sustainability

Auto Added by WPeMatico

Why these co-founders turned their sustainability podcast into a VC-backed business

When Laura Wittig and Liza Moiseeva met as guests on a podcast about sustainable fashion, they jibed so well together that they began one of their own: Good Together. Their show’s goal was to provide listeners with a place to learn how to be eco-conscious consumers, but with baby steps.

Wittig thinks the non-judgmental environment (one that doesn’t knock on a consumer for not being zero-waste overnight) is the show’s biggest differentiator. “Then, people were emailing us and asking how they can be on our journey beyond being a listener,” Wittig said. Now, over a year after launching the show, the co-hosts are turning validation from listeners into the blueprint for a standalone business: Brightly.

Brightly is a curated platform that sells vetted eco-friendly goods and shares tips about conscious consumerism. While the startup is launching with more than 200 products from eco-friendly brands, such as Sheets & Giggles and Juice Beauty, the long-term vision is to start their own commerce brand of Brightly-branded products. The starting lineup will include two to four products in the home space.

To get those products out by the holiday season, Brightly tells TechCrunch that it has raised $1 million in venture funding from investors, including Tacoma Venture Fund, Keeler Investments, Odile Roujol (a FAB Ventures backer and former L’Oréal CEO) and Female Founder’s Alliance.

The funding caps off a busy 12 months for Brightly. The startup has gone through Snap’s Yellow accelerator, an in-house effort from the social media company that began in 2018. As part of the program Snap invests $150,000 in each Yellow startup for an equity stake. The company also did Ready Set Raise, an equity-free accelerator put on by Female Founders Alliance, in the fall.

With new funding, Brightly is seeking to take a Glossier-style approach to become the next big brand in commerce: gather a community by recommending great products, then turn the strategy on its head and make your superfans buy in-house products under the same brand.

“We have access to a community of women who are beating our door down to shop directly with us and have exclusive products made for them,” Wittig said.

Brightly wants to be more than a “boring storefront” one could quickly whip up on Shopify or Amazon, Wittig says.

The company’s curation process, which every product goes through before being listed on the platform, is extensive. The startup makes sure that every product is created with sustainable and ethical supply chain processes and sustainable material. The team also interviews every brand’s founders to understand the genesis of any product that lives on the Brightly platform. The co-founders also weigh the durability and longevity of products, adopting what Wittig sees as a “Wirecutter approach.”

“It’s more like, ‘why would we pick an ethically produced leather handbag over something that might be made not from leather but wouldn’t last too long necessarily,’ ” she said. “These are the conversations we have with our audience, because the term eco-friendly is very much our grayscale.”

Image Credits: Brightly

More than 250,000 people come to Brightly, either through their app or website, every day, according to Wittig. The startup monetizes largely through brand partnerships and getting those users in front of paid products.

Image Credits: Brightly

The monetization strategy is similar to what you might find a podcast use: affiliate links or product placement mid-episode. But while the co-founders are relying on this strategy right now, they see the opportunity to create their own e-commerce company as larger and more lucrative.

“The billion-dollar opportunity is not with that,” Wittig said. “The value will be going direct commerce and selling our picks of ethical sustainable goods.”

Marking the transition from podcasting about eco-friendly goods to creating them in-house is a strong pivot. The co-founders consider creating a distribution commerce channel to be a larger opportunity and likely more lucrative than the podcasting business.

Beyond creating a line of their own products, Brightly is thinking about how to partner with white-label sustainable products. Another option, Wittig said, is to partner with big corporations to get products on their shelves with colors and customization for Brightly. An example of an ideal partnership would be Reformation’s recent partnership with Blueland.

Wittig declined to share more details on how they plan to win, but likened the strategy to that of Goop or Glossier, two companies that started with content arms and drew their community into a commerce platform.

“It’s not going to be a Thrive Market where there are hundreds and thousands of sustainable goods on there. It’s going to be much more curated,” she said.

COVID-19 has helped the startup further validate the need for a platform that unites a conscious consumer community.

“We are all so aware of the purchasing power we have,” she said. “As consumers we go out and support small businesses by getting coffee on the go. But before, we did not think twice about getting everything from Amazon.”

The conversation with investors hasn’t been as simple, the co-founder said. Investors continue to be “hands off” about community-based platforms because they are unsure it will work. Wittig says that many bearish investors have placed bets on singular direct-to-consumer brands, such as Away or Blueland.

“Those investors know the rising costs of customer acquisition, and see what happens when you don’t have a community that surrounds our business,” she said.

Brightly is betting that the future of commerce brands has to start with a go-to-market, and then bring in the end-product, instead of the other way. The end goal here for Brightly is attracting, and generating excitement from, Gen Z and millennial shoppers. To do so, Wittig says that Brightly is experimenting with ways to implement socialization aspects into the shopping experience.

Leslie Feinzaig, the founder of Female Founders Alliance, said that what’s special about Brightly is that it “demonstrated demand before building for it.”

“I think a lot of people today could build software to connect people and sell things, but very few people could get thousands of fanatical followers to actually engage with each other and make that software useful,” Feinzaig said. “Brightly built that community with matchsticks and tape.”

Powered by WPeMatico

European lawmakers propose a ‘right to repair’ for mobiles and laptops

The European Commission has set out a plan to move towards a ‘right to repair’ for electronics devices, such as mobile phones, tablets and laptops.

More generally it wants to restrict single-use products, tackle “premature obsolescence” and ban the destruction of unsold durable goods — in order to make sustainable products the norm.

The proposals are part of a circular economy action plan that’s intended to deliver on a Commission pledge to transition the bloc to carbon neutrality by 2050.

By extending the lifespan of products, via measures which target design and production to encourage repair, reuse and recycling, the policy push aims to reduce resource use and shrink the environmental impact of buying and selling stuff.

The Commission also wants to arm EU consumers with reliable information about reparability and durability — to empower them to make greener product choices.

“Today, our economy is still mostly linear, with only 12% of secondary materials and resources being brought back into the economy,” said EVP Frans Timmermans in a statement. “Many products break down too easily, cannot be reused, repaired or recycled, or are made for single use only. There is a huge potential to be exploited both for businesses and consumers. With today’s plan we launch action to transform the way products are made and empower consumers to make sustainable choices for their own benefit and that of the environment.”

The Commission said electronics and ICT will be a priority area for implementing a right to repair, via planned expansion of the Ecodesign Directive — which currently sets energy efficiency standards for devices such as washing machines.

Its action plan proposes setting up a ‘Circular Electronics Initiative’ to promote longer product lifetimes through reusability and reparability as well as “upgradeability” of components and software to avoid premature obsolescence.

The Commission is also planning new regulatory measures on chargers for mobile phones and similar devices. While an EU-wide take back scheme to return or sell back old mobile phones, tablets and chargers is being considered.

Back in January the EU Parliament voted overwhelmingly for tougher action to reduce e-waste, calling for the Commission to come up with beefed up rules by this summer.

In recent years MEPs have also pushed for the Ecodesign Direction to be expanded to include repairability.

The Commission proposals also include a new regulatory framework for batteries and vehicles — including measures to improve the collection and recycling rates of batteries and ensure the recovery of valuable materials. Plus there’s a proposal to revise the rules on end-of-life vehicles to improve recycling efficiency and waste oil treatment. 

It’s also planning measures to set targets to shrink the amount of packaging being produced, with the aim of making all packaging reusable or recyclable in an economically viable way by 2030.

Mandatory requirements on recycled content for plastics used in areas such as packaging, construction materials and vehicles is another proposal.

Other priority areas for promoting circularity and reducing high consumption rates include construction, textiles and food.

The Commission expects the circular economy to have net positive benefits in terms of GDP growth and jobs’ creation across the bloc — suggesting measures to boost sustainability will increase the EU’s GDP by an additional 0.5% by 2030 and create around 700,000 new jobs.

