Mo Malakoutian has been mayor of Bellevue, Wash., for about a month. He’d like to take credit for the Seattle Seahawks making it to (and winning) the Super Bowl, the World Cup coming to the region this summer, and all of the sunshine of late — not a bad political posture to assume.

A longtime engineer, academic and tech industry veteran, Malakoutian is executive director of the Consulting and Business Development Center at the University of Washington’s Foster School of Business and an affiliate professor in civil and environmental engineering. He spent eight years at Amazon before leaving last fall as a senior manager in learning and development.

Malakoutian was elected to the Bellevue City Council in 2023 and served as deputy mayor in 2024 and 2025 before his unanimous appointment as mayor on Jan. 9, succeeding Councilmember Lynne Robinson, who served as mayor for six years.

Originally from Iran, Malakoutian spent eight years in construction before coming to the U.S. to get his PhD in structural engineering at the UW.

We caught up to talk about how his tech background informs his leadership style; managing Bellevue’s significant growth as a tech hub; his view of the Eastside vs. Seattle debate; transportation; AI; and more. Our Q&A has been edited for brevity and clarity.

GeekWire: How does your tech background — including eight years at Amazon — inform your approach to governance? Can we expect you to lean on the Amazon leadership principles?

Malakoutian: When I started [at Amazon] in 2017 and you hear all of these leadership principles, you say, ‘My God, what’s going on?’ Then, after two or three years, I caught myself because I was using those in my friend conversations: ‘Please earn my trust. … Are we delivering results?’

We are using that day one mindset [from] Amazon. We wanted to be less bureaucratic where we can and work with my partners on the Council and city staff to have a very safe and functional city that moves, hopefully, at the speed of innovation. Innovation and technology are moving super fast, and we should also be nimble and fast to catch up with what is happening around us.

GW: OpenAI just grabbed more office space in downtown Bellevue. Amazon is a huge presence. Now Elon Musk’s xAI is opening an engineering center. What role do you think city policy should play in balancing this tech growth with quality of life?

Malakoutian: We need to make the city safe, clean, functional and with high quality of life — that’s how we are thinking about growth. We are building housing. We are building transit. We care about whether people will be frustrated in traffic. We want people who work here actually be able to live here — that’s related to our affordable housing strategy. We want to be friends with businesses. We want them as an engine that helps pay for our infrastructure, parks, schools and local improvements. If we don’t do that, we cannot achieve all of our goals.

GW: Why do you think Bellevue is a destination for AI companies, especially relative to Seattle? What is Bellevue doing to recruit companies, if anything, and do you like the  “AI hub” label?

Malakoutian: I do think Bellevue has really leaned into being execution focused. When companies choose us, it’s because they value clarity and consistency. They want a city that works, where permitting is predictable, infrastructure is modern, and the streets are safe. When a CEO is trying to recruit the best talent in the world, things like our schools, safety, and parks aren’t just nice to have — they are the competitive advantage.

Our strategy is built on the fundamentals. Through our Economic Development Plan, we’re turning the city into a living laboratory. Whether it’s our Innovation Forum or the Civic Innovation Challenge, we’re letting startups pilot real solutions. We want companies to choose Bellevue because this is a place where they can actually get things done.

AI is a massive engine for the future, but a label doesn’t mean much if it isn’t grounded in community values. We want an ecosystem where our big employers thrive, but also where our small businesses aren’t left behind. Whether it’s managerial training, better access to capital, or opening up new markets, we’re focused on what our local shops and workers actually need to stay competitive. If we build a platform that is safe, vibrant, and innovative for everyone, the “hub” label will take care of itself.

GW: What’s your take on AI as it applies to city government?

Malakoutian: We want all of our community to be part of this innovation economy. We don’t want anyone to get behind, because if they get behind, they are going to be behind for everything. So we are doing a lot. We are using AI for our permitting — developers are asking us to be faster, to be more reliable. We want to bring everyone along. We should all be very fluent in AI. Being able to use that in your day-to-day life is a must.

GW: Do you have a vision for downtown Bellevue over the next couple of years? Is it residential, experiential, or a premier office destination?

Malakoutian: All of the above. Are you familiar with an area named Wilburton? It’s an area on the east side of downtown. As part of our comprehensive plan, we increased the density of that area, mixed use housing and retail. Then we are connecting Wilburton to downtown Bellevue by a bridge over 405. We call that bridge Grand Connection. The vision is people work there, live there, enjoy restaurants and grocery shopping there, and can walk downtown to go to Amazon offices and all of those AI tech companies that we have. We want to make it a 24/7 Bellevue. We want to have a very vibrant city, keeping people after 5 p.m.

