Category: Digital – AI & Apps

News and media stories that reflect Internet activities via social media, AI, Apps, and digital communication channels.

Categories
Business Digital - AI & Apps Government Lifestyle Perspectives Regulations & Security Technology

US Copyright Office in spotlight as it plans to release three key reports in 2024 about its  copyright law and AI positions

—  The office is reviewing how centuries-old laws should apply to artificial intelligence technology, with both content creators and tech giants arguing their cases.

 

 

Cecilia Kang / New York Times:

 

For decades, the Copyright Office has been a small and sleepy office within the Library of Congress. Each year, the agency’s 450 employees register roughly half a million copyrights, the ownership rights for creative works, based on a two-centuries-old law.

 

In recent months, however, the office has suddenly found itself in the spotlight. Lobbyists for Microsoft, Google, and the music and news industries have asked to meet with Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights, and her staff. Thousands of artists, musicians and tech executives have written to the agency, and hundreds have asked to speak at listening sessions hosted by the office.

“We are now finding ourselves the subject of a lot of attention from the broader general public,” said Shira Perlmutter, the director of the Copyright Office. Credit — Jared Soares for The New York Times

 

The attention stems from a first-of-its-kind review of copyright law that the Copyright Office is conducting in the age of artificial intelligence. The technology — which feeds off creative content — has upended traditional norms around copyright, which gives owners of books, movies and music the exclusive ability to distribute and copy their works.

 

The agency plans to put out three reports this year revealing its position on copyright law in relation to A.I. The reports are set to be hugely consequential, weighing heavily in courts as well as with lawmakers and regulators.

 

“We are now finding ourselves the subject of a lot of attention from the broader general public, so it is a very exciting and challenging time,” Ms. Perlmutter said.

 

The Copyright Office’s review has thrust it into the middle of a high-stakes clash between the tech and media industries over the value of intellectual property to train new A.I. models that are likely to ingest copyrighted books, news articles, songs, art and essays to generate writing or images. Since the 1790s, copyright law has protected works so an author or artist “may reap the fruits of his or her intellectual creativity,” the Copyright Office declares on its website.

 

That law is now a topic of hot debate. Authors, artists, media companies and others say the A.I. models are infringing on their copyrights. Tech companies say that they aren’t replicating the materials and that they consume data that is publicly available on the internet, practices that are fair use and within the bounds of the law. The fight has led to lawsuits, including one by The New York Times against the ChatGPT creator OpenAI and Microsoft. And copyright owners are pushing for officials to rein in the tech companies.

 

“What the Copyright Office is doing is a big deal because there are important principles of law and lots and lots of money involved,” said Rebecca Tushnet, a professor of copyright and intellectual property law at Harvard Law School. “At the end of the day, the issue is not whether these models will exist. It’s who will get paid.”

The Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress, has in the past weighed in on how copyright would apply to technological innovations like records, the internet and streaming music.  Credit — Jared Soares for The New York Times

 

Congress created the Copyright Office in 1870 to register licenses for books, maps, essays and other creative works and store those works for the use of lawmakers at the Library of Congress. The first registration was given to the “Philadelphia Spelling Book,” a children’s language book.

When Ms. Perlmutter, a veteran copyright official and former intellectual property lawyer for Time Warner, was appointed to lead the Copyright Office in late 2020, she promised to bring the office into the modern era by focusing on big tech trends. She took inspiration from previous leaders, who dealt with technological innovations including the camera, records, Xerox machines, the internet and streaming music, all of which required the office to weigh in on how copyright would apply and advise Congress on proposed updates to the law.

 

Right away, A.I. became a hot topic. Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist, tried to register an A.I.-generated art piece for a copyright by submitting an application on the Copyright Office’s website. In 2019, the office rejected his first attempt to register the piece, a pixelated scene of train tracks running through a tunnel overgrown with brush and flowers called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” In February 2022, Ms. Perlmutter declined his second attempt to register the piece on the same grounds: Copyrights were given only to original works created by humans.

 

The decision — a first on an A.I.-produced work — set an important precedent. Artists and lawmakers flooded Ms. Perlmutter’s office with emails and phone calls asking her to also intervene in the way A.I. companies were using copyrighted material to train their systems.

 

In August, she opened the formal review of A.I. and copyright law. The office said it would examine whether the use of intellectual property to train A.I. models violated the law and would look more deeply into whether machine-generated works could be eligible for copyright protections. The office said it would also review how A.I. tools were creating content that used the names, images and likenesses of individuals without their consent or compensation.

 

“The attention on A.I. is intense,” Ms. Perlmutter said in an interview. “The current generative A.I. systems raise a lot of complicated copyright issues — some have called them existential — that really require us to start grappling with fundamental questions about the nature and value of human creativity.”

 

The interest in the office’s review was overwhelming. The office solicited public comments on the topic and received more than 10,000 responses on a form on its website. A typical policy review gets no more than 20 comments, the office said.

 

Tech companies argued in comments on the website that the way their models ingested creative content was innovative and legal. The venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which has several investments in A.I. start-ups, warned in its comments that any slowdown for A.I. companies in consuming content “would upset at least a decade’s worth of investment-backed expectations that were premised on the current understanding of the scope of copyright protection in this country.”

 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta (Facebook’s parent) and Google are currently relying on a 2015 court decision in a case filed by the Authors Guild.

 

The guild sued Google in 2005 for scanning books to use in excerpts in its search engine results and to share with libraries. A court ruled that Google had not violated copyright law. It said that the scanning of entire books was permissible because Google didn’t make the full book available and that it was “transformative” use of copyrighted material. Google relied on an exemption to copyright law known as “fair use” that allows limited replication of copyrighted material for things like criticism, parody or other transformational uses.

 

Google, Meta and the A.I. start-up Anthropic all echoed arguments from that case in their comments to the Copyright Office, including that A.I. copies the information to analyze data, not repurpose it for creative works.

 

Authors, musicians and the media industry argued that by taking their content without permission or licensing payments, the A.I. companies were robbing them of their livelihoods.

 

“The absence of consent and compensation in this process is theft,” Justine Bateman, the “Family Ties” actress and author, wrote in comments to the Copyright Office.

 

News Corp, which publishes The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, implored the office to “not lose sight of this simple truth: Protecting content creators is one of copyright law’s core missions.” (The Times also submitted a comment).

 

Ms. Perlmutter said she and a staff of about two dozen copyright lawyers were going through each comment filed to the office.

 

Still, the office may not offer clear-cut views that will satisfy either the tech companies or creative people.

 

“As technology gets more and more sophisticated, the challenges are exponentially more difficult and the risks and rewards are exponentially greater,” Ms. Perlmutter said.