The backing of MEPs in the European Parliament and EU Member States will be necessary if the Commission proposals are to make it into pan-EU law.

Should they do so, Dutch social enterprise Fairphone shows a glimpse of what’s coming down the repairable pipe in future…

Powered by WPeMatico

Oceans of opportunity: surveying 2020’s seafaring startup potential

Space attracts a lot of attention as an area of frontier tech investment and entrepreneurship, but there’s another vast expanse that could actually be more addressable by the innovation economy — Earth’s oceans.

Seafaring startups aren’t attracting quite as much attention as their spacefaring cousins, but 2019 still saw a flurry of activity in this sector and 2020 could be an even big year for everything aquatic.

Sounding the depths of data collection

One big similarity between space tech and seafaring opportunities is that data collection represents a significant percent of the potential market. Data collection in and around Earth’s oceans has increased dramatically in recent years thanks to the availability, efficacy and cost of sensor technologies — in 2017, it was estimated that as much ocean data had been gathered in the past two years as in all of human history. But relatively speaking, that barely scratches the surface.

Ocean observation has largely been driven by scientific and research goals, which means there’s bound to be a pretty hard cap on available funding. But ocean data has value in all kinds of private’s sector pursuits, including the potential for autonomous commercial cargo transportation (more on that later), as well as predicting weather and climate conditions that impact shipping routes, agriculture and more.

Various methods exist for collecting data about Earth’s oceans, including space-based satellite observation. Startups like Terradepth, Saildrone and Promare have all proposed various autonomous seafaring data collection vehicle designs that could leverage robotics to bring ocean observation at scale closer to home. These firms are using technology that’s been made affordable for startup budgets through miniaturization and efficiency gains evolved through the progress of the smartphone and other computing industries.

This past year, Xprize awarded millions in prize money to teams that competed in the Ocean Discovery competition for autonomous ocean floor mapping, which is resulting in spin-out ventures that have a head start on success.

As in space, data collection and observation can take many forms, so we can expect to see many industry-specific approaches emerge to capitalize on what are surprisingly large market opportunities, even for seemingly narrow types of data. Continued efforts to refine and improve robotics technologies like sensing and vision should drive even more growth in autonomous ocean observation in 2020.

Autonomous logistics

Oceanfaring drones aren’t just about data collection, however; a huge portion of the global logistics market still relies on giant cargo vessels. The drive to automate container ships is nothing new, but it’s reaching a point where we’re actually starting to see autonomous cargo vehicles embark, including this Chinese cargo ship that set out from Guangdong at the end of this year and a ship called the Yara Birkeland has begun trials out of Rotterdam and expects to be operating fully autonomously by 2022.

Powered by WPeMatico

iFixit gives Fairphone 3 a perfect 10 for repairability

Here’s something the hermetically sealed iPhone can’t do: Score a perfect 10 for repairability.

Smartphone startup and social enterprise Fairphone’s latest repairable-by-design smartphone has done just that, getting 10/10 in an iFixit Teardown vs scores of just 6/10 for recent iPhone models.

The Fairphone 3, which was released in Europe last week with an RRP of €450, gets thumbs up across the board in iFixit’s hardware Teardown. It found all the internal modules to be easily accessible and replaceable — with only basic tools required to get at them (Fairphone includes a teeny screwdriver in the box). iFixit also lauds visual cues that help with disassembly and reassembly, and notes that repair guides and spare parts are available on Fairphone’s website.

iFixit’s sole quibble is that while most of the components inside the Fairphone 3’s modules are individually replaceable “some” are soldered on. A tiny blip that doesn’t detract from the 10/10 repairability score

Safe to say, such a score is the smartphone exception. The industry continues to encourage buyers to replace an entire device, via yearly upgrade, instead of enabling them to carry out minor repairs themselves — so they can extend the lifespan of their device and thereby shrink environmental impact.

Dutch startup Fairphone was set up to respond to the abject lack of sustainability in the electronics industry. The tiny company has been pioneering modularity for repairability for several years now, flying in the face of smartphone giants that are still routinely pumping out sealed tablets of metal and glass which often don’t even let buyers get at the battery to replace it themselves.

To wit: An iFixit Teardown of the Google Pixel rates battery replacement as “difficult” with a full 20 steps and between 1-2 hours required. (Whereas the Fairphone 3 battery can be accessed in seconds, by putting a fingernail under the plastic back plate to pop it off and lifting the battery out.)

The Fairphone 3 goes much further than offering a removable backplate for getting at the battery, though. The entire device has been designed so that its components are accessible and repairable.

So it’s not surprising to see it score a perfect 10 (the startup’s first modular device, Fairphone 2, was also scored 10/10 by iFixit). But it is strong, continued external validation for the Fairphone’s designed-for-repairability claim.

It’s an odd situation in many respects. In years past replacement batteries were the norm for smartphones, before the cult of slimming touchscreen slabs arrived to glue phone innards together. Largely a consequence of hardware business models geared towards profiting from pushing for clockwork yearly upgrades cycle — and slimmer hardware is one way to get buyers coveting your next device.

But it’s getting harder and harder to flog the same old hardware horse because smartphones have got so similarly powerful and capable there’s precious little room for substantial annual enhancements.

Hence iPhone maker Apple’s increasing focus on services. A shift that’s sadly not been accompanied by a rethink of Cupertino’s baked in hostility towards hardware repairability. (It still prefers, for example, to encourage iPhone owners to trade in their device for a full upgrade.)

At Apple’s 2019 new product announcement event yesterday — where the company took the wraps off another clutch of user-sealed smartphones (aka: iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro) — there was even a new financing offer to encourage iPhone users to trade in their old models and grab the new ones. ‘Look, we’re making it more affordable to upgrade!’ was the message.

Meanwhile, the only attention paid to sustainability — during some 1.5 hours of keynotes — was a slide which passed briefly behind marketing chief Phil Schiller towards the end of his turn on stage puffing up the iPhone updates, encouraging him to pause for thought.

Apple 2019 event

“iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 are made to be designed free from these harmful materials and of course to reduce their impact on the environment,” he said in front of a list of some toxic materials that are definitely not in the iPhones.

Stuck at the bottom of this list were a couple of detail-free claims that the iPhones are produced via a “low-carbon process” and are “highly recyclable”. (The latter presumably a reference to how Apple handles full device trade-ins. But as anyone who knows about sustainability will tell you, sustained use is far preferable to premature recycling…)

“This is so important to us. That’s why I bring it up every time. I want to keep pushing the boundaries of this,” Schiller added, before pressing the clicker to move on to the next piece of marketing fodder. Blink and you’d have missed it.

If Apple truly wants to push the boundaries on sustainability — and not just pay glossy lip-service to reducing environmental impact for marketing purposes while simultaneously encouraging annual upgrades — it has a very long way to go indeed.

As for repairability, the latest and greatest iPhones clearly won’t hold a candle to the Fairphone.

Powered by WPeMatico

Can Fairphone 3 scale ethical consumer electronics?

Fairphone, the Dutch social enterprise that’s on a mission to rethink the waste and exploitation that underpins the business of consumer electronics, has unboxed its third smartphone.

The handset, which is sold with the promise of longevity rather than cutting edge obsolescence, goes on pre-sale from today in Europe via Fairphone’s website with a suggested retail price of €450 (depending on local taxes and levies). It will ship to buyers on September 3.

Like its predecessor, the design is modular to allow the user to swap out damaged parts for replacement modules that Fairphone also sells.

Out of the box the phone comes with Android 9 preloaded. A post-launch update will make it easy for buyers to wipe Google services off their slate and install the Android Open Source Project instead.

