Auto
Tesla to fix software bug over the air
…Not entirely sure whether it was a bug, actually. The car was designed to slow down (5.6miles/hour) at stop signs if the junctions are clear (called roll stop) when they are supposed to come to a full stop regardless per the highway code of the US. Tesla’s cars had been programmed to do a roll stop – because it is much more energy efficient that way. Tesla now have to “recall” their vehicles to disable that feature which breaks the law – which can be sorted by updates on the software.
Over the air software updates enable auto manufacturers to come up with all sorts of add-on features to the cars
…The article lists the following add-on features:
- Heated seats
- Advanced cruise control
- Lock or start their cars remotely
- Automatic high beam which dims when it sees an oncoming traffic
…but a survey said people will not be willing to pay for it. Or potentially, customers will decide on the brand of car depending on what features can be accessed without having to make any regular payment.
BigTech/Platforms
Facebook ordered by German Constitutional Court to disclose personal data of users who insulted a politician
…The insults posted are horrific. The Courts picked out those comments which can be regarded as criminal, balancing the right to free speech and privacy rights, as stipulated by the constitution. The disclosure of user information will then enable the politician to sue. New laws in Germany obliges platforms to pass on the data of suspected criminals to the German police. This is to enable the government to control far-right extremist posts in particular.
In parallel, the UK is preparing to pass an online safety bill, aimed at holding tech companies liable for illegal content (including the metaverse), for example hate speech, posts that incite violence, revenge porn, promotion of suicide, human trafficking, etc much resisted by tech platforms and strong supporters for free speech. If the law comes into force, platforms will be expected to take proactive measures, not merely to take down once notified of illegality. Breach can lead to penalty up to 10% of global turnover.
All sounds reasonable – but it’s a difficult issue. Should there be a line, between free speech and censorship, and if so what standards should be used to draw that line?
- BigTech/Platforms Camp: These (Facebook, Google, Twitter, and recently Spotify, etc) were started with an ideal to democratise information (be it search results, media, content). They believe that platforms should function to passively provide information (“a mere conduit”), they don’t edit and consider that consumers should be treated like adults – let them choose and research and decide what to consume, what to believe.
- BigTechs aren’t a Platform but a Publisher Camp: By allowing harmful information to be made available, platforms are permitting harmful content to be accessible, and even amplifying it; this means they should be considered as de facto publishers with responsibility to remove harmful content. Too much responsibility could lead to the removal of users’ ability to upload content for free because it would just become too costly for the platforms (note that 25% of content on the internet is user generated).
The Spotify saga (Joe Rogan v Neil Young) of last week, is a good example. This debate – often called “section 230” in the US (which essentially states that Platforms are immune from liability for user created content, but if they are complicit in the creation of illegal content, then they will be liable) – is being continued in Washington. The hurdle for showing complicity may be quite low. Transparency on how content editing is done could help strike the right balance. Business personality Jason Calacanis suggested it ought to depend on whether you are doing any of the following P activities: Pay, Promote, Publish or Produce. In the case of Spotify, it is doing all those things vis-à-vis Joe Rogan.
Interestingly, Spotify’s strategy is not only to get more subscribers, but also to secure deals with car makers (eg. Tesla) to get on their platform.
Facebook faces the biggest single day drop in market capitalisation in history – here’s why
…Zuckerberg has blamed competitor TikTok’s formidable growth stealing attention time away from users who would have used that time browsing Facebook [to Decode: we aren’t market dominant, guv]:
- Facebook sits within platforms (ie: Apple/Google), which means it is at the behest of such platforms.
- Apple’s policy for limiting ad targeting impacted Facebook massively. At the same time advertisers (eg. retailers) are now deciding to allocate spending on Google (which does have that deal with Apple to keep Google its default search engine. Furthermore, Google benefits from having granular and direct data about users’ interests (when they use the Google search engine, by directly typing in the terms of interest e.g. “where can I buy Victorian door handles?”– so called first party data) over Facebook – because Google is more effective at providing advertisers with targeting ad services.
- Privacy scandals – whistleblower employee disclosed Facebook’s business decision-making which revealed that it was interested in growth even where it knew its services could be damaging to mental health of users; pushing users to content which elicited emotion, often negative ones (which tend to have more hold over users’ attention).
- This has led to huge regulatory scrutiny of Facebook, and Facebook is now not in a position to acquire businesses with promising technology. Antitrust complaints on foot by the US Federal Trade Commission over Facebook’s past acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp which completed several years ago. The allegation is that Facebook bought them because it saw them as a future competitor and so had made the acquisition to kill the competition at an early stage.
- Facebook is hamstrung from growing organically. It was failing to gain sign ups by the younger generation anyway, and users, investors and developers are distancing themselves from Facebook following the whistleblower’s disclosure.
- TikTok really is a formidable competitor, and it is eating into their lunch.
- Facebook has now attempted to break into the content market by launching Reels, but this is getting little traction. Reels is basically like TikTok – but users use Facebook to connect with friends, not to see content made outside the friendship circle. In the users’ minds, TikTok is the platform for that.
- It has bet the farm on the metaverse – a grand project which is not expected to see any returns for another decade or so.
- VR division is losing $10-12bn / year.
- VR market is crowded with other BigTechs (Apple, Microsoft, Google).
- Its global digital currency project Diem was crushed under regulatory pressure.
Meta threatens to pull Facebook and Instagram out of Europe amid tightening regulatory shackles
…Meta says it needs to be able to send European user’s data to the US, and cannot agree to storing all its data in Europe. However, Schrems II ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU for short – Europe’s top court) means it is unlawful to send EU citizens’ personal data to the US, which impacts on the firm’s critical operations. Query whether they really can’t separate data storage between the EU and the US. Note that Apple already does this for their Chinese users – Apple has no control over data on iPhone in China, as I understand it, so Apple itself holds no data on Chinese subjects.
Belgium’s Data Protection Authority finds Interactive Advertising Bureau of Europe’s Transparency and Consent Framework as being non-compliant
…This Framework was created to help advertisers to comply with GDPR. However, it has been found to be non-compliant, in particular, pop-ups asking users for certain permissions to collect data is inadequate – users don’t know that their profiles will be sold widely so more relevant ads can be shown to them. You simply cannot ask someone to consent to a data breach, said one member of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.
Crypto/Digital Currency /NFTs
Diem caves due to Regulatory Pressure
…Meta has sold off Diem assets to Silvergate Capital Corp, which is a crypto-focussed bank.
Meta will take a seat on the board of Crypto Open Patent Alliance spearheaded by Jack Dorsey, which promises not to enforce patents unless it is for defensive purposes. Dorsey earlier criticised Meta for not embracing Bitcoin in the first place. Dorsey believes Bitcoin is key to financial inclusion.
India to launch digital currency in 2022-2023
…It closely follows China, which is ahead.
HitPiece, a website without regard for Intellectual Property gets slammed by artists
…A website which claims to “let fans collect NFTs of your favourite songs” is getting slammed (predictably) by artists. It appears that the website is providing the service without the artist’s consent.
Gaming
Sony – number two largest gaming company, to buy Bungie which is the developer of Halo and Destiny franchises – for $3.6bn
…Bungie has in its history an acquisition by Microsoft back in 2000, only for it to be later spun out. Sony will get Destiny but not Halo, however. The deal follows a number of studio acquisitions by Sony last year as well as Microsoft, EA, Tencent.
What’s Sony’s aim?
Sony has produced one of the best consoles (PlayStation) on the market, and its popular exclusive titles are strong on role playing games with compelling story lines. Bungie is particularly well known for FPS (First Person Shooter) games. By purchasing Bungie it hopes to gain knowhow on “live games” in which gamers battle it out online, and build gaming communities – which come with in-community transactions and experience sharing (such as live music within a game). Naturally Sony has one eye on using the tie up to gain some vantage in the metaverse.
Sony’s aim has been to get users buying its cutting edge consoles by offering up exclusive titles developed in-house – though Bungie has managed to get an agreement from Sony to remain independent. This could be similar to Microsoft’s proposed plans for Activision Blizzard, which is to profit from making available some of its popular titles to ostensibly, all.
Metaverse
Mortgage over metaverse land successfully issued in Decentraland
…The mortgagor TerraZero Technologies provided most of the financing. Each mortgage is collaterised with the virtual real estate, represented as an NFT, it is reported.
Where you might be located could be a key to how effectively you can promote your products on the metaverse. Consumer brands have already purchased virtual real estates in key areas (Decentraland has a Fashion Street Estate studded with apparel brands). Early adopters can hope to profit, because each of these platforms have their own tokens which will increase in value as more people decide to jump in.
In another metaverse, one fan of Snoop Dogg (a rapper, if you didn’t know him) spent $450k on a piece of virtual land in Snoopverse, a virtual space Snoop is creating in the Sandbox. Snoop is re-creating aspects of his real life, including his Californian mansion in the Sandbox. Residents will be invited to his exclusive members-only parties.
Semiconductor
EU Chips Act which funds chip manufacturing in the EU struggle in Brussels
…Chips are the building blocks of technology, which is the foundation of economy of the modern era. Governments and other organisations are busy trying to shore up chip manufacturing by the provision of generous subsidies and there is reported some struggle over whether relaxation of state aid rules is required. Note the amounts that are being contemplated is around a mere €40bn (including member states’ contribution – unclear over how many years)– compare with TSMC (just to labour on the point – this is just one company!) that announced a budget of $44bn for this year to boost its manufacturing facility.
GlobalWafer (Taiwan)’s €4.35bn acquisition of chip supplier Siltronic (Germany) falls over
…National security concerns on the German side has prevented the merger, it has been reported.
Nvidia’s proposed purchase of Softbank’s ARM collapses amid competition concerns
…Softbank will receive a break up fee of $1.25bn [wow], and semiconductor design company ARM will be floating. Strongest voices against the acquisition includes Microsoft and Qualcomm, who fear access to ARM will become restricted, and nervousness over disclosure of key technological innovations to ARM which may be shared with Nvidia.