ReportWire

Tag: online services

  • Steam and Valve’s online games are down

    Steam is experiencing an outage that’s impacting users ability to access the game store and play games online. Valve hasn’t acknowledged the outage publicly, but SteamDB’s unofficial Steam Status page reports that the Steam Store, Steam Community, and Steam Web APIs are all offline.

    DownDetector received over 6,000 outage reports around 1:15PM ET, and Steam is also inaccessible from Valve’s mobile apps. The outage appears to be affecting APIs for Valve’s online games, like Team Fortress 2, Dota 2 and Counterstrike 2, as well.

    Steam’s last major outage was in October, when the store and online services were unavailable for an hour. Earlier in September, the launch of Hollow Knight: Silksong temporarily took down Steam, the Xbox Store and Nintendo’s eShop due to how many people tried to download the game at the same time.

    Ian Carlos Campbell

    Source link

  • These 5 tech stocks could let you play earnings season like a pro

    These 5 tech stocks could let you play earnings season like a pro

    Source link

  • Etsy drifts further away from its roots with first Super Bowl ad

    Etsy drifts further away from its roots with first Super Bowl ad


    Etsy Inc., once known as a quirky marketplace for handmade, artisanal and vintage items, seems to be moving further away from its origins amid a much tougher e-commerce landscape and the impact of AI.

    Etsy
    ETSY,
    +4.83%
    will be marketing to a whole new audience on Sunday, when its first Super Bowl commercial will run. The 30-second ad is quirky; it depicts a generic 19th-century American leader who’s flummoxed over how to reciprocate France’s gift of the Statue of Liberty. With the help of an anachronistic smartphone, he and his team search on Etsy using its new Gift Mode option, and find its “Cheese Lover” category after determining that the French love cheese. Voilà — they decide to send the French some cheese.

    The commercial is part of Etsy’s push of a new user interface featuring Gift Mode, which lets shoppers search for gifts for a specific type of person or occasion — combining generative AI and human curation to give gift buyers some unusual options.

    But are these moves desperate and costly efforts to try to reach potential new buyers, coming on the heels of Etsy’s plans to lay off 11% of its staff?Or could running a TV ad at the most expensive time of the year actually lead to more sales on the once-fast growing marketplace?

    Etsy believes these moves will help the company grow again, and its research shows the average American spends $1,600 a year on gifts. “There is no single market leader and Etsy sees a real opportunity to become the destination for gifting,” Etsy’s Chief Executive Josh Silverman said in a recent blog post.

    Etsy is clearly under pressure after seeing its gross merchandise sales more than double in 2020 during the pandemic, when it became a go-to place to buy handmade masks and all kinds of items for the home, from vintage pieces to antiques to castoffs. From personal experience as an Etsy seller, I saw sales at my own small vintage-clothing shop more than double in 2020 and then fall back in 2021, while still remaining higher than in 2019. In the last two years, sales have slowed, and some other sellers have witnessed similar patterns, based on their comments in seller forums.

    The number of sellers and buyers on the platform has increased on the same level as gross merchandise sales. But e-commerce competition has also gotten more fierce.

    “Our main concern with Etsy is growing competition in the space from new players like Temu,” said Bernstein Research analyst Nikhil Devnani, in an email. Temu and fellow Chinese online retailer Shein have raised a lot of investor jitters, as Etsy’s gross merchandise sales have slipped over the last year and are forecast to fall again in its upcoming fourth-quarter earnings report later this month.

    Devnani said a Super Bowl ad could potentially help the marketplace gain visibility, something it has always lacked.

    “One dynamic they’ve talked about a lot is that brand awareness/recollection is still low, and this keeps frequency low,” he said, noting that Etsy buyers shop on the site about three times per year, on average. “They want to be more top-of-mind … Super Bowl ads are notoriously expensive of course, but can be impactful/get noticed.”

    The company’s big focus on Gift Mode, however, could be a risky strategy. How many times a year do consumers look for gifts? And in a note Devnani wrote in October, before the company’s Gift Mode launch, he said that one of the concerns investors have is that Etsy is too niche. “’How often does someone need something special?’ is the rhetoric we hear most often,” he said. Etsy, then, is counting on buyers returning for other items for themselves.

    Etsy CEO Silverman believes buyers will come back again and again to purchase gifts. Naved Khan, a B. Riley Securities analyst, said in a recent note to clients that he believes Gift Mode plays to Etsy’s core strengths, offering “unique goods at reasonable prices” versus the mass-produced products sold on Shein, Temu, Amazon.com Inc.
    AMZN,
    +2.71%    ,
    and other sites.

    Consumer spending has changed, though. At an investor conference in December, Silverman said that consumers are spending on dining out and traveling, instead of buying things.

    But while investors still view Etsy as a niche e-commerce site, some buyers and sellers see it overrun with repetitive, non-relevant ads. Complaints about a decline in search capabilities, reliance on email and chat for support, and constant tech changes are common on seller forums and Facebook groups. AI-generated art offered by newer sellers as a side hustle has also become a thought-provoking, debated issue. And there are complaints about mass-produced items making their way on the site.

    Etsy said that in addition to its human and automated efforts, it also relies on community flags to help take down infringing products that are not allowed on its marketplace, and that community members should contact the company when if they see mass-produced items for sale on the site.

    It also continues to work on search. On its last earnings call, Silverman said the company was moving beyond relevance to the next frontier of search, one “focused on better identifying the quality of each Etsy listing utilizing humans and [machine-learning] technology, so that from a highly relevant result set we bring the very best of Etsy to the top — personalized to what we understand of your tastes and preferences.”

    The pressure could build on the company if its latest moves don’t generate growth. Etsy recently gave a seat on its board to a partner at activist investor Elliott Management, which bought a “sizable” stake in the company in the last few months. Marc Steinberg, who is responsible for public and private investments at Elliott, has also has been on the board at Pinterest
    PINS,
    -9.45%
    since December 2022.

    Elliott Management did not respond to questions. But in a statement last week, Steinberg said he was joining the board because he “believe[s] there is an opportunity for significant value creation.” Some sellers fear that the pressure from investors and Wall Street will lead to Etsy allowing mass-produced products onto the site. In its fall update, Etsy said the number of listings it removed for violating its handmade policy jumped 112% and that it was further accelerating such actions.

    Etsy’s stock before the news of Elliott’s stake was down about 18% this year. Its shares are now off about 3.65% this year, after recently having their best day in seven years on the news that Steinberg joined the board.

    Etsy is a unique marketplace that for many years had a much better reputation than some of its rivals, like eBay
    EBAY,
    +0.98%    .
    But since going public and answering to Wall Street, the need to provide growth and profits for investors has become much more of a driver. The Super Bowl ad and Gift Mode may bring a broader awareness to Etsy, but will it be the right kind of awareness? Sellers like me hope these new efforts will stave off the continuing fight with the likes of Temu and other vendors of mass-produced products, and help Etsy retain the remaining unique aspects of its marketplace.