Commenting in a statement, CEO Eva Gouwens said: “We developed the Fairphone 3 to be a real sustainable alternative on the market, which is a big step towards lasting change. By establishing a market for ethical products, we want to motivate the entire industry to act more responsibly since we cannot achieve this change alone.”

“We envision an economy where consideration for people and the planet is a natural part of doing business and according to this vision, we have created scalable ways to improve our supply chain and product,” she added.

Fairphone main Google

Fairphone 3 running Android 9 out of the box

Mining an ethical niche

Since 2013, the hardware startup has focused on selling smartphones attached to a pledge of fairer working conditions for the people who assemble them, and greater transparency around the sourcing of minerals and materials needed to make them — as well as designing for longevity and repairability.

More than 80% of the volume of the Fairphone 3 is recycled, according to founder (and former CEO) Bas van Abel. He also touts its own research that suggests a Fairphone 3 owner who’s able to keep and maintain the device can save 30% of CO2 emissions or more over the product’s lifetime.

In seeking to achieve its flagship ‘fair phone’ pledge the team behind Fairphone has had to go beyond the surface hardware — and innovate on developing supply chains that can live up to an ethical agenda.

Fairphone 3’s PR flags “responsibly sourced and conflict-free tin and tungsten, recycled copper and plastics”, as well as fair trade gold which it sourced for the handset (and is working to integrate into its supply chain). It also says it’s in the process of setting up an initiative for “better sourcing of cobalt”, aka the key mineral for energy transition.

36123590822 d29a6bdf05 k

Malachite, copper and cobalt. Image credit: Fairphone

On the labor and human rights front, the Fairphone 3 is assembled by Taiwanese manufacturing partner Arima — which Fairphone says it has collaborated with to “improve employee satisfaction by improving worker representation, health and safety and by paying a bonus to workers with the aim to bridge the gap between minimum and living wages in the factory”.

In practice van Abel says this means Fairphone pays the assembly workers employed by Arima a bonus based on increased performance around its social goals. Rather than, per more usual industry practice, punishing the manufacturing partner if it fails to hit stringent delivery targets — which then encourages a punishing spiral of forced overtime that erodes workers rights and welfare.

It also has social incentives programs in three other factories that put together components for the device, such as its speakers.

Despite what are clearly laudable and lofty goals, selling fairer and more ethical smartphones remains a niche business for now, with Fairphone’s total shipments to date representing less than 0.1% of the Western European smartphone market. It is also still a European-only business. But it’s a niche that van Abel says is “growing at high speed”.

“I do believe it’s very feasible for Fairphone to [ship 200,000 smartphones per year] in the next couple of years,” he says, adding: “We can address a small part of the conscious consuming market” — pointing to Gouwens’ background at a Dutch confectionary company, Tony’s Chocolonely, which was set up in 2005 to campaign for fair trade and slave-free chocolate, and now has the biggest marketshare on chocolate in Holland.

Phones are of course far more complex to make than bars of chocolate. But in recent years a maturing smartphone market has seen a slow down in the pace of technological innovation coupled with rising commoditization that’s made differentiation a major challenge for Android OEMs especially.

So if there’s a point in time when a fair trade smartphone might stand a chance against the Samsungs, Huaweis, Xiaomis, Oppos, LGs and so on then the current moment has a fair bit to recommend it.

At the same time, concern about the environmental cost of business models that depend upon continuous resource use and generate mountains of e-waste is also growing — thanks to greater visibility and awareness of the damage caused at both ends of the pipe (including as countries like China put hard limits on the types of foreign waste they’ll accept).

“I believe that we are more and more ready for [sustainability and fair trade] in consumer electronics and I do see that the conversation in consumer electronics is definitely changing — it’s much more mature on sustainability,” says van Abel. “More and more companies are looking into it, and it’s also more demanding from the consumer perspective. You see that that’s changing as well. So it will happen. It’s just that it’s not happening fast enough.”

“We’ve been not so successful in disconnecting the [consumer electronics] business models from the use of resources yet but that is a legacy from an economic system that was set up centuries ago,” he adds. “Where growth is connected to the use of resources — and that has to do with sustainability and change and a changing mindset.”

The wider conviction, for Fairphone as a social enterprise, is to work to generate momentum that pushes the consumer electronics industry towards a circular future — where fairer conditions for workers and a reduction in waste and resource use; a focus on product longevity via repairable design and component reuse; and end of life recycling are no longer exceptional but what every player strives for.

The project is indeed a massive one. And Fairphone remains very much a work in progress — an ambitious attempt at reforming all the tarnished links in the smartphone supply chain. So yes, it’s by no means perfect.

The industry that it has to interact with still contains plenty of murky corners which a tiny company has only very limited power to sway. Even as Fairphone has punched above its weight by using campaigning roots to build consumer awareness and industry buy in that’s enabled it to enact small on-the-ground changes which have the potential to scale into something bigger.

Its investors include Bethnal Green Ventures, Pymwymic, Doen Participaties, Quadia, Dutch Good Growth Fund and ABN Amro Fund. More than $40M has gone into the business since Fairphone was founded — in seed, VC and debt financing.

“The problem with the industry is that the deeper you go into the supply chain — like the third, fourth tier — the worse it gets,” says van Abel. “So the assembly factories where you have a direct relationship are basically the ones that are doing pretty well, also because they have all these rules and things put upon them by big manufacturers. Companies are most vulnerable on the ODMs.

“So the further you go into the supply chain where they’re really making the plastics and the small metals and that kind of stuff the worse it gets. So we really want to also make sure that that is being surfaced and that we put some attention on it… Are we able to change that deep into the supply chain? It’s really difficult to get that far as a small player but we’re trying.”

“On the supply chain we’ve been going along investing into programs all along the way,” he goes on, giving the example of a child-labor free mining program it’s set up in Uganda to source fair trade gold.

“We’re working really hard with lots of partners on the ground. It’s getting off the ground now but the gold that we get from there is not connected to the supply chain of the [Fair]phone yet — so that will be an innovation that will come along the way, coming in 2020.

“What we do now is we’ve taken all the supply chains that we had for Fairphone 2 and were able to get that into Fairphone 3. So at least we have everything that we covered with Fairphone 2 but in a way that is also more scalable. Previously we had the gold through our own supply chain going into the factories. Right now we have it set up in such a way that other companies can use that same gold and the factory can scale up with that gold as well. So it’s a higher amount, it’s more scalable but we’re also setting up new initiatives.”

“Another one is cobalt which we’re investing in a lot — which is used for batteries,” he adds. “If we get that initiative up and running it’s also very interesting for the car industry to actually use that same supply chain. Because one of the things that a lot of the industry is focusing on is recycling. But we all know that there’s not enough to recycle to actually feed the supply chain with the amount of minerals we need to make our products. So we still need mining. And that’s one of the things that the industry has not been very open about.”

Virgin resources being necessary to manufacture shiny gadgets and electronics-packed machines is the industry’s dirty not-so-little secret. This means mines where minerals are dug out of the earth in order to be refined or smelted for use in the modules and components packed inside devices.

Even consumer tech giants that make claims for the labor and welfare standards of their third party assembly factory workers aren’t typically making promises that extend all the way back to the mines where the minerals essential to their devices are dug out and processed. Fairphone is at least trying to dig into the dirtiest stuff.

27073808913 0f4ea909eb k

Conflict-free tungsten mine in Rwanda now integrated into Fairphone’s supply chain. Image credit: Fairphone

“We have an approach where we look at closed pipe supply chains for certain materials from the mines all the way to the component. And we look at the factories that are involved along the line per component because we can’t do all the factories — so we can at least say along that whole supply chain we’ve looked at the factories working it in,” says van Abel.

