Unveiling Stealth Y Combinator Startup URX(uncrunched.com)
uncrunched.com
Unveiling Stealth Y Combinator Startup URX
http://uncrunched.com/2013/10/08/unveiling-stealth-y-combinator-startup-urx/
9 comments
> URX's Guiding Tenants
s/Tenants/Tenets :)
s/Tenants/Tenets :)
Can you explain your choice for the name URX?
The name URX stemmed from a conversation our team had with Paul Graham during YCombinator. PG and our team agreed that URX was the most succinct way to describe the opportunity behind our vision.
The ability to link into the middle of mobile apps is massive. Imagine where the web (or AdWords) would be if the deep content within websites was not able to be indexed or referenced. Right now, most mobile developers don't implement deeplinks, and even fewer marketers use them to drive traffic.
In concept, "URX" represents this next version of the URL that is built for the cross-screen, native/web world. URX's mission is to help app developers and marketers enable and monetize deeplinking in their mobile apps, and the name "URX" keeps us honest to that.
The ability to link into the middle of mobile apps is massive. Imagine where the web (or AdWords) would be if the deep content within websites was not able to be indexed or referenced. Right now, most mobile developers don't implement deeplinks, and even fewer marketers use them to drive traffic.
In concept, "URX" represents this next version of the URL that is built for the cross-screen, native/web world. URX's mission is to help app developers and marketers enable and monetize deeplinking in their mobile apps, and the name "URX" keeps us honest to that.
I really like the concept for your company, and I wish you the best.
That said, I have to admit I read your explanation of the name of your company three times before I understood that you are changing the L in URL into an X. In my head, I guess I had latched onto the URX as something like "You Are X", and then that opens up all the possibilities to what I can be, where I am, etc. That may happen to a lot of people.
Is it possible that, by skipping demo day, you also skipped the communications training that allows you to transmit your idea in two minutes? Since you are going to be asked to explain your name dozens if not hundreds of times in the future, maybe you could iterate on the three paragraphs above until you can get the URL->URX connection into an ordinary persons head.
That said, I have to admit I read your explanation of the name of your company three times before I understood that you are changing the L in URL into an X. In my head, I guess I had latched onto the URX as something like "You Are X", and then that opens up all the possibilities to what I can be, where I am, etc. That may happen to a lot of people.
Is it possible that, by skipping demo day, you also skipped the communications training that allows you to transmit your idea in two minutes? Since you are going to be asked to explain your name dozens if not hundreds of times in the future, maybe you could iterate on the three paragraphs above until you can get the URL->URX connection into an ordinary persons head.
(CTO here) Thanks for the feedback! We didn't actually skip demo day, we did indeed present and vet our pitch with investors - just figured we didn't need the press at that point.
Besides "you are X", the other feedback we've gotten is that some people read it as "irks".
However, in a space full of not-subtly-named companies such as Tap{Stream, Joy, Jump} and App{Salar, sFlyer, etc}, we'd prefer to stand out with something that sounds like it might be more than your average DSP.
We also think it could be a cool acronym, but we're keeping that to ourselves for now :)
Besides "you are X", the other feedback we've gotten is that some people read it as "irks".
However, in a space full of not-subtly-named companies such as Tap{Stream, Joy, Jump} and App{Salar, sFlyer, etc}, we'd prefer to stand out with something that sounds like it might be more than your average DSP.
We also think it could be a cool acronym, but we're keeping that to ourselves for now :)
It's a pity that there is no Ad Block for apps. I hate in app ads like the one on the Craiglist app in the example picture, and I refuse to use any app that wastes screen space on ads like that, unless they have an ad free paid version that I can buy to avoid the ads.
I've used an AdBlock alike proxy on an OpenWRT a few years ago which stopped a lot of ads in apps and XBox360, it worked surprisingly well until a power surge killed the box and I've never investigated hacking my new router.
Perhaps there's a market for such a plug-and-play product?
Perhaps there's a market for such a plug-and-play product?
Whoa interesting! I've heard of people playing OpenWRT pranks like Upsidedown-ternet [1], but it's cool to see more practical use cases of router-level filtering.
