How Oprah’s Network Finally Found Its Voice

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

On New Year’s Day 2011, OWN went live in 80 million households across the country, replacing the channel Discovery Health. Though it was an upstart network, it had legacy cred—Oprah’s star power and an investment of $500 million from Discovery Communications. “We were attempting to do something that had never been done before,” says Erik Logan, who became the president of OWN six months after its launch.

The goal was to “take the idea of a person and embody her belief structure and vision” in every aspect of the network, he says. “Everything that makes the brand of Oprah, we wanted to translate that into a cable channel across over 8,000 hours of content.” As Logan and his colleagues found out, that proved to be a more complicated endeavor—“very, very daunting” he repeats over the phone—than anticipated.

A proud Oklahoman, the 47-year-old Logan began working for Winfrey 10 years ago when she hired him to be the EVP of her production company, Harpo Studios, and later joined OWN where he soon became president. In our multiple conversations, Logan makes no qualms about the network’s early struggles; he often refers to them in PR speak as “big learnings.”

The network’s initial slate of programming wrestled with a crisis of identity: a below-average Rosie O’Donnell talk show, a docu-series from Lisa Ling, and a batch of dull reality TV duds featuring Tatum O’Neil, Shania Twain, and the Judd family. There was also Oprah’s Lifeclass—where the once Queen of Daytime offered guidance on, as she has often phrased it, how to “live your best life.” (One complication upon launching OWN was that it couldn’t actually get Oprah on the network until her noncompete had expired with broadcasters; Lifeclass premiered 10 months after the initial launch.)

Still, despite the lineup of stars, the shows didn’t quite connect with the network’s meager audience. “I was so misled in my thinking. I thought I was going to create a network that was Super Soul Sunday all day long,” Winfrey said in an interview last year. “I thought I was going to bring this spiritual consciousness–awakening channel!” Her impulses, however misplaced, were clear. “I was going to be the Anthony Bourdain of spirituality.” But ratings were anemic, and relevancy—Could OWN be a conversation starter? Could the channel pump out a different kind of Prestige TV?—eluded the grasp of executives.

When I ask Logan why he thinks relying so greatly on reality TV and self-empowerment programming failed, he plays it straight. “I don’t know,” he says. “I think we were more focused on trying to find what could work than trying to diagnose what didn’t. There is a saying that Oprah has—‘What happens to you happens for you.’” Those early struggles, he says, helped the network better understand its intention (a favorite buzzword of Winfrey’s) and who exactly it was speaking to: black women.

During March of its sophomore year, OWN aired one of its most watched episodes to date—an Oprah’s Next Chapter interview with Bobbi Kristina. It was the first full-length interview she’d given since her mother, R&B singer Whitney Houston, was found dead in a bathtub at the Beverly Hilton Hotel the month prior. It pulled in just north of 3.5 million viewers. “What it said to me was, if we get the content right they will find you,” Logan says. From there, the network leaned in and found comparable success with Iyanla Vanzant’s no-holds-barred brand of TV therapy on Fix My Life. It remains the most watched unscripted series on OWN, and Vanzant one of its most fiery and intriguing figures.

For Logan, that codified the path—OWN had found an unexpected route. “That wasn’t the intention of the network going into this, to talk to the African American viewer,” he admits. After Fix My Life aired in 2012—the two-episode premiere about Basketball Wives star Evelyn Lozada pulled in an average of 1.5 million viewers—Winfrey called Logan immediately. “She says to me, ‘Listen, that’s all I got. If this doesn’t work, I don’t know what works. If this is it, I know nothing about television.’ It was one of those damn-the-torpedoes kind of moments. Obviously it was a huge success, but there are those moments you have with her.”

It was the network’s next jump that would turn out to be its most formative. In a partnership with Tyler Perry, OWN applied its most paramount lesson from Fix My Life: It would now target black women through a scripted series format. Perry quickly midwifed—as creator, writer, and director—the soapy The Haves and Have Nots and trite platitudinal working-class comedies like Love Thy Neighbor.

The network was getting traction. OWN ended the year “cash-flow positive,” according to Discovery CEO David Zaslav. Eventually, Perry had four scripted shows under his aegis, proving he could guarantee a fiercely loyal audience. (Last year in a surprise move, Perry decided to leave the network and inked a film and TV deal with Viacom for an undisclosed amount; new episodes of his shows will continue to air on OWN through 2020.)

Winfrey now says OWN is in its “best place ever”—a spot that has allowed her to access a long-desired dream: “elevated premium scripted storytelling.” (Winfrey declined to be interviewed for the article.) This is where Queen Sugar, the Ava DuVernay-directed austral drama about the Bordelon family and Greenleaf, the megachurch series set in Memphis (on which Winfrey has a small role) come into play. They became not just the standout shows on the network but two of the best dramas on TV—offering nuanced and knotty sketches of black Southern life. Both are among the top five original scripted series on ad-supported cable for women 25-54.

In OWN’s Greenleaf, a megachurch drama set in Memphis, Lynn Whitfield plays Lady Mae and Keith David is Bishop Greenleaf.

Tina Rowden/OWN

DuVernay, who was pursued by other networks before choosing OWN, tells me she was “honored to be asked to carve out a new kind of story for a network that wanted to turn a corner.” When she began to envision the show, after working with Winfrey on the 2014 film Selma, she says her hope for it was simple: “To connect with an audience. To find an audience. And to have them stay. To engage. To care about the characters in the way that I have cared about television families in the past.” DuVernay is all gratitude when it comes to discussing the show’s enduring influence among fans. “So to have that now is quite dreamy.”

The arrival and sustained praise for Queen Sugar (based on the novel of the same name by Natalie Baszile) and Greenleaf signaled an official sea change for the network: In addition to renewing its marquee scripted series, Winfrey signed high-profile first-look deals with DuVernay and Packer, announced a new show from Brock Akil (what became Love Is___), and greenlit a coming-of-age drama set in South Florida from McCraney, on which Michael B. Jordan will serve as an executive producer.

In giving DuVernay the first-look deal, Winfrey also has found a successor. Her superpower on daytime TV—the thing that made her so huge—was being at once unapologetically black and relatable for all, which DuVernay pulls off with equal aplomb.

While working on Moonlight, McCraney met with several networks—including Netflix, who wanted the project but was outbid by OWN. According to him, he wanted his first foray into TV to be on a network that genuinely fostered his vision. In meeting with OWN brass, Winfrey wasn’t expected to be in attendance, but, to his surprise, there she was. “She came in and sat right in front of me, and from the start was wanting to open the story up and understand what it was about,” he tells me when I reach him by phone in Los Angeles. “Almost immediately she began trying to find people and ways to make it work and happen. She was just instantly looking at, ‘What’s the frame here?’ Like, ‘If this is a portrait, what kind of frame to do we use? How do we put the right support around it? What’s the best gallery for it? Is there a gallery?’ Whenever that happens—and it’s rare that it does—it’s a clear sign that someone has already invested their heart in it. They’ve already invested in it as not just something else to add to a list of things that they have, but it’s something that they want to get behind and present to our people, to people who they feel need this, not necessarily just want it.”

A Merger That Would Have Made Crypto Investing Easier Fails

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

In January, BitGo, a Silicon Valley bitcoin wallet startup, announced plans to acquire Kingdom Trust, a Kentucky company that has quietly become a leading player in a thriving market serving cryptocurrency funds.

The move would have positioned BitGo to compete with a small but growing pool of players offering custodial service—in essence, storage of crypto assets—to high-net-worth individuals, institutions, and funds. It was designed to merge BitGo’s tech products, which offer a secure way for individuals to store bitcoin and crypto assets, with Kingdom’s custody services, which serve institutions. Having a trust charter, as Kingdom Trust does, would have given the combined entity a leg up on competition from Coinbase, Gemini (an exchange run by the Winklevoss twins), Ledger, ItBit, and Nomura, the Japanese bank which in May announced plans to offer crypto custody.