“If you look at mining there’s nothing beautiful about mining… Mining in itself is bad for the environment, there’s a lot of harsh working conditions, it’s in third world countries many of the times, so it’s not a focus area of a lot of these companies because it’s… a far away story. So many of these manufacturers and phone companies focus on recycling.

“In itself recycling is not bad it’s just that we still need all these virgin materials. Also recycling is kind of a last resort as I see it — reusing components would be a better thing. And even the best thing would be using the phone as long as possible.”

Repairable for half a decade+

Like its predecessor, the latest Fairphone’s flagship feature — aside from fairer and more ethical assembly — is that it’s designed to be repairable. A fact that’s front and center when you open the box and find a tiny screwdriver nestled alongside what otherwise looks a fairly standard (if slightly chunky) Android smartphone.

Fairphone box main

There’s no charger, USB cable or headphones in the box — intentional omissions to reduce unnecessary e-waste. The novel presence of a tiny metal and plastic screwdriver seems a fair trade for the usual accessories which Fairphone has calculated most phone buyers will already own. (If not, it can sell you a charger.)

Its big promise with this, its third generation handset, is that it will be supported for the next five to seven years.

van Abel tells TechCrunch he’s confident it can deliver on that “bold” pledge — having learnt some hard lessons over the past five+ years of pushing against ingrained industry habits baked into clockwork component upgrade cycles.

It wasn’t always like this. Some buyers of the first-gen Fairphone were disappointed and even angry when it announced it was ending support for that device in 2017 — meaning an early adopter would only have had between two and 3.5 years’ support for a smartphone that was sold as ‘repairable by design’.

The problem Fairphone found itself first crashing into, and next seeking to tackle head on, is that the consumer electronics industry as a whole is not geared up for sustainability and repairability but rather locked to regular (wasteful) upgrade cycles which in turn drive regular ~two-year component refresh cycles.

This tick-tock onward march of upgrades makes supporting older hardware a challenge. In seeking to go against the grain Fairphone has literally had to stockpile enough components to ensure it can offer years of spare part runway to support its devices.

In parallel, industry software has also needed to evolve so chipsets can be supported for longer — and van Abel says “a lot of software is actually changing. You can upgrade more and more easily to new software” — so it’s finally in a position to be confident that the latest handset can last.

“Our company has gotten much more mature,” he also says. “We are better equipped to deal with the scaling, the financial position has increased and has changed up to a point which is much more solid — so the whole support system, the ecosystem, around the phone has improved a lot.”

The Fairphone 3 is its second handset design to incorporate repairable modules that are designed to be accessible to the user. It comes in a translucent shell that also acts as a protective bumper and is stamped proudly down the side with the words “designed to open”.

Crack into it and you’ll find six modules that can be swapped out with a little bit of elbow grease and a Phillips #00 screwdriver — including the display, speaker and camera, as well as the battery (harking back to days when replaceable batteries were a smartphone norm).

Fairphone screw

Fairphone 3 — modularity refined

The aim of this type of modularity is not for customization or upgrades but for sustainability by increasing longevity by making it easy and cheaper to replace a damaged or defunct component vs junking the whole phone or having to take it to a specialist shop for expensive repair.

To be clear Fairphone is not offering upgradable hardware modules to boost phone performance over time but like for like replacements. It wants each Fairphone user to keep the same handset for longer — even if it gets dropped and the screen cracked, or used so much the battery loses its capacity to hold a charge.

“One of the biggest changes we’ve seen in the phone industry is that there’s small incremental innovation — which is in our benefit. So I think the time is right now,” says van Abel. “We are able to support phones longer. It has to do with the hardware, it also has to do with the software. The software you see that many of the software platforms… offer a better integration with the chipset. So also for future upgrades.

“You will see the software will run for longer time also on these chipsets — which basically are at a point where you will not run WhatsApp faster on a newer chipset. For some [other] stuff, especially on 3D gaming and the really high end computing stuff, it makes sense to go to the new processors but most of the stuff you will be able to do on the average processor on the phone. So it paves the way to keep phones in the hands of the consumers for a longer time, which makes sense. Because it’s cheaper for consumers… and it also is more sustainable.”

With the Fairphone 3 he says the company sought to dial down the “radical” modularity of its earlier crack at the concept — so the result is less of a ‘party trick’ smartphone design, as the Fairphone 2 was (he dubs it a “show off” phone) — and more, well, dull but worthy; modularity as a utility that’s there to enable (occasional) repairs.

“You don’t need the phone to be so super smooth in taking apart to be able to repair it,” he says. “Fairphone 2 goes beyond the idea of repairability. It’s more a show off phone in that sense. And that also comes with risks.”

Fairphone 2 — its earlier, flashier crack at modularity

Refining its approach to modularity also means Fairphone has been able to reduce the cost of the handset. Consumers will see that in a cheaper price-tag (€75 less than the prior model) — which puts it in reach of a bigger group of potential buyers.

The design is a cost (and risk) saver for Fairphone too in that it’s easier to manufacturer.  And cost and sales volume are important when you’re trying to demonstrate that making sustainable hardware can still turn a profile. (Not that Fairphone is there yet — but finding a path to profitability is a core part of the mission.)

For users the only slight downsize of the reconfigured modular design — which has a full 13 screws just holding the display module in place — is that getting to the guts involves more fiddling than it used to. Which again seems a fair trade given how rarely you should need to get into it.

“Fairphone 3 there’s less risk involved in manufacturing, the design is more sturdy so in that sense it’s also a phone we can scale with as a company — so the whole ecosystem around it; the quality control,” says van Abel. “We have a big team now in China which we didn’t have with Fairphone 2. So we are much more confident with this phone we can offer a very high qualitative product.”

If the aim of your social enterprise is to reduce e-waste and overall environmental impact by selling phones that are designed to last longer than rival devices there is something of a natural tension about releasing any new handset model at all.

When I put this to van Abel he agrees but points to the push and pull around the product, given the unavoidable need for Fairphone “to stay relevant” by appealing to smartphone buyers, and given the industry “not working int he way that we would like it to work”, as he puts it — i.e not being geared for longevity.

Fairphone definitely needs to be able to sell phones if it’s to make a positive dent in consumer electronics practices and processes. Which means enticing buyers is important.

And on that front its last model wasn’t an amazing success — saddled with uninspiring hardware at a fair trade premium price. (A pretty biting 2016 review by Wired called it “ethical but ugly”, complaining also that it had a slow camera and dated hardware.) Closing that ‘compromise gap’ is thus a key aim with Fairphone 3.

van Abel enthusiastically talks up the performance specs, noting particularly that they’ve put a lot of work into improving battery performance (the removable cell is 3000mAh, and includes fast charging) and on software engineering to integrate the camera — which he claims, as far as performance and photo quality goes, is “on par” with high end smartphones “that cost twice as much”.

At a glance the 5.7 inch full-HD screen also looks clear and crisp. Plus there’s a fingerprint reader on board, as well as NFC and 4G. Inside is a Qualcomm Snapdragon 632 engine, 4GB of RAM and a generous 64GB of storage (further expandable via an SD card slot). Dual SIM slots are another welcome touch.

The handset comes preloaded with a vanilla implementation of Android 9 (Pie). But as noted above buyers will be able to switch for a non-Google alternative — via an updater that will let them wipe and install the Android Open Source Project flavor of the OS. (The updater will come post-launch, according to van Abel, who notes that around 5% of Fairphone users opt to go full open source.)

Ethics aside, one straight up hardware boast the Fairphone 3’s got going for it is that it has a 3.5mm headphone jack. Which is something you won’t find on Apple’s latest iPhones. Nor on Samsung’s newest flagship. The march of tech progress has erased the accessory-friendly hole from premium devices.

So it’s a nice additional perk for Fairphone 3 buyers who’ve invested in wired headphones — meaning they can keep using other kit for longer too.