GW: When it comes to the Eastside vs. Seattle debate, do you prefer a regional strategy, or do you have a competitive streak where you want to win for Bellevue?

Malakoutian: A regional strategy. We see the success of what Bellevue is doing, and we are going to continue that. We do take pride in being intentional about our planning, about our public safety, about high quality government services that we have. But of course, many of our issues are regional. Seattle’s success is Bellevue’s success. Homelessness is a regional issue. Transportation is a regional issue. I am all about working together as a whole.

GW: You must be especially excited about the East Link light rail and the coming connection over Lake Washington.

Malakoutian: Absolutely. We are ready to make that connection between Seattle and us. Equity, to me, is really important, to connect people and make people move I think is really important for the economy and for the whole benefit of the community.

The success of Bellevue is that anything that comes to us grows — the new light rail, anything. We plan ahead of the game. How we can make it accessible? How can we do activation? How can we provide the safety that people expect from us? This planning and this thinking that the City of Bellevue has is going to be very helpful, and it has been helpful for us.

GW: What’s your perspective on the debates around the state’s tax structure — capital gains taxes, the millionaire’s tax, etc.?

Malakoutian: Last year, we sent a letter from our city, so that’s what I can talk about. Overall, we were thinking that everything is super expensive, more development is happening, businesses are already paying a lot of taxes. Anything more is not good for our economy. We said that we think the Bellevue economy is the Washington economy. If something is bad for Bellevue, it is bad for Washington.

This year, we hope that the state talks to us. We know if they increase the B&O tax, for example, what kind of unintended disadvantages that can bring for the economy. I know they are dealing with a very challenging shortfall of revenue, and they need to manage that. I’m compassionate to that, but we need to protect our economy. We need to protect our small and large businesses.

Source link

Source link

In a technology M&A deal, whether you are acquiring or selling a tech or software business, valuation rarely hinges on a single dimension. Financial performance, growth efficiency, and cash flow durability remain the backbone of any transaction. In practical terms, this means metrics such as revenue and ARR, retention as a proxy for revenue quality, margin structure, and capital intensity continue to anchor how buyers price risk. However, alongside these tangible indicators sits another layer of value, one that does not always surface cleanly in financial statements and may even remain invisible if it is not properly understood or articulated:…
This story continues at The Next Web

Source link

Source link

Kirk Fisher/Getty Images

American consumers are likely considering many different factors when choosing where to go for gas. The cost per gallon is at the top of course, as gas stations often have different prices. Fuel type can be a close second, and even the brand name on the pumps can play a part as well. But the companies behind those brands may not be top of mind, as some US gas station chains are actually owned by British companies. Perhaps the best-known example is BP, which stands for British Petroleum, a company that dates back to the 1920s.

BP, in turn, owns Amoco, a gas station chain that was previously known as Standard Oil, once the largest oil company in the world. Amoco merged with BP in 1998, and while the brand isn’t as prominent as it once was, BP keeps it going in select locations. Another British-owned company, Shell, began as a small antiques shop in 1880s London and grew into a worldwide corporation with thousands of fuel stations across the US.

Another company that operates gas station chains in the US, EG America, is also owned by the Brits. However, you may not be familiar with this subsidiary of EG Group, as they operate under 10 different travel-stop brands throughout America. Those brands include Kwik Shop, Turkey Hill, Cumberland Farms, Tom Thumb, and the Loaf and Jug.

Advertisement

Other foreign-owned gas station chains in the US

Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

In addition to British-owned chains, several US gas station companies are owned by entities based outside America. 7-Eleven began as an American company but is now owned by a Japanese corporation called Seven & I Holdings. This same parent company also owns the Speedway chain of fuel stations. Couche-Tard, a Canadian company, owns Circle K and Lukoil gas stations are owned by a Russian company.

Fomento Económico Mexicano (FEMSA), a Mexican conglomerate, took over a chain of gas stations in the southwest, when it acquired Delek US Retail. FEMSA was already an established player in the industry throughout Europe and Latin America thanks to its OXXO brand of convenience stores. Up until late 2025, Citgo was owned by Petróleos de Venezuela, a Venezuelan company. However, as of this writing, Citgo is in the process of being acquired by an affiliate-backed group of US investors.

Advertisement

Some of these companies have made big moves to grow their US footprint in recent years. Couche-Tard unsuccessfully attempted to buy Seven 7 & I Holdings for $38 billion in 2024, but the offer was deemed to be too low. But that didn’t stop Couche-Tard’s American expansion, as the Canadian corporation acquired a chain of stores from another company in the same year. 7-11 continued to grow as well, thanks to its own convenience store chain purchase, as well as the purchase of a restaurant chain.