    Source link

  • Alibaba’s stock gains after earnings as company boosts buyback program

    Alibaba’s stock gains after earnings as company boosts buyback program


    Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.
    BABA,
    +4.82%
    fell short on adjusted earnings for its latest quarter but still was seeing its stock gain premarket Wednesday as the Chinese e-commerce player boosted its buyback authorization by $25 billion. The company reported fiscal third-quarter net income of 10.7 billion renminbi ($1.5 billion), or 5.65 renminbi per American depositary share, down from 46.8 billion renminbi, or 17.91 renminbi per ADS, in the year-earlier period. On an adjusted basis, Alibaba earned 18.97 renminbi per share, down from 19.26 renminbi a share a year before, while analysts were modeling 19.12 renminbi. Revenue rose to 260.3 billion renminbi from 247.8 billion renminbi and matched the FactSet consensus view. Cloud revenue increased 3% from a year before, while revenue from the Taobao and Tmall e-commerce platforms was up 2%. Alibaba called out strong growth in order volume and the number of transacting buyers but noted that average order value fell.



    Source link

  • Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. team up to launch new sports streaming service

    Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. team up to launch new sports streaming service


    Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN, Fox Corp. and Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. are teaming to create a joint sports streaming service.

    The as-yet unnamed service, which could be available as early as the fall and offer a sort of Hulu model for sports, comes amid an explosion in sports-streaming rights and audiences.

    The service would essentially be a skinny bundle of the companies’ linear channels, including ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, ESPNEWS, ABC, Fox, FS1, FS2, BTN, TNT, TBS, truTV, as well as the ESPN+ streaming service.

    “The launch of this new streaming sports service is a significant moment for Disney
    DIS,
    +2.73%
    and ESPN, a major win for sports fans, and an important step forward for the media business,” Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger said in a statement late Tuesday. “This means the full suite of ESPN channels will be available to consumers alongside the sports programming of other industry leaders as part of a differentiated sports-centric service.”

    Added Warner Bros.
    WBD,

    CEO David Zaslav: “This new sports service exemplifies our ability as an industry to drive innovation and provide consumers with more choice, enjoyment and value and we’re thrilled to deliver it to sports fans.”

    Each company will own one-third of the platform, according to Disney, in a deal reminiscent of the original Hulu, which started off as a joint venture between ABC, Fox and NBCUniversal.

    The service will have a new brand with an independent management team, and will be available to bundle with Disney+, Hulu and Max subscriptions.

    “We’re pumped,” Fox
    FOX,
    +0.55%
    CEO Lachlan Murdoch said. “We believe the service will provide passionate fans outside of the traditional bundle an array of amazing sports content all in one place.”

    More details, including pricing, will be announced later.

    Prominently missing from the deal are Comcast Corp.
    CMCSA,
    -1.00%    ,
    which owns NBCUniversal and its sports lineup that includes NFL football and the Olympics, and Paramount Global
    PARA,
    -0.21%    ,
    which owns CBS — which carries the NFL and college football, among other sports.

    The new service will showcase thousands of high-profile sporting events and include all four major sports leagues — the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL — as well as college football and basketball, golf, tennis, cycling, soccer and UFC.

    Shares of Disney were down 1% in extended trading Tuesday, while Fox shares jumped 6% and WBD gained 3%.

    Mike Murphy contributed to this report.



    Source link

  • Mark Zuckerberg could pay millions to the IRS on Meta dividends. He still might be getting ‘a major break’.

    Mark Zuckerberg could pay millions to the IRS on Meta dividends. He still might be getting ‘a major break’.


    Mark Zuckerberg delighted Meta shareholders and Wall Street this week with news of the social media giant’s first-ever dividend.

    The IRS may also be happy, now that it’s staring at millions in taxes on the Meta stock dividends bound for Zuckerberg’s portfolio.

    Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta Platforms Inc.
    META,
    +20.32%    ,
    is poised to make $700 million in dividends yearly. He owns nearly 350 million shares, according to FactSet, and the company will start paying a quarterly dividend of 50 cents a share.

    That would yield nearly $167 million in federal taxes yearly, after a qualified-dividend tax of 20% and another 3.8% tax on the investment returns of rich households, two accounting experts said.

    California income taxes of 13.3% on the dividends could cost Zuckerberg another $93.1 million, said Andrew Belnap, an accounting professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business.

    All in, that’s a combined $259.7 million in federal and state taxes annually on the Meta dividends, Belnap estimated.

    For context, U.S. taxpayers reported over $285 billion in qualified-dividend income to the IRS though mid-November 2023, according to agency statistics. Nearly 30 million tax returns reported qualified dividends through that time.

    Meta said it plans a quarterly cash dividend going forward, with the first such payment in March.

    Meta shares soared 20.5% on Friday, ending with a record-high close of $474.99. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA,
    S&P 500
    SPX
    and Nasdaq Composite
    COMP
    all closed higher Friday.

    ‘Zuck is getting a major break’

    Meta announced the dividend payment in its earnings results Thursday, on the same week that Americans began filing their income taxes.

    A look at Zuckerberg’s dividends and their tax implications offer a peek at the debate about the varying ways wages and wealth are taxed.

    “Zuck is getting a major break,” said Andrew Schmidt, an accounting professor at North Carolina State University’s Poole School of Management who also crunched the numbers for MarketWatch.

    Approximately $167 million “seems like a high tax bill,” he said. But if Zuckerberg received the $700 million as a straight salary, Schmidt estimated he’d be looking at a roughly $259 million tax bill on the wages after they were taxed at the top marginal rate of 37%.

    Federal income tax brackets run from 10% to 37%.

    Meanwhile, the IRS taxes qualified dividends and capital gains at 0%, 15% and 20%, depending on income and household status. The net investment income tax adds another 3.8% for individuals making at least $200,000 or married couples worth $250,000.

    For federal and state taxes on the Meta dividends, Zuckerberg would face a combined rate of 37.1%, Belnap noted. “His tax rate on this is actually fairly high,” he said.

    The gap in tax rates on income derived from wages and investments “has been a big criticism with U.S. tax policy,” Schmidt said, especially as lawmakers look for ways to come up with more tax revenue.

    Regular retail investors enjoy the same preferential rates on capital gains and dividends as the top 1% of taxpayers, Schmidt added. The issue is that those dividends and stock profits are a smaller part of their income while salaries, taxed at higher rates, are a bigger proportion.

    Belnap noted that California’s state tax rules don’t provide special treatment to dividends.

    Read also: Where Trump, Biden and Haley stand on capital gains, the child tax credit and other key tax questions

    Zuckerberg received a $1 base salary in 2022, a figure that hasn’t changed in several years. He is now worth $142 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, making him the fifth-richest person in the world.

    Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Taxes on the Meta dividends will not be something Zuckerberg, or any Meta shareholders big or small, need to deal with until next year’s tax season, Belnap and Schmidt observed.

    But as taxpayers amass their 1099-DIV forms on dividend income, IRS figures show that it’s mostly upper-echelon taxpayers reaping the rewards on the preferential rates for qualified dividends.

    Households worth at least $1 million accounted for 40% of the approximate $285.3 billion in qualified dividends reported through mid-November, according to agency figures.

    For less affluent investors, “it’s usually a nice supplement, but I’d say very few people are living off dividends,” Belnap said.



    Source link

  • Meta’s stock is the most overbought in 11 years, but that could be a good thing

    Meta’s stock is the most overbought in 11 years, but that could be a good thing


    There’s a common belief that “overbought” is a technical condition for a stock, but in practice it seems to be more of an ability.

    Meta Platforms Inc.’s stock
    META,
    +20.32%
    soared so much Friday after a blowout earnings report, that some technical readings have reached levels not seen in 11 years.

    The stock rocketed 20.9% to close at a record $474.99, to book the third-biggest gain since going public in May 2012. The only bigger rallies were 23.3% on Feb. 2, 2023 and 29.6% on July 25, 2013, which were also after earnings reports.

    The stock’s Relative Strength Index, which is a momentum indicator that measures the magnitudes of recent gains and losses, climbed to 86.48. That’s the highest level seen since it closed at a record 89.39 on July 30, 2013.

    But that shouldn’t scare off Meta bulls.

    Many chart watchers believe RSI readings above 70 are signs of “overbought” conditions, which suggests bulls need a breather after running faster and farther than they are used to.

    There are also many who believe the ability to become overbought is a sign of underlying strength, since a stock tends to be trending higher when RSI hurdles 70. (Read Constance Brown’s “Technical Analysis for the Trading Professional.”)

    For example, the record RSI reading came three days after the record stock-price rally of 29.6% on July 25, 2013. Even though RSI closed at what was then a record of 88.27 after a record price gain on the 25th, the stock continued to rally and become even more overbought.

    It was that spike that snapped the stock out of the year-long doldrum that followed the initial public offering, and flipped the long-term narrative on the stock to bullish. (Read “Facebook’s ‘breakaway gap’ is a bullish game changer,” from The Wall Street Journal.)


    FactSet, MarketWatch

    And while the record RSI readings in July 2013 did lead to a minor short-term pullback, it didn’t stop the stock from embarking on a long-term uptrend, in which RSI made multiple forays above 70.


    FactSet, MarketWatch

    And the last time RSI closed above 85 was Feb. 2, 2023, when it closed at 86.07, also after a blowout earnings report.

    And similar to 10 years earlier, that historically high overbought reading helped launch another long-term rally.


    FactSet, MarketWatch

    So yes, Meta’s stock is now facing historically high overbought conditions. But as many chart watchers like to say, overbought doesn’t mean over.

    One thing to consider, however, is that the two prior times RSI spiked above 85 were while the long-term fates of the stock were still in question — the stocks were working on short-term bounces following long-term downtrends.


    FactSet, MarketWatch

    But Friday’s blast off happened just days after the stock closed at a record high. There was no resistance to hurdle, so rather than a bullish “breakaway gap,” Friday’s jump could be considered more a bullish leap of faith.

    Also read:

    Meta’s killer stock rally could add $200 billion in market cap — a historic haul.

    Nvidia’s stock could rise above $600 — despite signs it’s already overbought.



    Source link

  • Alphabet’s stock dips because advertising was good, but not good enough

    Alphabet’s stock dips because advertising was good, but not good enough


    Google parent Alphabet Inc.’s stock was tumbling late Tuesday, as a rebound in digital advertising fell short of analysts’ lofty expectations.

    The search-engine powerhouse reported a jump in fourth-quarter sales, chiefly through advertising, but Alphabet’s shares
    GOOGL,
    -1.34%

    GOOG,
    -1.16%
    fell 4% in after-hours trading.

    Total revenue was $86.3 billion, up 13% from $76 billion a year ago. Sales minus total acquisition costs (TAC) came in at $72.3 billion, compared with $63.1 billion a year ago.

    Alphabet reported fourth-quarter net income of $20.7 billion, or $1.64 a share, compared with net income of $13.6 billion, or $1.05 a share, in the year-ago quarter.

    “We are pleased with the ongoing strength in Search and the growing contribution from YouTube and Cloud. Each of these is already benefiting from our AI investments and innovation. As we enter the Gemini era, the best is yet to come,” Alphabet Chief Executive Sundar Pichai said in a statement announcing the results.

    Analysts surveyed by FactSet had expected on average net earnings of $1.59 a share on revenue of $85.3 billion and ex-TAC revenue of $71.2 billion.

    Google’s total advertising sales climbed to $65.5 billion from $59 billion a year ago, edging analysts’ average expectations of $65.8 billion. YouTube ad sales rose to $9.2 billion from $7.96 billion a year. Google Cloud rang up $9.2 billion in sales, up from $7.3 billion.

    Alphabet is also ramping up AI initiatives to improve operational efficiency and productivity for 2023 and beyond. The company is using AI in its finance organization and analytics, but Alphabet did not break out AI revenue in Tuesday’s earnings report.

    Alphabet Chief Financial Officer Ruth Porat told CNBC that gen-AI will be a focus of the call with analysts now taking place.

    Shares of Google have climbed 53% over the past 12 months. The S&P 500 index
    SPX
    has risen 21% the past year.



    Source link

  • Even Cloudflare's CEO says that viral firing video is 'painful' — here's what went wrong

    Even Cloudflare's CEO says that viral firing video is 'painful' — here's what went wrong

    A tech employee’s recording of the meeting firing her from a sales role at Cloudflare
    NET,
    -1.79%
    has spurred criticism of the company — and a broader conversation about the right way to let employees go.

    Viewers have called the roughly 10-minute TikTok video, which went viral this week, “sad” and a “disaster.” Even Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince responded on X (formerly Twitter) that it was “painful for me to watch.”

    In the video captioned, “POV: You’re about to get laid off,” former Cloudflare account executive Brittany Pietsch logs into a virtual meeting with an HR representative and a director at the company, both of whom she says she’s never met before. In a caption, Pietsch writes that she assumed they were meeting to let her go, because she had heard from coworkers who had been axed already.

    In the video, the company reps say that Pietsch hadn’t met performance expectations, and that Cloudflare had decided to “part ways” with her. Pietsch’s response is what has pushed this clip to be shared all over social-media newsfeeds: She asks for an explanation for why she, specifically, is being let go by the company, particularly because she’s a new employee who hasn’t heard any negative feedback. She also asks why her manager isn’t a part of this termination meeting.

    “Every single one-on-one [meeting] I’ve had with my manager, every conversation I’ve had with him — he’s been giving me nothing but ‘I am doing a great job,’” she says during the meeting. “I’m just definitely very confused and would love an explanation that makes sense.” 

    The director, who can’t be seen in the video, says he “won’t be able to go into specifics” on Pietsch’s performance. 

    In a statement to MarketWatch, a Cloudflare spokesperson clarified that the company did not conduct layoffs, and is not engaged in a reduction of force. “When we do make the decision to part ways with an employee, we base the decision on a review of an employee’s ability to meet measurable performance targets,” the Cloudflare statement said. “We regularly review team members’ performance and let go of those who aren’t right for our team. There is nothing unique about that review process or the number of people we let go after performance review this quarter.”

    Pietsch did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

    Company CEO Prince added on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the company fired 40 salespeople out of 1,500 in its go-to-market division. “That’s a normal quarter,” he wrote in his post. “When we’re doing performance management right, we can often tell within 3 months or less of a sales hire, even during the holidays, whether they’re going to be successful or not.” 

    But he also added: “We try to fire perfectly. In this case, clearly we were far from perfect. The video is painful for me to watch. Managers should always be involved. HR should be involved, but it shouldn’t be outsourced to them … We don’t always get it right.”

    Many viewers seem to agree, as the video has drawn close to 200,000 views on TikTok and millions of views on X, along with going viral on Reddit.

    “Total disaster on both sides,” lawyer Eric Pacifici said. 

    “Totally unfair to her,” wrote Austen Allred, CEO of the online-coding bootcamp Bloom Institute of Technology. “Pretty sad across the board.” 

    On LinkedIn, Pietsch gave her own response to the social-media uproar. She said that her manager was unaware that she was being let go, and that she asked questions during the meeting not to try and save her job, but rather to get greater clarity on why she had been singled out for termination. 

    “I’ll never be able to wrap my mind around it,” she wrote in the post. “We as employees are expected to give 2 weeks notice and yet we don’t deserve even a sliver of respect when the roles are reversed?”

    What’s the right way to fire an employee? 

    It’s never easy to part ways with an employee, according to Molly, a human-resources consultant who runs the TikTok account HR Molly, which has 80,000 followers. She asked only to be identified by her first name for privacy reasons. 

    But that being said, it’s very important to treat affected employees with respect. That can include sharing as much information as possible about why the decision is being made. 

    “I tell people that even if you catch someone stealing, even that termination meeting should have a level of decency,” she said. “It seems like there’s a significant consensus that the meeting [in the viral video] lacked some dignity.”

    It’s also important to understand these kinds of conversations will be difficult for an employee no matter what, Molly added. 

    “We know this impacts people and we know this is emotional and that it’s harmful. How can we do it in a way that creates the least amount of additional harm?” she said, noting that she picked up the concept from fellow TikTok creator and diversity consultant Ciarra Jones. “Companies need to prioritize the well-being of the employee that’s impacted.” 

    As for recording your layoff or firing meeting — that can be risky, Molly said, and downright illegal in states that require you to receive consent before doing so.

    But companies and HR professionals would be wise to remind themselves that, in this day and age, it can happen, she said. And if a camera or tape recorder would change the way you handle an interaction, it’s a good sign to reevaluate.

    According to its company website, Cloudflare has dozens of job postings for open positions across the company, including sales roles.

    In her LinkedIn post, Pietsch said that she’s not very concerned about any backlash over the video that might impede her chances of getting another job. 

    “Any company that wouldn’t want to hire me because I shared a video of how a company fired me or because I asked questions as to why I was being let go is not a company I would ever want to work for anyway,” she wrote.

    Source link

  • NFL has ‘decided to rip off fans’ with playoff game on Peacock, congressman says

    NFL has ‘decided to rip off fans’ with playoff game on Peacock, congressman says

    “‘You’ve decided to rip off fans by exclusively broadcasting tomorrow’s Chiefs vs. Dolphins wild-card game on Peacock. For the first time ever, fans will be forced to choose between signing up for yet another expensive streaming service or missing out on a major playoff game.’”

    That was part of a letter that Rep. Pat Ryan penned to leaders of the NFL and NBC Sports lamenting that an NFL playoff game this weekend will be available via steaming only for the first time.

    “How much more profit do [NFL commissioner Roger] Goodell and NBC need to make at the expense of hard working Americans?” the New York Democrat’s letter went on to ask.

    He wrote: “Congress granted the NFL an antitrust exemption in its broadcast deals with the expectation that you wouldn’t use it to screw over fans. That was clearly a mistake.” 

    Peacock, a streaming service operated by Comcast’s
    CMCSA,
    -0.65%
    NBCUniversal, is one of several streaming platforms that now broadcast NFL games. Some of those services, like Amazon’s
    AMZN,
    -0.36%
    Prime Video, have exclusive rights to certain games, meaning there is no other option to watch on network or cable television, or through a cord-cutting live TV subscription. But while there have been NFL games available only on a streaming platform before, never before has it been a playoff game.

    Part of the reason that Ryan, along with many NFL fans, are upset that the Chiefs-Dolphins game is available exclusively on Peacock is that it’s been getting more expensive to watch the NFL in recent years — because, increasingly, games are not broadcast on network TV. In fact, the price to watch every NFL game this season for cord cutters was $1,603, not including the cost of internet service. 

    That commitment includes the cost of six streaming services and five username and password combinations. Those digital streaming services include Google’s
    GOOG,
    +0.40%

    GOOGL,
    +0.40%
    YouTube TV, NFL Sunday Ticket, Amazon Prime Video, Peacock, NFL+ and ESPN+
    DIS,
    +1.01%    .

    And the NFL is reaping the rewards. A decade ago, the league made about $3 billion from its TV deals. But, through all of its broadcast deals today with both networks and streaming companies, it makes roughly $10 billion a year.

    Peacock has two plans: a $5.99-per-month subscription with ads, and another option for $11.99 a month that’s ad-free. While fans who live in the local broadcast areas of where the teams play (the media markets around Kansas City and Miami, in this case) will have the ability to watch the game on local TV, the rest of the country will have to pay for Peacock.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, NBC paid $110 million for Peacock’s exclusive NFL broadcast rights. 

    Many fans took to social media to vent their frustrations about having to buy another streaming service to watch an NFL game this weekend.

    Responding to the backlash, an NFL spokesperson said in a statement: “The NFL’s media strategy has been to make our games available in as many ways as possible to meet our fans where they spend their time. As streaming video becomes commonplace, we are increasingly expanding the digital distribution of NFL content while continuing a longstanding policy that all NFL games be shown on free, over-the-air television in the markets of the participating teams.”

    NBCUniversal did not respond to MarketWatch’s request for comment.

    Clermont, Fla., resident Calicia Landry, 53, has been a Dolphins fan for decades. Her family had season tickets during the historic 1972 season when the Dolphins went undefeated — the first and only time that has happened in NFL history.

    When asked if she will pay for Peacock to watch the game, Landry, whose town is in the Orlando, Fla., market, told MarketWatch that, despite Peacock’s cost of just $5, “it’s the principle now.”

    “I bought NFL Sunday Ticket already. I already pay for television service with DirecTV
    T,
    +1.54%    .
    I had to have Prime to watch the Black Friday game,” she said. “It’s too much.”

    Read on: Here’s how much the major streaming services are set to cost are all the price increases

    Source link

  • Mark Zuckerberg sold $428 million of Meta stock in the last two months of 2023

    Mark Zuckerberg sold $428 million of Meta stock in the last two months of 2023

    Mark Zuckerberg cashed in on his company’s 2023 stock rally in a big way — selling nearly $428 million worth of shares in Meta Platforms Inc. over the final two months of the year.

    The Meta
    META,
    -0.53%
    co-founder and chief executive offloaded just under 1.8 million shares over the course of every trading day between Nov. 1 and the end of last year, according to a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday. 

    The sales were in accordance with a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted by Zuckerberg in July and saw him capitalize on Meta’s rebounding stock price, which soared 194.1% in 2023 — and nearly threefold since it hit a seven-year low in November 2022. By comparison, the S&P 500
    SPX
    and the Nasdaq Composite
    COMP
    indexes gained 24.2% and 43.4%, respectively, in 2023.