From fair trade chocolate to smartphones as a service

The smartphone industry has marched at a pretty steady clip since Fairphone 2 was released at the back end of 2015, with rivals updating their own much more expansive product portfolios at least annually. So an upgrade more than three years after the last Fairphone doesn’t seem overly wasteful or indulgent.

And while Fairphone has never pretended it’s going to be able to compete, like for like, with top tier smartphones on pure hardware specs and features it does need to be able to offer a phone that’s compelling enough to convince buyers to switch.

Good enough smartphone hardware with a guarantee of repairability and which is combined what it calls “fair specs” — i.e. a minimum wage for a workers in its supply chain plus a bonus that aims to close the gap with that and a living wage — is its sales pitch for Fairphone 3.

Who Fairphone buyers are is also expanding, according to van Abel. So while, two years ago, he talked of the typical user being a ‘Gen X German with a master’s degree’, now the target is any conscientious consumer.

Selling at least 100,000 handsets per year is the goal. To date it’s only sold ~175,000 Fairphones in total — through pre-sales and organic growth — but it reckons the new device will enable it to scale beyond that core fan-base to address a wider community of ethical consumers.

It’s being helped to that end by expanded carrier partnerships — such as one with Orange in France which will see the mobile operator range the handset in 600 stores.

Scaling sales is another necessary part of the social mission, says van Abel — as Fairphone needs to show its social impact investors that it’s growing demand and building a market for ethical alternatives.

Fairphone screw 1

When — or even whether — there will be a Fairphone 4 is a question he isn’t keen to engage with. Clearly the hope is Fairphone 3 packs enough smartphone punch to go the distance. Though he hints it might look to offer additional smartphones in order to enter the US, a major market it’s so far not addressed at all.

While Fairphone has had a singular device focus to date, van Abel says it’s thinking about applying its hard won learnings around electronics supply chains to other types of consumer devices — suggesting ‘Fair’ could end up as a brand prefix atop an assortment of consumer gadgets.

“I think Fairphone has developed itself — even though it’s called Fairphone — into a brand that I’m pretty sure can go into a full blown, sustainable, consumer electronics brand. Because there are none,” he tells TechCrunch. “There are not so many brands in the industry that can differentiate on what they stand for. Apple does pretty well on design. But for the rest I don’t know a lot of premium brands that can differentiate on something that they’re really good at. And we’re good at creating social innovation and sustainability. And a lot of the supply chains that we’re using already can be used for other products as well.”

More broadly, the business is evolving to sell sustainably-minded process change back to the electronics industry itself — which of course needs to reform wholesale in order to enact the kind of root and branch change needed to support a fully circular economy.

In practice this means the ethical supply chains it establishes are intended to be open for others in the industry to use too. So Fairphone’s business of making ‘fairer’ handsets also functions as a showcase and case study to encourage wider industry reform — including via some direct partnerships that allow its own tiny orders for key minerals to be fulfilled by it piggybacking and scaling the order with the help of larger buyers.

Of course everything in electronics is connected. So real change isn’t going to happen overnight. Which makes being committed to stick at it and drive consumer awareness essential. It’s a long game. Even ethical chocolate took its sweet time to take over the market.

“With Fairphone 1 we had our own supply chains, with Fairphone 2 we were more and more exploring incorporating into scalable solutions for other parties as well, and with Fairphone 3 we already have consortia — for example the cobalt we’re doing together with Royal Philips and Signify… and some other big brands I can’t mention,” van Abel tells us. “Systemic change only happens when the whole system changes — so we can’t do that as a small company ourselves.”

He says the key shift the consumer electronics industry must make to pull off transformative reform to a circular economy that’s better for humans and better for the environment is to change its business model — a centuries old model that’s still obsessed with pushing “as much as possible into the hands of consumers at the fastest rate possible”.

On this front he believes services business models offer exciting potential to retune incentives for consumers and businesses to flip the conventional model on its head.

Fairphone is currently experimenting with a service based smartphone offering — working with a local insurance company on a trial to offer Fairphone as a service, where the phone is leased not owned.

“If you sell a phone every three to five years to a person you can also survive as a company. It’s not that you can’t survive. But — having said that — one of the things we are experimenting with is Fairphone as a service… And the beautiful aspect around running a product as a service is on the profit and loss of the company. When I sell you a phone you become a cost center right away as a customer, because all the after sales, everything around it basically is cost,” he says.

“If I sell you a service and a hardware product comes with it for you to be able to use… then I’m intrinsically motivated to have you use that phone as long as possible because every time I need to make a new phone it’s cost. Whereas every month I get my money from you as a customer and I can actually keep developing my service up to a point that it is more tailor made.”

While leasing has been very common in the smartphone industry on the mobile operator side, Fairphone is approaching it from a phone maker perspective — which van Abel reckons offers potential for disconnecting “as much as possible” the use of resources from the business model attached to smartphones.

‘Fairphone as a service’ is just a pilot for now, and he concedes the model would require a lot of money to be put on the table up front to cover the cost of use of the device for several years (further lengthening already lengthy repairable-oriented device cash cycles) — but recurring subscription payments at least sound like a model that could unlock the necessary up-front capital.

(van Abel also points to changes going on in the funding space — saying impact investing is now “hot”, and adding: “We’ve been pretty successful at finding the right impact investors to support our growth.”)

“I’m pretty hopeful because [humans have] been pretty successful at selling people stuff they don’t need so I’m pretty sure that we can also reverse that into marketing stories around products that last longer and people wanting products to last longer,” he says. “There’s a whole playground [with services]. Can you imagine that you start rewarding people if they actually keep their phone longer, if they have less parts broken… Now you reward a loyal customer with a new phone — what if you reward a customer that has their phone for a very long time with a lower subscription rate, for example. So there’s so much stuff to play with in that area. Not only by phone companies but also operators and everyone that is in connection with customers.”

Fairphone founder Bas van Abel

Fairphone founder, Bas van Abel. Image credit: Fairphone

“My vision is really the disconnect from the use of resources and the business models. That is really the key problem that we’re still dealing with — if you look at sustainability,” he adds. “From a human rights perspective we’re dealing with multiple complex situations where politics, countries, wars, all these things are attached to these supply chains — which have nothing to do with consumer electronics specifically, it has to do with the human condition. So that’s even a bigger challenge — in terms of how do we create world peace basically?”

While no one would pretend there’s an easy answer for that, changing anything for the better means being willing to start somewhere.

Powered by WPeMatico

Generation closes $1B growth fund targeting sustainable startups

Generation Investment Management, the firm co-founded by environmentalist and former Vice President Al Gore, was built on the premise of backing sustainable startups. Now, as the idea of sustainability starts to gain wider traction, the firm is doubling down on the concept.

Today, Generation is announcing that it has closed a $1 billion Sustainable Solutions Fund for growth investments. As the name implies, it plans to put the $1 billion to work backing later-stage startups that work on sustainability in at least one of three areas — environmental solutions; healthcare; and financial inclusion, including the future of work — and are creating financially sustainable businesses out of that focus.

Typical investments will range from $50 million to $150 million, and there have already been two made out of the fund before it closed, both indicative of the kinds of investments Generation plans to be making.

Andela — the startup that pairs companies needing engineering talent to work on projects with developers based out of Africa — in January announced a $100 million round. Also that month, Sophia Genetics — the company that applies AI to DNA sequencing to help formulate more accurate medical treatments — raised $77 million led by the firm.

Other companies that Generation has backed include Asana, DocuSign, gogoro, CiBO, M-Kopa, Ocado, Optoro and Seventh Generation.

This is Generation’s third growth fund and the largest raised by the firm to date, which itself is a sign of the swing we’ve seen in the tech world.

