The Transport Guy: There's a big math problem with the FCC chairman's main argument for repealing net neutrality

Steve Kovach November 27, 2017 at 03:29PM

• The FCC will vote on a repeal of its net neutrality rules December 14.
• FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has argued that the rules need to be repealed because they've caused a decline in broadband investment.
  
• But Pai's own data doesn't back up this assertion.

---

Ajit Pai says the Federal Communications Commission needs to ditch its net neutrality rules because they're hindering investment.

The rules the agency put in place in 2015 bar broadband providers from blocking, throttling, or offering preferential treatment to particular sites or services. Hampered by those rules, broadband companies are cutting back on investing in things like expanding their services to new customers or upgrading their networks, Pai, the FCC chairman, argues.

If that's really what's been happening, that would be terrible, especially in a country that's become ever more dependent on the internet and one where the digital divide remains pronounced.

But there's no evidence to prove Pai's point. In fact, the data that Pai himself points to doesn't show anything close to a marked decrease in broadband investment. Instead, it shows that while broadband investment has risen and fallen a little bit over the years, it's essentially been flat since 2013.

And that's if you believe the data Pai himself cites. A study in May by consumer advocacy group Free Press, which opposes the repeal of the rules, actually reported that broadband investment has increased since 2015.

The debate over broadband investment is coming to a head as the vote nears over repealing the rules. With Pai and his Republican allies outnumbering Democrats on the commission 3-2, his proposal is expected to sail through when the FCC votes on it on December 14.

Investment is a key point in the net neutrality debate

Broadband investment can take many different forms. It can mean building out high-speed wireless LTE networks so you have a zippy connection no matter where you are in the country. It can mean building wired broadband networks in rural areas that are underserved compared to urban and suburban regions. It can mean increasing the speed and bandwidth of existing connections so you can download files faster or stream ultra-high resolution videos with little lag time.

Regardless of the form it takes, broadband investment is generally considered a good thing, because it promises faster internet speeds and more access to more people. As such, it's become a key point in the debate over net neutrality.

Those in favor of net neutrality have sought to show that the rules haven't affected investment or have actually encouraged it, that they provide consumers positive benefits without any harms. By contrast, those opposing net neutrality, such as Pai, have tried to show how bad the rules are for consumers by pointing to investment declines.

But those claims that investment has decreased thanks to net neutrality seem to be rooted in anything but reality.

Taking a closer look at a complicated picture

They also ignore the complexity of the investment picture. Not all companies increase or decrease broadband investments at the same time. And declines in investment often are due to the completion of large projects, such as when AT&T finished its LTE rollout, rather than changes in government regulations.

This chart from Free Press gives a clearer picture of recent broadband investment than the FCC's data and places it in the proper context. Even if overall investment may decline from one year to another, examining investments by individual companies can give you a better picture what's really going on in the industry:

By the way, Free Press gathered all that data from the public records of the telecommunications companies, which just so happen to be the biggest cheerleaders of Pai's effort to repeal the net neutrality rules. Those companies' own data shows the rules haven't had an impact on overall industry investment.

Pai's ignoring the facts

During a conference call FCC officials held with reporters last week, I asked them about this discrepancy between Pai's assertion that investment is declining and what the actual data shows. They dismissed my question, saying I had my facts wrong. But they didn't offer any data that would prove Pai's point.

Reached later, an FCC spokesperson simply pointed back to the USTelecom data posted above that Pai referenced previously. The spokesperson declined to make the chairman or anyone else on his staff available for an interview.

Pai's FCC has ignored much of the data that contradicts his key rationale behind repealing net neutrality, Derek Turner, the author of the Free Press report on broadband investment, said in an email Monday.

"[The FCC] came into this with a preconceived notion, latched on to data that supported that notion, and ignored every single piece of conflicting evidence," Turner wrote.

There are many ways to measure broadband investment. It's easy to pick and choose numbers that can bolster either side of the argument about net neutrality.

But even when you look at the data that's the most favorable to Pai's position, it doesn't prove net neutrality regulations have resulted in significantly lower broadband investment from telecom companies. At worst, investment has been flat since 2013. At best, it's increased.

It's a leap in logic on Pai's part to use two years of cherry picked data to make the case that broadband is getting worse for Americans because of the net neutrality rules.

But it's that leap in logic that's likely to result in the repeal of those rules.

SEE ALSO: Here's why AT&T's proposed $85 billion merger with Time Warner is a bad deal for you and me

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Amazon has an oddly efficient way of storing stuff in its warehouses

There's a big math problem with the FCC chairman's main argument for repealing net neutrality from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Twitter says it's being blocked by Pakistan's government

Steve Kovach November 25, 2017 at 11:28AM

• Twitter says the Pakistani government blocked the service on Saturday.
• Other social media sites like Facebook may be blocked as well.
• It's unclear why Pakistan would block social media sites, but it could be related to recent protests in the country.

---

Twitter's service was blocked by Pakistan's government Saturday, the company said in a tweet from its policy account.

"We are aware of reports that the Pakistani government has taken action to block Twitter service, as well as other social media services, and that users are having difficulty using Twitter in Pakistan. We are monitoring the situation and hope service will be fully restored soon," Twitter's statement reads.

There have also been scattered reports that Facebook and other social media sites have been blocked. Business Insider has reached out to Facebook for confirmation.

It's not clear why Pakistan is blocking social media sites, but the Associated Press reported Saturday that the government sent in troops to address an Islamist sit-in in Islamabad.

SEE ALSO: FCC will vote to repeal net neutrality on December 14

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Korean parents are having their kids get plastic surgery before college

Twitter says it's being blocked by Pakistan's government from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: The FCC will vote on a new order to repeal net neutrality protections on December 14

Steve Kovach November 21, 2017 at 08:59AM

• The FCC will vote on a new rule December 14 that will repeal net neutrality regulations put in place in 2015.
• Many fear revoking net neutrality will allow internet providers and telecoms to provide preferential treatment to some internet traffic, stifling innovation and competition.
• FCC chairman Ajit Pai says repealing net neutrality is good for consumers because it will allow for more investment from telecoms.

---

FCC chairman Ajit Pai announced Tuesday that the FCC will vote on a new order that repeals net neutrality protections the FCC voted for in 2015.