Advertisement

Source link

The patent troll Optis has been told by a US jury that Apple has not infringed on any of its LTE patents, ending the elongated dispute in the US until yet another appeal is made.

Optis hoped to collect money for every iPhone sold

The latest jury trial occurred after the US Court of Appeals threw out a verdict that would have had Apple paying Optis $300 million in damages. The case was then sent to a trial by jury where the jury members would be asked a single question about the five patents.
According to a report from Reuters, the jury voted unanimously. The question was: “Did Optis prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple infringed at least one claim from each of the following patents?”
Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

Source link

Seattle-based company Highspot plans to merge with Seismic in a deal that will combine two of the biggest players in sales and revenue enablement software.

The companies announced Thursday that they’ve signed a definitive agreement to merge. Once the transaction closes, the combined company will operate under the Seismic name and be led by Seismic CEO Rob Tarkoff, who was hired in October. Highspot founder and CEO Robert Wahbe will join the board of directors of the combined company.

Permira, the private equity firm that has backed San Diego-based Seismic since 2020, will remain the controlling shareholder. The companies will operate independently until the deal closes. The platforms “will continue to be supported thereafter,” according to a press release.

The deal effectively places Highspot under Seismic’s leadership and brand. Additional terms were not disclosed. We’ve followed up with the companies to learn more about any potential workforce impact and where the combined company will be headquartered. Update: Highspot declined to provide further details.

The merger brings together two longtime competitors in the revenue enablement market. Their software is designed to help sales, marketing, and customer success teams manage content, training, analytics, and performance.

“There is a growing demand for technologies that better connect sales strategy to execution and help organizations drive consistent revenue performance at scale, especially in today’s go-to-market environment,” Tarkoff wrote on LinkedIn.

In the press release, Wahbe said the deal will let the combined company “move the revenue enablement space forward” by giving customers “more innovation” and “more insights leading to actions.”

Highspot is one of Seattle’s most prominent enterprise software companies and has raised $650 million since launching in 2011. It’s held the No. 1 spot on the GeekWire 200, our list of privately held technology companies in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest, and employs more than 1,000 people, according to LinkedIn data.

The company’s most recent publicly disclosed valuation was $3.5 billion in 2022, when it raised $248 million.

Highspot went through layoffs twice in 2023 amid a larger tech slowdown.

Highspot’s valuation in 2022 came at the peak of the software boom. Since then, venture funding has tightened and valuations across the tech sector have reset. PitchBook noted that many once high-flying “unicorns” have seen valuations fall below the $1 billion mark as capital becomes more concentrated. Established enterprise software companies are also under scrutiny amid the AI boom.

B Capital Group and D1 Capital Partners led Highspot’s Series F round in 2022. Other backers include ICONIQ Growth, Madrona Venture Group, Salesforce Ventures, Sapphire Ventures, and Tiger Global Management.

Wahbe is a former longtime employee at Microsoft, where he spent 16 years equipping sales teams with necessary information to craft customer pitches. He founded the company in 2011 with former colleagues Oliver Sharp and David Wortendyke.

“We believe this is a great next milestone and an exciting new chapter for one of Seattle’s longstanding, successful startups,” Wahbe said in a statement to GeekWire.

Seismic, founded in 2010, is best known for its Seismic Enablement Cloud. It reached a $3 billion valuation in 2021 and serves around 2,000 customers worldwide.

Highspot’s customers include Compass, Nasdaq and Stripe. The company said in November that it had more than 40 customers with 5,000 sales representatives each. Its largest deployment exceeded more than 50,000 end users.

Source link

Editor’s note: GeekWire publishes guest opinions to foster informed discussion and highlight a diversity of perspectives on issues shaping the tech and startup community. If you’re interested in submitting a guest column, email us at tips@geekwire.com. Submissions are reviewed by our editorial team for relevance and editorial standards.

Washington state is once again fighting about taxes. Business-and-occupation rates are up. Payroll taxes have expanded. Property taxes keep climbing. The Climate Commitment Act has raised everyday costs. Now comes the familiar call for an income tax. Each debate follows the same pattern: Is the tax fair? Is it legal? Is it progressive enough?

That framing is the problem.

Washington argues about taxes one at a time, as if each levy exists in isolation. They do not. What matters to families, workers, and employers is the total burden, how it is structured, and whether the system reflects a coherent plan. By that standard, Washington is failing.