In general, founders, workers and investors all remain relentlessly focused on growing new ideas. But along with that there has been a rising conscientiousness of the massive role that tech plays in shaping the world, and so some are now trying to make more of an effort to use that for more meaningful outcomes.

“You are seeing how sustainability is attracting high-performing entrepreneurs,” said Lilly Wollman, partner and co-head of the Growth Equity platform, in an interview. “They care about the mission, and that is also driving financial performance.”

“We believe that we are at the early stages of a technology-led sustainability revolution,” said Al Gore, chairman and co-founder, in a statement, “which has the scale of the industrial revolution, and the pace of the digital revolution.”

In the case of Generation, it’s also an indication that the firm — which has $22 billion under management today — is providing impressive enough returns on its mission to drive more interest from LPs to grow the commitment to back it.

“There is a recognition of this momentum,” added Lila Preston, a partner who is the growth platform’s co-head, “of the 15 years the firm has already spent on this concept and the work it’s put into it. We see this as a movement, but one with a road map based on research and understanding.”

It’s also notable to me that the two people leading the growth team are women. Wollman noted that 60% of the Generation team is female, with the employee base spanning eight nationalities. “The firm believes more diversity leads to better outcomes,” she said.

Consumers are also playing a big role. Of all the good, bad and ugly that has been wrought by the rise of social media, one of the positives has been how social platforms have been used to raise awareness of issues such as climate change and inclusion. We may be getting into more online fights with our distant cousins (and closer friends and relatives), and sometimes issues like trying to curtail emissions gasses seems like an insurmountable challenge. But some will also use what they read about and watch online as inspiration to try to make a change.

“One of the things that is so interesting in this moment is that we are at an inflection point,” said Wollman. “Sustainability is winning on economics alone. You see sustainable products and solutions that are both efficacious and cheap. People are buying electric vehicles not just because they are green, but because they are starting to become cheap enough, and provide better performance.”

That’s bringing in a new wave of investors to the mix, and it’s interesting to see how some more conventional investors are even starting to take a bigger step into making mission-driven investment decisions. (Just yesterday, in the U.K., Balderton co-led a large round for Wagestream, a startup aimed at helping promote financial inclusion by creating a way to easily and cheaply draw down money from monthly paychecks. Generation hinted that it too might be making an investment in a startup working in a similar area in the weeks to come.)

“It helps to have a set of co-investors to ask questions related not only to ‘what are your growth metrics’ but ‘how does what you are doing affect the wider world,’ ” said Preston. “We are finding an increase of sophistication, which we think is positive recognition. Given the context of our shift, whether it’s a new economic model or climate change, we are going to need masses of capital to drive sustainable solutions and re-frame what is successful.”

Powered by WPeMatico

Enveritas’ technology lets small growers tap into the market for sustainable coffee

Demand for sustainable coffee is growing, a boon for socially conscious coffee lovers — but many small growers are missing out because they lack the ability to verify that their coffee beans are grown using fair labor and eco-friendly practices. In fact, verification is often accessible only to large coffee estates or cooperatives. Enveritas wants to change that. The nonprofit, which recently completed Y Combinator’s accelerator program, uses geospatial analysis to make the process more efficient, enabling it to offer free verification to small farms.

Enveritas’ goal is to end poverty in the coffee sector by 2030. Before founding Enveritas in 2016, CEO David Browning and head of operations Carl Cervone worked at TechnoServe, a nonprofit that serves businesses in developing economies. Browning led TechnoServe’s global coffee practice, while Cervone advised coffee growers in Africa, Asia and Latin America about sustainability trends.

Browning tells TechCrunch that TechnoServe’s coffee team spent a lot of time working with small farmers, many of whom don’t have access to sustainability verification because their farms are too remote or small. The typical coffee grower served by Enveritas has less than two hectares of land, lives on less than $2 a day and relies on cash crops for their family’s income.

“The existing solutions work well for large estates and it can also be effective for farmers organized into cooperatives, but many of the world’s coffee farmers are smaller farmers and not organized into estates,” Browning explains. “For those farmers, the existing solutions can be more difficult to access.”

Part of the reason is because many verification solutions rely on field workers who visit farms and track sustainability standards using pen and paper, a time-consuming and costly process.

To develop a more efficient and scalable system, Enveritas uses geospatial and machine learning to identify coffee farms through satellite imagery and monitor for issues like deforestation. Though it still relies on local partners to visit farms and confirm that sustainability standards are being followed, its technology enables Enveritas to provide verification services for free.

Enveritas checks for 30 standards, which it divides into three categories: social, environmental and economic. “Social” includes no child labor and workers’ rights; “environmental” checks for problems like deforestation, pollution or banned pesticides; and “economic” covers fair wages, ethical business practices and transparent pricing, among other standards.

The organization currently operates in 10 countries, including Uganda, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, with plans to expand into more markets.

Sustainable coffee isn’t just in demand by caffeine lovers with a penchant for social justice. Many of the world’s biggest coffee companies, including Illy and Starbucks, have launched sustainability initiatives as part of their corporate responsibility measures. Offering coffee grown using fair labor or environmentally friendly practices also helps differentiate their products in a crowded marketplace. Research by the National Coffee Association, an American trade group, recently found that many millennials prefer sustainable coffee, with up to two-thirds of 19 to 24-year-olds surveyed said they pick their coffee based on whether it was grown using environmentally friendly practices and fair labor.

While coffee is currently its main focus, Browning says Enveritas’ system can be applied to other agricultural products that need more visibility in their supply chains. For example, it also can be used to verify the sustainability of cocoa, cotton and palm oil.

As a nonprofit, Enveritas faces different funding challenges from other tech startups. Browning says it is currently at the equivalent of being ready for a Series A. Much of its backing comes from coffee companies (Enveritas can’t disclose which ones) that hope to benefit from Enveritas’ solutions.

“One of the advantages of this system is that it reduces the cost for coffee companies relative to the traditional pen and paper system, but it’s also simultaneously free for farmers,” Browning says. “That’s one of the most compelling innovations, so it’s a win-win for both.”

Powered by WPeMatico

Open source sustainability

Open source sustainability has been nothing short of an oxymoron. Engineers around the world pour their sweat and frankly, their hearts into these passion projects that undergird all software in the modern internet economy. In exchange, they ask for nothing in return except for recognition and help in keeping their projects alive and improving them. It’s an incredible movement of decentralized voluntarism and represents humanity at its best.

The internet and computing giants — the heaviest users of open source in the world — are collectively worth trillions of dollars, but you would be remiss in thinking that their wealth has somehow trickled down to the maintainers of the open source projects that power them. Working day jobs, maintainers today can struggle to find the time to fix critical bugs, all the while facing incessant demands from users requesting free support on GitHub. Maintainer burnout is a monstrous challenge.

That distressing situation was chronicled almost exactly two years ago by Nadia Eghbal, in a landmark report on the state of open source published by the Ford Foundation. Comparing open source infrastructure to “roads and bridges,” Eghbal provided not just a comprehensive overview of the challenges facing open source, but also a call-to-arms for more users of open source to care about its economics, and ultimately, how these critical projects can sustain themselves indefinitely.

Two years later, a new crop of entrepreneurs, open source maintainers, and organizations have taken Eghbal up on that challenge, developing solutions that maintain the volunteer spirit at the heart of open source while inventing new economic models to make the work sustainable. All are early, and their long-term effects on the output and quality of open source are unknown. But each solution offers an avenue that could radically change the way we think of a career in open source in the future.

No one sees that the Roads and Bridges are falling down

Eghbal’s report two years ago summarized the vast issues facing open source maintainers, challenges that have remained essentially unchanged in the interim. It’s a quintessential example of the “tragedy of the commons.” As Eghbal wrote at the time, “Fundamentally, digital infrastructure has a free rider problem. Resources are offered for free, and everybody (whether individual developer or large software company) uses them, so nobody is incentivized to contribute back, figuring that somebody else will step in.” That has led to a brittle ecosystem, just as open source software reached the zenith of its influence.

