Tag: benedict evans

• You have to try

  Now that some of the dust has settled around Apple Vision Pro, it is clear that nobody really knows if it is going to work. (Though, it’s too expensive and it’s too heavy are missing the bigger picture.) It sounds like it delivered what it said it was going to deliver as a product, and the potential is there for a “spatial computing” future. But who knows for sure. Here’s an excerpt from an essay that Benedict Evans recently published called, “A month of the Vision Pro“:

  Second, taking one step further back again, even if my doubts are all wrong, we won’t know any of this for years, and right now this is all still in the experimental category. Apple sells more watches in a typical quarter than Meta has active Quest users. Even the iPhone took years to start selling. It’s possible than in five years this will have started to work, and it’s possible than in five years we’ll have concluded that this [AR/Apple Vision Pro] is a niche, and we’ll have to wait for glasses, contact lenses or neural implants.

  But ultimately, this is okay. You have to try, because:

  

  Thank you to Lucas Manuel for sending me the above quote.

  2024.03.19

• The end of free money

  

  Tech analyst Benedict Evans — who has 175,000 subscribers to his weekly newsletter — has just published his big annual presentation about “what matters in tech?” This year’s is called “The New Gatekeepers.” And as is normally the case, he explores a number of macro trends that I think will interest many of you, even if you aren’t in or interested in the tech industry. To check it out, click here.

  2023.03.14

• A whole new internet

  I don’t exactly know what “metaverse” means, but what is clear is that nobody really does right now. Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Benedict Evans:

  If the narrow definition of ‘metaverse’ is that VR and AR will be the next smartphone, the broad definition is that there’s going to be a whole new internet. Our experience will be 3D, but much of that will be layered onto the real world as we see it through glasses. Games will become a much larger part of daily life – instead of the current split between a few hundred people playing deep and rich AAA PC and console games and several billion playing much lighter-weight smartphone games, Roblox and Fortnite point to a growing middle ground of persistent, open, accessible and expressive environments that are much more about social and identity than games per se, and that can become platforms and ecosystems for developers. Many of these experiences will blur into each other, and digital goods (skins, avatars and other models of self-expression in digital form) will be portable and interchangeable between these worlds, rather like the characters in Wreck-it Raph could pass between games.

  Some people, namely Mark Zuckerberg, believe that VR is going to be the next smartphone. But Benedict raises an interesting point: the direction of travel for tech seems to be toward less immersion, rather than greater immersion. We used to have giant computers that filled rooms. Then computers got smaller. And now we just carry one around in our pocket and pull it out when we’re standing in a line and bored. Portability and casual usage are what won out. And so is it reasonable to assume that billions of people are going to want to immerse themselves in VR goggles all day?

  I don’t see it. Here’s my working thesis:

  • I am an urbanist. I love cities. And I believe that our deep desire to interact meaningfully with other humans is not going to go away. For this reason, I believe in the less immersion over greater immersion argument.
  • At the same time, blockchain technologies have made it possible for us to own, collect, and trade digital assets — everything from digital fashion to digital art. I think this trend is only going to continue.
  • And as this trend continues, we are going to continually look for ways to display and experience these elements of our digital identity. So how do we make that happen? This is an important part of the conversation around “the next smartphone.”
  • My view is that it’s going to be some version of augmented reality, and that we are going to end up with a continuous blurring of the line between physical and digital.

  But hey, I could be wrong. Time will tell.

  2022.11.01

• Three steps to the future

  

  Each year, tech analyst Benedict Evans publishes a “big presentation” on the macro trends in the tech industry. This year’s presentation is now out (link here) and it’s called “Three Steps to the Future.” Not surprisingly, crypto, web3 and the metaverse feature prominently in his exploration of what tech might look like by 2030 (obligatory market cap chart shown above). But there’s also a lot about ecommerce, logistics, TV/content, and a number of other topics and industries. The back half is filled with some great charts and I think that many of you will find it interesting.

  2021.12.08

• A single room with a single book, Tokyo

  

  This recent post by Benedict Evans talks about the firehose that is the internet. To illustrate this point, he gives the example of unread emails. If you were to look at your phone right now, how many unread emails would it show?

  My work email account is mostly read because reading and responding to emails is one of the ways that I manage to remain gainfully employed. But my personal email currently has 27,230 unread emails. Most of these are newsletters and emails from people wanting to somehow optimize this blog or help me reach 1 trillion followers on Instagram.

  Whatever the purpose, it’s almost impossible to keep up. And since having unread asymmetric emails of little consequence doesn’t bother me in the slightest, I let it go.

  This is one way to deal with the firehose — acceptance. And in Benedict’s post he makes the argument that maybe the push that we are seeing toward the metaverse is exactly that — full acceptance. “When software eats the world, it’s not software anymore.”

  But the opposite way of dealing with information overload is extreme simplification. And there is something so beautiful about minimalism in a world of too much.

  Today I learned about a bookstore in Tokyo called Morioka Shoten (shoten = bookstore). It is located in Ginza (pictured above) and the proposition is “a single room with a single book.” The bookstore consists of, you know, a single room and at any given time there is only one book for sale.

  Each book is available for six days, after which time a new book is made available. In addition to selling one book at a time, the single room shop is used for things like events and exhibitions.

  It’s a radical idea and perhaps it is best suited to Japan. But maybe we all need things that slow us down and focus our attention on only a few things or even a single thing. Maybe we need it to offset the information firehose.

  Image: Morioka Shoten

  2021.10.19

• Ecommerce as logistics

  

  Benedict Evans asks some great questions in this recent post about ecommerce penetration. Instead of just looking at the product itself and/or the way in which we buy it (online versus offline, for example), he focuses on the logistics model that accompanies the transaction.

  What can be parceled and shipped via Amazon? What can be delivered using a bicycle? What requires some sort of special delivery or collection method?

  The point he is making is that different things need to happen for a new fridge to make it to your home, compared to say a Chipotle burrito. And these differences matter when it comes to how we should be thinking about ecommerce and the real estate in our cities.

  Personally, I find it helpful to reframe the questions in this way.

  Here’s an excerpt from the post:

  But if I buy online and then drive to the store to collect it, is that different to phoning and reserving it? We didn’t have a statistics category for ‘telephone ordering’. If I use an app to order pizza instead of phoning the restaurant, has that become ‘ecommerce’ or is it still pizza delivery? 30 years ago, if I drove to Walmart instead of walking to a neighbourhood store, or drove to Best Buy instead of going to a department store, we didn’t call that ‘car-based commerce’. So is this a tech question, or a retailing question, or an urbanism question?

  For the full thing, click here.

  Chart: Benedict Evans

  2021.06.08

• Delivery > mobility

  I was picking up food the other night on Bloor Street (via Uber Eats) and the lineup of delivery drivers outside of the restaurant was at least ten people deep when we arrived. While we were waiting, another handful of drivers pulled over to quickly pickup their deliveries. This is what is happening in our cities right now, especially here in Toronto while we live through another stay-at-home order. And the numbers certainly reflect it.

  Last month in March, Uber’s delivery business (which is separate from the company’s mobility business) recorded a 150% year-over-year increase in annualized gross bookings. The company’s run-rate as of March is now $52 billion. To put this number into perspective, the company’s mobility business also had its best ever month in March with an annualized gross bookings run-rate of $30 billion.

  Delivery > mobility right now. Makes sense.

  To further put this into perspective, total restaurant spending across the entirety of the United States was $670 billion in 2019 (figure from Benedict Evans). So Uber Eats has quickly become a meaningful part of how we eat. I obviously believe that people are dying to get out and eat at restaurants again, but these figures are still interesting nonetheless.

  It’s also interesting to think about the above trendline from a broader logistics perspective. Alongside the rise in Uber Eats, we are seeing a wave of capital move toward “rapid delivery apps.” These are platforms that allow meals, groceries, and other stuff to be delivered, in some cases, almost right away, which aligns with where I think consumers are moving. Rather than making lists and doing weekly shops, it’s now about just-in-time delivery.

  It’s arguably a lazier way of going about things, but water will always find the path of least resistance.

  Many, or perhaps most, of these platforms have adopted an asset light approach. Instacart, which partners with existing grocers, would fall into this category. Their model revolves around gig workers going into existing stores, picking orders directly from the shelves, and then delivering those orders. And it is what Blair Welch was getting at in his recent RENX interview when he reasoned that grocery shopping is still being done, almost exclusively, at local stores.

  This approach is enough for Instacart to be valued at nearly $40 billion, according to the Financial Times. So something seems to be working.

  2021.04.22

• Are Amazon’s private labels any different?

  

  Amazon is sometimes criticized for its private labels. The way this generally works is that Amazon uses the data that it collects from its platform to see what customers are buying. It then goes out and makes its own version of these products and sells them in competition with the other products in its marketplace. The reason why Amazon (and others) do this is because the margins are generally better on private labels, even though they are often positioned to the end customer as being a value-oriented alternative. That is, they’re cheaper.

  Some people think that Amazon shouldn’t be doing this, particularly as its third party marketplace continues to grow. This side of its marketplace deals with inventory that Amazon doesn’t own. It is the stuff of third party sellers who come to the platform to access Amazon’s customer base and reach, and to possibly use its fulfillment services. This marketplace now makes up about 60% of Amazon’s sales volume and so it has become a dominant part of its business. It’s a way to grow without having to spend money on additional inventory.

  Is it, then, acceptable for Amazon to mine this data, replicate products, and compete with its own customers? The truth is that this isn’t all that new. As Benedict Evans points out in this recent post, retailers have been doing this for more than a century. The above table taken from a 1932 report on “chain store private brands” shows that about 80% of stores in the US at this time were selling private label brands. Furthermore, it represented about a quarter of their overall sales. Is this time any different?

  Table via Benedict Evans

  2021.03.30

• The great unbundling

  

  

  Every year, Benedict Evans publishes a presentation about the “big macro tech trends” impacting the global economy. They are always excellent and I usually share them here on the blog. It’s also becoming harder and harder to differentiate tech trends from the rest of the economy, and so in many ways this is just a presentation about important macro trends.

  In this year’s presentation, he focuses on the “unbundling” of retail, ecommerce, advertising and TV; China and the end of the American internet; and a few other timely topics. To view the presentation, click here. Benedict also delivered this same presentation at a recent event by Protocol and Nasdaq (video link) in case you’d prefer to consume the content that way.

  2021.02.10

• The internet is no longer American

  

  This is the topic of Benedict Evan’s latest blog post, which is all about the internet, regulation, and the rise of China, as well as other countries. The internet is now deeply ingrained in everyday life. As of 2017, about 40% of Americans had met their partners online. We do everything online. But 80-90% of the world’s internet users are now outside of the US. There are more smartphone users in China than in the US and western Europe combined. And venture capital dollars have started to diversify away from just the US (see above chart). All of this — but mostly Tiktok — has Americans questioning how best to handle and how best to regulate.

  Here’s an excerpt from Benedict’s post:

  Both of these are captured in Tiktok. This is the first time that Americans have really had to deal with their teenagers using a form of mass media that isn’t created in their country by people who mostly share their values. It’s from somewhere else. That’s compounded by the fact that the ‘somewhere else’ is China, with all of the political and geopolitical issues that come with that, but I’d suggest that the core, structural issue is that it’s foreign. This is, of course, a problem that the rest of the world has been wrestling with since 1994, but it comes as something of a shock in Washington DC. There’s an old joke that war is how God teaches Americans geography – now it’s regulation.

  For the full post, click here.

  Image/facts: Benedict Evans

  2020.10.06