The Transport Guy: The real reason fake news spreads is because tech companies don't believe in the truth (TWTR, FB, GOOG, GOOGL)

Steve Kovach February 17, 2018 at 06:00AM

• The Big Tech platforms Facebook, Google, and Twitter have made several efforts to combat fake news and abuse.
• But they all operate from the standpoint that the open nature of their platforms means they can't be "arbiters of the truth." It's a phrase people working at those companies use often when talking about the problem.
• If Big Tech can't or won't work to determine what the truth is, then the abuse and fake news will only continue.

---

Within hours of Wednesday's school shooting in Florida, screenshots of fake tweets from Miami Herald reporter Alex Harris started to go viral. The tweets showed images of Harris' account that were fudged to look like she was asking people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School for photos of dead bodies and whether or not the shooter was white.

In response to a BuzzFeed story on the matter, Twitter said the fake tweets impersonating Harris weren't a violation of its policies, despite the fact that Harris said she was harassed by other Twitter users as the fakes spread.

(Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted that he would investigate the matter after BuzzFeed's story published Thursday. In a response to BuzzFeed editor Mat Honan on Twitter Friday, Dorsey said Twitter doesn’t have the technical capability to monitor that kind of impersonation at a large scale yet.)

Twitter also pointed to a section of its policy that says the real-time nature of the platform means that people can fact-check fake tweets like the ones that impersonated Harris — which is probably little comfort for anybody who's ever been impersonated, and seen "their" tweets go viral. 

But there's another key phrase that stood out to me in the policy cited by Twitter:

"We, as a company, should not be the arbiter of truth."

I've heard that one before. Several times, in fact, over the last year or so as I've talked to people from Google, Facebook, and Twitter about their roles in today's media landscape. Sometimes they say it publicly. Often, they say it privately. But it's clear that Big Tech's default isn't to make sure the information they're spreading to billions is accurate, but that their platforms remain open and easy to manipulate.

If the platforms start from a position that the truth is subjective, the fake news problem will never get fixed.

Just because they don't view themselves as the arbiters of truth doesn't mean their billions of users aren't devouring news spread on those platforms, under the assumption that what they're seeing is true.

There's a reason media organizations go through a rigorous process of fact checking, research, and editing before publishing something. They have a responsibility to disseminate the truth as best they can. Mistakes happen, of course. But there are also consequences for those mistakes at responsible news organizations. Journalists get fired. Retractions are published. Credibility is always on the line.

By claiming they can't determine what the truth is, the messaging from tech platforms is that they don't feel they should be held to those same standards, despite the fact that the information they spread can reach millions of more people than any publication on earth can ever hope to reach.

You can see how that plays out in Big Tech's recent solutions to fix the spread of abuse and fake news on their platforms.

Facebook announced last month that it's tweaking the News Feed algorithm to start surfacing more news from "trusted" sources. But instead of choosing the outlets itself, it said it would ask Facebook users to determine where the truth should come from.

The survey is just two questions long, as BuzzFeed first reported. A user is presented with the name of a publication and asked if they recognize it. Then they're asked how much they trust the outlet with a range of options from "entirely" to "not at all." Facebook still hasn't provided a convincing answer for how it'll prevent the community from gaming those surveys.

Google and its subsidiary YouTube have also said they would promote "trusted" sources in search results for news topics, yet they haven't described their methodology for determining which outlets are trusted. All we know is that it's a mixture of some AI wizardry, and the promise to bring thousands more human moderators into the mix. And even then, the results have been mixed. YouTube was promoting conspiracy theories tied to the train crash involving Republican members of Congress just a few weeks ago, for example.

The problem isn't that Facebook, Twitter, and Google don't feel responsible for what happens on their platforms. I believe they're sincere when they say they want to fix abuse and fake news. Rather, the issue is the fact that they don't feel like they need to have a strong relationship with the truth, or that they have a responsibility to make sure it's the truth users see before anything else. In their view, the mob gets to determine what the truth is, and the lightning-fast speed of social media means that even when something false squeaks through, that same mob will work overtime to correct itself.

That sounds great in theory — but, as we saw in Florida this week, and countless other times besides, it's failed over and over and over again in practice.

Big Tech doesn't believe it has a responsibility to determine what the truth is, and the impact from that decision continues to show itself in the form of impersonations, fake news, and conspiracy theories promoted across their platforms. No action to fix those inherent problems will work until Big Tech realizes that the truth matters. 

SEE ALSO: Insiders say Google never answered a key question about its Alphabet gamble and now it's coming back to haunt them

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I quit social media for a month — and it was the best choice I've ever made

The real reason fake news spreads is because tech companies don't believe in the truth (TWTR, FB, GOOG, GOOGL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: This $400 smart-TV box lets you control your Apple TV, cable box, and everything else with your voice

Steve Kovach February 14, 2018 at 07:00AM

• Caavo is a new smart-TV device from a startup of the same name.
• Caavo manages all the stuff you plug into your TV like Apple TV, cable boxes, DVD players, and video game consoles.
• It's a great device if you're tired of managing multiple remotes and inputs, but the $400 price tag might turn a lot of people away.

---

Here's my living room TV setup:

I have a 65-inch Samsung smart TV. Plus a Verizon Fios cable box. Plus an Apple TV. Plus a PlayStation 4. Plus a Nintendo Switch. All of those devices have their own remotes, and switching between them means juggling a variety of different controllers cluttering my coffee table.

This is an all-to-familiar situation for many. As more people turn to streaming services pumped through boxes like Roku or Apple TV, there's still no easy or coherent way to manage all the stuff you subscribe to and just get what you want to watch when you want to watch it. And most cable-box interfaces are still stuck in the early 2000s. Good luck finding that show you DVR'd.

A startup called Caavo thinks it solved this problem with a new $400 box that promises to create one unified hub for all the stuff you plug into your TV. I've been testing a Caavo with my complicated setup for the last week or so, and it works as advertised for the most part. But it's really only ideal for people with three or more things plugged into their TV. The convenience might not be worth the heavy price tag for the rest of you.

How it works

Caavo is a long, thin box that lets you plug in up to eight different devices through HDMI. That's about twice as many ports as most high-end TVs have. You then plug the Caavo into your TV and use it for everything you want to watch or play from — cable boxes, DVRs, video game consoles, Rokus, Apple TVs, Amazon Fire TVs, Chromecasts, DVD players, and so on.

Caavo's software is based on Android, and it can automatically detect what your devices are. Caavo also comes with a universal remote that controls your TV, the Caavo box, and all your other devices.

If you want something even easier, you can use the remote's built-in microphone to tell Caavo what you want to watch and let the machine do all the switching and searching for you. (Caavo also works with Amazon Alexa, so you can use voice commands on your Echo instead of the remote. But that feature just launched in beta, so I haven't had a chance to thoroughly test it.)

That's the real benefit to Caavo. This isn't just an HDMI hub paired with a universal remote; it's a streamlined interface for almost everything you want to watch.

Caavo's software keeps track of everything you have plugged into your TV and does the heavy lifting for you. For example, telling Caavo to "watch 'Stranger Things'" will automatically switch inputs to your your Apple TV (or Roku or whatever), launch Netflix, and play the latest episode. 

