Microsoft will soon let Windows 11 users in the European Economic Area (EEA) disable its Bing web search, remove Microsoft Edge, and even add custom web search providers — including Google if it’s willing to build one — into its Windows Search interface.
All of these Windows 11 changes are part of key tweaks that Microsoft has to make to its operating system to comply with the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act, which comes into effect in March 2024. Microsoft will be required to meet a slew of interoperability and competition rules, including allowing users “to easily un-install pre-installed apps or change default settings on operating systems, virtual assistants, or web browsers that steer them to the products and services of the gatekeeper and provide choice screens for key services.”
Alongside clearly marking which apps are system components in Windows 11, Microsoft is also responding by adding the ability to uninstall the following apps:
Camera
Cortana
Web Search from Microsoft Bing, in the EEA
Microsoft Edge, in the EEA
Photos
Only Windows 11 users in the EEA will be able to fully remove Microsoft Edge and the Bing-powered web search from Windows Search. Microsoft could easily extend this to all Windows 11 users, but it’s limiting this extra functionality to EEA markets to comply with the rules. “Windows uses the region chosen by the customer during device setup to identify if the PC is in the EEA,” explains Microsoft in a blog post. “Once chosen in device setup, the region used for DMA compliance can only be changed by resetting the PC.”
In EEA markets — which includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway — Windows 11 users will also get access to new interoperability features for feeds in the Windows Widgets board and web search in Windows Search. This will allow search providers like Google to extend the main Windows Search interface with their own custom web searches.
[…]
We had hoped Microsoft would finally stop forcing Windows 11 users in Europe into Edge if they clicked a link from the Windows Widgets panel or from search results, but Microsoft appears to have changed exactly how it’s implementing this. The software maker previously said it would start testing a change to Windows 11 that would see “Windows system components use the default browser to open links” in EEA markets, but that change never appeared in Windows Insider builds.
“In the EEA, Windows will always use the customers’ configured app default settings for link and file types, including industry standard browser link types (http, https),” says Microsoft. “Apps choose how to open content on Windows, and some Microsoft apps will choose to open web content in Microsoft Edge.”
[…] Now in its third iteration, the Oura Ring tracks and analyzes a host of metrics, including your heart-rate variability (HRV), blood oxygen rate, body temperature, and sleep duration. It uses this data to give you three daily scores, tallying the quality of your sleep, activity, and “readiness.” It can also determine your chronotype (your body’s natural preferences for sleep or wakefulness), give insight into hormonal factors that can affect your sleep, and (theoretically) alert you when you’re getting sick.
I wore the Oura Ring for six months; it gave me tons of data about myself and helped me pinpoint areas in my sleep and health that I could improve. It’s also more comfortable and discreet to wear than most wristband wearable trackers.
However, the ring costs about $300 or more, depending on the style and finish, and Oura’s app now requires a roughly $72 yearly subscription to access most of the data and reports.
(Oura recently announced that the cost of the ring is eligible for reimbursement through a flexible spending account [FSA] or health spending account [HSA]. The subscription is not.)
If you just want to track your sleep cycles and get tips, a free (or modestly priced) sleep-tracking app may do the trick.
one because it was supposed to be the privacy friendly option, so what data are they sending to central servers and why (that’s the only way they can justify a subscription) and
two why is data that doesn’t need to be sent to the servers not being shown in the free version of the app?!
For the price of the ring this is a pretty shameless money grab.
From January 1, 2023, a seller may no longer increase the price of a product for a short period of time, then reduce the price and then present this ‘before’ price as an offer or a significant discount.
Despite this tightening, consumers are still faced with misleading discounts, especially in the run-up to the holidays. Unfortunately, according to the regulator ACM, the new rules are not being sufficiently complied with. In addition, sellers often refer to a suggested retail price when offering offers instead of the original retail price of the product.
That is why Minister Adriaansens is calling for a new EU rule. This should no longer allow companies to mention the suggested retail prices suggested by manufacturers in discount promotions if sellers do not actually use them. The use of completely invented recommended prices is already legally prohibited.
The Netherlands also wants the EU to make it possible for a Member State to ban door sales and/or telemarketing.
Google pays Apple 36% of its search advertising revenue from Safari, according to new details brought to light in Google’s search antitrust trial on Monday as reported by Bloomberg. The mere utterance of the number, which Google and Apple have tried to keep sealed, caused Google’s main litigator John Schmidtlein to visibly cringe.
“Like the revenue share percentage itself, they are a commercially sensitive part of the financial terms of an agreement currently in effect,” said Google in a filing last week, hoping to keep the true number sealed from the public’s eye.
[…]
It’s well known that Google and Apple share revenue, but not in this much detail. In Pichai’s testimony, he said the search engine has tried to give users a “seamless and easy” experience, even if that meant paying exorbitant fees to do so. Court documents revealed this month show the 20 queries Google makes the most revenue on, including “iPhone,” “Auto insurance,” “Hulu,” and “AARP.”
