Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel

Embed this content in your HTML


Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels

Channel Catalog

Channel Description:

The latest news from Business Insider

older | 1 | .... | 2079 | 2080 | (Page 2081) | 2082 | 2083 | .... | 2170 | newer

    0 0

    This is a preview of a research report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about Business Insider Intelligence, click here.

    Emerging markets are going to be essential for e-commerce growth, as retailers in developed markets may soon reach saturation in terms of consumer growth.


    For example, almost half of US households now have a Prime membership, diminishing Amazon's growth potential in the country. Meanwhile, in China, the world's largest e-commerce market, nearly half of the population is actively making online purchases, leaving little room for growth. 

    However, India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America are worth keeping an eye on. E-commerce penetration rates in these areas hover between 2-6%, presenting a huge opportunity for future growth as online sales gain traction. Moreover, these regions are expected to grow at compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) of 31%, 32%, and 16%, respectively, through 2021.

    This report compiles several e-commerce snapshots, which together highlight the most notable emerging markets in various regions. Each provides an overview of the e-commerce industry in a particular country, discusses influential retailers, and provides insights into the opportunities and challenges for that specific domestic industry.

    Here are some of the key takeaways:

    • Emerging markets are going to be essential for e-commerce growth, as retailers in developed markets may soon reach saturation in terms of consumer growth.
    • India is the clear overall leader in e-commerce potential, but countries in Southeast Asia and Latin America are also worth keeping an eye on. Within Southeast Asia, Indonesia shows the most promise for retailers, as the government is loosening restrictions on foreign investments, and its massive population is gaining spending power and more access to internet. Meanwhile, Mexico is a retailer's best bet for expansion in Latin America, due to its stable economy and rising middle class, but Brazil may be gearing up to steal the top spot.
    • However, doing business in these regions can be difficult. In most of these emerging markets, infrastructure is underdeveloped and the population is largely unbanked, making digital payments a challenge.
    • If retailers can build a brand presence in these markets while online shopping is still in its nascent stages, they may become market leaders as e-commerce takes off in the regions. Moreover, these markets could provide new sources of growth for companies that would otherwise stagnate in more mature e-commerce markets.

     In full, the report:

    • Explores the e-commerce industry in India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.
    • Highlights the leading country in each region, as well as key e-commerce players there. 
    • Outlines the challenges and opportunities each region faces.
    • Gives insight into how these emerging markets may shape the future of e-commerce.

    Join the conversation about this story »

    0 0

    Jason Trost Smarkets

    • Smarkets, a betting startup based in London, lets employees pick how much they want to get paid.
    • The system works through social consensus, and each employee's salary information is published in the company's internal wiki.
    • There are pros and cons to the process, but ultimately it works, Smarkets CEO Jason Trost said.

    "It's not as cool as it sounds," said Jason Trost, CEO of the London-based betting company Smarkets, when asked about his company's unusual policy of letting employees pick how much they'd like to be paid.

    "It's a crazy process," he said. "But it does work."

    It was about three years ago that Trost introduced a system at Smarkets for employees to pick their own salaries. The inspiration came largely from what he describes as a companywide pursuit of greater transparency.

    "I think this is the fairest system," he said. "It gives people a rightful sense that they are more in control of their job, more in control of their position."

    At Smarkets, employee salaries aren't the result of conversations with upper management — instead, each person picks how much they'd like to be paid, then their colleagues vote on whether they think they're worth it. Each employee's salary is published within an internal wiki, and they're invited to renegotiate their worth twice a year. (Smarkets originally reviewed salaries once a month, but Trost said that process turned out to be "way too disruptive.")


    If you ask for an amount substantially more than what your colleagues make, you might face your peers' disapproval.

    "People scrutinize what you ask for within an internal court," Trost said. "Some people will think it's about right, and some people will say that it's too high or too low. Usually, they say it's too high. And then they get negative and positive feedback."

    While employees can't veto someone else's salary entirely, they can attempt to block it. The system works largely on social consensus — if you take issue with how much someone else is getting paid, you'll have to confront them about it directly.

    Angeline Mulet-Marquis, a French engineer who has worked out of Smarkets' UK office for four years, said the process had triggered hard conversations among employees. But ultimately, she said, the system created a healthier environment.

    After all, employees will talk about salary discrepancies whether the information is public or not.

    "The public salary makes it much healthier," she said, pointing to "the fact that we know what everyone gets paid and that there isn't that much inequality in how people are paid."


    But there are drawbacks to the system.

    Early in the process' deployment, one employee, unhappy with a project he was assigned, doubled his pay as a matter of protest, Trost said. In the end, the disgruntled employee settled for about $40,000 less. Trost described the incident as "upsetting and a waste of time."

    Mostly, however, this "pick your own pay" approach allows for greater flexibility.

    "I think it lets people be human," Trost said. "If someone needs to buy a house and they want a few thousand more ... if you can give that to people, that's really nice."

    Trost said he believes the system benefits people who might be good at their jobs but aren't strong negotiators. Additionally, "it decreases the incentive to brownnose and the incentive for office politics," he said. "It's much harder to schmooze the crowd when you know what everyone is getting paid."

    But instituting the process wasn't easy.

    "It's really scary to be so transparent — scary for everyone," Trost said. "People don't want to know how much their colleagues make because they don't want to know if they're making more than them. Managers don't want to do it because they feel they'll lose control."

    Is this the future of salary negotiating? Trost thinks it might be.

    "It's important for humanity to keep improving these social systems," he said. "I'm not just doing this because I think it's a good idea — I want Smarkets to be an example company."

    As for whether he would recommend applying Smarkets' salary process to other companies, Trost said it all depends on the company. For smaller, scrappier startups, it might just work, while it could be more difficult for larger, established companies.

    "If the management has the courage to deal with the ups and downs, it could be worth it," he said. "But there might be a trade-off."

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know

    0 0

    This is a preview of a research report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about Business Insider Intelligence, click here.

    Between housing costs, utilities, taxes, insurance, loans, and more, US adults paid an estimated $3.9 trillion in bills last year.

    Bill Pay MarketThat market is growing slowly, but it’s changing fast — more than ever before, customers are moving away from paying bills via check or cash and toward paying online, either through their banks, the billers themselves, or using a third-party app.

    Thanks to rising customer familiarity with digital payments, an increase in purchasing power among younger consumers more interested in digital bill pay, and a rise in digital payment options, nearly three-quarters of bills will be paid digitally by 2022, representing a big opportunity for players across the space.

    In theory, banks should be in a great position to capitalize on this shift. Nearly all banks offer bill payment functionality, and it’s a popular feature. Issuers also boast an existing engaged digital user base, and make these payments secure. But that isn’t what’s happening — even as digital bill pay becomes more commonplace, banks are losing ground to billers and third-party players. And that’s not poised to change unless banks do, since issuer bill pay is least popular among the youngest customers, who will be the most important in the coming year.

    For banks, then, that makes innovation important. Taking steps to grow bill pay’s share can be a tough sell for digital strategists and executives leading money movement at banks, and done wrong, it can be costly, since it often requires robust technological investments. But, if banks do it right, bill pay marks a strong opportunity to add and engage customers, and in turn, grow overall lifetime value while shrinking attrition.

