On Thursday, Facebook founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, just became the worlds third billionaire to cross the $100 billion mark. Zuckerbergs net worth is now more than $100 billion for the first time since the social media giant has enjoyed a soaring stock price amid the coronavirus pandemic. According to a report published by Bloomberg, the 36-year-old billionaire joins fellow tech titans Bill Gates and Amazons Jeff Bezos, both of whom have already crossed the $100 billion mark. Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates are reportedly the only individuals in the world worth at least $100 billion, according to Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The net worth of Facebook CEO is mainly derived from his stake in Facebook, and Zuckerberg has a 13% stake in the worlds largest social network - Facebook. The founder of one of the largest tech companies and other executives of online companies have enjoyed a mind-boggling accumulation of wealth during the coronavirus pandemic since people are locked into their houses and spend more time on their devices.

Mark Zuckerberg gained nearly $22 billion during 2020, and Jeff Bezos earned more than $75 billion. The staggering numbers have put the CEOs of tech giants under intense scrutiny. Last month, Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, Apples Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Googles Sundar Pichai had to testify before Congress to defend allegations that the power and influence of these tech giants are out of control.

Currently, Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, and Facebook have market valuations equivalent to nearly 30% of the United States gross domestic product. Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook from his Harvard University dorm room back in the year 2004 which is now the worlds largest social media platform. The 36-year-old billionaire says that he plans to give away 99% of his shares in Facebook over his lifetime.

Facebook stock hit a record high following the rollout of Instagram Reels. Reels allow users to create and share short videos on Facebook-owned Instagram app. The feature integrated into Instagram allows users to create and edit 15-second clips, much like the popular video-sharing platform- TikTok. Reels will be made available to users in over fifty countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and India. Instagram Reels is touted to replace ByteDances TikTok. It is interesting to note that TikTok is reeling under the pressure of bans in some markets such as India and the United States.

Read next: How Rich You'd Be If You'd Invested $1000 in These Companies

Read more from the original source:

Mark Zuckerberg Becomes the Third Centibillionaire of the World after Facebook Stock Hits Record High Following the Roll Out Of Instagram Reels -...

Rocket Companies, the now publicly traded parent company of Detroit's Quicken Loans, originated $72.3 billion in residential mortgages during the second quarter a 40 percent increase from the first three months of this turbulent year.

They also added 100,000 clients to their portfolio of 1.93 million mortgages they service each month.

And the company's 19,000 employees largely handled this growth from their home offices, basements, kitchen tables or wherever they've been encamped since mid-March to avoid contracting the coronavirus.

"Working from home has been demonstrated it works and it can be very, very efficient," Rocket Companies CEO Jay Farner said Thursday on CNBC just before the company debuted on the New York Stock Exchange. (See story, below.)

For a company that just reaped at least $1.8 billion in stock sales and is known for wringing out every bit of productivity from its white-collar workforce, working from home has been a success.

It's also probably here to stay.

A recent Crain's survey of metro Detroit C-suite executives found 53 percent of companies either haven't asked employees to return to the workplace or are making it voluntary.

"It's panned out well," said Vince Mattina Jr., president and founding partner of the accounting firm Mattina, Kent & Gibbons, P.C., which has offices in Rochester and Lapeer. "I would anticipate this is going to be a more permanent situation with the ability to do less time in the office virus or not."

The big tech giants like Microsoft, Google and Facebook have announced plans to extend work-from-home into mid-2021. Twitter has told its employees they can work outside of the office "forever."

When the coronavirus pandemic hit Michigan five months ago, most assumed that working from home would be a temporary phase until the public health threat subsided.

The virus would pass, we wrongly assumed.

We'll get back to the office by summer. Wrong again.

In late March, I went into the Crain Communications office and packed up a monitor, keyboard, mouse and computer docking station for my home office, assuming I'd be working there until Memorial Day or Fourth of July at the latest.

Now I think it's safe to assume we'll be mostly working from home or wherever there's strong WiFi and strong coffee until next Memorial Day.

The virus isn't going away, in part because as a society we still haven't come to grips with the necessary social distancing and human isolation needed to wrestle it under control.

With all of the rancor over mask-wearing in public, business travel looks highly unappealing and downright scary for some workers.

In the Crain's C-suite survey, nearly 73 percent of executives surveyed said they were not comfortable attending a business conference.

The survey found 46 percent of executives said they're not asking employees to travel and just 12 percent said they would reinstitute travel in 2021. Fewer than one in every 15 of the executives surveyed said they've taken a business trip outside of Michigan since mid-March, while less than 10 percent said they planned to reinstate company travel this calendar year.

The nearly nonexistent business travel also may be a result of cost-cutting measures to survive. About 82 percent of CEOs surveyed said their businesses had sustained a revenue loss of 10 percent of higher, while 58 percent said they've laid off workers. Another 23 percent said they've imposed across-the-board pay cuts to weather the pandemic recession.

Read the original:

Analysis: Work from home is here to stay, but it sure isn't sitting still - Crain's Detroit Business

Even though women play a significant role in the tech industry, there remains a clear pay difference between them and their male counterparts, recent research shows.

At an average, a woman earns 80.7 cents for every dollar a man earns at a full-time position. According to data issued by the US Census Bureau, womens median annual earnings are $9,909 less than mens.

When considered in the tech sector, women are offered 3% less than men for the same job at the same company, reports job portal Hired.

In this regard, self-reported salary data from PayScale was analyzed by Small Business Prices who looked at salary info for the top 10 Fortune 100 tech companies. They compared the salaries of both men and women and concluded that men reportedly earned more than women.

For instance, Facebook has roughly 50,000 employees globally. The average salary at the tech company is $120,000 while for men, the average is reported to be around $129,000. The same salary is $112,000 for the female, indicating one of the largest gender wage gaps.

Similarly, PayPal and Apple offer women employees $12,000 less than men at an average.

Other leading tech giants such as Microsoft, Oracle, Google Alphabet, Cisco, and eBay have a lower salary package for female workers.

To our surprise, the only company where women excel or make a higher income than men is Adobe. The American multinational software company has more than 22,000 workers worldwide. The average salary here is reported to be $104,000. But women at the firm are earning a whopping $126,500 while men are averagely offered $105,500 approximately $21,000 less than female.

Seems like leading tech companies should reconsider their business protocols and focus more on equality in all areas of their practices. just this week, Apples Tim Cook, Googles Sundar Pichai, Amazons Jeff Bezos, and Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg are scheduled to appear before the Congress and defend the allegation that they are not stifling competition.

Read next:ACSI E-Business Report 2019-2020: Consumer Satisfaction with Social Media Falls 2.8 Percent

See the original post:

What Gender Pay Gap Looks Like at Google, Facebook, Apple and Other Top Tech Companies - Digital Information World

Sushma Ramachandran

Senior Financial Journalist

The chief executives of the worlds four most powerful tech companies were grilled recently by the US lawmakers on a wide range of issues, ranging from competition to alleged theft of data by China. Apple, Facebook, Googles parent company Alphabet and Amazon had to face a barrage of questions that could ultimately decide the future course of monopoly laws in the US. Simultaneously, Australia has laid down regulations to ensure that tech giants will have to pay for the use of news from media outlets. Both developments are of immense relevance in India as these same companies dominate the digital arena here.

Even as Big Tech is facing potential curbs, these entities are also seeing a huge surge in growth and profitability at a time when the global economy is facing severe disruptions owing to the pandemic.

Amazons profits, for instance, rose by 40 per cent in the April-June quarter. Over the same period, Facebooks profits spiked by an unreal 98 per cent, while Apple recorded a 12 per cent growth. Alphabet was relatively a laggard with three per cent profit, but revenue increased by 13 per cent.

In contrast, the world economy is set to contract by as much as five per cent during 2020. The divergence is because the consumption of online content has risen exponentially while the overall demand for other products has fallen precipitously.

Amazon has benefited not just from its Prime Video content but also from the ease of online deliveries at a time when buying from brick and mortar retail outlets has slowed down. Other streaming and OTT platforms have also got a boost globally and in this country.

This has altered the established advertising-cum-subscription model, with ad revenues dipping and subscribers rapidly growing. Some media reports say subscribers have risen by as much as 60 per cent ever since the pandemic began.

The top player in the Indian market currently is the Disney-Hotstar brand with an estimated eight million subscribers followed by Amazon Prime, SonyLiv, Netflix and Voot as well as a host of others.

The other gainers in the digital space are gaming apps which have seen an enormous growth during the lockdown period. Fantasy sports apps are expected to see a spurt as soon as the IPL is revived. The digital arena, thus, continues to thrive at a time when the global Covid outbreak has threatened the very existence of traditional businesses.

A parallel occurrence to the growth of tech giants has been a widening of the digital divide in this country. This has followed a shift to online education after the schools closed down all over the country since the lockdown was imposed at the end of March.

Children with access to devices like smartphones, tablets, computers or even televisions, have been able to utilise the new mode of teaching.

Others, including the urban poor and those in rural areas, have simply been left rudderless without any teaching facilities for months on end now.

Tragic stories have surfaced of children and even parents committing suicide because they could not afford to buy smartphones. Voluntary organisations and individuals have begun drives to provide computers and televisions to children in many parts of the country.

An initiative has even been launched to provide used devices to the needy students. The fact is that this is just not enough to cover the millions of children who need to use online education. Official data says there are over 35 crore students in the country, but no data is available to show how many have access to digital devices or the Internet.

A study done by an NGO of over 40,000 children, covering 23 states in April, found that about 56 per cent children did not have smartphones. Apart from the devices, the other issue was connectivity problems with the Internet.

The Kerala government has tried to overcome this problem by offering classes on television. But this approach has a lacuna as there is no possibility of an interaction with the students.

With online education likely to remain a reality for some more time, it is time to adopt innovative solutions to ensure that millions of children do not lag behind their more affluent peers. One way could be to copy the model of universal healthcare and adopt the slogan of universal smartphones for schoolchildren.

Indigenously made smartphones or tablets could be mass produced and provided to all students of government schools. This would not only provide students with the much-needed devices, but also give a fillip to indigenous smartphone production, a cause close to this governments heart.

But this could take a while and fail to solve the immediate crisis facing the countrys students. Another option could be to open the schools gradually, keeping social distancing norms in place.

And finally, the third and most attractive option could be to tap the deep pockets of the tech giants that are raking in profits right now

during the pandemic. Let them use their enormous resources to provide tech-based solutions to the millions of underprivileged children who cannot access any form of education right now. The fact is, unless the digital divide is bridged, there will be a long-term, adverse impact on these young students. The prosperity of the tech giants is growing owing to their access to the Indian market.

It is thus entirely in the fitness of things that they join hands with policymakers here to provide a concrete solution to the digital divide at this critical juncture.

The government needs to open a dialogue with Big Tech companies and try to solve this problem with their help. Otherwise, the prolonged break in the educational process could have profound ramifications for the youth of the country.

See the rest here:

Tap tech giants to bridge digital divide in education - The Tribune India

Whats the difference between Mark Zuckerberg and John D Rockefeller? Exchange the trainers for a pair of spats, and the T-shirt for a frock coat, and the answer is not all that much, according to lawmakers in Washington: a robber baron is a robber baron whether he wears a top hat or a baseball cap.

The US has a history of bringing antitrust cases against monopolies that stretches all the way back to the breakup of Rockefellers Standard Oil back in 1911.

Now it is the turn of the tech giants to be put under the spotlight, which is why Facebooks Zuckerberg, Amazons Jeff Bezos, Apples Tim Cook and Googles Sundar Pichai were summoned to Capitol Hill last week appropriately, via video stream.

David Cicilline, the chair of the House of Representatives antitrust subcommittee, made it abundantly clear what he thought. All four companies wielded monopoly power and some of them should be broken up. Their control of the marketplace allows them to do whatever it takes to crush independent businesses and expand their own power, he said.

Worryingly for Zuckerberg et al, it was not just Democrats such as Cicilline who were fired up. Republicans on the committee made it clear that they thought the social media companies had demonstrated blatant bias against conservatives. Inevitably, Donald Trump weighed in, saying that if Congress refused to act then he would.

Amazon, Alphabet, Apple and Facebook, together with Microsoft, have sailed through the lockdown and now account for getting on for a quarter of the S&P 500 by market cap

No question, the big four tech companies deserve to be subjected to the closest scrutiny. While none of them has the market dominance that Standard Oil enjoyed at its peak, they all have huge reach. Two of them, Google and Facebook, have no serious rivals.

And they want to keep it that way. The evidence amassed by Congress suggests that whenever Google or Facebook have spotted a potential rival they have used their clout to see them off: sometimes by squeezing firms out of business, sometimes by swallowing them up.

Zuckerberg put up the best defence when he said he had done it the American way, starting with nothing and succeeding by offering better products that appealed to consumers. Companies arent bad just because they are big, he insisted.

Thats absolutely true. There is no law in the US against a small company becoming a household name. There are, though, laws that are designed to prevent companies that make it big from eradicating competitors. Yes, at the moment, it is hard to argue that the tech giants are gouging consumers: Google and Facebook are free, Amazon wins market share by undercutting rivals, and there are plenty of cheaper alternatives to Apple devices.

Even so, there are two reasons why that will not and should not spare the big four from the threat of breakup. The first is that monopolies stifle innovation and that is bad news for consumers in the future. The second is that the concept of the harm that monopolies can do has been broadened out to include potential damage to debate and democracy. Thats the real difference between Standard Oil and Facebook: there was never any suggestion that Rockefeller could swing elections by manipulating the oil price.

All that said, immediate action against the tech giants looks improbable despite the sabre- rattling from both Capitol Hill and the White House. Why? Because Amazon, Alphabet (the company that owns Google), Apple and Facebook together with Microsoft have sailed through the lockdown and now account for getting on for a quarter of the S&P 500 index by total market capitalisation. Does Trump want to crater the stock market by breaking them up? Does Congress? Not really.

Provisions for bad loans landed with a thump at the banks last week. The share prices of Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group and NatWest fell as their boards took a conservative approach to planning for Covid-created losses.

Regulators, however, can give themselves a pat on the back. Amid the lenders grim economic projections, almost no one thinks the UKs big banks need more capital. This happy state of affairs goes almost unremarked, but shouldnt. Lessons from 2008-09 were learned; the recession would be worse with a financial crisis on top.

NatWest, as Royal Bank of Scotland has renamed itself, is sporting a core capital ratio of 17.2%, many times what it had in the bad old days. Lloyds and Barclays arent far behind. The scope for loss absorption, in the jargon, should be enormous. But shareholders, who have essentially funded such strong capital buffers, would like something in return a return of dividends.

The Bank of England effectively banned them in March in the interests of safety, and investors worry that a supposedly temporary measure will be extended again and again. If a lender has more than enough capital to withstand a heavy storm, they ask, why shouldnt it be allowed to distribute the excess? Isnt that the point of investing in a bank? Its a reasonable view.

This battle could become intense. The Bank will review the ban later this year but its statement last week was taken as cautious. It will look at the level of uncertainty on the future path of the economy, market conditions, and capital trajectories prevailing at that time. An extended ban, in other words, is possible.

Necessary too, some would say. Maybe, but nor do we want banks to retreat into full-on safety mode, which wouldnt help the economic recovery. The dividend ban on banks should be as short as possible.

There is a sense of trepidation across the US this weekend after official figures showed the economy shrinking at an annualised rate of 32.9% between April and the end of June.

This fall is more than the 30% drop seen over 15 quarters between 1929 and 1933, and brings home the magnitude of the Covid-19 pandemic. Never before has the US economy experienced anything like it, and to say the figures left economists stunned is an understatement.

The shock was compounded by the realisation that Washington is poised to switch off the unemployment benefit supplement that has kept many families from needing food banks and defaulting on loans since the pandemic gripped the nation in March.

Democrats have pleaded for a change of direction after recent figures showed that the recovery had already stalled. Unemployment claims in the US rose for the first time in four months last month. For people who have lost jobs and now live on credit, the coronavirus benefit supplement is a lifeline.

Meanwhile, GDP in the eurozone declined by 12.1% in the second quarter, the largest quarterly decline on record. It could be said that the same stuttering recovery that characterises the US, and the UK for that matter, is also taking place across the 19 eurozone countries.

However, there is one major difference. The nations that drive the currency blocs economic growth Germany, France, Spain and Italy have pledged to maintain subsidies for businesses and households, knowing that only a consistent and prolonged level of support can prevent the recovery from stalling. A 750bn package of grants and loans for business put together by Brussels, while flawed, helps to reinforce that message.

A second wave of the virus will be a blow to every country that succumbs, but the seriousness with which eurozone countries are dealing with the economic as well as the health effects of the pandemic is likely to prove a winner.

Read more:

Yes, the tech giants are big in truth, probably too big to break up - The Guardian

Microsoft is the oldest on the list but one of the most successful companies in the world. Founded in 1975 by Bill Gates and Paul Allen, it has had its ups and downs since its inception as well as leadership changes in the last few decades.

Like Amazon, Mircosoft is extremely diversified even with runner up products like Bing.

Bing, however, is still profitable growing at a rate of 914% per quarter and still accounts for almost 6.4% of Microsofts total revenue (more than a service like Linkedin). They are also growing at a modest 14.56% since the last quarter of March 31 in 2020, putting them in a favorable growth rate over some of the other tech giants in the list.

One of the major advantages Microsoft also has over other businesses is their influence within the enterprise space. With this, the company has had significant success with not only Microsoft Azure and their office products but recently, with products like Microsoft Teams.

With such a big enterprise footprint, Microsoft has been able to expand newer products into its B2B customer base and also grow their cloud footprint.

This diversified portfolio of products, as well as a huge footprint within the enterprise space, cements Microsoft for many more years to come and will be the unlikely tech giant to fall first along with Amazon.

The only drawback is, in a lot of these product categories, including search, cloud, and gaming, they are only second to the market leader (E.g., Google for search and Amazon for cloud).

The only drawback is, in a lot of these product categories, including search, cloud, and gaming, they are only second to the market leader (E.g., Google for search and Amazon for cloud).

Read the rest here:

Which Tech Giant Is Likely To Fall First? - Medium

In the future, software in products like the Amazon Echo Studio will feature give-and-take conversations.

Two years ago, Amazon announced a new feature for Alexa: the ability to ask questions.Hunches, as they're called, have slowly rolled out since the announcement, and now it's fairly common to hear Alexa move outside her old "answer questions, obey commands" routine. The voice assistant usually asks these questions as follow-ups to your commands or questions, and they're a result of Alexa trying to anticipate your requests -- for instance, reminding you to lock the door at night.

Hunches are only the start.

Subscribe to the CNET Now newsletter for our editors' picks of the most important stories of the day.

During July'sAlexa Live developers conference, Amazon announced another new upgrade: give-and-take conversations with the voice assistant. The tools for such conversation are already being implemented by third-party developers and it wouldn't be a surprise to hear Alexa, in the next few months, begin to ask follow-up questions after you give the usual commands.

These might seem like incremental improvements, but they could dramatically change how we understand and use voice assistants. After all, we've seen movies in which AI creations banter with their creators, but few of us have actually spent time wondering if we'd actuallywantto spend much time chatting with Alexa over coffee each morning. And more importantly, we haven't grappled enough with the costs of such advances.

It's almost passe to talk about the immense troves of data companies like Amazon and Google can tap nowadays, but that data is the fuel powering the smart home's proverbial engine -- and Alexa is the fracking apparatus gathering it.

Amazon's release of the Echo Dot with Clock last year gave a small window into the usefulness of such data: Alexa fields questions about the time of day over a billion times per year, so Amazon built a device to answer that question more effectively. It's simple supply and demand, but where Amazon can quantify the demand with unprecedented precision.

2019's Echo Dot with Clock represents Amazon's data-gathering tools in action.

Now, Amazon is testing out more proactive behaviors for Alexa, having the assistant prompt users on occasion -- and the company can track in real time the rate of success in those predictions. People are responding positively (that is, affirming Alexa's suggested actions) "the vast majority of the time," according to Vice President of Smart Home at Amazon Daniel Rausch.

Rausch and I spoke on the phone before July's conference and he was as excited as ever about the innovations in the voice-driven smart home space. He said more developers than ever are designing Alexa skills and devices to work with the voice assistant -- over 750,000 were registered for the conference -- and it's cheaper than ever to incorporate Alexa-compatibility into any given device, at a jaw-dropping $4.

The growth in third-party development means the instant feedback loop, in which Amazon can roll out features, test them and receive immediate customer response data, is only growing in value for Amazon -- especially as they push deeper into uncharted consumer territory.

Amazon's voice assistant is making itself at home in more than the house, thanks to the Alexa app, Echo Auto and other out-of-home devices.

Perhaps, like the hours of time we spend on our phones each day, we'll arrive at a new norm without ever having time to seriously consider the route we're taking, the destination ahead. Or perhaps, the time to consider such things is now.

The EU is currently looking into Google, Amazon and other tech giants for precisely this kind of data-driven market dominance in the smart home space in Europe -- though the stated goal is to maintain healthy competition.

Another type of inquiry -- formal or informal -- is in order: What exactly could the unforeseen outcomes of expanded voice technology be? Is there a way to progress technologically without risking such outcomes?

Daniel Rausch and others at Amazon are typically hesitant to talk about specific goals in the far future, but the investment the tech giant is making into its voice technology tells us more than you might think about the vision Amazon is pursuing. It's a vision that's simultaneously exciting and concerning.

We're not likely to reach the sci-fi levels Iron Man,Moonor Her too soon, but as we become more accustomed to a give-and-take mode of interacting with Alexa, we're moving toward voice technology taking a much more central spot in our daily lives. As Rausch told me over the phone, Alexa use has quadrupled in the past two years and the increase in Alexa-use is non-linear: Growth over the next year will likely outpace growth over the past year.

As Alexa and other voice assistants find homes in new devices -- controlling our TVs, phones and even microwaves -- and as they also become more predictive and proactive in their interactions with us, we could see the voice landscape dramatically change in increasingly short periods of time.

The Amazon Basics microwave is likely only an early example of what will become normal over the next decade: voice-driven appliances.

More concretely: Within a year, we could conceivably see Alexa (and other voice assistants) hear you walk into the kitchen using abilities akin to Alexa Guard (which can distinguish between human and pet footsteps), ask if you'd like it to preheat the oven for your usual lunch and so on -- all unprompted. Many customers might be happy for such convenience, even given the cost to privacy it represents.

It's not just privacy at stake: People are turning to voice assistants for information on the COVID-19, on mental health, on exercise and more -- and Alexa dutifully provides skills, sometimes hundreds of skills, to address such needs. As one Atlantic writer mused about the future of voice assistants, "With their perfect cloud-based memories, they will be omniscient; with their occupation of our most intimate spaces, they'll be omnipresent. And with their eerie ability to elicit confessions, they could acquire a remarkable power over our emotional lives."

As Alexa changes, so do we. Many of us who use voice assistants regularly have found tricks to interacting with them. Alexa never understands when I ask for the album KTSE by Teyana Taylor, for instance, so I have to play an individual song from it, then tell the assistant to "play this whole album." My wife, who is convinced Alexa is sexist for never understanding her commands as well as the assistant understands mine ("I have more practice," I always assure her, only mostly certain of myself), is much more willing to insult Alexa -- and, strangely enough, to apologize.

I worry about how our three- and four-year-old will interact with voice assistants and I honestly don't know what type of interaction is "right" anyway.

In short, Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri and any number of other assistants are changing privacy norms, changing culture and changing us.

Cameras connected to Alexa and other voice assistants only add another layer of complexity to the conversation.

Can we preserve our privacy -- and ourselves -- and also experience the convenience afforded by such advances? If we try, it will certainly slow things down -- something companies like Amazon are likely keen to avoid.

Privacy policy, messy as it may be, is important here. Bills like California's CCPA (which has only just started being enforced as of July) help cite businesses for violating user privacy or failing to properly inform users about the data being collected on them. Such bills, with the rapid expansion of voice and smart home technology, need to be living documents, developing alongside Alexa and other voice assistants, challenging them where appropriate.

On an individual level, it's still worth practicing privacy hygiene -- deleting apps from your phone if you don't use them regularly, opting for the strictest privacy options from social media and voice assistants and so on. More fundamentally, now is the best time to start asking ourselves what we want our futures to look like, and how much access voice assistants should have to our lives, our homes and our selves.

If a time traveler from the future had told us in 2007 the sleep problems and behavioral changes touch screens would usher into our lives, would it or should it have changed the trajectory of our phone innovations over the next thirteen years to 2020?

If the answer is yes, then another question is worth asking: As we see Amazon actively build toward a future that centrally positions its voice assistant in the home, should we do more to protect what privacy we have left?

Link:

Alexa is starting to ask questions. How should we respond? - CNET

1. Jeffrey Scharf, Everybodys Business | Do tech giants deserve the wrath of Congress?  Santa Cruz Sentinel
2. Tech Giants Face Growing Calls for Tougher Regulatory Treatment  Yahoo Finance
3. Tech industry group highlights positive role in US economy  ZDNet
4. A Battle With Big Tech In The Making? 2020  CL Charlotte
5. Congress presses Big Tech on competition  BayStateBanner
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read the original here:

Jeffrey Scharf, Everybodys Business | Do tech giants deserve the wrath of Congress? - Santa Cruz Sentinel

On 6 August US President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning transactions related to TikToks developer ByteDance Ltd. and Chinas WeChat mobile application, beginning 45 days after the documents signing, citing a continued threat to national security.

Chinas widely-popular WeChat app has been making headlines recently, alongside video-sharing social networking service TikTok, after they became the target of a newly-issued executive order from US President Donald Trump, seeking to prohibit transactions on the platform by any person or involving any property under the United States' jurisdiction, due to cited national security concerns. The order, lobbed at the apps, echoes similar moves taken against Shenzhen-based tech giant Huawei and other Chinese firms.

However, its worth noting that the popular texting app WeChat, which is used in China for handling a broad range of aspects of daily life, can be said to have triggered an intriguing arms race among American tech giants, such as Facebook, Google and Apple, writes Business Insider.

The Tencent-owned Chinese messaging app WeChat, which has become embedded into the lives of hundreds of millions of people in China, launched in 2011 and was initially used to send audio and text messages as well as post pictures, or 'Moments'.

The messaging platform launched its "mini apps" feature in 2017, allowing users to access apps within it without downloading them on their phone.

Since then, WeChat has become the centrepiece of daily life in China; it is the epitome of a single do-it-all app, offering users the opportunity to do everything from book flights and doctor's appointments, to make payments, transfer money, pay utility bills, shop, and even file for divorce, writes the outlet.

Companies like Facebook, Apple, and Google, not to be outdone, entered the fray, and sought to refit their digital messaging offerings to match WeChat's versatility.

Thus, the US tech giants similarly started to allow third-party apps and services to plug into their own messaging platforms.

Not all efforts took off, however, writes the outlet, with the exception of Apple's iMessage, with Facebook and Google subsequently pivoting the directions of their digital messaging apps.

In 2016 Facebook undertook an attempt to transform its Messenger chat app into a platform, seeking to transform it into a more all-encompassing hub, along the lines of WeChat, used for making business interactions, books and playing games.

However, the approach was later partially abandoned in favour of enhancing the Messenger apps speed and communication focus, in a race to compete with Snapchat, introducing a rehashed version of Messenger earlier in 2020, that dropped the "Discover" tab for finding services that work within the app.

Also in 2016, Apple began allowing third-party apps to plug into its iMessage texting app, and currently offers its own mini App Store.

Accessible directly within a text thread, it allows users to download sticker packs, keyboards, and games.

App Clips, a novel iPhone feature, was also unveiled by Apple, and is set to launch in the company's iOS 14 software update this autumn.

App Clips enables users to access certain features of apps without having to download and install them on ones phone.

Thus, one can scan a code on a parking meter and pay from ones phone without having to download a corresponding app for the purpose.

Google was not going to be left in the dust, and launched a messaging app in 2016 called Allo.

The now-defunct app provided a built-in Google Assistant, allowing users to ask questions and perform diverse routine tasks, like booking reservations while remaining within the chat thread.

However, towards the end of 2018, Google stopped supporting Allo, redirecting its focus on its Messages app for Android.

Thus, Chinas WeChat served as a trailblazer, writes the outlet, proving that messaging apps could be useful for so much more than just communication, and seemingly inspiring other tech companies to pick up the pace.

View post:

How Chinas WeChat app sparked new 'arms race' among US tech giants - The Nation

Earlier this week, Google parent Alphabet raised $10 billiondespite already sitting on $121 billion in cash a decision no doubt fuelled by the Feds souped-up money printer and record low interest rates.

But the Mountain View giant is not alone; the rest of US tech is hoarding too.

In 2012, the companies currently featured in the tech-heavy NASDAQ 100 (NDX) stock index collectively held $405 billion in cash and other small investments.Now, theyve amassed more than $927 billion more than half a trillion dollars saved in eight years.

As one might expect, the biggest tech giants have the deepest pockets. But five companies in particular are saving more than any other: Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook.

Together, theyve added $323 billion since 2012. Now,the reserves of those five tech companies represent more than half of the total cash controlled by the entire NDX, which includes around 100 firms.

On the other hand, some would rather deplete their war chests. Hard Fork found networking mainstay Cisco saved the least, now with $20 billion less compared to 2012; biotech play Amgen $14 billion has less; and eBay $3.8 billion.

Still, more than 80% of the companies currently in the NDX added cash to their kitties since 2012.

The real question is: what does Big Tech plan on doing with all its billions? Some companies use extra cash to reward shareholders with dividends, and others opt to buy back their own shares to inspire demand, or some kind of combination.

[Read:Big Tech told Congress theres loads of competition. This chart says otherwise]

But considering the sheer size of the fortunes amassed by techs biggest companies,its equally likely we could see even more acquisitions in the near future no doubt only when all that pesky antitrust nonsense with Congress is over with. Surely.

Published August 6, 2020 17:09 UTC

The rest is here:

NASDAQ 100 sits on nearly $1T in cash and weve got the charts to prove it - The Next Web

BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, Brunei, Aug. 6, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- A Partnership Agreement was signed virtually between Datastream Digital Sdn Bhd (DST) and MultiSys Technologies Corporation (MultiSys), a Software Engineering Solutions company based in the Philippines to strengthen their core into the realm of digital transformation and innovation in Brunei and the Philippines.

The virtual signing ceremony was officiated by both Radin Sufri Radin Basiuni, Chief Executive Officer of Datastream Digital Sdn Bhd (DST) and David Almirol Jr., Chief Executive Officer of MultiSys Technologies Corporation (MultiSys) together with the Guest of Honour, Yang Mulia Haji Sofian bin Haji Mohammad Jani, the Chairman of Datastream Digital Sdn Bhd (DST).

In attendance to witness the virtual signing ceremony in Brunei were His Excellency, Christopher B. Montero, the Ambassador of the Philippines to Brunei, Her Excellency, Puan Hjh Johariah Hj Abd Wahab the Ambassador of Brunei Darussalam to the Philippines, who has joined us virtually from the Philippines and Yang Mulia Tuan Hj Muhammad Yazid bin Dato Paduka Hj Mahadi, Deputy Chairman of Datastream Digital Sdn Bhd (DST). Present virtually in the Philippines were Al Panlilio, President of Smart Communications, Inc. and Jovy Hernandez, President and Chief Executive Officer of ePLDT, Inc.

With this partnership between DST and MultiSys, both parties are leveraging in each other's strengths in telecommunication technology and software engineering solutions to be able to deliver a better access and a smoother user experience across any environment. This collaboration will also present an amazing opportunity to jointly develop and tap the overseas market with innovative solutions.

The proposed development of various technologies will potentially pave the way for DST and MultiSys to expand their Business-to-Consumer (B2C) and Business-to-Business (B2B) solution offerings within their respective ecosystems. Furthermore, MultiSys' existing platforms will also be powered by DST and gradually expand into various MultiSys solutions.

Story continues

Radin Sufri Radin Basiuni, the Chief Executive Officer of DST commented "To be successful in the quest of DST's digital transformation, as a Digital Service provider with its key mission in 'Creating Convenience and Value through a leading Digital Lifestyle Ecosystem,' DST is collaborating with likeminded key players who share similar digital DNA with DST. Multisys is the collaborative partner to DST. Multisys will provide the digital building block that will be powered by DST."

He continued, "Our partnership with Multisys will enhance further with layering digital services on top to better the customer services and engagement to our customers."

MultiSys is working with several government units across the Philippines for its Smart City project. This project is a flagship program launched in 2019 to further ease local government transactions through the creation of application and installation of cashless payment kiosk machines in various government offices and local communities. MultiSys is also in partnership with global tech giants such as Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google for its projects.

David Almirol Jr., the Chief Executive Officer and Founder of MultiSys said, "We are particularly excited about the strategic partnership with DST as we will jointly explore and develop various opportunities that would present a greater digital transformation for both markets. This is especially monumental, not just for the company, but for our country as well as to further highlight the Filipino's tech ingenuity abroad."

This partnership will complement DST in continuing its digital transformation journey in enhancing their digital customer experience to provide a better Smart lifestyle and supporting the Brunei Government's Smart Nation objectives, as MultiSys' system platforms has the capability to support paperless transactions and streamline government processes.

This will enable and empower DST to fully explore and exploit the possibilities of enhancing their service offerings beyond the traditional telecommunications service providers' standard services. DST's digital platform is not an end to DST's transformation agenda. DST is poised to collaborate with other leading digital key players in Brunei Darussalam and abroad in building and integrating further digital platforms outside the realm of telecommunications. This venture will allow DST to utilize this Digital Platform in the region and even to the extent of going beyond Brunei Darussalam.

Company Profile

About Datastream Digital Sdn Bhd (DST)

DST is Brunei's largest telecommunications service provider offering mobile and fixed telecommunications services. With over two decades of providing nationwide mobile services, DST continues to strive in improving and providing the best quality of products and services. Now, DST continues its roadmap of transformation by evolving from a telecommunications service provider to an integrated services provider whilst supporting the Nation's Vision 2035 pushing towards a dynamic and sustainable economy.

About MultiSys Technologies Corporation (MultiSys)

MultiSys is a leading software engineering solutions firm based in the Philippines that provides a wide range of cost-effective, full-scale software services, system platforms and integration services that are being used by more than 2,500 companies and organizations. MultiSys is the technology arm of the MVP Group of Companies which includes PLDT and Smart, two of the Philippines' telecommunications service providers, as well as Meralco, a major electric power distribution company in the country, including its capital region, Metro Manila.

Media Contact

Name: Nurul Nabihah Haji Mokhsen Position: Copywriter, Sales and Marketing, DST Email: nabihah.mokhsen@dst.com.bnTelephone: +6738928383

Name: Freddie Ting Position: Associate Vice President, Digital Business, DST Email: freddie.ting@dst.com.bnTelephone: +6737179293

Photo - https://photos.prnasia.com/prnh/20200805/2877106-1-aPhoto - https://photos.prnasia.com/prnh/20200805/2877106-1-b

SOURCE DST

The rest is here:

DST Expands Digital Transformation and Innovation across Brunei with Tech Giant, MultiSys from the Philippines - Yahoo Finance

The US is expanding its China-targeted Clean Network program to include Chinese-made cellphone apps and cloud computing services that it claims are security risks, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Wednesday.

Mr Pompeo said the US wants to ban untrusted Chinese apps from the app stores of US mobile carriers and phonemakers.

"With parent companies based in China, apps like TikTok, WeChat, and others are significant threats to the personal data of American citizens, not to mention tools for CCP content censorship," he said, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.

But he added that the US also wants to block American-made apps from being pre-installed, or made available for download, on Chinese-made phones and wireless equipment from global giant Huawei and other makers.

"We don't want companies to be complicit in Huawei's human rights abuses or the CCP's surveillance apparatus," the top US diplomat said.

Mr Pompeo also said the US government will seek to limit the ability of Chinese service providers to collect, store and process sensitive data in the United States.

He cited specifically Chinese tech giants Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent.

His announcement came two days after President Donald Trump told Chinese tech company ByteDance to sell its hugely popular TikTok app to an American company or see it shut down by mid-September.

Washington says TikTok gleans massive amounts of personal data from hundreds of millions of users, which could be passed on to Chinese intelligence.

The targeting of app usage and cloud services expands the 5G Clean Path program the State Department unveiled on 29 April.

At its core the program is a multi-country initiative to prevent Huawei and other Chinese telecom suppliers from dominating next-generation or 5G wireless telecom services.

The United States says Huawei technology could open the door for Chinese intelligence to easily tap communications in other countries.

The US government has banned Huawei equipment and strongly discouraged authorities and businesses around the country from using it.

China's ambassador in London Liu Xiaoming condemned on Wednesday the Clean Network program as bullying and called it contrary to free trade ideals.

"The US bullying on the issue of 5G not only undermines fair international trade rules, but also damages the environment of free global market. The US is not qualified at all to build so-called 'Clean Network,'" Mr Liu said in a tweet.

The rest is here:

Mike Pompeo says US is cracking down on the way Chinese tech giants store sensitive data - SBS News

The chief executives of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple were called before a House antitrust committee this week, ostensibly to answer questions about whether they have too much power and whether that hurts consumers.

The tech bosses, who appeared via videoconference, fended off questions about being cyber barons, saying they have plenty of competition and that consumers have other options for the services they offer.

But do they? Last year, in an effort to understand just how dependent we are on these companies, I did an experiment for the tech news site Gizmodo to see how hard it would be to remove them from my life.

To do that wasnt easy. From my years writing about digital privacy, I knew these companies were in the background of many of our online interactions. I worked with a technologist named Dhruv Mehrotra, who designed a custom tool for me, a virtual private network that kept my devices from sending data to or receiving data from the tech giants by blocking the millions of internet addresses the companies controlled.

Then I blocked Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple and Microsoft, one by one and then all at once over six weeks. Amazon and Google were the hardest companies to avoid by far.

Cutting Amazon from my life meant losing access to any site hosted by Amazon Web Services, the internets largest cloud provider. Many apps and a large portion of the internet use Amazons servers to host their digital content, and much of the digital world became inaccessible when I said goodbye to Amazon, including the Amazon Prime Video competitor Netflix.

Amazon was difficult to avoid in the real world as well. When I ordered a phone holder for my car from eBay, it arrived in Amazons signature packaging, because the seller used Fulfillment by Amazon, paying the company to store and ship his product.

When I blocked Google, the entire internet slowed down for me, because almost every site I visited was using Google to supply its fonts, run its ads, track its users, or determine if its users were humans or bots. While blocking Google, I couldnt sign into the data storage service Dropbox because the site thought I wasnt a real person. Uber and Lyft stopped working for me, because they were both dependent on Google Maps for navigating the world. I discovered that Google Maps had a de facto monopoly on online maps. Even Googles longtime critic Yelp used it to tell computer users where businesses could be found.

I came to think of Amazon and Google as the providers of the very infrastructure of the internet, so embedded in the architecture of the digital world that even their competitors had to rely on their services.

Facebook, Apple and Microsoft came with their own challenges. While Facebook was less debilitating to block, I missed Instagram (which Facebook owns) terribly, and I stopped getting news from my social circle, like the birth of a good friends child. I just assume that if I post something on Facebook, everyone will know about it, she told me when I called her weeks later to congratulate her. I tried out an alternative called Mastodon, but a social network devoid of any of your friends isnt much fun.

Apple was hard to leave because I had two Apple computers and an iPhone, so I wound up getting some radical new hardware in order to keep accessing the internet and making phone calls.

Apple and Googles Android software have a duopoly on the smartphone market. Wanting to avoid both companies, I wound up getting a dumb phone a Nokia 3310 on which I had to relearn the fine art of texting on numerical phone keys and a laptop with a Linux operating system from a company called Purism that is trying to create an ethical computing environment, namely by helping its users avoid the tech giants.

Yes, there are alternatives for products and services offered by the tech giants, but they are harder to find and to use.

Microsoft, which is not in the antitrust hot seat this time around but knows what it feels like, was easy to block on the consumer level. As my colleague Steve Lohr notes, Microsoft is mainly a supplier of technology to business customers these days.

But like Amazon, Microsoft has a cloud service, and so a few sites went dark for me, as did two Microsoft-owned services I used frequently, LinkedIn and Skype. Not being able to use tech giant-owned services I love was a hazard of this experiment: As The Wall Street Journal noted, the tech giants have bought more than 400 companies and start-ups over the last decade.

Critics of the big tech companies are often told, If you dont like the company, dont use its products. My takeaway from the experiment was that its not possible to do that. Its not just the products and services branded with the big tech giants name. Its that these companies control a thicket of more obscure products and services that are hard to untangle from tools we rely on for everything we do, from work to getting from point A to point B.

Many people called what I did digital veganism. Digital vegans are deliberative about the hardware and software they use and the data they consume and share, because information is power, and increasingly a handful of companies seem to have it all.

There were two very different types of reaction to the story. Some people said that it proved just how essential these companies are to the American economy and how useful they are to consumers, meaning regulators shouldnt interfere with them. Others, like Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and ex officio member of the Houses antitrust committee, said at the time that the experiment was proof of their monopolistic power.

By virtue of controlling essential infrastructure, these companies appear to have the ability to control access to markets, Mr. Nadler said. In some basic ways, the problem is not unlike what we faced 130 years ago, when railroads transformed American life both enabling farmers and producers to access new markets, but also creating a key chokehold that the railroad monopolies could exploit.

If I were still blocking the tech giants today, I wouldnt have been able to watch this weeks antitrust hearing online. C-SPAN streamed it live via YouTube, which Google owns.

After the experiment was over, though, I went back to using the companies services again, because as it demonstrated, I didnt really have any other choice.

The rest is here:

I Tried to Live Without the Tech Giants. It Was Impossible. - The New York Times

Banning TikTok was only the tip of the iceberg.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday announced a new "Clean Network" initiative, aimed at blocking off large swathes of China's internet from the US.

This comes the same week as President Trump ordered that hugely successful social media app TikTok which is owned by Chinese tech company ByteDance sell off its US business to an American company or else face getting banned.

"The Clean Network program is the Trump Administration's comprehensive approach to guarding our citizens' privacy and our companies' most sensitive information from aggressive intrusions by malign actors, such as the Chinese Communist Party," Pompeo wrote in the announcement of the program.

The plans will stoke worries that the internet is set to become increasingly balkanized, with citizens unable to access certain apps or services thanks to geopolitical tensions.

Pompeo outlined five ways in which the initiative aims to keep China away from America's internet, although he was not entirely clear about how they might be technically enforced.

Pompeo said this part of the initiative is: "to ensure untrusted People's Republic of China (PRC) carriers are not connected with US telecommunications networks. Such companies pose a danger to US national security and should not provide international telecommunications services to and from the United States."

It is not clear from the press announcement exactly how this will work, whether it will bar Chinese telecoms carriers from operating in the US, or whether it might make it impossible for people in China and the US to call one another.

The "Clean Store" part of the initiative aims: "To remove untrusted applications from US mobile app stores," meaning Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store.

This explanation for this runs: "PRC apps threaten our privacy, proliferate viruses, and spread propaganda and disinformation. American's [sic] most sensitive personal and business information must be protected on their mobile phones from exploitation and theft for the CCP's benefit."

This may mean booting Chinese apps, currently permitted on both the major app stores, out entirely.

The "Clean Apps" part of the initiative is: "To prevent untrusted PRC smartphone manufacturers from pre-installing or otherwise making available for download trusted apps on their apps store."

Pompeo specifically names Chinese tech giant Huawei as an example, calling it "an arm of the PRC surveillance state." The US government has long accused Huawei of acting as a proxy for the Chinese government to spy, which Huawei denies.

"These [trusted] companies should remove their apps from Huawei's app store to ensure they are not partnering with a human rights abuser," Pompeo writes.

Currently, US apps including Amazon's shopping app and Snapchat are available on Huawei's App Gallery.

Pompeo says this is: "To prevent U.S. citizens' most sensitive personal information and our businesses' most valuable intellectual property, including COVID-19 vaccine research, from being stored and processed on cloud-based systems accessible to our foreign adversaries through companies such as Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent."

Pompeo writes this part of the initiative is: "To ensure the undersea cables connecting our country to the global internet are not subverted for intelligence gathering by the PRC at hyper scale. We will also work with foreign partners to ensure that undersea cables around the world aren't similarly subject to compromise."

It's not clear how exactly this part of the plan will manifest itself, but in June a DOJ telecoms committee advised the FCC to block the construction of an undersea cable to Hong Kong.

Get the latest Alibaba stock price here.

Here is the original post:

The Trump administration unveiled a wild plan to wall off China from the US internet - Business Insider - Business Insider

NEW YORK (AP) Big Tech continues to steamroll through the pandemic, and strong gains for some of the markets most influential companies on Friday helped Wall Street close out its fourth straight winning month.

The S&P 500 rose 24.90 points, or 0.8%, to 3,271.12 following blowout profit reports from Apple and several other tech titans. The gains didnt come easily, though, and the stock market flipped up and down through the day amid worries about the economy and whether Congress can find agreement on more aid for it.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down as many as 300 points before finishing the day up 114.67, or 0.4%, at 26,428.32. The Nasdaq composite jumped 157.64, or 1.5%, to 10,745.27 on the strength for tech stocks, which also accelerated in the last hour of trading.

Despite the gains, caution was clearly present across markets as the coronavirus pandemic continues to cloud the economys prospects. The 10-year Treasury yield touched its lowest level since it dropped to a record low in March. Gold also continued its record-setting run as investors searched for safety, while the majority of stocks in the S&P 500 sank.

Among the laggards were companies that most need the economy to get back to normal and the pandemic to subside, including many in the travel industry.

Expedia Group slumped 4.6% after it reported weaker results for the latest quarter than Wall Street expected. The companys CEO, Peter Kern, called it likely the worst quarter the travel industry has seen in modern history.

Energy companies were also weak as the pandemic sucked away demand for oil. Chevron dropped 2.7% after it reported a worse loss for its latest quarter than Wall Street expected.

The economy cratered to its worst quarterly performance on record during the spring, and worries are high that continuing waves of coronavirus infections may halt what had been a budding recovery. An extra $600 in weekly unemployment benefits from the U.S. government is expiring with Julys end, and Congress continues to argue about how to provide more support for the economy.

Whether Washington can agree on more aid for out-of-work Americans and quickly is the biggest risk for the market in the near term, said Yung-Yu Ma, chief investment strategist at BMO Wealth Management.

If it doesnt happen in short order, theres going to be a lot of disappointment and unease, he said. I think lawmakers are perhaps underestimating how quickly things could spiral downward without an extension in place. It would take only a few weeks before millions of people are cash strapped.

The S&P 500 made its final leg back into positive territory for the day as top Democrats announced a meeting with White House representatives for Saturday morning to continue talks.

Also helping to prop up the S&P 500 was the power of big tech-oriented stocks. Amazon, Apple and Facebook each reported stronger profit for the latest quarter than Wall Street expected late Thursday, and each rose at least 3.7% in their first trading following the reports. Theyre three of the biggest companies in the world, making up nearly 13% of the S&P 500 themselves, so their movements hold great sway over indexes.

Apple was particularly influential, rocketing up 10.5% following what Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives called a Picasso-like performance for its latest quarter.

Googles parent company, another behemoth in the market, also reported stronger profit than analysts had forecast, but its stock stumbled.

Not only are Big Tech companies growing faster than the rest of the market, some investors have even begun seeing them as safer bets than other stocks because the pandemic is pushing more people online and directly into their wheelhouses. Its a far cry from 20 years ago when tech stocks were seen as the riskiest investments.

The strength for tech is one of the reasons the S&P 500 rose 5.5% in July, its best month since April. Continued, massive amounts of aid from the Federal Reserve has been another linchpin. The index has climbed back within 3.4% of its record set in February after earlier being down nearly 34%.

The gains came even though companies have broadly been reporting sharp declines in their profits, as investors hope that a vaccine can be developed in the next year to corral the pandemic and get the economy closer to normal.

The market knows earnings are going to be terrible now, with a few select exceptions, for the majority of companies, Ma said. Whats really holding up the equity markets is this idea that Yes, its a terrible situation now, but the outlook for 2021 and beyond is markedly better.

Other markets have not shown as much exuberance, though. The yield on the 10-year Treasury ticked down to 0.53% from 0.54% late Thursday. It touched its lowest level since March 9, the day it dropped to its record intraday low just below 0.34%. The yield tends to move with investors expectations for the economy and inflation.

Gold for delivery in December, the most actively traded contract, rose $19.10 to settle at $1,985.91 per ounce after earlier climbing as high as $2,005.40.

Benchmark U.S. crude oil rose 35 cents to settle at $40.27 a barrel Friday. Brent crude rose 37 cents to $43.31 a barrel.

European and Asian markets closed broadly lower.

___

AP Business Writer Yuri Kageyama contributed.

See the rest here:

Tech giants lead gains as S&P 500 closes 4th winning month - The Associated Press

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has halted the merger of FNZ and GBST.

The two retail wealth software firms have a large footprint in the UK sector, the watchdog warned.

FNZ acquired GBST in November 2019, andthe M&A deal has been under scrutiny ever since.

In its phase 2 provisional findings, the CMA said that greenlighting the merger could result in lessening competition within the UK retail platform space.

This could lead to UK consumers who rely on investment platforms to administer their pensions and other investments facing higher costs and lower quality services, the regulator added.

The merger would create the largest supplier in the UK, holding nearly 50% of the market.

Before striking the deal, the two firms were competitors in the space, where customers viewed them as close alternatives, the CMA said.

If FNZ and GBSTwere allowed tocombine, there would only be one provider that could keep up with their offering, according to the watchdog:a firm calledBravura.

The competition regulator has also set out a list of options available to FNZ to mitigate its concerns, which include selling part or the entirety of GBST.

Martin Coleman, chair of the CMA inquiry group, said:The evidence weve seen so far consistently points in the same direction that FNZ and GBST are two of the leading suppliers within this market and compete closely against each other.

Thats why were concerned that their merger could lead to investment platforms, and therefore indirectly millions of UK consumers who hold pensions or other investments, facing higher fees and lower quality services.

Were now inviting comments on our provisional findings and possible remedies.

View original post here:

Merger of wealth tech giants blocked - International Adviser

In addition to recreating TikToks algorithms, an American acquirer would also need to work quickly to preserve TikToks other valuable asset: its creator culture. As my colleague Taylor Lorenz has written, TikTok is home to a large, vibrant community of creative talent, some of whom make a full-time living from the app. Those people are attracted to TikTok partly because the platform gives them a way to reach a mass audience. But theyre also attracted to it because TikTok has cultivated an aura of cool through advertising, striking partnerships with music festivals and other popular events, and hosting exclusive parties for TikTok creators at industry events like VidCon.

Already, Facebook is reportedly trying to poach popular TikTok creators for Instagram Reels, its new TikTok clone, by dangling six-figure deals in front of them. And if TikTok is acquired by Microsoft a company not historically known for its youth appeal creators could sense that its time to move on.

TikTok could try to lower the risk for an acquirer by striking multiyear exclusive deals with its most popular American creators, the way that platforms like YouTube and Twitch have done. It could also accelerate its plans to let popular users earn money from the platform. But without a firm grip on its A-list talent, TikToks acquirer wont be assured that the platform isnt losing its edge.

Hank Green, a YouTube star and chief executive of the education company Complexly, who has more than 600,000 followers on TikTok, said that a TikTok acquisition could make creators more skeptical of the companys motives.

One of the things about TikTok is theyve been able to make lots of changes really fast, and people are open and receptive to that, Mr. Green said. If you see that change as coming from outside the ecosystem, that can feel like a foreign change.

Many of the people I spoke to agreed that even with the potential pitfalls and unresolved questions, the opportunity to buy TikTok is a once-in-a-decade deal for the right acquirer. Popular, growing social networks are exceedingly rare, and TikTok has already made itself a fixture of American culture in a way that few other apps ever have.

TikTok is compelling, not just because of its large and growing user base, but also because of its platform potential to expand into e-commerce and livestreaming, said Connie Chan, a partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. Video is a fantastic way to sell things and short videos are perfect for product discovery.

See more here:

Is TikTok a Good Buy? It Depends on Whats Included - The New York Times

In what seems to be a common occurrence, Chinese video-sharing app TikTok is once again in the headlines.

After months of speculation about national security risks and users data being harvested by the Chinese Communist Party, US President Donald Trump has announced plans to ban TikTok in the United States any day now.

In response, a deal is being negotiated between TikToks parent company ByteDance and US software giant Microsoft. If successful, Microsoft will take over the apps operations in the US and potentially also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

A US ban would not be unprecedented. India barred TikTok last month, alongside dozens of other Chinese-owned apps and websites.

According to reports, ByteDance has agreed to sell some of its TikTok operations to Microsoft. The deal, which is unlikely to progress before mid-September, would appease US regulators and could be seen as a way forward for TikTok in Australia.

Microsoft has indicated any takeover would include a complete security review and an offer of:

continuing dialogue with the United States government, including with the president.

Moving ownership to a US company could help address concerns surrounding the perceived influence of the Chinese government over TikTok. But there will need to be strong oversight to ensure existing user data is transferred entirely to Microsofts control.

While Microsoft has pledged to ensure TikTok data are deleted from servers outside the country after it is transferred it would be difficult to prove copies had not been made before control was handed over.

Whats more, a Microsoft-owned TikTok may not appeal to everyone. Some may think Microsoft is too closely tied to the US government, or may consider it a monopoly holder in the personal computing market.

Also, it would be naive to think foreign governments will not be able to covertly access US-stored user data, if they are so inclined.

Should the deal go ahead, it may open an opportunity for the Australian and New Zealand governments to align with a US-supported initiative.

Australia is still deciding how to proceed, with the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media due to hear from TikTok representatives on August 21. The committee has been tasked to look at the influence of social media on elections and the use of such platforms to distribute misinformation.

TikTok wont be alone though Facebook and Twitter are both due to attend. It is, however, unlikely the Microsoft acquisition will have much influence on the proceedings as the deal is still in the early days of discussion.

Microsofts acquisition may introduce fresh concerns about the US governments influence over TikTok. Although, this is perhaps more politically palatable than potential Chinese government influence over the app given the Chinese Communist Partys unsavoury record of privacy abuses.

Perhaps the only winner from the deal would be ByteDance itself. A product that is increasingly disliked by foreign governments will only become harder to sell with time. It would make sense for ByteDance to cash out its asset sooner rather than later.

The deal would also likely earn it a significant payout, given TikToks millions of users.

Read more: TikTok tries to distance itself from Beijing, but will it be enough to avoid the global blacklist?

Despite ongoing allegations, there is no solid evidence of a threat to either national security or personal data from using TikTok. Many of the concerns hinge on data sovereignty specifically, where data are stored and who can use and access them.

TikTok has responded to allegations by stating its user data are not stored in China and are not subject to Chinese government influence or access.

That said, while TikTok user data may well be stored outside China, it is unclear whether the Chinese government has already secured access, or will seek to do so later through legal channels.

Read more: China could be using TikTok to spy on Australians, but banning it isnt a simple fix

There are, however, other potential issues that may be driving the USs concerns.

For instance, in 2018 an unexpected consequence of sharing fitness tracker data through the Strava website inadvertently revealed the locations of secret US military bases.

Thus, services such as TikTok which are meant to be relatively benign (if used ethically) can, under certain circumstances, present unexpected threats to national security. This may explain why Australias defence forces have banned the app.

Read more: Strava storm: why everyone should check their smart gear security settings before going for a jog

Threats from the US against TikTok are not new.

The countrys Secretary of State Mike Pompeo indicated TikTok was being examined by US authorities in early July. And suggestions of a national security review go as far back as November last year.

However, in regards to Trumps most recent threat, one contributing factor may be the personal feelings of the president himself.

There are theories much of the new hype over TikTok could be a reaction from Trump to an ill-fated political rally in Tulsa.

A number of TikTok users reserved tickets to the Trump rally and didnt show up, as a protest against the president. The rally saw only a few thousand supporters attend, out of hundreds of thousands of allocated tickets.

Continue reading here:

Microsoft's takeover would be a win for TikTok and tech giants not users - The Conversation AU

By the time the subcommittee called the CEOs, it had amassed deep knowledge and uncovered a damning paper trail. With many of their questions, members seemed to know the inner workings of the companies better than their executives. Asking about anticompetitive practices, Cicilline reduced Googles Sundar Pichai to mumbling incoherently about kettlebells; using specific examples, the subcommittee members Pramila Jayapal and Joe Neguse prodded Amazons Jeff Bezos into admitting instances of his companys anticompetitive behavior.

Ever since the election of President Donald Trump, which revealed the rampant manipulation of social media, the backlash against Silicon Valley has often felt shapeless. Because these companies have tendrils extended into seemingly every aspect of American life, the complaints against them have sprawled. They have been criticized for an insensitivity to privacy, their role in the proliferation of misinformation, their cozy relationship with China, their creation of addictive products, their tax-avoidance schemes, and so on. With such a boundless litany of attacks, the companies have benefited from their critics failure to focus their arguments.

But where Zuckerberg suffered a barrage of disconnected complaints, these hearings got to the nub of the problem: The internet has allowed the creation of a new style of monopoly. Nobody escapes the pull of these dominant firms, which have the power to pick winners and losers, in both the economy and the realm of information. The long, familiar list of complaints about the tech giants was distilled to its most essential elementthe danger that concentrated market power poses to competitive capitalism and democracy.

Franklin Foer: What Big Tech wants out of the pandemic

Like every other occasion in Trumps Washington, the hearings featured instances of partisan sniping. But what made the proceeding so distinctive is the broad agreement they evinced. Hardly any member was willing to defend the companies with anything close to conviction. Even when Trumps devoted defender Jim Jordan launched into conspiracy theories about how Google aims to strangle conservative opinion, he was mouthing a version of Cicillines argument. The companies, Jordan was saying, have become omnipotent gatekeepers with the power to invisibly shape the flow of information however they please.

Invoking a dusty name, several Democrats on the committee spoke reverently about the Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who led the anti-monopoly movement of the early 20th century. By conjuring his ghost, they were aligning themselves with an older, more pugilistic strand of antitrust than has been practiced in Washington the past few generations. They were signaling a broader revolt against the long-dominant Chicago school of political economy, under which the governments worries about monopoly narrow to a standard called consumer welfare. In that paradigm, regulators and courts sought to punish only monopolies that raised prices, which meant that they rarely took any action at all. (And the standard seems antiquated in an era when many tech companies give their products to consumers for free.) But todays hearings represented a return to Brandeisian worries about corporate behemoths, about how they use their size to hurt small businesses, how concentrated economic power can so easily distort the functioning of democracy.

The rest is here:

The Tech Giants Are Dangerous, and Congress Knows It - The Atlantic

This week, a house panel is inquiring about the state of competition among Silicon Valley giants such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. The CEOs of the infamous tech behemoths will testify at a virtual hearing on Wednesday.

This antitrust investigation fits into a bigger picture of tech giants criticized for their anti-competition practices favoring their own products, monopolizing the market, and choking off competition through the acquisition of startups before they have a chance to take off, creating an imbalance in the tech-verse.

The high-profile hearing proceeds as the industry continues to reel from a widespread backlash against large tech corporations, known as Techlash, that gained momentum in 2018. Recurring issues regarding data privacy, consumer rights, and the power of tech giants in influencing political outcomes, have added fuel to growing weariness and skepticism towards big tech practices.

The hearing will mark the first time Amazons Jeff Bezos (with a net worth of US$171.6 billion) will testify before Congress, but also the first time for all four CEOs will testify at the same congressional hearing. The event is expected to be the first step taken towards laying a blueprint for antitrust regulations in the tech world.

Since last June, the Subcommittee has been investigating the dominance of a small number of digital platforms and the adequacy of existing antitrust laws and enforcement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Antitrust Subcommittee ChairmanDavid Cicillinesaid in a joint statement.

Given the central role these corporations play in the lives of the American people, it is critical that their CEOs are forthcoming. As we have said from the start, their testimony is essential for us to complete this investigation.

Californian consumer tech leader Apple is being investigated for the way it manages its apps store after claims were made that the iPhone maker gives preference towards its own apps over third-party entities. Many app developers have called out the firms ironclad control of its App Store, accusing the firm of applying rules inconsistently, particularly for apps that compete with Apples own products. Ultimately, this can lead to higher prices and fewer choices for consumers.

For its part, social media giant Facebook is involved in seemingly endless controversy, but the hearing will focus on allegations over data privacy and its acquisition of large entities such as Instagram and WhatsApp. Taha Yasseri, asenior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute said, one company owning four of the most popular social networking and communication apps, at best, can be described as a data monopoly.

Combined, the data from multiple platforms can lead to an extremely high level of precision in modeling our traits and behaviors. This amount of power should be regulated. said Yasseri.

However, Facebook haswon a temporary halt to a demand byEU investigators to turn over vast amounts of data, potentially frustrating efforts to build an antitrust case against the US tech giant. Facebooksued the Brussels-based commission on July 15, citing the exceptionally broad nature of the EUs orders.

Tech titan Google will likely be questioned over its unparalleled dominance on the ad and search market, while Amazon will be scrutinized on whether it promotes its own brands ahead of small sellers on its platform, and whether it capitalizes on data from smaller sellers for the benefit of its own business.

Analysts said the hearing marks the initial steps for antitrust laws to be rewritten, ensuring the rules are updated and set for the tech industry today. The hearing could see, for example, Amazon change the way it develops private label products.

So I mean, if you think about the core of anti-trust law, its not illegal. Its not forbidden to become a dominant company or a monopoly, Peter Choi, Vontobel quality growth analyst, toldYahoo Finance. Its more about the way you obtain that dominant position. And do you misuse that to sort of, you know, gain leverage in an adjacent market.

See the original post:

Tech CEOs antitrust hearing what awaits the tech giants? - TechHQ