It also works for cable boxes. Saying, "watch ESPN" will automatically tune to ESPN, for example. Caavo can also access content recorded on some DVR models, but it didn't work with the one I use through Verizon Fios.

One interface for everything

Caavo's software was compatible with almost everything I use, and it covers all the basics like Netflix, Hulu, HBO, and iTunes. If you ask for a show that's available on multiple services, Caavo gives you the option to select the one you want.

But there are some missing pieces. For example, when I asked Caavo for "The Good Place," it brought up an option to watch the first season on Netflix, but not the NBC app, which I had been using to watch season two. A Caavo representative told me the device doesn't index all streaming services yet, so there are likely a bunch of other holes like this I haven't run into yet.

Besides the voice control, my favorite aspect of Caavo was using just one remote for everything. I locked all my remotes away in my entertainment center cupboard and used the Caavo remote for everything without too many problems. That alone almost made it worth it. Caavo takes away the stress of managing multiple devices and remotes.

The software is clean too. Setup can be a bit tedious depending on how many devices you have. (It took me about 15 minutes to get my system going.) But everything just works once you're finished. There's a big "Caavo" button in the center of the remote that you can use to switch between devices, and you select the device you want to switch to, instead of having to remember which HDMI port number you plugged it into. The other menus are clean and easy to navigate, but you don't even need to look at them if you use voice controls for everything.

Still, Caavo feels more like a hack for today's fragmented internet TV ecosystem rather than a realization of the dream that all your TV stuff can live on the same platform. When you ask Caavo to watch something on a streaming service, you can see it working in the background, adjusting the input and navigating where it needs to go. It can take up to a minute for what you want to actually appear on your screen. So while it's a great first start, it's not as ideal as having this intelligent software built into a TV. 

Not for everyone

Overall, Caavo pulled off an impressive feat on its first try. There are a lot of great connected TV boxes out there, but none of them provide a singular solution for everything you want to watch. Caavo fills in a lot of the gaps, and it's the best answer I've seen so far if you find yourself routinely juggling between multiple TV inputs.

Still, the price can be hard to swallow. You can buy several Apple TVs or Rokus for the price of one $400 Caavo. I also wouldn't recommend getting a Caavo if you only have one or two devices plugged into your TV. 

But if you're like me and subscribe to multiple streaming services across multiple different devices, Caavo will be a great fit in your living room.

SEE ALSO: Insiders say Google never answered a key question about its Alphabet gamble and now it's coming back to haunt them

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: You've never seen a bridge like this before

This $400 smart-TV box lets you control your Apple TV, cable box, and everything else with your voice from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Facebook is so tough on leaks that one employee was concerned the company was tracking his phone's location (FB)

Steve Kovach February 12, 2018 at 07:14AM

• Facebook protects itself against leaks by tracking down the leakers and firing them.
• One Facebook employee who anonymously spoke to Wired recently asked the reporter to turn off his phone so the company couldn't track their location.

---

To corporate giants like Facebook, leaks to rivals or the media are a cardinal sin.

That notion was clear in a new Wired story about Facebook's rocky time over the last two years. The story talks about how Facebook was able to find two leakers who told a Gizmodo reporter about its news operations.

But one source for the Wired story highlighted just how concerned employees are about how their company goes after leakers. According to the story, the source, a current Facebook employee, asked a Wired reporter to turn off his phone so Facebook wouldn't be able to use location tracking and see that the two were close to each other for the meeting.

From the Wired feature:

One current employee asked that a Wired reporter turn off his phone so the company would have a harder time tracking whether it had been near the phones of anyone from Facebook.

Whether or not Facebook actually does track its employees this way doesn't matter. The fact that an employee would think such an option was on the table is telling of the culture at the company.

You can read the full profile on Wired.

SEE ALSO: Insiders say Google never answered a key question about its Alphabet gamble and now it's coming back to haunt them

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People are obsessed with this Google app that finds your fine art doppelgänger

Facebook is so tough on leaks that one employee was concerned the company was tracking his phone's location (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: It's time to start asking if Alphabet's big gamble on 'Other Bets' is about to go bust (GOOG)

Steve Kovach February 10, 2018 at 05:00AM

• Google announced Wednesday that it would reabsorb Nest, the smart appliance company that was running independently under Google's parent Alphabet.
• The move calls into question what a successful exit looks like for one of Alphabet's so-called Other Bets companies.
• Alphabet insiders have expressed confusion over the mission for Other Bets as key executives headed for the door.

---

Two-and-a-half years ago, Google made a radical move that shocked the entire industry.

It split itself up.

The hodge-podge of side projects and skunkworks that didn't fit neatly into Google search and advertising business were spun out into their own separate companies, called "Other Bets."

Those projects, which included everything from self-driving cars to delivery drones, were reborn as independent entities with clever new names and big dreams: Verily (life sciences), Waymo (self-driving cars) and GV (a venture capital firm that invests in early-stage startups), to name a few. 

The hope was that one of these Other Bets would become the next multibillion-dollar tech company and help diversify parent company Alphabet's revenue sources beyond Google's digital ads business.

But this grand vision was always laden with some unanswered and uncomfortable questions: What does a successful Other Bet look like? When will one of those companies graduate from a mere "bet" to a winner that can stand on its own? Are they supposed to reach a point where they're big enough to spin out into a separate company outside Alphabet with a separate board of directors?

In short, when does an "Other Bet" stop being an Other Bet?

I've spoken to numerous people across various Alphabet companies over the last year, and none of them had a unified answer for what an Other Bet success story should look like.

On Wednesday, the question was thrust into the spotlight when Nest, a company that makes smart home appliances, was stripped of its Other Bet status and reabsorbed into Google. Instead of going it alone, Nest (which Google originally acquired in 2014 for $3.2 billion) was going into the mothership. 

I decided to loop back with some of those Alphabet insiders in light of the Nest news and get their thoughts. Nearly three years after the big Alphabet reorg, confusion remains. There's little consensus about whether the Nest move represents the first sign of a reversal of the Alphabet strategy. But it's clear that many insiders view Nest as the most overt example of significant shortcomings in the Other Bets blueprint which have until now played out more subtly. 

Some current and former Alphabet employees have told me the structure has been good for Google. Google, under CEO Sundar Pichai, no longer has to worry about spending time and effort managing far-out projects like internet balloons and self-driving cars. It can concentrate on improving core products like search, Gmail, and Google Maps while investing in growth areas like YouTube, AI, and hardware. Google has had an incredible run since Alphabet formed under this new structure.

And the structure seems to have allayed pressure from antsy shareholders, worried that Google was spending too much money on fanciful projects.

But the benefits to the new structure stop there, according to many insiders.

An exodus of executives that speaks volumes

In 2016, about a year after Alphabet's formation, a string of key executives left the company. Tony Fadell, the Nest CEO, stepped down in June 2016. Bill Maris, the CEO of GV, left in August 2016. Chris Urmson, the former tech lead of Google's self-driving car division also left in August of 2016. Craig Barratt, the CEO of Access (Google Fiber) left in October 2016. And Dave Vos, the head of X's drone delivery division called Project Wing, also left in October 2016. 