Net neutrality is the concept that all internet traffic should be treated equally, no matter what internet service provider (ISPs) is carrying it. ISPs claim such rules stifle investment and innovation. Net neutrality advocates fear repealing net neutrality rules would allow ISPs to prioritize traffic, which would put more power in the hands of larger telecom companies.

The FCC will release the draft order a few weeks ahead of its vote on December 14. Pai's draft order will require ISPs and telecom companies to be transparent about their offerings instead of being regulated by the FCC.

Buckle up: Pai's move will likely ignite a huge debate in the coming weeks over net neutrality. It's going to get messy. But Republican commissioners have a majority of the seats on the FCC, so it's likely this proposal will pass.

Here's the full statement from Pai on the draft order that would repeal the FCC's net neutrality rules:

For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress. This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world.

But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet. That decision was a mistake. It’s depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation.

Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.

Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy.

Speaking of transparency, when the prior FCC adopted President Obama’s heavy-handed Internet regulations, it refused to let the American people see that plan until weeks after the FCC’s vote. This time, it’ll be different. Specifically, I will publicly release my proposal to restore Internet freedom tomorrow—more than three weeks before the Commission’s December 14 vote.

Working with my colleagues, I look forward to returning to the light-touch, market-based framework that unleashed the digital revolution and benefited consumers here and around the world.

SEE ALSO: Here's why AT&T's proposed $85 billion merger with Time Warner is a bad deal for you and me

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 15 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do

The FCC will vote on a new order to repeal net neutrality protections on December 14 from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Here's why AT&T's proposed $85 billion merger with Time Warner is a bad deal for you and me (T)

Steve Kovach November 18, 2017 at 06:15AM

• AT&T wants to buy Time Warner for $85 billion.
• AT&T's past moves have shown that it will likely use its control over Time Warner's shows and movies to thwart rivals and charge customers more.
  
• The company could limit access to Time Warner's content to its own subscribers or make that content cheaper or easier for its subscribers to watch.

---

If you want to understand how AT&T's proposed $85 billion purchase of Time Warner might affect you, you only have to be a Taylor Swift fan.

Swift, as you likely know, just released a new album this month. Along with "Reputation," Swift released some videos and behind-the-scenes clips that were tied to it. But if you wanted to watch them, you had to be a subscriber to AT&T or DirecTV, the company's pay TV service. Thanks to an exclusive deal AT&T had signed, everyone else was out of luck.

The situation may not seem like a big deal — especially if you're not a Swiftie. And to be clear, the exclusive arrangement between AT&T and Swift isn't related to the potential mega-merger.

But the arrangement offers a sense of how AT&T thinks about creative content. The company sees videos, TV shows, and movies as tools it can use to capture and keep customers — and squeeze as much money as possible out of them.

That's worrisome, because if the AT&T-Time Warner deal gets approved by regulators, it won't just be Tay Tay's videos that the combined company will control. It will also rule over a vast collection of video and other popular entertainment, ranging from HBO's "Game of Thrones" to the rights to NBA games on TNT. And it's almost certain to use its control over that content to its benefit.

AT&T's is trying to buy Time Warner so it can make more money off its current customers and attract new ones from rivals, said Matt Wood, the policy director at Free Press, a consumer advocacy group.

"When AT&T buys a lot of content, they use that content as a sword," Wood said.

AT&T did not respond to a request for comment.

As part of its strategy, the newly enlarged AT&T may in some cases limit some of its new videos and movies and other Time Warner content to its own subscribers. For example, it could potentially create new "Harry Potter" videos or shows involving characters from the DC comics universe and only allow its customers to watch them. If you were a customer of Verizon or some other service, you would be out of luck.

But more frequently, it may try to ensure that its subscribers get the best experience with its movies, shows, and services. At the same time, it may also try to make sure that when consumers try to access its content through other companies' services, the experience is less than ideal.

We've already seen a hint at that this year when AT&T started offering HBO's streaming service for free with some of its unlimited wireless plans. You can still watch HBO if you have Verizon or T-Mobile, of course, but you won't be getting it for free.

If AT&T continues the promotion after it owns HBO, it will give the telecom giant an unfair advantage over its rivals. To do the same thing for their customers, they'd have to pay AT&T — assuming AT&T would even allow them to do that.

And AT&T could do other things to give itself a leg up. It could make the experience of watching its rivals shows or accessing their services a worse experience than watching or accessing its own. Potentially, AT&T could make it harder for its customers to tune in Fox than CNN or the Disney Channel than TBS.

Similar concerns were voiced at the beginning of this decade when Comcast was trying to buy NBC Universal. Just like we're seeing today, a cable and internet provider was attempting to snap up a company that controlled massive amounts of content. Michael Copps, then a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission, which had oversight over the merger, worried at the time that the tie-up would put too much power into the hands of one giant corporation.

In particular, Copps was worried about the effect the deal would have on Time Warner's newsrooms and news gathering.

"I had seen merger after merger come along where the costs were in the billions of dollars," said Copps, who ended up being the only one of the FCC's five commissioners who voted against the deal. "A lot of these big companies turn to newsrooms as a way to cut costs."

He continued: "It's dumbed down our democratic dialogue."

By merging with Time-Warner, AT&T would be in a similar position to dominate the way we get information and entertainment, with similar potential consequences. Indeed, it may be in a better position than Comcast was. 

AT&T is developing an advanced mobile broadband service known as 5G that could one day replace the wired internet service you use today, which may well come from Comcast. And unlike Comcast, which only offers its traditional cable TV service in areas where it has coaxial cable lines, AT&T offers its competing DirecTV Now service to basically everyone in the US who has a broadband connection.

Allowing AT&T to gobble up Time Warner would put a company that already has a good deal of control over how we access media — and likely will soon have more — in charge of much of the media we access. For AT&T customers, that will likely mean paying more down the road. For other consumers, it could also mean missing out on "Game of Thrones" or the next superhero show.

Either way, you won't see many benefits. But AT&T sure will.

SEE ALSO: Big Tech blew its big moment during the Russia hearings

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The Navy has its own Area 51 — and it’s right in the middle of the Bahamas

Here's why AT&T's proposed $85 billion merger with Time Warner is a bad deal for you and me (T) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Republicans have removed the controversial part of the tax bill that had tech startups up in arms

Steve Kovach November 15, 2017 at 08:44AM

• Members of the tech community were concerned about a provision in the Senate's tax bill that would've taxed stock options as soon as they vested.
• Many thought the tax bill as written would harm the growth of tech startups in the US.
• In a win for tech startups and VCs, the Senate removed the provision from the latest version of the bill on Tuesday night.