The challenges, though, go deeper. It’s not just that people are free riding, it’s often that they don’t even realize it. Software engineers can easily forget just how much craftsmanship has gone into the open source code that powers the most basic of applications. npm, the company that powers the module repository for the Node ecosystem, has nearly 700,000 projects listed on its registry. Starting a new React app recently, NPM installed 1105 libraries with my initial project in just a handful of seconds. What are all of these projects?

And more importantly, who are all the people behind them? That dependency tree of libraries abstracts all the people whose work has made those libraries available and functional in the first place. That black box can make it difficult to see that there are far fewer maintainers working behind the scenes at each of these open source projects than what one might expect, and that those maintainers may be struggling to work on those libraries due to lack of funding.

Eghbal pointed to OpenSSL as an example, a library that powers a majority of encrypted communications on the web. Following the release of the Heartbleed security bug, people were surprised to learn that the OpenSSL project was the work of a very small team of individuals, with only one of them working on it full-time (and at a very limited salary compared to industry norms).

Such a situation isn’t unusual. Open source projects often have many contributors, but only a handful of individuals are truly driving a particular project forward. Lose that singular force either to burnout or distraction, and a project can be adrift quickly.

When free isn’t free

No one wants open source to disappear, or for maintainers to burnout. Yet, there is a strong cultural force against commercial interests in the community. Money is corrupting, and dampens the voluntary spirit of open source efforts. More pragmatically, there are vast logistical challenges with managing money on globally distributed volunteer teams that can make paying for work logistically challenging.

Unsurprisingly, the vanguard of open source sustainability sees things very differently. Kyle Mitchell, a lawyer by trade and founder of License Zero, says that there is an assumption that “Open source will continue to fall from the sky like manna from heaven and that the people behind it can be abstracted away.” He concludes: “It is just really wrong.”

That view was echoed by Henry Zhu, who is the maintainer of the popular JavaScript compiler Babel. “We trust startups with millions of VC money and encourage a culture of ‘failing fast,’ yet somehow the idea of giving to volunteers who may have showed years of dedication is undesirable?” he said.

Xavier Damman, the founder president of Open Collective, says that “In every community, there are always going to be extremists. I hear them and understand them, and in an ideal world, we all have universal basic income, and I would agree with them.” Yet, the world hasn’t moved to such an income model, and so supporting the work of open source has to be an option. “Not everyone has to raise money for the open source community, but the people who want to, should be able to and we want to work with them,” he said.

Mitchell believes that one of the most important challenges is just getting comfortable talking about money. “Money feels dirty until it doesn’t,” he said. “I would like to see more money responsibility in the community.” One challenge he notes is that “learning to be a great maintainer doesn’t teach you how to be a great open source contractor or consultant.” GitHub works great as a code repository service, but ultimately doesn’t teach maintainers the economics of their work.

Supporting the individual contributor: Patreon and License Zero

Perhaps the greatest debate in sustaining open source is deciding who or what to target: the individual contributors — who often move between multiple projects — or a particular library itself.

Take Feross Aboukhadijeh for example. Aboukhadijeh (who, full disclosure, was once my college roommate at Stanford almost a decade ago) has become a major force in the open source world, particularly in the Node ecosystem. He served an elected term on the board of directors of the Node.js Foundation, and has published 125 repositories on GitHub, including popular projects like WebTorrent (with 17,000 stars) and Standard (18,300 stars).

Aboukhadijeh was looking for a way to spend more time on open source, but didn’t want to be beholden to working on a single project or writing code at a private company that would never see the light of day. So he turned to Patreon as a means of support.

(Disclosure: CRV, my most immediate former employer, is the series A investor in Patreon. I have no active or passive financial interest in this specific company. As per my ethics statement, I do not write about CRV’s portfolio companies, but given that this essay focuses on open source, I made an exception).

Patreon is a crowdsourced subscription platform, perhaps best known for the creatives it hosts. These days though, it is also increasingly being used by notable open source contributors as a way to connect with fans and sustain their work. Aboukhadijeh launched his page after seeing others doing it. “A bunch of people were starting up Patreons, which was kind of a meme in my JavaScript circles,” he said. His Patreon page today has 72 contributors providing him with $2,874 in funding per month ($34,488 annually).

That may seem a bit paltry, but he explained to me that he also supplements his Patreon with funding from organizations as diverse as Brave (an adblocking browser with a utility token model) to PopChest (a decentralized video sharing platform). That nets him a couple of more thousands of dollars per month.

Aboukhadijeh said that Twitter played an outsized role in building out his revenue stream. “Twitter is the most important on where the developers talk about stuff and where conversations happen…,” he said. “The people who have been successful on Patreon in the same cohort [as me] who tweet a lot did really well.”

For those who hit it big, the revenues can be outsized. Evan You, who created the popular JavaScript frontend library Vue.js, has reached $15,206 in monthly earnings ($182,472 a year) from 231 patrons. The number of patrons has grown consistently since starting his Patreon in March 2016 according to Graphtreon, although earnings have gone up and down over time.

Aboukhadijeh noted that one major benefit was that he had ownership over his own funds. “I am glad I did a Patreon because the money is mine,” he said.

While Patreon is one direct approach for generating revenues from users, another one is to offer dual licenses, one free and one commercial. That’s the model of License Zero, which Kyle Mitchell propsosed last year. He explained to me that “License Zero is the answer to a really simple question with no simple answers: how do we make open source business models open to individuals?”

Mitchell is a rare breed: a lifelong coder who decided to go to law school. Growing up, he wanted to use software he found on the web, but “if it wasn’t free, I couldn’t download it as a kid,” he said. “That led me into some of the intellectual property issues that paved a dark road to the law.”

License Zero is a permissive license based on the two-clause BSD license, but adds terms requiring commercial users to pay for a commercial license after 90 days, allowing companies to try a project before purchasing it. If other licenses aren’t available for purchase (say, because a maintainer is no longer involved), then the language is no longer enforceable and the software is offered as fully open source. The idea is that other open source users can always use the software for free, but for-profit uses would require a payment.

Mitchell believes that this is the right approach for individuals looking to sustain their efforts in open source. “The most important thing is the time budget – a lot of open source companies or people who have an open source project get their money from services,” he said. The problem is that services are exclusive to a company, and take time away from making a project as good as it can be. “When moneymaking time is not time spent on open source, then it competes with open source,” he said.

License Zero is certainly a cultural leap away from the notion that open source should be free in cost to all users. Mitchell notes though that “companies pay for software all the time, and they sometimes pay even when they could get it for free.” Companies care about proper licensing, and that becomes the leverage to gain revenue while still maintaining the openness and spirit of open source software. It also doesn’t force open source maintainers to take away critical functionality — say a management dashboard or scaling features — to force a sale.

Changing the license of existing projects can be challenging, so the model would probably best be used by new projects. Nonetheless, it offers a potential complement or substitute to Patreon and other subscription platforms for individual open source contributors to find sustainable ways to engage in the community full-time while still putting a roof over their heads.

Supporting the organization: Tidelift and Open Collective

Supporting individuals makes a lot of sense, but often companies want to support the specific projects and ecosystems that underpin their software. Doing so can be next to impossible. There are complicated logistics required in order for companies to fund open source, such as actually having an organization to send money to (and for many, to convince the IRS that the organization is actually a non-profit). Tidelift and Open Collective are two different ways to open up those channels.