The friction seemed to be that the heads of some of Alphabet's Other Bets, or of divisions that were on track to become Other Bets, were frustrated by the Alphabet structure, according to some close to the company. They signed up with the promise of being CEOs running their own startups, but were instead constrained from the top by Alphabet's CFO Ruth Porat, who controlled funding, as well as by the whims of Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

It's no coincidence that many of these departing executives went on to start their own companies. Urmson now has his own self-driving car startup called Aurora, and Tony Fadell is running a new VC firm called Future Shape that plans to back early-stage tech startups. 

The vision of Alphabet was to create nimble startups, but many of the entrepreneurs tasked with leading these startups concluded that they had better prospects of accomplishing their goals outside Alphabet than within. 

Make money or make an impact?

Complicating matters is the fact that the medley of Other Bets have different definitions of success, some of which have little to do with business fundamentals.

Take Jigsaw, an "incubator" within Alphabet that develops products to solve real-world problems like attacks on free speech by foreign governments. Laudable though they may be, the goals are broad and nebulous, based around achievements like having "impact" as opposed to creating products that make money. That alone is at odds with the notion that Other Bets are supposed to find a way to turn themselves into real businesses.

Then there's X, the so-called "Moonshot Factory" that works on ambitious projects like wind energy and drone delivery. X's mission is to "graduate" its ideas into real companies that benefit Alphabet. But even the projects that have already graduated from X are all over the map. Some graduates like Waymo, Verily, and Chronicle (a cybersecurity company) became new Other Bets under Alphabet. But other graduates, the geothermal energy company Dandelion and construction company Flux became a independent companies outside the Alphabet.

The big new revenue pool didn't even come from an Other Bet

In the fourth quarter, Alphabet announced a major milestone in its quest to expand beyond advertising revenue —one of the main motives for creating the Other Bet companies. But the new source of non-advertising revenue, pegged at $1 billion a quarter, was not from an Other Bet. It came from Google Cloud, a business within Google itself. 

Apparently the Other Bet strategy is not the most efficient way to create a new multi-billion dollar business.

As for Nest, Alphabet's decision to bring the smart appliance company back to Google has been well received. One Nest employee told me this week that the move will help Nest better compete with the likes of Amazon and Ring in the connected home space. Plus, there weren't any layoffs. All Nest employees will continue to work on the same stuff. (However, Nest's cofounder Matt Rogers is stepping down soon, a sign he may have wanted to see Nest succeed on its own like all those other top Alphabet executives who left in 2016.)

For Nest employees, it's a happy ending, even if it's one that doesn't answer the question of whether their project's life as an Other Bet was a success or a failure. For the other Other Bets, and for Alphabet's overall vision, the lesson of Nest is less reassuring: There is no cohesive strategy. Many of you will fail. And the definition of success is constantly shifting.

SEE ALSO: I've started to mine cryptocurrency, and it's surprisingly easy — but I'm still 8 months away from breaking even

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The NFL is using this football helmet that morphs on impact to reduce head injuries

It's time to start asking if Alphabet's big gamble on 'Other Bets' is about to go bust (GOOG) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: The guy who cofounded Google's $3.2 billion smart home company is stepping down (GOOG, GOOGL)

Steve Kovach February 08, 2018 at 02:48PM

• Nest's cofounder Matt Rogers is leaving the company.
• The move comes a day after Google announced it would reabsorb Nest, a company it bought in 2014 for $3.2 billion.

---

Matt Rogers, the cofounder of Google's smart home company Nest, is leaving, CNET first reported.

Rogers cofounded Nest with Tony Fadell. Fadell was Nest's original CEO and left the company in 2016, a little over two years after Google bought it for $3.2 billion.

Google announced Wednesday that it was reabsorbing Nest. Nest had been a standalone company under the Alphabet since 2015. Nest, which makes smart thermostats, security cameras, and smoke detectors, is now part of Google's hardware division, which makes devices like the Google Home speakers and Pixel smartphones.

Rogers will spend the next few months with Nest to help smooth the transition, and then depart to spend more time at Incite.org, his politically-active venture firm. 

SEE ALSO: Google reabsorbs Nest

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The CEO of Mondelēz doesn’t seem interested in buying Nestlé’s candy business

The guy who cofounded Google's $3.2 billion smart home company is stepping down (GOOG, GOOGL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Smart home company Nest is being folded back into Google

Steve Kovach February 07, 2018 at 11:17AM

Alphabet's smart appliance company Nest is being spun back into Google, the companies announced Wednesday.

The move puts Nest under the purview of Rick Osterloh, the head of Google's hardware division that makes devices like the Pixel smartphones and Google Home speakers. Nest makes devices like smart thermostats, smoke detectors, and security cameras.

Here's the announcement published by Osterloh, the head of Google's hardware division:

Smart homes are no longer just a thing of the future. They make families feel safer with connected security systems. They help you save energy and money with intelligent thermostats. And they offer hands-free help and answers to a universe of questions with voice-activated smart assistants.

Since Nest joined Google four years ago, the team has experienced incredible momentum. The company doubled its hardware portfolio last year—selling more devices in 2017 than the previous two years combined. Meanwhile, Google has sold tens of millions of products for the home in just the last year, as more people use the Google Assistant to listen to their favorite music, control their connected devices, and get useful information about their day.

To build on this momentum, we're excited to bring the Nest and Google Hardware teams together. The goal is to supercharge Nest’s mission: to create a more thoughtful home, one that takes care of the people inside it and the world around it. By working together, we’ll continue to combine hardware, software and services to create a home that’s safer, friendlier to the environment, smarter and even helps you save money—built with Google’s artificial intelligence and the Assistant at the core.

We’ve had a head start on collaborating since our teams already work closely together, and today we’re excited to make Nest an integral part of Google’s big bet on hardware.

This story is developing...

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People are obsessed with this Google app that finds your fine art doppelgänger

Smart home company Nest is being folded back into Google from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: LIVE: Snap Q4 earnings (SNAP)

Steve Kovach February 06, 2018 at 12:44PM

Snap, the company that makes the Snapchat app, will report its fourth-quarter 2017 earnings on Tuesday shortly after the markets close.

Here's what Wall Street is expecting, according to Bloomberg analyst estimates:

• EPS (adjusted): -$0.16
• Revenue: $252.8 million

Snapchat announced last year that it would redesign its app in order to help juice user growth and make it easier to use for newcomers. But that was three months ago, and the redesign still hasn't rolled out to most users. It was originally supposed to launch last December, Business Insider first reported. The company will also allow users to embed content from stories on the web, the first time Snap has formally allowed content to be shared outside the core app.

Snap appears to be exploring alternative revenue streams beyond advertising in Snapchat. Last week it began selling Snapchat merchandise like T-shirts, dancing hot dog plush dolls, and hats inside the app.

Business Insider will be covering the results live as they roll in, so hit refresh or click here for the latest details.

SEE ALSO: The tech market 'law of gravity' reversed during the holidays and it could be the beginning of the end of the smartphone boom

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: These exoskeletons are making the world easier to navigate

LIVE: Snap Q4 earnings (SNAP) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Facebook had a pollster measuring Mark Zuckerberg's approval ratings, but he quit after six months (FB)

Steve Kovach February 06, 2018 at 12:03PM

• Facebook had a full-time pollster tracking CEO Mark Zuckerberg's public perception.
• The pollster quit after six months.
• It is unusual for a company to hire someone full time to track public perception of its executives.

