Monthly Archives: April 2021

Historic rivalries, antitrust laws and a culture of fierce competitiveness have made multilateral partnerships in technology very rare indeed. Now in response to Chinas determination to reach global dominance in chips, AI and software platforms, the previously impossible may be about to happen.

A second development has forced a rethink on deep multi-year international partnership deals: the slow competitive slide of several of the largest players. IBM no longer dominates as the servant partner meeting every technology need of the giant multinationals. Intel has been increasingly challenged by upstarts, even losing one important customer, Apple, entirely. Even Microsoft is in a tough battle with Amazon over cloud dominance.

Tense relations between allies at the political level threatened to infect relations among national tech champions as well. But it was Chinas aggressive pursuit of global dominance that appears to have been the trigger for this new coalition.

Just 39 days after his return to Intel as its CEO, Pat Gelsinger unveiled an hour-long video presenting a grand tech alliance, assembling partners around the globe. His presentation was confident and optimistic, especially given Intels long decline. As his partners were introduced one by one in their own mini-videos, the reason for Gelsingers confidence became clear. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and IBMs CEO Arvind Krishna each sung the praises of the proposed partnership, joined by announcements of support from virtually every traditional major player in technology, from Samsung and TSMC in Asia, to Qualcomm and Cisco in the U.S. nearly a dozen in total.

The plan: Intel will establish a separate chipmaking entity exclusively devoted to serving its former competitors chipmaking needs, independent of Intels own fabrications. This stand-alone chip foundry will spend $20 billion immediately on new plants in the U.S. and the EU. Unlike Intels former do it alone in-house strategy, CEO Gelsinger also announced multi-year research partnerships with former competitors, promising to take their best innovation into Intel products, and likewise sharing Intels best with partners. He predicted this would lead not only to Intels revival, but that it would help balance the current 80/20 division of high-end chip production in Asia versus the rest for the world.

Together, the new facilities and large research budgets hope to solidify Intel and its partners in every key sector of technology leadership chip design and manufacture; systems and processing architectures; telecom and AI.

Gelsinger stressed the commercial logic, but he quietly let drop the encouragement of American and EU governments for this new alliance, including their financial and political support. Chinas name was never uttered, but the necessary security needs of each of our partner governments was the thinly veiled code.

It may all come to grief over territory and the companies long histories of occasionally bitter rivalry. But one would be foolish to bet against joint efforts by the largest old-school technology giants on three continents. Noticeably absent from the collective back-patting were new tech titans Google, Amazon et al. However, Gelsinger was sufficiently gracious as to extend an offer to the client who had so publicly jilted them, Apple, to join the gang.

This is the latest revelation of the damage that President Xi is doing to Chinas own interests in so aggressively attacking former friends and at least nominal allies. If such a consortium were to be launched in battery technology and its China-dominated rare-earth supply chain, the multiplier impact on Chinas competitiveness would become even more threatening.

There was only glancing reference to the role governments played as marriage brokers. Watching the sure-footed launch and given the warm reaction from the tech sector globally, officials in Brussels, Tokyo, Seoul and Washington were no doubt smiling to each other and saying, Thank you, Mr. Xi!

Now that President Biden has launched his massive infrastructure play, do not be surprised if similar consortia emerge across many national boundaries, connecting industrial and civil engineering giants from half a dozen countries with one exception, China. Bidens presidency has shown bold competence since its launch, and the curtain has now been lifted on its China-pushback strategy in technology.

Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...

RS

Read more:

The rise of China is prompting an unusual alliance of tech giants - Toronto Star

One of the giants of gaming hardware, Nvidia has emerged as a key player in the market for software-defined data center networks. Nvidia is one of the largest semiconductor manufacturers, and is probably most known for the realistic and visually appealing graphics you see in video games. Interestingly, the GPU (graphics processing unit) maker is decreasing its reliance on the video game market and venturing into selling components to data center owners.

The company saw that sales from this segment surpassed gaming revenue for the first time in the fiscal second quarter 2020. Not as well-known for its semiconductor business, Nvidia hit the milestone of US$1 billion in revenue for the enterprise-based data center in the first quarter last year, driving Nvidia to delve further into the realm of software-based business solutions.

The coronavirus outbreak has started a ripple effect in the surge of demands for laptops and cloud-powered products that require the support of graphic processors. Its an increasingly expanding enterprise client base that requires chips to optimize artificial intelligence (AI) workloads.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang noted that the pandemic had expedited an ongoing trend: This is not a momentary thing, its clearly the future brought to the present, Huang told a Bloomberg report.Even though the company saw its data center division outperform its gaming unit for the first time, Huang was predicting a strong second half for gaming. He continued in a conference call with analysts I think this may very well be one of the best gaming seasons ever.

In the same vein, console giants Microsoft and Sony are now set to develop the next-gen gaming consoles. Chinese tech behemoth Tencent also saw its online game revenue increase by 40% year on year, growing to 38.29 billion yuan (US$5.5 billion). As one of the companys core divisions, analysts at China Merchants Securities predict Tencent to profit up to 41.6 billion yuan (US$6 billion) in online gaming.

The ongoing global pandemic had led to worldwide lockdowns and movement restrictions. Industry analysts were quick to spot an uptick in gaming as a popular activity during the stay-at-home mandates. The increase in the accessibility and affordability of gaming and video game consoles will push the global gaming market to pull in US$159.3 billion in revenue this year, according to predictions forecast by Newzoo senior market analyst Tom Wijman.

A standout among Chinese eSports giants, Tencent has been bullish in its strengthening its standing in the gaming business. The Shenzen-based tech company is close to completing the acquisition of a majority equity interest in Byment, a company that focuses on the incubation and integration of online animation IP that will boost its IP development and in-house movie and gaming segments. The Chinese tech heavyweight is also gripping its claws in the Southeast Asia market by purchasing Malaysian video streaming platform,Iflix, for its content, technology, and resources.

Tencent was reported to have about 40% stake in Epic Games (developer of Fortnite), and this month has invested in French mobile game developerVoodoo. The move is speculated to tie in with the companys plans to diversify its gaming portfolio and include hyper-casual mobile games.

Continue reading here:

Tech giants are revving up their engines in the gaming business - TechHQ

The smarter cars are becoming, the more exposed they are to cyberattacks, and its probably just a matter of time until more malicious actors start targeting vehicles in an attempt to wreak havoc on public roads.

In other words, the duo wants to build a full security offering whose purpose would be not only to monitor connected vehicles but also to offer accurate detection and early response to attacks.

Panasonic already has such security operation centers in place since 2016, though theyve been specifically used to protect systems and networks related to factory equipment.

But in an attempt to expand to the automotive industry, Panasonic has come up with what is being called an Automotive Intrusion Detection System, which monitors a vehicle, and whenever a cyberattack is detected, it automatically sends data and logs to the SOC.

This is where McAfee comes into play, as its security know-how would help look into cyberattacks and block them in a timely manner.

McAfee supports world-class SOCs and Managed Security Services (MSSs), and has the know-how cultivated by building and operationally supporting numerous SOCs. The Company will bring these together and start building vehicle SOCs to monitor cyber-attacks that may be conducted against vehicles around the world, the company explains in a press release, also embedded below.

The investments in connected cars and autonomous vehicles are skyrocketing these days, with tech giants themselves also getting ready to step into the automotive industry. Chinese phone company Xiaomi has already confirmed an electric vehicle project, while rival Apple is expected to announce an autonomous EV currently referred to as the Apple Car in 2024 or 2025.

Read the original here:

Tech Giants Join Forces to Block Hackers From Breaking Into Cars - autoevolution

People familiar with the matter said Xiaomi has already found a carmaker to take care of the manufacturing business, as Great Wall Motors, the second-largest auto company in China, would handle production at its factories.

But Great Wall has denied this possibility in a filling, and Xiaomi itself has remained tight-lipped on whos going to manufacture its EV.

Nevertheless, this doesnt mean Great Wall isnt interested in such a project, with one of its executives explaining recently that his company is ready to work with any tech giant for the development of an electric car. Maybe even Apple, though were not sure the Cupertino-based tech giant would favor a deal with a Chinese firm given the recent trade tensions between the United States and the Beijing governments.

We do not exclude any potential partner for a tie-up, Li Hongqiang, investor relations manager at Great Wall, has recently been quoted as saying. In the IoT (Internet of Things) era, Great Wall will cooperate with more companies to deepen our digitalization drive.

In the meantime, it now looks like both Xiaomi and Apple are seeking a partner to make their EVs happen, though, at first glance, the Chinese smartphone manufacturer has bigger changes to join forces with a domestic carmaker for this project.

On the other hand, Apple is likely to turn to long-time partner Foxconn, which is currently the number one firm building the iPhone. Foxconn is also making big investments in EV production capacity, including in North America, with the company expected to announce a new location where it plans to build cars by the summer.

If Apples partnership with Foxconn expands in the EV business, its believed the Apple Car could be on the market in 2024 at the earliest.

Continued here:

Carmaker Says It's Ready to Work With Tech Giants, Including Maybe Even Apple - autoevolution

The DealBook newsletter delves into a single topic or theme every weekend, providing reporting and analysis that offers a better understanding of an important issue in the news. If you dont already receive the daily newsletter, sign up here.

Many companies made changes to survive the pandemic. For tech companies, the changes were also about seizing opportunities to thrive as life abruptly moved online. Few companies have juggled these risks and rewards in as many industries, across as many countries, as Prosus, an Amsterdam-based conglomerate that in 2019 was spun out of Naspers, the South African tech and media giant.

Prosus holdings run from e-commerce and classifieds to food delivery, fintech and more. The group is valued at around $180 billion, which makes it one of continental Europes 10 largest companies. It operates in more than 80 countries and owns sizable stakes in the internet giants Tencent of China and Mail.ru of Russia. The companies that Prosus controls employ around 20,000 people, and many more work as contractors or at companies in which Prosus holds smaller stakes.

That breadth gives Bob van Dijk, the chief executive of Prosus, a unique vantage point from which to assess the tech industrys fortunes, particularly in emerging markets like Brazil, Russia, India and China. Will pandemic habits persist? Can regulators rein in Big Tech? Have the markets gotten ahead of themselves? Mr. van Dijk sat down for a virtual interview to assess the tech worlds prospects in the years ahead.

Prosus has fared relatively well during the pandemic. In the six months to September, the latest results available, its revenue and profit rose around 30 percent. Its stake in Tencent alone added nearly $3 billion to its bottom line over that time.

When the pandemic hit, the downturn wasnt felt evenly across the groups portfolio. The upturn has similarly reflected how government stimulus, access to vaccines, mutations in the coronavirus and a host of other factors have varied from country to country.

The hardest-hit markets where Prosus operates remain Latin America and South Africa, while Europe and North America suffered initial hits to their economies followed by spurts of recovery. Asia has largely bounced back.

The pandemic lockdowns changed consumer behavior, forcing Prosus to adapt in ways that Mr. van Dijk believes will be permanent. We dont have any reason to believe they will go away, he said, adding that the pandemic essentially brought the future forward by a few years.

In short, that means greater automation and less human contact.

In our e-commerce business, we already had drop-off lockers, Mr. van Dijk said. Thats become very, very prevalent. We figured that people like it. Its no-contact delivery.

Spurred by necessity, Prosus portfolio companies found other ways to wring efficiencies. We found that more of our business can be automated than we thought, he said. That was pushing us further down the curve of making a very smooth customer experience that has as few touch points as possible.

For example, its classifieds business, OLX, began asking customers to inspect the cars for sale themselves, reducing social contact.

When forced, you can think creatively, Mr. van Dijk said.

Food delivery, unsurprisingly, has been as strong a business for Prosus during lockdowns as it has been for Uber, DoorDash and others. But Prosus companies like Delivery Hero and iFood took steps to help preserve long-term good will with its partners at the expense of short-term profits. In Brazil, for example, we paid restaurants much quicker than we usually did, Mr. van Dijk said. From a cash-flow point of view, that was actually pretty important in keeping restaurants in their good graces, reducing potential tensions between restaurants struggling during the pandemic and online delivery apps seeing demand soar.

Today in Business

April 2, 2021, 3:58 p.m. ET

It was a similar story in India for classifieds. We reduced fees substantially, or we waived fees, he said. That allowed people to preserve cash. When things started to come back again, there was a lot of appreciation around that.

Though Prosus is emerging from the pandemic in a position of strength, Mr. van Dijk said the company wouldnt be able to escape a global push by governments to constrain the power of tech giants in antitrust, labor and other areas.

Hes not necessarily fighting the new wave of regulation, and offered a historical analogy: When the first cars were in the world, there were no rules whatsoever. When there were more cars, that was not fine. Advances in technology will naturally require the law to catch up, he said, calling the trend toward stricter regulation a sensible move.

One major concern among tech giants is the rollout of so-called digital services taxes throughout Europe, meant to collect more revenue from multinational companies that do extensive business in countries without much of a physical presence within their borders. Those wouldnt apply to Prosus, Mr. van Dijk said we invest locally and pay taxes but he added that the charges could erode the industrys profit margins.

I understand where it comes from, he said, but sometimes the regulation is a little blunt.

What could hurt Prosus, Mr. van Dijk said, are changes to the gig economy, particularly efforts to entitle delivery drivers to worker benefits. Some drivers prefer the flexibility of being contractors, he said, and we try to pay people properly regardless of what the legislation is. As far as he could recall, Prosus has never lobbied against classifying workers as employees, as rivals like Uber have.

Another area to watch is China, which has moved to rein in some of its homegrown internet behemoths. Though officials have focused largely on Alibaba, Tencent hasnt escaped their gaze: The company, which Prosus bought into back in 2001, was among those fined last month for violating antitrust rules. It is Prosus single biggest investment, and a tougher crackdown could batter the conglomerates market value.

Despite the stakes, Mr. van Dijk downplayed the threat. Our impression is that China is still very supportive of its tech giants, he said.

The enormous financial rescue plans enacted by many governments to combat the pandemic unleashed a torrent of money into the global monetary system. Much of that money made its way into the tech sector.

Market valuations for technology have become quite full, Mr. van Dijk said. Theres a lot of money looking for a return.

Last summer, Prosus was outbid for eBays classifieds business, which went to Adevinta of Norway for $9.2 billion. That defeat followed a losing effort to acquire the restaurant delivery company Just Eat, which Takeaway.com bought for $7.8 billion.

Perhaps surprisingly, Mr. van Dijk said Prosus hadnt encountered much competition from special purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, which have raised nearly $100 billion this year and are very active acquirers of tech companies. This may be in part because SPACs are largely a U.S. phenomenon, although other countries have been trying to court the blank-check firms.

Mr. van Dijk said Prosus might eventually find itself competing with SPACs, particularly for later-stage private companies. In the meantime, Prosus itself invested $500 million in a SPAC last year when the shell company merged with Skillsoft, an education technology firm.

Lately, Prosus has mostly been investing in its existing businesses. Putting money into there is still a good idea, Mr. van Dijk said. And a few months ago the company announced that it would buy back $5 billion of its shares.

Things are looking slightly more measured these days, Mr. van Dijk said, with valuations coming down to much more sustainable levels. For a serial dealmaker, that means opportunity: Its easier to do acquisitions in a market that is cooling off.

What do you think? Can tech companies maintain the momentum theyve gained during pandemic? Is the market cooling off? Let us know: dealbook@nytimes.com

Read this article:

Bob van Dijk of Prosus on the Future of Technology - The New York Times

When Google started back in the late 90s, the idea that the two zany Stanford graduate students rollerblading around campus with no real business plan could one day be accused of running a monopoly wouldve seemed ludicrous. Back then, Microsoft was a Goliath of the tech industry, facing allegations of muscling its competition out of the market, while Google was a David, democratizing access to information online.

Its incredible how much the landscape has changed in a little over two decades.

Today, Google is facing unprecedented scrutiny of its size, power, and influence. In the United States, politicians on both sides of the aisle, everyone from ardent conservatives to progressive Democrats, have found rare common ground in their desire to check Big Techs power. And while many of the other tech giants (namely Amazon, Facebook, and Apple) are facing similar pressure, Google is the first in the political hot seat. Thats because its the subject of not just one but three antitrust lawsuits, including a historic case by the Department of Justice alleging that the company has engaged in monopolistic behavior to elbow out its competition.

Proponents of regulating Google say it has amassed too much influence over our economy and daily lives. They argue that we dont have much of a choice but to use the search giants products, and that comes with privacy and business trade-offs. But others say that, because Googles products are largely free, its helping, not harming, consumers. They worry that putting new rules in place could stymie Googles greatest innovations.

I think what we really want is more technology companies, a marketplace thats working properly, that has real competition, said Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), who told Recode hes drafting a slew of new legislation to regulate Google and other tech giants later this year.

We examined the case for and against regulating Google in the season finale of our podcast, Land of the Giants: The Google Empire, which chronicles the challenges facing one of the most important technology companies of our time.

In addition to Rep. Cicilline, we spoke with a range of experts, including DuckDuckGo founder Gabriel Weinberg and Sally Hubbard of the Open Markets Institute, who made the case that Google is, in their view, a monopoly power that needs government intervention. But others, like Googles director of economic policy, Adam Cohen, argue that the company doesnt need to be regulated because its a net positive for society .

Its an amazing leveler an equalizer because of the advertising business model, said Cohen. Poor people have access to exactly the same information as a rich person might. And I think thats really worth defending.

Subscribe to Land of the Giants on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Continued here:

How Google went from being a tech darling to an alleged monopoly - Vox.com

Employees manufacture photovoltaic cells on the production line at the Longi Green Energy Technology Co. plant in Xi'an, China, on July 21, 2020.

Qilai Shen | Bloomberg | Getty Images

BEIJING As growing pressure from the U.S. pushes Beijing to build up its own technology, local systems are getting in the way.

Over the past forty years, experimentation with business-friendly policies in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen helped turn it into the equivalent of Silicon Valley with homegrown tech giants such as Tencent and Huawei. But so far, other cities have yet to repeat Shenzhen's success.

Meanwhile, national urgency for self-sufficiency in tech is central to a five-year development plan announced in March, with ambitious goals for research and development in seven "frontier" technologies such as semiconductors.

The central directive has local governments striving to do their part.

A 4.5-hour flight north from Shenzhen, the city of Xi'an has many of the right elements for tech innovation: research or manufacturing centers for semiconductors, aerospace and other high-tech industries; talent from local universities; and significant foreign investment. Both Samsung and U.S. chipmaker Micron have major operations in Xi'an, which was also the fastest growing major city in China last year.

Xi'an Mayor Li Mingyuan said in a statement last month to CNBC that tech innovation is at the top of his list for high quality development under Beijing's five-year plan. He said that by 2025, Xi'an aims to achieve output in advanced manufacturing of more than 1 trillion yuan ($153.85 billion) and support more than 10,000 high-tech businesses, for total GDP of more than 1.4 trillion yuan. That's about 40% growth from Xi'an's GDP in 2020.

But analysts say the state is stifling Xi'an's potential.

The biggest difference between Shenzhen and Xi'an is that businesses form the major part of Shenzhen, while Xi'an needs to reduce the role of the government, said Qu Jian, vice-director of the Shenzhen-based think tank China Development Institute.

While each city has to determine its own path, if Xi'an wants to follow that of Shenzhen, then the market needs to play a bigger role, Qu said. Innovation is also difficult for a country to complete on its own and is more efficient with international cooperation, he added.

A rough comparison of the two cities' companies listed on the mainland A share market reflects the disparity in state dominance. About a third of roughly 40 Xi'an-based stocks were privately run, versus about two-thirds for well over 300 Shenzhen-based ones, according to data from Wind Information.

When describing Xi'an's push for technological innovation, Mayor Li pointed to contributions from the city's non-state and foreign businesses. He noted how last year a local solar company named Longi Green Energy Technology became the largest publicly listed company in Western China, and claimed it is the world's largest manufacturer of monocrystalline silicon wafers.

Li added that Micron has invested a total $1 billion in its Xi'an facility, which accounts for 90% of the company's global production capacity. Micron did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, looking more generally at China's national history, multiple state-led efforts to build up the local semiconductor industry have struggled to take off, McKinsey analysts wrote back in 2014.

As an ancient capital of China, Xi'an also faces physical restrictions on urban expansion due to historical structures and artifacts, said Perry Wong, managing director of research at the Milken Institute. He expects the Chengdu-Chongqing urban area in southwestern China has a better chance at becoming a center for tech innovation.

Shenzhen is "also enjoying (a) high degree of policy freedom that no other city in China has," Wong said, noting Xi'an would need to think creatively to mimic that kind of growth. "You cannot make a duplication of Shenzhen."

One benefit Shenzhen has had is its proximity to Hong Kong, a semi-autonomous region just over the border that has enjoyed greater democratic freedoms and alignment with international business standards than the mainland.

As Beijing strengthens its control of the region, an inevitable choice for Hong Kong companies will be to work more with the mainland.

Hong Kong's businesses can share their experience and talent to contribute to China's development, said Tu Haiming, a Hong Kong member for a national political advisory body, called the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Tu spoke broadly of greater integration with the mainland in areas such as finance and academia.

When it comes to tech, that talent doesn't need to look as far as Xi'an. Chinese semiconductor giant SMIC announced last month it was building a new $2.35 billion factory in Shenzhen.

Follow this link:

China's fastest growing city wants to be the next Silicon Valley local systems may get in the way - CNBC

Siriporn Kaenseeya / EyeEm / Getty

An Arizona bill to expand payment options in Apple's and Google's app stores has failed in the state Senate, the law's sponsor has told the Verge. The legislation narrowlypassed the Arizona House last month.

Rep. Regina Cobb, a Republican, told the Verge that she thought she had the votes to pass the legislation in the Senate. But then, according to Cobb, Apple and Google "hired almost every lobbyist in town" to kill the legislation.

We thought we had the votes before we went to the committee," Cobb told the Verge. "And then we heard that the votes werent there and they werent going to take the time to put it up."

J.D. Mesnard, a Republican who chairs theSenate Commerce Committee, had scheduled Cobb's bill for a hearing. However, he pulled the legislation at the last minute amid a lobbying blitz from major technology companies.

I polled the committee members, and there just wasnt enough support for it, Mesnard told theAmerican Prospect. A number of members were conflicted on it; others were just opposed. There was some support for it, but it definitely was coming up short.

The legislative battle in Arizona is one front in a global fight over Apple's and Google's control over their mobile platforms. Companies like Epic Games and Spotify have complained that Apple not only takes a 30 percent cut of all app store revenue, but also bans app makers from using alternative payment platforms within iOS apps to avoid that 30 percent cut.

The Arizona bill would have required owners of major general-purpose app platformswhich includes Apple's and Google's mobile platforms but excludes special-purpose devices like gaming consoles or music playersto allow the use of third-party payment services on their platforms. It also would have prohibited app stores from retaliating against app makers for trying to route around their payment services.

Apple's critics have introduced similar legislation in other states, but none of them has gotten as far as the Arizona bill. Epic has also made formal complaints to competition regulators in theEuropean Union, theUnited Kingdom, andAustralia.

Ordinarily, you'd expect Democrats to favor strict regulation of big business and Republicans to favor a more laissez-faire approach. But the Arizona legislative battle scrambled conventional partisan alignments. The bill passed the House in a razor-thin 31-29 vote. Of the 31 "aye" votes, 27 came from Republicans. Democrats accounted for 25 of the 29 "nay" votes.

This may reflect culture-war politics seeping into every aspect of policymaking. Republicans have increasingly found themselves at odds with technology giants over content moderation issues, and that may have made them more receptive to calls to regulate themeven on topics like payment services that have no direct connection to politics. Conversely, Democrats have become accustomed to defending tech giants against Republican attacks, which may have made Democratic legislators in Arizona more receptive to the arguments of Google and Apple lobbyists.

View original post here:

Arizona lawmaker: Big Tech hired almost every lobbyist to kill app store bill - Ars Technica

AI (Artificial Intelligence) concept. Deep learning. Mindfulness.

Brain-Controlled Interface (BCI) technologyor technology that allows us to control our devices with our mindsis very promising.In fact, tech giants and VCsare pouring millions of dollars into it. Facebook is so interested in the technology that, in 2019, it spent between $500M to $1B to acquire CTRL-labs, a company that specializes in allowing humans to control computers using their brains. A number of companies have BCI innovations in the fundamental and lab stages. The question is, will it work?

Facebook seems to think so. Less than a year-and-a-half after it inked the deal with CTRL-labs, the company introduced a wristband product powered by EMG (Electromyography) which comes from the muscles in the wrist that are controlled by the brain. According to Facebook Reality Labs, the wristband uses sensors to translate the electrical motor nerve signals that move through the wrist to the hand into digital commands that could control other devices. The company hopes this will allow users to control their forthcoming augmented reality glasses with minimal hand movement.

But, BCI technology is very much in its infancy. Many technologists imagine a world where typing and texting no longer happen. They paint a picture of a world where technology is seamlessly integrated into our daily lives and all we have to do is to think about what we want or need and it will occur. If it sounds too good to be true, thats because it almost is-at least for now.

In order for any new product to work in the mass market, it must be a good fit, be high-quality and operate with natural human behavior. The existing products in the market do not fit the basic requirements yet.

Currently, there are three main BCI technologies available: invasive, non-invasive electrical (EEG) and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS).

Invasive

Invasive technologies, such as Elon Musks Neuralink, require implanting electrodes in the brain. The solution is very expensive and requires a complex surgery. It has been tested on fewer than 50 severely disabled people in the last decade and, while it shows potential, it is years from being a technology that most people would or could opt for.

Non-invasive electrical (EEG)

This technology has been researched for the past 40 years yet, despite many companies working on it, we are no closer today than we were decades ago. It requires electrodes and good electric contact with the scalp. The technology sees fundamental problems with recording brain signals, the process is complex and it is messy because it requires a conductive gel in the hair for good contact.

Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)

This is the most viable technology in my opinion. While it currently requires expensive equipment, it will come down over time. The skin and bone have transparency to near-infrared light offering non-invasive ways to understand and even tap into the functionality of the brain.Los Angeles-based Kernel, founded by entrepreneur and venture capitalist, Bryan Johnson, leverages a cap that looks similar to a bike helmet. It uses a pulsed laser to capture information about photons, including the depth reached by them within the brain. One day the company envisions using its device as a smart assistant to suggest entertainment or food choices based on brain activity.

BCI technology is certainly one of the biggest challenge scientists have faced for a longtime, yet it is exciting for a number of reasons. The most obvious might be as an assistive technology for individuals who have lost use of body parts such as hands, arms or legs, or have a health condition. New technology could let these individuals operate robotic limbs or even regain control over paralyzed body parts.

The mass market could also benefit from technology that lets us go hands-free. In the next few years, augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) glasses are going to be cost effective and readily available. The more our AR/VR devices becomes ubiquitous, the less we will want to use our hands to operate them. Unfortunately, BCI technology to control those glasses with our minds is years away. None of the existing solutions are easily adaptable to human behavior. Facebooks wristband may be more acceptable than wearing a helmet to move a cursor on a computer screen, but we are still in the very early stages of BCI.

I truly believe once BCI is matured and integrated in our daily lives, it will revolutionize the world just like the invention of the microchip. It will open new doors for consumers who need technology to survive daily life or for those who simply strive for the next level of perfection. It is thrilling. It is game changing.

Yet the realist in me believes the building of viable technology and the associated products for it will take time and require significant scientific innovations. BCI is the ultimate solution, but the roadmap to get there will span multiple decades. In the meantime, the gap between the future and what currently exists presents a great opportunity for other hands-free solutions.

Read the original post:

Facebook Is Betting On Brain-Control Technology. Will It Pay Off? - Forbes