In response to criticism suggesting that the ban on short selling implemented on Nov. 6 is a “political decision” aimed at next year’s general election, Lee Bok-hyun, the head of the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), directly refuted the claims, stating, “About 100 stocks were identified as targets for naked short selling.” He said that it was a decisive measure to uproot rampant illegal short selling in the stock market.
[…]
“Currently, around 100 stocks, regardless of whether they are listed on the KOSPI or KOSDAQ, have been identified as subjects of naked, or illegal, short selling, and additional investigations are ongoing.”
[…]
He described the current situation regarding short selling as, “Not just a street with many broken windows, but rather a market where illegality has become so widespread that all the windows are shattered.”
[…]
Naked shorting is the illegal practice of short-selling shares that have not been affirmatively determined to exist. Ordinarily, traders must borrow a stock or determine that it can be borrowed before they sell it short. So naked shorting refers to short pressure on a stock that may be larger than the tradable shares in the market.
Despite being made illegal after the 2008–09 financial crisis, naked shorting continues to happen because of loopholes in rules and discrepancies between paper and electronic trading systems.
This and dark pool trading well all exposed by the GameStop / #GME explosion a few years ago. It’s nice to see someone finally taking it seriously, even if it is Korea and not the USA.
Amazon and Meta have agreed to not use data collected from their marketplaces to unfairly benefit themselves, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority announced on Friday.
The monopoly watchdog launched separateinvestigations into both internet giants’ business practices, and accused the Big Tech duo of not only gathering up information about sellers using their respective online souks, they also – surprise, surprise – exploited that info to get a commercial advantage.
In Amazon’s case, the e-commerce giant used vendors’ sales figures to decide which items it should sell, and how much to price products to get an edge over everyone else. The internet behemoth also promoted its own products with its Buy Box feature and it further cut into retailers’ margins by charging extra costs if they wanted to use Amazon’s Prime delivery services, the CMA said.
Now Amazon has committed to doing less of that. The CMA said the online souk will be prevented from using third-party seller data that gives it an unfair commercial advantage, and will allow rivals to negotiate rates with independent delivery contractors working on behalf of Amazon.
Who would have thought that if the owner and cashier of the marketplace is allowed to sell on there they would use their information dominance to choose which products to sell and then undercut the other vendors on the marketplace?!
It looks like Amazon is hellbent on keeping its spot as the biggest online retailer — even if that means hurting both sellers and customers. In September, the FTC filed a long-expected antitrust lawsuit against Amazon over its alleged use of illegal strategies to stay on top. Details of the suit were previously withheld from the public, but today a mostly unredacted version was released, including details about Amazon’s secret pricing tool, known as Project Nessie. These algorithms helped Amazon increase prices by over $1 billion over two years, the FTC alleges.
[…]
According to the The Wall Street Journal, the internal documents cited in the original complaint show that Amazon executives were well aware of the effects of the company’s policies. In the documents, Amazon executives acknowledged that these policies, which included requiring Amazon sellers to have the lowest prices online or risk consequences, had a “punitive aspect.” One executive pointed out that many sellers “live in constant fear” of being penalized by Amazon for not following the ever-changing pricing policy.
The FTC also alleges that the company had been monitoring its sellers and punishing them if they offered lower prices on other platforms, which the agency says is a violation of antitrust laws. The unredacted documents indicate that Amazon has increased prices by over $1 billion between 2016 to 2018 with the use of secret price gouging algorithms known as Project Nessie. It was also revealed that the “take rate” — aka the amount Amazon makes from sellers who use the Fulfillment By Amazon logistics program — increased from 27.6 percent in 2014 to 39.5 percent in 2018. It’s unclear if that has changed in more recent years since those numbers remained redacted.
And Amazon isn’t just ruining its sellers’ experience. The complaint also revealed Amazon’s increased use of ads in search results. Several ad executives at the company acknowledged that these sponsored ads were often irrelevant to the initial search and caused “harm to consumers” and the overall experience on the site.
The FTC alleges that these policies were the brainchild of Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and former chief executive, to increase the company’s profit margins.
“Mr. Bezos directly ordered his advertising team to continue to increase the number of advertisements on Amazon by allowing more irrelevant advertisements, because the revenue generated by advertisements eclipsed the revenue lost by degrading consumers’ shopping experience,” the FTC complaint alleges.
Over the summer, BMW finally backed down on its heated seat subscription program from sheer public outrage and bad press. This response apparently hasn’t deterred its rival Audi, however, as the German car company plans to make more new software features paid options on its next generation of vehicles.
Pioneered on the E-Tron and E-Tron Sportback, Audi offers over-the-air features through its myAudi app, adding functions like automated parking or lock-unlock light animations. To borrow a term from the gaming world, they’re microtransactions writ large to milk more money from customers. It’s like horse armor but for your car. Audi’s board rep for technical development Oliver Hoffmann has told Autocar that more “on demand” features like these are on their way.