---

Senate Republicans have removed a controversial portion of their tax reform bill Tuesday that would've taxed stock options and restricted stock units (RSUs) as soon as they vested, instead of when they are exercised.

The proposal caused an uproar earlier this week among tech VCs and entrepreneurs, who said it would stifle the creation of startups that often rely on stock options to attract talent. The proposal would've forced employees to pay taxes on the stock even if they never cashed it in. That would mean employers would likely try to attract talent with just salaries, meaning employees wouldn't have the opportunity to enjoy the wealth created by startups. Today, employees only pay taxes on vested stock options after the options have been exercised.

Fred Wilson, a partner at Union Square Ventures, wrote on his blog Monday that the proposal would have "profound implications for those who work in tech companies and equally profound implications for the competitiveness of the US tech sector."

Wilson encouraged members of the tech community to pressure Senators to take the provision out.

It looks like Wilson's wish came true. The latest version of the Senate's tax bill, which was released Tuesday night, now says the "nonqualified deferred compensation" portion of the bill, which caused the uproar, has been stripped out.

SEE ALSO: The iPhone X review

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Some iPhone users can't type the letter 'i' — here's what's going on and how to fix it

Republicans have removed the controversial part of the tax bill that had tech startups up in arms from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Dropping out of college is a terrible idea if you want to be a millionaire

Rob Ludacer, Shana Lebowitz and Steve Kovach November 14, 2017 at 06:33AM

Peter Thiel is offering a $10,000 fellowship to young entrepreneurs who drop out of college. While it's tempting, Scott Galloway reveals why it is awful advice. Following is a transcription of the video.

Scott Galloway. Professor of marketing, NYU Stern. Despite how outrageously expensive college is, it's still a pretty good plan B.

If a billionaire shows up and offers you $10,000 to drop out of college, punch that person in the face.

It's sort of, in my opinion, obscene that a billionaire with an undergraduate degree and a graduate degree is running around the nation trying to convince people to drop out of college.

It appears that it worked pretty well for him. If you look at new millionaires over the last 20 years, the vast majority of them have two things in common.

One is they work out every day. Physical fitness is very important in terms of your own levels of confidence and avoiding things like depression and having more energy every day.

But the number one thing all these folks have in common?

They went to college.

I just think it's obnoxious that a man who went to Stanford and then got a law degree and became a billionaire off of the credibility he was able to raise money off of is now telling kids to drop out of college.

I think it's f------ obnoxious. I mean if Steve Jobs or if Bill Gates was doing it, they have some credibility or some license to say it, but a guy with a graduate degree?

Drop out of college?

I tried to do this through Berkeley, and they didn't want to do it.

I said to Berkeley, I said " I'll give kids, pick 10 smart kids"– I just endowed a scholarship at Berkeley and said "let’s track 10 of them versus the 10 that Thiel… and we're going to win."

And they said, "well, we don’t want to embarrass the other kids."

But who would you bet on? 10 Berkeley grads, who are smart students with a college degree or...

There are always going to be the JAY-Zs of the world. There's going to be the Kobe Bryants. There’s going to be the Mark Zuckerbergs, the people that drop out of college.

You should assume you're not that person and go to college.

 

Join the conversation about this story »

Dropping out of college is a terrible idea if you want to be a millionaire from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: We used an infrared camera to show how the iPhone X's FaceID actually works

Emmanuel Ocbazghi, Steve Kovach and Matthew Stuart November 11, 2017 at 07:04AM

The iPhone X has a new way to unlock your phone. It's called Face ID. When it recognizes your face, it unlocks.

Inside the notch at the top is the TrueDepth camera and sensors. This camera projects over 30,000 dots onto your face. The dots are invisible to your eyes. But you can see them through an infrared camera. The iPhone X's camera analyzes the dots on your face and compares it to the image made when Face ID was set up. If they match, the phone unlocks.

Face ID can adapt to sunglasses, scarves, and hats. It also adjusts to changes in appearance — like shaving. Apple says Face ID has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being fooled. We tried tricking Face ID with twins, but Face ID wasn't fooled.

Apple also built an extra layer of security into the phone. Pressing the Power button 5 times will disable Face ID. This forces you to unlock the phone with a password.

Join the conversation about this story »

We used an infrared camera to show how the iPhone X's FaceID actually works from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Apple has had an incredible 2017 (AAPL)

Steve Kovach November 11, 2017 at 05:30AM

• After reporting strong earnings this week, Apple is on its way to becoming a trillion-dollar company.
• Much of its success is due to its string of successful product launches this year.
• Thanks to those new and updated products, Apple's lineup has never looked stronger.
  

---

The year isn't over yet, but it's already clear Apple has had an incredible 2017. 

After a standout earnings report, the company's market capitalization this week topped $900 billion for the first time ever. It's hard to find anyone who doesn't think Apple will soon become the world's first trillion-dollar company.

There's a reason why the company is doing so well financially and its stock is booming — its product lineup is the strongest it's had in years, with a breakthrough new iPhone, a refreshed Mac computer line, and a soon-to-launch smart speaker. 

Here's a look at some of the reasons why Apple's 2017 has been so great:

Augmented reality

Apple CEO Tim Cook can't stop talking about augmented reality (AR) and its future potential. AR is the technology that layers digital images on top of views of the real world.

Apple took a big step toward promoting and popularizing AR with the latest version of its iOS mobile operating system, which for the first time includes software tools that help developers build augmented-reality apps. The move made Apple's iPads and iPhones collectively the world's largest AR platform. It also set Apple up for the future.

It's still early days for the technology, but many tech experts believe AR-powered smart glasses or other eyewear will eventually replace smartphones. Apple itself has some AR smart glasses in the works and recently ramped up their development, Bloomberg reported this week.

By building AR technology into the software underlying the iPhone and iPad, Apple is getting its developers working on AR apps long before those smart glasses debut — and putting itself in a great position to be a leader in the AR market when they do. 

Helping the pros

If you're a video editor, graphic artist, designer, or other creative professional, it's been tough to be an Apple fan in recent years. Apple hasn't released a significant update to the Mac Pro, its high-end workstation computer targeted at such users, in nearly four years, and many pro users were beginning to wonder if the company had abandoned them.

But Apple went a long way toward reassuring such customers, long the core of its business and fan base, in June when it announced that it had two new pro-quality computers for them in the works. The first of those, the $5,000 iMac Pro, is set to debut next month. 

The new machines are Apple's way of signaling that it isn't going to concede the creative professional computing market, even amid falling overall computer sales and growing competition from the likes of Microsoft.

Artificial intelligence and voice control

When Apple debuted Siri on the iPhone 4S, it famously took an early lead in bringing artificial intelligence technology to the masses. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to pay a lot of attention to Siri after that. And Apple arguably lost its lead when Amazon launched its Echo smart speaker, which has Siri rival Alexa at its core.

As Amazon has broadened its Echo line and licensed Alexa out to other companies, and as Google jumped into the market with its own intelligent assistant-powered smart speakers, Apple has risked falling far behind. 

But the company showed this year that it's going to fight for this market too. It's been steadily improving Siri, and next month it will launch the HomePod, its own version of a smart speaker, which will be built around its intelligent assistant. 

HomePod looks like it will be a credible contender. It will do much of what Echo and Google Assistant do — give you news and weather updates, sports scores, and, of course play music, all in response to voice commands. But Apple's is promising HomePod will sound better than its rivals and do a better job of protecting users' privacy. 

Regardless, Apple's entry into the market is a sign that the company is finally taking the intelligent assistant and fast-growing smart speaker markets seriously.  

A new life for the iPad

When it comes to figuring out where to go with the iPad, Apple has seemed lost in recent years. While the company introduced some new, more power models of its tablet computers, it had left the software on them languishing.

Until recently, using an iPad felt much the same as it had back in 2010, when Apple launched its tablet line. Despite the company's vision that the iPad represented the future of computing, the product wasn't living up to that promise.

But the company seems to have turned things around with its tablet line. The latest version of iOS gave the iPad lots of new capabilities, including a new file browser and an improved multitasking interface, and turned it into a more credible replacement for a traditional laptop computer. Additionally, Apple released the new 10.5-inch iPad Pro, which is the best iPad the company has ever made.

The moves appear to be paying off. The company's iPad sales were up the last two quarters compared to the same period a year ago, marking the first time Apple's tablet line has posted consecutive sales gains since 2013.

The future of the iPhone

Before the iPhone X hit store shelves earlier this month, there were lots of concerns about how well the device would work, how many Apple would be able to make in time for its release, and whether consumers would pay its $1,000 price.

Despite those concerns, Apple's new flagship phone has turned out to be a resounding success. The reviews were stellar. On launch day, the lines of people waiting to buy the new phone were out of control. And it turns out that the price wasn't too high to turn people away. 

Even more importantly, the new device has laid the groundwork for Apple's future iPhones. Like the iPhone X, those gadgets will likely have facial recognition systems, processors that approach the power of laptop computers, wireless charging capabilities, and gorgeous screens that almost completely cover their fronts. 

The future of Apple's most important product line looks pretty bright.

But there were some misses

For all its triumphs, Apple didn't have an unblemished 2017. Instead, the company made a few notable stumbles. 

Its effort to break into the streaming video market got off to a bad start. The company launched this year its first original TV shows. Those shows, including "Planet of the Apps," debuted to disappointing reviews and seeming disinterest from consumers. 

The company also fumbled the launch of the latest Apple Watch. The Series 3 Apple Watch is the first designed to be able to access the internet over cellular networks. But some early reviewers discovered that key feature didn't work, forcing Apple to rush out a software update. 

But that wasn't the only embarrassing bug Apple battled this year. The company's iOS 11 software, which Apple initially released in September, has been riddled with glitches affecting the phone's battery life and other things.

A later update to the software caused the keyboard on certain iPhones to replace the letter "I" with a couple of jumbled characters. Meanwhile, some owners of the new iPhone X have reported their devices stop working in cold weather.

Apple has corrected or promised to fix many of these software problems. But overall its stumbles this year were often obvious and preventable.

Still, even those setbacks did little to mar Apple's really strong year.

SEE ALSO: The iPhone X review

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I’ve been using the iPhone X for a week — and it’s definitely worth the $1,000 price tag

Apple has had an incredible 2017 (AAPL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: The biggest problem with the iPhone X (AAPL)

Steve Kovach and Skye Gould November 09, 2017 at 12:59PM

• The iPhone X has a new screen size and shape.
• Some apps haven't updated for the new screen yet.
• Many that have been updated still look awkward.

---

As a device, Apple's new iPhone X is a home run. Using apps on it, though, can be another story.

Thanks to the size and shape of the smartphone's screen, which are different than all previous iPhones, you'll have to deal with some quirkiness using particular apps on it. Many apps haven't been updated for the new screen, and those that have can look a bit awkward.

In particular, app developers seem to be having trouble figuring out how to work around the virtual home bar that the iPhone X uses instead of a physical home button and the so-called notch at the top of its screen that houses its front cameras and facial-recognition sensors. It's going to take time for developers figure out how to redesign their apps for the new phone.

In the meantime, the large number of apps that aren't yet customized for the iPhone X's screen is the device's biggest shortcoming. 

Here's a sample of what some popular apps look like on the iPhone X and what needs to be changed. Note that apps are constantly being revised, so some shown here may change soon.

SEE ALSO: The iPhone X review

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I’ve been using the iPhone X for a week — and it’s definitely worth the $1,000 price tag

The biggest problem with the iPhone X (AAPL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Apple's video app just got a new update with augmented reality and a bunch of 'Star Wars' stuff (AAPL)

Steve Kovach November 09, 2017 at 10:05AM

• Apple's video app Clips updates to version 2.0 Thursday.
• It includes new augmented reality features using the iPhone X's TrueDepth camera.
• "Star Wars" nerds will love it.
  
  

  ---

Apple's social video app Clips is getting a new update Thursday to take advantage of augmented reality and the new capabilities of the iPhone X.

If you're not familiar with Clips, think of it as Apple's take on Snapchat or Instagram stories. You can shoot short video clips and stitch them together into a longer story, adding effects like stickers and layover text. Videos can then be shared on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, iMessage, or anywhere else.

The Clips 2.0 update adds a bunch of new effects, including a pack of "Star Wars" stickers and animations. If you have an iPhone X, you can use the phone's new TrueDepth camera to enable augmented-reality scenes that put you in a variety of different settings from a cityscape to the Millennium Falcon. 

Clips launched earlier this year, but hasn't really gained traction. It doesn't even register in the App Store's top rankings, and it seems to have been drowned out by more popular social video apps like Snapchat and Instagram. But if you're a "Star Wars" geek like me, you'll probably dig those new effects:

You can download Clips 2.0 in the App Store Thursday. The update should appear soon if you already have the first version of the app.

SEE ALSO: The iPhone X review

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A running coach explains the 2 most important activities runners should do to avoid knee pain

Apple's video app just got a new update with augmented reality and a bunch of 'Star Wars' stuff (AAPL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: It's time to stop spreading the myth that Snap is a brilliant products company (SNAP)

Steve Kovach November 08, 2017 at 08:09AM

• Snap reported terrible earnings Tuesday and announced it would redesign the Snapchat app.
• It also announced a $40 million write-down related to unsold Spectacles.
• Snap has always been written about as an innovative product company, but has failed to prove that now that it's public.
  

  ---

Going into its IPO this spring, the common theme around Snap that it was a company focused on innovative products that would set it apart from other social networks like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

The company reimagined how people communicate with smartphones, emphasizing text, video, and augmented-reality tricks. More importantly, its success was tied to the 27-year-old CEO Evan Spiegel, who's been billed as a product visionary in the model of Steve Jobs.

A Recode profile of Spiegel from 2016 cited several sources close to the young CEO who compared him to Mark Zuckerberg, Jobs, and even Picasso. And that perception permeated just about everything written about Spiegel since.

In The Wall Street Journal story tied to the debut of Snap's wearable Spectacles, Spiegel even stole a move right out of Jobs' playbook, unveiling a new gizmo with the fanfare of stage magician, something Jobs was famous for doing in private briefings with the tech press. He even borrowed one of Jobs' famous quips during a product demo. Boom!

From the WSJ profile:

“You wanna see it?” [Spiegel] asks, grinning widely. There’s drama in this reveal: I’m about to join an exceedingly small circle of people whom Spiegel has shown the object to. As he lifts the towel, he breaks into a delighted laugh. “Boom!”

In my experience, if someone's being compared to Steve Jobs — or worse, mimicking Steve Jobs — they're most definitely not another Steve Jobs.

We got proof of that Tuesday after Snap reported dismal earnings and Spiegel admitted that the company's core product, the Snapchat app, was too hard for people to use and would go through a major redesign. Meanwhile, the company announced a $40 million write-down for unsold Spectacles, it fired members of its hardware team in September, and its long-serving senior VP of engineering was stepped down.

These are not the moves of a company with a strong product vision.

Even after the initial hype of the Spectacles launch last year, usage was "shocking low," as my colleague Alex Heath reported. It turns out the artificial scarcity of Spectacles during the first weeks it went on sale was the only real innovation.

The myth that Snap is full of product geniuses led by Spiegel has been busted, disappearing faster than a sext sent over its own app.

Now Snap appears to be rushing towards a major pivot to fix its product, just months after its IPO and in full public view where every change will be scrutinized by analysts, investors, and the media. It's a risky move from a product team that hasn't yet proven it can break out beyond its core group of young users in a significant way.

Yes, Spiegel and company should be credited for coming up with an innovative paradigm for communicating with photos and video on mobile devices. But that paradigm was easily copied by Facebook and Instagram and leveraged by those larger social networks.

Snap's products have failed to resonate outside a niche group, and it turns out that translates to weak overall performance.

SEE ALSO: The iPhone X review

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: TOP TECH ANALYST: Snap needs to innovate 'more quickly'

It's time to stop spreading the myth that Snap is a brilliant products company (SNAP) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: I've used the iPhone 8 and the iPhone X — and the winner is clear

Steve Kovach November 08, 2017 at 06:30AM

Apple now sells three premium iPhone models for the first time in the product's history.

So, which should you buy? The iPhone 8? 8 Plus? X?

I've used all three models extensively. Here's how they compare.

SEE ALSO: The full iPhone X review

Both phones are powered by the same processor, so you won't notice a difference in speed or performance.

They both also run iOS 11, the latest version of Apple's iPhone operating system.

They both have wireless charging.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

I've used the iPhone 8 and the iPhone X — and the winner is clear from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: I’ve been using the iPhone X for a week — and it’s definitely worth the $1,000 price tag

Corey Protin and Steve Kovach November 08, 2017 at 06:15AM

Apple’s highly anticipated and long-awaited iPhone X is finally out. We got our hands on one and rigorously tested everything we could with it for over a week. Here's our review, and final thoughts, on the device. The following is the transcript of the video.

STEVE KOVACH: I've been using the iPhone X for about a week now, and the big question on everyone's mind is whether or not it's worth a thousand bucks. And I can definitely say it is.

As soon as you take this thing out the box you realize Apple nailed the form factor. It's a 5.8-inch screen crammed onto a phone not much larger than the iPhone 8. So it fits well in your hand and you get plenty of screen to view the content on.

And I know there have been a lot of concerns over Face ID, that new facial recognition system, but I haven't been able to trick it. It works nearly flawlessly. Face ID works just as well, if not better, than Touch ID. And it works in a variety of conditions. There are a couple things you have to get used to though. Again, using Face ID works well, but you have to get used to holding your phone up to your face so it has your attention and unlocks. That's a lot different than Touch ID when you can just unlock it while holding it down.

And no home button means you have a new swiping gesture to get around, and that takes a little getting used to as well.

As for cameras, the front-facing TrueDepth Camera not only enables Face ID, it lets you do cool things like augmented reality and a Portrait mode on the selfie camera for the first time. The rear cameras are not much different than the iPhone 8 Plus cameras you can still do Portrait mode and Portrait Lighting

Now for the downsides. My biggest problem with the iPhone X is that many apps haven’t adapted properly for the new screen size and shape. You see a lot of funky UI things going on. I think it's gonna take a couple months for app developers to come up with new ways to design their apps around the iPhone X screen.

There's also the question of whether or not the iPhone X is a lot better than the 8. On the inside, they’re almost identical. They have the same processor. So if you go with the iPhone 8, you're gonna have almost the same performance as you would get with the iPhone X. What you're really paying for with the iPhone X is the new form factor and Face ID.

If you want the best of the best, yes … the iPhone X is worth every penny. It's something you're using all the time and most people won't be paying that $1,000 right up front. All carriers offer payment plans and Apple has its own payment plan as well. If you have an iPhone 7 or earlier, this does feel like a brand new phone and a nice upgrade. Although, the iPhone 7 is only a year old so you might want to hang onto that. But, if you have an iPhone 6 or earlier you should definitely upgrade to the iPhone X.

Join the conversation about this story »

I’ve been using the iPhone X for a week — and it’s definitely worth the $1,000 price tag from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: 17 big, beautiful photos of the iPhone X that'll show you how great it is

Steve Kovach and Hollis Johnson November 07, 2017 at 07:27AM

The iPhone X is Apple's reimagining of the iPhone to celebrate the product's 10-year anniversary. A lot has changed, so here's a handy guide for everything you need to know about the iPhone X.

SEE ALSO: The full iPhone X review

This is the iPhone X.

It's smaller than the iPhone 8 Plus (left) but bigger than the iPhone 8 (right).

The screen is the perfect size though. It's larger than the Plus screen, but crammed onto a body that's only a little larger than the 8.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

17 big, beautiful photos of the iPhone X that'll show you how great it is from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: The iPhone X review (AAPL)

Steve Kovach November 07, 2017 at 04:00AM

• The iPhone X is the best smartphone you can buy.
• New features like Face ID work well, but force you to learn new habits.
• The big new screen is the best feature, but apps need to update to adapt to the new form factor.
  

  ---

The other day, my colleague brought an original iPhone into Business Insider's video studio to shoot a comparison video with the new iPhone X.

It didn't hit me until then how much the iPhone has evolved over the last 10 years. The tiny screen. The fuzzy pixels. The camera that couldn't even shoot video. A measly eight gigabytes of memory. It didn't even seem like it came from the same company as the iPhone X.

The iPhone X feels like the perfect device to celebrate Apple's tenth anniversary of the iPhone, a representation of how far tech can go in a decade. I've had the iPhone X, which went on sale last Friday, for a week. It's the best smartphone I've ever used, and represents a new direction in how Apple views the iPhone.

And yeah, it costs $999.

The perfect form factor

Apple had fallen behind.

Over the last few years, competitors like Samsung have found ways to out-design Apple by cramming more screen onto the front of their phones, keeping the form factor slim and manageable while giving users plenty of display to work with. The iPhone started looking chunky and dated by comparison, especially as the most recent design entered its third year with 2016's iPhone 7.

That finally changes with the iPhone X, which is the first major new iPhone design in over three years. It has a slightly bigger screen (5.8-inches) than the one on the iPhone 8 Plus, but the phone's overall size is closer to the normal-sized iPhone 8. It's the perfect form factor. The X fits in my pocket much better than the plus-sized iPhones ever did, and I still get the benefit of the larger screen, which covers almost the entire front of the phone with the exception of that controversial notch that houses the front-facing camera and other sensors.

The screen got a huge upgrade too. Apple used an OLED panel for the first time on an iPhone, which produces better colors and managers power better than the LCD panels every other iPhone uses. It's the best display I've ever seen on an iPhone, and it's so crisp it looks like it was painted on the surface. The experts at DisplayMate recently named it the best smartphone display available, beating Samsung for the first time I can remember.

Overall, the design is nearly perfect. Apple went back to an all-glass and metal design this year, and the X has a steel band around the edges, which makes it feel more robust and premium. My only complaint with the design is the ginormous camera bulge on the back. It looks out of place.

But the biggest change to the design is the lack of home button. Unlike many Android phones that use digital home buttons, the iPhone X has what I've been calling the home bar, a software indicator at the bottom of the screen that shows you where to swipe up from in order to get back to the home screen. It works great. I've been mashing a home button on an iPhone for 10 years now, and it only took me a few minutes to get used to swiping up to go back home. You don't have to worry about going home button-free.

The lack of home button comes with some quirks though. You now access the Control Center by swiping down from the right side of the notch. You get to notifications by swiping down from the left side. Siri is a long-press of the power button, and you take a screenshot by pressing volume-up and power at the same time. There are other tricks, and tips, so it'll probably take some time to learn them all.

Face ID works, but takes some getting use to

Face ID is probably the most controversial and misunderstood new feature on the iPhone X. So I'm going to break this down with as much detail as I can and hopefully answer all the questions you have.

First, let's go over how Face ID works.

There's a new front-facing camera system on the X that Apple calls the TrueDepth camera system. In addition to the standard camera lens, there are a bunch of other sensors embedded in the notch above the screen like an infrared camera and a flood illuminator. Those sensors are able to map the distinct features of your face by blasting thousands of invisible dots on it and translating the data into a mathematical representation.

That "face data" lives on a secure chip inside the phone, just like your fingerprint data is securely stored in other iPhones with the Touch ID fingerprint sensor. Whenever you want to unlock your phone, the TrueDepth camera compares your face to the data stored on the phone. If it matches, you're in. Face ID also works wherever Touch ID worked on older iPhones, like Apple Pay and logging into certain apps.

Setting up Face ID is much faster than Touch ID. You stare into the camera and move your head around in a circle as the TrueDepth camera scans you. Two scans and you're good to go. It also gets more accurate and smarter as you use Face ID over time thanks to machine learning done on the device, so it can keep up with you as you grow a beard, cut your hair, put on makeup, wear glasses, or make any other common changes to your face.

So, is it any good?

I had a high standard in mind for Face ID going into my testing. Since it was replacing Touch ID, Face ID would have to be just as good or better than using a fingerprint.

It passed my test. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't trick Face ID. It worked when I wore accessories like a hat, sunglasses, or scarf. It worked in bright sunlight, a pitch-black closet, and every lighting scenario in between.

Face ID even passed the identical twin test when we had a set come into the Business Insider office last week. (But it failed when others tried it. Identical twins out there: you might want to use a passcode instead of Face ID.) It was quick, reliable, and almost never failed. It's also fast. In most cases, the phone was unlocked by the time I swiped up to go the home screen.

The TrueDepth camera system also enables other cool stuff, like facial tracking for those Animojis and improved augmented-reality effects like Snapchat lenses. You can also use the selfie camera to take a portrait-style photo, which usually requires dual-lens cameras on iPhones.

Now for the caveats.

Face ID requires your "attention" to work. That means you need to be looking at the phone and holding it no more than about a foot from your face. It won't work at odd angles or if your phone is lying flat on the table. This is where things differ from Touch ID, which let you unlock your phone as long as it was in reach. I've seen a variety of opinions on this. Some people hate that they have to change their habits to adapt to Face ID. Others think it's brilliant.

I don't think it matters. Apple is going all-in with Face ID, and it'll eventually replace Touch ID on all models. Might as well start training yourself now. In a lot of ways, it's better than the old way, and the tradeoffs are worth it.

I also noticed Face ID was slower in some cases, especially in bright light. This is likely because bright light contains infrared light that could slow down the facial recognition process a bit. It's not painfully slow, but I definitely noticed the extra beat it took to unlock in some cases. That's the first thing I'd like to see improved in future versions of Face ID. It's proven to be reliable and accurate. Now it needs to get faster.

The rest of it

Now for all that other standard stuff. 

The dual-lens cameras on the iPhone X are slightly improved over the iPhone 8 Plus cameras. Both lenses have optical image stabilization, which means low-light photos look better. I took a bunch of photos and video with the iPhone X, and liked what I saw. Still, it wasn't a huge improvement over the iPhone 8 Plus cameras I tested back in September. 

Battery life seemed fine too. Apple says the iPhone X can last two hours longer than the 8, which seemed about right to me. But battery life on the 8 Plus is still the best. Plan on charging a bit in the middle of the day if you're a heavy user like me.

And it runs iOS 11, just like your older iPhones and iPads. Even though the iPhone X looks a lot different, it still feels very familiar.

The app problem

A new screen size and shape means apps on the iPhone need to be adjusted again. And so far, most haven't been updated yet. And many that did update for the X have a bunch of funky design quirks. It's my biggest issue with the iPhone X. It's not a deal breaker, but it might bother people who plan to buy the iPhone X in the first few weeks.

If an app hasn't been updated, they appear letterboxed, with thick borders on the top and bottom to mimic the screen size of the iPhone 8. It wastes a ton of that gorgeous new screen space. Other apps that have updated to the new screen sized just scooched the bottom navigation bars up a bit to make room for the home bar, so there's a lot of negative space floating at the bottom. It's even worse on the keyboard, which has a giant empty area at the bottom just begging to put to use.

Still, over the last week, and especially since the X's launch last Friday, more and more apps have updated for the new screen. And there are already some great examples of apps that look great on the new screen, like Amazon and Lyft. I have a feeling it's going to take a few months before the others catch up.

The $1,000 question

At $999 or $1,149 for the 256 GB model, the iPhone X is the most expensive iPhone ever made. You can buy a decent 4K TV for less than that. 

So, should you be spending that much on a phone?

I think the X is worth it. The screen and overall form factor and design are enough to sell me. Plus it's your first chance to experience the device that'll set the tone for smartphones for several more years. If the cost is still too much to swallow, the iPhone 8 offers the same performance and operating system, just in an older design. And you can get the 7 or the SE for hundreds less. Don't buy something you can't afford.

But if you want the best smartphone, you should buy the iPhone X.

SEE ALSO: Big tech blew its big moment at the Russia hearings

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I won't trade in my iPhone 6s for an iPhone X or iPhone 8 — here's why

The iPhone X review (AAPL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Big Tech blew its big moment at the Russia hearings (FB, TWTR, GOOGL)

Steve Kovach November 04, 2017 at 05:00AM

• Representatives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter testified in Congress this week regarding alleged Russian interference in last year's election.
• The tech companies' CEOs declined to show.
• The companies' lawyers failed to reassure legislators and the public that the companies are prepared to fix the problems that allowed people and groups linked to Russia to abuse their platforms.
  

---

 

Big Tech's big appearance in Washington this week was a big disappointment. 

Congressional representatives have been investigating Russia's alleged meddling in last year's election. They called on Facebook, Google, and Twitter to testify about what happened and what the companies are doing to prevent similar propaganda efforts in the future. Mostly it was a chance for the big tech companies to show they are taking the problem seriously. 

But on just about every level, Big Tech failed. The companies sent their lawyers instead of their top brass, a pretty good indication of how much of a priority they're making of this problem.

While the companies' lawyers assured the members of Congress that their companies take this issue seriously and are taking steps to make sure it never happens again, we've heard similar talk before. Facebook, Google, and Twitter have routinely shown they can't handle such challenges, and they gave little reason to think things would be different this time around. 

And when pressed about what happened last year, the companies' lawyers offered a slew of excuses. Overall, they conveyed the sense that Big Tech feels it's largely blameless for what happened. And they gave little reason to hope that their companies would make many real changes to how they do business. 

After two days of hearings, it was hard to feel optimistic.

Here are the most important takeaways from the hearings:

The CEOs didn't show

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey all declined to testify at the hearings. That was bad enough. But just how little importance Big Tech's leaders ascribed to the hearings can be gleaned from one Facebook post.

Here's what Zuckerberg was up to on October 31, the first day of the hearings:

By sending their lawyers (Colin Stretch for Facebook, Sean Edgett for Twitter, and Richard Salgado and Kent Walker for Google), Big Tech sent a message to Congress and the American people that it didn't think its CEOs should be held accountable for the abuse on their platforms, whether before, during, or after the election.

Yes, Congress could've subpoenaed the CEOs and forced them to testify, but it shouldn't have had to take that step. Zuckerberg, Pichai, and Dorsey should have shown up on their own and taken responsibility for what's happened and happening on their sites. Instead, Zuckerberg thought it was more important to dress up like a Wild Thing. 

Fake news, personal attacks, and other abuse are still big problems on these companies' sites. The midterm elections are just a year away, and we have no assurance under oath from Big Tech's top leadership that their companies are working to make the changes needed to safeguard those elections from similar meddling in time. Instead, all we're getting are promises that they'll do better.

Facebook wouldn't commit to rejecting foreign currency as payment for US political advertising

Perhaps the most frustrating moment during the hearings was when Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota asked Facebook's Stretch if the company would stop allowing people to pay for political ads shown in the US with Russian rubles, North Korean won, or other foreign currencies. 

Stretch danced around the issue quite a bit, but his answer was essentially that Facebook wouldn't commit to that. The bigger message from that exchange? Facebook values making money over making sure political ads are legitimate.

I share Franken's sentiment to Stretch's answer:

The companies refused to acknowledge they're in the media business 

Ah, the tiresome media company debate again. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana asked the Big Tech companies if they were in the media business or were simply agnostic technology platforms. Surprise! Each company's lawyer declared his company an agnostic tech platform.

This despite the fact that all three companies distribute news and other media to billions of people each day, act as a primary news source for millions here in the US, and make money by selling advertising that they runs next to or place within news articles and videos.

Even if the Big Tech platforms don't want to label themselves as such, the fact is that they basically are media companies. And they ought to have the same responsibilities as other media companies to vet the content and ads they distribute.

None of the companies would commit to supporting the Honest Ads Act

Last month, senators Mark Warner and Amy Klobuchar introduced the Honest Ads Act, which would require online political ads to contain similar disclosures about who paid for them as are found in print, broadcast, and radio ads. If the bill were enacted, you would be able to see if the election ad in your Facebook News Feed were funded by a political candidate's campaign, a political action committee — or a Russia-linked group looking to stir up trouble.

Before the hearings, Facebook and Twitter committed to putting in place new transparency rules for political advertising. But they declined to voice support for the Honest Ads Act, despite its similar goal. Google, which has yet to announce any transparency rules of its own, likewise declined to explicitly endorse the bill. 

It makes sense that Big Tech prefers self-regulation to government regulation, no matter how modest the latter. But that doesn't mean that allowing those companies to regulate themselves makes sense for the rest of us.

Big Tech has repeatedly failed to do even an adequate job of policing itself. Even with fake news and fake ads in the spotlight, the companies couldn't block the distribution of bogus stories in recent weeks about the mass shooting in Las Vegas or the controversy over NFL players kneeling to protest the treatment of African Americans. So, there's little reason to believe they'll successfully regulate political ads without being prompted to by the government. 

Legislators were unduly obsessed with Russia Today

Members of Congress asked a lot of legitimate and important questions during the hearings. But they spent way too much time asking and talking about Russia Today (RT), a news organization funded by the Russian government. 

RT distributes its news videos through cable, satellite, and the internet, via sites including Google's YouTube. In many ways, it's a traditional news source, albeit one skewed toward Russian interests. And RT is clear and transparent when it is promoting its content; you can see it is behind its videos and articles.

There are good arguments for blocking Russia-linked bots and fake accounts from spreading fake news or placing propagandistic ads. But blocking RT and suppressing its speech would set a dangerous precedent. And the tech companies were right to point out during the hearings the distinction between RT's posts and those of the Russia-linked bots. 

Unfortunately, members of Congress wasted a lot of valuable time using RT as an example of Big Tech's failures.

The companies still don't know the extent of the Russia-linked propaganda effort

Legislators repeatedly pressed Facebook, Google, and Twitter's lawyers about whether their companies were confident they had uncovered, on their respective platforms, all of the Russia-linked propaganda from the 2016 election. None could say "yes" definitively.  

Instead the representatives of all three companies gave the same general answers: Their companies are continuing to investigate, and there's a possibility they will discover more Russia-linked fake news and ads.

It's frightening that even now, more than a year after the election, we still don't know the extent of the Russia-linked propaganda effort. And it's disturbing that the companies are basically saying that the drip-drip-drip of revelations is likely to continue.

There's little reason for optimism

Following the hearings, there was little reason to hope that the problem of Big Tech being used to spread foreign propaganda has been or will soon be solved anytime. The companies, of course, promised they'd fix the problems on their own. However, after so many past promises and failures, there's little reason to believe they'll get things right now.

But the companies do have an extra incentive this time around. Congress is keenly focused on this issue. Big Tech now has a chance — maybe its last chance — to address these problems before, as Senator Diane Feinstein said during the hearings, Congress acts.

SEE ALSO: Facebook and Big Tech are Big Media, and it's time we started treating them that way

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I won't trade in my iPhone 6s for an iPhone X or iPhone 8 — here's why

Big Tech blew its big moment at the Russia hearings (FB, TWTR, GOOGL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: The CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter are getting blasted for not showing up to congressional hearings on fake Russian ads (GOOGL, TWTR, FB)

Steve Kovach November 01, 2017 at 10:34AM

• Congress held public hearings on Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 US election Tuesday and Wednesday with representatives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
• The three companies sent their lawyers to testify, not their CEOs.
• Many political observers criticized the move, arguing it would have been better to hear testimony from the people in charge.

---

 

Representatives of Facebook, Google, and Twitter are all testifying this week before congressional committees investigating Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 US election.

But the people speaking on behalf of those companies are their top lawyers — not their CEOs. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai, and Twitter's Jack Dorsey didn't show up to the hearings.

Many political observers, including members of Congress, expressed disappointment that the companies' top leaders declined to publicly answer questions about the serious charge that a foreign actor used their networks to meddle in the US election. 

Sen. Angus King of Maine was among those in Congress voicing his displeasure at whom the companies sent to represent them. 

"I'm disappointed you're here and not your CEOs," King told the tech companies' lawyers on Wednesday. 

Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico echoed the sentiment.

In 2001, after some media outlets prematurely declared Al Gore the winner in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, their top executives testified before Congress, noted Jim Rutenberg, a media columnist at The New York Times. Those executives took responsibility for their outlets' mistakes. Notably, Roger Ailes, then the head of Fox News, promised to do better and address the problem, Rutenberg recalled. 

By contrast, the big tech companies "have not shown the same desire for accountability exhibited by Mr. Ailes and his fellow network chiefs all those years ago," Rutenberg wrote. 

Rutenberg wasn't the only journalist calling out the companies' CEOs for avoiding the congressional hearings. Vanity Fair's Nick Bilton contrasted their absence in the halls of Congress with their willingness to do the seemingly trivial — have their pictures taken for magazines: 

It's telling that tech CEOs can show up to photoshoots for magazine covers, but send underlings to testify in front of congress. http://pic.twitter.com/k1bNZrMGx0

— Nick Bilton (@nickbilton) October 31, 2017

SEE ALSO: First impressions of the iPhone X

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I won't trade in my iPhone 6s for an iPhone X or iPhone 8 — here's why

The CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter are getting blasted for not showing up to congressional hearings on fake Russian ads (GOOGL, TWTR, FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach