrounded by tall office buildings and illuminated circular ground lights

Apple uses its Fifth Avenue glass cube to promote new launches, here with the Apple Vision Pro – image credit: Apple

So much is about thinking different, though, that’s what I loved about Steve. Even though it wasn’t in the heart of the retail district and Fifth Avenue, it would always be the first store on Fifth because it was right by Central Park

That’s kind of a nice spot to be, and if we could put a store underground, that would be super low cost. Because we’re paying the rent of a parking garage, not of an above ground retail store.

And so all we do is figure out how to design something that people would find inspiring. And Peter Bohlin, our architect, came up with, he said, you know, well, we could do something like I. M. Pei did at the Louvre.

Advertisement

We’ll just figure out a different shape and he came up with a cube. And then we realized we could create a plaza for city of New York because we’re leasing the whole space underground.

We created the first Wi-Fi public plaza, was a gift to the city of New York. We opened that store and people came, and we ended up opening it 24 hours a day.

We were so excited about it.

WG: You mentioned Bill Gates earlier, and Microsoft famously launched stores, which were, shall we say, a homage to the Apple Store design. But I would walk by some and there’d be nobody but staff in there. What did they not get?

Advertisement

RJ: Retail’s really hard. Like, you’ll see, you go by restaurants, and one packed, you can’t get in, and the next five are empty. They’re in the same location, they’re serving you dinner, they’re open the same hours.

They have staff, but some are really popular and some aren’t. And it usually comes down to the secret sauce. And I’m not talking about a recipe, but there’s a recipe for a store.

It’s a combination of the store design, mainly the people that work there, and the type of services you offer. Things like a Genius Bar really connected.

Microsoft didn’t have a genius bar. It’s hard to know why things don’t work. But the big lesson I got from that is [that] it’s never good to copy, because customers pick that up.

Advertisement
Large white stone corner building with tall arched windows and a flag, busy city street in front with pedestrians, bicycles, and outdoor seating under cloudy sky

Apple now preserves architecturally significant buildings, such as this almost 150-year-old one that houses Apple Birmingham in the UK.

Yeah, Microsoft not only built a store about the same size with the same layout as ours, they located them right next to us. Well, people saw the original and then they saw the copy. And I think they expected more, quite honestly, they expected more from Microsoft, you know, and I think it was a letdown to people.

WG: Eventually you famously quit Apple to join JCPenney. What made you take that leap?

RJ: In hindsight, I kind of regret it [because] Apple was the best job I had in my life. I had been there 12 years and we were designing our 400th store around the world.

Advertisement

They were getting bigger and better, they were all working, and I had such a good team. I felt like a parent who used to coach his young kid. As the kid grew up, you watched him from the sidelines.

You know, I enjoyed my work, but it was like a hobby. And I kind of missed the days like when I was with a team, a small group trying to invent the Apple Store or being a target, or how to compete with Walmart when they had lower costs.

And I just figured I was turning 50 at that time. If I’m going to do something different, it’ll take a good decade, you know, I should probably think about making that move.

I wanted to be in retail, though. I’ve always loved stores. And so I wanted another retail challenge, and the opportunity to go try to transform the department store came along, so I took it.

Advertisement

But that’s a long story. I spent a lot of time in the book talking about that. It was a very difficult time for me personally. It didn’t work well, I made a lot of mistakes, that hadn’t at Apple and elsewhere.

Futuristic glass dome floating on calm waterfront beside curved pedestrian boardwalk, rows of palm trees, and modern city buildings under a cloudy sky

Apple also now designs incredibly impressive new stores, such as this one in Singapore.

I just wanted one more challenge and it was probably, in hindsight, not the right decision.

WG: Apple Stores have changed a lot, perhaps most noticeably in how staff used to sometimes tell you no, we don’t have what you need, but that store over there does.

Advertisement

RJ: We always said to our teams, when I was there, never sell the customer more than they need. We spent a lot of time asking customers, what are you going to use your product for, and we get them to the right memory configure it, the right model for them.

We didn’t want people to spend more than they had to to solve the problem they were trying to solve. That’s just good human decency.

When I left, other leaders came in who put their own imprint on the store and a lot of that’s been very good. But I think the stores today, and I’m talking about right now, are kind of back to where they were when we launched the stores, from a culture perspective.

I have had amazing experiences over the last three months in a variety of stores around the world, and that energy’s back, that love of the customers back. I really feel a huge difference [and] I am really proud of what the stores are doing right now.

Advertisement

WG: About an hour after the iPhone Duo launch, I noticed that the video on YouTube had been watched by 26 million people. But with that reach, does Apple actually need any stores at all anymore?

Middleaged man in a navy sweater speaking onstage, gesturing with one hand, with a book titled Shop Different displayed prominently beside him against a plain white background

Ron Johnson and his book “Shop Different”

RJ: Absolutely. It’s really important to have stores and it’s going to become really important for this iPhone Duo because everyone will be able to check it out.

You can go read about it online. That’s going to be nothing like holding that in your hand and seeing if it fits in your pocket and seeing the magic of opening that display. Right?

Advertisement

And so these stores are going to help that product flourish.

The reality is, every retailer in the world, except Amazon. has an omni-channel strategy where they have stores and online and they bring it together. And that’s how everyone goes to the market.

This idea that stores are dying is just not true. You know, stores have never been more important to a go-to-market strategy.

Learn more

You can see the whole Ron Johnson interview on the AppleInsider Podcast. Plus his book, “Shop Different,” co-written with Zander Nethercutt, is available on Amazon for $32.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech & AI

Microsoft may have just pushed Copilot into a completely different phase of its AI ambitions

Published

on


  • Home puts chats, delegated work, and Office documents inside one interface
  • Code lets non-programmers describe software and have Copilot build it
  • Autopilot can continue recurring work without waiting for another instruction

Microsoft has introduced a redesigned version of its Copilot AI platform which claims to combine chat, delegated work, and coding tools into a unified application experience for users.

The company says the update is meant to let individuals and organizations scale artificial intelligence across everyday tasks and long-term projects.

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

How To Get Started With Shortcuts On Your MacBook

Published

on

Automate your Mac with ease using Shortcuts and Apple Intelligence.

Shortcuts has been available on Mac since macOS Monterey, but it’s one of those utilities many Mac users have never explored. At first, it can seem too complicated. You have to know which actions to choose and how to connect them, then hope it all works. 

But macOS 27 Golden Gate changes that with Describe a Shortcut, which lets you type exactly what you need and have Shortcuts do the heavy work for you with AI. It doesn’t always work, but it makes the app much easier to use — especially if you’re not an expert.

If you’re not familiar with Shortcuts, it’s an automation tool where you create scripts to handle tasks on your devices. Apple’s own example is a shortcut that texts your spouse with an estimated arrival time based on traffic when you’re leaving work. But you can get much more complex, like a shortcut that checks your calendar and the weather to give you a summary of what to expect today. 

Advertisement

There are many possibilities, and now with macOS 27, it’s much easier to master the app.

Creating shortcuts on your Mac is easy

Creating a new shortcut takes a few seconds. Open the Shortcuts app on your Mac and click the Plus button to enter a prompt. The more details you provide, the more likely the app is to get your shortcut right. A command like “Clean up my Downloads” might be too vague for the app to understand what you really want. Instead, try something like “Every Friday, move anything in my Downloads folder older than 30 days into a folder called Archive.” You’re more likely to end up with a working shortcut when you provide clear details.

This is a good example of how Shortcuts are helpful for tasks you often forget to do; no one really cleans out their Downloads folder unless they’re trying to free up space. Plus, you can check the result right away by opening the folder and looking at what moved. If the shortcut moved too much, re-enter the prompt with even more specific details. 

Advertisement

A shortcut can also be great for summarizing long text with Apple Intelligence. Try something like “Take the text on my clipboard, summarize it in three sentences and save it to a new note.” Then copy a long article or an email, run the shortcut and you’ll have the short version in Notes.

Make your shortcuts easier to reach

If a shortcut isn’t part of your normal routine, chances are you’ll forget about it after a while. Thankfully, you can assign a keyboard combo to a shortcut, or pin it to the menu bar, so you’ll never forget it. 

Choose the shortcut you want to adjust and click Edit. Go to the Shortcut Details menu (the one with the information icon) and select Add Keyboard Shortcut. To add it to the Control Center or menu bar, open Control Center on your Mac (at the top-right) and select Edit Controls. There, all you have to do is add the action from the Shortcuts app, and you’re all set. Exploring the Automation tab is also a good idea for creating a seamless workflow of shortcuts that run on their own when you need them.

Advertisement

Shortcuts isn’t the only element in macOS 27 that acts on your behalf. Visual Intelligence has its own key combo: Shift + Command + Space. After pressing this, select a window on-screen and have Siri answer questions about it or take action, like adding an event to your calendar. Try it on an email with a date buried in it, for example. Siri can also run your shortcuts via voice, speaking of which.

Shortcuts and Siri AI require Apple Intelligence, which means you need a Mac with an M1 chip or later — Intel Mac users are out of luck. Also, some limits may apply when using Apple’s AI models in Shortcuts. More complex prompts could reach a limit faster.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Peak XV ups Surge seed investment ceiling to $5M, unveils 18-startup cohort

Published

on

Peak XV Partners, one of the largest venture capital firms investing in markets including India and Southeast Asia with more than $10 billion in assets under management, has increased how much it invests per startup through Surge, its seed-stage investing platform, as it unveils a new cohort of 18 companies.

At least three of the companies in this cohort had already raised outside funding, in some cases from Peak XV itself, before joining Surge.

The new batch, called Surge 12, is the first to operate under Peak XV’s higher investment ceiling of up to $5 million per company, up from $3 million previously. The venture firm invested more than $50 million across the cohort, which has collectively raised over $90 million in seed funding, according to Peak XV. Its median investment per company has also increased, though the firm declined to disclose the figure.

“The bar to raise a Series A has gone up pretty significantly,” Rajan Anandan (pictured above), managing director at Peak XV, said in an interview. He added that the firm is also seeing more capital-intensive companies, particularly in deeptech, that are raising larger rounds at the seed stage.

Advertisement

Surge has become more global with each cohort, Anandan told TechCrunch, with its latest group spanning founders and companies from San Francisco to Sydney. Just five of the 18 startups in Surge 12 are focused on the Indian market, while more than half of the companies are based in India. The remaining 13 target global markets, highlighting the difference between where the companies are built and where they expect to find customers.

Since its launch in 2019, when Peak XV operated as Sequoia Capital India and Southeast Asia, Surge has backed more than 180 startups founded by entrepreneurs representing more than 18 nationalities. Peak XV says the 10 largest companies to emerge from those cohorts now generate more than $1 billion in combined annual revenue.

Peak XV Surge 2026 cohort
Surge founders at the Peak XV U.S. Immersion 2026Image Credits:Peak XV Partners

Anandan described Surge as one way Peak XV invests at the seed stage, alongside its standard seed investing, while the firm still remains an investor as companies progress through later funding rounds. The founders it backs typically include repeat entrepreneurs, experienced operators, and highly specialized technical founders, he said, with about 50% to 60% of a typical cohort made up of people coming from operating roles at established technology companies.

This cohort’s startups span AI, robotics, space, consumer products, healthcare, music, and fintech, ranging from AI safety and personal computing to autonomous robots built for underground pipes and satellites designed to detect radio-frequency signals from orbit.

The Surge 12 cohort

Alma — founded by Nischith Shadagopan M N and Vinod Ganesan — is building a personal computing platform focused on making computer use faster and more affordable. Its founders previously worked at Microsoft Research and were founding engineers at Sarvam AI, a Bengaluru-based startup building AI models for Indian languages.

Advertisement

August AI — founded by Anuruddh Mishra, an IIT-BHU alumnus who started the company in 2022 after a personal medical misdiagnosis — provides a healthcare platform that combines AI with physician-led care, reaching over 9 million users across 160 countries.

Ditto — founded by UC Berkeley dropouts Allen Wang and Eric Liu — works as an AI dating matchmaker inside iMessage, aimed at helping college students turn digital introductions into in-person connections. (TechCrunch wrote more about this one last month.) The company had already raised $9.2 million in a Peak XV-led seed round announced earlier this year.

GameStock — founded by Antoine Mistico, Easton Dana, and Vivek Indlebele Narasimha Prasad — brings competition mechanics to financial markets, turning investing and trading into a more competitive experience. Mistico is a two-time founder and former professional baseball player.

HiLoop — founded by Jad Ghalayini, Karan Brar, and Thomas Boser — helps AI companies adapt general-purpose open-weight models for specific applications using its post-training platform. Its founding team includes former Reducto engineers and a Cambridge computer science PhD who completed his doctorate at 24.

Advertisement

Hoola Health — founded by Deeksha Senguttuva — focuses on care for children and their families, providing consultations, vaccinations, medicines, diagnostics, developmental therapy, and dental services on a single platform. Senguttuvan grew up around healthcare, as her family built and operated a hospital group.

Kello — founded by Mona Gandhi and Subramanya Jingade — is building an AI-powered talent-discovery platform focused on identifying a candidate’s potential and trajectory rather than relying primarily on conventional credentials. Gandhi says she was Airbnb’s first female engineer and she previously founded Upraised, while Jingade previously co-founded AmbitionBox.

Kindling — founded by Adam Miller and Sachin Shah — is building what it calls a “storytelling operating system” for technology startups, using AI to help companies develop and produce their communications and content.

Puralink — founded by Harrison Crowe-Maxwell, Shyeon Delnawaz, and Thien “Long” Tran — is developing autonomous robots that can navigate underground pipe networks. Crowe-Maxwell has been building robots since childhood and turned university research into the patented drive technology behind the startup.

Advertisement

Reinforce Labs — founded by Anish Das Sarma — is developing tools to evaluate, red-team, and remediate enterprise AI systems. Sarma previously founded a company acquired by Airbnb and later served as a director at Google, where he led AI and machine-learning teams.

Riffle — founded by Anurag Choudhary and deo — is building a browser-based platform where musicians can create, collaborate on, and share music, reducing the need to move between separate tools during the creative process.

Rosella — founded by Chris Dwyer and Sean Stuart — is building an AI-native commercial insurance brokerage for U.S. businesses, using AI to automate parts of the traditionally manual process of finding and placing business insurance. Rosella raised a roughly $2.5 million pre-seed round led by Peak XV and Intact Private Capital earlier this year.

Tribe Money — founded by Himanshu Arora and Nikhil Shanker — gives an AI-powered personal finance platform that helps users track their money, research investments and make investing decisions.

Advertisement

ULOOK — founded by Adheesh Boratkar and Siddhesh Ravindra Naik — is building autonomous satellite systems for radio-frequency sensing and spectrum intelligence, targeting customers globally. Its founders have worked on more than 12 satellite missions. The company had already raised roughly $2.3 million in seed funding from growX Ventures and InfoEdge Ventures before joining Surge.

Wingit — founded by Nikunj Kothari and Saksham Khandelwal — is building a beauty platform aimed at India’s growing premium-consumer market. It is focused on how consumers discover and shop for higher-end beauty products.

Three other startups in the cohort have yet to publicly reveal their names or products. Peak XV said they are working in education, applied AI, and medical products.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

The Metric Is Not The Mission: When The Maps Became The Territory

Published

on

The Metric Is Not the Mission is a ten-part examination of how Big Tech moved from building and expanding the open internet to increasingly shaping it around its own metrics, incentives and assumptions. Across the series, the argument follows the evolution of the platform economy—from the optimism of the early internet to the growing tensions around power, prediction, geopolitics, accountability and the future of digital life.

The series will be published in two parts each week over five weeks, with each installment building on the one before it. At the end of the series, the complete essay will be brought together in a single PDF edition, providing the full argument in one place.

Part III: When the Maps Became the Territory

In Part II, the story turned on a crucial distinction: measuring behavior is not the same as understanding people. Part III takes that idea further, examining what happens when the platforms’ representations of the world begin to substitute for the world itself.

There is a curious tendency among successful technologies to disappear. Not physically, of course, but cognitively. Once they become sufficiently embedded in everyday life, they cease to be experienced as technologies at all. Electricity is no longer a marvel of engineering but an expectation. We do not admire the plumbing each time we turn on a tap, nor do we reflect on the extraordinary complexity of global logistics every time fresh fruit appears on supermarket shelves in the middle of winter. The greatest infrastructures become invisible because they succeed so completely that we mistake them for part of the natural order.

Advertisement

The internet reached that point sometime during the second decade of the twenty-first century. Yet something else happened along the way that proved far more consequential. As the network itself faded into the background, the platforms through which most people experienced it moved decisively into the foreground. Increasingly, users no longer spoke about “going online.” They spoke about opening an app.

That linguistic shift deserves more attention than it usually receives. Language often reveals structural change before statistics do. To “browse the web” implied movement across an open landscape whose boundaries were undefined. One followed links, discovered obscure websites, stumbled upon ideas that had not been recommended by anyone, and occasionally became gloriously lost. The experience resembled wandering through an unfamiliar city with no particular destination in mind. Serendipity was not a flaw in the architecture; it was one of its defining virtues.

Applications altered that relationship almost without anyone noticing. They replaced geography with destination. Instead of entering a network whose possibilities remained unknown, we entered environments that had already been organized on our behalf. The internet did not disappear, but it became increasingly hidden beneath layers of interface, recommendation and curation. Like passengers traveling through an airport without ever seeing the city beyond the terminal, we continued moving through digital space while encountering only the carefully managed environments that had been prepared for us.

This transformation is often described as an inevitable consequence of convenience. While accurate in its own right, this explanation offers an incomplete narrative. Convenience was certainly the language through which the platforms justified many of their design choices. Friction was treated as the great enemy of the digital age. Every additional click became an obstacle to be eliminated. Every decision that users might otherwise make for themselves could instead be anticipated by software. Recommendation replaced search. Autoplay replaced choice. Infinite scrolling replaced endings. The future, we were told, belonged to experiences so seamless that they would feel almost effortless. And they did.

Advertisement

It is difficult to criticize convenience because convenience is genuinely valuable. Few people wish to return to an internet in which finding information required memorizing obscure web addresses or navigating labyrinthine directories. The platforms did not succeed by forcing people into inferior experiences. They succeeded because, for many years, they built better ones.

Yet convenience has always carried an intellectual cost. Every technology that removes friction also removes moments of deliberation. The elevator spares us the staircase but also the awareness of distance. Satellite navigation ensures that we rarely become lost, while quietly diminishing our ability to construct mental maps of the places through which we travel. Streaming services relieve us of searching for entertainment, but in doing so they also shape the boundaries of what we are likely to discover. Every act of technological simplification transfers a small measure of agency from the individual to the system.

The internet had originally been built on a different assumption. Its underlying protocols did remarkably little. They did not decide which website deserved prominence, which ideas should travel furthest, or which communities ought to flourish. Their genius lay precisely in their restraint. They created conditions under which others could innovate without first requesting permission. The web itself functioned less like a product than like a constitutional order: a simple framework within which extraordinary diversity could emerge.

Platforms gradually adopted the opposite philosophy. They did not merely provide the rules of the game; increasingly, they became active participants in every interaction taking place within it. They selected what deserved attention, inferred what users might prefer before users themselves knew it, prioritized certain relationships over others and determined, through millions of microscopic computational decisions, the contours of everyday experience. The architecture became less constitutional than managerial.

Advertisement

There is an illuminating parallel here with the history of cities. The most enduring cities are rarely the ones that have been planned in every detail. They are those that accumulated layer upon layer of human activity over centuries, adapting continuously to changing needs without ever fully surrendering their unpredictability. One finds unexpected bookshops beside cafés, workshops hidden behind apartment blocks, public squares appropriated for demonstrations one week and festivals the next. Their vitality emerges not from perfect organization but from the freedom they grant people to appropriate space in ways that planners never anticipated.

Shopping malls operate according to an altogether different logic. They are meticulously designed environments in which every entrance, corridor, sightline, and seating area has been carefully considered. Music, lighting, and architecture work together to produce an experience that feels spontaneous while being anything but. There is comfort in their orderliness. They are clean, efficient, and reassuringly predictable. Yet no one mistakes a shopping mall for a city. Its purpose is not to cultivate civic life but to optimize a particular set of behaviors within a privately governed space.

The analogy is imperfect, as all analogies are, but it captures something essential about the transformation of the internet. The early web invited participation because it remained fundamentally unfinished. It assumed that users would contribute to shaping it. Today’s dominant platforms present themselves as complete worlds. Participation still exists, but it takes place within boundaries established elsewhere. Users generate the content while the architecture remains firmly in corporate hands.

Perhaps this is why the language of “community” has begun to feel strangely hollow. Communities, in the classical sense, are rarely designed. They emerge through shared experience, mutual obligation, and a degree of unpredictability that no algorithm can fully reproduce. Platforms, by contrast, increasingly treat community as an engineering problem to be optimized. They recommend friendships, suggest conversations, rank relevance, suppress friction, and amplify interaction according to models whose objectives are necessarily commercial because the organizations that develop them are commercial enterprises.

Advertisement

None of this should be understood as an accusation of bad faith. Many of the engineers responsible for these systems genuinely believed they were improving people’s lives. The difficulty lies elsewhere. Every large institution eventually begins to confuse the optimization of its own internal metrics with the fulfillment of its original purpose. Universities sometimes mistake publication counts for scholarship. Hospitals occasionally confuse efficiency with care. Governments become preoccupied with administrative process rather than public service. Technology companies are no different. The indicators that make sense within an organization slowly become proxies for the world outside it. The metric is not the mission. This is the point at which the maps begin to replace the territory.

The extraordinary quantities of behavioral data collected by digital platforms produce an understandable confidence. When one can observe billions of interactions each day, it becomes tempting to believe that society itself has become legible. Human behavior appears measurable, predictable and, increasingly, governable. The platform begins to resemble reality because so much of reality passes through the platform.

Yet the map is never the territory. It captures what can be measured, not everything that matters. A map records roads but not the reasons people travel. It identifies cities without conveying the lives unfolding within them. Likewise, recommendation systems observe behavior with astonishing precision while remaining largely indifferent to experience itself. They recognize patterns without necessarily understanding meaning.

That distinction mattered little while the platforms continued solving the problems that had made them indispensable. It becomes far more consequential once they begin confronting a world that no longer resembles the one for which they were originally designed. Because societies have changed; politics has changed; and, the internet has changed. The question is whether the companies that grew powerful by interpreting one era have noticed that another has already begun.

Advertisement

Konstantinos Komaitis, PhD, is a veteran of developing and analysing Internet policy to ensure an open and global Internet.

Filed Under: behavior, big tech, metric not mission, open internet, optimization, platforms, understanding

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Boox Announces the Picco, Its Smallest E-Reader Ever (2026)

Published

on

While smartphones won’t stop getting bigger, e-readers seem to be getting smaller. Boox has been at the forefront with one of the most popular small e-readers, the Boox Palma, and now it is adding an even smaller model.

Boox announced the Picco, with preorders opening today. Its screen is just under 4 inches (3.97 to be exact), making it about the size of a playing card. It’s even smaller than the Xteink X4 Pro I tested earlier this year, which has a 4.3-inch screen (but just slightly larger than the 3.7-inch Xteink X3), and considerably smaller than the upcoming Boox Palma 3’s 6.19-inch screen. I liked the size of the Xteink in my hand, but navigating the interface and getting books were challenging, so I’m excited to see another option in that smaller size from a maker with more accessible ebooks (though still not as convenient as a Kindle or Kobo with their built-in stores).

The Picco will cost $100 and is expected to ship in November. I’ll be testing it soon, but in the meantime, here are the details if you’ve been eyeing a tiny e-reader.

An E-Reader for Productivity

Boox Announces the Picco Its Smallest EReader Ever

Courtesy of Boox

The Boox Picco has a monochrome screen with a resolution of 235 pixels per inch and an adjustable front light that switches between warm- and cool-toned lighting. The microSD card slot supports up to 2 TB of flash memory storage (a 16 GB card is included). There are both a touchscreen and physical page-turning controls, thanks to the buttons on the side of the device. The case has a magnetic ring so you can attach it to the back of a smartphone, though I’ll have to see how well it fits when I test it, as I had mixed results attaching an Xteink to my phone due to both fit and magnet strength.

Advertisement
Image may contain Electronics and Remote Control

Courtesy of Boox

Boox says the Picco will have a streamlined operating system focused on reading and digital utility tools. It’s also the first in what Boox calls its Tiles lineup, which is how you’ll access ebooks on this device. You can also use web and USB-C file transfers (the Picco has Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity) to get ebooks onto the Picco. The Picco also has the Pomodoro, Todo, and Countdown apps, so you can use it as both an e-reader and a productivity gadget—handy, and a bigger motivation to keep it attached to the back of your phone even when you aren’t reading.

I’m intrigued to see it in action. Boox’s most popular e-reader could become the Picco over the Palma 3, but we’ll have to wait for both devices to become available to see which is the better buy. Stay tuned for my reviews of both when they come out.


Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Discord Is Testing A Lightweight Mode To Free Up Resources While Gaming

Published

on

But a Chromium-based design means it can only be so efficient.

Discord is working on a new mode for its social platform that it says might be less resource-intensive. Screenshots of an option called Game Mode began circulating on social media over the weekend. The description shown for the Game Mode toggle states that it will “Reduce Discord’s CPU and GPU usage while a game is running.” By making the chat platform less resource-intensive, concurrently running software should be able to run more smoothly.

Today, the company confirmed on X that this experimental mode will begin rolling out to its users next week. The brief official announcement about Game Mode added that Discord is “aiming to add more resource-saving features over time.”

Discord is based on the Electron web app framework, which uses Javascript and Chromium for creating software. The open-source Chromium, which is the basis for Google’s Chrome and several other browsers, is not known as the most efficient tool for web development. A feature like Game Mode could offer some performance improvements, especially while also running a beefy AAA game on the same machine, but there may only be so far that Discord will be able to streamline on its current architecture.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Meta-Led Anti-Terrorism Group Faces Mass Resignation of Expert Advisers

Published

on

Six of the nine independent experts on the advisory board of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism—a consortium run by several of the biggest US tech companies—resigned on Monday, according to a letter seen by WIRED and interviews with three of the people.

The tensions between the independent advisory committee and the GIFCT date back to an email the counterterrorism and free speech experts received in July from Meta’s Nell McCarthy, a vice president overseeing content policy. For years, the group had advised the GIFCT on how to prevent platforms from becoming havens for the radical organizations and individuals blamed for some of the world’s worst mass violence.

But McCarthy wrote that while the consortium welcomed the experts’ insights on violent trends, it no longer desired their scrutiny on the effectiveness of Big Tech’s efforts to curtail violence. Meta and other leaders wanted to “refresh” the 6-year-old independent advisory committee the experts sat on, she wrote. Meta currently serves as chair of GIFCT’s operating board, giving it outsized influence over policy changes, though other companies on the panel must ultimately approve.

New additions to the rotating advisory committee had previously been elected by current members; under the plan laid out in July, they would instead be picked by tech companies. The committee would be barred from weighing in on key topics such as the consortium’s performance and making recommendations together as a group. Its role as a watchdog would be neutered, advisers believed.

Advertisement

In their resignation letter, the departing members of the committee wrote that their appeals against the plan had been “ignored” and that, in turn, they had “lost confidence in the GIFCT’s ability to deliver effectively on its founding mission” to prevent terrorists from exploiting online services. “We all know that a body that cannot scrutinise, take a position, or evaluate is not an advisory body at all,” the letter stated. “It is decoration and accountability theatre.”

Meta deferred comment on the resignations to the GIFCT. An unsigned statement sent to WIRED by a GIFCT spokesperson on behalf of the consortium’s leadership and the Meta-chaired operating board says the proposed changes have been “informed by several rounds of feedback” and are not yet final. They came out of discussions on “how to more effectively engage civil society and governments for substantive input” as “multi-stakeholderism is a core principle” for the GIFCT.

The consortium has about 35 members; other long-time board members include Microsoft and YouTube. A small staff alerts members to violent content, helps them exchange threat intelligence, and commissions research on countering extremism. While the coordination has helped some platforms combat problematic content, critics believe the group isn’t living up to its potential.

A WIRED investigation in 2024 uncovered several issues with GIFCT, including Meta delaying TikTok’s membership bid and poor relations between the companies at the helm and the unpaid independent advisory body. It also revealed failures in the tip-sharing database the consortium oversees to coordinate takedowns of problematic content.

Advertisement

The dismantling of the advisory group threatens to deteriorate the organization’s work further at a time when balancing free expression and online safety has become more challenging. Generative AI tools have simplified content creation but imposed limited guardrails.

Extremist content, including some that is now AI-generated, that promotes organizations such as Islamic State remains a persistent issue. Newer nihilistic collectives have turned to AI-supported scams such as sexploitation to coerce young victims into carrying out violence and abuse. Several AI chatbots have been accused of facilitating violence.

“A Shame”

The experts who resigned include university researchers and representatives of civil society organizations. They had agreed with McCarthy on the need for changes to improve the results of the decade-old anti-terrorism consortium. But they believe the proposal, which could be finalized soon, amounts to a step backward.

“There won’t be critical voices raising concerns about what GIFCT is doing or is not doing,” one of the departing experts says. “It may seem politically convenient for them to abolish the independent advisory committee, but they are going to regret it in the longer term.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

SpaceX’s Latest Starship Mission Reached Low-Earth Orbit

Published

on

The successful mission also deployed 26 of SpaceX’s latest Starlink satellites.

For its 14th flight, SpaceX’s Starship powered by its Super Heavy megarocket has entered low-Earth orbit for the first time. SpaceX kicked off this major undertaking early Monday morning but had to deal with some hiccups on the way, including losing one of its six Raptor engines. Ultimately, SpaceX decided to push on with the mission and successfully reached orbit albeit with some compromise.

SpaceX originally planned to have Starship orbit Earth six times over a span of nearly 10 hours for the Flight 14 mission. With one of the engines offline, the plan changed to only spend approximately three hours in orbit before reentering the Earth’s atmosphere and landing in the Pacific Ocean. As part of the same mission, SpaceX managed to deploy 26 of its Starlink V3 satellites into orbit. SpaceX said that its Starlink team has made contact with all newly-deployed 26 satellites in orbit, which will eventually be used to improve Internet speeds for customers. While previous Starship missions also carried several V3 satellites, they only remained in suborbital space and served as test flights to see if the new satellites would connect to the existing Starlink constellation.

While Starship’s flight 14 marked a major milestone of reaching orbit, the mission also served as a test of the reusability of its Super Heavy rocket. After providing the necessary boost to Starship, Super Heavy landed in the Gulf of Mexico, where it will eventually be retrieved, but not by a launch tower‘s “chopsticks” as previously demonstrated.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Jet Megatextures Demo For ESP32-S3

Published

on

Mipmapping is a good way to add a lot more detail to a 3D scene without overburdening the rendering hardware with detail that won’t be seen by the user. This level-of-detail rendering technique was demonstrated on the N64 console hardware a few years ago by [James Lambert] with [Michael Biggins], also known as [PhonicUK], now demonstrating it on the ESP32-S3 using his own Jet rendering engine.

Although level-of-detail rendering really speeds things up, it does also require far larger texture sizes, with [James]’s N64 demo taking up 40 MB of a 64 MB cartridge. To fit it on an ESP32-S3 with 16 MB of PSRAM and no SD card expansion or such the textures were further compressed to use 8-bit indexing, resulting in a mere 5.01 MB of textures.

There’s a demonstration video over on the associated Reddit thread, which shows the camera moving through the scene. Even if not as exciting as the Wipeout port by [Michael] that we previously covered, it does make clear that even without a proper 3D GPU the ESP32-S3 is already a pretty capable gaming machine that can go toe-to-toe with some 1990s consoles.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech & AI

These Extremists Are Running for Election in November

Published

on

There are five weeks left until the midterm elections, and extremism is on the ballot in much of the US. A WIRED review of candidates running for statewide and federal positions in November, along with exclusive data on candidates running for state-level positions, reveals hundreds of Republican candidates who openly express virulently hateful ideologies, share racist content online, have close ties to white supremacist and antisemitic figures, and are members of far-right groups online. President Donald Trump and his administration have openly embraced, endorsed and defended many of these candidates.

At a local level, over 500 candidates running for state legislator positions in November are members of far-right groups on Facebook that promote militias, gun rights, and Christian nationalism, according to data collected by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights and shared with WIRED.

While many extremist candidates—such as groyper James Fishback and antisemitic influencer Dan Bilzerian— didn’t make it through GOP primaries, many made it to the general election, and a number of them are expected to win.

“The candidates are taking a page out of the Trump administration’s playbook,” Luke Baumgartner, a former research fellow at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, tells WIRED. Baumgartner claims that many of the candidates running in November have been inspired by those in the White House. “In essence, the executive branch has handed them a permission slip to say and do what would have been unthinkable during the George W. Bush, McCain, or [Mitt] Romney eras of the GOP,” he says.

Advertisement

Extremist rhetoric has led to real world political threats. In 2025, terrorism and targeted violence incidents rose 19 percent compared to 2024, according to researchers at the University of Maryland; the US Capitol Police reported an increase in “threat assessment cases” against members of Congress for the third year in a row, with a 58 percent increase from 2024; and the US Marshals Service documented threats against almost 400 judges, a roughly 5 percent increase from the previous year.

Here are five races involving candidates who have shared extremist ideologies or have close ties to extremist figures, that WIRED is watching ahead of the November midterms.

The Texas Railroad Commissioner Race

MANSFIELD TEXAS  APRIL 15 Tarrant County Republican Party Chair Bo French speaks during a rally on Tuesday April 15 2025...

Photo-Illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images

Bo French, the GOP candidate for Texas Railroad Commissioner, is so extreme that Republican strategist Karl Rove has said he would vote for a Democrat rather than supporting a “bigot.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025