Did you hand-roll the ad proxy or find something open-sourced? I'm definitely a believer that if you don't want ads, the resources should be widely available to avoid them.
[1] http://ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html
Did you hand-roll the ad proxy or find something open-sourced? I'm definitely a believer that if you don't want ads, the resources should be widely available to avoid them.
[1] http://ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html
Check this out: https://www.disconnect.me/kids
That's actually the next Stealth YC startup that will come out late 2014 once URX takes hold.
If you have jailbroken your iPhone, use any of the many Cydia packages that do just that. If you haven't... why not?!
On rooted Android, AdAway.
On rooted Android, AdAway.
Overkill, but I run a VPN on my iPhone and block the ad servers at the DNS level.
Why did it need to be a stealth startup? It looks like they thought they had a great idea, but instead of being first to market, they went stealth and let facebook be first.
I've come to the conclusion that 90% of 'stealth' startups do so entirely out of psychology. It's cooler to invest in stealth startup, and the mystery builds notoriety. I'm not sure it has much if anything to do with the actual business at hand.
Personally, I think about this differently; Startups who are outspoken about what they do early on are generally hoping to benefit from inbound interest.
From what I observed in YC, launching a TechCrunch article typically doesn't lead to a ton of inbound interest (at least for B2B companies this is true - if you're Uber/Vine/Tinder/Grouper, it's a different story).
For B2B companies, press helps get investor attention, can help with inbound hiring, and can potentially help get clients, if your press releases are well targeted enough (which most aren't).
From our perspective, staying quiet was the default. Now we're at the point where we're interested in reaching a slightly broader audience.
From what I observed in YC, launching a TechCrunch article typically doesn't lead to a ton of inbound interest (at least for B2B companies this is true - if you're Uber/Vine/Tinder/Grouper, it's a different story).
For B2B companies, press helps get investor attention, can help with inbound hiring, and can potentially help get clients, if your press releases are well targeted enough (which most aren't).
From our perspective, staying quiet was the default. Now we're at the point where we're interested in reaching a slightly broader audience.
Yeah, was thinking the same thing.
Also, I would think in-app purchase pricing would be relatively inexpensive. I guess I don't see who they're targeting... the target company would need substantially-priced in-app purchases to justify the cost of even traditional advertising.
Wish them well though!
Also, I would think in-app purchase pricing would be relatively inexpensive. I guess I don't see who they're targeting... the target company would need substantially-priced in-app purchases to justify the cost of even traditional advertising.
Wish them well though!
>> Also, I would think in-app purchase pricing would be relatively inexpensive. I guess I don't see who they're targeting... the target company would need substantially-priced in-app purchases to justify the cost of even traditional advertising.
Not sure what you mean. Why does in-app purchase pricing have to be inexpensive? Why does it matter if it does? Traditional advertising is substantially more expensive than mobile advertising.
The reason a company would be interested in this is because someone who has your app installed (say Uber, to take one of the apps that enables transactions on my phone as an example) is one of the highest value customers you can reach in terms of likelihood to make a purchase (they installed your app, so it's akin to someone entering your store).
Not sure what you mean. Why does in-app purchase pricing have to be inexpensive? Why does it matter if it does? Traditional advertising is substantially more expensive than mobile advertising.
The reason a company would be interested in this is because someone who has your app installed (say Uber, to take one of the apps that enables transactions on my phone as an example) is one of the highest value customers you can reach in terms of likelihood to make a purchase (they installed your app, so it's akin to someone entering your store).
Uber's a good use case that I had not considered. The pricing of their in-app purchases are outside of what I think about when thinking about in-app purchases (extra game levels, etc). Thanks for framing their target customer for me.
No problem, I think their biggest value add will come in mobile commerce, where they can push people towards a "buy now" page within an app that has already been installed.
Exactly - we figure that our biggest strengths as a team (given a combination of Machine Learning/Data Mining/Information Retrieval backgrounds and a strong Design/Mobile contingent) will be in indexing deep app content (which obviously is a much richer dataset in commerce apps than it is in, say, mobile games).
It seems like Facebook sees the same thing happening.
Of course, I am curious to see how this affects game developers - I've encountered a few who have rolled their own retargeting solutions on top of house ads. It seems like game developers are especially reluctant to pay for anything except to pump up their install count in order to reach the top of app store rankings (seems like using SEM to boost your SEO).
Any predictions?
It seems like Facebook sees the same thing happening.
Of course, I am curious to see how this affects game developers - I've encountered a few who have rolled their own retargeting solutions on top of house ads. It seems like game developers are especially reluctant to pay for anything except to pump up their install count in order to reach the top of app store rankings (seems like using SEM to boost your SEO).
Any predictions?
Facebook definitely sees it happening. Their account reps are constantly raving about mobile ads with Facebook, and in our limited tests, they haven't been over-promising. It probably wouldn't be a bad strategy to base a significant amount of predictions about the larger mobile market on decisions made by Facebook, since they have the best data on it.
As far as game developers, the SEM for SEO strategy is the TapJoy model and it sucks for people who play. One thing I think deep linking could start to do for developers is allow them to cannibalize each other (say Angry Birds started advertising in Candy Crush Saga to people who spent over $X/week and had Angry Birds installed, I know this probably isn't the best example, but it is descriptive at least). Does that push game devs away from allowing in app ads from other game companies?
As far as game developers, the SEM for SEO strategy is the TapJoy model and it sucks for people who play. One thing I think deep linking could start to do for developers is allow them to cannibalize each other (say Angry Birds started advertising in Candy Crush Saga to people who spent over $X/week and had Angry Birds installed, I know this probably isn't the best example, but it is descriptive at least). Does that push game devs away from allowing in app ads from other game companies?
Facebook was not first to market. Deep links have been around for a while. Also, it looks like URX isn't on the supply side (they aren't providing ad inventory, instead leveraging mobile display networks - so Facebook isn't competing with them directly), instead focusing on the demand side and providing robust analytics and targeting. There is no reason why they wouldn't be able to include Facebook deep link ads to their customers. Also, there is a pretty large section of the mobile web that Facebook deep links won't cover.
I guess I didn't even know that deep-linking from an add was not possible.
It's unfortunate, although sort of understandable, that Facebook is so strict on how its adds can call-to-action.
It's unfortunate, although sort of understandable, that Facebook is so strict on how its adds can call-to-action.
Yeah, it's surprising this medium hasn't been explored more. It seems like everyone just finally figured out app install ads.
Especially since the nascent mobile advertising market focused so heavily on the gaming industry, it makes sense that people weren't terribly motivated to start indexing deep app content early on.
We (at URX) feel especially passionate about non-game apps that we use on a daily basis, and get excited about the ability to help them grow faster and reach their users in more relevant ways. Personally I'd prefer to see ads from apps that I already trust, rather than ads trying to get me to install more games that don't add a lot of value for me as a non-gamer.
I'm interested to hear what about Facebook's approach [1] is so strict. It's a little funky that they make you register an ugly custom protocol scheme... in their words, "the deep link scheme would be your app id prefixed by "fb". e.g 'fb1234567://'". I'm also somewhat surprised that they limit you to a very specific set of call-to-action phrases: - Open Link - Shop Now - Use App - Book Now - Play Game - Listen Now - Watch Video ... "Use App" is a little boring, isn't it?
Would you have done anything differently than facebook?
I really think twitter is on the right track with Twitter Cards [2]; it seems that once we're able to better understand the content within apps (or pair it up with the web equivalents), we can construct a much richer data set and make awesome new experiences possible in the ways people use their apps.
[1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ads-for-apps/mobile-app...
[2] https://dev.twitter.com/docs/cards/app-installs-and-deep-lin...
Especially since the nascent mobile advertising market focused so heavily on the gaming industry, it makes sense that people weren't terribly motivated to start indexing deep app content early on.
We (at URX) feel especially passionate about non-game apps that we use on a daily basis, and get excited about the ability to help them grow faster and reach their users in more relevant ways. Personally I'd prefer to see ads from apps that I already trust, rather than ads trying to get me to install more games that don't add a lot of value for me as a non-gamer.
I'm interested to hear what about Facebook's approach [1] is so strict. It's a little funky that they make you register an ugly custom protocol scheme... in their words, "the deep link scheme would be your app id prefixed by "fb". e.g 'fb1234567://'". I'm also somewhat surprised that they limit you to a very specific set of call-to-action phrases: - Open Link - Shop Now - Use App - Book Now - Play Game - Listen Now - Watch Video ... "Use App" is a little boring, isn't it?
Would you have done anything differently than facebook?
I really think twitter is on the right track with Twitter Cards [2]; it seems that once we're able to better understand the content within apps (or pair it up with the web equivalents), we can construct a much richer data set and make awesome new experiences possible in the ways people use their apps.
[1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ads-for-apps/mobile-app...
[2] https://dev.twitter.com/docs/cards/app-installs-and-deep-lin...
Facebook is really pick about their buttons and keeping anything that goes into the News Feed tightly controlled (I don't think it's a bad call by them, in my experience, the News Feed ads have been pretty relevant to me, and I don't feel overly spammed). "Use App" could definitely use some work, but I'm not sure if I have a better general purpose call to action to suggest, and it seems like most of the use cases are covered by the other options (at least for now). Maybe in the future they will allow some kind of user submission that they can approve to allow a bit more flexibility?
Twitter cards are incredible, and really promising. Now Twitter just has to figure out a way to get people that advertisers reach with them to actually spend money (not to mention the miles they have to catch up with Facebook on attribution and conversion tracking).
Twitter cards are incredible, and really promising. Now Twitter just has to figure out a way to get people that advertisers reach with them to actually spend money (not to mention the miles they have to catch up with Facebook on attribution and conversion tracking).
If I read it correctly, Faceboom only allows 7 button label options (up from 2). In AdWords, of course, (and all other advertising) it's infinite.
What I really need is more ads in my life!
It looks promising. I don't get:
1. why they explicitly says that they don't send users to your app, but either to your mobile website or to the app store
2. why users, that do not come back to my app, will go back to URX
1. why they explicitly says that they don't send users to your app, but either to your mobile website or to the app store
2. why users, that do not come back to my app, will go back to URX
URX links users into the middle of apps, not the app store or mobile web, and users don't have to use URX just the app developers/marketers.
Omg! I misunderstood from the video, re-watching it was clearer.
These guys have a smart team, don't bet against them.
Very cool. I have a friend building something in a related space, he'll be very happy to discover more competition. Best of luck!
Thanks! We think it's an exciting space, and feel strongly that deep-linking is a good starting point to begin breaking down some of the silo's that exist between apps on our smartphones.
Is your friend anyone we would have heard of? If he's working on deeplinks, we'd love to get his feedback on our open-source project, Turnpike [1], which helps developers enable deeplinks in their apps.
[1] http://urxtech.github.io/turnpike-ios/
Is your friend anyone we would have heard of? If he's working on deeplinks, we'd love to get his feedback on our open-source project, Turnpike [1], which helps developers enable deeplinks in their apps.
[1] http://urxtech.github.io/turnpike-ios/
I don't think you'd have heard of my friend.
I'm actually doing ad tech consulting with a focus on helping folks integrate standard machine learning tools into low latency bidding infrastructure. (and was helping the friend with such)
I'm a bit curious about the "deep learning" remark in your hiring post, i'd be curious to learn more!
I'm actually doing ad tech consulting with a focus on helping folks integrate standard machine learning tools into low latency bidding infrastructure. (and was helping the friend with such)
I'm a bit curious about the "deep learning" remark in your hiring post, i'd be curious to learn more!
Our target customers are mobile commerce companies like LivingSocial whose inventory 1) has a higher cost of sale, and 2) isn't subject to the 30% App Store rake. This means that they are willing to be more aggressive with their paid marketing, similar to how things work on the web.
We just posted a case study with LivingSocial on our website if you'd like to learn more.