Tidelift is the brainchild of four open-source fanatics led by Donald Fischer. Fischer, who is CEO, is a former venture investor at General Catalyst and Greylock as well as a long-time executive at Red Hat. In his most recent work, Fischer invested in companies at the heart of open source ecosystems, such as Anaconda (which focuses on scientific and statistical computing within Python), Julia Computing (focused on the Julia programming language), Ionic (a cross-platform mobile development framework), and TypeSafe now Lightbend (which is behind the Scala programming language).

Fischer and his team wanted to create a platform that would allow open source ecosystems to sustain themselves. “We felt frustrated at some level that while open source has taken over a huge portion of software, a lot of the creators of open source have not been able to capture a lot of the value they are creating,” he explained.

Tidelift is designed to offer assurances “around areas like security, licensing, and maintenance of software,” Fischer explained. The idea has its genesis in Red Hat, which commercialized Linux. The idea is that companies are willing to pay for open source when they can receive guarantees around issues like critical vulnerabilities and long-term support. In addition, Tidelift handles the mundane tasks of setting up open source for commercialization such as handling licensing issues.

Fischer sees a mutualism between companies buying Tidelift and the projects the startup works with. “We are trying to make open source better for everyone involved, and that includes both the creators and users of open source,” he said. “What we focus on is getting these issues resolved in the upstream open source project.” Companies are buying assurances, but not exclusivity, so if a vulnerability is detected for instance, it will be fixed for everyone.

Tidelift initially launched in the JavaScript ecosystem around React, Angular, and Vue.js, but will expand to more communities over time. The company has raised $15 million in venture capital from General Catalyst and Foundry Group, plus former Red Hat chairman and CEO Matthew Szulik.

Fischer hopes that the company can change the economics for open source contributors. He wants the community to move from a model of “get by and survive” with a “subsistence level of earnings” and instead, help maintainers of great software “win big and be financially rewarded for that in a significant way.”

Where Tidelift is focused on commercialization and software guarantees, Open Collective wants to open source the monetization of open source itself.

Open Collective is a platform that provides tools to “collectives” to receive money while also offering mechanisms to allow the members of those collectives to spend their money in a democratic and transparent way.

Take, for instance, the open collective sponsoring Babel. Babel today receives an annual budget of $113,061 from contributors. Even more interesting though is that anyone can view how the collective spends its money. Babel currently has $28,976.82 in its account, and every expense is listed. For instance, core maintainer Henry Zhu, who we met earlier in this essay, expensed $427.18 on June 2nd for two weeks worth of Lyft rides in SF and Seattle.

Xavier Damman, founder president of Open Collective, believes that this radical transparency could reshape how the economics of open source are considered by its participants. Damman likens Open Collective to the “View Source” feature of a web browser that allows users to read a website’s code. “Our goal as a platform is to be as transparent as possible,” he said.

Damman was formerly the founder of Storify. Back then, he built an open source project designed to help journalists accept anonymous tips, which received a grant. The problem was that “I got a grant, and I didn’t know what to do with the money.” He thought of giving it to some other open source projects, but “technically, it was just impossible.” Without legal entities or paperwork, the money just wasn’t fungible.

Open Collective is designed to solve those problems. Open Collective itself is both a Delaware C-corp and a 501(c)6 non-profit, and it technically receives all money destined for any of the collectives hosted on its platform as their fiscal sponsor. That allows the organization to send out invoices to companies, providing them with the documentation they need in order to write a check. “As long as they have an invoice, they are covered,” Damman explained.

Once a project has money, it is up to the maintainers of that community to decide how to spend it. “It is up to each community to define their own rules,” Damman said. He notes that open source contributors can often spend the money on the kind of uninteresting work that doesn’t normally get done, which Damman analogized as “pay people to keep the place clean.” No one wants to clean a public park, but if no one does it, then no one will ever use the park. He also noted that in-person meetings are a popular usage of revenues.

Open Collective was launched in late 2015, and since then has become home to 647 open source projects. So far, Webpack, the popular JavaScript build tool, has generated the most revenue, currently sitting at $317,188 a year. One major objective of the organization is to encourage more for-profit companies to commit dollars to open source. Open Collective places the logos of major donors on each collective page, giving them visible credit for their commitment to open source.

Damman’s ultimate dream is to change the notion of ownership itself. We can move from “Competition to collaboration, but also ownership to commons,” he envisioned.

Sustaining sustainability

It’s unfortunately very early days for open source sustainability. While Patreon, License Zero, Tidelift, and Open Collective are different approaches to providing the infrastructure for sustainability, ultimately someone has to pay to make all that infrastructure useful. There are only a handful of Patreons that could substitute for an engineer’s day job, and only two collectives by my count on Open Collective that could support even a single maintainer full time. License Zero and Tidelift are too new to know how they will perform yet.

Ultimately though, we need to change the culture toward sustainability. Henry Zhu of Babel commented, “The culture of our community should be one that gives back and supports community projects with all that they can: whether with employee time or funding. Instead of just embracing the consumption of open source and ignoring the cost, we should take responsibility for it’s sustainability.”

In some ways, we are merely back to the original free rider problem in the tragedy of the commons — someone, somewhere has to pay, but all get to share in the benefits.

The change though can happen through all of us who work on code — every software engineer and product manager. If you work at a for-profit company, take the lead in finding a way to support the code that allows you to do your job so efficiently. The decentralization and volunteer spirit of the open source community needs exactly the same kind of decentralized spirit in every financial contributor. Sustainability is each of our jobs, every day. If we all do our part, we can help to sustain one of the great intellectual movements humanity has ever created, and end the oxymoron of open source sustainability forever.

Powered by WPeMatico

Apple says its global facilities are now powered by 100-percent clean energy

Last week, Apple called out the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to rollback the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The company cited both the obvious environmental impact of such a move, along with potential economic fallout.

It turns out Apple’s got quite a bit invested in the latter.  The company announced today that its global facilities are now 100-percent run by renewable energy.

The move is in line with the company’s 2015 plan to push toward 100-percent renewable energy, a list that includes all of Apple’s data centers as of 2014. As of today, the company’s officially adding retail stores, offices and co-located facilities to that list, covering 43 countries, including the US, China, UK and India.

The addition of nine manufacturing partners, meanwhile, brings the total number up to 23 suppliers promising to produce their products entirely with clean energy. How the companies involved actually hit these numbers is, unsurprisingly, somewhat more complex.

“Where feasible, we produce our own renewable energy by building our own renewable energy facilities, including solar arrays, wind farms, biogas fuel cells, and micro-hydro generation systems,” the company writes in its 2017 Environmental Responsibility Report. “Where it’s not feasible to build our own generation, we sign long-term renewable energy purchase contracts, supporting new, local projects that meet our robust renewable energy sourcing principles.”

The push toward renewable energy has included some creative solutions, including 300 solar rooftops in Japan and 800 in Singapore. The company says it’s currently running 25 renewable energy projects globally, with 15 more in the process of being built. That will bump green energy capability from 626 megawatts to 1.4 gigawatts, by its count — and the finally tally doesn’t appear to include carbon offsets, unlike some of the competition. 

It’s easy to see how a rollback of the Clean Power Plan could ultimately have an adverse effect on the company’s bottom line.

“We’re committed to leaving the world better than we found it. After years of hard work we’re proud to have reached this significant milestone,” Tim Cook said in a release tied to the news. “We’re going to keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible with the materials in our products, the way we recycle them, our facilities and our work with suppliers to establish new creative and forward-looking sources of renewable energy because we know the future depends on it.”

Powered by WPeMatico

Fairphone takes $7.7M to push for change across the electronics value chain

 European mobile device maker Fairphone, which designs modular smartphones with the aim of supporting repairability and encouraging sustainability, has taken in new investment of €6.5 million ($7.7M). It says it’s hoping to use the financing to build wider support for a push towards a circular economy for consumer electronics. Read More

Powered by WPeMatico