A pandemic is like a dDoS attack

A pandemic is like a dDoS attack

For those who are struggling to understand the impact of a pandemic, and struggle even more with the measures taken against it (“lockdown” – “shelter-in-place” – “Ausgangs-Sperre”), this comparison may help a bit:

  • In a distributed Denial-of-Service (dDoS) attack, many clients at once overwhelm a service (such as a webserver).
  • The service was built to serve the expected number of requests, and it works like a charm.
  • The service has also some elastic reserves (cloud) to deal with sudden popularity.
  • But when a tital wave of requests for service come in (such as from a botnet, aimed at overwhelming the system), then the entire service breaks down, and only very few requests end up being served in the end.
  • The measures taken to slow down this sudden tital wave of requests is nothing else but slowing and channelizing the requests, so that requests get “queued” (valid requests within available capacities) and “triaged” (eliminate the botnet requests). The valid requests can thus be served individually, just as it was meant to be.
  • After the attack is over, a post-mortem analysis is performed, and measures taken to detect this kind of attack early, the services are improved to deal with this procedure better the next time of a dDoS attack, and measures are taken to prevent this particular attack if possible.

In a pandemic, similar patterns can be observed, and similar measures are taken to deal with it:

  • Virus infection rates [the “R(0)” factor] explosively create demans for service.
  • Health care systems are built, equipped, and staffed for the normal amount of patients to be served.
  • Health care systems also have some reserves built-in, and governments have some stock pile reserves for unexpected surges of needs.
  • But a pandemic infects people so quickly, that an explosive demand is created, and the system gets overwhelmed with 100 time or 1,000 times normal demand, and only a few of those end up being treated.
  • The measures taken to slow down this sudden demand is aimed at slowing the infection rate, so that incoming requests to do over-stress available capacities. Triage is performed on those who require service, to separate higher from lower priorities. This way everyone who is infected, can get the proper care and treatments, increasing the survivial rate.
  • After the pandemic is over, a post-mortem analysis is performed, to develop vaccines for this particular virus, and system improvements are made to make this entire process better for the next pandemic.

As much as denial-of-services are a nightmare to deal with, have great impact on the services offered, and cost the operators of the attacked service revenue, reputation, and other damages during the attack and the recovery period, when services are restored, pandemics are also a nightmare to deal with, have great impact on the affected population, and cause significant damages.

We have won the fight against pandemics, with ever improving results. The “Spanish Flu” (influenza, which started in Kansas USA with ‘patient zero’) caused 50 million deaths, and took a while to get under control. We have won the fight against virii such as the measels (“Masern”, with a very high infection rate of 15) and were able to prevent a global pandemic with smallpoc (“Pocken”) successfully.

For an excellent explanation of Corona / Covid-19, scientifically and easy to understand, watch this piece of the “Harald Lesch’s Kosmos” series (in German), broadcast on March 24th, 2020 in the ZDF TV channel (geoblocking to Germany applies – this may soon also be available on their Youtube channel). If you understand German, this is currently (during the Corona – Covid-19 pandemic) the best 43 minutes you can spend while locked down at your house, to appreciate science and why you are contained at home:




… and a subtle bonus: today’s Dilbert also shows how facts, research, and correct documentation overcome “alternative facts”, anti-vaccination campaigns, “fake news”, and the various cream puffs (“Windbeutel”) blubbering incoherently and without any proof — may they be orange (you know who) or brown (AfD). Hopefully all those can be helped if it is explained just right for their limited horizons:

https://dilbert.com/ – March 25th, 2020


It is NOT just the elderly affected by Covid-19:



Interactive self-analysis if you may be affected with Corona (prior to a test):







Ökonomie-Urvater Adam Smith – Zitat

Ökonomie-Urvater Adam Smith – Zitat

Ein Satz des Ökonomie-Urvaters Adam Smith: „Die Verachtung der Gefahr und die dreiste Hoffnung des Gelingens sind in keinem Teil des Lebens wirksamer als zu der Zeit, da junge Leute sich ihre Berufsarten wählen.“







This defined “fiat” money – a distinction only becoming relevant with the invention of cryptocurrency.




This Linux smartphone is now shipping for $150

This Linux smartphone is now shipping for $150

Shipping at only $149, Brave Heart is a fully open-source smartphone running Linux.  

Pine64’s open source PinePhone runs Linux and is designed for developers and early-adopters.

Computer and developer-board maker Pine64 has started shipping the first edition of its much-anticipated – at least in the open-source community – PinePhone, after pre-orders sold out. Dubbed “Brave Heart”, the device is indeed designed only for the keener hobbyists.

Shipping at only $149.99, Brave Heart is a fully open-source smartphone running Linux, which the company claims was developed “with the community for the community”, which means with developers and early adopters, and for developers and early adopters; and in this case, preferably for those who have extensive Linux experience.

In a departure from Android and iOS, Pine’s new project provides a platform for customers to develop Linux-on-phone projects. It does not come with a pre-installed OS, but supports all major Linux phone projects such as Ubuntu Touch, Sailfish OS and Plasma Mobile.

Although buyers get to choose their OS, it will be up to them to upload the platform to the Pine Phone – meaning the device is not designed for the average Joe.

“The “BraveHeart” Edition PinePhone does not come with default OS build installed, user needs to install their own favorite build. Most of the OS builds are still in beta stage,” it notes: “Only intend for these units to find their way into the hands of users with extensive Linux experience and an interest in Linux-on-phone.”

The company has been selling single-board computers and notebook computers, initially to compete with Raspberry Pi, since 2016. The devices are designed for developers who are interested in free and open-source software (FOSS) to work on applications. “Regardless of if you want to sequence DNA, build a robot or kill space invaders, we’ve got you covered,” says Pine64 on its website.

Powered by the same signature quad-core ARM64 found in Pine’s A64 single-board computers, the new phone’s specs are promising. Brave Heart has 2GB of RAM, 16GB of storage, a 5MP rear camera and a 2MP front one. There is also a headphone jack, a USB-C port and a Micro-SD slot.

Keeping in line with the company’s objectives, Pine64 also includes strong privacy settings in the new device. Under the removable back, for example, are six dip switches that let users kill the modem, GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, microphone and cameras. 

The device sets itself against Purism’s Librem 5 smartphone, which started shipping last year albeit at the much higher price of $749. Contrary to Pine64’s technology, Librem 5 comes with Pure OS and Ubuntu Touch; but it includes similar security features such as hardware kill switches for the camera, mic, WiFi, Bluetooth and modem.

Pine64 has called the Brave Heart device a “milestone” for the company and the phone has certainly generated a lot of enthusiasm among developers. Although the early version of the Pine Phone is only shipping to the select few, the company says a consumer-ready version will be available from Spring 2020.