    The moves also broke a two-year hiatus, dating back to November 2021, during which Zuckerberg did not sell any of his stock in the Facebook parent company, according to Bloomberg, which first reported the news. Zuckerberg, who owns roughly 13% of Meta, is ranked the seventh-richest person in the world with a net worth of $125 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

    Nasdaq-listed Meta shares, which fell 0.5% on Wednesday to $344.47, are now roughly 11% off their all-time closing high of $382.18 from September 2021.

    Representatives for Meta could not immediately be reached for comment.

    Source link

  • Uber and Lyft shares rallied in 2023 but may not go much higher, analysts say

    Uber and Lyft shares rallied in 2023 but may not go much higher, analysts say

    Shares of Uber Technologies Inc. and the ride-hailing giant’s smaller rival, Lyft Inc., have sprinted higher this year. But analysts on Friday suggested there might not be much left in the tank for either stock heading into 2024.

    Nomura analysts Anindya Das and Masataka Kunugimoto on Friday downgraded Uber
    UBER,
    -2.49%
    to a neutral rating from buy, arguing that most of the things that could drive the stock higher are already baked into the price. They also downgraded Lyft
    LYFT,
    -3.54%
    to their equivalent of a sell rating from buy, saying the company failed to fully capitalize on the travel industry’s post-pandemic recovery.

    Shares of Uber, which closed out the year up 142%, were down 2.5% on Friday. Lyft’s stock gave up 3.4% and finished 2023 up 34.8%.

    Uber, the analysts said, had managed to grow this year while occasionally turning a profit, and consolidated its grip on the ride-sharing markets in the U.S. and Canada. Meanwhile, Lyft, they said, had stumbled in its efforts to take advantage of the travel rebound after pandemic restrictions eased, cutting more staff this year after doing the same in 2022.

    After years of losing money, they said Uber’s stronger financials this year allowed it to refinance its debt at a lower interest rate and extend the terms of that debt. They noted the company recently joined the S&P 500 Index
    SPX
    and that the market is expecting more stock buybacks from the company, as well as interest-rate cuts by the Federal Reserve next year.

    “Thus, most of the milestones and catalysts that we were anticipating to boost Uber’s stock value have been largely met,” they said.

    They added: “At this time, we think most of the catalysts for the stock are already priced in, and Uber is fairly valued at the current price. We therefore downgrade it to Neutral from Buy.”

    Lyft has tried to cut its prices to compete with Uber, and has held off on expanding into areas like food delivery. But as travel demand settles, the analysts suggested, the advantages would still flow to its archrival.

    “We expect 2024 to be more of a ‘normal’ year, in terms of people’s propensity to travel,” the analysts said. “Once the current rebound in travel subsides, we think Lyft’s subscale market positioning, and lack of cross-selling opportunities (unlike Uber), could constrain topline growth for the company.”

    “Offsetting a more moderate pace of ridership growth by raising prices would be challenging for Lyft,” they said, “as we think it would be bound by the actions of its larger and more profitable peer, Uber.”

    Source link

  • When Colorado removed Trump from the ballot, a Supreme Court showdown looked likely. Maine removed all doubt.

    When Colorado removed Trump from the ballot, a Supreme Court showdown looked likely. Maine removed all doubt.

    DENVER (AP) — First, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump wasn’t eligible to run for his old job in that state. Then, Maine’s secretary of state ruled the same for her state.

    Both decisions are historic. The Colorado court was the first court to apply to a presidential candidate a rarely used constitutional ban against those who “engaged in insurrection.” Maine’s secretary of state was the first top election official to unilaterally strike a presidential candidate from the ballot under that provision.

    What’s next? Can Trump be put back on the ballot?

    Both decisions are on hold while the legal process plays out. That means that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado and Maine and that his political fate is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The Maine ruling will likely never take effect on its own. Its central impact is increasing pressure on the nation’s highest court to state clearly whether Trump remains eligible to run for president after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    What’s the legal issue that could keep Trump off the ballot?

    After the Civil War, the U.S. ratified the 14th Amendment to guarantee rights to former slaves and more. It also included a two-sentence clause called Section 3, designed to keep former Confederates from regaining government power after the war.

    “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require a criminal conviction to take effect.”

    The measure reads: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

    Congress did remove that disability from most Confederates in 1872, and the provision fell into disuse. But it was rediscovered after Jan. 6.

    See: Nikki Haley was asked by N.H. voter to name Civil War cause. Slavery was absent from her answer.

    How does this apply to former president Trump exactly?

    Trump is already being prosecuted for the attempt to overturn his 2020 loss that culminated with Jan. 6, but Section 3 doesn’t require a criminal conviction to take effect. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed to disqualify Trump, claiming he engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6 and is no longer qualified to run for office.

    All the suits failed until the Colorado ruling. And dozens of secretaries of state have been asked to remove him from the ballot. All said they didn’t have the authority to do so without a court order — until Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’s decision.

    See: As Colorado court bars Trump from ballot, poll finds 62% of GOP voters would want him as nominee even with more legal woes

    Also: Police investigating ‘incidents’ against Colorado justices after Trump removed from state’s ballot

    The Supreme Court has never ruled on Section 3. It’s likely to do so in considering appeals of the Colorado decision — the state Republican Party has already appealed, and Trump is expected to file his own shortly.

    Bellows’s ruling cannot be appealed straight to the U.S. Supreme Court — it has to be appealed up the judicial chain first, starting with a trial court in Maine.

    The Maine decision does force the high court’s hand, though. It was already highly likely the justices would hear the Colorado case, but Maine removes any doubt.

    Trump lost Colorado in 2020, and he doesn’t need to win it again to garner an Electoral College majority next year. But he won one of Maine’s four Electoral College votes in 2020 by winning the state’s 2nd Congressional District, so Bellows’s decision would have a direct impact on his odds next November.

    Until the high court rules, any state could adopt its own standard on whether Trump, or anyone else, can be on the ballot. That’s the sort of legal chaos the court is supposed to prevent.

    What is Trump’s argument?

    Trump’s lawyers have several arguments against the push to disqualify him. First, it’s not clear Section 3 applies to the president — an early draft mentioned the office, but it was taken out, and the language “an officer of the United States” elsewhere in the Constitution doesn’t mean the president, they contend.

    Second, even if it does apply to the presidency, they say, this is a “political” question best decided by voters, not unelected judges. Third, if judges do want to get involved, the lawyers assert, they’re violating Trump’s rights to a fair legal procedure by flatly ruling he’s ineligible without some sort of fact-finding process like a lengthy criminal trial. Fourth, they argue, Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection under the meaning of Section 3 — it was more like a riot. Finally, even if it was an insurrection, they say, Trump wasn’t involved in it — he was merely using his free speech rights.

    Of course, the lawyers who want to disqualify Trump have arguments, too.

    The main one is that the case is actually very simple: Jan. 6 was an insurrection, Trump incited it, and he’s disqualified.

    Why has this process taken so long?

    The attack of Jan. 6, 2021, occurred nearly three years ago, but the challenges weren’t “ripe,” to use the legal term, until Trump petitioned to get onto state ballots this fall.

    But the length of time also gets at another issue — no one has really wanted to rule on the merits of the case. Most judges have dismissed the lawsuits because of technical issues, including that courts don’t have the authority to tell parties whom to put on their primary ballots. Secretaries of state have dodged, too, usually telling those who ask them to ban Trump that they don’t have the authority to do so unless ordered by a court.

    No one can dodge anymore. Legal experts have cautioned that, if the Supreme Court doesn’t clearly resolve the issue, it could lead to chaos in November — or in January 2025, if Trump wins the election. Imagine, they say, if the high court ducks the issue or says it’s not a decision for the courts to make, and Democrats win a narrow majority in Congress. Would they seat Trump or declare he’s ineligible under Section 3?

    Why was this action taken in Maine?

    Maine has an unusual process in which a secretary of state is required to hold a public hearing on challenges to politicians’ spots on the ballot and then issue a ruling. Multiple groups of Maine voters, including a bipartisan clutch of former state lawmakers, filed such a challenge, triggering Bellows’s decision.

    Bellows is a Democrat and the former head of the Maine chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Trump’s attorneys asked her to recuse herself from the case, citing social-media posts calling Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and bemoaning Trump’s acquittal in his impeachment trial over the attack.

    She refused, saying she wasn’t ruling based on personal opinions. But the precedent she sets is notable, critics say. In theory, election officials in every state could decide a candidate is ineligible based on a novel legal theory about Section 3 and end their candidacies.

    Conservatives argue that Section 3 could apply to Vice President Kamala Harris, for example — it was used to block from office even those who donated small sums to individual Confederates. Couldn’t it be used against Harris, they say, because she raised money for those arrested in the unrest after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020?

    Is this a partisan issue?

    Bellows is a Democrat, and all the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats. Six of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans, three by Trump himself.

    But courts don’t always split on predictable partisan lines. The Colorado ruling was 4-3 — so three Democratic appointees disagreed with barring Trump. Several prominent legal conservatives have championed the use of Section 3 against the former president.

    Now we’ll see how the high court handles it.

    Read on:

    Trump’s name can appear on ballot in Michigan, says state’s top court

    Georgia election workers sue Rudy Giuliani again, seek to bar him from repeating lies about them

    Trump’s Republican rivals rally to his defense after Colorado ballot ruling

    Supreme Court to hear case that could undermine obstruction charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants

    Source link

  • Activision Blizzard to pay $55 million to settle California civil-rights lawsuit

    Activision Blizzard to pay $55 million to settle California civil-rights lawsuit

    Videogame maker Activision Blizzard has agreed to pay nearly $55 million to settle a California civil-rights lawsuit brought over complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination and pay disparities by women employees that helped trigger the company’s acquisition by Microsoft.

    The settlement, announced by the California Civil Rights Department on Friday evening, resolves the lawsuit filed against the “Call of Duty” videogame studio by the agency in 2021 over claims that it “discriminated against women at the company, including by denying promotion opportunities and paying them less than men for doing substantially similar work,” CRD said.

    The agreement, subject to court approval, will see Activision pay nearly $46 million into a settlement fund dedicated to compensating women employees and contract workers at the company, plus more than $9 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. Additionally, Activision will take steps “to help ensure fair pay and promotion practices at the company,” including retaining an independent consultant to evaluate its compensation and promotion policies.

    Yet the settlement also sees CRD withdraw its initial claims alleging a culture of widespread, systemic workplace sexual harassment at Activision, according to a copy of the agreement provided to MarketWatch. The document notes that the department is filing an amended complaint that removes the sexual-harassment allegations against the company and focuses on the gender-based pay and promotion claims.

    CRD made no note of its prior sexual-harassment claims against Activision in its announcement Friday. A spokesperson for the department said the statement “largely speaks for itself with respect to the historic nature of this more than $50 million settlement agreement, which will bring direct relief and compensation to women who were harmed by the company’s discriminatory practices.

    Representatives for Activision declined to comment.

    The Wall Street Journal first reported the news of the settlement Friday.

    The California agency’s complaint was one of several high-profile investigations by both state and federal regulators in recent years into alleged workplace misconduct at Activision and failures by its leadership to respond appropriately. 

    While Activision repeatedly denied the allegations, they ramped up pressure on the Santa Monica, Calif.-based company and its CEO, Bobby Kotick, and eventually led to a $68.7 billion takeover bid by Microsoft
    MSFT,
    +1.31%
    in January 2022. The acquisition closed this October after receiving approval by U.K. and E.U. antitrust regulators, though the U.S. Federal Trade Commission continues to challenge the deal in court. Kotick is expected to leave the company, which he led for more than three decades, at the end of this year.

    The settlement would be the second-largest ever for the California Civil Rights Department, according to the Journal, after its $100 million agreement with another Los Angeles-area videogame developer, Riot Games, to resolve gender-discrimination allegations in 2021. The agency had initially sought a much-larger settlement with Activision, the publication reported, citing how the state had estimated the company’s liability at nearly $1 billion to some 2,500 employees with potential claims.

    Source link

  • Apple braces for EU antitrust order over App Store: report

    Apple braces for EU antitrust order over App Store: report

    The European Union is about to hit Apple Inc. 
    AAPL,
    +0.75%
    with a ban on App Store rules that govern music-streaming rivals like Spotify Technology
    SPOT,
    -0.93%
    and a potential hefty fine in the regulatory body’s latest bid to thwart the power and reach of Big Tech. A Bloomberg report Wednesday said the EU’s imminent antitrust order would prohibit Apple’s practice of blocking music services from pushing their users away from the App Store to alternative subscription options. Regulators are also mulling a fine of up to 10% of Apple’s annual sales. Apple was not immediately available to comment on the report.

    Source link

  • What to expect as Netflix, Disney and other big streaming names shift strategy

    What to expect as Netflix, Disney and other big streaming names shift strategy

    Streaming customers are likely to see more familiar faces and less megabudget content in the coming year.

    Shifting consumer tastes and corporate strategies portend changes in programming, with artificial intelligence looming in the background, as major streaming services consider how to use technology and new forms of programming without escalating annual multibillion-dollar content budgets.

    “The big quandary is, how do we make [services] profitable? Things have shifted so dramatically and so quickly in how people consume,” Cole Strain, head of research and development at Samba TV, which tracks viewership of shows, said in an interview. “The streamers that find out what consumers truly want — they win.”

    Streaming services are facing some big choices, noted Jacqueline Corbelli, CEO of software company BrightLine. “The cost of the content and the length of the content war will force them to make some major decisions. They are trying to figure it out,” she said in an interview.

    “Great content has to be paid for, and investors want to see an increasingly efficient and profitable business,” she said, adding: “Right now the economics of these are at odds with one another.”

    This year’s prolonged Hollywood strikes, the prevalence of up-close-and-personal sports documentaries and the increased licensing of older cable-TV shows are the most tangible evidence so far of how content is evolving. Throw in cost-cutting, and customers of services like Netflix Inc.
    NFLX,
    +0.28%    ,
    Walt Disney Co.’s
    DIS,
    -1.33%
    Disney+ and Hulu, and Amazon.com Inc.’s
    AMZN,
    +1.41%
    Prime Video are looking at a vastly different content landscape.

    What’s at stake? Streaming’s big guns continue to spend lavishly in the pursuit of engagement, which is the single most important metric in media. During its third-quarter earnings calls, Netflix said it would spend $17 billion on content in 2024, while Disney pledged $25 billion, including sports rights.

    “‘I think when it comes to creativity, quality is critical, of course, and quantity in many ways can destroy quality.’”


    — Disney CEO Bob Iger

    Complicating matters and raising the urgency is the pressure, particularly at Disney, to cut costs. The very future of blockbuster movies is also in doubt in the wake of box-office misfires such as “Wish,” “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” and the latest Marvel entries, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” and “The Marvels.”

    “One of the reasons I believe it’s fallen off a bit is that we were making too much,” Disney CEO Bob Iger said at a recent employee town hall meeting in New York City. “I think when it comes to creativity, quality is critical, of course, and quantity in many ways can destroy quality. Storytelling, obviously, is the core of what we do as a company.”

    Also read: Disney CEO Bob Iger walks back comments about asset sales

    Speaking at the New York Times DealBook Summit last week, Iger acknowledged that “the movie business is changing. Box office is about 75% of what it was pre-COVID.” Noting the $7 monthly fee for a Disney+ subscription, he said the experience of viewing content from home on large TV screens is both more convenient and less expensive than going to the movie theater.

    Iger’s task is significantly more fraught than those faced by his rivals. He is in the midst of a turnaround at Disney aimed at making streaming profitable and is simultaneously fending off yet another proxy fight from activist investor Nelson Peltz.

    Part of Iger’s plan is to slash costs. Of the $7.5 billion Disney intends to save in 2024, $4.5 billion will come out of the content budget. Previously, the company was aiming at a $3 billion content cut out of a total annual reduction of $5.5 billion. Disney plans to spend $25 billion on content in 2024, down from $27.2 billion in 2023 and a record $29.9 billion in 2022.

    Read more: Bob Iger: ‘I was not seeking to return’ as Disney CEO

    What streamers have done so far hews closely to the classic TV model of producing original movies and series, broadcasting live sporting events and throwing in licensed content, or syndication. They’ve also displayed a willingness to place ads on their services after vowing not to (in the case of Netflix) and have managed to mitigate spending on pricey sports rights with behind-the-scenes content.

    Most prominently, Netflix has licensed older shows like USA Networks’ “Suits,” reintroducing the cast, including a then-unknown Meghan Markle, to solid viewership. “As the competitive environment evolves, we may have increased opportunities to license more hit titles to complement our original programming,” Netflix said in its third-quarter earnings statement. 

    During the company’s earnings call in October, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos pointed to the historic streaming success of “Suits.” “This continues to be important for us to add a lot of breadth of storytelling,” he said. “Our consumers have a wide range of tastes, and we can’t make everything, but we can help you find just about anything. That’s really the strength.”

    The success of “Suits” and of original sports programming, among several tweaks, indicates that consumers like what they see so far. Streaming additions at Netflix and Disney were significant — 8.76 million and nearly 7 million, respectively — during the recently completed third calendar quarter.

    Read more: Netflix’s stock jumps more than 10% on huge spike in subscribers, price hikes

    “There exist a lot of popular, good shows that people hadn’t seen before. HBO Max has licensed ‘Band of Brothers.’ ‘Yellowstone’ is on the CBS network after performing well on Paramount Global
    PARA,
    -2.76%
    and Comcast Corp.’s
    CMCSA,
    -3.41%
    Peacock,” Jon Giegengack, founder and principal of Hub Entertainment Research, said in an interview. “Consumers increasingly don’t care if a show is new, if they haven’t seen it before.”

    On the sports front, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video have sidestepped expensive rights to live sporting events and instead produced docuseries such as Netflix’s “Quarterback” and “Formula 1: Drive to Survive” and Amazon’s “Coach Prime” and “Redefined: J.R. Smith.” Amazon also continues to air “NFL Thursday Night Football.”

    Competition for eyeballs is tight with so many suitors — from Alphabet Inc.’s
    GOOGL,
    +1.33%

    GOOG,
    +1.35%
    YouTube to TikTok, both of which are developing long-form content — and viewers face “too many streaming options,” said Brittany Slattery, chief marketing officer at OpenAP, an advertising platform founded by the owners of most of the large TV networks.

    “There is a high churn rate, because consumers keep popping in and out of services because they can’t afford all these services,” Slattery said in an interview.

    Also see: Here’s what’s worth streaming in December 2023: Not much new, yet still a lot to watch

    Mark Vena, CEO and principal analyst at SmarTech Research, sums up the typical customer experience: “There are too many services for streaming. I will buy service for a month, watch a movie and then cancel.”

    Using technology for a new experience

    Major streamers are pinning many of their hopes on technology as a way to entice viewers and expand beyond the traditional TV model they’ve adopted. Strategies include mobile gaming (Netflix), gambling (Disney’s ESPN Bet) and shoppable media (Amazon).

    The biggest near-term change would bring ESPN exclusively to streaming, perhaps as early as 2025, although big games would probably be simulcast on network TV to retain older viewers.

    “Technology will be a major impetus for being in the winning circle,” said Hunter Terry, head of connected TV at global data company Lotame, pointing to Amazon’s shoppable-media strategy during Prime Video’s broadcast of an NFL game on Black Friday.

    The NFL game, the first ever on a Friday, featured QR codes of Amazon ads for direct purchases via mobile devices and PCs, contributing greatly to what the e-commerce giant said was its best-ever sales day — 7.5% higher than Black Friday 2022. The game drew between 9.6 million and 10.8 million viewers, according to Nielsen and Amazon, making it the highest-rated show on Black Friday for young adults (18-34) and adults (18-49).

    And what of generative AI, a major flashpoint in the writers and actors strikes that roiled Hollywood for months earlier this year? Creators feared generative AI would be used to produce low- and middle-brow entertainment without the need for writers, actors or production crew.

    The technology is as intriguing to streamers as it is vexing. Full-blown adoption would rankle creators as well as customers. There are also limitations: AI-created content is lacking in humor and original thought, said David Parekh, CEO of SRI International, a leading research and development organization serving government and industry.

    “The pressing question is, who goes first among the streamers and risks getting blowback from studios and consumers?” said Rick Munarriz, a contributing analyst at the Motley Fool who covers streaming-service stocks. “You don’t want to offend people, but there are tools to create ideas” at little cost.

    AI and machine learning are already being used to mine data to find out what resonates with viewers.

    “It is very hard to produce successful content,” said Ron Gutman, CEO of Wurl, which helps streamers and publishers monetize and distribute content, and which was recently acquired by AppLovin Corp.
    APP,
    -0.80%
    for $430 million. “The market is so fragmented. The problem is connecting people to content.”

    Straight to streaming?

    Big-budget busts present another potential source of content, by salvaging unreleased movies, according to experts.

    The so-called dust-bin option is the natural successor to straight-to-video and straight-to-pay-per-view movies. There has been some precedent, with the release of Disney’s superhero hit “Black Widow” simultaneously on streaming and in theaters in May 2021.

    Will streaming services end up as the first stop for movies abruptly canceled before release? Candidates include “Batgirl,” which cost $90 million to make and was in post-production when Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.
    WBD,
    -4.57%
    pulled the plug.

    The same fate could also await two other shelved Warner Bros. movies, “Scoob! Holiday Haunt” and the completed “Coyote vs. Acme.”

    While the $90 million “Batgirl” is a tax write-off, there could be upside to “Coyote” and “Scoob!” if they went to streaming without a costly marketing campaign, said SmarTech Research’s Vena.

    Still, the long-term plans of streaming giants to meld tech to TV remains a ticklish task, said Wurl’s Gutman. “TV is a lean-back experience, not a lean-into technology medium,” he said. “People are looking at their phones while watching TV. It is a passive experience.”

    Tracy Swedlow, founder and co-producer of the TV of Tomorrow Show conference, said: “They’ve been burning a candle at both ends, investing in original content as well as licensing long-tail content such as ‘Suits’ and ‘Breaking Bad.’ Something has to give.”

    Source link

  • Why Sam Altman is a no-brainer for Time’s ‘Person of the Year’

    Why Sam Altman is a no-brainer for Time’s ‘Person of the Year’

    Nothing has changed our lives more this year than the advances made in artificial intelligence — and they have the potential to alter our lives in even more dramatic ways down the road.

    So it’s a no-brainer that Sam Altman, co-founder and recently returned chief executive of the once-little-known OpenAI, should be named “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine when the selection is announced Wednesday.

    Altman has already cracked Time’s shortlist, joining candidates from varied backgrounds, including world leaders like Xi Jinping and entertainment phenomenon Taylor Swift. The selection ultimately comes down to an “individual or group who most shaped the previous 12 months, for better or for worse.”

    But Time has often given “agents of change” its yearly honor — just look at 2021 winner Elon Musk — and Altman certainly fits that bill.

    No other innovation in the past year has had an impact in such disparate realms. OpenAI publicly launched its ChatGPT chatbot late last year, and as the technology grew viral in 2023, it upended the stock market, Silicon Valley and companies that wouldn’t normally be classified as technology businesses. The ensuing product development and surge in generative AI investment revitalized a tech industry that had sunk into the doldrums amid a pandemic hangover.

    Admittedly, it will take time for companies to realize the true financial benefits of AI: Nvidia Corp.
    NVDA,
    -2.68%
    is among the few to generate serious money from the frenzy so far. But market researcher IDC predicted that global spending on AI, including software, hardware and services for AI-centric systems will reach $154 billion this year, up 27% from a year ago. That total could zoom above $300 billion by 2026.

    Also read: One year after its launch, ChatGPT has succeeded in igniting a new era in tech

    And AI isn’t only impacting the corporate world. The technology is already affecting our daily lives, and it will have even deeper effects going forward. Chatbots are getting smarter on websites, facilitating better customer service. They’re starting to alter the workplace as well, spitting out mostly coherent marketing copy, research and even, gasp, news articles — albeit with plenty of errors.

    At first, ChatGPT seemed like a fun way to kill time or get homework help, but the chatbot and its ilk will seriously alter the working world, helping to eliminate perhaps millions of jobs. Morgan Stanley recently predicted that more than 40% of occupations will be affected by generative AI in the next three years.

    Altman himself has been the face of OpenAI in the past year. He’s talked up the technology, but he also appeared at congressional hearings in May to discuss potential regulation of AI, testifying that “if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong.” His recent firing and quick rehiring by OpenAI and its small, nonprofit board late last month fueled a veritable media storm before the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S.

    Time chooses its persons of the year for their impact, not because they’re saints. And Altman’s own story is not without controversy. The recent brouhaha over his leadership of OpenAI is believed to have been caused by a deep schism over the ethics of AI development. The board seemingly wanted more guardrails and precautions, and feared that rushed development could irrevocably doom mankind.

    Read in the Wall Street Journal: How effective altruism split Silicon Valley and fueled the blowup at OpenAI

    Altman, who also wooed Microsoft Corp.
    MSFT,
    -1.43%
    to become an investor in OpenAI, emerged the victor in the upheaval with his own company’s altruistic board. Had Altman truly been fired from OpenAI, Microsoft was planning to hire him, and nearly every employee at OpenAI was ready to quit and follow him there. While OpenAI faces plenty of competition, including from Alphabet Inc.’s
    GOOG,
    -2.02%

    GOOGL,
    -1.96%
    Google, Altman should continue to be the face of AI development, for good and for bad, even as he has advocated industry regulation.

    The debut and influence of ChatGPT and follow-on AI products are having the biggest impact on tech development since the invention of the iPhone. Altman is at the center of it and leading the charge. Whether he can keep the lid on Pandora’s Box or not depends on many factors, but he and the company he leads are clearly driving a new tech movement that affects us all, whether we like it or not.

    Source link

  • Apple scotches credit-card partnership with Goldman Sachs: report

    Apple scotches credit-card partnership with Goldman Sachs: report

    Apple Inc. AAPL is calling it quits on its credit-card partnership with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS, ending the Wall Street bank’s push into consumer lending, according to a Wall Street Journal report Tuesday. The iPhone maker sent a proposal to Goldman to leave the contract within 15 months, according to people briefed on the matter. The exit would cover the companies’ consumer partnership, which includes the credit card the companies launched in 2019 and the savings account rolled out in 2023. It is unclear if Apple has lined up a new issuer for the card.

    …

    Master your money.

    Subscribe to MarketWatch.

    Get this article and all of MarketWatch.

    Access from any device. Anywhere. Anytime.


    Subscribe Now

    Source link

  • No, Jeff Bezos hasn’t been unloading Amazon stock

    No, Jeff Bezos hasn’t been unloading Amazon stock

    A number of Amazon.com Inc. executives have disclosed sales of some of their Amazon stock holdings in recent weeks, but Jeff Bezos, the company’s executive chair and a mega-shareholder, was not among them.

    Despite some reports to the contrary, Bezos hasn’t disclosed any sales of Amazon shares AMZN for two years, but he has given some shares away to nonprofit organizations.

    There…

    Master your money.

    Subscribe to MarketWatch.

    Get this article and all of MarketWatch.

    Access from any device. Anywhere. Anytime.


    Subscribe Now

    Source link

  • Nvidia ends an earnings recession and is helping to reshape corporate profits

    Nvidia ends an earnings recession and is helping to reshape corporate profits

    With yet another blowout earnings report, Nvidia Corp. has ended an earnings recession in the U.S. and helped to solidify the continuation of a drastic change to corporate profits.

    Nvidia NVDA on Tuesday rode enduring demand for hardware that is essential for artificial-intelligence tasks to yet another record quarter, as revenue tripled and profit zoomed more than 1,300% higher year over year. Nvidia recorded earnings of more than $9 billion in just three months, a total it had never achieved in a full year before 2022.

    …

    Master your money.

    Subscribe to MarketWatch.

    Get this article and all of MarketWatch.

    Access from any device. Anywhere. Anytime.


    Subscribe Now

    Source link