 

 

 

Read more

 

 

— Techmeme

Categories
Business Culture Digital - AI & Apps Economics Lifestyle Regulations & Security Technology

Align appoints Vinod Paul as president of Align Managed Services

Vinod Paul to Lead Strategic Direction and Expansion of Align’s Managed Services Portfolio

NEW YORK — (BUSINESS WIRE) — #ITservices — Align, the leading global provider of technology infrastructure solutions and Managed IT Services, announces the appointment of Vinod Paul as President of Align Managed Services, effective immediately.

 

In his new role, Vinod will continue to drive the strategic direction, expansion, and profitability of Align’s managed services portfolio, including cloud solutions, cybersecurity, and tailored products designed for the financial services community. Vinod’s vision and leadership will be instrumental in shaping the company’s growth strategy, while overseeing client services, technology and thought leadership in both the financial services and Managed Services industries.

 

Vinod joined Align in 2017 and has since served as Chief Operating Officer, before being appointed as President. Under his leadership, Align has expanded its global customer base and broadened its managed services offerings in the financial services sector. In 2023, Align was named MSP of the Year by Channel Futures and was ranked 60th in the global MSP 501 list. Other accolades include Best Cloud Services Provider by Hedgeweek, CRN’s Triple Crown Award by Channel Co. and more – click here to view our full list of awards.

 

Vinod has more than 20 years of experience in the Managed Services industry, with a proven track record of delivering innovative and customer-centric solutions. Prior to Align, he held senior leadership roles at several global IT firms, including ECI, IBM Global Services, Lucent Technologies, and Tyco Submarine Systems. In 2022, he received the honor of being included in Channel Futures’ Most Influential MSP leaders of 2022 List. Vinod was also recognized as a 2023 Honoree by Help for Children (HFC). Founded with a mission to make a profound difference in the lives of children in need, HFC is a renowned charitable organization dedicated to the prevention and treatment of child abuse for youth across the globe.

 

“Vinod is a visionary leader who has transformed our managed services business and delivered exceptional results for our customers and the broader financial services industry,” said Jim Dooling, CEO and President of Align Communications.

 

“He has a deep understanding of the market dynamics, customer needs, and technology trends that impact our industry. I am confident he will continue to drive growth and innovation for our managed services division and for Align.”

 

“I am honored and excited to take on this new role and lead our talented and dedicated team of managed services professionals,” said Vinod.

 

“Align is renowned for delivering top-notch and cost-efficient IT solutions and managed services to clients within the financial services sector. I am enthusiastic about actively contributing to our continued success, enhancing value for our customers, partners, and team members alike. Our dedication is to cultivate enduring partnerships with our clients, and I am excited to collaborate with our leaders to ensure an unparalleled client experience as a leading managed services provider.”

 

About Align

Align is a premier global provider of technology infrastructure solutions. For over 36 years, leading firms worldwide have relied on Align to guide them through IT challenges, delivering complete, secure solutions for business change and growth. Align is headquartered in Dallas, Texas and has offices in New York City, London, Chicago, San Francisco, Arizona, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia.

 

To learn more about Align Managed Services, visit our website here: https://www.align.com/managed-services and follow Align on LinkedIn and at @AlignITAdvisor on Twitter.

Contacts

Media
Ashley Holbrook
Director of Marketing, Align

aholbrook@align.com

Categories
Business Digital - AI & Apps International & World Regulations & Security Technology

Apple’s proposed App Store, iOS changes seek to retain some iOS control but still regard the  EU’s DMA letter

John Gruber / Daring Fireball:

 

 

—  On Saturday, Apple announced a broad, wide-ranging, and complex set of new policies establishing their intended compliance with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which comes into effect March 7.

 

There is a lot to remark upon and numerous remaining questions, but my favorite take was from Sebastiaan de With on Twitter/X, the day before any of this was announced.

 

After quipping “Oh god please no” to a screenshot of the phrase “Spotify also wants to roll out alternate app stores”, de With had this conversation:

de With:

The EU is once again solving absolutely no problems and making everything worse in tech. I gotta say, they are if anything highly consistent.

“Anton”:

Overly powerful, rent-seeking gatekeepers seem like a problem.

de With:

I love that I can’t tell if you are talking about the EU or Apple in this case.

My second-favorite take, from that same thread, was this from Max Rovensky:

DMA is not pro-consumer.

It’s anti-big-business.

Those tend to coincide sometimes, which makes it an easy sell for the general public, but do actually read the DMA, it’s quite interesting.

 

I’d go slightly further and describe the DMA as anti-U.S.-big-business, because as far as I can tell, nothing in the DMA adversely affects or even annoys any European tech companies. There are aspects of it that seem written specifically for Spotify, in fact.

 

But Rovensky’s framing captures the dichotomy. Anti-big-business regulation and pro-consumer results often do go hand-in-hand, but the DMA exposes the fissures. I do not think the DMA is going to change much, if anything at all, for the better for iOS users in the E.U. (Or for non-iOS users in the EU, for that matter.) And much like the GDPR’s website cookie regulations, I think if it has any practical effect, it’ll be to make things worse for users. Whether these options are better for developers seems less clear.

 

I’ve often said that Apple’s priorities are consistent: Apple’s own needs first, users second, developers third. The European Commission’s priorities put developers first, users second, and “gatekeepers” a distant third. The DMA prescribes not a win-win-win framework, but a win-win-lose one.

 

Apple is proud, stubborn, arrogant, controlling, and convinced it has the best interests of its customers in mind.

 

The European Commission is proud, stubborn, arrogant, controlling, and convinced it has the best interests of its citizens in mind.

 

Ever since this collision over the DMA seemed inevitable, starting about two years ago, I’ve been trying to imagine how it would turn out. And each time, I start by asking: Which side is smarter? My money has been on Apple. Yesterday’s announcements, I think, show why.

APPLE’S PROPOSED CHANGES

 

It’s really hard to summarize everything Apple announced yesterday, but I’ll try. Start with the main Apple Newsroom press release, “Apple Announces Changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store in the European Union”:

“The changes we’re announcing today comply with the Digital Markets Act’s requirements in the European Union, while helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased privacy and security threats this regulation brings. Our priority remains creating the best, most secure possible experience for our users in the EU and around the world,” said Phil Schiller, Apple Fellow. “Developers can now learn about the new tools and terms available for alternative app distribution and alternative payment processing, new capabilities for alternative browser engines and contactless payments, and more. Importantly, developers can choose to remain on the same business terms in place today if they prefer.”

 

Schiller is the only Apple executive quoted in the press release, and to my ear, his writing hand is all over the entire announcement. Apple was quite clear before the DMA was put into law that they considered mandatory sideloading on iOS a bad idea for users, and their announcement yesterday doesn’t back down an inch from still declaring it a bad idea.

 

Apple has also argued, consistently, that they seek to monetize third-party development for the iOS platform, and that being forced to change from their current system — (a) all apps must come from the App Store; (b) developers never pay anything for the distribution of free apps; (c) paid apps and in-app-purchases for digital content consumed in-app must go through Apple’s In-App Payments system that automates Apple’s 30/15 percent commissions — would greatly complicate how they monetize the platform. And now Apple has revealed a greatly complicated set of rules and policies for iPhone apps in the EU.

 

MG Siegler has a great — and fun — post dissecting Apple’s press release line-by-line. Siegler concludes:

I’m honestly not sure I can recall a press release dripping with such disdain. Apple may even have a point in many of the points above, but the framing of it would just seem to ensure that Apple is going to continue to be at war with the EU over all of this and now undoubtedly more. Typically, if you’re going to make some changes and consider the matter closed, you don’t do so while emphatically shoving your middle fingers in the air.

 

Some of these changes do seem good and useful, but most simply seem like convoluted changes to ensure the status quo actually doesn’t change much, if at all. Just remember that, “importantly, developers can choose to remain on the same business terms in place today if they prefer.” What do you think Apple prefers?

The puzzle Apple attempted to solve was creating a framework of new policies — and over 600 new developer APIs to enable those policies — to comply with the DMA, while keeping the path of least resistance and risk for developers the status quo: Apple’s own App Store as it is.

 

So the first option for developers is to do nothing — to stay in Apple’s App Store, exclusively, under the existing terms. (Apple made a few announcements yesterday that are effective worldwide, not merely in the EU, such as changes regarding the rules for streaming game services, mini-games, and mini-apps. For the sake of brevity — well, attempted brevity — I’m focusing on E.U.-specific changes related to DMA compliance.)

 

One point of confusion is that some aspects of Apple’s proposed DMA compliance apply to the App Store across all platforms (iPhone, iPad, Mac, TV, Watch, and soon, Vision), but other aspects are specific to the iOS platform — which is to say, only the iPhone. Third-party app marketplaces1 and web browsers using non-WebKit rendering engines are only available on iOS specifically, meaning they are iPhone-only,2 and not available for iPadOS. Apple’s main press release yesterday breaks out iOS changes and App Store changes separately, but on my first read did not make clear that the iOS changes did not apply to iPadOS.3

 

 

Here’s my summary of the options available to developers in the EU, under Apple’s proposal:

  1. Stay in App Store under the current (pre-DMA) rules, exclusively. Developers that take this option:
    • Are not permitted to use any of the new business termsavailable in the EU, but new iOS platform options for the EU, such as alternate browser engines, are allowed. (Because they are required to be allowed.)
    • Because nothing business-related changes under this option, the existing worldwide rules apply for paid apps, subscriptions, and in-app purchases (IAP), including the 30/15 percent commission to Apple and a requirement that apps exclusively use Apple’s App Store payments system.
    • The Core Technology Fee (CTF) is not collected, because the business terms haven’t changed. (See below re: the CTF.)
  2. Opt in to the new EU rules (all sub-options available under this choice require paying the Core Technology Fee for each app with over 1 million downloads in the EU):
    • After opting in to the new EU rules, developers can choose to remain in the App Store, and:
      • Use Apple’s App Store payments system: 20/13 percent commission + CTF paid to Apple automatically.
      • Use a custom in-app payments system (e.g. Stripe): 17/10 percent commission + CTF paid to Apple.
      • Use external links from inside apps to the web for payments and subscriptions: 17/10 percent + CTF paid to Apple.
      • The latter two options — using custom payment processing and/or external links to the web — are similar to the announced-last-week External Payment Link entitlement policy, regarding the developer’s obligation to track these payments, report sales to Apple monthly, and submit to audits by Apple to ensure compliance.
    • Distribute apps in one or more third-party marketplaces:
      • No option to use Apple’s App Store payment processing, because the apps aren’t coming from the App Store.
      • The only money due to Apple is the Core Technology Fee — there is no commission percentage on in-app transactions or links to the web.

 

Under option (2) — the catch-all for opting in to the new rules available in the EU — the sub-options are not mutually exclusive. Developers that opt in to the new EU rules can have (or keep) apps in the App Store and distribute those same apps, or different apps, via third-party app marketplaces. Or they can stay in the App Store exclusively (under the new business terms, with lower commissions but also the CTF), or they can distribute exclusively via app marketplaces.

 

Only options (1) and (2) are exclusive. However, once a developer opts in to the new EU rules, that decision is irrevocable. Quoting from the Q&A section of Apple’s “Update on Apps Distributed in the European Union” document:

Developers who adopt the new business terms at any time will not be able to switch back to Apple’s existing business terms for their EU apps. Apple will continue to give developers advance notice of changes to our terms, so they can make informed choices about their businesses moving forward.

(That entire FAQ section is a good summary and worth reading.)

 

THE CORE TECHNOLOGY FEE

Apple’s description of the CTF:

The Core Technology Fee (CTF) reflects Apple’s investment in the tools, technology, and services that enable developers to build and share their apps with Apple users. That includes more than 250,000 APIs, TestFlight, Xcode, and so much more. These tools create a lot of value for developers, whether or not they share their apps on the App Store.

 

The CTF only applies to developers who adopt the new terms for alternative distribution and payment processing — and whose apps reach exceptional scale. With membership in the Apple Developer Program, eligible developers on the new business terms get a free one million first annual installs per year for each of their apps in the EU. See terms for more details. Under the new business terms for EU apps, Apple estimates that less than 1% of developers would pay a Core Technology Fee.

 

Apple’s description is clear on the following point, but it’s worth reiterating: the CTF only applies to downloads above 1 million, like a marginal tax rate. So a developer whose app goes from 1,000,000 EU user downloads to 1,000,001 will only owe Apple €0.50 in Core Technology Fees. The CTF is recurring each year however, and updates count as downloads. Installing the same app on multiple devices does not count as multiple installations though.4 The CTF is calculated per user, per app, per year. (Apple has a CTF calculatordevelopers can use to game scenarios of prices, distribution method, and download counts.)

 

In plain language, the DMA demands that Apple unbundle its monetization for the App Store from its monetization of the iOS platform. Apple’s existing, purely commission-based, monetization for iOS apps implicitly bundles together the value provided from the App Store and iOS.

 

So under option (1) — where developers choose the existing rules for App Store distribution, including App Store exclusivity — nothing changes and Apple collects its 30/15 percent commissions from App Store transactions.

 

But under option (2) — where developers opt in to the new EU rules — Apple’s monetization for the App Store is severed from its monetization for the iOS platform itself. That’s why the commission fees under the new EU rules are reduced to 20/13 percent for apps distributed through the App Store that use the App Store payment system, and 17/10 percent for apps distributed through the App Store that use custom payment processing. Effectively, Apple is saying that their fair share of App Store distribution is 17/10 percent, and that Apple’s own App Store payment processing is worth an additional 3 percent. (3 percent is almost indisputably a fair estimate for the cost of payment processing alone.)

 

And, that’s why apps distributed outside the App Store will only pay Apple the CTF, with no commission on sales. The commissions under the new EU rules are only for the App Store, so apps from marketplaces don’t pay them. The Core Technology Fee is how Apple proposes monetizing the value provided by iOS itself.

 

All developers who opt in to the new EU rules are subject to the CTF. No developers who remain in the App Store under existing policies are subject to the CTF.

 

MARKETPLACE APPS ARE THE ONLY DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE THE APP STORE

Third-party marketplace apps are the only way for developers to distribute apps in the EU outside the App Store. Apple’s proposal has no option for direct downloads of apps from developer websites. Apple has rules for who can become an app marketplace. You have to be a company, not an individual. You must “provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 to establish adequate financial means in order to guarantee support for your developers and users.” And more. In short, the qualifications aren’t trivial, but nor are they overly complicated.

 

But marketplace apps must be real “stores”. A marketplace can decide to exclusively distribute apps from a certain category — like games — but must be open to submissions from any developer in that same category. Company XYZ can’t create a marketplace that only distributes XYZ’s own apps. That’s not a proper category. Nor would Apple consider to be a proper category something like, say, “Apps from companies founded by Harvard dropouts whose origins were depicted in fun movies by Aaron Sorkin.”

 

One key restriction for developers who wish to distribute through multiple stores (including Apple’s App Store): an installation from one store cannot overwrite an existing installation of the same app from another store. The user must manually delete the installation from the old store first, then re-install the app from the other store. Apple claims — reasonably, perhaps — that this restriction is because they don’t know whether a fresh installation from a different store will preserve the data from the app installed via the previous store.

 

But this also means that if, say, Meta starts distributing their apps through a third-party marketplace (perhaps their own Meta Store), and wishes to encourage iOS users to switch from App Store installations to installations from the Meta Store, each user who does so must delete their existing installations of Meta’s apps before installing the new ones.

 

Third-party marketplace apps — the actual app store apps — will not be permitted in Apple’s App Store. To install a marketplace app — and third-party app marketplaces will be apps themselves — users must go to the marketplace app’s website. Safari (and other web browsers that adopt new APIs) will offer to install marketplace apps after confirmation from the user that they really want to install it. That confirmation scaresheet and the subsequent installation is provided by the system.

 

Part of what makes the DMA a terrible law (in this writer’s estimation) is its ambiguity and inscrutable language. It’s completely unclear whether Apple’s proposal to only allow distribution of apps outside the App Store through marketplace apps is compliant. Many proponents of the DMA have been under the conviction that the DMA mandates gatekeeper platforms like iOS to permit direct downloads of apps from the web (like on PCs and Macs). Here’s Article 6, Section 4 of the DMA, boldface all-caps emphasis added:

4. The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications OR software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications OR software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications OR software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application OR software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application OR software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.

 

By Apple’s interpretation, all of those or’s would be and/or’s or and’s if the DMA demanded that iOS support both third-party marketplaces and direct installation of individual apps and games. See below regarding the uncertainty of this interpretation.

 

 

Read More

 

 

— Techmeme

Categories
Culture Digital - AI & Apps International & World Lifestyle News Now! Perspectives Politics Regulations & Security Technology

Israel supporters use apps to mass report pro-Palestinian content; tech platforms question ‘citizen-led propaganda’

—  The apps raise questions for tech platforms over ‘citizen-led propaganda’ campaigns, experts say

 

 

Taylor Lorenz / Washington Post:

 

 

As the war in Gaza rages on, and both sides battle for support and public attention, supporters of Israel are making use of tools that allow them to mass report pro-Palestinian content as violating a platform’s rules.

 

The tools also generate AI-written suggested responses to posts online, allowing users to flood the comments of pro-Palestinian posts with pro-Israel messaging.

Experts who study communication online say the widespread use of such tools influences the online discussion of the war and is ushering in a new era of citizen-led propaganda campaigns. But the use of the tools does not appear to violate platform rules against what’s known as “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” or posts that appear to come from unrelated individuals but are really the result of an organized effort, often through automated accounts.

“Working in an orchestrated fashion can be violative, but it quickly becomes a gray area, and that’s why these apps exist,” said Nora Benavidez, senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights at Free Press, a nonpartisan organization that lists its goals as protecting free expression and civil liberties.

Researchers say it is difficult to determine which comments have been generated by such tools because there’s no way to publicly track a user’s private activity across multiple apps. Social media companies would have to come up with ways to detect their use, which is challenging because the apps operate on their own platforms, not those of the social media companies. If the apps were automatically posting, they would likely violate rules against inauthentic activity. But third-party apps that simply encourage legitimate users to report posts escape that sanction.

There’s also no way to know with precision that actions taken against someone’s account or posts are in response to activity from these apps. Anecdotally, some users report that after their Instagram and TikTok posts were mentioned on the apps, the posts were either removed or heavily downranked, making them less accessible to a large audience.

Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, did not respond to a request for comment. TikTok also did not respond to requests for comment.

“I’ve had many posts taken down, I’d say upwards of 15 to 20 posts removed,” said Nys, a content creator who posts on TikTok under the handle @palestinianpr1ncess and spoke on the condition that she be referred to by first name only because she’s worried about repercussions when traveling to the West Bank. Nys said that each of her posts that has been surfaced on one of the apps has received a flood of pro-Israel, seemingly AI-generated comments. The post is also usually removed after many users report it for bullying or hate speech. “I’m not using hate speech,” Nys said. “I’m just doing commentary on everything happening in Palestine.”

Laura Chung, a content creator and podcaster, said that she believes a mass reporting campaign facilitated by one of the apps is what led to her TikTok account being removed in December. “I was creating pro-Palestine content for education purposes and I was going massively viral,” she said. “I believe it’s these apps that got me banned on TikTok.”

Joan Donovan, a noted disinformation expert who is an assistant professor of journalism at Boston University, said the apps are a new development in the propaganda battle being waged on the internet over Israel’s offensive in Gaza and that social media companies need to find ways to monitor their use.

“Social media is a terrain of warfare, not just for cyber troops, but also for citizen battalions armed with AI-enhanced bots and the ability to generate endless unique posts that evade current content moderation tools,” she said. “It is incumbent on tech companies to defend against such abuses.”

“This level of organization only exists on one side of the conflict,” said Emerson T. Brooking, a former cyber policy adviser to the Defense Department who studies disinformation and propaganda campaigns as a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. “It exists for pro-Israel voices, and it exists because there are government ministries in Israel that support these tools and encourage their use.”

Brooking and other experts said they aren’t aware of any similar tools for Palestinian supporters.

At least one of these apps is directly tied to Israel. The app, called Moovers, encourages users to “Advocate for Israel, One Click at a Time.” It pulls in allegedly pro-Palestinian content from Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and X in a never-ending feed, allowing users easily to take action on that content, reporting it for review or commenting on it. It also provides pre-written pro-Israel scripts to respond to such posts.

In early December, a representative from Leaders, a Tel Aviv-based Israeli influencer marketing firm, began contacting creators in the United States, offering to pay them to promote Moovers to their audiences on Instagram. In emails viewed by The Washington Post, a representative from Leaders touted content on the Moovers app as “endorsed by Israel’s Government Advertising Agency.”

 

Read More

 

 

— Techmeme

Categories
Business Digital - AI & Apps Economics Energy Environment Lifestyle Science Technology

Leading Independent Proxy Advisory Firm Glass Lewis recommends shareholders vote ONLY on the WHITE proxy card ‘FOR’ all of Ocean Power Technologies Board nominees

Both Leading Independent Proxy Advisory Firms – ISS and Glass Lewis – Now Recommend Voting “FOR ALL” of the Board’s Highly Qualified and Experienced Nominees

 

OPT Continues to Urge All Holders to Vote ONLY on the WHITE Proxy Card Today “FOR” All the Company’s Board Nominees and Other Proposals

 

 

MONROE TWP., N.J. — (BUSINESS WIRE) — Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (NYSE American: OPTT)

“(OPT” or the “Company),” a leader in innovative and cost-effective low-carbon marine power, data, and service solutions, today announced that Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”), a leading independent proxy advisory firm, has joined Institutional Shareholder Services Inc.

 

 

“(ISS)” in recommending that the Company’s shareholders vote ONLY on the WHITE proxy card “FOR” all of the OPT Board of Directors’ (the “Board)” highly qualified and experienced director nominees at the upcoming 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders “(2023 Annual Meeting),” scheduled to be held on Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024, via live webcast.

 

In its report recommending support for all of OPT’s director nominees, Glass Lewis notes that:1

  • “[…] the incumbent directors appear to have appropriate qualifications and expertise to oversee the Company and that the board is sufficiently independent.”
  • “[…] we note that the incumbent chairman, Mr. Cryan, has considerable turnaround experience, including at three companies and has served in an executive position at a firm that consults companies facing challenges.”
  • “We observe that the board has also undergone significant refreshment in recent years, five out of six incumbent directors were appointed to the board in 2020 or 2021 and that average tenure of the incumbent directors is four years.”

In addition, Glass Lewis shares the Company’s concerns as to the purpose of Paragon’s interest in OPT:

  • “[…] we do question the nature of Paragon’s interest in the Company and we share the concern raised by the incumbent board that Paragon may have an undisclosed agenda.”

 

As a reminder, shareholders may receive proxy materials from an activist investor, Paragon Technologies, Inc. “(Paragon)” (OTC Pink: PGNT). A vote for any of Paragon’s purported nominees on theblue proxy card will not be counted at the 2023 Annual Meeting. Shareholders are urged not to sign or return any blue proxy card and to discard Paragon’s materials. Please vote only on the WHITE proxy card. If a shareholder previously signed a blue proxy card sent by Paragon, that proxy card can be revoked by voting on a new WHITE proxy card. Only the latest-dated proxy card will count.

 

Shareholders are urged to protect their investment by voting “FOR” all of OPT’s proposals, including voting “FOR ALL” of the OPT Board’s highly qualified and experienced director nominees, by promptly signing, dating, and returning each of the WHITE proxy cards they have received or by voting by telephone or internet. Time is short so shareholders are urged to vote TODAY the WHITE proxy card to ensure that their votes are received in time to be counted at the 2023 Annual Meeting.

 

***

THE OPT BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” ALL THE COMPANY’S PROPOSALS, INCLUDING A VOTE “FOR ALL” THE OPT BOARD’S NOMINEES ON THE WHITE PROXY CARD

OPT SHAREHOLDERS ARE REMINDED THAT THEIR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT, NO MATTER HOW MANY OR HOW FEW SHARES THEY OWN

TIME IS SHORT SO PLEASE VOTE THE WHITE PROXY CARD TODAY

PLEASE COMPLETE, DATE, SIGN, AND RETURN EVERY WHITE PROXY CARD YOU RECEIVE

DO NOT SIGN OR RETURN ANY BLUE PROXY CARD SENT BY PARAGON

***

 

If shareholders have any questions or require assistance in voting your WHITEproxy card, please contact Morrow Sodali, our proxy solicitation firm, at:

MORROW SODALI

509 Madison Avenue Suite 1206

New York, NY 10022

Shareholders Call Toll Free: (800) 662-5200

Banks, Brokers, Trustees, and Other Nominees Call Collect: (203) 658-9400

Email: OPT@investor.MorrowSodali.com

 

About Ocean Power Technologies

OPT provides intelligent maritime solutions and services that enable safer, cleaner, and more productive ocean operations for the defense and security, oil and gas, science and research, and offshore wind markets. Our PowerBuoy® platforms provide clean and reliable electric power and real-time data communications for remote maritime and subsea applications. We also provide WAM-V® autonomous surface vessels (ASVs) and marine robotics services. The Company’s headquarters is in Monroe Township, New Jersey and has an additional office in Richmond, Calif. To learn more, visit www.OceanPowerTechnologies.com.

 

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release may contain forward-looking statements that are within the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any such forward-looking statements in this release are identified by certain words or phrases such as “may”, “will”, “aim”, “will likely result”, “believe”, “expect”, “will continue”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “intend”, “plan”, “contemplate”, “seek to”, “future”, “objective”, “goal”, “project”, “should”, “will pursue” and similar expressions or variations of such expressions. These forward-looking statements reflect OPT’s current expectations about its future performance, plans, and objectives. By their nature, forward-looking statements rely on a number of assumptions and estimates that could be inaccurate and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to materially differ from those anticipated or expressed in any forward-looking statement. These estimates and assumptions reflect our best judgment based on currently known market conditions and other factors. Although we believe such estimates and assumptions to be reasonable, they are inherently uncertain and involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are beyond our control, including, without limitation risks related to our ability to execute on our strategy, drive growth, and create value for our stockholders; our ability to develop, market, and commercialize our products; our ability to monetize our opportunity pipeline; our ability to achieve and, thereafter, sustain profitability; our ability to win government contracts, including in the defense and security sectors; the possibility that we may not be able to obtain the necessary facility and personnel clearances to qualify for certain government contracts, including in the defense and security sectors; our ability to continue the development of our proprietary technologies; our expected continued use of cash from operating activities unless or until we achieve positive cash flow from the commercialization of our products and services; our ability to obtain additional funding, as and if needed; our history of operating losses, which we expect to continue for at least the short term and possibly longer; our ability to control our expenses; our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, including executive management; our ability to manage and mitigate risks associated with our internal cyber security protocols and protection of the data we collect and distribute; our ability to protect our intellectual property portfolio; the impact of inflation related to the U.S. dollar on our business, operations, customers, suppliers and manufacturers, and personnel; our ability to meet product development, manufacturing and customer delivery deadlines; our ability to identify and penetrate markets for our products, services, and solutions; and the risks related to the actions of Paragon Technologies, Inc. against OPT and the related litigation brought against OPT in the Delaware Court of Chancery, including the amount of related costs incurred by OPT and the disruption caused to OPT’s business activities by these actions.

 

Many of these factors are beyond our ability to control or predict. These factors are not intended to represent a complete list of the general or specific factors that may affect us. Additional factors are described in OPT’s Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, and Form 8-K reports (including all amendments to those reports). Any forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements are made, and OPT undertakes no obligation or intent to update such forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances arising after such date. OPT cautions investors not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements. These cautionary statements qualify all forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf.

 

Important Additional Information And Where To Find It

OPT has filed with the SEC a revised definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A on December 4, 2023, including a form of WHITEproxy card, and other relevant documents with respect to its solicitation of proxies for OPT’s 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders scheduled to be held on January 31, 2024 (the “2023 Annual Meeting”). INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE REVISED DEFINITIVE PROXY STATEMENT (INCLUDING THE SUPPLEMENT THERETO FILED WITH THE SEC ON JANUARY 3, 2024 AND ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO OPT’S REVISED DEFINITIVE PROXY STATEMENT) FILED BY OPT AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THAT OPT FILES WITH THE SEC CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN OR WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT OPT’S SOLICITATION. Investors and security holders may obtain copies of these documents and other documents filed with the SEC by OPT free of charge through the website maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov. Copies of the documents filed by OPT are also available free of charge by accessing OPT’s corporate website at www.oceanpowertechnologies.com, by writing to OPT’s Corporate Secretary at Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., 28 Engelhard Drive, Suite B, Monroe Twp., N.J. 08831, or by contacting OPT at (609) 730-0400.

 

Certain Participant Information

OPT, its directors, and executive officers may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies with respect to a solicitation by OPT in connection with matters to be considered at OPT’s 2023 Annual Meeting. Information about OPT’s executive officers and directors, including information regarding the direct and indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise, is available in OPT’s revised definitive proxy statement for the 2023 Annual Meeting (including the schedules and appendices thereto), which was filed with the SEC on Dec. 4, 2023. To the extent holdings of OPT securities reported in the revised definitive proxy statement for the 2023 Annual Meeting have changed or subsequently change, such changes have been or will be reflected on Statements of Change in Ownership on Forms 3, 4, or 5 filed with the SEC. These documents are or will be available free of charge at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

___________________________________

1 Permission to quote Glass Lewis was neither sought nor obtained. Emphases added.

Contacts

Investors:

609-730-0400 x401 or

InvestorRelations@oceanpowertech.com

Media:

609-730-0400 x402 or

MediaRelations@oceanpowertech.com
Or

Longacre Square Partners

Joe Germani / Dan Zacchei

jgermani@longacresquare.com / dzacchei@longacresquare.com

Categories
Business Digital - AI & Apps Lifestyle Sports & Gaming Technology

Palworld, a Pokémon-like game launched on Jan. 19, has sold 5M+ copies; currently most played game on Steam, amid plagiarism claims 

—  The Pokémon-like has sold over 5 million copies in the three days since its early access launch

 

Ash Parrish / The Verge:

 

It seems like everyone on Earth is either talking about or playing Palworld. Indeed, in the three days since its early access launch on Steam on Jan. 19 (and simultaneous release on Game Pass), the game has sold over 5 million copies.

 

While that’s not quite Tears of the Kingdom numbers, to have a game from a relatively unknown developer do that kind of work in that short of time? Okay, Palworld, you have our attention. Let’s see exactly what it is you have to say.

 

Palworld’s announcement trailer released in 2021. It started generally enough, with a bright, colorful world populated with cute monsters that bear an almost uncomfortable resemblance to another game featuring cute, catchable creatures.

 

But then come the AK-47s. Midway through the game’s trailer, the tone shifts from “catch these cute monsters that will help you build your home” to “shoot these cute monsters and use them as slave labor.”

 

One of the most memorable moments from that first trailer was the image of a bunch of pals (the monsters are called pals) that look startlingly like Sprigatito, mournfully manufacturing assault rifles on an assembly line.

 

 

Fast forward two years, and while I haven’t quite gotten my gun factory up and running yet, I do feel a jolt of excitement when my Lamball helps me make a new tool or weapon. Crafting / survival games are not my jam; I bounce off them like Pikachu bouncing off a Snorlax belly. Yet for all my relative disinterest in what Palworld’s trying to sell me, I’m kinda buying it anyway. I definitely see the vision, and I completely understand how if I was someone who did enjoy the Pokémon or Minecraft games of the world, Palworld would have lit my brain on fire like a Charizard at butcher shop.

 

When you first load into Palworld, you create your character and then your world. I do appreciate that the tutorial is very good about explaining what it is you need to get started. There’s a robust survival guide that not only explains how the basic controls work but also offers tips on what to do first. And like any survival game, the first thing I wound up doing was punching trees and rocks.

 

Catching pals is a simple affair frontloaded with a bunch of busy work before you can even think about building your team. You’ve gotta craft the game’s version of pokéballs, but before you can make them you need a special kind of stone that you can either pick up off the ground or mine from rock deposits. Then you’ve gotta craft the workbench to craft the pokéball. After that, catching a pal works like it would in any other game: weaken it (with weapons, your fists, or another pal you’ve got on your team) then throw the ball to catch it. The game will tell you, based on how much you’ve weakened the pal, your likelihood of successfully catching it, which is a nice touch. But make sure you aim that ball precisely because if you’re off by one pixel, you’ll miss and lose your ball. This is especially frustrating in the early game because of all the work it takes to make the suckers in the first place.

 

Haven’t quite gotten to this level of automation yet. Image: Pocketpair

The game’s survival features are all what one would expect. There’s a hunger bar for your character, your pals have a hunger bar, and there’s even a hot / cold weather feature a la Tears of the Kingdom, so keep a torch handy or stay near campfires at night.

 

Setting up your base is similarly simple. Building a special structure will establish a base, and assigning any pals you’ve caught to that base will put them to work. If there are any resources within the base’s perimeter, your assigned pals will start harvesting them. Also, if you’re crafting within the base, whether it be tools or structures, your pals will bust out little hammers and help. You have to manage your pals carefully, providing them with shelter, food, and something to do.

 

And… that’s it. I have two hours in the game across PC and Game Pass. (The Xbox version is vastly inferior to PC — lots of frame rate drops, texture pop-ins, and visual glitches. Also, the Xbox version doesn’t have dedicated servers, which means multiplayer games are limited to up to four players, not 32 like on Steam. According to a report from IGN,Palworld developer Pocketpair is working on it).

 

It feels like I’ve got a decent understanding of most of what the game’s offering: catch pals, build stuff. The game’s novelty combined with its dissonant and edgy tone might be enough to hold players’ attention for the first 20 hours (or more, if you’re playing with friends), but I’m curious what the next 20 hours look like. The game’s still in early access and according to its Steam page, it’ll be at least a year before the full release.

 

Then there’s all the controversy. Multiple outlets and people on social media have pointed out the similarities between Palworld’s pals and pokémon.

 

https://x.com/TeeHallums/status/1748808064604504089?s=20

On X, user byofrog created a video showing models of pals superimposed over pokémon with the models lining up perfectly.

https://x.com/byofrog/status/1749198773295743156?s=20

https://x.com/byofrog/status/1749188773127016772?s=20

As of this writing, Palworld has sold over 5 million copies, and it is currently the most played game on Steam with over 870,000 players — it’s 300,000 players shy of beating Counter-Strike’s record for the most players on Steam ever. I can see why. First, it’s dry January. Outside of Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown — which you should absolutely be playing! — and Like A Dragon: Infinite Wealth, there’s not much going on such that a game like Palworld with its “Pokémon with guns” premise has the breathing room to make a big splash.

 

Secondly, Palworld is different. I don’t mean that it’s special in its difference; it’s not doing anything particularly inspired with its survival, crafting, or monster-catching elements. But the fact that Palworld mashed all those highly popular game mechanics together makes it enough to catch the attention of starved Pokémon fans who haven’t had a decent meal since Sword / Shield.

 

 

— Techmeme

Categories
Art & Life Business Culture Digital - AI & Apps Economics Foodies/Tastylicious Lifestyle Regulations & Security

 IT’SUGAR unveils  exclusive Barbie Chocolate bars in  collaboration with Mattel close to Valentine’s Day

 

FT.  LAUDERDALE, Fla.  —   IT’SUGAR, one of the largest specialty candy retailers in the U.S., is excited to announce the launch of a licensing deal with Mattel, introducing three exclusive Barbie Chocolate Bars.

 

These delicious chocolate bars, priced at $3.99 each, will be available at IT’SUGAR stores and itsugar.com beginning on Thursday, Jan. 25.

 

The IT’SUGAR Exclusive Barbie Collection celebrate Barbie’s enduring legacy. The chocolate bars feature packaging inspired by Barbie’s signature style, creating a visual delight for fans and collectors alike. These delectable chocolate bars are just the beginning, as IT’SUGAR will soon introduce a variety of other Barbie-themed products in stores and on its website over the next month.

 

“We are excited to bring the magic of Barbie to life through our exclusive collaboration with Mattel,” said Justin Clinger, Assistant Vice President Creative and Marketing of IT’SUGAR.

 

“These bars are just the beginning, and a delightful way for fans of all ages to experience the iconic Barbie brand.”

 

On Thursday, Jan. 25, the IT’SUGAR Exclusive Barbie Chocolate Bars will also be featured prominently across IT’SUGAR’s social media channels. Customers and Barbie enthusiasts are invited to join the celebration of Barbie’s timeless allure with these exclusive treats. Engaging in the conversation on social media using the hashtag #BarbieBars allows you to stay connected and be part of this delightful experience.

 

IT’SUGAR Stores epitomizes what the brand is known for: thousands of varieties of over-the-top sweets, humorous products, and immersive candy experiences with featured shops, including Sour Patch Kids, OREO, Nerds, Skittles, Reese’s, and Starburst. It also includes shops devoted to retro and international candy, TikTok-trending treats, and much more, providing endless playful entertainment for sugar enthusiasts of all ages.

 

About IT’SUGAR: 

IT’SUGAR is one of the largest specialty candy retailers in the world, with over 100 locations in U.S. and Canada. IT’SUGAR isn’t just a candy store – it transforms how the world experiences their favorite sugary treats. Known for its absurd sugar innovations that celebrate lighthearted rebellion, IT’SUGAR aspires to a future where everyone has access to the pure joy that comes from indulging in a world with fewer restrictions and more SUGAR. IT’SUGAR is a member of BBX Capital, Inc.’s family of companies and a subsidiary of BBX Sweet Holdings. For more information, please visit www.IT’SUGAR.com

 

For more information, please visit www.itsugar.com.

Categories
Business Culture Digital - AI & Apps International & World Lifestyle Regulations & Security Sports & Gaming Technology

Gaming regulator in China rescinds draft rules, published in December to set spending limits and ban daily login rewards in online games; Tencent rose 6%+

—  China’s gaming regulator has removed from its website rules it proposed last month aimed at curbing spending and rewards

 

Josh Ye / Reuters:

 

HONG KONG — China’s gaming regulator has removed from its website rules it proposed last month aimed at curbing spending and rewards that encourage playing video games, checks by Reuters on Tuesday showed, in a move that boosted gaming company shares.

(Tencent sign is seen at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai, China July 6, 2023. REUTERS/Aly Song/File Photo Acquire Licensing Rights, opens new tab)

The link to the draft rules on the National Press and Publication Administration’s (NPPA) website was inaccessible as of Tuesday morning, after having worked on Monday.

 

The consultation period on the rules, which sparked market turmoil when they were first announced, expired on Monday.
The removal was described by analysts as unusual, with some saying a revision could be in store. The NPPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reason for the removal.
Xiaoyue Hu, an analyst at Haitong Securities, said in a note to clients reviewed by Reuters that the removal of the announcement could signal “there might be further changes in the new measures.”

 

Hu said previous regulatory measures seeking opinions had a track record of staying on the government’s websites even after the consultation period ended.
Shares in Tencent Holdings (0700.HK), opens new tab, the world’s biggest gaming company, and its closest rival, NetEase (9999.HK), opens new tab, rose as much as 6% and 7% in morning trading respectively. The two companies’ shares were still up more than 4% at noon against a 2.4% increase in Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index (.HSI)

 

The draft rules, which proposed setting spending limits for online games, had sparked panic among investors, wiping off nearly $80 billion in market value from China’s two biggest gaming companies when they were announced.
Analysts also at the time said the plans brought the risk of potential regulatory change back to the fore in the minds of investors, hurting confidence at a time when the government has been trying to boost private-sector investment to spur a slowing economy.
But five days later, the NPPA struck a more conciliatory tone, saying it would improve them by “earnestly studying” public views. Earlier this month, Reuters reported that China removed a gaming regulatory official from his post, in a move linked to the rules.
Two of the most contentious articles in the proposed rules were articles 17 and 18, analysts said. The NPPA had acknowledged concern over those articles in December and analysts said there was a possibility they could be removed or changed.
Article 17 seeks to ban video games from forcing players into combat, which confused the industry as combat is the key mechanic of the majority of contemporary multi-player games.
Article 18 requires games to set a spending limit for players as well as barring features that incentivize players to spend in the game.
“Our base-case view expects the government to remove Article 17 (prohibition of mandatory player-versus-player) and 18 (imposing spending limit) from the final rule,” Ivan Su, an analyst at Morningstar, told Reuters.
Charlie Chai, a Shanghai-based analyst at 86Research, said regulators have been working to contain the fallout of the proposed rules.
“It seems (government) officials were caught off guard by the overwhelming negative reaction from investors, businesses, and the public,” he said, adding that the government has since “moderated its stance (and labelled) the proposal as ‘negotiable.'”

 

 

Read More

 

 

— Techmeme

Categories
Business Digital - AI & Apps Education Lifestyle Technology

A look at the challenges Amazon Prime Video faces as it plans to show ads, also to include large brands 

—  The e-commerce giant must provide more high-quality content and court advertisers that don’t sell products on its platform, experts say

 

 

Patrick Coffee / Wall Street Journal:

The arrival of ads on Amazon Prime Video this month is expected to upend the already crowded streaming television market in the U.S. But it also won’t be an entirely smooth transition for Amazon.

 

The e-commerce giant is now the world’s third-largest digital ad seller, behind tech companies

Action series “Reacher” was the most-viewed title on Amazon Prime in 2023, according to Amazon. CREDIT: Brooke Palmer/Prime Video
Meta Platforms, with ad revenue surpassing $12 billion in the third quarter, up 26% from the period a year earlier. Its data and insights on millions of customers give Prime Video a long-term advantage by allowing marketers to target ads based on variables from shopping history to location.

 

Amazon will generate roughly $5.2 billion in additional annual revenue through Prime Video ad sales and the $2.99 monthly surcharge that subscribers can pay to avoid the ads, according to a recent Morgan Stanley research note. Roughly a third of Prime subscribers are expected to opt for the ad-free version, Bank of America analysts say.

Still, the company faces significant challenges as it enters a market where streaming rivals with large footprints in traditional media, such as Walt Disney and WarnerBros. Discovery, and even Netflix, a late arrival to ad sales, enjoy more established relationships with the advertisers that still spend the bulk of their money on broadcast TV. Amazon must convince the world’s largest brands, and the agencies that manage their budgets, to spend big on Prime Video despite a plethora of alternative ways to reach consumers and uncertainty regarding returns on their investments and threats to their market share.

 

“The dollars that are migrating into this opportunity are still tethered, in many ways, to traditional TV buying as opposed to digital ad buying,” said Andrew Lipsman, founder of consulting firm Media, Ads + Commerce. “Right now, Amazon is stronger on the digital advertiser front, but this is all new territory for them. They have plenty of speed bumps along the way.”

 

 

Read More

 

 

— Techmeme

Categories
Business Digital - AI & Apps Economics Government International & World Politics Regulations & Security Science Technology

Second TSMC factory for Arizona faces delays as US grants remain in flux

— The firm’s first fab in Arizona has been pushed back to 2025

— Biden White House has yet to hand out promised chip subsidies

 

Bloomberg:

 

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. announced another delay to its $40 billion site in Arizona, dealing a further blow to the Biden administration’s plans to boost manufacturing of critical components on U.S. soil.

Executives said their second plant in Arizona, whose shell is now being built, will start operations in 2027 or 2028, later than TSMC’s prior guidance of 2026. That’s after the company in July announced a delay to the first site, now due to start making 4-nanometer chips only in 2025, citing a lack of skilled labor and higher costs.

“Our overseas decisions are based on customer needs and the necessary level of government subsidy, or support,” Chairman Mark Liu said during TSMC’s earnings conference in Taipei on Thursday. The company’s upbeat outlook for the year drove a rally in chip stocks across Asia on Friday, with TSMC shares up as much as 6.3%.

Previously, TSMC had said it will make 3nm chips at the second factory, which is expected to be more advanced than the first in Arizona. But on Thursday, the company said that incentives from the U.S. government will help determine how advanced the tech inside will be, adding uncertainty to the project’s outcome.

Because of the setback with the first fab, TSMC has delayed its second factory too, according to Chief Financial Officer Wendell Huang. The Taiwanese chipmaker is in talks with the U.S. government about incentives and tax credits, Liu said. He also reiterated TSMC was working with the local union and trade partners in the state. The company has faced resistance to plans to bring in technicians from Taiwan for the construction project.

Pushing back the start of the second fab could mean a delay of as much as two years, time enough for semiconductor tech to advance by one generation.

More than a year after U.S. President Joe Biden signed the Chips and Science Act into law — which is supposed to provide tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to chipmakers expanding in the U.S. — the administration has yet to hand out any grants to major chipmakers like TSMC or Intel Corp. It has so far only provided some modest financial support to two minor industry players.

By contrast, TSMC publicized its plans for a more modest plant in Japan later than its Arizona project, but it has already received funds from the Japanese government. The facility is on track to start production in late 2024, according to the latest update the company provided.

 

— Techmeme