    Business Insider Intelligence has put together a detailed report that explains the US bill pay market, identifies the major inflection points for change and what’s driving it, and provides concrete strategies and recommendations for banks looking to improve their digital bill pay offerings.

    Here are some key takeaways from the report:

    • The bill pay market in the US, worth $3.9 trillion, is growing slowly. But digital bill payment volume is rising at a rapid clip — half of all bills are now digital, and that share will likely expand to over 75% by 2022. 
    • Customers find it easiest to pay their bills at their billers directly, either through one-off or recurring payments. Bank-based offerings are commonplace, but barebones, which means they fail to appeal to key demographics.
    • Issuers should work to reclaim bill payment share, since bill pay is an effective engagement tool that can increase customer stickiness, grow lifetime status, and boost primary bank status.  
    • Banks need to make their offerings as secure and convenient as biller direct, market bill pay across channels, and build bill pay into digital money management functionality.

    In full, the report:

    • Sizes the US bill pay market, and estimates where it’s poised to go next.
    • Evaluates the impact that digital will have on bill pay in the US and who is poised to capitalize on that shift.
    • Identifies three key areas in which issuers can improve their bill pay offerings to gain share and explains why issuers are losing ground in these categories.
    • Issues recommendations and defines concrete steps that banks can take as a means of gaining share back and reaping the benefits of digital bill pay engagement.

    Join the conversation about this story »

    0 0

    Brett Kavanaugh

    • Senate Democrats are looking into a new allegation of sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, according to The New Yorker.
    • Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's, told The New Yorker that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a dorm-room party during the 1983-84 school year.
    • The new allegation comes less than a week before Christine Blasey Ford is set to testify about her claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her when they were in high school.
    • Senator Diane Feinstein called for a delay in Kavanaugh's nomination proceedings and asked for the new allegation to be referred to the FBI.
    • Attorney Michael Avenatti claimed on Sunday he represents a different woman with "credible information" about Kavanaugh that could derail his nomination.

    Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, according to a bombshell report in The New Yorker on Sunday.

    The new allegation dates to Kavanaugh's freshman year at Yale University during the 1983-84 school year, according to the report by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. The report says that Deborah Ramirez, a 53-year-old woman who was a classmate of Kavanaugh's, is accusing Kavanaugh of exposing his penis to her at a dorm-room party, thrusting it in her face, and causing her to touch it without her consent while she resisted.

    Kavanaugh categorically denied the allegation in a statement to The New Yorker.

    "This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen," he said. "The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name — and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building — against these last-minute allegations."

    The offices of at least two Democratic senators have begun investigating Ramirez's claim, according to The New Yorker.

    "This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It should be fully investigated," Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono told the magazine. 

    Ramirez told The New Yorker that at the party, which took place in a suite at Yale's Lawrence Hall, she quickly became intoxicated while playing a drinking game with Kavanaugh and other classmates. She said at one point a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction, and shortly after, Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and exposed himself to her.

    "Brett was laughing,” she told the magazine. "I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants."

    Although Ramirez said there are gaps in her memory from that night, she said she felt confident enough in her recollection of those details to come forward.

    Senator Diane Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for Kavanaugh's nomination proceedings to be postponed in light of Sunday's report and asked Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the committee, to refer the new allegation to the FBI.

    The report comes less than a week before Christine Blasey Ford is slated to testify in open court about her allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh. Ford alleged that while they were both in high school, a drunk Kavanaugh forced himself on her, tried to remove her clothing, and covered her mouth when she tried to scream. Kavanaugh has denied that allegations as well.

    Earlier on Sunday, attorney Michael Avenatti claimed to represent a woman with "credible information" about Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, a conservative writer and friend of Kavanaugh's who according to Ford, was an eye-witness to the alleged assault. He later specified that his client was not Ramirez.

    "We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify," Avenatti tweeted. "The nomination must be withdrawn."

    SEE ALSO: Tentative deal struck for Christine Blasey Ford, Brett Kavanaugh to publicly testify on Thursday

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    dbnew3This is a preview of a research report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about Business Insider Intelligence, click here.

    Over the past five years, the world has seen a seemingly unending series of high-profile data breaches, defined as incidents in which unauthorized parties access and retrieve sensitive, secure, or private data.

    Major incidents, like the 2013 Yahoo breach, which impacted all 3 million of the tech giant’s customers, and the more recent Equifax breach, which exposed the information of at least 143 million US adults, has kept this risk, and these threats, at the forefront for both businesses and consumers. And businesses have good reason to be concerned — of organizations breached, 22% lost customers, 29% lost revenue, and 23% lost business opportunities.

    This threat isn’t going anywhere. Each of the past five years has seen, on average, 1,704 security incidents, impacting nearly 2 billion records. And hackers could be getting more efficient, using new technological tools to extract more data in fewer breach attempts. That’s making the security threat an industry-agnostic for any business holding sensitive data — at this point, virtually all companies — and therefore a necessity for firms to address proactively and prepare to react to.

    The majority of breaches come from the outside, when a malicious actor is usually seeking access to records for financial gain, and tend to leverage malware or other software and hardware-related tools to access records. But they can come internally, as well as from accidents perpetrated by employees, like lost or stolen records or devices.

    That means that firms need to have a broad-ranging plan in place, focusing on preventing breaches, detecting them quickly, and resolving and responding to them in the best possible way. That involves understanding protectable assets, ensuring compliance, and training employees, but also protecting data, investing in software to understand what normal and abnormal performance looks like, training employees, and building a response plan to mitigate as much damage as possible when the inevitable does occur.

    Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider’s premium research service, has put together a detailed report on the data breach threat, who and what companies need to protect themselves from, and how they can most effectively do so from a technological and organizational perspective.

    Here are some key takeaways from the report:

    • The breach threat isn’t going anywhere. The number of overall breaches isn’t consistent — it soared from 2013 to 2016, but ticked down slightly last year — but hackers might be becoming better at obtaining more records with less work, which magnifies risk.
    • The majority of breaches come from the outside, and leverage software and hardware attacks, like malware, web app attacks, point-of-service (POS) intrusion, and card skimmers.
    • Firms need to build a strong front door to prevent as many breaches as possible, but they also need to develop institutional knowledge to detect a breach quickly, and plan for how to resolve and respond to it in order to limit damage — both financial and subjective — as effectively as possible.

    In full, the report:

    • Explains the scope of the breach threat, by industry and year, and identifies the top attacks.
    • Identifies leading perpetrators and causes of breaches.
    • Addresses strategies to cope with the threat in three key areas: prevention, detection, and resolution and response.
    • Issues recommendations from both a technological and organizational perspective in each of these categories so that companies can avoid the fallout that a data breach can bring.