---

Facebook hired a full-time pollster to track Mark Zuckerberg's approval ratings last year as the young CEO was making his 50-state tour across the country. 

But the pollster, Tavis McGinn, quit the gig six months later after becoming disillusioned with Facebook, he told The Verge in an interview published on Tuesday. He said he joined the company because he thought he could change things from the inside, but later realized his efforts were futile.

"I worked there for six months and I realized that even on the inside, I was not going to be able to change the way that the company does business. I couldn’t change the values. I couldn’t change the culture. I was probably far too optimistic," he said in the interview.

Facebook was not immediately available for comment.

It's rare for companies to have a full-time staffer monitoring an executive's approval ratings. Facebook told The Verge it measures Zuckerberg's public perception because he often promotes company initiatives.

Read more about how Facebook polled its users on The Verge.

SEE ALSO: The tech market 'law of gravity' reversed during the holidays and it could be the beginning of the end of the smartphone boom

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: You've never seen a bridge like this before

Facebook had a pollster measuring Mark Zuckerberg's approval ratings, but he quit after six months (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: The tech market 'law of gravity' reversed during the holidays and it could be the beginning of the end for the smartphone industry's insane run

Steve Kovach February 02, 2018 at 05:27PM

• Smartphone sales declined slightly in 2017, reversing a trend of rapid growth over the past decade.
• Meanwhile, PC sales grew in the fourth quarter of 2017. It's a sign the PC's decline has finally bottomed out.
• 2018 could be a challenging year for smartphone manufacturers as they run out of room to grow.

---

If you've been paying attention to the PC industry over the last decade or so, you're used to the same story: Traditional PC sales continue to decline as smartphone sales grow.

As personal computing finishes its transition to mobile devices, consumers are hanging onto their PCs longer and opting to upgrade their smartphones every couple of years instead. Smartphone sales growth has been off the charts since the modern smartphone era kicked off in 2007.

But 2017 was different. Strangely, those two trends reversed themselves.

According to research firm IDC, PC sales were actually up slightly (0.7%) in the fourth quarter of 2017. Smartphone sales were down for the quarter by 6.3%. And for the first time in recent memory, smartphone sales were down slightly (0.7%) for all the full year, according to IDC.

So what caused this phenomenon?

Apple may have played a part in the smartphone decline. The company reported its fourth-quarter earnings Thursday and said it sold 77 million iPhones during the holiday period, a 1.3% decline from the year before. Wall Street was expecting Apple to sell around 80 million iPhones, but it seems like the high-priced iPhone X spooked some would-be upgraders.

Samsung also had an off quarter: Shipments of its smartphones declined 4.4% year-over-years and Samsung lost its traditional spot as the world's No.1 smartphone vendor to Apple, according to IDC.

"Even though we have seen new full-screen displays, advanced biometrics, and improved artificial intelligence, the new and higher price points could be outweighing the benefits of having the latest and greatest device in hand," analyst Anthony Scarsella said in IDC's smartphone report Thursday.

Both Apple and Samsung released expensive new smartphones last fall with high-end specs and large, edge-to-edge screens. Samsung's Galaxy Note 8 sold for about $930. The iPhone X started at $999. Apple also raised the prices of the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus by $50. Despite the positive reviews, it seems like the high price tags kept enough people from upgrading.

As for the surprise rebound in PC shipments, IDC pointed to a variety of factors including businesses upgrading PCs for their staff as well as strong demand in parts of Asia and South America.

The research firm also mentioned "pockets" of the consumer market buying PCs for "emerging use cases that require more compute power." While that sounds a little like bitcoin mining, those rigs are typically built on special racks loaded with GPUs rather than arrays of full-fledged PCs. 

According to data from Statista, annual PC shipments have declined every years since 2011. So it's also possible that the PC industry has finally bottomed out after years of decline, and that 1% or 2% fluctuations of sales in either direction are now the norm. 

Was it just a fluke?

It's hard to determine this early if 2017 was just a fluke, or if it was a sign of darker times for the smartphone market. The stakes are pretty high though. Apple still generates about two-thirds of its revenue from the iPhone, Google plans to continue ramping up its own hardware business, and Samsung will have to prove it can catch up to the iPhone X with its upcoming Galaxy S9.

Meanwhile, Chinese smartphone manufacturers like ZTE and Huawei are struggling to grow outside of Asia as US carriers refuse to sell those devices.

After ten years of booming smartphone sales that have put the gadgets in the hands of so many consumers throughout the world, it's very possible we're seeing the beginning of the end of the smartphone industry's insane growth.

SEE ALSO: There’s a rift growing between what Wall Street and the rest of the world thinks about Facebook — and only one side will win

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Elon Musk's The Boring Company sold out of these $500 flamethrowers

The tech market 'law of gravity' reversed during the holidays and it could be the beginning of the end for the smartphone industry's insane run from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: LIVE: Here come Alphabet earnings (GOOG)

Steve Kovach February 01, 2018 at 12:33PM

Alphabet, Google's parent company, will report its quarterly earnings after markets close Thursday.

Most are expecting a strong quarter fueled by advertising growth and new hardware products announced last fall, like the Pixel 2 smartphone and additional Google Home smart speakers.

We'll have the results as soon as they hit. In the meantime, here's what Wall Street is expecting, according to Bloomberg:

• Net Revenue: $26.23 billion, up 24% year-on-year
• EPS (GAAP): $10.04

Refresh this post for the latest.

SEE ALSO: There’s a rift growing between what Wall Street and the rest of the world thinks about Facebook — and only one side will win

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: These inventions will help save the earth

LIVE: Here come Alphabet earnings (GOOG) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: There’s a rift growing between what Wall Street and the rest of the world thinks about Facebook — and only one side will win (FB)

Steve Kovach February 01, 2018 at 11:05AM

• Facebook reported Wednesday that 50 million fewer hours are being spent on the service per day as a result of its News Feed algorithm change.
• But Facebook argues its users are getting a higher quality experience, which is good for its business long term.
• Wall Street is eating it up. Facebook's stock was up Wednesday, despite other fundamental problems with the company like rampant abuse of its platform.

---

It turns out Facebook might not need a News Feed full of memes, clickbait, and viral videos to be successful. Even though much of the public and media may have soured on the social network, Wall Street remains bullish on the company's capability to grow.

On Wednesday, Facebook announced that its recent overhaul of the News Feed algorithm caused users to collectively spend 50 million fewer hours per day on the service. Another worrying statistic: Facebook reported that daily active users fell in the US and Canada for the first time.

But Facebook also reported impressive fourth-quarter results despite the changes, which are designed to weed out content from media publishers and brand pages and instead promote posts that spur "meaningful" engagement like comments, rather than likes and shares.

On the earnings call Wednesday, the messaging from Facebook's management was clear: Decreased usage might actually be a good thing, leading to better ads with higher margins. It's also good news for Facebook's video product, Watch, which features high-quality videos produced by traditional media companies and Facebook itself.