But the charter wasn’t enough to make the merger of a risk-averse financial trust in Kentucky with a venture-backed startup in Silicon Valley work. Kingdom gained regulatory approval for the change of control in April, but a month later, the companies dissolved their merger plans.

According to Kingdom CEO Matt Jennings, the deal fell through in final negotiations. “As with all mergers, there were many details that had to be negotiated and worked through. We simply could not work through the final details,” Jennings said. Jennings said disagreements were not specific to crypto, but “the typical final negotiations between two companies in these sorts of deals.”

BitGo CEO Mike Belshe did not elaborate on the reasons for the merger ending beyond a blog post announcing that the company has applied for a trust charter to build its own custodial solution.

LEARN MORE

The WIRED Guide to Bitcoin

As a result of the split, BitGo and Kingdom find themselves in competition with each other, as BitGo builds its custody offering. “We have worked closely with customers to understand their custodial needs and have realized that to offer the best custodial solution, we needed to build our own qualified custodial offering,” BitGo product marketing executive Robin Verderosa wrote.

Kingdom continues to offer its custodial services from Murray, Kentucky. Jennings says the split changes nothing about Kingdom’s plans to expand and upgrade its products. “We were the leader in digital asset custody long before any merger was contemplated and plan to keep pressing forward as the leader in the market,” he says.

Meanwhile, Coinbase, the largest and best-known digital currency exchange and wallet in the US, has launched its much-anticipated custody option, and Nomura’s announcement shows that some traditional banks also want a piece of the crypto action.

Institutional custody is a small but important part of the movement to legitimize crypto investing. Crypto hedge funds have proliferated over the last 18 months, with an estimated 100 new ones launching in 2017. A late-2017 surge in the price of bitcoin and other crypto assets meant lots of small funds found themselves suddenly managing large portfolios of crypto assets. Hedge funds with more than $150 million in assets are required to store their assets with a qualified custodian. In a February interview, Belshe estimated that two dozen hedge funds crossed that threshold last year, but were not complying with the rule. This year’s slump in crypto prices may have solved the problem for many.


More Great WIRED Stories

Apple Deals: Sale on Watch, iPad, Mac, and More Happening Now

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

We’ve sifted through the internet for deals on tech we like, and hit pay dirt this week. Best Buy is giving out some discounts on Apple gadget, and a number of other devices we recommend are on sale at a few different retailers. You can find them below, along with links to our relevant reviews and guides.

Apple Device Sale

Best Buy is still holding a sale on Apple Devices, and we’re not quite sure when it will end. Below, we’ve surfaced all the deals worth considering. The Apple Watch Series 3 and iPads are particularly nice, if you’re in the market.

Other Deals We Spotted

Below are a few other great deals going on this week. This batch is from Amazon, Best Buy, and eBay.

Updated: Nuraphones sale has not gone through or is not active, so we’ve removed them from the list.

When you buy something using the retail links in our stories, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Read more about how this works.

What are the world's 5 biggest video-game companies? A Foolish Take

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

CLOSE

Games makers at E3 are hoping to follow the success of online multiplayer video game ‘Fortnite’ by incorporating the popular ‘Battle Royale’ genre into their new titles. (June 13) AP

Tencent and Apple are challenging traditional game publishers.

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE

The world’s top 25 gaming companies generated $94.1 billion in combined software revenue last year, according to Newzoo, marking a 29 percent jump from 2016. Mobile gaming revenue accounted for 46 percent of the total, followed by console games at 33 percent and PC games at 21 percent.

Sony, Microsoft, and Activision Blizzard are well-established game publishers. However, market leader Tencent(NASDAQOTH: TCEHY) isn’t a household name in the United States.

The Chinese tech giant’s video game portfolio includes top e-sports title “League of Legends,” as well as mobile hits such as “Arena of Valor,” “Clash of Clans” and “PUBG Mobile.” Tencent has a 40 percent stake in “Fortnite” publisher Epic Games and smaller stakes in Activision Blizzard and Ubisoft.

Meanwhile, many people forget that Apple(NASDAQ: AAPL), which takes a 30 percent cut of all sales of iOS games in its App Store, also is a leading game publisher. Though $8 billion equals just 3.5 percent of its 2017 revenue, that growth clearly complements the expansion of its services ecosystem, which includes Apple Pay, Apple Music, iTunes, and other services. The Mac maker is aiming to double its fiscal 2016 services revenue by 2020.

More:Rising cost of college creating a financial hole for parents, students: Foolish Take

More:Tesla tops list with 3 of America’s 5 best-selling electric vehicles: A Foolish Take

More:Starbucks tops Apple in mobile payments: A Foolish Take

Teresa Kersten is an employee of LinkedIn and is a member of The Motley Fool’s board of directors. LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft. Leo Sun owns shares of Apple and Tencent Holdings. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends ATVI, Apple, and Tencent Holdings. The Motley Fool has the following options: long January 2020 $150 calls on Apple and short January 2020 $155 calls on Apple. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.

Offer from the Motley Fool: Offer from The Motley Fool: The 10 best stocks to buy now

Motley Fool co-founders Tom and David Gardner have spent more than a decade beating the market. In fact, the newsletter they run, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the S&P 500!*

Tom and David just revealed their ten top stock picks for investors to buy right now.

Click here to get access to the full list!

*Stock Advisor returns as of May 8, 2018.

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2t89oHn

Inside the Crypto World’s Biggest Scandal

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

In late February, Gevers still reigned as foundation president. Kathleen had recently arrived in San Francisco from Paris via New York, and I drove with her to Los Angeles, where she was scheduled to appear at a blockchain conference at UCLA. She had recently received one more in a succession of Russian scam emails telling her that Johann Gevers had initiated a plot to hire assassins to murder her with poison, and that it could only be stopped if she transferred 10 bitcoin to the address included. She delivered an executive summary of the Tezos situation in a tone of hyperrational self-parody: “We overindexed on operational security risk, and underindexed on key-man risk.”

By then, however, most of her resentment was reserved for the Crypto Valley. A prominent Zurich businessman called as we headed south, with a patronizing offer to broker a deal that would put the foundation in wholly safe Swiss hands. Kathleen’s measured tone went out the window. “All these Swiss people calling me and telling me to shut the fuck up and do things the discreet way. If I got raped at a party, would you tell me it was my fault for wearing a skirt? Swiss business culture is a load of shit.”

Gevers, the Breitmans’ erstwhile key man, seemed to be doing fine. Kathleen described how she and Gevers had both recently been in St. Moritz to speak at a blockchain conference; Kathleen was allotted a “fireside chat,” while Gevers had been invited to give his own talk—on ICO best practices. A friend of Kathleen’s who had run security for Metallica paid for a German bodyguard to accompany her. At a white-tablecloth dinner, a prominent table companion brought up rumors that Kathleen had placed a bounty on Gevers’ head. She had taken the comment to heart, and as she related the scene she looked at me with pleading humor. “Do I look like a violent person?”

Gevers had delivered his speech with a calm, commanding sense of impending victory. (On his PowerPoint slides, he quoted Warren Buffett, Elon Musk, and himself.) Immediately afterward he released a series of triumphalist tweets about the future of Tezos. “After months of incapacitating interference, obstruction, and attacks, the Tezos Foundation has regained the ability to act,” he announced. “For those seeking to understand what happened at Tezos—both its successes and its failures: ‘In a high-trust environment, the impossible becomes possible. In a low-trust environment, even the possible becomes impossible.’—Johann Gevers.” Further tweets, later deleted, seemed to link, if implicitly, the future of Tezos to Monetas, for which Gustinis had found a buyer.

The Breitmans, Kathleen said, took Gevers’ social media proclamations to indicate he was prepared to continue fighting a war of attrition. Though Tom Gustinis says he was personally paying Gevers’ rent at this point, the foundation had expensive lawyers on retainer; the Breitmans, meanwhile, were paying $250,000 a month in legal fees. As Kathleen put it, “It’s not a corporate-governance matter anymore, it’s a hostage negotiation.” When I asked how it had possibly come to this—Gevers, it seemed, could have just cut the checks, celebrated the network launch, and emerged a wealthy man—Kathleen could only throw up her hands. “He’s the world’s stupidest scorpion, and Arthur is the world’s most gullible frog.”

Kathleen now felt as though they had one option: brinkmanship. This was no longer about the utopia to come but ascendancy in the here and now. “I feel like I’m in a hole, so fuck it, the game’s afoot. I’m going to blow this fucking canton up. I’m going to play the hand I was dealt, and I’ve got a much better deck. I keep telling Arthur that the people on the other side are just going to play their game for a billion dollars. It’s not about the morality of crypto. It’s about shipping and winning the game. I’ve got 60,000 lines of code that will ship with or without those guys in Zug.”

Thinking of Gevers and the others in Zug, Kathleen paused to stare outat the hills. “They fucked with the wrong nerds, is my take.”

She paused to stare out at the hills near Santa Barbara, blackened and denuded by fire. “They fucked with the wrong nerds, is my take.”

Their will had been renewed by the fact that they no longer felt so alone. Once it had become clear that the original board’s efforts were at best nugatory, the Tezos community had formed its own parallel “T2” directorate. In partnership with this second foundation, she and Arthur would continue to fund the platform’s development out of their own pockets; it had cost them $1.5 million so far, but they’d made a lot of money on their early personal investments in Bitcoin. She couldn’t comment on anything that pertained to their legal entanglements, but an actual launch could conceivably change the juridical landscape: After all, it was the original billion-dollar foundation that had the contractual responsibility to roll out the platform and distribute the tokens. More than anything, though, they wanted to see Tezos live.

Exhausted, Kathleen looked out to the placid expanse of sea and wilted a little. “It’s the 13th inning, and we’re getting a little tired. Neither of us needs to be doing this. I’m doing it as an act of love for my husband, and he’s doing it because he thinks he can do a good thing for the world. We’re going to birth Tezos as an act of love and collaboration.”

The next day, in front of a crowd at UCLA, she unveiled this strategy for the first time. “We’re going rogue, and in the next few weeks we’ll release the token. It’s the software equivalent of carrying an ectopic pregnancy to term.”

A few days after the UCLA panel, Kathleen sent me a strangely low-key message over Signal to report that Gevers had resigned from the Tezos Foundation. The leader of the T2 faction—a preternaturally tranquil and even-keeled Mormon named Ryan Jesperson—had sat in a room with Gevers and the lawyers for 10 hours of what he insisted was polite, amicable conversation. In the end Gevers had consented to his departure on the condition that the entire board be replaced. Gevers stepped down; an unsigned version of the final resolution of the first Tezos Foundation stipulated more than $400,000 in severance. Pons was ready to be rid of the whole travail, and he communicated, via Reddit, that he would be returning his own settlement to the foundation. He publicly invited Gevers to do the same, but according to Pons, no such donation had materialized. Jesperson moved, with his wife and three small children, from Utah to Zug to take over the new foundation. Twitter users taunted the foundation account: “When Lambo? When Lambo?”

The end of the standoff did not mean that everything for Tezos was looking bright. The lawsuits had been consolidated and a lead plaintiff selected. But the network had yet to appear, and, unfortunately, the long delay meant a lot of competition. When the original Tezos papers were released, in 2014, nobody was concerned with the need for governance. Now it was a stock talking point.

The other piece of bad news was that in late February the head of the SEC, Jay Clayton, declared that, as far as he was concerned, all ICOs constituted the sale of unregistered securities. He did not exclude Ethereum. The longstanding fantasy that a centralized entity could presell a token on the premise of delayed decentralization might have to be set aside once and for all. In the meantime, the total ICO market in the first quarter of 2018 had, by one measure, surpassed $6 billion. An MIT professor estimated that up to a quarter of that total was collected by scam artists.

Arthur was in Paris for the spring, passing long hours with a team of international software developers drawn from academia; they had the mellow, abstracted air of a postdoc colloquium. The platform, with any luck, would at last come to realization over the summer. Kathleen joined Arthur there between speaking engagements and business-development meetings in Singapore, Hong Kong, San Francisco, London, Berlin. The constant dread of the past year had only deepened the bluff tenderness of their interactions. Kathleen mocked Arthur for ordering a gin drink thick with melted marshmallows; Arthur made fun of Kathleen for her terrible French. Their small apartment had the underfurnished ambience of an Airbnb. The only remaining evidence of the conflict was a piece of ruled white paper with a ballpoint rendering of something that looked vaguely like Babar; it floated over Arthur’s head in the video update he posted on Reddit, the elephant in the room.

In late March, Kathleen had yet another speaking engagement, this one in Zurich. Arthur wasn’t crazy about the idea of Kathleen alone and unprotected there; other people might associate Switzerland with chocolate, watches, and neutrality, but the mountainous confederation hadn’t been particularly kind to the Breitmans. I wanted to go to Switzerland anyway, to try to see Gevers and the lawyers at MME in Zug, so I went along. Gevers responded to my request to tell me that he was in “an intense work phase” but that I ought to try him in a month, then stopped replying, and I heard nothing from MME.

On the train to Zurich, Kathleen tried to concentrate on other things. But she couldn’t help ruminating once more over how, exactly, a system she and Arthur had designed to underwrite and extend interpersonal trust at scale had foundered on their inability to rely upon one single individual. In certain moods, their interpretation of the events of the previous year had the ring of conspiratorial fancy—not because their thinking was muddled but because it was, if anything, too crystalline. Conspiracies made sense. One of the things that drew the blockchain community together was a commitment to the idea that the whole of human behavior could be interpreted as the pursuit of rational self-interest, and there was something profoundly disturbing in the fact that their model remained unable to account for Gevers’ motivations.

The conference was two stops outside Zurich’s city center, at a hulking black venue called Samsung Hall. It looked like what you’d get if you gave an alien civilization’s stodgiest corporation a written definition of a nightclub. Kathleen ducked and dodged her way through the lanyarded slicks who wanted to network or gossip.

Then she froze. “Well,” she said, with a weak laugh. “There’s Tom Gustinis now, Johann’s flying monkey.”

Gustinis flashed Kathleen a wide smile and approached her with an unhurried, deliberate gait. He was very tall and broad-shouldered, with graying blond hair gone shaggy over his ears, and he vibrated with pocket-jangling energy. He greeted her with affected warmth. Curtly polite, she returned the greeting, introduced us, and immediately excused herself. Gustinis looked a little hurt.

LEARN MORE

The WIRED Guide to the Blockchain

We stood at a high, rickety cocktail table and made small talk about our shared origins in New Jersey. When I asked him about Tezos, he assumed the frowning detachment of an elder statesman. In the ICO world, he said, there was now “Before Tezos and After Tezos, after everything that happened with the Stiff-dong.” It took me a moment to realize he must have meant Stiftung, the German word for “foundation.” But he didn’t think that ought to be the case, and his own postmortem was lax and mild. “The project was delayed—probably unnecessarily. The project could have done without the noise.” He’d tried to mellow the fuss. “After Kathleen and Arthur hung up on me many, many times, I still say the same thing: It started as a misunderstanding, and then egos got involved. She gives me a cold welcome here, but I’ve never done anything against the Breitmans.” He’d only gotten involved because the world of blockchain felt electrifying in a way banking no longer did.

