Software startup Observe raises $156 million in Sutter Hill-led fundraise
The San Mateo, California-based startup has pitched itself as a one-stop alternative to data monitoring and analytics tools from Datadog (DDOG.O), opens new tab and Cisco-owned Splunk, aiming to simplify how businesses detect failures in complex systems.
The Series C round was joined by existing investors Madrona Ventures, Alumni Ventures as well as the venture capital arms of cloud company Snowflake and U.S. bank Capital One, Observe said on Wednesday, declining to share its valuation
Observe said it plans to use the funds to accelerate product development and expand its North American presence, including hiring more sales staff to grow its nearly 200-strong team.
It stores all customer data in a single, central "lake" built on Snowflake and offers a lower-cost alternative to larger rivals, a strategy that has helped it attract about 100 clients, including Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA.AX), opens new tab.
"We've deliberately, I'd say over the last 18 months, moved our go-to-market away from the smaller organizations. So, we've been focused on companies operating at scale," CEO Jeremy Burton said in an interview. "Capital One is our biggest customer. But Commonwealth Bank actually is very close."
Observe has tripled its revenue over the past year and has a 93% gross retention and 180% net revenue retention, the company said, in signs of customer loyalty in a market where clients are chasing lower costs.
The startup, which raised $115 million in a Series B round, opens new tab last year, is using artificial intelligence to power an assistant that helps users query data in plain English and diagnose issues without writing complex code.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Musk's X must face part of lawsuit over child pornography video
Aug 1 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday revived part of a lawsuit accusing Elon Musk's X of becoming a haven for child exploitation, though the court said the platform deserves broad immunity from claims over objectionable content. While rejecting some claims, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said X, formerly Twitter, must face a claim it was negligent by failing to promptly report a video containing explicit images of two underage boys to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The case predated Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. A trial judge had dismissed the case in December 2023. X's lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Musk was not a defendant. One plaintiff, John Doe 1, said he was 13 when he and a friend, John Doe 2, were lured on SnapChat into providing nude photos of themselves to someone John Doe 1 thought was a 16-year-old girl at his school. The SnapChat user was actually a child pornography trafficker who blackmailed the plaintiffs into providing additional explicit photos. Those images were later compiled into a video that was posted on Twitter. According to court papers, Twitter took nine days after learning about the content to take it down and report it to NCMEC, following more than 167,000 views, court papers showed. Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest said section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability over user content, didn't shield X from the negligence claim once it learned about the pornography. "The facts alleged here, coupled with the statutory 'actual knowledge' requirement, separates the duty to report child pornography to NCMEC from Twitter's role as a publisher," she wrote for a three-judge panel. X must also face a claim its infrastructure made it too difficult to report child pornography. It was found immune from claims it knowingly benefited from sex trafficking, and created search features that "amplify" child pornography posts. Dani Pinter, a lawyer at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement: "We look forward to discovery and ultimately trial against X to get justice and accountability." The case is Doe 1 et al v Twitter Inc et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-177.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Tesla must pay $329 million for a deadly crash involving Autopilot, jury says
A Miami jury has ordered Elon Musk's car manufacturer, Tesla, to pay $329 million to victims of a fatal crash involving its Autopilot driver-assist technology. The ruling, delivered on Friday, could open the door to further costly lawsuits and deals a significant blow to the company's reputation for safety. The federal jury found Tesla bore substantial responsibility, citing a failure in its technology. This determination means that not all blame could be attributed to the reckless driver, who admitted being distracted by his mobile phone before hitting a young couple who were stargazing. The conclusion of this four-year case is remarkable, not just for its outcome, but because it even reached trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have previously been dismissed or settled by the company to avoid public scrutiny. This decision comes as Mr Musk seeks to convince the public of his vehicles' safety, particularly as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Mr Musk's Tesla company doesn't have the permits required to run any autonomous service, even with a safety driver, and they're unable to charge for it. Tesla has been in discussions with Golden State regulators about expanding the service to California but it would be with significant restrictions to Elon Musk's promises for his Robotaxi service, Politico reported. at least five times since the start of last year, documents reviewed by the outlet show.
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
US appeals court agrees to pause Google app store reform order for now
Aug 1 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday agreed to delay a sweeping overhaul of Google's app store Play, as the technology giant continues to challenge a judge's order requiring the reforms in a lawsuit brought by 'Fortnite' video game maker Epic Games. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Google's request for a temporary pause of the order. Google said earlier on Friday, opens new tab that it planned to further appeal the judge's October injunction, which a 9th Circuit panel upheld on Thursday in a unanimous decision. The injunction, which had already been paused while the 9th Circuit considered Google's appeal, required Google to restore competition by allowing users to download rival app stores within its Play store and by making Play's app catalog available to those competitors, among other reforms. Google said the lower court's injunction was expected to take effect in 14 days absent a court order blocking it. In granting Google's request for an administrative stay on Friday, the appeals court gave the company until Aug. 8 to ask the court to put the injunction on hold for the duration of its appeal. Google said it plans to ask the full 9th Circuit to take up its appeal, and if necessary will seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Google and Epic did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Epic in its 2020 lawsuit accused Google of monopolizing how consumers access apps on Android devices and pay for transactions within apps. The Cary, North Carolina-based company convinced a San Francisco jury in 2023 that Google illegally stifled competition. U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco issued his Play store injunction against Google in October after a jury earlier ruled for Epic. Google has denied any wrongdoing. In upholding the injunction on Thursday, a 9th Circuit panel said the record in Epic's lawsuit was 'replete with evidence that Google's anticompetitive conduct entrenched its dominance." The case is Epic Games v. Google, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-6256. For Epic: Gary Bornstein of Cravath, Swaine & Moore For Google: Jessica Ellsworth of Hogan Lovells Read more: Google loses US appeal over app store reforms in Epic Games case Apple cites Supreme Court's birthright ruling in fight over Epic Games injunction US judge delays Texas antitrust trial over Google digital ads Epic Games settles lawsuit against Samsung over app controls