"By focusing on meaningful interaction, I expect the time we all spend on Facebook will be more valuable," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during Wednesday's earnings call. "I always believe that if we do the right thing, and deliver deeper value, our community and our business will be stronger over the long term."

Wall Street is lapping it all up, and investors seem to buy Facebook's line that the changes will result in a better experience over the long term for users, thus driving higher advertising rates. After an initial dip after Facebook's earnings were first released Wednesday, the company's shares hit an all-time high on Thursday, jumping 4% based on all that optimism.

"We continue to believe that any slowdown in time spent will be compensated for by higher-quality time spent, and that any trimming of ad load will be compensated for by higher ad pricing," Michael Graham, an analyst at Canaccord, wrote in a research note Thursday.

There are now two competing narratives surrounding Facebook.

On the one hand, you have a company that's proven over and over that it's struggling to combat abuse of its platform. Hours before its earnings were released Wednesday, Facebook's trending section was promoting conspiracy theories about the Amtrak crash involving GOP members of Congress. The company has offered numerous solutions to its abuse problems thanks to several News Feed algorithm tweaks and the promise to hire more human moderators, but so far most of those efforts have fallen flat.

On the other hand, the future of Facebook's business has never looked brighter. There's no indication its ad margins are slowing down, and investors remain bullish on its ability to grow despite all the failures and criticism from the media and governments.

Facebook may be facing a reckoning for its role and influence on politics, media, and social well being, but Wall Street seems to be ignoring all that for now. 

But Facebook is an advertising business, and advertising demands time and attention. With all the problems Facebook is facing, reworking the News Feed to demand less attention from users could be dangerous.

SEE ALSO: Amazon has created a computing platform that will future-proof your home

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People are obsessed with this Google app that finds your fine art doppelgänger

There’s a rift growing between what Wall Street and the rest of the world thinks about Facebook — and only one side will win (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Google's parent company Alphabet is exploring a relationship with Saudi Arabia's oil company Aramco to build data centers in the Middle East (GOOG)

Steve Kovach February 01, 2018 at 06:54AM

• Alphabet is talking to Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company Aramco about building a "tech hub" in the Middle East.
• According to The Wall Street Journal, Alphabet would build data centers in the region.

---

Google's parent company Alphabet is exploring a deal with Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company Aramco to build data centers in the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The report says Alphabet wants to help Aramco build a "tech hub" in the region as competition from other companies like Amazon heats up.

The deal is not finalized, and a partnership may never materialize, the report says.

Read The WSJ piece for more details.

SEE ALSO: Amazon has created a computing platform that will future-proof your home

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: These inventions will help save the earth

Google's parent company Alphabet is exploring a relationship with Saudi Arabia's oil company Aramco to build data centers in the Middle East (GOOG) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: ALPHABET EARNINGS PREVIEW: A monster quarter tainted by YouTube's nasty year (GOOG, GOOGL)

Steve Kovach February 01, 2018 at 05:00AM

• Alphabet, Google's parent company, reports earnings Thursday.
• Wall Street is expecting $26.23 billion in net revenue, and EPS of $10.04.
• Google may have to address questions about abuse of its platforms, even as it continues to deliver impressive financial results.

---

Google's parent company Alphabet will report its fourth-quarter earnings on Thursday after the markets close.

Like the other top Big Tech firms, Alphabet is expected to have notched strong revenue growth for the final three months of the year even as it grapples with thorny challenges like platform abuse that are rippling across the broader internet industry.

Here's what to look for.

The scoreboard

First, here are the results Wall Street expects Alphabet to deliver. These numbers come from Bloomberg's estimates Wednesday afternoon:

• Net Revenue: $26.23 billion, up 24% year-on-year
• EPS (GAAP): $10.04

Now for everything else you should pay attention to.

Increased traffic costs

Traffic acquisition costs (TAC) have become an increasingly large expense for Google in recent years. These are the payments Google makes to third parties like Apple and Firefox to make sure web searches on those platforms go to Google instead of rival search engines.

Alphabet's CFO Ruth Porat does not like being asked about rising TAC, but it'll be the top of everyone's mind anyway.

As more web searches shift to mobile, TAC continues to increase for Google. The company paid $4.84 billion in total TAC in the year-ago quarter. Expect to see that number go up again and expect to hear Porat brush it off as just the cost of doing business.

Beyond advertising

While the vast majority of Alphabet's revenues come from Google advertising, but Google has been bullish in recent quarters over other areas of growth like cloud services and hardware.

Last fall, Google introduced new hardware products like the Pixel 2 smartphone, Google Home Mini connected speaker, and Pixelbook laptop. Google's "Other Revenues" category should give a strong indication how well those products sold. There's also a chance Google provides more detail on the hardware division's growth.

AI, AI, and more AI

If you're going to play a drinking game during Alphabet's earnings call Thursday, downing a shot every time Google CEO Sundar Pichai mentions the promise of artificial intelligence could make you woozy very quickly.

Artificial intelligence and voice-controlled computing are two big bets that Google thinks will power its future, and Pichai and company have been hyping it even more than ever during the past year.

Google Assistant, Google's version of Apple's Siri and Amazon's Alexa assistants, is now present in practically all its products from Pixel phones to the online Google Photos service. Google's promise is to make products that work better for you automatically, all powered by AI and machine learning. Google believes this is an area where it has a big competitive advantage, but investors may soon put pressure on the company to show how it's paying off.

YouTube's reckoning

YouTube is the Google property that has suffered the most from Big Tech's reckoning with abuse across various platforms: Child abuse videos; Fake news in search results; Extremist videos; And some of its biggest stars like Logan Paul and PewDiePie posting inappropriate content that most advertisers would never want to go near.

It just keeps getting worse.

YouTube has announced numerous plans to tackle the abuse of its platforms. It says it will use AI to identify fake stories and promote videos from trusted sources in search. It's booted abusers like Paul from its preferred advertising platform, which helps YouTube creators earn more money. And it says it will hire 10,000 human moderators to help weed out all the bad stuff.

So far, none of these initiatives have completely worked. Once one hole gets plugged, another seems to form. It's likely something Pichai and Porat will have to address during the earnings call.

Other bets

Outside the core Google business, Alphabet has several companies called "Other Bets" such as Waymo for self-driving cars, Nest for connected home products, and Verily for health and life sciences. When lumped together as a single category, Alphabet's Other Bets lose a lot of money, and the company has come under pressure to reduce losses.

So far, none of the Other Bets have generated significant revenue. The hope is that a few of them eventually become successful businesses. In the meantime, investors are tracking how much red ink these bets continue to bleed.

Business Insider will have Alphabet's results as soon as they come in shortly after 4 p.m. Eastern Thursday.

SEE ALSO: Facebook's usage decline should have investors worried — no matter what Mark Zuckerberg says

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: You've never seen a bridge like this before

ALPHABET EARNINGS PREVIEW: A monster quarter tainted by YouTube's nasty year (GOOG, GOOGL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Waymo just put Uber and Lyft on notice that it’s charging full speed ahead into their core, ride-hailing business (GOOG)

Steve Kovach January 30, 2018 at 12:26PM

• Waymo announced it will buy thousands of self-driving Chrysler minivans in 2018 as it prepares to launch an autonomous car service in multiple U.S. cities.
• Waymo is battling Uber, which announced last year it also plans to buy thousands of self-driving cars from Volvo.
• Waymo has a complicated relationship with its rivals through investments and partnerships.

---

Waymo, the self-driving car company owned by Google's parent, is shifting its ride-hailing business plans into high gear.

The company announced on Tuesday that it's buying "thousands" of autonomous minivans from Chrysler this year as it prepares to launch its own version of a driverless, ride-hailing service in multiple U.S. cities. 

The move marks a significant expansion of Waymo's ride-hailing efforts, and highlights a growing arms race between Waymo and Uber to dominate the transportation services of the future. 

Waymo has been testing its self-driving technology in Phoenix since last year with a limited group of users, who have been able to hitch rides around town for free in the autonomous cars. Waymo said on Tuesday that it plans to open the Phoenix ride-hailing service to the public sometime this year. And the company said it would expand the ride-hailing service to several other U.S. cities using the thousands of Chrysler minivans it is purchasing.

The news is similar to Uber's announcement last year that it will buy up to 24,000 self-driving Volvo cars as it seeks to expand its autonomous service outside closed trials in Arizona and Pittsburgh. 

What happens next

Google has invested more than a billion dollars into developing Waymo's self-driving technology, which it has said could be used for a variety of purposes, including trucking, logistics, licensing, ride-sharing and personal cars.

But until now its self-driving ride-hailing efforts have been limited to the test in Phoenix, and it's not been clear whether the test was a beachhead for a bigger push to build a commercial ride-hailing service, or simply a way for the company to gauge the public's appetite for self-driving vehicles. 

Waymo's announcement on Tuesday was light on details about the forthcoming ride-hailing service. And a company spokesperson declined to say which cities it planned to launch the service in, or when. The company was also mum on the price it would charge passengers to use the self-driving ride hailing service. 

Self-driving technology still suffers from many technical and regulatory limitations. The sensors that the cars rely on to "see" their whereabouts do not perform well in rain or snow. And federal and state governments are still grappling with how to create rules around where and how the cars can be used, as well as thorny liability issues.

A web of alliances in a booming market

It's possible that Waymo still envisions its promised ride-hailing service as more of a proof of concept for autonomous vehicles than a full-fledged business opportunity to capitalize on.

But by ratcheting up its ride-hailing operations, Waymo has an opening into a booming market that will put it on a crash course with Uber and Lyft, the two largest self-driving car services in the U.S. And it comes at a time when both Uber and Lyft are considered top candidates for highly-anticipated IPOs. 

To complicate matters, Waymo's parent company Alphabet also has financial ties to both Uber and Lyft. 

CapitalG, the investment arm of Alphabet, led a $1 billion investment in Lyft in October.

Lyft has also announced a partnership with Waymo on self-driving technology and opened its own self-driving center to work on the technology.

Waymo has an even more complicated relationship with Uber. Waymo's sister company Google Ventures (known as GV) invested about $258 million in Uber in 2013. But now Waymo is suing Uber, alleging one of its former executives stole key self-driving technology when he left Google.

SEE ALSO: The HomePod seems great, but Apple missed a much bigger opportunity

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People are obsessed with this Google app that finds your fine art doppelgänger

Waymo just put Uber and Lyft on notice that it’s charging full speed ahead into their core, ride-hailing business (GOOG) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Amazon has created a new computing platform that will future-proof your home

Steve Kovach January 28, 2018 at 05:30AM

• Amazon is in a better position than any other company to dominate ambient computing, the concept that everything in your life is computerized and intelligent.
• Amazon's Alexa platform continues to get better while remaining open to third parties, unlike Apple's Siri.
• Buying into Alexa now will future-proof your home.

---

Almost four years ago, New York Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo wrote out a strategy to keep all your technology future-proof in a rapidly evolving environment.

His advice still holds up.

Use Apple hardware for your smartphone and PC. Use Google services for things like email, calendar, and maps. Buy all your digital music, movies, and TV shows from Amazon.

Of course, there are caveats to all of these suggestions, but you'll future-proof yourself nicely by following them. Amazon's media can (usually) play on all your devices, no matter what company makes them. Google is not only the best at digital services, it's also platform agnostic. You don't have to be an Android user to get the most out of Google. And Apple still makes the best phones, tablets, and PCs you can buy.

But I think it's time to add one more category to the list: ambient computing, or the concept that there can be a layer of intelligence powering everything in your home from your lights to your thermostat. Many see this as a new phase of computing where our technology works for us automatically. We're in the early days of ambient computing, but there's already a clear front-runner powering its future: Amazon Alexa. 

Right now, Alexa is great at answering basic questions or playing music from streaming services like Spotify. It's also laying the foundation for an Alexa-powered smart home as more and more accessories make themselves compatible with Amazon's platform. Even better, Alexa lets you control all your smart home accessories with your voice, which is a a lot more convenient than poking around your iPhone to turn your lights on.

I gave it a try a few weeks ago, starting small by connecting most of my lighting. I bought a bunch of Wemo smart plugs for all the lamps in my apartment. (My apartment doesn't have a lot of built-in lighting, so I have lamps all over the place instead.) After setting each plug up, I fired up the Alexa app and added the Wemo skill. A few seconds later, I was able to control all my lights with my voice.

Now I'm obsessed with the idea of Amazonifying the rest of my home. I have an Apple TV, but I plan to make the change to the new Amazon Fire TV 4K instead since I can control it with Alexa. ("Alexa, play 'The Good Place' on Netflix.") Instead of a Nest camera, I'm going to buy Amazon's new security camera, which will let me beam the feed to my phone, Fire TV, or Echo Show. ("Alexa, show me what's happening in the living room.")

You get the idea.

No other platform is better poised to dominant ambient computing. It's not going to happen tomorrow, or even next year, but Amazon has done an incredible job of laying the foundation for something much more profound beyond just playing your favorite Pandora station with an Alexa command. 

So what is that foundation? Here are the four key advantages that will propel Amazon to dominate ambient computing.

Alexa is everywhere

During CES this year, I was shocked at how many companies decided to integrate Alexa into their products. Toyota and Ford cars. Kholer bathtubs. Whirlpool ovens and dishwashers. And a bunch of third-party speakers. 

Ambient computing needs a voice assistant to be ubiquitous in order to be successful. If you call for "Alexa" and it's not there to do what you want, it has failed. Amazon's head start getting Alexa into everything, everywhere will help it maintain its lead.

Alexa is open

Part of the reason why Alexa is showing up everywhere is because Amazon turned it into an open platform that anyone can build into. But it's not just physical appliances. Services and apps can build into Alexa, making it easy to add a layer of voice controls to their stuff. 

It's the opposite approach rivals like Apple take, which is why devices like the HomePod feel like a wasted opportunity to take on Amazon's dominance. Siri is limited to Apple's own services and a few other third-party categories like messaging and to-do list apps. It's unlikely Apple will want to go against its DNA and completely open up Siri.

Amazon dominates the smart speaker market

Amazon already owns two-thirds of the smart speaker market, with Google playing catch up. It's likely going to be a two-horse race between the two companies, with Amazon consistently in the lead. The large install base of Echo and Alexa-powered smart speakers provides greater incentive for people to build into Alexa first as opposed to rivals.

Alexa keeps getting better

When the Echo first launched back in 2014, it couldn't do much more than play streaming music from Amazon and help you buy stuff from the company's online store.

You know what's coming next.

Over the years, the Echo has become immensely more powerful and capable. It can stream music from a variety of music services. You can use it to call an Uber or order a pizza from Domino's. It can even make phone calls. Amazon has done a spectacular job at improving the Echo over time. These are speakers you're likely to keep in your home for several years before replacing or upgrading them.

Buying one now guarantees you'll be ready to go for whatever Alexa learns to do next. And, more importantly, it'll make sure your technology remains future-proof.

SEE ALSO: The HomePod sounds great, but Apple missed a much bigger opportunity

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: You've never seen a bridge like this before

Amazon has created a new computing platform that will future-proof your home from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Conservative, white male Google employees are filing HR complaints over conversations people are have about diversity (GOOG)

Steve Kovach January 26, 2018 at 07:34AM

• Conservatives at Google are complaining to HR when colleagues talk about diversity issues, according to a new Wired report.
• Employees told Wired HR is being "weaponized."
• The story comes a few weeks after former Google engineer James Damore said he's suing the company for discrimination against white and male conservatives.

---

Conservative employees at Google are filing complaints to the company's HR department in attempts to shut down conversations about diversity, according to a new Wired story.

The Wired story says conservatives at Google are engaging in conversations about diversity and then complaining to HR that the comments from their colleagues are offensive to white men and/or conservatives. In effect, these employees are using Google's own HR policies against it to prove a point.

From the Wired story:

Meanwhile, inside Google, the diversity advocates say some employees have “weaponized human resources,” by goading them into inflammatory statements, which are then captured and reported to HR for violating Google’s mores around civility or for offending white men.

The Wired story also charts how far-right groups online are exposing the identities of LGBTQ Google employees, a practice that started around the same time former engineer James Damore wrote his infamous memo on diversity at the company that led to his firing last year. Damore is suing Google for discrimination.

You can read the full Wired story here.

SEE ALSO: The HomePod seems great, but Apple missed a much bigger opportunity

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here are the best iPhone apps of 2017

Conservative, white male Google employees are filing HR complaints over conversations people are have about diversity (GOOG) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: CNN's $25 million bet on a YouTube star has failed

Steve Kovach January 25, 2018 at 07:28AM

• YouTube star Casey Neistat is leaving CNN, a little over a year after the company bought his app Beme for around $25 million.
• Neistat was supposed to develop a new millennial-focused outlet for CNN through the Beme app.
• CNN says it will try to find new jobs for Beme employees within the company, but that some will be laid off.

---

CNN is losing YouTube star Casey Neistat and shutting down his app Beme that the company acquired for a reported $25 million in 2016, BuzzFeed News first reported.

Neistat was brought to CNN to turn Beme into a new outlet for digital storytelling. CNN had hoped to leverage Neistat's popularity on YouTube to reach a new generation of viewers. But Neistat told BuzzFeed Thursday he didn't think CNN was a good fit.

Neistat appeared on the cover of The Hollywood reporter last year. In the cover story, CNN president Jeff Zucker said he was interested in Neistat after learning about him from his teenage son.

BuzzFeed reports CNN plans to find new jobs within the company for the 22 employees who worked with Neistat on Beme, but that some will be laid off.

SEE ALSO: The HomePod seems great, but Apple missed a much bigger opportunity

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to screenshot and screen record on an iPhone, iPad, and Mac

CNN's $25 million bet on a YouTube star has failed from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: The HomePod seems great, but Apple missed a much bigger opportunity (AAPL)

Steve Kovach January 23, 2018 at 09:26AM

• Apple's HomePod speaker goes on sale February 9.
• It'll be a great device, but it's much more limited than competing products from Amazon and Google.
• Apple missed an opportunity to be a major player in voice computing hardware, a growing and popular category now dominated by Amazon.

---

After about a two-month delay, Apple's HomePod smart speaker will go on sale February 9.

It seems like a great device, especially when it comes to sound quality. I heard one during a demo last year and it sounded a lot better than competing devices like the Amazon Echo and Sonos Play 3.

But the $350 HomePod will only be a great device for a much smaller addressable market than the competition. Apple has missed its opportunity to break into voice computing hardware, a popular and growing gadget category now dominated by Amazon and Google.

Like I said after CES earlier this month, Amazon and Google now have the lead in voice, and that lead is only going to widen over time as Apple continues to maintain a closed ecosystem.

To recap:

• HomePod is primarily a music accessory, and its voice controls only work with Apple Music: Like the rest of Apple's products, the HomePod is locked into the company's own services, meaning you can't use the speaker to its full potential unless you're an Apple Music subscriber. Spotify, Pandora, Amazon, Google Play, and the rest will technically work with HomePod, but you'll have to beam the music to the speaker from your iPhone using AirPlay, which isn't as good or as natural as using voice controls. There are 30 million Apple Music subscribers, and I doubt many or even most of them will want to drop $350 on a HomePod when there are cheaper and more capable alternatives.
• Echo and Google Home are more affordable: You can buy an Echo Dot or Google Home Mini for as little as $30. At that price, it's easy to put a speaker in every room for voice controls. Most people will only be able to afford one HomePod for now, and its form factor doesn't make sense outside the living room. I doubt many people are going to put a HomePod in the kitchen or bedroom, for example. And, given Apple's focus on high-end sound quality,  I'd be shocked if Apple ever released some sort of cheaper "HomePod Mini" any time soon.
• Alexa and Google Assistant are more open: Voice control needs to work with everything and be everywhere in order to be successful. All the popular stuff you use — streaming music services, smart home gadgets, and everything in between — should be able to tie into the voice assistant. That's possible with Alexa and Google Assistant, but Siri is locked down to just a few categories like Apple Music, messaging, and to-do lists.
• Amazon owns the voice-controlled smart home: Even though Apple has its own solution for smart home gadgets controlled from the iPhone, Amazon and Google have a massive lead in voice control beyond the smartphone. According Consumer Intelligence Research Partners, Amazon had 20 million smart speakers in the US as of November 2017. Google had 7 million. Those numbers are likely a lot higher after the 2017 holiday season, which Apple missed when it delayed the HomePod. Alexa and Google Assistant's popularity and huge lead will only drive more device makers to choose those platforms over HomePod.
• Siri is used differently. Apple said on Tuesday that Siri is "actively used" on 500 million devices. But all of those devices have screens, meaning voice isn't their primary input. After a big head start with Siri, Apple let its lead slip. Now Amazon and Google have created new, rapidly growing ecosystems around voice-first controls powered by their respective assistants. Siri will be great for controlling Apple Music on the HomePod, but not much else.

The HomePod can and will get better and more capable over time, just like the Echo has. And I'm confident it'll be a great accessory for Apple Music subscribers who only want music without any extras.