2024 Audi Q8 E-Tron. Audi
“With our next generation of electronic architecture, we will bring more offers to ‘function on demand’ and you will see year by year we will bring new functions in the cars,” Hoffman told the outlet, claiming it’s a response to customer demand. “This is a [big] step. I think there is a demand from the customer to bring new functions in the car, and this is a profit pool for us—but we don’t see these revenue pools with this kind of functionality.”
Hoffmann reportedly wouldn’t say which features are coming, but was adamant that paid, downloadable features will be “quite normal in the future.” Which features exactly may be previewed by Audi itself, which already paywalls some climate control functions in some markets.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai upheld the company’s decision to pay out billions of dollars to remain the top global search engine at the U.S. anti-trust trial on Monday, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. Pichai claimed he tried to give users a “seamless and easy” experience, even if it meant paying Apple and other tech companies an exorbitant fee.
The U.S. Department of Justice is arguing that Google created the building blocks to hold a monopoly over the market, but Pichai disagrees, saying the company is the dominant search engine because it is better than its competitors.
“We realized early on that browsers are critical to how people are able to navigate and use the web,” Pichai said during questioning, as reported by The Journal. “It became very clear early on that if you make the user’s experience better, they would use the web more, they would enjoy using the web more, and they would search more in Google as well.”
Pichai testified that Google’s payments to phone companies and manufacturers were meant to push them toward more security upgrades and not just enabling Google to be the primary search engine.
Internal emails between Pichai and his colleagues in 2007 were shared during the cross-examination revealing Google’s insistence to be Apple’s default search engine. Pichai says he was worried about being the only search engine and requested a Yahoo backup version.
Amazon used an algorithm code-named “Project Nessie” to test how much it could raise prices in a way that competitors would follow, according to redacted portions of the Federal Trade Commission’s monopoly lawsuit against the company. From a report: The algorithm helped Amazon improve its profit on items across shopping categories, and because of the power the company has in e-commerce, led competitors to raise their prices and charge customers more, according to people familiar with the allegations in the complaint. In instances where competitors didn’t raise their prices to Amazon’s level, the algorithm — which is no longer in use — automatically returned the item to its normal price point.
The company also used Nessie on what employees saw as a promotional spiral, where Amazon would match a discounted price from a competitor, such as Target.com, and other competitors would follow, lowering their prices. When Target ended its sale, Amazon and the other competitors would remain locked at the low price because they were still matching each other, according to former employees who worked on the algorithm and pricing team. The algorithm helped Amazon recoup money and improve margins. The FTC’s lawsuit redacted an estimate of how much it alleges the practice “extracted from American households,” and it also says it helped the company generate a redacted amount of “excess profit.” Amazon made more than $1 billion in revenue through use of the algorithm, according to a person familiar with the matter. Amazon stopped using the algorithm in 2019, some of the people said. It wasn’t clear why the company stopped using it.
Travel website Booking.com has left many hotel operators and other partners across the globe thousands of dollars out of pocket for months on end, blaming the lack of payment on a “technical issue”.
The issue is widespread in Thailand, Indonesia and Europe among hoteliers who are venting their frustrations in Facebook groups as rumours swirl about the cause of the failure to pay.
Usually, if a customer makes a booking for a hotel through the website Booking.com and elects to pay upfront, the site takes the payment and passes it on to the hotel operator, minus a commission.
Booking.com’s partners have reported issues receiving payments since July, and in some cases months earlier. While Booking.com has continued taking payments from customers, the company has not always passed on the amount owed to hotel operators and others whom the Guardian has spoken to.
In August, the Booking Group reported total revenues of $5.5bn and a profit of $1.3bn for the second quarter of 2023 – up 27% and 51% on the previous year respectively.
[…]
struggle to get in contact with anyone at Booking.com about the issue.
“There is no way to contact them. Online it says you must talk to finance or credit control, neither of whom have a phone number or email address.”
He said you can call a contact centre, which then lodges a ticket for those teams. But the ticket expires every four days, requiring another phone call to lodge a new ticket. The Guardian has been told by multiple hotel operators that this is the practice.
It has led many to attempt other ways to reach the company, including LinkedIn messaging, directs emails to the Booking group CEO and looking up individual financial officers online.
[…]
Others affected include travel bloggers and websites that are paid affiliate payments when customers click through a link on their site.
Some operators who spoke to news outlets in recent months reported being paid once their story became public. The Hungarian consumer watchdog last month launched a probe into the company’s failure to pay hotel operators in the country and raided Booking.com’s local office, after local reporting on the issue.
[…]
Infeld said merely paying back what is owed by the company is not sufficient. He wants every hotel that hasn’t been paid to be paid along with market interest and all of Booking.com commissions waived.
Amazon has partially won in an EU court case related to European Union ecommerce market regulation laws, which come under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
On Thursday, the EU General Court ruled in favour of Amazon, by agreeing to suspend a requirement under the DSA that Amazon is obligated to follow and make an ads library public.
Amazon argued that the requirement to publish an ads archive would result in the disclosure of confidential information that would cause “serious and irreparable harm to its advertising activities and, by extension, to all its activities.”
The company further claimed the disclosure of the ad information would weaken its competitive position and cause an irreversible loss of market share, as well as harm its ad partners.
However, the Court did not agree to suspend a separate DSA requirement on Amazon to offer users of the store a non-profiling option powering the recommendations it serves them.
In 2022, Amazon was one of those 19 platforms that were subject to follow the strictest level of regulation under the DSA, which seeks a greater degree of transparency and accountability on larger platforms and their algorithms.
The largest ecommerce platform challenged the EU lawsuit regarding it being classified as a VLOP (very large online platform). It also filed for interim measures to suspend certain requirements under the regulation with a pending decision on the wider legal challenge.
The EU Court granted interim relief to Amazon as its activities doesn’t harm legal standard and declined to suspend DSA requirement.
Amazon’s wider challenge regarding its classification as a VLOP under the regulation still continues.
In the world of business, “audit readiness” is not just another buzzword—it’s a critical aspect of maintaining financial integrity and ensuring smooth operations. Whether you’re a seasoned entrepreneur or a small business owner, understanding what audit readiness entails can make the difference between success and financial turmoil. In this article, we’ll delve into the ins and outs of audit readiness, sharing practical tips and real-life experiences to help you navigate this essential aspect of business management.
What is Audit Readiness?
Before we dive into the tips, let’s establish a clear understanding of what audit readiness means. Simply put, audit readiness refers to the state of preparedness an organization maintains to undergo financial audits with ease and confidence. These audits, conducted by internal or external auditors, scrutinize a company’s financial records, transactions, and compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
The Importance of Audit Readiness
Why is audit readiness so crucial? Well, imagine your business as a ship sailing through treacherous waters. Without proper preparation, you might find yourself navigating blindly through financial storms. Audit readiness is your compass, ensuring you stay on course and avoid potential disasters. Here’s why it matters:
1. Regulatory Compliance
Adhering to legal and financial regulations is non-negotiable. When you’re audit-ready, you demonstrate your commitment to following the rules. Failure to comply can result in hefty fines, legal complications, and damage to your reputation.
2. Financial Accuracy
An audit uncovers inaccuracies, discrepancies, or fraud within your financial records. Being audit-ready means you’re consistently maintaining accurate financial data, which is essential for informed decision-making and financial stability.
3. Investor and Stakeholder Confidence
Investors and stakeholders want assurance that their investments are in safe hands. Audit readiness fosters trust, attracting potential investors and ensuring your current stakeholders remain confident in your business’s financial health.
4. Operational Efficiency
A well-organized audit-ready system streamlines your financial processes. This not only makes audits smoother but also enhances overall operational efficiency, reducing the risk of financial mismanagement.
Now that you understand why audit readiness is vital, let’s explore some essential tips to help you achieve and maintain it.
Tips for Achieving Audit Readiness
1. Maintain Impeccable Record Keeping
One of the cornerstones of audit readiness is maintaining impeccable records. Your financial documents should be accurate, complete, and organized. This includes invoices, receipts, bank statements, payroll records, and tax filings. Regularly reconcile accounts to catch and correct errors promptly.
2. Implement Robust Internal Controls
Establishing internal controls is like setting up a safeguard around your finances. These controls include segregation of duties, authorization processes, and thorough documentation. They not only deter fraudulent activities but also ensure financial accuracy.
Real-Life Experience:
I once worked for a small manufacturing company that neglected internal controls. It led to a significant embezzlement case, causing financial turmoil and damaging the company’s reputation. Implementing robust internal controls was the turning point that helped us regain trust and financial stability.
3. Educate Your Team
Your team plays a crucial role in audit readiness. Educate your employees about the importance of proper record-keeping and adherence to financial procedures. Provide training and clear guidelines to ensure everyone understands their responsibilities.
4. Regularly Review Financial Statements
Don’t wait for an audit to identify financial discrepancies. Regularly review your financial statements and conduct internal audits. This proactive approach helps you spot and rectify issues before they escalate.
5. Engage Professional Auditors
External auditors bring an unbiased perspective to the table. Consider hiring reputable audit firms to conduct periodic audits. Their expertise can uncover hidden issues and provide valuable insights into improving your financial processes.
6. Embrace Technology
Modern accounting software and financial management tools can be your best allies in achieving audit readiness. They streamline record-keeping, reduce human error, and provide real-time insights into your financial health.
Real-Life Experience:
At my previous company, transitioning to cloud-based accounting software revolutionized our audit readiness. It not only saved us time and resources but also improved our financial accuracy.
7. Conduct Mock Audits
Think of mock audits as dress rehearsals for the real thing. Periodically simulate the audit process internally to identify weaknesses and areas that need improvement. This practice helps you fine-tune your audit readiness strategies.
8. Stay Informed About Regulatory Changes
Financial regulations are subject to change. Stay informed about updates and adapt your processes accordingly. Failure to do so can result in non-compliance during an audit.
Audit Readiness in Action
Let’s take a look at a real-life scenario that highlights the importance of audit readiness.
Real-Life Experience:
Sarah, a diligent business owner, operated a successful e-commerce store. Her business was thriving, but she neglected her financial records. When the time came for a surprise tax audit, she was ill-prepared. The auditor uncovered numerous discrepancies, leading to hefty fines and a tarnished reputation.
Determined not to repeat the same mistake, Sarah implemented a robust record-keeping system, hired a professional accountant, and embraced accounting software. Over time, her business became audit-ready. When the next audit rolled around, Sarah confidently presented her meticulous records, and the process went smoothly.
Conclusion
Achieving and maintaining audit readiness is not an option; it’s a necessity for any business. It’s your shield against financial storms and your key to maintaining regulatory compliance. By following the tips outlined in this article, you can set your business on the path to audit readiness, ensuring a secure and prosperous future.
But remember, audit readiness is not a one-time effort; it’s an ongoing commitment. Regularly assess and improve your financial processes, stay informed about regulatory changes, and never underestimate the importance of meticulous record-keeping. By doing so, you’ll not only navigate financial audits with ease but also ensure the long-term success and stability of your business.
So, as you sail through the turbulent waters of the business world, make audit readiness your guiding star, and rest assured that your financial ship will stay on course, no matter what challenges may arise.
Bio
Kyle Geers is a seasoned professional with over nine years of public accounting experience, including seven years within a large international CPA firm. Kyle has been involved with financial statement and integrated audits of both public and private businesses, ranging from emerging start-ups to multinational corporations with complex operations.
The FTC – and 17 state attorneys general – have come out swinging at Amazon with a lawsuit accusing the ecommerce giant of being a monopolist.
Amazon, the FTC alleges, engages in anticompetitive conduct in two markets: online ecommerce and also the market for marketplace services used by sellers. The tactics used by Amazon to thwart competition include anti-discounting measures that punish sellers for offering prices lower than Amazons, and requiring vendors to use – and pay for – Amazon’s fulfillment services to make their products eligible for free Prime shipments, the FTC claims.
“Our complaint lays out how Amazon has used a set of punitive and coercive tactics to unlawfully maintain its monopolies,” said FTC Chair and perennial Amazon opponent Lina Khan.
Khan describes Amazon’s as exploiting monopolistic power to enrich itself by raising product prices and degrading services for its customers and businesses. “Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon to account for these monopolistic practices and restore the lost promise of free and fair competition,” Khan added.
Amazon’s “monopoly rents” are extracted from “everyone within its reach,” the FTC alleges. This hurts customers by replacing relevant organic search results with ads and boosting Amazon’s own products in search results. In addition, excessive fees are allegedly leveled at Amazon sellers, which the FTC said can amount to close to half of a store’s revenue going directly to the online souk, and which it asserts are passed on to consumers.
[…]
“We can and should break up Amazon,” said Athena Coalition, a self-described anti-Amazon grassroots group, in a statement. “Amazon has a long history of combining and utilizing its many businesses together as an integrated whole to leverage its power against workers, businesses, and ultimately all of us.”
The group said that an FTC victory would free Amazon sellers to work with whomever they chose, rather than being forced to go to Amazon. Rather than harming consumers, Athena said that an Amazon reigned in by the FTC would also mean more choice and lower costs for Amazon customers, too.
The European Commission has imposed a €376.36 million ($400 million) fine on Intel for blocking the sales of devices powered by its competitors’ x86 CPUs. This brings one part of the company’s long-running antitrust court battle with the European authority to a close. If you’ll recall, the Commission slapped the chipmaker with a record-breaking €1.06 billion ($1.13 billion) fine in 2009 after it had determined that Intel abused its dominant position in the market. ye
It found back then that the company gave hidden rebates and incentives to manufacturers like HP, Dell and Lenovo for buying all or almost all their processors from Intel. The Commission also found that Intel paid manufacturers to delay or to completely cease the launch of products powered by its rivals’ CPUs “naked restrictions.” Other times, Intel apparently paid companies to limit those products’ sales channels. The Commission calls these actions “naked restrictions.”
[…]
In its announcement, the European Commission gave a few examples of how Intel hindered the sales of competing products. It apparently paid HP between November 2002 and May 2005 to sell AMD-powered business desktops only to small- and medium-sized enterprises and via direct distribution channels. It also paid Acer to delay the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004. Intel paid Lenovo to push back the launch of AMD-based notebooks for half a year, as well.
The Commission has since appealed the General Court’s decision to dismiss the part of the case related to the rebates Intel offered its clients. Intel, however, did not lodge an appeal for the court’s ruling on naked restrictions, setting it in stone. “With today’s decision, the Commission has re-imposed a fine on Intel only for its naked restrictions practice,” the European authority wrote. “The fine does not relate to Intel’s conditional rebates practice. The fine amount, which is based on the same parameters as the 2009 Commission’s decision, reflects the narrower scope of the infringement compared to that decision.” Seeing as the rebates part of the case is under appeal, Intel could still pay the rest of the fine in the future.
Amazon has always handled its streaming video slate a little differently than the competition. Other companies have slyly introduced a cheaper ad-free option while slowly raising prices on non-ad-based subscription tiers, Prime Video is taking a different tack. The streaming service plans to hold ad-free watching hostage, and it’s demanding a $3 ransom starting early next year.
In a Friday release, Amazon said it would start adding “limited advertisements” to Prime Video starting out in 2024. The company promised fewer ads than other streaming TV providers or old-school linear TV. This change will impact all users in the U.S., UK, Germany, and Canada. Other regions won’t have long to savor the lack of ads, as eventually more places like France, Italy, Spain, Mexico, and Australia will all have ads shoved in front of their unwilling eyeballs.
But don’t worry, all you have to do to help ignore all the ads is slip Amazon an extra $3 a month for a new ad-free option, at least for U.S. Prime members. That bumps the monthly cost of Prime to $18 from $15 a month. Users should get a message in their emails about how they can sign up for Amazon’s latest penny-pinching plan several weeks before ads start flooding Prime Video.
Alphabet’s Google pays more than $10 billion a year to maintain its position as the default search engine on web browsers and mobile devices, stifling competition, the US Justice Department said Tuesday at the start of a high-stakes antitrust trial in Washington. From a report: “This case is about the future of the internet and whether Google’s search engine will ever face meaningful competition,” Kenneth Dintzer, a government lawyer, said in his opening statement. “The evidence will show they demanded default exclusivity to block rivals.” Dintzer said Google became a monopoly by at least 2010 and today controls more than 89% of the online search market.
“The company pays billions for defaults because they are uniquely powerful,” he said. “For the last 12 years, Google has abused its monopoly in general search.” The monopolization trial is the first pitting the federal government against a US technology company in more than two decades. The Justice Department and 52 attorneys general from states and US territories allege Google illegally maintained its monopoly by paying billions to tech rivals, smartphone makers and wireless providers in exchange for being set as the preselected option or default on mobile phones and web browsers.
Last year, BMW underwent media and customer hellfire over its decision to offer a monthly subscription for heated seats. While seat heating wasn’t the only option available for subscription, it was the one that seemed to infuriate everyone the most, since it concerned hardware already present in the car from the factory. After months of customers continuously expressing their displeasure with the plan, BMW has finally decided to abandon recurring charges for hardware-based functions.
“What we don’t do any more—and that is a very well-known example—is offer seat heating by [monthly subscriptions]” BMW marketing boss Pieter Nota said to Autocar. “It’s either in or out. We offer it by the factory and you either have it or you don’t have it.”
BMW’s move wasn’t solely about charging customers monthly for heated seats. Rather, the luxury automaker wanted to streamline production and reduce costs there by physically installing heated seats in every single car, since 90% of all BMWs are bought with seat heaters anyway. Then, owners who didn’t spec heated seats from the factory could digitally unlock them later with either a monthly subscription or a one-time perma-buy option. Nota still believes it was a good idea.
[…]
BMW was absolutely double dipping with heated seat subscriptions. The company started down that route to reduce production costs, making each car cheaper to build by streamlining the process. Fair enough. However, those reduced costs weren’t then passed down to buyers via lower MSRPs. Customers were technically paying for those heated seats anyway, no matter whether they wanted them. Then, BMW was not only charging extra to use a feature already installed in the car, but also subjecting it to subscription billing, even though seat heating is static hardware not designed to change or improve over time.
Customers weren’t happy, and rightfully made their grievance known. While it’s good that BMW ultimately buckled to the public’s wishes here, it doesn’t seem like the automaker’s board members truly understand why the outrage happened in the first place.
The Act (DSA) sets rules that the EU designed to make very large online platforms (VLOPs) “tackle the spread of illegal content, online disinformation and other societal risks” presented by online service providers.”
The DSA and the Digital Market Act (DMA) are a double act. Both were introduced in 2022 and will be implemented in phases through early 2024. While the DMA applies to companies who act as gatekeepers of online services and are designed to ensure equal access for some third-party software, the DSA is all about ensuring that activities which are illegal in the real world are enforceably illegal online, too.
Under the DSA digital service providers – including hosting services, online platforms, VLOPs and even intermediary service providers like ISPs – have obligations to ensure that products sold are safe and not counterfeit, and to eliminate advertising that targets minors or is served using sensitive data. Another requirement is to get rid of dark patterns in advertising. Clarity on how orgs moderate content and a requirement to present their algorithms for scrutiny is also required.
VLOPs, which the DSA defines as platforms large enough to reach 10 percent of the EU’s population, or around 45 million people, have even more rules to comply with.
The EU believes that VLOPs present the most risk to the public due to their wide reach. In addition to rules that other digital service providers have to follow, VLOPs also have to share data with “vetted” researchers and governments, allow users to opt out of profiling recommendations, submit to regular audits, and have risk management and a crisis response plans in place.
The EU made its initial declaration to cover 17 VLOPs and two very large online search engines (Bing and Google) on April 25. The DSA will apply to any and all digital service providers come February 2024. VLOPs were told they had four months from the day they were designated to achieve compliance.
Non-compliant VLOPs could face fines of up to six percent of global turnover, rather than the relatively small fines they usually face. The EC said it also has the power to require immediate platform changes and, in the case of continued noncompliance, has the right to suspend offenders from the trading bloc entirely.
The same federal agency that once helped bring down the biggest crypto-based dark web drug marketplace Silk Road got swindled by one of the oldest tricks in the crypto scammer playbook. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reportedly handed a fraudster a little more than $55,000 in confiscated crypto funds after it was duped by a classic airdrop phishing scam.
Forbes first reported on a warrant put out by the FBI investigating the scam. Those funds were stored in a Trezor crypto wallet, a more secure kind of crypto storage than an exchange-based wallet. The funds were further secured inside a “secure facility.” However, since all transactions are public on the blockchain, a scammer noticed when the DEA sent a test amount of $45.36 in Tether to a wallet owned by the U.S. Marshals.
The alleged scammer then performed what’s known as an airdrop scam. Essentially, the fraudster created a new address with the first five and last four digits of the Marshals’ account. Each crypto wallet has a unique address that’s about 30 characters long. Then, the fraudster sent, or “airdropped” some Tether into the DEA’s account, which shows up as looking like it came from the marshal’s address.
This works because the two accounts seem similar, so any layperson who only looks at the first few and last few characters to confirm will simply copy and paste the whole address rather than type it out. Trezor actively warns its users against airdrop scams, though in most cases, fraudsters want to access the wallet’s entire balance through a website link. These scams usually work against users investing in a new coin drop, but eagle-eyed fraudsters looking at crypto addresses might get lucky with a quick phishing attack, as they did here.
Amid the confusion, the DEA ended up sending funds to the fake marshal’s address, and by the time the two separate Department of Justice agencies realized what had happened, the funds had already been moved out of the scammer’s account.
What the article doesn’t explain is why the Feds were sending around these wallets at all, considering they were supposed to be impounded and evidence?
A buzzy startup offering financial infrastructure to crypto companies has found itself bankrupt primarily because it can’t gain access to a physical crypto wallet with $38.9 million in it. The company also did not write down recovery phrases, locking itself out of the wallet forever in something it has called “The Wallet Event” to a bankruptcy judge.
Prime Trust pitches itself as a crypto fintech company designed to help other startups offer crypto retirement plans, know-your-customer interfaces, ensure liquidity, and a host of other services. It says it can help companies build crypto exchanges, payment platforms, and create stablecoins for its clients. The company has not had a good few months. In June, the state of Nevada filed to seize control of the company because it was near insolvency. It was then ordered to cease all operations by a federal judge because it allegedly used customers’ money to cover withdrawal requests from other companies.
The company filed for bankruptcy, and, according to a filing by its interim CEO, which you really should read in full, the company offers an “all-in-one solution for customers that remains unmatched in the marketplace.” A large problem, among more run-of-the-mill crypto economy problems such as “lack of operational and spending oversight” and “regulatory issues,” is the fact that it lost access to a physical wallet it was keeping a tens of millions of dollars in, and cannot get back into it.
[…]
It called one of these wallets the “98f Wallet,” because its address ended in “98f.”
[…]
If a user loses both the hardware device and the seed phrases, it is virtually impossible for that user to regain access to the digital wallet.”
[…]
Prime Trust opted to laser etch them into a piece of steel called “Cryptosteel Hardware,” which are called “Wallet Access Devices” in the court filings, and which look like this:
Image: Court records
According to the filing, it lost these devices, which is why it can’t get back into the wallet.
[…]
For several years, the company then took customer deposits into this address, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. In December, 2021, “when a customer requested a significant withdrawal of ETH that the company could not fulfill [from other wallets,]” it went to withdraw it from this hardware wallet. “It was around this time that they discovered that the Company did not have the Wallet Access Devices and thus, could not access the cryptocurrency stored in the 98f Wallet.”
A Wednesday statement from the Commission brought news that in late July it wrote to Google to inform it of the ₩42.1 billion ($31.5 million) fine announced, and reported by The Register, in April 2023.
The Commission has also commenced monitoring activities to ensure that Google complies with requirements to allow competition with its Play store.
South Korea probed the operation of Play after a rival local Android app-mart named OneStore debuted in 2016.
OneStore had decent prospects of success because it merged app stores operated by South Korea’s top three telcos. Naver, an online portal similar in many ways to Google, also rolled its app store into OneStore.
Soon afterwards, Google told developers they were free to sell their wares in OneStore – but doing so would see them removed from the Play store.
Google also offered South Korean developers export assistance if they signed exclusivity deals in their home country.
Faced with the choice of being cut off from the larger markets Google owned, developer enthusiasm for dabbling in OneStore dwindled. Some popular games never made it into OneStore, so even though its founders had tens of millions of customers between them, the venture struggled.
Which is why Korea’s Fair Trade Commission intervened with an investigation, the fines mentioned above, and a requirement that Google revisit agreements with local developers.
Google has also been required to establish an internal monitoring system to ensure it complies with the Commission’s orders.
Commission chair Ki-Jeong Han used strong language in today’s announcement, describing his agency’s actions as “putting the brakes” on Google’s efforts to achieve global app store dominance.
“Monopolization of the app market may adversely affect the entire mobile ecosystem,” the Commissioner’s statement reads, adding “The recovery of competition in this market is very important.”
It’s also likely beneficial to South Korean companies. OneStore has tried to expand overseas, and Samsung – the world’s top smartphone vendor by unit volume – also stands to gain. It operates its own Galaxy Store that, despite its presence on hundreds of millions of handsets, enjoys trivial market share.
HP has failed to shunt aside class-action legal claims that it disables the scanners on its multifunction printers when their ink runs low. Though not for lack of trying.
On Aug. 10, a federal judge ruled that HP Inc. must face a class-action lawsuit claiming that the company designs its “all-in-one” inkjet printers to disable scanning and faxing functions whenever a single printer ink cartridge runs low. The company had sought — for the second time — to dismiss the lawsuit on technical legal grounds.
“It is well-documented that ink is not required in order to scan or to fax a document, and it is certainly possible to manufacture an all-in-one printer that scans or faxes when the device is out of ink,” the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint. “Indeed, HP designs its all-in-one printer products so they will not work without ink. Yet HP does not disclose this fact to consumers.”
The lawsuit charges that HP deliberately withholds this information from consumers to boost profits from the sale of expensive ink cartridges.
Color printers require four ink cartridges — one black and a set of three cartridges in cyan, magenta and yellow for producing colors. Some will also refuse to print if one of the color cartridges is low, even in black-and-white mode.
[…]
Worse, a significant amount of ink is never actually used to print documents because it’s consumed by printer maintenance cycles. In 2018, Consumer Reports tested hundreds of all-in-one inkjet printers and found that, when used intermittently, many models delivered less than half of their ink to printed documents. A few managed no more than 20% to 30%.
Third-party merchants on Amazon who ship their own packages will see an additional fee for each product sold starting on Oct. 1st. Sellers could previously choose to ship their products without contributing to Amazon, but the new feemeans members of Amazon’s Seller Fulfilled Prime program will be required to pay the company 2% on each product sold.
The new surcharge is in addition to other payments Amazon receives from merchants starting with the selling plan which costs $0.99 for each product sold or $39.99 per month for an unlimited number of sales. The company also charges a referral fee for each item sold, with most ranging between 8% and 15% depending on the product category.
Since the program launched in 2015, merchants could independently ship their products without paying a fee to Amazon but the new shipping charge may add pressure to switch to the company’s in-house service. As it stands, sellers can already incur other additional charges including fees for stocking inventory, rental book service, high-volume listings, and a refund administration fee, although Amazon does not list the costs on its website.
This is a problem where Amazon is using it’s position to create a logistics monopoly and putting other logistics firms out of business. Amazon should stick to being a marketplace and this should be enforced by government.
Tesla has added a new Standard Range trim for both its aging Model S and Model X luxury cars this week, effectively slashing the barrier to entry for the automaker’s flagship sedan and SUV by a staggering $10,000 each. The Model S SR now comes in at $78,490, and the Model X SR at $88,490—both before the automaker’s mandatory $1,390 destination and $250 order fees.
As the name suggests, the $10,000 trade-off is how far the vehicle can travel on a charge. Model S gets an 85-mile reduction to 320 miles (down from 405 miles) and Model X shaves off 79 miles from its range, resulting in 269 miles to a charge (down from 348 miles). There’s just one catch that might rankle new SR owners: all Model S and X vehicles reportedly use the same gross capacity battery pack regardless of trim. In other words, the Standard Range variants have been software locked at a lower usable capacity to justify the price difference.
Software locking a battery pack at a lower usable capacity is an old trick Tesla pulled from its sleeve that was previously used to limit early Model S cars to 60 kWh, down from 75 kWh. With these new configurations, the EV maker has also slowed the zero to 60 MPH sprint from 3.1 to 3.7 seconds in the Model S and from 3.8 to 4.4 seconds in the Model X.
[…]
Whether Tesla will let owners to “unlock” the remainder of the car’s battery as an over-the-air purchase later on is currently unclear. Tesla previously allowed owners of early Model S 60D vehicles to pay $4,500 to access an additional 15 kWh of usable battery (it later reduced the price to $2,000), whereas Model X owners have paid as much as $9,000 for the same privilege in the past.
BMW and Mercedes are also locking features that you already paid for – because you own the hardware of the car – behind paywalls. It’s something that really these companies shouldn’t be allowed to get away with.