The manufacturer is also working on an open-source Linux tablet with a detachable keyboard, as well as on a smartwatch, so watch this space for more.

from: https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-smartphone-is-now-shipping-for-150/




PINEPHONE – “BraveHeart” Limited Edition Linux SmartPhone for early adopters


**********************  Disclaimer ***********************

  • The “BraveHeart” Limited Edition PinePhones are aimed solely for developer and early adopter. More specifically, only intend for these units to find their way into the hands of users with extensive Linux experience and an interest in Linux-on-phone.
  • The “BraveHeart” Edition PinePhone does not come with default OS build installed, user needs to install their owns favorite build. Most of the OS builds are still in beta stage.
  • Estimate dispatch in mid January 2020


  • Dimensions: 160.5mm x 76.6mm x 9.2mm
  • Weight: 185 grams
  • Build: Plastic
  • Colour: Black
  • SIM: Micro-SIM


  • Type: HD IPS capacitive touchscreen, 16M colors
  • Size: 5.95 inches
  • Resolution: 1440×720 pixels, 18:9 ratio


  • OS: Various open source mainline Linux or BSD mobile OSes
  • Chipset: Allwinner A64
  • CPU: 64-bit Quad-core 1.2 GHz ARM Cortex A-53
  • GPU: MALI-400


  • Internal Flash Memory: 16GB eMMC
  • System Memory: 2GB LPDDR3 SDRAM
  • Expansion: micro SD Card support SDHC and SDXC, up to 2TB


  • Main Camera: Single 5MP, 1/4″, LED Flash
  • Selfie Camera: Single 2MP, f/2.8, 1/5″
  • SOUND:
  • Loudspeaker: Yes, mono
  • 3.5mm jack with mic: Yes, stereo


  • Worldwide, Global LTE bands
  • LTE-FDD: B1/ B2/ B3/ B4/ B5/ B7/ B8/ B12/ B13/ B18/ B19/ B20/ B25/ B26/ B28
  • LTE-TDD: B38/ B39/ B40/ B41
  • WCDMA: B1/ B2/ B4/ B5/ B6/ B8/ B19
  • GSM: 850/900/1800/1900MHz
  • WLAN: Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n, single-band, hotspot
  • Bluetooth: 4.0, A2DP
  • GPS: Yes, with A-GPS, GLONASS


  • USB: type C (SlimPort), USB Host, DisplayPort Alternate Mode output
  • Sensors: Accelerometer, gyro, proximity, ambient light, magnetometer(compass)
  • Actuator: Vibrator
  • Privacy Switches: LTE (include GPS), Wifi/BT, Mic, and Camera


  • Removable Li-Po 2750-3000 mAh battery
  • Charging: USB type-C, 15W – 5V 3A Quick Charge, follows USB PD specification


  • PinePhone
  • USB-A to USB-C charging cable

Warranty: 30 days

  • The “BraveHeart” Limited Edition PinePhones are aimed solely for developer and early adopter. More specifically, only intend for these units to find their way into the hands of users with extensive Linux experience and an interest in Linux-on-phone.
  • Due to Lithium-ion battery in PinePhone, the shipment of PinePhone orders will be handled differently from other Pine64 products, that’s the reason we didn’t allow to combined PinePhone order with other Pine64 products. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
  • Small numbers (1-3) of stuck or dead pixels are a characteristic of LCD screens. These are normal and should not be considered a defect.
  • When fulfilling the purchase, please bear in mind that we are offering the PinePhone at this price as a community service to PINE64, Linux and BSD communities. If you think that a minor dissatisfaction, such as a dead pixel, will prompt you to file a PayPal dispute then please do not purchase the PinePhone. Thank you.

Out of stock

SKU: PPHONE-BH Category:

from: https://store.pine64.org/?product=pinephone-braveheart-limited-edition-linux-smartphone-for-early-adaptor


Marktkapitalisierung Tesla und VW

Marktkapitalisierung Tesla und VW

Fazit: Herbert Diess, der von BMW zu Volkswagen kam, hielt eine Sturmrede, die helfen soll den Nokia-Moment zu vermeiden. Er hat erkannt, dass die größte Gefahr für die deutsche Volkswirtschaft in einer stolzen Vergangenheit und den saftigen Gewinnen der Gegenwart liegt.

Gerade an der Spitze der altehrwürdigen Unternehmungen werden jetzt keine Manager gebraucht, sondern Revolutionäre. Die großen Familienunternehmer des Landes, die Familien von Siemens, Henkel, Haniel, von Holtzbrinck, Merck, Quandt und Albrecht, die Schaefflers, die Porsches und die Wackers sollten ihre Denkroutinen durchbrechen, bevor die ihnen anvertrauten Unternehmungen von der Moderne geflutet werden.

Peter Sloterdijk hat in „Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit“ präzise beschrieben, was die Selbstgewissen und Schläfrigen erwartet:

„Vergangenheit und Gegenwart bilden die Inkubationszeit eines Ungeheuers,
das unter einem trügerisch harmlosen Namen am Horizont auftaucht: das Neue.“

from: Steingarts Morning Briefing <news@news.gaborsteingart.com>


Update 22 JAN 2020:




Micro-angelo? This 3D-printed ‘David’ is just one millimeter tall

Micro-angelo? This 3D-printed ‘David’ is just one millimeter tall

Devin Coldewey@techcrunch

3D printing has proven itself useful in so many industries that it’s no longer necessary to show off, but some people just can’t help themselves. Case in point: this millimeter-tall rendition of Michelangelo’s famous “David” printed with copper using a newly developed technique.

The aptly named “Tiny David” was created by Exaddon, a spin-off company from another spin-off company, Cytosurge, spun off from Swiss research university ETH Zurich. It’s only a fraction of a millimeter wide and weighs two micrograms.

It was created using Exaddon’s “CERES” 3D printer, which lays down a stream of ionized liquid copper at a rate of as little as femtoliters per second, forming a rigid structure with features as small as a micrometer across. The Tiny David took about 12 hours to print, though something a little simpler in structure could probably be done much quicker.

As it is, the level of detail is pretty amazing. Although, obviously, you can’t recreate every nuance of Michelangelo’s masterpiece, even small textures like the hair and muscle tone are reproduced quite well. No finishing buff or support struts required.

Of course, we can create much smaller structures at the nanometer level with advanced lithography techniques, but that’s a complex, sensitive process that must be engineered carefully by experts. This printer can take an arbitrary 3D model and spit it out in a few hours, and at room temperature.

The CERES printer.

But the researchers do point out that there is some work involved.

“It is more than just a copy and downsized model of Michelangelo’s David,” said Exaddon’s Giorgio Ercolano in a company blog post. “Our deep understanding of the printing process has led to a new way of processing the 3D computer model of the statue and then converting it into machine code. This object has been sliced from an open-source CAD file and afterwards was sent directly to the printer. This slicing method enables an entirely new way to print designs with the CERES additive micromanufacturing system.”

Much smaller than that doesn’t work, though — Micro-David starts looking like he’s made of Play-Doh snakes. That’s fine, they’ll get there eventually.

