This podcast currently has no reviews.
Submit ReviewThis podcast currently has no reviews.
Submit ReviewSean Higgins is the founder and CEO of BetterYou, a product that “nudges” you to make better decisions and work toward your goals. He is also an entrepreneur in residence at Techstars, a partner at Router Ventures, and previously founded VidGrid.
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest or may invest: virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics. From time to time, we may write about companies that are in our portfolio. As managers of the portfolio, we may earn carried interest, management fees or other compensation from such portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making any investment decisions and provided solely for informational purposes. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections and the content on this site should not be relied upon. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.
Dr. Kevin Luhman is a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Pennsylvania State University and a renowned astronomer for having discovered both the third closest stellar system, now called Luhman 16, and the coldest brown dwarf star ever found, which too will soon bear his name.
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest or may invest: virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics. From time to time, we may write about companies that are in our portfolio. As managers of the portfolio, we may earn carried interest, management fees or other compensation from such portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary
TheLlamaSir is a content creator on YouTube and Twitch. He has over 1.1M subscribers on YouTube and his videos have been viewed over 100M times. TheLlamaSir primarily creates gameplay and guide videos for Fortnite, but has also created content for Rocket League, Call of Duty, and Minecraft.
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest or may invest: virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics. From time to time, we may write about companies that are in our portfolio. As managers of the portfolio, we may earn carried interest, management fees or other compensation from such portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making any investment decisions and provided solely for informational purposes. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections and the content on this site should not be relied upon. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.
Sean Higgins is the founder and CEO of BetterYou, a product that “nudges” you to make better decisions and work toward your goals. He is also an entrepreneur in residence at Techstars, a partner at Router Ventures, and previously founded VidGrid.
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest or may invest: virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics. From time to time, we may write about companies that are in our portfolio. As managers of the portfolio, we may earn carried interest, management fees or other compensation from such portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making any investment decisions and provided solely for informational purposes. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections and the content on this site should not be relied upon. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.
Sean Higgins is the founder and CEO of BetterYou, a product that “nudges” you to make better decisions and work toward your goals. He is also an entrepreneur in residence at Techstars, a partner at Router Ventures, and previously founded VidGrid.
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest or may invest: virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics. From time to time, we may write about companies that are in our portfolio. As managers of the portfolio, we may earn carried interest, management fees or other compensation from such portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making any investment decisions and provided solely for informational purposes. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections and the content on this site should not be relied upon. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.
We pride ourselves on contrarian curiosity. When that curiosity leads us to new conclusions, we change our minds. As part of that exploration, the areas that we find most interesting evolve over time. What was once frontier eventually becomes commonplace. We’re committed to updating our investment thesis as necessary through a living manifesto derived from our ongoing research process.
A little over a year and a half ago, we launched Loup Ventures and published our Manifesto outlining our vision of the future — a world more automated by AI and robotics and more experiential through VR and AR.
Since then, some things have changed, and some things have stayed the same. One thing has even changed and stayed the same: we’re bigger believers than ever in the emerging wave of innovation around automation and experience.
It’s no longer a question that the world is becoming more automated. We’re already seeing automation influence how we work, shop, and move. The efficiency we expect in those categories has also rubbed off on how we communicate with one another — we expect more meaning in less time.
As automation frees time for leisure, we’re finding new ways to create and play. Of course, all experience ultimately happens in the brain, and we’re seeing technology that interacts directly with the brain to change how we experience the world.
Our original vision to invest across AI, robotics, VR, and AR has evolved: We invest in frontier tech companies automating the world and building new ways to experience it.
In our first manifesto, we talked about the potential for 70% of jobs to be disrupted by automation long term. We still think that will be the case, but it may take longer than we originally imagined. We also have a brighter view on the creation of new jobs uniquely suited for humans. Net-net, while labor will certainly be disrupted by automation, jobs will exist for humans in the long-term future. As such, we see four core opportunities in the future of work: human-in-the-loop, human-as-AI, pure AI, and pure human.
For at least the next decade, there will exist a gap between what enterprise customers want AI to do and what AI can viably do. To that end, we embrace the reality that humans, in many ways, are robots. We’re all full of habits (programs), biases (programs), and skills (programs). Humans will serve as the most efficient “AI” while we develop and train purely machine-driven forms. This is where the first two future of work opportunities exist.
As the pure AI category slowly replaces jobs created by the first two opportunities, the aforementioned 70% job disruption will become a reality. While some observers fear this disruption as permanent, we see a different future where both blue- and white-collar skilled jobs disappear while new jobs emerge.
Pure human jobs will be driven by uniquely human capabilities: creativity, community, and empathy. These are the long-term future of human work because they are outputs that only a human can authentically deliver. Creative pursuit of the arts will become more valuable as work and play merge. Communities can only be led by human beings. Empathic, human-led customer service will be a true differentiator for businesses that are otherwise automated. If we do it right, we should be able to create a world where robots perform tasks for which they are optimally suited, and humans will do the same. The future of work is bright, not bleak; especially for humans.
We see the future of retail in three buckets: online commerce, automated retail, and empathic retail.
Humans, not robots, are likely to deliver the greatest differentiated experience. There’s a quality of connection when your favorite retail locations know who you are and what you like that’s hard to replicate. We think great customer service delivered by humans will become the most valuable differentiator in an empathic retail space and be augmented by AI and robotics, but not replaced by them.
We see a future where humans not only won’t have to drive but won’t be allowed to drive. Admittedly, we’re still several decades from achieving that future, but autonomous transportation feels, in many ways, like a foregone conclusion. Billions of dollars have been invested in autonomous driving platforms and we’re beginning to see early solutions come to market like Tesla’s Autopilot (level 2 enhanced ADAS) and Waymo (level 4), but it will likely take billions of dollars more before we reach a fully autonomous transport future. See our Auto Outlook 2040 for details.
Despite the amount of investment and attention on autonomous vehicles, our infrastructure is well behind our vehicles. Smarter energy grids, EV charging, roads, and maintenance will all be core components of our autonomous future. Governments seem to be interested in investing in these technologies but will be slow to act. Companies that find ways to limit upfront costs to cities and push the majority of monetization to private players in the transit ecosystem are most likely to thrive.
Experience will be a major derivative benefit from the move to autonomous transit in several ways. First, since humans will be free from the task of driving, they will have more time to engage in communicating with others, creative work pursuits, or other play. We’ll also recoup lost time spent in traffic. Second, the many dangers of the road, namely distracted driving, will be eliminated. Third, vehicle ownership will transform, which may free dollars up for other discretionary spending. Fourth, urban and suburban centers will change. Vehicles, whether corporately or personally owned, will stay maximally utilized by fleets. Parking should be a thing of the past, which will allow streets to be lined by trees and pedestrians. And people on scooters. And delivery robots.
Meaning divided by time. That is our simple fundamental thesis on how the future of communication will evolve. Products that allow people to consume more meaningful information in less time will win. Products that allow us to reduce holistic noise and allow us to tell more engaging stories will win.
Information is plentiful. We spend more time with information than ever before, from more sources than ever before, including social media and professional content. Thus, content has to be extremely compelling to break through in our busy lives. The richer, more creative, and more compelling the content (relevance is an everlasting imperative as well), the more we will want to consume it. See our piece on the future of information consumption for details.
Much of the innovation over the past decade has happened for asynchronous communication tools from Twitter to Instagram to Snapchat; platforms where real-time engagement isn’t necessary or expected. Synchronous communication tools have, by comparison, languished. While we have multiple video conferencing tools like FaceTime, Hangouts, Skype, and Zoom for synchronous communication, they haven’t transformed the way we interact on the same order as the aforementioned asynchronous tools. There’s still an opportunity for a step-function improvement in synchronous communication that will shift users toward live and real time.
This doesn’t mean we’re done innovating in asynchronous communication either. Tools for both mechanisms will continue to evolve by leveraging product features like time restrictions, non-fungible content enhancements, combining multiple content formats, and, of course, augmented reality. All of these mechanisms enhance meaning/time, which enhances our experience as consumers.
Humans love competition and entertainment. That’s why we watch sports. That’s why we love games. With more time available for leisure in an automated world, we will be afforded more time to engage in play.
As we’ve already witnessed with the rise of eSports, the future of play will not be beholden to traditional sports. Gaming will be the basis for much of the evolution of play. Like traditional sports, games are accessible to all, but mastered by few, and anywhere there is a skill to be mastered, there is beauty. We watch in awe as Ninja plays Fortnite just as we watch Lebron play basketball.
The interactive nature of gaming will influence the future of play. ‘Live’ and ‘sports’ have always gone well together. We want to see greatness as it happens, not in a replay, to gain the social credit of “being there.” Live streaming combines the excitement of being there with a unique ability to engage with fans in ways not possible in traditional sports. We see this combination as the blueprint for new sports and other forms of play to amass large fan bases.
While gaming will be a large component of the future of play, passion activities like music, art, and other forms of human creativity will also enrich and entertain us. Platforms will emerge to not only encourage, but also financially reward participants as play becomes work. See more of our work on gaming for details.
The human brain is the basis for both intelligence and experience. Neurotech allows us to understand, and even manipulate, the brain’s signals, allowing us to directly influence intelligence and experience. Our focus on neurotech could be considered the future of the future of experience, since it will have a profound impact on how we engage with the world through both clinical and consumer applications.
On the clinical side — typically invasive/implantable medical devices — our growing ability to simulate sensory experience and stimulate motor function can solve previously unsolvable problems. We have, for example, already witnessed groundbreaking work to restore motion in paralyzed patients. The next frontier is sensory information: we’ve heard about efforts to restore high-resolution vision to patients with retinal degeneration. A growing number of devices on the market treat pain through neurostimulation rather than pharmaceuticals.
On the consumer side — exclusively noninvasive devices today — we can control things like video games and cars with our minds. We can learn new skills more quickly through specialized neurofeedback devices. And we’ve only just begun.
In the longer-term future, neurotech could truly augment what it means for us to be “human.” Ideas exist for memory augmentation and brain preservation. We expect eventually we’ll find a way to simulate consciousness on a computer. While these probably require decades or more of technological and societal advancements, they illustrate a simple reality that drives our neurotech thesis: The brain is the key to all things in life, and to life itself. See more of our work on neurotech for details.
In our original manifesto, we outlined a future of vast automation and limitless, life-like experience; a future that would make Arthur C. Clarke proud. We still believe in that future and the path is slightly clearer than before. Some fear our vision for the future because progress always brings new challenges, but our future is bright. Human desire drives innovation, adaptation, and survival.
We called it utopia; however, utopia, like many things in life, is relative. Utopia today raises expectations such that it isn’t utopia tomorrow. We may only approach utopia every now and then, but it’s always the journey that makes the destination worth it. Loup Ventures is excited to pioneer that journey.
By Doug Clinton with Gene Munster and Andrew Murphy
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest or may invest: virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics. From time to time, we may write about companies that are in our portfolio. As managers of the portfolio, we may earn carried interest, management fees or other compensation from such portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making any investment decisions and provided solely for informational purposes. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections and the content on this site should not be relied upon. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.
Brave early adopters are the hallmark of an innovation set to create immense human value. In this story, the innovation is cutting-edge technology for interfacing with the nervous system, and the brave early adopter is Ian Burkhart.
Ian, a young man in his mid-twenties, suffered a C5 spinal cord injury (SCI) during a diving accident in 2010. The result was bilateral paralysis below his elbows. With an admirably positive attitude and a wonderfully helpful community, Ian was able to make modifications to his life and still live with a sense of meaning.
One of the primary factors motivating Ian forward through the years of rehabilitation was the strong hope that, at some point in his lifetime, there would be biomedical advances capable of giving him back use of his hands.
As it happened, such a possibility crossed his path.
images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*-c9ar_IT-WWPLr6zfaAU9Q.jpeg">Image: https://ianburkhart.com
In 2014, Ian was presented with an incredible but uphill opportunity led by Dr. Chad Bouton of Battelle (he’s now with the Feinstein Institute): a team of researchers was looking for a patient to test out a system for restoring movement to the hands of a paralyzed patient. The catch was that it required brain surgery and extensive training.
There are 5.4 million Americans living with some form of paralysis, and Ian is acutely aware of the challenges they face. But optimism is one of his defining characteristics: given the chance to pioneer a technology that could bring massive human value, he was willing to make a sacrifice. And so, in 2014, Ian risked his life by undergoing electable brain surgery, implanting a manmade electrode array into the left motor cortex of his brain.
Over the four years since the operation, and hundreds of hours of tedious and extremely difficult training, Ian has collaborated closely with a team of researchers to improve the brain-machine interface system. Ian can now use the technology, which acts as a “bypass” to his damaged spinal cord, to play Guitar Hero using his right hand.
images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*KkgRm_B6plwD9atg3N8OTw.jpeg">Image: PBS
The body has two information pathways, the vascular system and the nervous system. The typical conception of physiological medical care is that treatments should leverage the body’s vascular system, as in the case of pharmaceuticals; Ian’s system, in contrast, is based on the principle that medical care can be given by interacting with the nervous system. The names of the fields that embody this innovative approach are bioelectronic medicine (BEM) and brain-machine interfaces (BMI).
Brain-machine interfaces are technological systems that read from and/or write to the brain. Bioelectronic medicine systems are technological systems that read from or write to the nerves in your body (the peripheral nervous system). Both of these types of neural interfaces can provide therapeutic value through the insight to target medical interventions at the nervous system rather than just the bloodstream.
At Loup Ventures, we invest in domains of frontier technology that offer strong investment opportunities built on delivering unique human value-add. Bioelectronic medicine and brain-machine interfaces check both boxes with bold strokes. We’re here to explain these technologies and why you should care about them.
Ian Burkhart was originally approved by the FDA to participate in a year-long trial using a Utah Array electrode implanted in his left motor cortex. When fully hooked up in the laboratory, the signals recorded from the Utah Array, a type of intracortical multielectrode array, are decoded by a neural decoding algorithm and used to control 130 surface electrodes wrapped around his right forearm (which he can’t move on his own). When current is run through the surface electrodes, it causes muscles in Ian’s forearm to contract in particular ways, ultimately controlling his hand movement. In other words, the researchers aim to understand what Ian’s neural activity looks like when he’s thinking about moving his hand. With this understanding, they can use his neural activity to decipher when he wants to move his hand. Then, knowing that he wants to move his hand, a computer program controls his muscles via the electrodes so he can actually move his hand. In essence, they skip right over the spinal cord injury responsible for his paralysis.
images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*_98Q7AgpJbsDhMLum38_8Q.png">Image: biomedicalcomputationreview.org
Ian and his team of researchers have been so successful that the FDA has extended the experiment multiple times; he’s now in his fourth year of participation.
Loup Ventures recently had the pleasure to talk with Ian about his experience and his outlook. Here’s some of what we learned (listen to one of our conversations with him on our Neurotech Podcast here):
In general, we take inspiration from Ian’s conviction about the positive value of nervous system-based interventions, and we take direction from his emphasis on the necessity for BMI/BEM engineers to focus on the practical value of their products. In speaking about his work to improve his own system for movement restoration so that other patients can use it, he says, “I see my involvement with the study as a job that I have to succeed in.” He sees no other choice; the upside is just too large to ignore.
Now that we’ve discussed bioelectronic medicine and brain-machine interfaces from the perspective of a real user, we’ll describe these related domains and their benefits to conclude this introductory article. Although the fields of bioelectronic medicine and brain-machine interfaces speak to different use-cases (bioelectronic medicine involves the peripheral nervous system and treats or diagnoses disease in the body; brain-machine interfaces involve the central nervous system and address sensory deficits and cognitive/affective disorders), we’re going to discuss both under the header of “bioelectronic medicine” for the sake of brevity and comprehensibility.
At its highest level, bioelectronic medicine simply uses electronics to interface with the body where previously, chemicals/drugs would have been used. There are three basic components to any BEM system: a body, a device (either inside or outside of the human body), and a computer. In plain English, there are two general ways to use a BEM system:
Some examples of BEM systems include: brain-machine interfaces for restoring movement to paralyzed patients, as in the case of Ian Burkhart; the-argus-ii-prosthesis-system-pf-en.html">retinal prostheses to return vision to the blind; stimulating the vagus nerve to treat rheumatoid arthritis; and recording electrical signals from the vagus nerve to understand the state of the body’s inflammatory response.
images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*t5LHFZ4Dd2eBUUy26601Yg.png">Image: Tracey, 2007
The latter two use-cases exemplify an aspect of bioelectronic medicine that differs from central nervous system-focused brain-machine interfaces: bioelectronic medicine leverages reflexes. In this sense of the word “reflex,” we refer to the idea that the brain both keeps track of and controls organ function using peripheral nerves. This keeping track and controlling is a reflex to preserve homeostasis.
Aside from providing novel treatments and diagnostic opportunities that have yet to be achieved with pharmaceuticals, bioelectronic medicine products offer significant advantages over pharmaceuticals in terms of the FDA regulatory process. All medical devices and drugs are subject to regulation by the FDA. However, it takes between 30–50 months for a medical device (BEM devices classify as medical devices) to get through the FDA, as compared with 144 months for a drug to get through the FDA. A direct correlate of this is that BEM device development is significantly less expensive than pharmaceutical development: BEM devices cost ~$100M for high-risk devices, whereas drug development can require the-real-costs-of-developing-a-new-drug.html">on the order of ~$1B (although the exact cost is uncertain and fluctuates).
There are several frontiers of bioelectronic medicine: technological, scientific, and social/political. Technologically, devices to record and stimulate the nervous system need to be able to record and stimulate at smaller spatial scales and to operate wirelessly (without a wire running from the implanted device, out of the skin, and to a power source). Additionally, neural recordings will be fused with sensors under development that focus on biological signals such as the activity within individual cells. In terms of basic science, researchers need a better understanding and more detailed atlas of the peripheral nervous system and are additionally working to characterize other nervous system reflexes within the body (“reflex” in the sense we described above). Finally, on the social/political front: although public forum discussion of BEM and BMIs is rather small right now, it’s likely that conversation picks up over the next ~5 years as ambitious interface companies like Neuralink, Kernel, and Paradromics hopefully bring progress to bear; almost certainly, the public conversation will focus on privacy and ethics.
To understand the massive market for therapeutic devices that interface with the nervous system, we’ll list six example opportunities and their respective market sizes:
Expanding beyond these specific use-cases, any new class of treatment and diagnostic methodology like bioelectronic medicine is likely to have effects that trickle down and impact a large portion of the $3.3 trillion dollar US healthcare industry.
In this piece, we’ve introduced the concept of bioelectronic medicine and brain-machine interfaces: providing therapeutic value to patients by interfacing with their nervous system instead of their bloodstream. We see huge opportunity in this space, driven by novel interfaces to the nervous system and new disease treatment paradigms. As we saw with Ian Burkhart, bioelectronic medicine and brain-machine interfaces are domains with enormous value to add, but whose development will be intricate and require careful ethical considerations. Stay tuned as we dive in-depth to understand the science, technology, and business of bioelectronic medicine.
Special thanks to Ian Burkhart for sharing with us his story and insights. Through the Ian Burkhart Foundation, he works to improve the lives of individuals with spinal cord injuries.
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest: virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics. From time to time, we will write about companies that are in our portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making investment decisions. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.
Today’s news around Amazon’s new Alexa healthcare team got us thinking about Amazon’s prospects for breaking into healthcare. Companies across the entire healthcare industry are quickly discovering that AI will be used in everything from operations to enhancing quality of life for patients. Imagine the safety, information, connectivity, and entertainment that an Alexa near every hospital bed could offer patients.
Amazon’s first foray into healthcare came with a 2014 deal with Cardinal Health leveraging Amazon’s e-commerce capabilities to sell medical supplies to hospitals and clinics. Amazon announced another major move into healthcare when they, JPMorgan Chase, and Berkshire Hathaway outlined plans to start a company that would provide and manage healthcare for the three companies’ combined 1.2m employees, focusing particularly on reducing costs. Separately, Amazon announced that they have put their plans to become a pharmaceutical wholesaler on hold (for now). The company found it difficult to bring major hospitals on board due to their reluctance to deviate from the purchasing process they’ve grown used to.
We believe Amazon will have a major impact on the $3.3T U.S. healthcare industry by leveraging three core competencies: Logistics, AI, and cloud infrastructure to transform delivery of care, population health management, and healthcare software services.
The acquisition of Whole Foods gives Amazon another unique product and product delivery method, although we can’t call it a core competency yet. Food as medicine will be an important part of healthcare’s future and, as a leading grocer, Amazon is well-positioned here. Whole Foods locations also provide Amazon with the physical presence, and the brand recognition in health and wellness, to potentially address the need for more convenient healthcare clinics.
Amazon’s aspiration to be “Earth’s most customer-centric company” provides it with seemingly unlimited growth potential (and uncanny ability to find success in new markets). While they may be king when it comes to e-commerce, their entry into the healthcare market will likely prove to be one of their toughest tests to date. They face an extremely complex and concentrated industry and the regulatory quagmire that comes with it. Amazon has its work cut out in convincing the healthcare system that it belongs at the table, but it’s made sensible first steps and we’ve learned not to bet against them.
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest: artificial intelligence, robotics, virtual reality, and augmented reality. From time to time, we will write about companies that are in our portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making investment decisions. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.
Ready Player One showcased both the promise and the pitfalls of our technological future. A virtual world that enables your wildest dreams, on demand, on top of a real world that rots in decay because the virtual one is so much better. All great sci-fi achieves this balance — a healthy observation about what can go right and how right can evolve to wrong.
Player-One.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="416">
The core insight of science fiction is that all technologies live on a spectrum of good and evil, useful and harmful, and our perception of their place on that spectrum vacillates over time. It’s a truth that we’ve long known innately but are now being forcefully reminded of in our real world. In just the past couple months, we’ve dealt with major Facebook data privacy issues, multiple self-driving car accidents, and increasing discussion about smartphone addiction. These technologies that were largely accepted, if not embraced, have turned on us. Perhaps it’s more correct to say we turned on them.
All technologies live on a spectrum of good and evil, useful and harmful.
So, what is it that turns technology from good to evil in our eyes? It seems to happen for one of two reasons.
First, in the early adoption phases of any technology, the majority tends to have a healthy skepticism laced with fear. It’s the reason why most people don’t adopt new technology, only innovators. When a new technology has early failings, the skeptical, fearful majority find reason to double down. They feel validation and their skepticism grows, allowing them to make a case for why some new technology is more evil than good; why it should never exist. This creates an even higher hurdle for a new technology to move into the early adoption phase. Autonomous vehicles seem to be living through a mild version of this scenario now. In fact, the discussion about the perils of AI in general also fits here.
Second, in the later stages of adoption when a majority of people use a given technology, consumers tend to view the technology with a dose of fear laced with resignation that can easily flip to anger. When people believe that too much power is consolidated in any endeavor, technology included, there lurks a possibility of revolt. That possibility turns to reality when power is perceived to be abused and anger takes over. Evil is perceived to outweigh good, and people question whether they want to continue to engage in using the technology. Facebook is living through anger-driven revolt now. You could argue that the firearm debate also fits in this category.
If a technology avoids the anger phase for a long enough period, it can move into a stable acceptance of the good and the bad. An example might be the car, which enables large scale movement of humanity and suburbanization, even though over a million people die every year in car accidents and gasoline-powered cars pollute the environment. The Internet fits here too, even if the smartphone as an extension of the Internet does not yet. Apple is doing all it can to demonstrate its respect of the power it wields in bringing highly addictive Internet services to everyone, all the time.
Just as Viktor Frankl observed that, “No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people,” no technology is purely decent or indecent; none is purely good or bad, which are human judgements anyway. The lesson from Ready Player One as well as our situation today is that we should always be willing to accept good with evil as it comes to technology. We should think about what all technologies will mean to humans first, not how exciting the technology is or how much money it could make or some other measure about what the technology could do. Our guiding light should be to ask, “How sure can we be that this technology will improve human life?” If we can’t get comfortable with that answer, we should be prepared to revolt. If we can get comfortable with it, we should be prepared to accept.
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest: virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics. From time to time, we will write about companies that are in our portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making investment decisions. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.
Fortnite is a battle royale game, where 100 players parachute onto an island with the goal of being the last one standing at the end. A “storm” serves as a boundary that closes in at set intervals, shrinking the playable area and forcing players closer and closer together. Players begin with no equipment and must scavenge around the island looking for weapons and supplies to give them an advantage over the opposition. Fornite has screamed to the top of gaming titles recently and is the number 1 most viewed title on Twitch as of this writing.
Fortnite is an extremely accessible game in a number of ways. For one, it’s free, making it easy to convince friends and family to try it out versus console games that usually run about $60. This is a major reason for its fast ascension to cultural phenomenon. When gamers see their friends playing a game or want to try a new one, they often must consider if it’s worth the investment. With Fortnite, users are able to play the online multiplayer without any upfront cost.
Another facet of its accessibility is the graphics and visuals. The aesthetic of Fortnite is cartoony and a little silly, which makes it much easier for parents to get on-board and expands the audience of the game to a younger demographic. There is no gore, no dead bodies lying around and the weapons feel less like instruments of destruction and more like they’re made by NERF or SuperSoaker. PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG), the first major battle royale title, has a much grittier, more realistic aesthetic that is targeted to an older audience. Fortnite looks and feels like it’s directed at kids, but has enough complexity and a high enough skill ceiling that it keeps older, more competitive players interested as well. It’s an example of the old adage, “easy to learn, difficult to master.”
Furthermore, it’s playable across platforms. It is available on PS4, Xbox One, PC, and iPhone, with Android support coming soon. Fortnite also supports cross-platform play, so players on the PC can play with their friends or family who play on Xbox (though PS4 and Xbox players can’t play together, Sony is blocking the option). This is the first time that this has been possible for any video game and could prove to be a major milestone for online gaming.
Battle royale games are a relatively new phenomenon. One of the keys to Fortnite’s meteoric rise is that this genre is inherently fun. The longer the game lasts – and the closer you get to victory – the higher the stakes and the higher the stress. The exhilaration of being one of the few remaining players is a significant factor in the game and the genre’s popularity. Ultimately winning a game, emerging as the lone victor out of a hundred other players is an incredible feeling not found in other game modes. While Fornite was not the first game to embrace this format it was one of the earliest and brought its own unique spin by allowing in-game building of walls, ramps, and roofs. The building mechanic adds another layer to the game for players, giving them the ability to quickly reach previously inaccessible locations and create cover or an escape route under fire.
Fortnite’s battle royale format and accessibility would be non-factors if it weren’t for the fact that Fortnite is a high-quality product. The game is still in early access (i.e. it’s not a finished game), so there are some kinks here and there, but the Epic team is committed to the product and is visibly working hard to make sure the game is running smoothly and keeps players engaged. They have continued to add new weapons, equipment, locations, and other features to the game free of charge so one can continue to play and get the full experience without paying a cent. Fortnite brings in revenue is by selling cosmetics for players to personalize their in-game character, and a 10-week ‘Battle Pass’, essentially a subscription that gives players more challenges to complete and cosmetics to unlock during that period. The game looks good, feels good, and is free. It’s not a tough sell to get people to try, and once they do they are hooked. Below is an example of two of the latest in-game character skins that can be purchased.
Skins.jpeg" alt="" width="676" height="427">
While it’s hard to say how much the approach to in-game purchases contributes to Fortnite’s success, it is starkly different from how some major publishers approach in-game purchases. Electronic Arts has been successful with in-game purchases, especially with their FIFA games, but also faced vows-to-never-offer-paid-loot-boxes-in-its-controversial-star-wars-battlefront-ii-game.html">notable backlash from the way the in-game purchases for Star Wars: Battlefront II were setup. EA allowed players to spend money to unlock items that grant a competitive advantage over those who elect not to spend extra. Fornite takes a different approach, offering its 10-week Battle Pass and limited-time character skins, items, and emotes, which are completely cosmetic and provide no competitive advantage. Some of these items are only available for purchase in a 24-hour window before they disappear from the store, driving users to get the items they like while they can. Despite the game being released for free, and in-game purchases providing no competitive advantage, Fornite earned $126M in revenue in the month of February alone. Since then, Epic Games has launched Fornite Mobile, which has reportedly reached $1.8M in revenue per day. Needless to say, their unique in-game purchase strategy seems to be working.
dancing.gif" alt="" width="216" height="209">
Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest: virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics. From time to time, we will write about companies that are in our portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making investment decisions. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.
This podcast could use a review! Have anything to say about it? Share your thoughts using the button below.
Submit Review