    Subscribe to an All-Access pass to Business Insider Intelligence and gain immediate access to:

    This report and more than 250 other expertly researched reports
    Access to all future reports and daily newsletters
    Forecasts of new and emerging technologies in your industry
    And more!
    Learn More

    Purchase & download the full report from our research store


    Join the conversation about this story »

    0 0


    • Attorney Michael Avenatti claimed he has evidence that Brett Kavanaugh, nominee for the Supreme Court, participated in sexual misconduct in high school.
    • He said that at multiple house parties in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge plied women with alcohol and drugs "in order to allow a 'train' of men to subsequently gang rape them."
    • His claim comes the same night The New Yorker published allegations from Deborah Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were students at Yale University.

    Attorney Michael Avenatti added to the storm of sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh on Sunday, claiming he has "significant evidence" that the Supreme Court nominee participated in sexual misconduct in high school.

    In an email to Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Avenatti said he had evidence that at house parties in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge, and others plied women with alcohol and drugs "in order to allow a 'train' of men to subsequently gang rape them."

    Avenatti did not identify any witnesses or disclose more details about the alleged incidents. He tweeted a screenshot of the email Sunday evening after announcing he represented a woman with "credible information" about Kavanaugh and Judge.

    Avenatti elaborated to Politico later on Sunday that he represents a group of people, including one victim and multiple witnesses, who can corroborate allegations involving Kavanaugh and Judge.

    Also on Sunday, The New Yorker published an allegation from Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale University classmate of Kavanaugh's, who claimed Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a dorm-room party during the 1983-84 school year. Avenatti clarified that his client was not Ramirez.

    The two allegations come less than a week before Christine Blasey Ford is set to testify in open court about her claim that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her while they were in high school. Ford said Judge was a witness to the incident.

    Kavanaugh has denied both Ramirez and Ford's allegations.

    Avenatti, who also represents adult film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Donald Trump,  said he "will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony" to the Senate Judicial Committee, which is overseeing Kavanaugh's nomination proceedings.

    SEE ALSO: Democrats are reportedly investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    Ninja, tyler blevins, twitch streamer, fortnite, streamer,

    Good morning! This is the tech news you need to know this Monday.

      1. Google CEO Sundar Pichai warned employees in a leaked memo not to become too political at workGoogle is under increasing political pressure from President Donald Trump and his allies, which has accused the search giant of being biased against conservatives.
      2. The White House is considering an antitrust investigation into 'online platform bias' at Google and Facebook. A proposed executive order would ask federal law enforcement to "thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws," to "protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias."
      3. China banned the hugely popular game streaming service Twitch. The ban came after a spike in popularity, probably caused by users watching an eSports tournament.
      4. Apple is exerting more control over the types of original shows it wants to put on Apple Music. According to the Wall Street Journal, the company isn't keen on anything that's too graphically violent, sexual, or risky.
      5. Facebook is quietly working on a major system to help users understand each other in different languages. The firm working on M Suggestions, a Facebook Messenger feature that would translate chat in real-time.
      6. A former OpenTable employee has been charged with wire fraud for allegedly making hundreds of bogus reservations at Chicago restaurants to undermine a rival booking serviceProsecutors found 300 fake reservations made for at least 45 Chicago restaurants using Reserve, aiming to hurt the company's reputation.
      7. Comcast beat Rupert Murdoch in a $40 billion bid for Sky, Europe's biggest pay-TV company. The move allows Comcast to open its doors to the European market and access to online video streaming.
      8. Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt has predicted that the internet will split in two by 2028. China, he says, will have its own branch of the internet.
      9. British fashion startup Farfetch went public on Friday, with its shares rising as much as 53%. According to CNBC, the company raised $885 million, giving it a valuation of $6.2 billion.
      10. Twitter warned users on Friday about a bug that had possibly exposed their direct messages to third-party developers. The company claims it is unlikely that any messages were shared incorrectly, but warned users out of caution.

    Have an Amazon Alexa device? Now you can hear 10 Things in Tech each morning. Just search for "Business Insider" in your Alexa's flash briefing settings.

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: The Samsung Galaxy Note 9 is a $1,000 phone that's actually worth it

    0 0

    Trump Xi Trade War

    • New US tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports kicked in on Monday.
    • China has pulled out of trade talks with the US in response and attacked the Trump administration's "trade bullyism" in a white paper.
    • Asian and European markets have opened lower on Monday, with investors concerned that the trade war "may enter phase III."
    • You can follow live market reactions on Markets Insider.

    LONDON — European and Asian markets were lower on Monday after China said it won't negotiate with the US on trade if the Trump administration continues to threaten higher tariffs.

    China published a white paper on Monday that attacked the "protectionist practices" and "trade bullyism practices of the U.S. administration,"according to state-run Chinese news service Xinhua.

    Beijing said that the Trump administration has "abandoned the fundamental norms of mutual respect and equal consultation that guide international relations."Bloomberg reported that the white paper stated that trade negotiations “cannot be carried out under the threat of tariffs," suggesting talks between the two sides are unlikely.

    The white paper came as a fresh round of tariffs came into force against Chinese goods coming into the US. The duties on $200 billion worth of imports came into effect just after midnight on Monday morning Washington time. China has promised to respond with tariffs on $60 billion worth of US imports.

    "While these actions seem to be already priced in, investors are becoming increasingly worried that the trade war may enter phase III," Hussein Sayed, the chief market strategist at trading platform FXTM, said in an email on Monday morning. "With Beijing canceling planned trade talks on Saturday and the US State Department imposing sanctions against China’s defense agency, relations between the two largest economies in the world may further deteriorate."

    Markets reacted negatively to the most recent developments in the tit-for-tat trade dispute with the US and China. Stock markets in China and Japan are closed for a local holiday on Monday but Hong Kong's Hang Seng index remains open and was down by 1.66% at 8.30 a.m. BST (3.30 a.m. ET).

    Negative sentiment spread to Europe, with stock indexes opening lower there too. Germany's Dax was down by 0.45%,France's CAC 40 was down by 0.25%, and Britain's FTSE 100 was down by 0.17% after around half an hour of trade in Europe.

    "The implementation of President Trump's tariffs and the Chinese reaction to cancel talks in the face of the US President's decision should force investors to come to grip with reality," Konstantinos Anthis, head of research at ADSS, said in an email on Monday. "However, whether this will take a meaningful toll on the upwards trend in place or will only trigger a short-term correction remains to be seen."

    Separately on Monday, Australian investment bank Macquarie said that Mexico stands to benefit the most from rising trade tensions between the US and China.

    SEE ALSO: The US hit China with sanctions for buying Russian jets and missiles, and Beijing and Moscow are hitting back

    DON'T MISS: Vacuums, tires, and computer parts: These are the goods that will be hit the hardest by Trump's new China tariffs

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Ray Dalio says the economy looks like 1937 and a downturn is coming in about two years

    0 0

    skeleton halloween pumpkin patch

    • The S&P 500 hit a "double top" like it did in 2000 and 2007.
    • Emerging market debt is set to hit 200% of GDP.
    • A huge amount of US corporate debt is coming due in the next few years.
    • And it looks like we're heading into a bond yield curve inversion.

    Last week, the Canadian wealth management firm Gluskin Sheff published an epic, 105-page slide deck on the current state of the global economy, making the case that we're likely looking at the top of the market boom and implying that a correction lies ahead.

    We read Chief Economist David Rosenberg's (often bearish) research notes to clients as often as we can, but this deck was different. Not only is it very long, but the charts are stark.

    Here are four that really caught our eye. Each one, on its own, would be cause for concern. Take them together, however, and it really feels like we're nearing the end of the post-GFC boom.

    Here we go!

    The S&P 500 just looks a lot like it did in 2000 and 2007

    Screen Shot 2018 09 22 at 2.27.13 PM

    On it's own, that's not big deal (unless you're a technical analyst and you think this represents a meaningful pattern). But put that next to the astonishing amount of debt the world is racking up. The next chart looks at total debt as a percentage of GDP in emerging markets. It's heading toward $60 trillion, or 200% of their GDP.

    Global debt has never been higher

    EM debt

    American corporations are highly leveraged too. Normally, companies have no problem rolling over and refinancing their debts. Unless, of course, investors believe that debt might suddenly become harder to pay.

    US corporate debt repayments set to double

    corporate debt

    And now here's the most tantalizing technical indicator of all — the falling yield curve. Traditionally, if the difference between the interest yield on 2-year and 10-year Treasury note falls to zero or goes negative, recessions follow in short order. (You can read a plain-English explanation of why that is here.) Gluskin Sheff argues that it's "too late" in the cycle to invest once the curve goes to zero.

    It looks like we're heading into a bond yield curve inversion

    yield curve

    Gluskin Sheff argues that it's "too late" in the cycle to invest once the curve goes to zero.

    You can subscribe to Gluskin's research here.

    SEE ALSO: Misleading unemployment numbers may be prompting the Fed and the Bank of England to make a huge error

    IN-DEPTH: If the yield curve is not an indicator of impending doom, why is everybody talking about the yield curve so much?

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Why horseshoe crab blood is so expensive

    0 0

    Sajid Javid

    • The UK could grant limitless access to European migrants for more than two years after a no-deal Brexit, according to a report.
    • Home secretary Sajid Javid will propose a plan to Cabinet which sees EU citizens granted unlimited access to the UK for 30 months if there is no deal.
    • Javid believes the plan is necessary to protect the economy.
    • The news also comes amid concerns that the Home Office, which is responsible for Britain's borders, simply does not have the capacity to begin processing every inbound citizen coming to the UK.

    LONDON — The UK could grant limitless access to European migrants for more than two years after a no-deal Brexit, according to a report.

    Sajid David, the home secretary, will propose a plan to Cabinet which sees EU citizens waved through the border for 30 months if Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal next year, the Times reported.

    Any EU citizen arriving between March and September 2021 would be able to live temporarily in Britain as long as they show their passport and pass a criminal record check.

    The move would essentially see the UK retain the EU freedom of movement policy, which allows European citizens to move freely around member states without having to apply for a visa.

    Javid will outline his plans at a critical Cabinet meeting today on post-Brexit immigration policy. He will reportedly argue that EU citizens should ultimately receive no preferential treatment — in favour of a global system — once the 30-month unlimited access period ends.

    Theresa May is also likely to discuss last week's disastrous Salzburg summit, at which EU leaders called her Chequers Brexit plans unworkable.

    A necessary move?

    boris johnson stop brexit

    The move will be badly received by pro-Brexit MPs, who believe that the UK should take back control of Britain's borders in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

    Javid reportedly believes that such a move is necessary to protect the economy, with EU migrants filling many job vacancies in crucial sectors including healthcare, construction, and agriculture.

    Furthermore, the Home Office, which is responsible for Britain's borders, does not have the capacity to begin processing every inbound citizen coming to the UK.

    Currently, EU citizens face few checks and the UK's staffing levels at borders reflects that. Over the summer, when the UK had more EU citizens arriving than it anticipated, there were hours-long queues at airports as the Border Force struggled to process new arrivals.

    Business Insider reported in August that the Home Office was considering a plan to essentially retain free movement because it lacked the staffing capacity to implement new checks.

    Despite protestations from Brexiteers, the UK appears to have little choice than to grant EU citizens continued unlimited access if it fails to secure a deal.

    SEE ALSO: Exclusive: This Home Office leak reveals Theresa May could keep free movement in a no-deal Brexit

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    Sundar Pichai Chrome

    • A security expert has discovered that Google had quietly made important changes to Chrome's login requirements.
    • Matthew Green spotted that Google was logging them into Chrome without their knowledge.
    • Google's changes also made it easier for users to unwittingly turn over their browsing history to Google.
    • The company acknowledged the changes late on Sunday, but stressed that users needed to consent to a sync before their browser data was transferred.

    For years, Google has given Chrome users the option of surfing the web without logging in.

    But on Sunday, a security expert wrote that Google had quietly changed the requirements so when users login into a Google service, such as Gmail, Chrome will automatically sign the browser into their account without consent.

    Google tucked the new login requirements into the latest Chrome update without notifying users, Matthew Green, a cryptography expert and professor at Johns Hopkins University, said in a blog post on Sunday.

    The blog post, titled "Why I’m done with Chrome," began generating debate on Sunday evening and also appeared to send Chrome's managers into damage control.

    By being logged in, Chrome users could unwittingly send their browser data to Google, according to Green. He disclosed that he had contacted Chrome managers and they had told him that just being logged into Chrome didn't mean a user's browsing information would be sent to Google. Users would still need to activate the "sync feature" before a data transfer occurred.

    And this is where Green, who also said he had quit using Chrome, reserved some of his harshest criticism for Google. He called the Chrome consent page a "dark pattern," a common term that refers to a user interface designed to deceive or mislead people.

    "Now that I’m forced to log into Chrome," Green wrote, "I'm faced with a brand new (sync consent) menu I’ve never seen before."

    He suggested that this could lead users to mistakenly consent. He added that prior to the recent login change, a user had to key in their credentials to log in and then consent to the sync. Now, users are a single, possibly accidental, click away from turning over their browsing history to Google.

    Google referred Business Insider to a series of late-night Twitter posts from Adrienne Porter Felt, an engineer and manager at Chrome.

    In one tweet, she confirmed that Google has changed the login procedures. She stressed that though someone is logged on to Chrome, they must still consent to a sync before their data is transferred to Google.

    Green said it is "nuts" for Google to suggest users are safe because of the sync-consent page.

    Green wrote: "If you didn’t respect my lack of consent on the biggest user-facing privacy option in Chrome, (and didn’t even notify me that you had stopped respecting it!) why should I trust any other consent option you give me?"

    You can read Matthew Green's blog post in full here.

    SEE ALSO: As the controversies pile up, Google misses the skillset of this former exec more than ever

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: An environmental group is testing giant floating pipes to clean up oceans

    0 0

    Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley Kavanaugh are interviewed on Fox News.

    • Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife, Ashley Kavanaugh, will appear in an unusual — if not unprecedented — interview, in which they'll address allegations of sexual misconduct.
    • In an attempt to reassure Republican senators and the party's voters that Kavanaugh remains the best choice for the Supreme Court, the White House and the GOP are taking the extraordinary step of green-lighting an offensive attack starring the nominee himself. 
    • Media reporters and others see the interview as White House-orchestrated propaganda effort to boost Kavanaugh days before one of his accusers testifies before the Senate. 

    Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife, Ashley Kavanaugh, will appear in an unusual — if not unprecedented — interview, in which they'll address the allegations of sexual misconduct the Supreme Court nominee is facing, with Fox News on Monday night. 

    In an attempt to reassure Republican senators and the party's voters that Kavanaugh remains the best choice for the nation's high court, the White House and the GOP are taking the extraordinary step of greenlighting an offensive attack starring the nominee himself. 

    Kavanaugh has forcefully denied allegations that he sexually assaulting a girl in high school and exposed himself to a female classmate in college, calling two women's claims "smears, pure and simple" and "grotesque and obvious character assassination"in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.

    And he vowed not to withdraw his nomination, a promise he also makes in the interview with Fox host Martha MacCallum, several excerpts of which were released by Fox on Monday evening. 

    In the interview, which aired at 7 p.m. on Monday, Kavanaugh repeats his denials of the allegations ahead of the Thursday hearing in which both he and one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, are scheduled to testify before the Senate committee. 

    "The truth is I've never sexually assaulted anyone, in high school or otherwise," he said on Fox. "I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone at some place, but what I know is I've never sexually assaulted anyone."

    Kavanaugh cited his "lifelong record of promoting dignity and equality for women starting with the women who knew me when I was 14 years old" and insisted that he never had sex throughout college and for "many years after." He added that because the drinking age was 18 at the time, seniors could and did buy beer for parties — and at times drank too much. But the judge said he never drank so much that he could not recall what happened while he was intoxicated. 

    At one point, MacCallum suggested that the second allegation — made by a college classmate in The New Yorker — was insufficiently credible or substantiated to be reported. Kavanaugh wouldn't comment on the quality of the magazine's reporting, but made some claims that the New Yorker reporters, veteran investigative journalists Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow, disputed on Twitter. 

    Ashley Kavanaugh said that she never doubted that her husband was telling the truth and expressed sympathy for one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford. 

    "I don't know what happened to her and I don't even want to go there. I feel badly for her family, I feel badly for her," she said. "This process is not right."

    Journalists and others quickly pointed out that it is highly unusual for a Supreme Court nominee to conduct an interview with the media or engage in an effort to clear his own name during the confirmation process — and even more unusual for the interview to be conducted by a partisan news network. 

    "If you're not familiar with what Supreme Court nominees normally do, this is not what they normally do," HuffPost senior reporter Jeffrey Young‏ tweeted. "If you're familiar what what statist propaganda organizations normally do, however, this is what they normally do."

    Some questioned the appropriateness of a Supreme Court nominee appearing on a right-leaning network. 

    "If you wanted at least the appearance of objectivity, ie 'balls and strikes,' why not a more neutral network? Or customary morning show interview?"wrote HuffPost politics reporter Igor Bobic.

    Others argued that the interview was orchestrated to appeal to conservatives — given that Fox is the go-to network for the president and his followers — and is not an attempt to repair Kavanaugh's reputation among the broader population, with whom he is deeply unpopular

    "There's a huge difference between Sotomayor on Sesame Street or Scalia on 60 Minutes and this, of course. Choosing Fox News makes it look like an effort to reassure conservatives in particular," New Republic reporter Matt Ford tweeted Monday, referring to media appearances made by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and late Justice Antonin Scalia, both of which were conducted while two were sitting on the Supreme Court. 

    Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan argued that interview is nothing more than White House propaganda, facilitated by Bill Shine, the former Fox executive who now serves as a top communications staffer in the White House.

    "Female interviewer, check. Fox News, check. Bill Shine approved, check. When an 'exclusive interview' promises to be a challenge-free infomercial," Sullivan tweeted

    MacCallum, a veteran Fox host, notably defender Fox's late chief executive, Roger Ailes, against claims from multiple women that he sexually harassed them. Ailes was ultimately pushed out of the network over the allegations. 

    "Roger is such a terrific boss. I don't like to see anything that reflects negatively on him," MacCallum said in 2016

    Shine, who for years served as Ailes' right hand, was also forced to resign from Fox last year over his handling of sexual misconduct allegations made by several female employees against senior male anchors at the network.

    SEE ALSO: Democrats slam Republicans for pressing forward with Kavanaugh confirmation last week despite apparently knowing of then-secret allegation

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    lebron james lakers

    • Teams around the NBA are still talking about LeBron James' move to the Los Angeles Lakers.
    • Teams in the Eastern Conference have acknowledged that their paths forward are easier with James out of the way, while teams in the West have accepted that the conference just got tougher.
    • James' Lakers will also have a tougher time getting into the playoffs because of the crowded Western Conference, but most expect them to do it.

    With the NBA season around the corner and teams reporting for media days and training camps this week, it appears one topic is still buzzing around the league — LeBron James' move to the Los Angeles Lakers.

    It's been nearly three months since James changed conferences, but around the league, there's still great interest into how that move will play out. In part, that's because of the odd team that's been assembled around James — a mix of young players and journeymen supporting cast.

    However, it is also rare to see a superstar of James' magnitude change conferences. James ruled the Eastern Conference for eight years, making the Finals from 2011 to 2018. He was the most consistent force in the league. Now, his departure (or arrival, depending on your vantage point) is set to cause a shake-up in the league.

    For instance, Eastern Conference teams are already thinking about the new opportunity that awaits them. Indiana Pacers head coach Nate McMillan described the need for a new face in the East.

    Washington Wizards head coach Scott Brooks seems refreshed.

    In a Players' Tribune conversation between Denver Nuggets point guard Isaiah Thomas and Philadelphia 76ers guard Markelle Fultz, the two players even discussed how the East was now wide open.

    "With LeBron coming west, that opens up opportunity for other teams," Thomas said.

    "Yeah, for sure, it opens up a lot," Fultz agreed.

    Even some teams in the Western Conference acknowledged their new member.

    Of course, James' Lakers team will have their hands full competing in what many consider to be the superior conference. Last season, the Nuggets missed the playoffs at 46-36. This year, the competition only figures to be tougher.

    Portland Trail Blazers guard Damian Lillard told The Athletic's Sam Amick that the move might be tougher for James, too, not just other teams.

    "So I'm sure [the Lakers will] figure it out," Lillard said. "It's just a matter of how fast can they figure it out because in the West it’' not like the Eastern Conference. If you fall behind in the West, that can be bad. It's a little tougher, so I think that's the question."

    Even if the Lakers aren't gaining attention for the right reasons, Golden State Warriors forward Andre Iguodala said it'll make his life easier.

    Most in the NBA expect the Lakers to make the playoffs, even if they might not have a clear road to the Finals as James' Cavs teams did.

    However, former Cavs forward Richard Jefferson told The New York Times' Marc Stein that people might be underestimating just how good James can make the Lakers.

    "When he went back to Cleveland, I promise you he didn't go there thinking, 'OK, it's time to go to four straight NBA finals,'" Jefferson told Stein. "But would anyone really be surprised if the Lakers made the conference finals? He's that good. Any time LeBron steps on the court, he's the best player on the court. There's a bigger gap than I think many people would really believe."

    It's a testament to James' power that virtually the entire league can shift based on which team he plays for.

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: What it takes to be an NFL referee

    0 0

    rod rosenstein

    • The public was confused following conflicting reports about whether deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein would resign, and officials on the inside may have been just as much in the dark.
    • "DOJ officials have been shell-shocked by the public back and forth critique of Rosenstein," said a former federal prosecutor who said he's been briefed on the department's internal mood by high-level contacts.
    • "Today, they were wandering the halls wondering what's next," he added.
    • A current FBI agent said the mood was similar within the bureau.
    • "Many were on high-alert this morning," this person said.

    The public was confused for much of Monday morning following conflicting reports about whether deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein was about to resign from his position.

    And officials on the inside may have been just as much in the dark as observers on the outside.

    "DOJ officials have been shell-shocked by the back and forth public critique of Rosenstein," said Jeffrey Cramer, a 12-year DOJ veteran who says he's been briefed on the internal mood at the department by multiple high-level contacts. "Today, they were wandering the halls wondering what's next, because you need an operational [deputy attorney general]."

    Rosenstein did not ultimately resign, nor was he fired on Monday morning.

    The news website Axios first reported on Rosenstein's possible resignation, saying he had "verbally resigned" to White House chief of staff John Kelly. Rosenstein's reported move came after The New York Times published a controversial report last week saying the deputy attorney general discussed wearing a wire around President Donald Trump and invoking the 25th amendment to remove Trump from office.

    Rosenstein vehemently denied the allegations, and subsequent media reports also called into question some of the details in the original Times story.

    White House officials told The Washington Post that Rosenstein offered to resign in the wake of The Times story.

    But DOJ officials told The Post that while Rosenstein went to the White House on Monday expecting to be fired, he did not offer to resign, despite reportedly weighing the option over the weekend following The Times' report.

    White House Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Rosenstein had an "extended conversation" with the president about the news on Monday and that the two would meet again on Thursday.

    People at the FBI were on tenterhooks Monday morning, according to one current FBI agent.

    There was "no doubt that rank and file would be angry if Rod Rosenstein stepped down or got fired because of that NYT report," this person said.

    "Many were on high-alert this morning," they added.

    Axios reported on Monday evening that after it published its initial story floating Rosenstein's resignation, the DOJ drafted a statement announcing his exit, written "in the voice" of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

    After commending Rosenstein for his long career as a public servant, the draft statement reportedly went on to say Matt Whitaker, Sessions' chief of staff, would serve as deputy attorney general, and that Noel Francisco, the solicitor general, would become acting attorney general overseeing the Russia investigation and the special counsel Robert Mueller. 

    "People who are very high up at the DOJ have understandably all been reticent because they're all just looking over their shoulders," Cramer said.

    "Especially now, because as of this morning you had an [attorney general] who was impotent, you had a possibly non-existent [deputy attorney general], and the solicitor general possibly taking over," he added. "The hierarchy of the DOJ was all out of whack, as far as anyone there knew, because the [attorney general] doesn't run things, it's the [deputy attorney general] who's operational. He's the COO."

    SEE ALSO: Current FBI agents and former intel officials are breathing a sigh of relief that Rod Rosenstein still has his job after a whirlwind morning in Washington

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    jeff bezos amazon ceo founder

    • Amazon has reportedly expressed interest in acquiring UK food delivery startup Deliveroo twice.
    • The news comes after a report that Bloomberg has also been in early talks for the company.
    • Deliveroo is a major player in the space, and would give either company's takeout delivery plans a significant boost in cities around the world — if it agreed to sell.

    It sounds like Uber isn't the only major tech firm hungry for Deliveroo.

    According to a report from The Telegraph published Monday, Amazon has expressed interest in acquiring the London-based food delivery startup twice in the past, and had made "preliminary approaches."

    The Telegraph reports that the most recent talks between Amazon and Deliveroo were nine months ago, and the two firms also spoke before Amazon launched its own take-out delivery service.

    The news comes after a report from Bloomberg on Friday that Uber, the Silicon Valley ride-hailing firm, has also engaged in early talks to try and buy Deliveroo. 

    An Amazon spokesperson declined to comment to Business Insider. Deliveroo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Deliveroo is one of Europe's biggest startup success stories. Founded in 2013 by Americans Will Shu and Greg Orlowski, Deliveroo enlists contract employees as couriers, who deliver food from local restaurants in some 200 cities all over the UK, the European Union, Asia, and Australia.

    Last year, Deliveroo raised $482 million in venture funding, in a deal valuing the company at around $2 billion. According to the Bloomberg report, Deliveroo would not be interested in selling for any price that's not "considerably higher" than its current valuation.

    The startup is also one of the chief international rivals to UberEats, the ride-hailing giant's own food-delivery service. Under CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber has redoubled its efforts around food delivery ahead of a planned 2019 IPO.

    On the subject of IPOs, Deliveroo's Shu said earlier this year that a debut on the public markets was not in the cards for his startup. However, rumors have persisted that Deliveroo has — or, perhaps, had — IPO ambitions. At the time of its 2017 fundraise, Deliveroo was operating at gross margins of 0.7%; a figure that some pundits thought was too small. According to The Telegraph, the company has now pushed its plans for an IPO from 2019 to 2020. 


    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Watch Apple unveil the new iPhone XR, XS, and XS Max

    0 0

    Growth Regtech Firms

    This is a preview of a research report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about Business Insider Intelligence, click here.

    Regtech solutions seemed to offer the solution to financial institutions' (FIs) compliance woes when they first came to prominence around 24 months ago, gaining support from regulators and investors alike. 

    However, many of the companies offering these solutions haven't scaled as might have been expected from the initial hype, and have failed to follow the trajectory of firms in other segments of fintech.

    This unexpected inertia in the regtech industry is likely to resolve over the next 12-18 months as other factors come into play that shift FIs' approach to regtech solutions, and as the companies offering them evolve. External factors driving this change include regulatory support of regtech solutions, and consultancies offering more help to FIs wanting to sift through solutions. Startups offering regtech solutions will also play a part by partnering with each other, forming industry organizations, and taking advantage of new opportunities.

    This report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, provides a brief overview of the current global financial regulatory compliance landscape, and the regtech industry's position within it. It then details the major drivers that will shift the dial on FIs' adoption of regtech over the next 12-18 months, as well as those that will propel startups offering regtech solutions to new heights. Finally, it outlines what impact these drivers will have, and gives insight into what the global regtech industry will look like by 2020.

    Here are some of the key takeaways:

    • Regulatory compliance is still a significant issue faced by global FIs. In 2018 alone, EU regulations MiFID II and PSD2 have come into effect, bringing with them huge handbooks and gigantic reporting requirements. 
    • Regtech startups boast solutions that can ease FIs' compliance burden — but they are struggling to scale. 
    • Some changes expected to drive greater adoption of these solutions in the next 12 to 18 months are: the ongoing evolution of startups' business models, increasing numbers of partnerships, regulators' promotion of regtech, changing attitudes to the segment among FIs, and consultancies helping to facilitate adoption.
    • FIs will actively be using solutions from regtech startups by 2020, and startups will be collaborating in an organized fashion with each other and with FIs. Global regulators will have adopted regtech themselves, while continuing to act as advocates for the industry.

    In full, the report:

    • Reviews the major changes expected to hit the regtech segment in the next 12 to 18 months.
    • Examines the drivers behind these changes, and how the proliferation of regtech will improve compliance for FIs.
    • Provides our view on what the future of the regtech industry looks like through 2020.


    Join the conversation about this story »

    0 0

    Co-Founder/CEO of Spotify Daniel Ek attends the 2018 Breakthrough Prize at NASA Ames Research Center on December 3, 2017 in Mountain View, California.

    • Spotify has been making waves in the music industry by trying to sign up independent artists.
    • But don't expect the company to replace the major recording labels anytime soon, UBS analysts said in a new report.
    • The company doesn't have the money to really compete with them, and it's heavily dependent on them, they said.
    • Even if it doesn't become the Netflix of the music world, Spotify still has plenty of other opportunities ahead of it, the analysts said.

    Netflix may be trying to beat Hollywood at its own game, but don't expect Spotify to do the same in the music business.

    Unlike Netflix, which has become a major player in the video content business by moving aggressively to produce its own shows and movies, Spotify is in no position to take on the traditional labels, financial analysts from UBS said in a recent report. In fact, instead of Spotify or other streaming music "platforms" significantly cutting into the labels' business, both sides are likely to profit as streaming catches on more broadly, the analysts said.

    "Our current view is platform disintermediation is overplayed, and we see platform-label economics likely to remain broadly unchanged in the medium term," they said. They continued: "Our base case ... is the music streaming opportunity is significant enough for both platforms and labels to benefit."

    There's been growing talk in recent months of Spotify potentially trying to cut the labels out of the loop and just work with artists directly. Last week, the company announced it would allow artists to directly upload their music to its service, instead of having to go a music label as a middleman. Meanwhile, it recent months, the company has been reaching out to various managers and independent artists, offering to pay them cash up front to license their music directly to it.

    Such a move could help Spotify's bottom line. A huge portion of its costs come from licensing music from the major labels. If it licensed songs directly from artists, rather than from the recording companies, it could reduce its costs.

    Spotify is unlikely to become the music world's Netflix

    But despite the hype and the potential profit boost, Spotify's unlikely to become a real threat to the labels anytime soon, if ever, the UBS analysts wrote.

    Reed hastingsWhile streaming is opening up new opportunities for artists, labels still perform a valuable role in the industry in helping new musicians establish themselves. Some 6 million songs are released each year, the analysts estimated. The labels help their artists be heard above the noise, they said.

    The Big Three music labels that dominate the industry — Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group — spend about $4 billion each year to discover, promote, and give advances to new artists each year, they estimated. Universal Music Group alone spends about $1.7 billion of that.

    That's spending that Spotify can't even come close to matching right now, given that it's likely to post an operating loss of as much as $321 million this year, they said. 

    "Spotify does not have the financials to become a label today or in the medium term," they said.

    Even if Spotify could afford to spend more to attract and promote artists, signing up exclusively with it wouldn't be in the best interests of most artists. That's because even though it's the leading streaming music provider, it still only accounts for about 16% of revenue for the recording industry. Only dealing with Spotify would mean writing off revenue from big-ticket competitors like Apple Music and YouTube, not to mention the still sizeable amount of revenue that comes from sales of CDs and other physical music products.

    "Signing up exclusively to Spotify ... would limit the size of the total market opportunity," the analysts said.

    But it's also not in Spotify's interests to be too aggressive in signing up artists, because the company is very dependent on the labels and can't afford to alienate them.

    Most well-known musicians are already on long-term contracts with particular labels, which often control the artists' albums they've produced in perpetuity. Spotify needs access to those albums. The vast majority of songs played through its service — some 64% — are songs that are at least 3-1/2 years old, which are typically controlled by the Big 3, the analysts said.

    Spotify has big opportunities in advertising and promotions

    Still, Spotify's financials can improve without it having to become a major competitor to the Big 3, the analysts said. As the leading player in the streaming business, the company is set to benefit as growing numbers of consumers sign up. UBS projects that the total number of streaming music subscribers will hit 726 million in 2027 from 176 million last year.

    But Spotify could get a boost to its bottom line sooner than that. Its contracts with the recording companies will be renegotiated next year. Right now, the labels get about 52% of the revenue Spotify generates from consumers. UBS is forecasting that amount will go down to 50% in the next contract year, which would help the company cut its losses.

    But the company has other and potentially bigger opportunities to improve its revenue and profits, the analysts said. Potentially, the company could attract a significant chunk of the $4 billion the labels spend on promoting artists by convincing them to tout new musicians on its service.

    Spotify could allow labels to sponsor songs or artists so that would appear at the top of search lists on its service, the analysts said. It could also offer advanced analytical services that the labels could use to track how their songs, artists, and promotional campaigns are faring.

    What's more, the company could expand its advertising sales effort. Spotify runs about 6 minutes of ads per hour on its free, advertising-based services. It could potentially increase the number of ads its runs significantly, the analysts said. And as it offers more video-based content through its app, it could make a more serious play for video ads, which fetch higher prices than other ads.

    "We believe the revenue opportunity [from advertising and promotions]  is sizeable," the analysts said.

    As part of the note, UBS analyst Eric Sheridan reiterated his buy rating and $242 price target on Spotify shares. The company's stock closed regular trading on Monday up $1.95, or 1%, to $176.97.

    SEE ALSO: Pandora is still alive after getting run over by Spotify and Apple, and the CEO says his comeback plan will open up another big business in music

    SEE ALSO: Spotify just proved that the streaming-music business is like a black hole — and investors may not see it until it's too late

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Watch Apple unveil a new, bigger watch

    0 0

    brett kavanaugh

    • Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in his first television interview since two women accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexual misconduct in high school and college, Kavanaugh said he believes that Christine Blasey Ford was sexually assaulted ‘at some point in her life,' but denied that he was involved.
    • Ford accuses Kavanaugh of holding her down and groping her during a high school party in the 1980s, and putting his hand over her mouth so she couldn't scream. Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied her claims.
    • Kavanaugh said while he doesn't deny that Ford was sexually assaulted by someone in her past, it was not him.
    • Kavanaugh and Ford are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday 

    Judge Brett Kavanaugh said he believes that the woman accusing him of sexual assault may have been a victim of such an act "at some point" in her life, but said he didn't do it.

    Kavanaugh was talking about Christine Blasey Ford, the college professor who said Kavanaugh held her down and groped her during a high school party in the 1980s.

    In his first television interview since Ford's accusations became public and a second woman leveled additional accusations against him, Kavanaugh repeated his previous denial and said he has no plans to walk away from his Supreme Court nomination.

    “The truth is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone, in high school or otherwise,” Kavanaugh told Fox News with his wife, Ashley, sitting by his side. “I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone at some place. But what I know is, I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone.”

    The interview follows new accusations from Deborah Ramirez, who claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party while the two were students at Yale.

    “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” Ramirez told the New Yorker in an story published Sunday night, “I knew that's not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.”

    Ramirez said she was heavily intoxicated the night the alleged incident happened, and cannot remember many details.

    Ford and Kavanaugh are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. In a letter sent from Kavanaugh to the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday, Kavanaugh said that he would “not be intimidated” by what he called “smear” accusations against him.

    "I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed," Kavanaugh wrote.

    President Donald Trump and the White House remain supportive of Kavanaugh.

    SEE ALSO: Kavanaugh defends himself in Fox News interview alongside his wife by claiming he never sexually assaulted anyone and didn't have sex until 'many years after' college

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    Sundar Pichai

    • Techies took to message boards, Twitter and their own blogs to debate whether changes Google made to the way people login to Chrome is a privacy threat.
    • Google quietly tucked a new feature into the latest Chrome update that automatically logs in users. 
    • For many years, Chrome allowed users to surf the web via the browser without signing in. Now, if user sign into any of Google's properties, they are signed in to Chrome.
    • Up until Matt Green wrote about the new login requirements, Google had said nothing about it. The company confirmed the change late Sunday night. 


    Google's surprise change to a privacy setting in Chrome, the web's No. 1 browser, is raising hackles from privacy advocates and some users of the product who say that the company has not been upfront enough.

    The change, which was little noticed until a security researcher blogged about it on Sunday night, has left the internet company fighting a familiar criticism: that its appetite for data to fuel its online ad business trumps its concerns about its users.

    Matthew Green, a security and cryptography researcher from Johns Hopkins University blogged about the change Google quietly made as part of the browser's latest update, Chrome 69. Green wrote that from now on, when people login in to YouTube, Gmail or any of the company's properties, they will automatically be logged in to Chrome at the same time.

    Matthew Green

    Late on Sunday night, Google responded to the growing controversy by confirming the login change.

    This is dramatic change and a possible threat to users' privacy, according to Green.

    “Google believes they can make these changes without consequence," said Marc Rotenberg, the president of consumer privacy advocacy group EPIC. "The privacy model is simply broken. Companies are constantly changing the rules of the game.”

    For years, Google allowed users of its Chrome browser to surf the web without logging in through a personal Google account. Chrome users didn't have to worry that their web browsing history would be included with the other personal data Google maintains about registered users of its products. For that to happen, a user would have to sign in to Chrome and to consent to a "data sync" between Chrome and the other Google products they use.

    What's all the fuss about?

    Now that Google logs people in to Chrome automatically, managers have  removed one of those steps of protection, Green wrote. What's more, he said, a new and "confusing" sync-consent page, makes it easy for users to mistakenly give up their browsing data to Google.

    Eric Lawrence, a former Google employee who worked on Chrome but is now employed by rival Microsoft, said he doesn't see any reason to be alarmed.

    "Yes, Chrome has streamlined the opt-in to the browser’s “Sync” features, such that you no longer need to individually type your username and password when enabling Sync," Lawrence wrote. "Whether you consider this “Great!” or “Terrible!” is a matter of perception and threat model." 

    Lawrence points out that when someone clicks the consent button, they will then get a pop-up that informs them of the information they are agreeing to share with Google.

    In that prompt, Google notifies users that the company will collect info from users' "bookmarks, passwords, history and more on all your devices...Google may use content on sites you visit, plus browser activity and interactions to personalize Chrome and other Google services like Translate, Search and ads." 

    Chrome owns more than 50 percent of the browser market, followed by Mozilla's FireFox (11%),  Microsoft's Internet Explorer (6.8%), and Apple's Safari (5.1%).  

    'My heart skips a beat'

    Plenty of people wrote that they don't see this as a benign change, including former Googlers. Michał Zalewski, is a computer security expert and former Google employee. He sided with Green that Google has made Chrome less safe. 

    "Don't like to pile on," Zalewski wrote on Twitter, "but I did rely on that as a visual confirmation that the browser is not doing something I didn't want. Now, my heart skips a beat every time I see the profile-switch menu or chrome://settings - and it'd only take one mis-click to actually start syncing."

    Jon von Tetzchner, cofounder and CEO of Vivaldi Technologies and the Vivaldi browser, a rival to Chrome. He is also a frequent critic of Facebook and Google's privacy practices.  In an interview with Business Insider, von Tetzchner said that it's disturbing Google has combined the logins for its properties. He said the upcoming Vivaldi version 2.0 requires users to sign in and go through a separate process before syncing data and he doesn't believe the login procedures Google has adopted are common practice across the browser business.

    "My impression is that Google and Facebook are unique," he said. "They recognize where you've been and what you've done, online and off. They are gradually collecting more and more information about you."

    Green told Business Insider on Monday that when it comes to the browser market as a whole, Google's new login requirements makes them an outlier. Green said that when it comes to the other browsers, "for the most part, if you're not signed in, you're not going to have your info uploaded anywhere." 

    In tweets from Google, the company said that it made the change because of confusion caused when two Chrome users were using the same computer. Their browser data was often getting mixed up. Green outlined his skepticism about this in his blog post. 

    "Google’s reputation is hard-earned, and it can be easily lost," Green wrote. "Changes like this burn a lot of trust with users. If the change is solving an absolutely critical problem for users , then maybe a loss of trust is worth it. I wish Google could convince me that was the case."

    SEE ALSO: Facebook is being sued by an ex-content moderator who says she got PTSD from exposure to graphic and 'toxic' content on the job

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know

    0 0

    Google Inc. CEO Sundar Pichai



    Google CEO Sundar Pichai will meet privately with Republican lawmakers on Friday, according to a report on Monday in The Wall Street Journal.

    Pichai has also agreed to testify at a public hearing later this year, the paper reported.

    The meeting Friday follows weeks of verbal attacks on Google by US President Donald Trump and his allies. Trump accused Google of "rigging" the company's Search engine to silence the voices of political conservatives, and to deliver only negative news about his administration.

    But Google has also acknowledged contemplating a re-entry into China. In 2010, Google pulled out of that communist country, saying that the government had tried to force managers into censoring information.

    More recently, Google apparently underwent a change of heart and built a search engine that would indeed censor information that the Chinese government finds objectionable. Meanwhile, Google has balked at helping the US military with some of its operations and also promised never to build AI-enhanced weapons.

    Both house of Congress have noted that while Google is squeamish at aiding the US military, it may agree to work with a Chinese government that doesn't believe in free speech or the free flow of information.

    On China, Google is politically vulnerable in the United States.  

    The meetings are Pichai's first real test in the three years he's been CEO to handle crisis management. In this area, Eric Schmidt, Pichai's predecessor was highly skilled

    SEE ALSO: Trump doubles down on slamming Google, saying it's 'taking advantage of a lot of people' — and warns Google, Facebook, and Twitter to 'be careful'

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: An environmental group is testing giant floating pipes to clean up oceans

older | 1 | .... | 2079 | 2080 | (Page 2081) | 2082 | 2083 | .... | 2170 | newer