Wednesday, 8 April 2015

Banks Are Betting Big on a Startup That Bypasses Banks

FORGET ABOUT BANKS. Online peer-to-peer lending platforms have surged in popularity by connecting people who want to borrow directly with people who want to lend. And now banks want in on the action.

On Wednesday, San Francisco-based startup Prosper announced a new $165 million round of financing led by Credit Suisse NEXT Investors, and which included participation by J.P. Morgan Asset Management, SunTrust Banks and USAA, among others. The new funding raises Prosper’s valuation to $1.865 billion—making it eligible to join the elite club of “unicorns,” or startups valued at over $1 billion. The round also shows just how big investor appetite has gotten for startups offering tech-driven solutions to bypass traditional banking methods.

The idea is simple: services such as Prosper sidestep traditional bank loans, which can involve complicated applications and lengthy wait times, and to connect borrowers and lenders directly online. Both Prosper and rival Lending Club launched in 2006. In spite of the 2008 economic meltdown and a host of regulatory issues, the two emerged as credible financing alternatives with very real consumer demand. Prosper has issued more than $3 billion in total loans, while Lending Club has facilitated more than twice that amount, to the tune of $7.6 billion.

And they aren’t alone. A slew of similarly-themed startups are cropping up to expand the world of financial tech, or “fintech,” on the whole. There’s OnDeck, another company that lends sums of money to small business owners who have a hard time borrowing money from banks, and Fundera, a kind of Kayak for small business loans that shows potential borrowers all of their options on one platform. On the wealth management front, companies like Wealthfront and Betterment offer automated portfolio management at prices they say are cheaper than traditional money manager. Lenda seeks to transform home loan financing with a service that runs entirely online.

Investors have picked up on the trend, which is heading into the mainstream. In December, both OnDeck and Lending Club saw hugely successful IPOs; OnDeck’s shares rose as much as 40 percent in their market debut, while Lending Club raised over $1 billion in its offering.

Taking Credit
But even as some startups seem to be shooting ahead—Lending Club is the clear leader of the pack so far, with such esteemed investors as Kleiner Perkins’ Mary Meeker and Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack sitting on its board, and even a little company called Google taking a minority stake—Prosper insists that it’s different in ways that will make it a winner in its own right.

Prosper CEO Aaron Vermut says his company is singularly focused on unsecured consumer credit loans—or loans that aren’t protected by any collateral. In the process, he says Prosper is growing. In the last quarter, the company facilitated close to $600 million in loans, 200 percent more than the same quarter one year ago, he says. “[Lending Club] used to be ten times bigger than us, and now they’re maybe two or two and a half times bigger than us,” Vermut says.

Vermut admits that there’s no guarantee the platform will remain unscathed in another economic downturn, but he’s relatively confident that Prosper may be able to weather a potential crisis, in part because of the company’s model of reliance on consumer credit. “Credit card companies actually did reasonably well through the crisis of 2008,” he says. The economy would have to tank hard before Prosper’s lenders saw real losses, he says. Loan defaults would have to jump to more than triple the platform’s current 3 percent rate.

It’s no coincidence, Vermut says, that many regional banks and asset management groups participated in financing Prosper this time around. The move was strategic rather than a potential conflict, he explains, because small banks don’t traditionally offer unsecured credit loans, anyway. “We’re really good at lending credit to consumers,” he says. If that’s true, banks are going to want a piece of that action, whether they’re the ones lending the actual money or not.

Forget PCs. The Real Bloatware Problem Is on Android


BLOATWARE, THE CRAPPY and unnecessary software that comes preinstalled on your new computer, has been around since AOL paid PC makers to roll its dial-up service into their machines back in the 1990s. But that era may be coming to a close.

Last week, the world’s largest PC maker, Lenovo, vowed to “eliminate what our industry calls ‘adware’ and ‘bloatware'” from its PCs. The company was forced to do this when it got caught sliding a seriously dangerous piece of adware called Superfish onto its laptop computers. Lenovo’s pledge is a win in the battle against bloatware. But in 2015, PCs are now a bit of a sideline skirmish. The most important front right now is Android. On phones running Google’s mobile operating system, the forces of bloatware are winning.

Take Jared Burrows, a software developer with Northrop Grumman who’s written a few Android apps of his own. Burrows runs a custom script that yanks about two dozen unwanted programs off of his Android phone, he says. He hates all that unwanted software, and for good reason. “I do not like things running in the background because it causes my battery to run down, and it’s always using data,” he says.

Bloatware is a bigger headache on Android phones than it is on PCs for multiple reasons, says Irfan Asrar, a researcher with mobile security company Appthority. “Not only is it harder to remove (every time you do a factory reset it will come back), but it’s costing you resources such as data usage and battery drainage as well as pushing the boundaries on privacy,” he said in an email to WIRED.

Fix This, Google—Please!
Tiny margins make consumer electronics a cutthroat market, Asrar says. As a result, bloatware lures device manufactures with a tempting additional revenue stream that comes from asking app developers and publishers to pay up for the privilege of being distributed with the phone. “In some cases this also helps subsidize the price of the device,” Asrar says.

What’s worse, Droidland has not one source of bloatware but two. Handset makers like Samsung and HTC love to pre-install their own apps. Then carriers like Verizon or AT&T do the same thing. My Samsung Galaxy Note, for example, shipped with pre-installed messaging software from Google, Samsung, and Verizon. That’s excessive.

But if Android has a bigger bloatware problem than the PCs, Google could make it go away. All the maker of the world’s most popular mobile operating system would have to do is become its own wireless carrier.

Google’s Nexus phones are already the most bloatware-free Android handsets out there. If Google then becomes a wireless carrier itself—an “experiment” that’s in the works, the company said yesterday—then it could also cut out the carrier-level junk and build a phone that’s completely bloatware free.

Apple keeps its phones largely free of this unwanted software by exerting rigorous control over what can and cannot get installed on its own hardware. Yanking this much control away from the phone companies by delivering a phone unsullied by their crappy add-ons was a big breakthrough. But as a mobile carrier, Google would have more control of the final product than even Apple. It would be the only company to oversee every stage of the mobile market: from coding the base software to building the handsets to controlling the little white boxes that get sent out to customers.

With that much power, maybe Google could give the world the kind of Android phones we really want: the kind that doesn’t come filled with crap from the moment we turn them on.

Microsoft Is Making a Stripped-Down Windows to Rival Linux

TODAY, BIG SILICON Valley names like Google and Twitter run their online services across thousands of machines. And to efficiently execute their software with so much hardware in the mix, they use the open source Linux operating system and a technology called “containers.” What they don’t use is Windows.

Microsoft’s flagship operating system operates quite differently from Linux—which could be a problem as containers become the preferred way of computing in the cloud. But now, as so many others follow the lead of giants like Google and Twitter, Microsoft is reshaping Windows so that it doesn’t get left behind.

In the fall, Microsoft announced that it would add Linux-like container technology to a future version of Windows. Today, the company revealed that it’s also developing a super-slim version of Windows that will run what it describes as a new kind of container—one that provides an added level of security. The OS is called Windows Server Nano.

According to Microsoft spokesman Mike Schutz, the company is building a way of wrapping containers in its Hyper-V “virtualization” technology, so that they’re completely isolated from each other. But the real news seems to be that Microsoft will offer a stripped-down operating system along the lines of CoreOS, a Linux operating system that’s particularly suited to running containers across a large number of computers. This kind of operating system represents the future of online services, which necessarily run on hundreds or even thousands of machines—or what industry marketers like to call the cloud.

The move is yet another example of Microsoft changing with the times. For many years, the company tried to push the world towards its way of thinking. But under new CEO Satya Nadella, Microsoft is revamping its technologies to suit the way the world is moving.

Unsuited to the Task
At a San Francisco company called Pivotal, Mark Kropf helps build large online services, and he says that today’s Windows is, in many ways, unsuited to the task. Part of the problem, he says, is that Windows is such a large operating system that you need time to deploy it across many machines. In an age when you can so easily push Linux operating systems like CoreOS onto a vast array of computer servers, Windows is behind. Kropf calls Microsoft’s move to close this gap “interesting.”

It’s also important that Windows Server Nano will offer containers. Containers provides a way encapsulating software so that developers and businesses can more efficiently run applications across a large number of machines. In essence, you can readily move these containers from machine to machine, as well as squeeze many of them onto the same machine, to take advantage of any unused computing power.

But the added security Microsoft provides with its “Hyper-V containers” is something that will appeal to only some organizations, such as government agencies that have extreme security requirements. Some agencies may need a way of tightly securing individual containers because they’re running alongside containers from other agencies. Regulations often require agencies to maintain complete software separation.

Yes, many organizations now run containers atop public cloud computing services such as Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud and Microsoft Azure, and that means they end up sharing computers with each other. But here, containers run atop virtual machines, which provide the needed security.

The Hyper-V containers don’t make much sense in this situation—a situation that represents the future. But Microsoft must also appeal to a wide range of businesses, including government agencies. It must serve a new audience without losing the old one.