The team published the details of their newly refined technique (it was pioneered a few years ago but is much better now) in the journal Micromachines.


from:  https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/24/micro-angelo-this-3d-printed-david-is-just-one-millimeter-tall/




CO2-Emissionen: das sind die größten Klimasünder Europas

CO2-Emissionen: das sind die größten Klimasünder Europas

Die Organisation Transport & Environment (T&E) hat ein aktuelles CO2-Ranking herausgegeben. Es zeigt an, welche Unternehmen in der Europäischen Union die meisten Treibhausgase verursachen.

Unter den zehn größten Emittenten von CO2 in der EU stehen gleich acht deutsche Kohlekraftwerke – allen voran das von RWE betriebene Kraftwerk Neurath in Nordrhein-Westfalen. In 2018 verursachte es 32,1 Megatonnen CO2-Äquivalente, wie die Statista-Grafik zeigt. Lediglich der polnische Energiekonzern PGE verursachte noch mehr Emissionen. Ebenfalls im Negativ-Ranking stehen die Container-Reederei MSC aus der Schweiz, die unter anderem auch im Kreuzfahrtgeschäft aktiv ist, sowie die irische Billigfluggesellschaft Ryanair.

Transport & Environment ist die europäische Dachorganisation für ökologische Verkehrsclubs und NGOs. Sie setzt sich auf EU-­Ebene für eine nachhaltige Verkehrs- und Umweltpolitik ein.


from: https://de.statista.com/infografik/20253/unternehmen-in-der-eu-mit-den-hoechsten-co2-emissionen/




Erstmals bei ProSieben: “Late Night Berlin” erreicht mehr Zuschauer online als im linearen TV

Erstmals bei ProSieben: “Late Night Berlin” erreicht mehr Zuschauer online als im linearen TV

Klaas Heufer-Umlauf in “Late Night Berlin”

Erstmals erzielt eine ProSieben-Eigenproduktion online eine höhere Total Video Viewtime (TVV) als über das klassische lineare TV, teilte der Sender mit. In der TVV werden alle Sehminuten einer Sendung über alle Plattformen hinweg ausgewertet – im TV und Online. Bei „Late Night Berlin“ verteilt sich die TVV zu 59 Prozent auf die Digitalkanäle, 41 Prozent werden durch die TV-Ausstrahlung generiert.

Zeitgleich wächst “Late Night Berlin” bei seinen wöchentlichen linearen Ausstrahlungen und erzielt Rekordwerte. Im TV liegt die aktuelle Staffel der Late-Night-Show von ProSieben 2,7 Prozentpunkte über den Werten der Premieren-Staffel und bei durchschnittlich 11,5 Prozent in der Zielgruppe der 14- bis 49-Jährigen (Stand: 1. Dezember 2019). Besonders bei den jungen Zuschauern ist die Show mit Klaas Heufer-Umlauf beliebt: Im Schnitt verfolgen 22,2 Prozent der 14- bis 29-Jährigen jeden Montag “Late Night Berlin”. Die Ausgabe vom 25. November 2019 ereichte bei den jungen Männern (14-29 J.) sogar mit 45,8 Prozent Marktanteil.

ProSieben-Senderchef Daniel Rosemann: “‘Late Night Berlin’ schreibt ein großes Stück ProSieben-Geschichte und vermutlich sogar ein Stück Fernsehgeschichte. Erstmals wird der Content einer ProSieben-Eigenproduktion digital länger angesehen als im TV, gleichzeitig steigen die linearen Marktanteile der Show. Herzlichen Glückwunsch an Klaas Heufer-Umlauf und sein wunderbares Team.”


from: https://meedia.de/2019/12/06/erstmals-bei-prosieben-late-night-berlin-erreicht-mehr-zuschauer-online-als-im-linearen-tv/



Wie Pepsi zur sechstgrößten Seemacht der Welt aufstieg / How Pepsi became the 6th largest military in the world

Wie Pepsi zur sechstgrößten Seemacht der Welt aufstieg / How Pepsi became the 6th largest military in the world

Tausche Limo gegen Kriegsschiffe: Pepsi-Chef Don Kendall — Illustration: Jindrich Novotny

[scroll down for the English version]

Schon während des Kalten Kriegs hatte Pepsi einen guten Draht zur damaligen Sowjetunion. 1989 lässt sich der Konzern auf einen Deal: Im Austausch für mehr Cola-Lieferungen erhält er Kriegsschiffe

Die Wurzeln für den Kurzzeitaufstieg zur Militärmacht werden bei Pepsi gelegt, als der Kalte Krieg einen Moment pausiert. Es gibt ein berühmtes Foto, das Sowjetchef Nikita Chruschtschow 1959 auf der US-Ausstellung in Moskau zeigt. Vizepräsident Richard Nixon will den Sowjets dort den American Way of Life zeigen. Ein junger Pepsi-Marketing-Manager namens Donald M. Kendall nutzt die Chance und reicht dem Russen eine Erfrischung. Die Bilder, wie Chruschtschow eine Pepsi kippt, gehen um die Welt.

Damit hat der Softdrinkproduzent den Wettlauf mit Coca-Cola um den Sowjetmarkt schon fast gewonnen. Dennoch dauert es noch 13 Jahre, bis Pepsi einen Liefervertrag für die UdSSR schließt – in erster Linie fürs Prestige, denn geschäftlich ist nicht viel zu holen. Die devisenklamme Sowjetmacht zahlt nicht in Dollar, sondern in Naturalien: Pepsi schickt Cola-Konzentrat für UdSSR-Abfüllbetriebe über die Grenze, die Russen liefern im Gegenzug Stolichnaya-Wodka.

Doch dafür hat Pepsi jahrelang das Monopol im Ostblock. Coca-Cola bekommt keinen Fuß auf den Boden und darf erst viel später in beschränktem Maß liefern – als Vergütung gibt es im Westen unverkäufliche Ladas.

1989 erfasst die Perestroika die Sowjetunion. Westkonzerne rechnen zwar noch nicht mit deren schnellem Ableben, aber mit einer Öffnung des riesigen Markts. Kendall ist längst Board Chairman geworden. Er will das Pepsi-Volumen im Osten mehr als verdoppeln, doch so viel Wodka kann sein Konzern unmöglich absetzen. Im Mai 1989 einigt man sich schließlich auf ein anderes Tauschgut: Pepsi erhält 17 ausgediente U-Boote, einen Marinekreuzer, einen Zerstörer und eine Fregatte.

Verlustgeschäft für Pepsi

„Wir rüsten die Sowjetunion schneller ab als ihr“, ruft Kendall dem Sicherheitsberater von Präsident George Bush zu.

Der US-Konzern besitzt nun die sechstgrößte Marineflotte der Welt – allerdings nicht zum Kriegführen bestimmt, sondern allein zum gewinnbringenden Abwracken.

Dann zerfällt die UdSSR. Für Pepsi wird das Geschäft zum Verlust, ebenso wie ein weiterer Deal, mit dem die Russen dem Konzern ein Jahr später hochseetaugliche Frachter und Tankschiffe versprechen.

Die Bindung aber hält bis heute: Mit dem Kauf von Wimm-Bill-Dann wird der Konzern 2010 zum größten West-Investor in der russischen Lebensmittelindustrie. Obwohl sich auch hier nicht alle Hoffnungen erfüllen, bleibt das US-Unternehmen dem Investment bislang treu. Der Glaube an Russland stirbt nicht.


Donald M. Kendall, geb. 1921, beginnt im Marketing von Pepsi, wird 1963 Konzernchef, weitet das Geschäft systematisch aus und überholt zeitweise den Erzrivalen Coke. 1991 zieht er sich zurück, 2004 dekoriert ihn Wladimir Putin mit dem Freundschaftsorden Russlands.

from: https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-politik/wie-pepsi-zur-sechstgroessten-seemacht-der-welt-aufstieg


How Pepsi briefly became the 6th largest military in the world

Almost everyone in the world has a favorite soda that they enjoy whenever they get the opportunity. But, is your favorite tasty drink worth giving up a military arsenal big enough to stock a whole country? Well, at one point in history, the Russians thought so.

In 1959, then-President Dwight Eisenhower wanted to bring our America culture to citizens of the Soviet Union and show them the benefits of capitalism.

To showcase their ideologies, the American government arranged the “American National Exhibition” in Moscow and sent then-Vice President Richard Nixon to attend the opening — but things were about to take a turn for the worse.

Nixon and Soviet leader Khrushchev got into an argument over the topic of capitalism versus communism. Their conversation got so heated that the vice president of Pepsi intervened and offered the Soviet leader a cup of his delicious, sugary beverage — and he drank it.

Years later, the people of the Soviet Union wanted to strike a deal that would bring Pepsi products to their country permanently. However, there was an issue of how they would pay for their newest beverage, as their money wasn’t accepted throughout the world.

So, the clever country decided to buy Pepsi using a universal currency: vodka!

In the late 1980s, Russia’s initial agreement to serve Pepsi in their country was about to expire, but this time, their vodka wasn’t going to be enough to cover the cost.

So, the Russians did what any country would do in desperate times: They traded Pepsi a fleet of subs and boats for a whole lot of soda. The new agreement included 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer.

The combined fleet was traded for three billion dollars worth of Pepsi. Yes, you read that right. Russia loves their Pepsi.

The historical exchange caused Pepsi to become the 6th most powerful military in the world, for a moment, before they sold the fleet to a Swedish company for scrap recycling.

Check out Not Exactly Normal‘s video below to get the complete rundown of this sweet story for yourself.

from: https://www.businessinsider.de/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the-6th-largest-military-in-the-world-2018-7?r=US&IR=T

Original: https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/how-pepsi-became-the-6th-largest-military-in-the-world



Internet world despairs as non-profit .org TLD sold by ISOC for $$$$ to private equity firm

Internet world despairs as non-profit .org TLD sold by ISOC for $$$$ to private equity firm

Sale comes within months of DNS overseer pushing through controversial contract change

The sale of one of the internet’s most popular registries to a private equity firm has revived concerns over how the domain name system is governed.

At the end of last week, the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that it has sold the rights to the .org registry for an undisclosed sum to a private equity company called Ethos Capital.

The deal is set to complete in the first quarter of next year.

The decision shocked the internet industry, not least because the .org registry has always been operated on a non-profit basis and has actively marketed itself as such. The suffix “org” on an internet address – and there are over 10 million of them – has become synonymous with non-profit organizations.

However, overnight and without warning that situation changed when the registry was sold to a for-profit company.

The organization that operates the .org registry, PIR – which stands for Public Interest Registry – has confirmed it will discard the non-profit status it has held since 2003 as a result of the sale.

Adding to a sense of betrayal, the organization that decided on the sale – the Internet Society – has always been viewed as a supporter and protector of the engineer culture that devised and developed the networking technology that made the modern internet possible. That culture has always sought to provide a counterbalance to growing commercialism of the internet.

That decision to sell was made by the boards and management teams at both ISOC and PIR, according to a statement provided to The Register: “In terms of decision-making, the Boards – and executive management teams – of both the Internet Society and PIR were closely involved and voted to proceed.”

But that’s only part of the controversy: there is also the matter of who the registry was sold to.

Despite ISOC calling the purchaser Ethos Capital “a strong strategic partner that understands the intricacies of the domain industry,” no one in the internet industry had ever heard of the company when the sale was announced. Which wasn’t a surprise since it was established a few months earlier.

Who’s behind Ethos?

Despite stating that Ethos Capital “understands the intricacies of the domain industry” its founder and CEO Erik Brooks has no experience within that industry. The firm’s website lists only Brooks and one Nora Abusitta-Ouri – who joined the outfit last month as its “chief purpose officer” – as employees.

But there is a common thread between those two and it is Fadi Chehade, a former CEO of ICANN, the organization that oversees the domain-name system and awards the contracts to run internet registries.

It was under Chehade that ICANN radically changed its approach to internet registries, including a massive expansion of the internet namespace and a move toward a free market approach to internet addresses. Chehade’s actions as CEO led directly to the Ethos Capital buyout of .org but he is not listed as a part of Ethos Capital and the company has so far failed to respond to our questions about his connection to the firm.

More recent decisions by ICANN also had a significant bearing on the decision to sell the .org registry. At the end of June this year, in a controversial decision made despite significant and vocal opposition, ICANN decided to lift price caps on .org domains for the next 10 years, paving the way for unlimited price increases on the 10 million .org domain names. That decision massively increased the value of the .org registry from millions to potentially billions of dollars.

At the time, ICANN justified the decision by saying it was bringing the contract in line with the many new extensions that have been added to the internet in recent years. And this week, ICANN’s chairman Maarten Botterman told The Register in a statement that:

“The renewal agreement for .org removed the price cap and includes pricing provisions that are consistent with the base form registry agreement that is published and has been in public view for some time, essentially removing the role of ICANN in pricing restraints, where possible.”

Profitable conformity

But that logic has been repeatedly questioned by the internet community both at the time and since. Several high-profile non-profit organizations, including America’s National Public Radio (NPR), C-SPAN, the National Geographic Society and the YMCA, wrote a joint letter to ICANN complaining that the organization had “articulated no compelling policy basis for this proposed change.”

They rejected ICANN’s contract conformity argument, stating: “This strikes us as conformity for its own sake. ICANN should not disregard the public interest in favor of administrative convenience.”

The joint letter was just one of 3,200 comments sent to ICANN on the issue, which was itself an indication of the extraordinary interest in the proposal since ICANN rarely receives more than 50 comments for any of its comment periods.

ICANN’s subsequent official summary of the comment period – which the organization’s board is said to have used to make a determination – did not reflect that strength of feeling, however, and gave almost equal weight to those in favor of the proposal as those against.

Such apparent bias sparked a furious response from the internet community, with one member carrying out an independent analysis of the comments in which he concluded that no less than 98 per cent of comments sent in were explicitly opposed to the change.

In addition, those in favor of the change – whose arguments were repeated in the official summary – are linked to organizations that stand to benefit financially from the decision to lift price caps on all “legacy” registries. That analysis was published online under the title “The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN.”

Community support waivers

Even those that supported the proposal – including ICANN’s own At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) – expressed concern about the risks associated with removing price caps. And both groups have reacted with disbelief and alarm at the decision by ISOC to sell the .org registry.

“I must say, this casts the decision to drop price caps for .org in a slightly different light,” the chair of the NCSG, Stephanie Perrin, responded in an email when the news first came to light. The chair of ALAC, Maureen Hilyard, felt the same: “I know for sure that this was not even hinted at during the last PIR Advisory Council meeting, but it will have major implications for the ISOC chapters. What are they/ISOC thinking?” she posted.

For its part, ISOC challenges the notion that there was widespread opposition to lifting the price caps. It told us: “When it comes to price caps, there was a group that opposed lifting price caps, but it is not true that ‘the community’ was ‘strongly opposed’ to lifting them.

“The ICANN agreement that now governs .org was in fact the result of a long and serious community consideration inside ICANN. The effort to get ICANN out of the business of trying to do things like regulate prices was also a community effort. The people who strongly opposed lifting the price caps certainly made their views known but that does not mean that the whole community was in fact opposed to getting ICANN out of the business of regulating prices.

“Moreover, the removal of price caps on .org earlier this year (and months before we were approached by Ethos Capital) weren’t unique or specific to .org. ICANN’s decision was consistent with how it treats other registry agreements.”

No one, including, we understand, the board of ICANN, expected the Internet Society to sell the registry. But it is also worth noting that the contract negotiation failed to add, or even ask for, protections or commitments to .org’s long-standing non-profit status despite the significant contractual changes and an extension of the contract by 10 years, far longer than previous extensions.

Opaque decision-making

Adding to the frustration is the fact that ICANN gave no explanation for moving ahead with the decision to lift caps despite the public opposition. It also carried out no economic analysis of the change, despite being aware that it could be worth billions of dollars. Unusually for such a high-profile issue, the decision was also made by the organization’s staff rather than its board.

Under accountability measures, an ICANN board decision would have required the organization to look at it through a variety of lenses that would have raised serious question marks over the decision. In particular, the board would have to consider and discuss: the materials it has reviewed; any concerns raised by the community; any fiscal impacts or ramifications on the community or public; how the action served the public interest; and provide a rationale for the decision.

But the board did not make the decision, despite its high-profile nature and previous precedents, and as a result there was no explanation or rationale given. Adding to the sense that the entire process was flawed, no announcement was made about the decision to lift the price caps, and the new contract was simply uploaded to the webpage associated with the .org registry on the same day it entered into force.

Given the unexpected nature of the sale, the level of secrecy surrounding it – people still do not know who Ethos Capital is, how much it paid, or where its funds come from – and the huge sums of money at stake, the internet community is keen to find out the details of how the deal came about in the first place.

The CEO of PIR, Jon Nevett – who had been in his position just a few months before the contract change – has said that PIR had no knowledge of the planned sale to Ethos Capital at the time. And ISOC has told us in a statement that: “The Internet Society was first approached by Ethos Capital in September.”

But a number of factors suggest that informal discussions and even arrangements may have happened long before between the individuals in charge. It is notable that in the statements so far, queries over discussions have only referred to the organizations themselves rather than the individuals representing them.

The Chehade shell game

Former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade personally registered the domain name currently used by Ethos Capital in May and it was registered as a limited company in the US state of Delaware on May 14. That date is significant because it is one day after ICANN indicated it was planning to approve the lifting of price caps through its public comment summary.

As such it appears that the plan to purchase the .org registry was predicated on the price caps going ahead and that those behind the deal had intricate knowledge of ICANN’s internal processes.

Given the significant cultural hurdles that the sale of the .org registry would have to have overcome within ISOC and PIR, not just because it would cease to be a non-profit organization but also because ISOC is highly dependent on the registry’s revenue for its own financial well-being, it seems extraordinary that a deal of such magnitude could be agreed to and signed in just two months – as ISOC claims.

Some suspect that the deal has long been under informal discussion, with ISOC CEO Andrew Sullivan – who took over in September 2018 – working on it long before the contract negotiations. One potential indicator is the fact that ISOC restructured how it carries out one of its most significant duties – grant disbursements to internet society chapters across the globe – and set up a new Internet Society Foundation in February 2019.

That foundation is expected to be a central beneficiary of the deal that ISOC has struck with Ethos Capital, the details of which are still unclear. In its official announcement this month, ISOC said only that: “This transaction will provide the Internet Society with an endowment of sustainable funding and the resources to advance our mission on a broader scale as we continue our work to make the Internet more open, accessible and secure – for everyone.”

Others point to the long and ongoing relationship between PIR CEO Nevett and those behind Ethos Capital, thought to include not one but two former ICANN senior executives.

And another former ICANNer

Fadi Chehade is almost certainly closely connected to the deal, and so is his long-term business associate Akram Atallah. Atallah worked for Chehade at his former company before becoming COO of ICANN in 2010. When the at-the-time CEO of ICANN left in 2012, Atallah became interim CEO and recommended his friend Chehade for the chief executive role. Chehade became ICANN’s CEO from 2012 to 2016. When Chehade left, Atallah again took over CEO duties until a new CEO was chosen.

With weeks of leaving ICANN, Chehade joined private equity firm Abry Partners where the managing partner was Eric Brooks. Brooks left Abry Partners earlier this year after 20 years with the company to become the founder and CEO of Ethos Capital.

The only other named employee of Ethos Capital is Nora Abusitta-Ouri, a long-term associate of Chehade. Abusitta-Ouri was brought into ICANN by Chehade when he became CEO and left with him to work as his adviser at the World Economic Forum, then at Chehade’s “Chehadé & Company” consultancy, before becoming “chief purpose officer” at Ethos Capital earlier this month.

Connecting this group of four men – Chehade, Brooks, Atallah, and Nevett – further, Abry Partners invested heavily for the first time in the domain name industry in 2018 when it paid an undisclosed sum – thought to have been hundreds of millions of dollars – for internet registry operator Donuts, a company that was cofounded by Jon Nevett.

Nevett left the company one month later to become CEO of PIR and his previous position was taken immediately by Akram Atallah, who left ICANN unexpectedly and at short notice.

All this shuffling did not go unnoticed, and the US government publicly admonished ICANN at a public meeting about the revolving door between what should be a regulator to industry. “We need safeguards to ensure that ICANN staff and leadership are not only grounded ethically in their professional actions at ICANN, but also in their actions when they seek career opportunities outside of ICANN,” the head of the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) David Redl said in October 2018.

Cooling off

He proposed that “one potential fix could be ‘cooling off periods’ for ICANN employees that accept employment with companies involved in ICANN activities and programs. This is an ethical way to ensure that conflicts of interest or appearances of unethical behavior are minimized.”

That was not the first time the US government had warned about the potential for conflicts of interest either. It did the same in 2011 when a former ICANN chair walked into an industry job just four days after he left the DNS overseer. The US government said at the time that it was considering adding a conflict-of-interest provision to the contract for domain-name system support performed by ICANN.

But the US government no longer holds that contract, and ICANN acts as an autonomous organization. Despite repeated pressure, ICANN has so far failed to introduce any measures that limit, even for a reasonable period, its board members or executives from the moment they leave the organization.

In fact there are virtually no controls on ICANN executives despite their ability to set the policies that guide a multi-billion-dollar market. As just one example, it appears that both board and staff members are free to hold shares in companies whose value is closely linked to decisions that they make and that they are not required to disclose such holdings. (We have asked ICANN to clarity this point.)

The deal developed by former ICANN CEO Chehade is worth billions of dollars. With that much money at stake, and with a longstanding non-profit registry turned into a for-profit with unlimited ability to raise prices, the internet community has started demanding answers to who knew what and when.

ICANN responds

ICANN for its part claims to have had no knowledge of the deal when it approved the lifting of price caps.

“We were notified about the PIR/ISOC/ETHOS announcement at the time of their public announcement,” ICANN chair Maarten Botterman told The Register in a statement. “There was no consideration of this in the recent changes to the .org registry agreement, as we were not notified of such proposed changes by PIR.”

ICANN is “in the process of analyzing the specifics” of the deal, it told us while noting that it had asked PIR to publish the details though PIR has refused, citing confidentiality.

In a sign that ICANN is unlikely to challenge the sale of the registry – as some have formally urged it to do – the organization says in its statement that the new contract requires the operator of the registry to “provide registrars at least 30 days’ advance written notice of any price increase for initial registrations and 6 months’ notice for any price increases of renewals” while allowing domain owners to renew a domain for as much as 10 years in advance “thus enabling a registrant to lock in current prices for 10 years in advance of a pricing change.”

It is debatable whether even a small number of the 10 million .org domain holders would be aware of price increases until they are required to pay them, or whether the ability to register a domain for 10 years is equivalent to a 10-year price freeze.

Having failed to carry out any economic analyses of the multi-billion-dollar market that is oversees, ICANN continues to make the argument that domain name holders are free to move between registries easily. But those in the market know that the opposite is in fact true.

Printing money

All the data demonstrates that organizations are actually very resistant to moving from an established internet address and with domain names costing very little in real terms – between $10 and $15 a year – there is enormous inherent value in established registries because companies will pay many times the value of their domain in order to keep their current website, online presence, and email systems in place.

That is why the most established registries – .com, .net and .org – have long had price caps placed on them, limiting the amount they can increase renewal fees.

One recent example shows the enormous in-built value within these registries: when the US government said last year that it was planning to lift a price freeze on dot-com domains and allow the operator, Verisign, to increase prices by seven per cent a year, Verisign’s share price jumped 16 per cent as the market calculated the value of that price increase: $1 billion.

The .org registry is in a very similar situation with large organizations long established with .org domains willing to pay dozens or hundreds of times the current renewal cost of their domain.

As to why ISOC made the decision to abandon .org’s non-profit status in agreeing to the sale, the organization did not address our question directly but instead pointed to its benefits.

“We believe many in the community see the long-term benefits of this deal,” it said in a statement, arguing that it will “promote long-term financial security and more diversified funding for years to come to support the Internet Society’s vision that the Internet is for everyone; and PIR will be able to expand its mission to engage in purposeful work to advance important issues and further strengthen its commitment to the .org community.”

Committed but not open

ISOC also implies that it has a series of commitments from Ethos Capital over how it will run the registry, although neither it not Ethos Capital have been willing to share them with us.

“Ethos Capital is committed to ensuring continuity of PIR’s operations and maintaining the strong community relationships PIR has established over the years,” according to a statement from ISOC. “All three parties – the Internet Society, PIR and Ethos Capital – are in full alignment that this transaction will protect and enhance the interests of the Internet and .org communities for the future.”

As for the pricing, and the risk of hugely inflated .org renewal prices in future, all parties are providing vague statements about making “reasonable decisions on pricing” but without any commitments and, notably, refusing to provide any financial details of the deal – details that would enable us to analyze how much money Ethos Capital plans to extract from the 10 million holders of .org domains.


Despite the lengthy statements provided to us by ICANN and ISOC/PIR there are a few notable questions that they have refused to answer or have overlooked.

We asked ICANN to clarify this point and it pointed us to its conflict of interest policy. The policy makes no mention of holding shares or being required to disclose holdings. Nor does it include any “cooling off” periods as suggested repeatedly by others. The policy requires board members and staff to self-report any conflicts and notably contains no method to sanction or penalize someone found to have failed to disclose a conflict of interest.

We have also asked ICANN:

  • If there a case for it to insist on maintaining non-profit status for the .org registry as part of the contract.
  • If it intends to investigate what happened, particularly if ISOC was in negotiations and failed to say anything while pushing for price caps to be lifted.
  • Whether ICANN should have required an economic analysis of the contract renewal terms before it agreed to them. And whether it will commit to such analyses in future.
  • If it will acknowledge that community feeling was so strongly against lifting price caps for good reason. And if this was an occasion where ICANN’s management and board should have listened.
  • If the Board recognizes that it should have made the decision to lift price caps rather than just staff and whether it would introduce a process for ensuring proper consideration is given to such matters in future.

We have asked PIR/ISOC:

  • For fuller details on how and when the negotiations happened and between who.
  • For more information about the deal itself, including how it is structured and how much it is worth.

We have asked Ethos Capital – which has so far failed to respond to questions despite several days of notice:

  • How much it paid for the rights to the .org registry.
  • How the deal with ISOC/PIR is structured.
  • When negotiations started.
  • Where and from whom Ethos Capital receives its funding.
  • If the company will provide any comment and/or commitments to pricing.
  • What the connection is between Ethos and former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade.
  • If it has any plans to change the management of .org and/or the team at PIR.

We will update this story if and when they respond.


from: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/20/org_registry_sale_shambles/



Tesla Cyber Truck: I think this can be rightfully called “innovative” …

Tesla Cyber Truck: I think this can be rightfully called “innovative” …

  • Stronger than an F-150
  • Bullet-resistant metal (proof against 9mm)
  • Glass is hard to break
  • Faster than a Porsche 911
  • Auto-Level Air Suspension – automatically ‘kneels’ for ramp-loading
  • Light-bar’ed bed with an auto-lid and built-in ramp
  • Solar Roof to charge
  • Seats 6 adults
  • $40,000 to $70,000 to own
  • The Tesla ATV is also electric

… really not bad!





Thelen verlässt “Höhle der Löwen” – endlich

Thelen verlässt “Höhle der Löwen” – endlich

Gründer-Show “Höhle der Löwen”: Ur-Löwe Frank Thelen (3. v. r.) ist ausgestiegen.
Wer einmal einen realen Start-up-Investmentvertrag gelesen hat, weiß:
Selten wurde Realität so verzerrt

Schluss mit dem Gründerwahn!

Der Investor Frank Thelen verlässt die TV-Sendung “Die Höhle der Löwen”. Da kann man nur sagen: endlich! Denn das Schmierentheater zur besten Sendezeit bei VOX vermittelt ein vollkommen falsches Bild von Unternehmertum. Wer einmal einen realen Start-up-Investmentvertrag gelesen hat, weiß: Selten wurde Realität so sehr verzerrt dargestellt. Was Thelen und Co. in ihrer Show vermitteln, ist: “Denk dir eine coole Idee aus, trete vor Investoren und überzeuge. Wenn Frank und die anderen an dich glauben, ist die Welt gerettet.”

Hier als Kontrastprogramm ein kurzer Auszug aus der Realität: Haben Sie schon einmal etwas von Tag-along gehört? Das ist eine wunderbare Klausel, die sich in fast jedem Start-up-Vertrag findet und in der sinngemäß steht: Wenn der Investor seine Anteile verkaufen möchte, müssen die Gründer auch verkaufen – egal wie groß oder klein der Anteil des Geldgebers auch ist. Oder kennen Sie eine Downround? Die blüht Gründer*innen, wenn die Geschäftszahlen doch nicht ganz so astronomisch gut ausfallen, wie ursprünglich angenommen. Statt die Bewertung kontinuierlich nach oben zu schrauben, geht es auf einmal steil nach unten. Und -schwupp! – schon sind die Anteile der Jungunternehmer*innen fast nichts mehr wert.

Bullshit-Bingo statt Gründerförderung

“Aber wir haben die Mehrheit!”, sagen Gründer*innen an dieser Stelle gerne. Richtig, nur irgendwo im achtzigseitigen Beteiligungsvertrag steht eine Klausel, die festlegt, dass die Investoren jederzeit die Geschäftsführung austauschen können. “Macht nichts, dafür werde ich durch die Digitalisierung zum Millionär!” Noch so eine beliebte Phrase aus dem Bullshit-Bingo der Start-up-Welt.

Die Zauberformel, mit der sich Investoren das größte Stück des Kuchens sichern, heißt: “Last in – First out”. Die Investoren, die als Letztes eingestiegen sind, bekommen beim Verkauf zuerst ihr Geld.

Ein Beispiel: Ihr Start-up, die WeAreAwesome GmbH, hat drei Finanzierungsrunden hinter sich und wird anschließend über den Kapitalmarkt verkauft. Nur eben nicht ganz zu dem Preis, den sich alle gewünscht haben. Trotzdem: Die Millionen fließen. Nur dummerweise nicht in Richtung der Gründer, die Arbeit, Zeit und Herzblut in ihre Geschäftsidee investiert haben.

Es sind die besonders risikoaversen Investoren, die erst ganz zum Schluss eingestiegen sind, die als erste ihr Geld herausbekommen. Dann diejenigen, die in der zweiten Runde dazugestoßen sind. Und schließlich die ersten Risikokapitalgeber. Wenn danach noch etwas übrig ist, bekommen auch die Gründer noch etwas ab. Gegen solche Abzock-Klauseln kann man sich vertraglich schützen – aber dazu müssten Gründer bereits mit den ersten Geldgebern knallhart verhandeln.

Was würden Sie als Investor tun?

Frank Thelen ist mit seinem Investment-Unternehmen Freigeist eine Ausnahme unter den deutschen Risikokapitalgebern. Er investiert tatsächlich sein eigenes Geld. Viele andere arbeiten mit OPM, also mit “Other People’s Money”. Ihr Versprechen: Sie vermehren das Geld der Investoren viel stärker als es andere tun. Nachdem sie sich selbst zuvor üppige Bürokosten und Gehälter ausgezahlt haben, versteht sich.

In der Realität heißt das: Die Investoren stehen selbst gewaltig unter Performance-Druck, egal wie cool und partnerschaftlich sie tun. Nehmen wir an, Sie wären in einer solchen Situation, was wäre Ihr bevorzugtes Verhältnis zu aufstrebenden Gründern?

1. “Trotz meines wirtschaftlichen Drucks bin und bleibe ich ein Gutmensch. Ich glaube an meine Gründer*innen. Ich stelle ihnen mein gesamtes Know-how und mein Netzwerk zur Verfügung in der stillen Hoffnung, dass bei einem Verkauf des Unternehmens mein Vermögen auf wundersame Art und Weise wächst.”

2. “Die Gründer*innen arbeiten mit dem Geld, das ich akquiriert habe. Ich trage das größere Risiko. Nennen Sie mir einen Grund, warum ich die wesentlichen Dinge im Unternehmen nicht bestimmen sollte? Bevor mein Investment den Bach runtergeht, möchte ich den Laden verkaufen können. Und falls sich die erfolgversprechenden Gründer*innen als Luftpumpen erweisen, möchte ich sie jederzeit austauschen können.”

Jede Wette: Ihre Antwort wäre die zweite. Gehen wir noch einen Schritt weiter: Sie möchten Ihr Geld in einen Risikokapitalfond investieren. Und kurz bevor Sie dem angesagten Start-up-Investmentvehikel Ihr Geld geben, stellen Sie dem Fondmanager die Frage: Gehen Sie nach der Methode 1 (keine Kontrolle über die Gründer) oder nach der Methode 2 (Kontrolle über die Gründer und Rückfallversicherung bei Kapitalausfall) vor?

Ich bin mir sicher, im ersten Fall würden Sie schreiend aus dem Büro laufen.

Schluss mit dem Schmierentheater

Eine ganze Generation von Gründer*innen wird aktuell in dem Glauben groß, dass es das höchste aller Gefühle ist, Investoren für ihre Geschäftsideen zu finden. Doch das erträumte Happy End entpuppt sich oft als problembehaftete Beziehung. Investoren sind keine bösen Menschen. Auf der Website Dealterms.vc, meiner Sommerlektüre des vergangenen Jahres, geben die Venture-Kapitalgeber Nikolas Samios und Anja Rath (Arnold) klar zu verstehen, wie sie ticken und worauf sie Wert legen.

Zugegebenen, das Buch ist deutlich komplexer zu lesen als sich eine Folge “Die Höhle der Löwen” anzusehen. Jedes Recht, das sich Investoren herausnehmen, wird genau erklärt. Wer dieses Buch aufmerksam liest, wird anschließend eine andere Sichtweise auf die “coole” Start-up-Atmosphäre in Berlin und die Euphorie-Show bei VOX haben.

Es liegt am Verhandlungsgeschick aller Gründer und Gründerinnen, die besten Bedingungen für sich herauszuholen. Einige schaffen es tatsächlich, eine gewisse Unabhängigkeit zu behalten. Andere werden so eng an die Leine genommen, dass sie sich jeden Reisekostenbeleg genehmigen lassen müssen.

Man lässt ihnen die Illusion von Unternehmertum und gibt ihnen einen schicken Titel (CEO, CTO oder irgendetwas anderes mit “C” im Titel), sie dürfen sich auf Start-up-Messen präsentieren, aber am Ende sind sie mies bezahlte Quasi-Angestellte. Ich werde nie die Begegnung mit einem Gründer vergessen, der neidisch auf die Putzfrau blickte und sagte: “Sie bekommt wenigstens Mindestlohn.”

Es wird Zeit, Start-up-Pitchings und Investments mit einem realistischen Blick anzugehen. Und sich nicht vom Schmierentheater à la Thelen und Co. blenden zu lassen. Denn auch in der Start-up-Welt gilt der alte Spruch: Man muss die anderen nur so schnell über den Tisch ziehen, dass sie die Reibungswärme mit Nestwärme verwechseln.


Dr. Jens-Uwe Meyer ist Geschäftsführer der Innolytics GmbH, Autor und internationaler Keynote Speaker. Mit 13 Büchern (u.a. “Digitale Gewinner”, “Digitale Disruption”) und mehr als 250 Artikeln zählt er zu den Vordenkern für Digitalisierung und Innovation in Europa.

Jens-Uwe Meyer ist Mitglied der MeinungsMacher von manager-magazin.de. Trotzdem gibt diese Kolumne nicht notwendigerweise die Meinung der Redaktion des manager magazins wieder. Meyers neues Buch “Digitale Gewinner” ist jetzt erhältlich.


from: https://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/artikel/gruenderwahn-unternehmen-brauchen-substanz-statt-inszenierung-a-1296134.html



Nur 14 Prozent Tech-Startups bei DHDL – ein Spiegel der Szene ist das nicht

Infografik. Wer in Staffel sechs das Gefühl hatte, wenig Tech zu sehen, lag richtig. Nur ein Bruchteil der DHDL-Teilnehmer kam mit digitalen Produkten, wie unsere Auswertung zeigt.
13. November 2019 | Pauline Schnor
Da hatte sich doch mal ein Tech-Produkt in die Höhle verirrt: Maschmeyer, Kofler, Wöhrl und Glagau (v.l.) begutachten die Flipcar-App aus sicherer Distanz.

„Zu wenig Tech“ – das nannte Frank Thelen diese Woche als Grund, warum er als Juror bei „Die Höhle der Löwen“ aussteigt. Ob dies die einzige Ursache seines Abgangs ist, sei dahingestellt. Doch mit seiner Aussage hat Thelen durchaus Recht, wie eine Auswertung von Gründerszene zeigt.

Nur acht von 56 Startups, die sich in der sechsten Staffel bei DHDL vorstellten, haben ein technologiebasiertes Produkt. Das sind gerade einmal 14 Prozent. Damit spiegelt die Vox-Show keineswegs die deutsche Startup-Szene wider: Tatsächlich haben zwei Drittel der hiesigen Startups ein digitales Geschäftsmodell, wie die Studie Deutscher Startup Monitor 2019 ermittelte.

Besonders viele Gründerinnen und Gründer pitchten in der am 12. November abgeschlossenen DHDL-Staffel Produkte aus dem Bereich Food. 18 Firmen aus dieser Branche traten auf, darunter Renjer (getrockentes Rentierfleisch) und Mellow Monkey (Marshmallows mit Eis). Auch die Sport- und Freizeitbranche war mit zwölf Startups recht stark vertreten, darunter Everest Climbing (Kletterwand) und Aer (Gopro-Gadget). Digital sind die Produkte aus diesen Branchen aber größtenteils nicht.

Insurtech- und Proptech-Startups tauchten in Staffel sechs gar nicht auf, Fintech-, Mobility- und Health-Firmen immerhin marginal. Das ist aber nichts Neues. Business Insider wertete die Branchen der Teilnehmer aus den Staffeln eins bis fünf aus und kam dabei ebenfalls auf eine Tech-Quote von 14 Prozent.

Vorzuhalten ist Frank Thelen, dass er nicht in eines der acht Digital-Startups investiert hat, die sich in die Löwenhöhle wagten (siehe Beispiele am Ende des Artikels). Die wenigen Fintech- und Mobility-Startups der Sendung, darunter Deinestudienfinanzierung und Flipcar, gingen leer aus. Deals gab es größtenteils für Gründerinnen und Gründer mit Produkten, die sich gut in Supermärkten und Kaufhäusern platzieren lassen – also etwa Essen und Mode (siehe unten).

Die DHDL-Startups aus Staffel sechs nach Branchen:

Kepler achieves a world-first for satellite broadband with 100Mbps connection to the Arctic

Kepler achieves a world-first for satellite broadband with 100Mbps connection to the Arctic

Small-satellite startup Kepler has done something never before accomplished with satellite-based broadband connectivity: providing a high-bandwidth to the Arctic. Kepler’s nanosatellites have successfully demonstrated achieving over 100Mbps of network speed to a German icebreaker sea vessel that acts as a mobile lab for the MOSAiC research expedition.

This is the first time there’s been a high-bandwidth satellite network for any central Arctic ground-based use, Kepler says, and this connection isn’t just a technical demo: it’s being used for the researchers in the MOSAiC team, which is made up of hundreds of individuals, to transfer data back and forth between the ship and shore-based research stations, which improves all aspects of working with the considerable quantities of data being gathered by the team.

Bulk data transfer has been a challenge for a long time for science expeditions at either of the Earth’s poles. It’s impractical to do terrestrial high-bandwidth networks in these locations, and traditional satellite-based networking has not been able to achieve these kinds of speeds in these locales, either. Kepler is uniquely servicing the poles with two low Earth orbit satellites that are on a polar orbital trajectory, which means they can provide service to these scientists, which include a multidisciplinary team intent on studying the impact of climate change up close at the location where its effects are perhaps most dramatic, or at least felt earliest.

On the icebreaker floating research ship, Kepler has demonstrated 38Mbps down, and 120Mbps up, which is coincidentally above the max recommended specs that Google has posted for its highest quality Stadia game streaming. But this is for science, not gaming. For science.


from: https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/07/kepler-achieves-a-world-first-for-satellite-broadband-with-100mbps-connection-to-the-arctic/




By continuing to use this site, you agree to the use of cookies. Please consult the Privacy Policy page for details on data use. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.