His deflationary story, if slightly evasive, felt plausible. “Look, I’m a conservative guy who comes from accounting and worked my way up at UBS. I was astonished at how this anarcho-­capitalist community was going to cannibalize themselves.” He stopped to sum it all up. “It was a fundamental misunderstanding that started it—and I disagree with Johann. And for that I have a lot of empathy for the Breitmans. But maybe that’s too boring a story for you.”

Two people from one blockchain startup or another came over to network aggressively and I excused myself. Through the business scrum I could see Kathleen far across the room, her back to the wall, editing her talk. Maybe it all had been a boring misunderstanding. After all, there had been few apparent consequences for Gevers; the previous week he had been quoted as a coin-issuance expert in a Financial Times story. There would, however, be at least some formal repercussions for Arthur for promoting Tezos while employed at Morgan Stanley: In April, the Wall Street regulator Finra suspended him from trade with its members for two years.

A few minutes later, Gustinis materialized once more. Kathleen conceded a second hello without looking up. He chatted idly to nobody in particular—“Who will be the Elon Musk of the blockchain?”—while Kathleen ignored him until she left to watch a panel.

I made to follow Kathleen, but Gustinis, all of a sudden upset, turned to confront me. “So,” he said, “I see what this is, from one Jersey boy to another.” As he spoke, he slowly leaned closer, until his heavy frame was looming over me. (Gustinis disputes this account, claiming he is simply tall.) “You’re here hanging around with her, huh? I get what’s going on.”

I said I had press accreditation for the conference, but Gustinis only smirked. “Well, I’m going to tell people what this looked like to me.” He turned on his heels to saunter away. As I began to stutter in reply, he wheeled back around and placed his palms flat on the high rickety table. “Are you going to make me be more explicit with you, Jersey boy?”

And then he was gone. Gustinis kindly apologized later. There was something, we both tacitly acknowledged, about this troubled crypto utopia—the conditions of perpetual alarm and mistrust, as well as fear, uncertainty, and doubt—that, even now, drove otherwise sensible people to paranoid extremes.

I said I of course forgave him, but at the time I’d walked into the dark hall on the verge of panic. Onstage the conference organizer was interviewing a panel of four Swiss men in suits. Their faces were gigantic and fleshy on the screen mounted behind them. I texted Kathleen to say I thought Gustinis had just tried to scare me. When I found her at her seat she just nodded, and even seemed to smile.

A lawyer onstage in a fitted waistcoat was talking about the necessary role of the proper regulator. “We take the fear away,” he said. It is our job to tell people, he continued, “Don’t be afraid.”


Gideon Lewis-Krausis a contributing editor at WIRED.

This article appears in the July issue. Subscribe now.

Listen to this story, and other WIRED features, on the Audm app.

Grooming by Corinne Fouet

More Great WIRED Stories

The Olympic Destroyer Hackers May Have Returned For More

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

This past winter, malware ripped through the Pyeongchang Olympics, disrupting Wi-Fi, shutting down the Olympics website, and causing generalized digital havoc. The so-called Olympic Destroyer attack gained infamy, too, for using a number of false flags to muddy attribution. Now, researchers at Kaspersky Lab say the group behind those February attacks has returned, with a new target: organizations that respond to and protect against biological and chemical threats.

While the activity Kaspersky has seen has not turned destructive, researchers there say that hackers have taken steps that echo the early groundwork laid by the Olympic Destroyer group. Using a sophisticated spearphishing technique, the group has attempted to gain access to computers in France, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, and Ukraine. The concern: That these early intrusions will escalate in the same destructive way Olympic Destroyer did.

“We’re pretty confident this is the same group,” says Kaspersky security researcher Kurt Baumgartner. “We’re seeing the same sort of tactics. We’re seeing targeting that may line up with the previous group. We’re seeing multiple places where there may be crossover.”

Those tactics, so far, involve spearphishing emails that present themselves as coming from an acquaintance, with a decoy document attached. The execution, Baumgartner says, is remarkably similar to how Olympic Destroyer began: Emails target a group of people affiliated with a specific event; if they open the document they trigger a malicious macro, which allows multiple scripts that enable access to the target computer to run in the background.

While the hacker group excels at avoiding detection, its activity has enough hallmarks that Kaspersky has high confidence that it’s a repeat performance. “When you look at the obfuscation that they’re using in the spearphishing macros, this is a very specific set of macros,” says Baumgartner. “No one else is using this stuff.”

In the case of Olympic Destroyer, that early access was eventually used in Pyeongchang to deploy malware designed to destroy data on victim machines. Kaspersky says it chose to go public with its findings because if these latest attacks follow the same timeline they may be about to escalate in a similar fashion.

‘No one else is using this stuff.’

Kurt Baumgartner, Kaspersky Lab

The hackers appear to be primarily targeting people affiliated with an upcoming biochemical threat conference, called Spiez Convergence. That event is organized by Spiez Laboratory—a testing outfit that was tangentially involved in the investigation into the poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia, in Salisbury, England in March. The UK and the US both attributed the attempted murders to Russia, and expelled dozens of Russian diplomats each.

One of the decoy documents Kaspersky observed looks like a press release for Spiez Convergence. Another appears to be a news report about the nerve agent used in the Salisbury attack. The hackers also appear to have Russian language proficiency.Kaspersky, itself a Russian company embroiled in controversy in the US over its purported ties to the Russian government, did not suggest attribution for the Olympic Destroyer group. But it does seem worth noting that both the Pyeongchang Olympics—from which Russia was banned—and European biochemical protection agencies—which did not absolve Russia of what appears to be a high-profile international assassination attempt—arguably share a common bond of Russian provocation. Not to mention that US intelligence officials already reportedly decided months ago that Russia was behind the Olympics hack after all.

Still, the group behind Olympic Destroyer very effectively covers its tracks. It has also separately targeted Russian financial institutions in this latest round of attacks, which Kaspersky chalks up to the same malware being used by groups with different interests—or possibly as yet another false flag by a hacker team that revels in the practice.

Whoever is ultimately behind the attacks, Kaspersky advises hypervigilance on the part of biological and chemical threat research entities for the time being. While the hackers haven’t yet successful moved past its reconnaissance phase, the impact could be severe if and when it does.

“We want to get the warning out that this group is active again, because they are destructive,” says Baumgartner. “It looks like they’re failing, but give them another few weeks. We’ll know for certain.”


More Great WIRED Stories

Ellen Pao on the Perverse Incentives Helping Incels Thrive at Tech Companies

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

The world has recently become more terrifyingly aware of incels, which, if you don’t already know, stands for “involuntary celibate.” It’s an underground coalition of mainly men who complain about how society actively and unfairly deprives them of sex, often, they say, because they are too ugly or too fat.

It is, of course, nonsense. Incels are usually conspiracy theorists, not victims, who believe the world is purposely denying them their fundamental right to sex on demand—and who share many values and tactics with white supremacist, men’s rights, and alt-right groups. Self-declared incels encourage violent acts, including the “incel rebellion” in Toronto that killed 10 people and injured 20 more.

Ellen Pao (@ekp) is an Ideas contributor at WIRED. She is founding CEO of Project Include and author of Reset: My Fight for Inclusion and Lasting Change. Previously Pao was CEO of Reddit, leading the first major platform ban of unauthorized nude photos and other harassment. She has also worked as a venture capitalist, chief diversity and inclusion officer, business development executive, and corporate attorney. She holds a BS in electrical engineering and public policy certificate from Princeton, and a JD and MBA from Harvard.

What hasn’t been discussed much is their presence in our everyday lives, including our workplaces. Like many groups of young men whose misogynistic beliefs gestate online, incels often work in the tech industry and in engineering—and because of tech’s long-standing, well-quantified lack of women and other underrepresented groups, it’s a natural fit.

Technology plays a central role for these hate groups, as a career and as a weapon. On incel forums, they pride themselves on their tech contributions; they joke that the world would collapse without them to maintain network infrastructures, and that their companies would fail without them. They move seamlessly among online hate group forums where racism and misogyny feed on one another.

Many large tech companies have unwittingly encouraged these groups in the name of unconstrained debate and “free speech.” Misguided advocates quote the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis—“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”—to argue that open platforms will expose and show the wrongness of hate and terrorism. Instead, though, what we’ve learned from platforms ranging from Reddit and Twitter to GoDaddy and Cloudflare is that public exposure consistently normalizes, encourages, and amplifies these beliefs.

Like many groups of young men whose misogynistic beliefs gestateonline, incels often work in the tech industry.

I hear every day from tech employees and executives, and many tell me in painstaking detail about how hate groups are using tech platforms and workplace communities to spread their ideas, onboard new recruits, and train them on how to execute these ideas in their companies. In an industry with predominately white men as employees and leaders, and a hands-off approach to monitoring speech and behavior, hate groups have a huge advantage. They weaponize communications and interactions, setting traps to use as fodder for complaints, trolling, and, in some cases, litigation.

All this means it’s highly probable that a tech company of significant size employs men who identify with these forms of hate, if not with the actual movements. They organize on company Slack channels, creating private discussions to denigrate their coworkers. They defend themselves with arguments on diversity of thought and free speech. They may even leak information to dox coworkers, intending to incite real-life, offline harassment.

So if you’re the leader of a company, what do you do?

Right now, it seems, not much. I’ve heard some leaders say that they’ll be perceived as making a value judgment about somebody’s politics if they confront these toxic groups. But incel culture isn’t a political belief; it’s an ideology of hate. We don’t accept open misogyny in our workplaces, and make no mistake: That’s what incels promote.

In an industry with predominately white men as employees and leaders,and a hands-off approach to monitoring speech, hategroups have a huge advantage.

Others expressed concerns about thought policing. After all, whatever goes on in somebody’s head is their own business. And that’s true—until they act on it. Consider how these ideas are directed at weaponizing interactions between incels and others targeted by gender. And how the group intends to spread the behavior and push boundaries as far as they can. Sometimes their misogyny can be hard to spot—like a microaggression inflicted on a coworker. Other times it manifests itself very clearly. We’re not talking about ideas here; we’re talking about employee safety. We don’t allow groups of employees to congregate in person to hurt others; why would we allow it online? Why is it that, when hate takes shape online, people automatically allow it as freedom of expression? Shouldn’t we respond to behavior that is intended to harm others, regardless of where and how it happens?

Incels can be vicious, and dealing with them head-on can be intimidating. When I tweeted a simple question—“CEOs of big tech companies: You almost certainly have incels as employees. What are you going to do about it?”—I got almost 3,000 replies, and many were insults and threats from incels. I also received more than 2,000 likes. And I heard from others who worked with incels at tech companies who were afraid to speak publicly, but expressed support—and a need for action.

One woman told me about an incel at her tech company, and she described a horrifying situation: He started stalking coworkers, going so far as to hide his mobile phone in the bathroom to video female employees using the toilet. He later used the captured video to intimidate, threaten, and harass his colleagues.

The modern workplace—especially in tech—isn’t prepared to deal with these kinds of interactions. When inappropriate behavior is reported to managers or HR, bad actors rarely face serious consequences. In this case, I heard that complaints to HR went unheeded, and the situation escalated, making HR and the company look increasingly foolish for ignoring warning signs.

The modern workplace—especially in tech—isn’t prepared to deal withthese kinds of interactions.

The tech environment’s star system is a big part of the problem. We hear time and time again about stars getting second, third, or more chances after complaints about their behavior. Instead of addressing the core problem, CEOs delegate to HR, which usually tries to address short-term symptoms by pushing out the person who speaks up. As a result, they compound the core problem, as fewer people see value in speaking up, bad actors feel even more empowered to harass coworkers, and others follow their example.

What should we do? As leaders or managers, our job is to create a productive environment for employees with, at a minimum, physical and emotional security. Aspirationally we want our culture to allow everyone to contribute their best, most meaningful work. In both cases, that absolutely entails creating a diverse and inclusive culture—and that means rooting out and banning incel beliefs.

Ultimately leaders need to lead, even if it’s uncomfortable.

In 2015, as Reddit’s CEO, I was able to start changing the culture both internally and externally. We had just come out of a painful period in which we enabled the widespread viewing of unauthorized nude photos of celebrities on the site. In the office, we prided ourselves on an open culture that reflected our product, exemplified most memorably for me in a 45-minute-long, company-wide discussion comparing the aesthetics of penises and breasts.

Changing Reddit’s culture was an ongoing, multistep process. I invited outside speakers to talk to our team about diversity and inclusion. CEOs like Y Combinator’s Michael Seibel, Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong, and Stellar’s Joyce Kim described their successes through the lens of diversity and inclusion. We held an all-hands focused on change; Freada Kapor Klein and Mitch Kapor led a session on culture and anti-harassment and anti-discrimination, including dos and don’ts of behavior and interactions. Afterward, several women reported having been harassed by coworkers; we tried to address each situation individually through conversations and warnings, and the problem in aggregate through ongoing monitoring and values reinforcement. And it seemed to work: No one sued us, and, six months later, the same women said they were satisfied with changes in behavior and interactions.

At the same time, I enforced our values, especially around privacy, on the Reddit website. We were the first major site to ban unauthorized nude photos and revenge porn. A few months later, we banned the five most harassing subreddits—and a study showed we were effective in reducing hate speech.

What I learned was pretty simple, but effective internally and externally: 1. Make your company values and codes of conduct (internal and external) clear. Write them down and share them. 2. Build multiple paths for raising concerns and reporting violations, and make them easy to understand and easy to take. 3. Learn about violations as early as possible, especially ones that can escalate. You should focus on solving the actual problem, not trying to hide its symptoms.

Back then, pre-#MeToo and pre-Susan Fowler, I felt like my efforts were not valued by many, especially when I was fired. But I have no regrets. If we don’t lead and address these problems proactively, they won’t go away. Any conversation that values one group of people less than others is inappropriate for the workplace, because it almost certainly conflicts with company values. Conversations encouraging unwanted, misogynistic actions on others should also be banned. Using our company’s workspaces—physical ones, virtual ones, tools, and platforms—to spread this kind of thinking should be a fireable offense. We cannot allow employees to mobilize identity-based intolerance, much less against their own coworkers.

We cannot allow employees to mobilize identity-based intolerance, muchless against their own coworkers.

Tech workers know incels and the like expertly wield our companies’ innovations to attack the vulnerable. Employees also know those toxic beliefs are shared by more coworkers than many of us realize—and they’re willing to push to end them. When a group of Google employees teamed with investors this month to put inclusion on the Google shareholder ballot, they stated that workers were “feeling unsafe and unable to do our work.” Their initiative wasn’t particularly controversial except for its format, which forced management to confront these issues publicly and reactively.

Now, what actions do you plan to take to address the incels in your workforce and to protect your employees and culture—before you don’t have a choice anymore?


More Great WIRED Stories

IBM’s Newest AI Can Probably Argue Better Than You

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

“Fighting technology means fighting human ingenuity,” an IBM software program admonished Israeli debating champion Dan Zafrir in San Francisco Monday. The program, dubbed Project Debater, and Zafrir, were debating the value of telemedicine, but the point could also apply to the future of the technology itself.

Software that processes speech and language has improved enough to do more than tell you the weather forecast. You may not be ready for machines capable of conversation or arguing, but tech companies are working to find uses for them. IBM’s demo of Project Debater comes a month after Google released audio of a bot called Duplex booking restaurants and haircuts over the phone.

IBM’s stunt Monday was a sequel of sorts to the triumph of its Watson computer over Jeopardy! champions in 2011. Project Debater, in the works for six years, took on two Israeli student debating champions, Zafrir and Noa Ovadia. In back-to-back bouts each lasting 20 minutes, the software first argued that governments should subsidize space exploration, then that telemedicine should be used more widely.

Debater was represented by a freestanding black display roughly the height and width of a person. In each debate, the system’s mellow, synthetic, female voice made a four-minute opening statement, before responding to its opponent’s own opener with a second four-minute spiel, and letting them respond in kind. Each competitor then got another two minutes to sum up.

Anyone who has spent much time talking to Siri or Alexa will appreciate the challenge taken on by researchers at IBM’s labs in Haifa, Israel. Although speech recognition has become fairly reliable, the nuances of language are extremely challenging for computers. Conversation where each utterance expands the complexity of the interaction has proven a particular challenge.

But a solid performance by Debater Monday showed how—in carefully designed scenarios—computers that talk are ready to do much more for us. In informal polls of the audience that included journalists and IBM staffers, Debater was rated more informative than the human on stage in both debates. Despite having no need for healthcare, it swayed more audience members to its arguments for telemedicine than its flesh-and-blood opponent.

Debater’s strategy is built on two core components. The software can pull sentences and quotes to support its position from a corpus of hundreds of millions of documents. It also has a framework of pre-built arguments, and even jokes, that it seeks opportunities to deploy. At one point, the system prefaced its response to Zafrir by noting that its blood would boil if it had blood.

Chris Reed, a professor of computer science and philosophy at the University of Dundee not affiliated with the project, watched Monday’s debates. He told WIRED afterwards that they showed technology of impressive maturity. Reed liked how Debater sometimes tried to preempt an opponent’s arguments in advance, a strategy known as procatalepsis. “She might say that subsidies are needed, but not for space exploration,” Debater said of Ovadia at one point, “If she can present data on what is needed for subsidy I would love to see it.”

LEARN MORE

The WIRED Guide to Artificial Intelligence

Debater didn’t perform perfectly. It didn’t seem capable of rebutting opponents’ claims in the precise way a human could, and failed to register some of the points fired at it. The system’s case for space exploration included a non sequitur claiming that nuclear-powered space exploration is intended to quash concerns about nuclear weapons in orbit. A Google search suggests the claim originates from an op-ed in a British socialist newspaper, the Morning Star. The facts and figures that IBM’s algorithmic arguer recited—apparently sourced from news articles—sometimes lacked necessary context, such as what country or region might expect to save a particular dollar amount quoted.

Despite those glitches, Debater’s performance suggested such technology could make its way into the lives of consumers and corporations, whether via IBM or its competitors. As with Google’s Duplex demo, it showed that computers can do powerful and surprising things with language in a carefully constrained situation.

That Debater struck audience members as more informative than human debaters might presage assistants like Alexa doing more than recalling facts from Wikipedia. Imagine asking for a comparison of the pros and cons of Hawaii and Fiji as vacation destinations, or an explanation of different views on a topic in the news.

Reed, the Dundee professor, says he can imagine technology like Debater’s software helping people evaluate claims made in fake news online. He can also see IBM and others creating virtual assistants that contribute to discussions among executives or lawyers in board rooms or even courtrooms. IBM says it has tested some Debater technology to advise investment professionals, and is interested in having it help politicians consider the different sides to tricky issues.

The company also plans to keep working on the existing version of Debater as a research challenge. If you find yourself having to take it on, Reed suggests employing irony and sarcasm. “I think it wouldn’t be difficult to bamboozle if you wanted,” he says.


More Great WIRED Stories

After year of crisis, YouTube to mollify creators sought by rival Instagram

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

CLOSE

What will Instagram get out of opening their platform to long form video content? USA TODAY’s Jefferson Graham ponders this with several Internet video insiders. USA TODAY

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 4 COMMENTEMAILMORE

LOS ANGELES – Rafi Fine has been uploading videos to YouTube since shortly after it started 13 years ago. He looks on with wonderment at the year the No. 1 video network has just had.

Advertiser boycotts over predatory kids videos. A star creator – Logan Paul – penalized after he filmed a suicide victim. Sexual and violent videos masquerading as kids cartoons. Conspiracy theorists crowding its “trending” module.

On top of it all: new rules designed to weed out the worst offenders that also made it harder for smaller creators, the band of video bloggers that provide the lifeblood of this Google-owned platform, to make a dime.

YouTube’s intentions are good, and the network is headed in the right direction, says Fine, co-founder of the Los Angeles-based FBE media company and half of the Fine Bros. duo with brother Benny, whose channels have pulled in more than 10 billion views.

“But there’s no way to satisfy everybody, and there’s no way to be perfect,” he said.

Now, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch and the other video networks are gunning for its audience and the creators disappointed by YouTube’s recent changes.

On Thursday, YouTube meets with the creator community for the first time since many of these issues erupted, hosting sessions and get-togethers at the VidCon convention in Anaheim, California, which attracts more than 30,000 attendees.

At VidCon, YouTube needs to “remind creators that they built this industry, are on their side and have steps to restore trust,” says Drew Baldwin , CEO and publisher of TubeFilter, a blog that covers online video.

One day before, Facebook-owned Instagram is staging a press event in New York and San Francisco where it’s expected to announce a major assault on YouTube by unveiling a platform for some creators to show videos longer than 60 seconds, plus a way to get compensated. Instagram declined to comment.

Facebook in the past has made similar announcements but never went through with opening the platform for compensation beyond a handful of creators.

“YouTube isn’t the only game in town anymore,” says Reza Izad, CEO of Studio71, which represents more than 1,000 YouTubers in a digital management company. “The more platforms we can put our content in, the happier we are.”

With 400 hours of new video uploaded every minute – ranging from “Saturday Night Live” clips and music videos to homegrown fare such as the FBE channels, Logan Paul and Dude Perfect, a comedy troupe that does sports tricks – YouTube has soaked up an increasing share of Americans’ video watching time.

Nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults use the platform, and it’s even more popular with young viewers: 94 percent of 18 to 24 year olds use YouTube, estimates the Pew Research Center, which cites it as the No. 1 app for young people, ahead of Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat.

The platform became a force by sharing a portion of the revenues from ads that run on the videos with the creators, enabling a generation of entertainers to earn a living – and in some cases, tens of millions of dollars – with channels focused on gaming reviews, beauty tips, comedy or commentary.

But that financial payout came with a dark side: It encouraged creators all over the world to game-search algorithms and one-up themselves to exploit public interest in a national event, such as a mass shooting, or attract more subscribers with pranks and stunts that were dangerous to themselves and their millions of young fans.

More: Logan Paul suicide video: Is YouTube not safe for kids?

More: Got a kid who loves YouTube? Take these steps to bar them from the worst

More: 7 days from fringe to mainstream: How a conspiracy theory ricocheted around the web

“I’ve seen how some bad actors are exploiting our openness to mislead, manipulate, harass or even harm,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said in a blog post.

New, tighter controls over what creators could post and how they get to share in ad revenues were announced in January, along with a promise of more human oversight of submitted videos.

Many smaller creators complained that the changes resulted in lower views and compensation, or more drastically, YouTube pulling back on allowing them to share in any revenues.

One distraught creator burst into YouTube’s San Bruno, California, headquarters with a gun in April, injuring three employees and killing herself. Wojcicki, responding to the attack, acknowledged the “last year has not been easy” for video creators.

Against this backdrop, YouTube’s rivals in video streaming are expected to make their own bids for the lucrative, top tier of creators.

According to marketing firm Mediakix, the highly coveted “influencer” market, folks with large online followings, will be worth $2 billion yearly by 2019. Studio71’s Izad says some 55 percent of the money spent by marketers with influencers goes to creators who post photos on Instagram, with the other 45 percent to traditional YouTube videos and the ads that run on those channels.

Still, Mary Ermitanio, a consultant with the Manatt Digital firm, says Instagram is in for a tough ride with higher-end video. “People aren’t going to Instagram to see professionally produced videos,” she says. “Getting people to watch will be a challenge.”

But at VidCon, rivals will be trying to convince creators otherwise. The convention floor will go beyond YouTube, to have Pinterest, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and Twitch, alongside others.

Chris Williams, founder of kid video brand pocket.watch, says the platform to “watch out for” is Twitch, the live-streaming gaming channel owned by Amazon.

Like YouTube, it rewards creators with a cut of the ad revenues. And despite its history as a channel devoted just to watching other people play games, Williams sees Twitch expanding to a broader audience.

“If there’s anyone who could compete with YouTube today, it’s not Facebook or Instagram, it’s Twitch,” Williams said.

Amazon bought Twitch in 2014 for nearly $1 billion. “Amazon started as just a place to sell books online, and look at it now,” he said. “Will Twitch remain just an e-sports platform? I doubt it.”

Twitch noted that it already has expanded beyond gaming, pointing to shows about food, art and wrestling.

Meanwhile, from YouTube chief product officer Neal Mohan, who will address attendees Thursday, video creators need to hear specifics about changes that can help them make more money, Izah says.

“When you make less than you made the year before, you’re not happy,” Izah adds.

That didn’t happen for all. YouTube cleaned out lower-viewed channels and videos that disobeyed community guidelines on violent, sexual and suggestive content. But YouTube says channels earning five figures annually grew more than 35 percent, while channels earning six figures annually grew more than 40 percent. YouTube is expected to announce several new tools for creators to help them grow their businesses at VidCon.

Chris Raney, who runs the family friendly Yellow Productions travel channel on YouTube, saw his revenues increase 30 percent in 2018, which he attributes to the algorithm changes.

“One side of the coin says free speech is important,” he says. “But I also think YouTube spending time trying to make YouTube a better, friendlier place is good.”

Follow USA TODAY’s Jefferson Graham (@jeffersongraham) on Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 4 COMMENTEMAILMORE
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2tiyHWr

What Oprah's Apple deal tells you about your next Apple subscription bill

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

LOS ANGELES – We know that Apple is bankrolling Hollywood stars such as Oprah to make TV shows for the iPhone distributor. We don’t know when they will appear or in what form – could it be part of the existing Apple Music service or a new entertainment channel to take on Netflix and Amazon, perhaps?

Apple long has offered video-on-demand services, but it never has offered anything to rival Netflix or Hulu. Instead, it has directed viewers to its iTunes service, where they could buy and rent movies for viewing on computers, phones and via the Apple TV set-top box.

This à la carte service competes with YouTube and Amazon Video rentals. But so far, Apple doesn’t offer monthly video streaming, which soaked up nearly $15 billion in consumer dollars in 2018, according to eMarketer.

Instead, it’s mostly focused on a monthly music subscription, Apple Music, which charges $9.99 monthly and boasts 50 million subscribers, second to No. 1 Spotify with 75 million subscribers.

Related: Oprah Winfrey to create new TV shows for Apple

ICYMI: Tom Brady tells Oprah how Patriots handled national anthem controversy

Apple doesn’t break out how much iTunes and Apple Music contribute to its Services division, but that unit has become Apple’s second-largest revenue generator, after the iPhone and above the iPad and Macintosh computers. Services, which also includes iCloud backup storage subscriptions, brought in more than $9 billion in the most recent quarter.

Services will represent 14 percent of Apple revenues in 2018 and grow to 20 percent by 2023, predicts Gene Munster, an analyst and investor with Minneapolis-based Loup Ventures.

Now, Apple looks like it’s building another service, for video, but hasn’t unveiled if that will be part of iTunes or something new. In the announcement about Winfrey joining the Apple fold, it said little about what the project would be, only: “Together, Winfrey and Apple will create original programs that embrace her incomparable ability to connect with audiences around the world.”

‘Watching Oprah’ explores TV icon’s impact

Posted!

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

The National Museum of African American History & Culture's

The National Museum of African American History & Culture’s new temporary exhibition “Watching Oprah: ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show’ and American Culture” explores the era that shaped Oprah Winfrey’s life and early career in TV, her talk show that dominated daytime TV for 25 years and the ways in which she has influenced American popular culture. It features original artifacts from Harpo Studios in Chicago and from Smithsonian collections as well as video clips, interactives and photographs. The exhibition opens to the public on June 8, 2018 and continues through June 2019.  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
A closer look at a collection of audience chairs shows

A closer look at a collection of audience chairs shows a box of tissues has been placed under each studio seat.  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
Artifacts on display include microphones and a glass

Artifacts on display include microphones and a glass mug used on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.”  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
Lonnie G. Bunch III, founding director of the National

Lonnie G. Bunch III, founding director of the National Museum of African American History & Culture speaks during a press preview for the new temporary exhibition “Watching Oprah: ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show’ and American Culture” in front of a mural composed of titles of the daytime series.  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
Elements of the the Harpo Studios Chicago office, including

Elements of the the Harpo Studios Chicago office, including Oprah Winfrey’s desk.  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
Personal photos including a framed image of Stedman

Personal photos including a framed image of Stedman Graham are seen on the desk used by Oprah Winfrey in the Chicago offices of Harpo Studios.  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
The L'Wren Scott dress, center, worn by Oprah Winfrey

The L’Wren Scott dress, center, worn by Oprah Winfrey on the “Surprise Oprah! A Farewell Spectacular” show in 2011 is on display.  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
A display in the exhibit features photos of some of

A display in the exhibit features photos of some of the guests who appeared on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.”  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
Oprah Winfrey's Legends Ball gown designed by Vera

Oprah Winfrey’s Legends Ball gown designed by Vera Wang and a portrait by Artis Lane presented to Winfrey in 2005.  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
The Presidential Medal of Freedom was presented to

The Presidential Medal of Freedom was presented to Oprah Winfrey by President Barack Obama in 2013.  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
Emmy Awards from 1987-1998 won by "The Oprah Winfrey

Emmy Awards from 1987-1998 won by “The Oprah Winfrey Show.”  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY
The exhibit features the dress and shoes worn by Oprah

The exhibit features the dress and shoes worn by Oprah Winfrey on Jan. 7, 2018 when she became the first black woman to receive the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes.  Jack Gruber/USA TODAY

Like this topic? You may also like these photo galleries:

    Replay
Autoplay
Show Thumbnails
Show Captions

However, Apple clearly seems to be following a path laid by Netflix, Amazon Video and Hulu, which credit original content for subscriber growth.

Apple has reached out to some of the biggest names in entertainment, including producer/directors Steven Spielberg and Damien Chazelle and A-list actors Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Aniston to produce shows for the company.

“I think you can be sure Apple will come to the market with something that will be instantly impactful to the already crowded entertainment marketplace, something that’s going to concern competition whether it’s a streaming service like Netflix or a broadcast network like NBC,” says Andrew Wallenstein, co-editor of the show biz bible “Variety.” “It’s a sure bet Apple is going to make a splash in Hollywood. We just don’t know yet what shape that splash will take.”

Apple needs to catch up to Netflix, which will end 2018 with nearly 1,000 original titles and an expense of $3.5 billion on programming, compared to $900 million for Apple.

More: Top Sony TV execs depart to oversee Apple video

Related: Jessica Alba, Gwyneth Paltrow steer Apple to ‘Planet of the Apps’

So far, Apple’s two originals have not fared well. The first two projects, the “Planet of the Apps” game show and an extended reboot of the late night bit “Carpool Karaoke,” were panned by critics.

However, the company has an advantage in 1.3 billion iPhones in use around the globe, which can be used to plug the new shows.

“Apple Music’s market share gains over the past two years are a testimony to the power of coupling Services with widely adopted hardware,” Munster said in a note to investors. “An unrelated advantage is Apple’s brand, which, at its core, represents quality and attention to detail, and should translate into favorable initial adoption.”

Apple currently has a music subscription service with more than 50 million subscribers where it shows those two originals, “Planet of the Apps” and “Carpool Karaoke.”

In 2017, Apple hired two former Sony TV chiefs, Jamie Erlicht and Zack Van Amburg, to make deals and bring in talent to Apple.

The pair has been on a tear making deals in Hollywood. Munster estimates total productions at 19, highlighted by a remake of Spielberg’s 1980s era NBC anthology series “Amazing Stories,” movies about the lives of poet Emily Dickinson (starring Hailee Steinfeld (“True Grit”) and NBA great Kevin Durant, and a backstage look at a morning TV show in a series starring Witherspoon (“Little Big Lies”) and Aniston (“Friends.”)

Follow USA TODAY’s Jefferson Graham (@jeffersongraham) on Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2tiQQDj

Amazon investors join ACLU urging halt to facial recognition tool used by police

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920
CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE

SEATTLE (AP) — Some Amazon company investors said Monday they are siding with privacy and civil rights advocates who are urging the tech giant to not sell a powerful face recognition tool to police.

The American Civil Liberties Union is leading the effort against Amazon’s Rekognition product, delivering a petition with 152,000 signatures to the company’s Seattle headquarters Monday, telling the company to “cancel this order.” They’re asking Amazon to stop marketing Rekognition to government agencies over privacy issues that they say can be used to discriminate against minorities.

Amazon said it’s an object detection tool. The company through a spokesman said it can be used for law enforcement tasks ranging from fighting human trafficking to finding lost children, and that just like computers, it can be a force for good in responsible hands.

But a group of 19 investment managing companies, including Harrington Investments, Inc. and Walden Asset Management, expressed concerns about the tool.

More: Amazon should stop selling facial recognition software to police, ACLU and other rights groups say

More: Microsoft, under fire for ICE deal, says it’s ‘dismayed’ by family separations at border

More: Google employee activism on diversity, Pentagon contract is shaking up Internet giant

John Harrington, president and CEO of the California-based Harrington Investments, Inc., said the investors collectively manage about $10 billion in common voting stock among thousands of individual investors. They account for a small percent of shareholders, between 5 and 10 percent, for the online behemoth.

Harrington said there are concerns Rekognition could open the company up to lawsuits. In a letter last week, the companies told Amazon to stop expanding, developing and marketing it until it could demonstrate there was adequate fiduciary oversight. They also want Amazon to place appropriate guidelines and policies in place to protect citizens, customers and stakeholders.

“We don’t know of any restrictions or parameters or policy decisions that Amazon made in going ahead and marketing this. We’re concerned about some serious privacy right issues and also we’re concerned this may be litigious,” Harrington said.

It’s not clear how many law enforcement agencies have purchased the tool since its launch in late 2016 or since its update last fall, when Amazon added capabilities that allow it to identify people in videos and follow their movements almost instantly.

Privacy advocates are worried that it could have potentially dire consequences for minorities who are already arrested at disproportionate rates, immigrants who may be in the country illegally or political protesters, they said.

On Monday, the advocates against the product cited the dangers of blanket police surveillance in front of Amazon’s Spheres building. The demonstration happened steps away from where young tech workers sat eating lunch and lounged on giant bean bags in a courtyard.

“We know what surveillance can do. Surveillance can kill people,” said Garry Owens of the Legacy of Equality, Leadership and Organizing.

Amazon previously noted that said some agencies have used the program to find abducted people, and amusement parks have used it to find lost children.

British broadcaster Sky News used Rekognition to help viewers identify celebrities at the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle last month.

___

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2MCV81t

Supreme Court to consider whether buyers of iPhone apps can sue Apple for alleged monopoly

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920
CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will consider whether the purchasers of iPhone apps can sue Apple over allegations it has an illegal monopoly on the sale of the apps.

The court said Monday that it will take a case from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled in January that the purchasers of iPhone apps could sue Apple. Their lawsuit says that when a customer buys an app the price includes a 30 percent markup that goes to Apple.

Apple had argued that it did not sell apps, but instead acted as an intermediary used by the app developers.

Apple won initially in a lower court which dismissed the lawsuit.

More: Samsung wins Supreme Court fight with Apple

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2t7yPsy

Congress, White House head for showdown over Chinese telecom ZTE after Senate OKs defense bill

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

CLOSE

A huge Chinese telecommunications company hired a former member of the Trump campaign as a lobbyist a day after President Donald Trump spoke about easing restrictions on the company. Susana Victoria Perez (@susana_vp) has more. Buzz60

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 1 COMMENTEMAILMORE

WASHINGTON – Congress and the White House moved closer to a showdown on Monday when the Senate approved a defense bill that would block the president’s plan to save the Chinese telecom ZTE.

The Senate voted 85 to 10 to approve its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes $716 billion in spending on military personnel and hardware, construction projects and other defense programs.

But the provision that has sparked the most debate – and provoked the ire of the White House – is language tucked into the bill last week stopping the Trump administration’s deal with ZTE.

Administration officials announced two weeks ago they would lift a crippling ban on U.S. companies doing business with ZTE and instead impose a $1 billion penalty on the firm. The ban had been put in place in retaliation for ZTE violating U.S. sanctions against exporting to Iran and North Korea.

President Donald Trump sought the deal to lift the ban and impose the penalty after a personal request from Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The decision infuriated a bipartisan group of senators led by Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who warned that ZTE is a threat to national security.

Their amendment would not only block the deal, it also would ban U.S. government agencies from buying or leasing telecom equipment and services from ZTE and another Chinese telecom firm, Huawei. The government also would be prohibited from using grants and loans to subsidize the two companies or their affiliates.

The issue will likely be resolved in a conference committee between the Senate and the House, which passed its version of the defense bill before the ZTE deal had been reached.

Besides the ZTE language, the Senate defense bill contains several other provisions intended to discourage further aggression by China and Russia. The legislation calls for a report on China’s military and coercive activities in the South China Sea and authorizes the National Command Authority to take action to disrupt ongoing cyberattacks by Russia.

In addition, the bill contains a 2.6 percent pay raise for members of the Armed Services, the largest in a decade. It authorizes $7.6 billion for 75 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and $23.1 billion to build 10 battleships and speed up funding for several future ships.

The legislation doesn’t actually provide any money for the military. It’s a blueprint that merely authorizes spending on various programs and policies. Actual appropriations are made through separate legislation, but lawmakers often closely follow the priorities spelled out under the authorization bill.

More: House debates defense bill that authorizes smaller nukes, space force and a military parade.

More: White House, Senate GOP battle over President Trump’s deal with China’s ZTE

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 1 COMMENTEMAILMORE
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2MBdz6B

Never get rid of an old phone without doing this first

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

Wiping your phone of all its data is not only an essential step in the process of getting rid of an old phone, it’s also the best way to give a slow phone a kick in the butt. We can’t guarantee that your sluggish phone will suddenly seem speedy after a reset, but if you’ve got nothing to lose, it’s worth a shot.

Easy there, tiger—before you go pushing the big red button, lets make sure you we’re on the same page, here.

If all you’re looking to do is restart your phone (that is, turn it off and then back on), all you need to do is locate your phone’s power button and hold it down for several seconds. If you happen to be using an iPhone X, you might have to hold the volume down button at the same time in order to initiate the reboot process.

Phew. Dodged a bullet there, eh? