Connect with us

Tech

Ford’s 2018 Mustang GT can do 0-to-60 mph in under 4 seconds

Nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.

Nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo.

Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur.

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.

Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur.

“Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat”

Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet ut et voluptates repudiandae sint et molestiae non recusandae. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt.

Tech

001-facebook-app-logo-on-phone-2021

Facebook is reviewing its decision to indefinitely suspend former US President Donald Trump from its platform.


Sarah Tew/CNET

Facebook‘s oversight board demonstrated on Wednesday that it wouldn’t do the social network’s dirty work.  

In January, former US President Donald Trump lost much of his digital reach when Facebook indefinitely booted him from the social network and Instagram, its photo service. Like other social networks, Facebook raised concerns that Trump’s online remarks could provoke more violence in the wake of the deadly Capitol Hill riot that month. CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the suspension in a post that called the risks of allowing Trump to to continue using the network “simply too great.”

The decision was controversial, and the social media giant asked the oversight board tasked with reviewing its toughest content decisions to uphold or overturn Trump’s suspension. The highly watched decision put the board in a tricky spot, placing the members at the center of a firestorm about how social networks should handle political speech. 

On Wednesday, the oversight board came to a decision that sent Zuckerberg and his team a strong message. It agreed with the suspension of Trump. But it found Facebook had issued a punishment that the social network’s own rules don’t describe and hadn’t adequately explained its reasoning for the penalty. The board told Facebook that it’ll be up to the social network, and not the board, to decide the length of Trump’s suspension. 

“In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities,” the board said in its decision. “The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.”

Stay in the know. Get the latest tech stories from CNET News every weekday.

The pushback from the oversight board, which dodged some of the heat that could surely come with the high-profile and controversial decision, is evidence that it won’t let Facebook use it as a scapegoat. The board pointed out flaws in Facebook’s rules, noting that “indefinite” suspensions aren’t described in its content rules. In the past, the social network has taken down content that violates its rules, imposed suspensions for a certain amount of time or permanently taken down an account or page. 

In the days leading up to the decision, discussion centered on whether Facebook was using the board to do the social network’s “dirty work for them so they can absolve themselves of responsibility,” said Jen Golbeck, an associate professor at the University of Maryland in College Park who focuses on social media. 

Facebook has six months to review the Trump ban from the platform, a decision that’ll also have an impact on other political leaders around the globe. “We will now consider the board’s decision and determine an action that is clear and proportionate,” Nick Clegg, vice president of global affairs and communications, said in a blog post. “In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s accounts remain suspended.”

Trump in a statement criticized Facebook, as well as Google and Twitter, as “corrupt.” The companies must “pay a political price,” Trump wrote. (The companies have repeatedly denied allegations of political bias against conservatives.)

Of course, the decision also underscored the board’s limited power. It can’t rewrite or change Facebook’s policies. It can only make recommendations, which the social network then decides what to do with. 

“It certainly wasn’t an exercise of power,” Golbeck said, referring to the board’s decision. “It remains to be seen if they will have any.” 

Meanwhile, Facebook is facing calls for regulation from both political parties, including an effort to change a law known as Section 230. The law shields online platforms from liability for content posted by users. 

“Every day, Facebook is amplifying and promoting disinformation and misinformation, and the structure and rules governing its oversight board generally seem to ignore this disturbing reality. It’s clear that real accountability will only come with legislative action,” US Rep. Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, tweeted Wednesday.

Every day, Facebook is amplifying and promoting disinformation and misinformation, and the structure and rules governing its oversight board generally seem to ignore this disturbing reality. It’s clear that real accountability will only come with legislative action.

— Rep. Frank Pallone (@FrankPallone) May 5, 2021

The same day, House Republican Whip Steve Scalise from Louisiana criticized Facebook’s ban of Trump.

“Big Tech has a choice: Have the same standards for ALL–or–we look at antitrust laws to limit their monopolistic power,” Scalise tweeted. “If they can do this to a president, imagine what they can do to you.” 

The Left’s cancel culture is out of control. Facebook’s ban of Trump is just more proof.

Big Tech has a choice: Have the same standards for ALL—or—we look at antitrust laws to limit their monopolistic power.

If they can do this to a president, imagine what they can do to you.

— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) May 5, 2021

Advocacy groups also weighed in on the decision. A group of prominent critics that calls itself “the real Facebook oversight board” added in a blog post that the social network’s “attempt to divert attention from its fundamental failure to take responsibility for what’s on its own platform has itself failed.” 

Continue Reading

Tech

fortnite-decade-review-2997

Angela Lang/CNET

Sherlock and Watson, peanut butter and jelly, Netflix and chill. Since 2008, Apple has created that sort of inextricable link between its iPhones and its App Store. The company’s “there’s an app for that” ad campaign drew millions of people, who over the years have bought more than a billion iPhones. And since the App Store was the only place to get programs for the iPhone, millions of developers flocked to Apple too. Now the tech giant is facing questions about whether it’s running a monopoly, forced into the topic by Fortnite maker Epic Games and Epic’s lawsuit alleging an abuse of power. 

On Monday, Apple will face off against Epic in a California court over a seemingly benign issue around payment processing and commissions. In short: Apple demands app developers use its payment processing whenever selling in-app digital items, like a new look for a Fortnite character or a celebratory dance move to perform after a win.

Cut through the chatter

Subscribe to CNET’s Mobile newsletter for the latest phone news and reviews.

The iPhone maker says that using its payment processing setup guarantees security and fairness, and it takes up to a 30% commission on those sales in part to help run its App Store. Epic, however, says Apple’s policies are monopolistic and its commissions too high.

On its surface, the lawsuit reads like a corporate slap fight about who gets how much money when we all buy stuff in apps. But the outcome of this case could change everything we know not just about the App Store, but about how mobile transactions work on other platforms like the Google Play store. It could invite further scrutiny from lawmakers, who are already looking at whether companies like Apple and Google wield too much power.

“This is the frontier of antitrust law,” said David Olson, an associate professor who teaches about antitrust at the Boston College Law School.

http://www.cnet.com/


Now playing:
Watch this:

Epic Games v. Apple: Trial preview



6:47

What makes this case unusual, Olson said, is that it attempts to challenge how modern tech companies work. Apple touts its “walled garden” approach — where it’s approved every app that’s offered for sale on its App Store since the beginning in 2008 — as a feature of its devices, promising that users can trust any app they download because it’s been vetted.

Aside from charging an up to 30% fee for in-app purchases, Apple requires app developers to follow policies against what it deems objectionable content, such as pornography, encouraging drug use, or realistic portrayals of death and violence. Apple also scans submitted apps for security issues and spam.

“Apple’s requirement that every iOS app undergo rigorous, human-assisted review — with reviewers representing 81 languages vetting on average 100,000 submissions per week — is critical to its ability to maintain the App Store as a secure and trusted platform for consumers to discover and download software,” the company said in one of its filings.

For its part, Epic has argued that Apple’s strict control of its App Store is anticompetitive and that the court should force the company to allow alternative app stores and payment processors on its phones. “Apple is bigger, more powerful, more entrenched and more pernicious than monopolies of yesteryear,” Epic said in an August legal filing. “Apple’s size and reach far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history.”

Epic isn’t the only company making this case. Music streaming service Spotify notably complained to European Union regulators, saying that Apple’s 30% commission and App Store rules breached EU competition laws. On Friday, the EU’s competition commissioner said that a preliminary investigation found “consumers losing out” as a result of Apple’s policies. Apple will have an opportunity to respond to the commission’s objections ahead of a final judgment on the matter. If it loses, Apple could be slapped with a fine of up to 10% of its annual revenue and be required to change how it applies fees to streaming services, at least within the EU.

Apple is also facing increasing scrutiny in the US, where lawmakers earlier in April held a hearing with representatives from the iPhone maker and Google, as well as from Spotify, dating app maker Match and tracking device maker Tile. During the hearing, both Spotify and Tile argued that Apple’s moves were monopolistic. (They made similar arguments about Google too.)

If Apple loses its lawsuit with Epic, it could be forced to change how apps are distributed and monetized across its iPhones and iPads.

“I’ll be really interested to see how much Apple argues, “This is our successful business model and this is what’s at stake,”http://www.cnet.com/” Olson said. Judges are typically wary of completely upending a successful business on a theory that it could promote more competition and lower prices. But not always. “If you’re a certain judge, you might say, ‘Great! Let’s do it,”http://www.cnet.com/” he added.

apple-store-iphone11-app-9820

Apple’s App Store helped make the iPhone what it is today.


Angela Lang/CNET

Monopoly or not?

Legal experts and people behind the scenes of the trial say the hardest argument Epic will need to make is proving that iPhone users have been harmed by Apple’s policies.

Antitrust laws in the US outlaw “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” according to a summation of the rules written by the Federal Trade Commission, which oversees many of the antitrust issues for the US government. Antitrust laws also outlaw “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” The FTC notes that a key part of judging these issues is is whether a restraint of trade is “unreasonable.”

In the Apple case, that translates to its payment processing. Epic, and other critics, say Apple’s requirement that developers use its payment processing is in itself monopolistic. 

Apple argues that its commission is fair, and thus the payment processing structure isn’t unreasonable. Apple has kept its 30% commission consistent since the App Store’s launch in 2008, and the iPhone maker says industry practices before then charged app developers much more. Furthermore, it hired a team of economists to help prove its practices aren’t anticompetitive.

In their report, the economists Apple hired said commission rates lower “the barriers to entry for small sellers and developers by minimizing upfront payments, and reinforce the marketplace’s incentive to promote matches that generate high long-term value.” They didn’t look into whether the fees stifle innovation or are fair, concerns that Epic and other developers have raised. 

Agitating change

fortnite-decade-review-2867

Fortnite is one of the most popular games ever made.


Angela Lang/CNET

Up until last year, Apple and Epic appeared to have a good relationship. Apple invited the software developer on stage at its events to show off games like Project Sword, a one-on-one fighting game later called Infinity Blade.

But Epic wasn’t just a popular developer. It also began pushing the industry for change. In 2017, Epic briefly allowed Fortnite players on Sony’s PlayStation and Microsoft’s Xbox to compete with one another. This was a feature Sony in particular had resisted with other popular games, like Rocket League and Minecraft. So when Epic removed the function, players blamed Sony and began a social media pressure campaign against the company. Sony relented a year later.

In 2018, Epic opened its Epic Games Store for PCs, a competitor to the industry-leading Valve Steam store. Its key feature was charging developers 12% commission on game sales, far below the industry standard of 30%. Epic also paid for exclusivity rights to highly anticipated games, forcing gamers to use its store to play highly anticipated titles like Gearbox Software’s sci-fi shooter Borderlands 3, Deep Silver’s postapocalyptic thriller Metro: Exodus and the epic story game Shenmu 3.

Gamers, though, bristled at the move. They didn’t like having to install another app store to get access to some of their games. They complained that Epic’s store didn’t have social networking, reviews and other features they preferred from Valve’s store. And now they’d have to go through all that if they wanted to buy these hot new titles.

“I wish there were a more popular way to do this,” Tim Sweeney, Epic’s CEO, said in a 2019 interview with CNET. But a survey by the Game Developers Conference, released just before our interview, underscored Sweeney’s point, finding among other things that a majority of game developers weren’t sure Valve’s Steam justified its 30% cut of revenue. “I feel like the ends are more than worth the means,” Sweeney said.

yt-vs-fortnite-banned-b

Apple iPhone and iPad owners haven’t been able to download the game since last August.


CNET

Project Liberty

Epic’s next target was big. In 2019, the company convened executives, lawyers and public relations experts to plan a public fight with Apple. Epic wanted to run its own app store and payment processing on the iPhone, according to documents filed with the courts. Epic even gave the initiative a name: Project Liberty.

To help make its case, Epic planned to lower the price for Fortnite’s “V-Bucks” in-game currency, which people used to buy new looks for their characters and weapons. It prepared a hashtag campaign, #FreeFortnite. And it helped form an advocacy group, the Coalition for App Fairness.

Epic also devised a marketing push, with a video reminiscent of Apple’s famous Super Bowl ad, which, in a tech-inspired spin on George Orwell’s novel 1984, had painted the original Macintosh as the savior. Now, though, Epic cast Apple as the evil Big Brother.

The project was organized in secret, according to depositions filed with the court. Epic “didn’t want anybody — Apple notwithstanding, anybody, users included, to — to understand that we were thinking about doing this until we decided to actually pull the trigger,” David Nikdel, lead of online gameplay systems for Epic, said in his testimony. Project Liberty was on a “need-to-know basis.”

Early on Aug. 13, Sweeney sent an email informing Apple it would no longer adhere to Apple’s payment processing restrictions, and turned on hidden code that allowed users to buy V-Bucks directly from Epic for a 20% discount. Epic made the same move with Google too, and both companies swiftly removed Fortnite from their respective app stores that day. Though Epic sued both companies in response, the Project Liberty marketing campaign was squarely aimed at Apple.

“Epic Games has defied the App Store Monopoly. In retaliation, Apple is blocking Fortnite from a billion devices,” Epic wrote in its ad, called Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite and posted to YouTube. “Join the fight to stop 2020 from becoming ‘1984.”http://www.cnet.com/”

Messy fight

gettyimages-1125995207

Before the pandemic, people filled stadiums by the thousands to watch Fortnite competitions.


Getty Images

Apple’s and Epic’s case is being argued before a judge, in a “bench trial,” and not before a jury. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who’s overseeing the case, has indicated she’s closely read the filings and learned the technical sides of Apple’s and Epic’s arguments. As a result, both camps are likely to dive into the legal weeds much faster than they would with a jury, whose members would need to get up to speed on the law and the details behind the case. 

No matter the decision, it’s almost certainly going to be appealed. And in the meantime, regulators, lawmakers and competitors will be watching closely to see how much Apple’s and Epic’s arguments could shape new approaches to antitrust.

“Concerns regarding anticompetitive behavior among tech companies are being heard worldwide,” said Valarie Williams, a partner with law firm Alston & Bird’s antitrust team, in an analysis of the case. “While the outcome of Epic Games v. Apple is not expected to rewrite the nation’s antitrust laws, it could be the tip of the iceberg.”

With so much on the line, the companies could consider settling before a judgment is handed down. But people connected to the lawsuit don’t think that’ll happen, in part because there isn’t much middle ground between the two companies’ arguments.

Apple could lower its payment processing fees, which it’s already done for subscription services and developers who ring up less than $1 million in revenue each year

wwdc2010-preview-10.jpg

Apple frequently points to its App Store as a key selling point of the iPhone.


James Martin/CNET

But allowing another payment processing service onto the iPhone could be a first crack in Apple’s argument that its strict App Store rules are built for the protection and trust of its users. If app developers could use any payment processor they wished, why couldn’t they use different app Stores too?

Epic has also argued that price isn’t the only issue it’s focused on. The company wants to choose technologies it uses in its Fortnite game as well.

That’s all why industry watchers say they expect the case to continue. Both Apple and Epic are large, well funded and notoriously obstinate.

“It’s easy to say it’s David vs. Goliath, but this is like Goliath vs. Godzilla,” said Michael Pachter, a longtime video game industry analyst at Wedbush Securities. “Tim Sweeney is a moral, ethical and quite opinionated person who genuinely believes he’s right, and will tilt at windmills because he’s convinced he’s right and it’s the right thing to do.”

Pachter predicts Apple’s argument around security of payment processes won’t hold up, considering Epic already successfully takes payment for V-Bucks on its own website and platforms. And when it broke Apple’s rules, Epic didn’t try to become a payment processor for games from other companies. Epic only tried to sell the same V-Bucks it offers for Fortnite on PCs and game consoles. 

“Tim did not say you can come into the Epic store and buy Clash of Clans currency or Candy Crush currency or whatever else,” Pachter added. “He was offering Epic currency.”

Epic’s lawsuit against Apple is set to begin Monday, May 3, at 8:30 a.m. PT/11:30 a.m. ET. The audio of the in-person courtroom proceedings will be carried live over a teleconference, and chosen pool reporters will be in the room. 

CNET will be covering the proceedings live, just as we always do — by providing real-time updates, commentary and analysis you can get only here.

Continue Reading

Tech

Facebook social media app

Facebook released its first-quarter earnings on Wednesday.


James Martin/CNET

Facebook grew its users and revenue in the first quarter, but the social media giant reiterated that a new privacy update Apple released this week could hinder its ads business. 

“We continue to expect increased ad targeting headwinds in 2021 from regulatory and platform changes, notably the recently-launched iOS 14.5 update, which we expect to begin having an impact in the second quarter,” Facebook CFO Dave Wehner said in a statement.

Everything Apple

CNET’s Apple Report newsletter delivers news, reviews and advice on iPhones, iPads, Macs and software.

The social network grew its revenue by 48%, to $26.17 billion, beating Wall Street’s expectations of $23.7 billion. Facebook earned $3.30 a share, surpassing the forecast of $2.34 per share anticipated by analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters. With more businesses going online during the coronavirus pandemic, Wehner noted that the company’s revenue growth was fueled by an increase in the average price per ad. Facebook’s stock jumped by nearly 5%, to $322.04 per share, in after-hours trading. 

Roughly 2.85 billion people logged in to Facebook every month, up 10% compared with the same period last year, the company said Wednesday. 

Facebook’s first-quarter earnings come as a public battle with Apple continues to escalate. The social network said Monday that it started rolling out a change required by Apple as part of Apple’s iOS 14.5 software update. App developers, including Facebook, will start showing iPhone and iPad users a prompt that asks for permission to track them across other apps and websites. Before showing Apple’s required notification, Facebook plans to display its own screen that outlines how the company uses the data, including by noting that advertising allows the company to avoid charging a subscription fee to use its various services.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said during a conference call that the company is helping businesses navigate through the iOS 14.5 changes and is rebuilding “meaningful” parts of its ad technology. She added that the social network believes businesses can still get “great results” from digital ads. 

The world’s biggest social network has had a poor track record when it comes to protecting user privacy. Its most damaging scandal involved data harvesting by political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that could have impacted the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. Facebook, though, has publicly pushed back against Apple’s privacy change, stating that it could make it tougher for small businesses to target ads to attract new customers. Apple, on the other hand, says the new feature, known as App Tracking Transparency, will give users more control over their data. 

While Facebook believes the change could harm its ad business, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has downplayed the looming impact on his company. In March, he said in an interview on social audio app Clubhouse that he was “confident” that Facebook would be able “to manage through that situation well.”

New products in the works

At the same time it’s battling Apple, Facebook continues to work on new products as competition heats up from short-form video app TikTok, social media site Twitter and other tech companies.

Facebook plans to roll out several audio tools in the coming weeks, including a Clubhouse competitor and a feature called Soundbites that’ll let users share short audio clips. This week, Spotify added a mini player for songs and podcasts in the Facebook app, which lets users discover new content more easily through social media. 

Facebook has also been doubling down on video within the last year, releasing tools such as videoconferencing feature Messenger Rooms. The company also introduced a short-form video feature called Reels on Facebook and on its photo-service Instagram, going head-to-head with TikTok.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2016-2021 2Fast2Serious magazine.