Supporters of an income tax argue the state’s system is too regressive. They have a point. The state relies heavily on consumption taxes and business taxes that are ultimately passed through in higher prices and lower wages. Lower- and middle-income households end up paying a larger share of their income than higher earners. Adding progressivity, the argument goes, would make the system fairer.

Opponents respond that politicians cannot be trusted to stop at “just one tax.” They warn of a ratchet effect: new taxes layered on top of old ones, steadily pushing Washington through the ranks of the highest-tax states. They’re not wrong either. The Paid Family and Medical Leave payroll tax has nearly tripled since 2019. The capital gains tax rate jumped from 7% to 9.9% last year. The gas tax rose again in 2025, putting Washington among the most expensive states to fuel a car.

Both sides have valid concerns. Yet the debate remains a series of narrow, partisan skirmishes rather than a serious discussion of tax policy as a system.

What’s missing is strategy. State leaders are offering revenue ideas, not a tax vision. A strategy begins with an end state. Washington has never articulated one.

What is the state’s target tax burden as a percentage of income? How should it compare to states Washington actually competes with — California, Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Arizona? Should Washington aim to be a low-tax state, a middle-of-the-pack state, or a high-tax state that promises high-end public services? Voters are never told.

Nor is there clarity about the proper mix of revenue. How much should come from consumption? From business activity? From income, if at all? Which taxes should grow with the economy, and which should remain stable? These questions matter. They shape investment decisions, talent retention, and long-term growth.

For small businesses and startups, the consequences of this lack of clarity are immediate. Young companies don’t encounter taxes one at a time; they absorb the full stack at once. Business-and-occupation taxes apply before profitability. Payroll taxes rise the moment hiring begins. Energy and transportation costs flow directly into margins.

Unlike large corporations, startups and small firms cannot shift operations across states, absorb sudden cost increases, or negotiate their way out of regulatory complexity.

The goal is not to avoid paying taxes, but to operate within a system that is intentional and predictable. Sudden changes — such as reclassifying businesses from services to retail for B&O purposes — can render an otherwise viable business model unworkable overnight within Washington.

In practice, uncertainty and compliance churn often matter as much as the rate itself. A tax system without a defined end state makes long-term planning nearly impossible for the very firms the state says it wants to grow.

Instead, Washington’s approach has been incremental and reactive. When spending rises, a new tax appears. When equity concerns emerge, yet another tax is layered on. There is no framework tying these decisions together, only a running justification for why the next increase is unavoidable.

Consider the most recent addition to the tax base: the Climate Commitment Act. Some analysts argue that it functions as a regressive revenue mechanism because compliance costs can be passed through into energy, transportation, and consumer goods prices. If lawmakers are serious about addressing regressivity in the tax system, they should explain how the CCA’s cost impacts fit into the broader tax and mitigation framework and whether adjustments or offsets are warranted.

A more serious administration would approach this differently. It would publish a comprehensive tax strategy. It would define the desired total burden. It would benchmark Washington honestly against peer states. It would identify which taxes should expand, which should contract, and which should be eliminated. And it would explain the tradeoffs plainly, without pretending that revenue comes without cost.

Such a plan would not please everyone. But it would signal competence and demonstrate leadership. It would give voters and businesses something they currently lack: predictability.

There is also a political opportunity being squandered. Comprehensive tax reform is one of the few areas where bipartisan agreement is possible. Democrats concerned about equity and Republicans concerned about growth could meet on common ground — if the goal were a coherent system rather than the next revenue “win.”

Instead, the current approach reinforces public cynicism. Each new proposal confirms the suspicion that taxes rise without limit, that reforms are never finished, and that promises of restraint are temporary.

If Washington wants to be seen as a model of effective governance, the answer isn’t another narrow tax fight. It’s a pause. A reset. A commitment to step back from piecemeal changes and present a full plan worthy of public trust.

The country is tired of partisan trench warfare. One way to lower the temperature is to govern like adults: set goals, measure outcomes, and explain decisions. Washington has the resources and talent to do that.

What it lacks, at least for now, is a strategy.

Source link

Source link

Major League Soccer fans will be able to enjoy even more game highlights as part of the Walmart Saturday Showdown, debuting on Apple TV in February 2026.

Walmart Saturday Showdown is coming to Apple TV on February 21.

Apple’s push for sports-related programming continues, as the iPhone maker has now promised additional Major League Soccer content. Throughout 2026, Apple TV subscribers in the United States will be able to watch MLS games for free, with select games highlighted as part of Sunday Night Soccer.
Starting February 21, MLS fans will get to enjoy even more soccer content over the weekend, with Walmart Saturday Showdown games coming to Apple’s streaming service.
Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

Source link