But Apple missed a huge opportunity to lead in voice computing, and the HomePod only feels like a partial answer. This is the one area that I don't think Apple has the capability to swoop in and reinvent the category like it did with MP3 players, smartphones, and tablets.

SEE ALSO: Facebook is trying to prove it's not a media company by dropping the guillotine on a bunch of media companies

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: These inventions will help save the earth

The HomePod seems great, but Apple missed a much bigger opportunity (AAPL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Rupert Murdoch: Facebook has become 'inherently unreliable' and should pay publishers for posting on the site

Steve Kovach January 22, 2018 at 10:56AM

Rupert Murdoch, News Corp's executive chairman, said in a statement Monday that Facebook should start paying publishers for content displayed on the site.

"The time has come to consider a different route," Murdoch's statement says. "If Facebook wants to recognize ‘trusted’ publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies."

The statement comes over a week after Facebook announced a major change to the News Feed algorithm that will no longer favor as many posts from brands and publishers. Instead, Facebook will promote posts that are likely to encourage comments and discussion.

Facebook said Friday night it would also favor news stories from "trusted" sources picked through surveys of Facebook users. However, it did not say which publishers were considered "trusted" sources and did not elaborate on its survey methods.

Murdoch's statement criticizes Facebook and Google for creating algorithms that are "inherently unreliable" for distributing news.

Here's Murdoch's full statement:

Facebook and Google have popularized scurrilous news sources through algorithms that are profitable for these platforms but inherently unreliable. Recognition of a problem is one step on the pathway to cure, but the remedial measures that both companies have so far proposed are inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically.

There has been much discussion about subscription models but I have yet to see a proposal that truly recognizes the investment in and the social value of professional journalism. We will closely follow the latest shift in Facebook’s strategy, and I have no doubt that Mark Zuckerberg is a sincere person, but there is still a serious lack of transparency that should concern publishers and those wary of political bias at these powerful platforms.

The time has come to consider a different route. If Facebook wants to recognize ‘trusted’ publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies. The publishers are obviously enhancing the value and integrity of Facebook through their news and content but are not being adequately rewarded for those services. Carriage payments would have a minor impact on Facebook’s profits but a major impact on the prospects for publishers and journalists.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Check out these unique bikes if you're looking for an upgrade

Rupert Murdoch: Facebook has become 'inherently unreliable' and should pay publishers for posting on the site from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Tech doesn’t need to be less addictive — it just needs to be better (AAPL, GOOG, FB)

Steve Kovach January 20, 2018 at 06:30AM

• The tech industry has been under increased scrutiny lately over the potential negative effects of its products.
• Many critics are charging that smartphones, social networks, and other tech products and services are encouraging "addiction" — but that's likely overstating the case. Few people's interactions with their devices or services actually meet the definition of addiction.
  
• The real problem with tech products is not that they encourage addiction, but that they're annoying and disruptive — and that's something tech companies need to fix.
  

---

The tech industry is experiencing a whole new wave of backlash and scrutiny.

This time, it's not about fake news or Nazis spreading venom on Twitter. Instead, the focus is on the harmful effects tech products have on users — and the charge that use of the gadgets and services is leading to addiction, perhaps intentionally. 

Earlier this month, for example, a group of Apple shareholders expressed concern that kids were become addicted to their iPhones and urged the company to do something about it. Last fall, former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya charged that social networks were "destroying how society works." Meanwhile, Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google, has been repeatedly beating the drum about tech addiction, telling The Guardian last year that "our minds can be hijacked" by our gadgets and apps.

And that's not to mention the growing numbers of tech executives and other industry figures who have started to raise alarms about the supposedly addictive nature of the industry's products.

These critiques generally boil down to the assertion that tech companies are purposefully and nefariously building products in ways that are designed to mess with users' minds. The more minutes Facebook or Twitter can keep your eyeballs glued to their services, the more attractive and valuable they are to the advertisers who are paying them for your attention.

So tech companies do whatever they can to keep you coming back, goes the charge, intentionally creating features such as "likes" and "replies" that are designed to tap into the dopamine effect — the chemically induced good feeling you get in response to positive stimuli.

But I think the critics are being a little too free and easy with the charge that tech products are causing addiction.

Yes, there are likely many people out there who have become so obsessed with their devices or apps or online services that their attachment to them is having negative effects on their lives. Those people should absolutely get help and find ways to wean themselves off of tech.

But the vast majority of tech users aren't in that boat.

"Addiction is a specific, compulsive behavior," said Nir Eyal, the author of "Hooked: How to Build Habit-forming Products."

Eyal, who advises tech companies on how to create ethical products that don't harm users, added: "For example, I'm not addicted to Facebook unless I can't stop even if I want to. Very few people are actually addicted to tech."

Instead of addiction, the problem most tech users face is their devices and services are annoying and disruptive. It's easy to feel stressed out or overloaded because of them.

In other words, the tech industry doesn't need to worry about making its products less addictive. It needs to focus on making them better.

Earlier this week, the New York Times' Farhad Manjoo offered some ideas for how Apple could "build a less addictive iPhone." Among his solutions were giving users a greater ability to tailor notifications and providing them with more data on how much they're using their devices.

Whether or not such changes will do much for the relative few who actually are addicted to their smartphones, the proposals would represent a great start for making devices work better for all of us.

For example, unless there's a real emergency going on, there's no reason after you've left the office that your phone should buzz incessantly with work-related alerts. Yet I find that happening all the time, thanks to Slack, the chat app we use at work. In its latest update, Slack reduced the amount of control users have over the types of notifications they receive.

Given just how distracting such notifications can be, the app's developers should have done a better job of thinking through the changes, because ultimately they're bad for the company itself. Slack doesn't benefit by turning users into harried workaholics. Instead, it benefits by helping them be better workers.

Tech gadgets and services are supposed to play useful roles in our lives — helping us work, entertaining us, assisting us in solving everyday problems. But too often these products go overboard demanding our attention — without giving us much ability to turn them off. The makers of tech products need to be putting more thought into their design to head off such problems.

The good news is some tech companies are already doing just that.

Last year, Apple introduced a new feature for the iPhone that blocks alerts while you're driving, even making the screen go completely dark until you get out of your car.

And just last week, Facebook announced that it's revamping the way its news feed works, giving more prominence to posts from people close to you and playing down posts from companies and publishers that are all too often little more than clickbait. Company officials acknowledged the change could reduce the amount of time users spend on its service — thus making it less attractive to advertisers — but argued the service will be better for users.

"No company wants users to regret using the product," Eyal said. "The market is taking care of the problem as we speak."

That's not to say the work is over. Far from it. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to products used by kids, as the Apple shareholders highlighted last week. Tech companies need to offer parents greater control over how their children use such products so they can teach good tech habits early.

Additionally, tech sites, gadgets, and services are constantly changing. As they do, we'll likely run into new problems.

But the focus on addiction is overblown and misguided. What we really need from the industry is for it to think through the potential downsides of its products and make them work better for all of us.

SEE ALSO: Sorry, Siri, Alexa's got you beat — Here's why Apple's going to lose the voice computing war to Amazon

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Check out these unique bikes if you're looking for an upgrade

Tech doesn’t need to be less addictive — it just needs to be better (AAPL, GOOG, FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach