SEC filings show Iconiq Capital raised $5.15 billion across two funds affiliated with its seventh family of growth funds.

The company, which began in 2011 as a personal office managing the capital of a number of the most outstanding and wealthiest figures within the technology industry, including Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, originally targeted amount of USD 5.75 billion. “Wall Street” every day announced in March 2022. It is unclear whether the corporate continues to be raising capital for its goal.

Iconiq didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

The fund size represents a major increase over Iconiq Fund VI’s $3.75 billion goal.

Iconiq’s latest fund transfer is impressive considering many other high-growth investors have failed to realize their goals over the long run. Most notably, Tiger Global closed its latest enterprise capital fund at $2.2 billion, the corporate’s smallest fund since 2014. Bloomberg reported. Tiger initially planned to lift $6 billion, lower than half of its predecessor’s total $12.7 billion the corporate closed in March 2022.

The two giant funds are usually not in the exact same situation. Global Tiger was widely criticized for investing capital too quickly at exorbitant prices in the course of the tech boom of 2020 and 2021 (though the notion that it was overpaying has at all times been denied). Unlike Tiger Global, which has been actively selling additional shares to secure liquidity, Iconiq is buying secondary positions, in keeping with two sources.

Iconiq’s substantive fundraising likely means its backers are relatively joyful with the corporate’s investment strategy.

According to PitchBook data, Iconiq has accomplished several dozen exits from its portfolio lately, including: IPO of Snowflake, Airbnb, GitLab and HashiCorp. In 2023, Iconiq invested $1.1 billion in 22 corporations, – he says and his portfolio includes, amongst others: startups like wire, Canva, Ramp, ServiceTitan, Writer AND Pigment.

Business Fund VII-B raised $3.95 billion from 291 investors, nonetheless Fund VII closed at $1.26 billion from 462 donors, in keeping with official documents.

According to the Iconiq report, the seventh Iconiq vehicle will put money into 20-25 technology corporations Insider Buyback Report based on the New Mexico Investment Board meeting held in March 2022.

Spotify’s slow move to put song lyrics behind a wall of paid services on its music service is as popular as you’d expect. The exact details of the update are still evolving, but at this point we are able to say that Spotify has a brand new feature up its sleeve that goals to encourage free users to upgrade to its paid service.

What’s behind the movement is more vital than what it’s. Sure, it’s a little bit weird that Spotify would want to put publicly available information on the Internet behind a paywall, but the corporate is in a little bit of a bind today. With an early start and attractive pricing, Spotify is big. It does billions in revenuesand helped shake up the music industry for good.

That said, it largely offers paid access to other people’s music. Other firms do the identical. Apple is one in all them. This means Spotify’s pricing power is modest at best. Features just like the annual music review are nice, but they do not allow Spotify to charge more for a mostly music service than, say, Apple Music.

However, since Spotify makes so way more from its paid accounts than from its free users, it might try to get them to upgrade. And there are only so many knobs you may turn. So behind the paywall are the texts. For those of us who already pay, this will not be an issue. However, budget conscious people may feel that their current service is deteriorating for no reason they’ll understand. As long as some people convert to paying users, Spotify will endure the complaints. I want gross profit.

In a brand new filing, Google is taking a stand against multiple Fortnite developers, Epic Games proposed remedies after the court found that Google had engaged in anti-competitive practices in its Play Store. Following the jury’s decision late last yr, either side presented their arguments about how Google should change its behavior in light of the verdict. For its part, Epic Games issued a crazy list of demands, this included access to the Play Store’s catalog of apps and games for six years, the ability to distribute your personal app store on Google Play without spending a dime, and way more. It also desired to put an end to any deals, incentives and offers, in addition to penalties that will allow the Play Store or Google Play Billing to realize a bonus over its rivals.

The tech giant’s surprising and quick defeat was a historic ruling, especially since Epic Games largely lost an identical antitrust case against Apple that was not heard by a jury. In the Epic-Apple lawsuit, the court ruled that Apple isn’t a monopoly, but agreed that developers should have the option to direct their customers to alternative routes to pay online. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to listen to it, leaving the lower court’s ruling in force.

Although the jury in the Google case was convinced that the tech giant had used its market power illegally, it didn’t choose next steps – that is as much as the judge. The recent filing, together with Epic’s proposal, will help inform Judge James Donato during a hearing scheduled for May 23 on what actions must be taken next to examine Google’s power.

Epic Games had it in April specific your demands in the proposed injunction, found here. Overall, Epic wants Google to permit users to download apps from any app store or the Internet, depending on their preferences. He doesn’t want Google to have the option to dam OEMs or carriers or force them to favor Google Play. He also doesn’t want Google to have the option to impose additional fees for routing through the Play Store, which Epic Games also argues is an anti-competitive practice.

The Fortnite creator moreover asked the court to implement other changes, including giving Epic access to the Play Store catalog so it will probably update users’ apps by surprise screens or additional fees. Additionally, Epic wants developers to have the option to inform users learn how to pay for his or her apps and services elsewhere and how much they’ll save by doing so. It desires to eliminate the requirement to make use of Google’s “User Choice Billing” service, which offers only small discounts to developers who process payment transactions themselves, and way more.

Google obviously disagrees on how the court should proceed.

In an announcement, Google’s vp of government affairs and public policy, Wilson White, called Epic’s demands excessive and unnecessary.

“Epic’s demands would harm the privacy, security and overall experience of consumers, developers and device manufacturers,” it said. “Not only does their proposal go far beyond the scope of the recent US trial verdict – which we will be challenging – it is also unnecessary given the agreement we reached last year with state attorneys general from all states and many territories. We will continue to vigorously defend our right to a sustainable business model that allows us to keep people safe, work with developers to innovate and grow their businesses, and maintain a thriving Android ecosystem for all.”

In an injunction filed Thursday in a U.S. District Court in California, Google argues that Epic’s demands threaten users’ security and privacy because they deprive it of the ability to implement trust and security measures regarding the use of third-party app stores. (Apple has used an identical technique to fight regulations opening its App Store to competition, arguing that it’s liable for user privacy and security.)

Additionally, Google says it will be required to inform all third-party app stores, without the user’s consent, what apps the user has installed. This would expose the use of personal apps, including in sensitive areas resembling religion, politics and health, without rules on how this data is used.

The company also said Epic is asking it to remove protections related to sideloading of apps.

And if those arguments fail, Google uses a distinct tactic to indicate that Epic’s proposed remedies are unnecessary since it has already agreed with state attorneys general that it is going to not sign broad exclusivity agreements with developers. Epic’s proposal would further prevent Google from working with developers to deliver exclusive content through Play Store apps, which it says represents a crucial opportunity for developers.

Finally, the AG’s state settlement would allow any app store to compete for space on Android devices, Google argues, but Epic’s proposal would exclude it from the process, limiting competition. It said that without Google’s involvement, competing app stores can be underpriced, impacting OEM margins.

The judge’s upcoming decision on the treatment on this case might be interesting because it is going to set the stage for a way app stores considered monopolies could have to make concessions to permit for more competition. Although Epic lost its battle with Apple, the Justice Department’s case against the iPhone maker remains to be pending, as is its lawsuit against Google over its alleged monopoly on search. The end result of these cases will determine the extent to which the power of the tech giants stays unchecked, given the glaring lack of laws in the US to rein in tech monopolies.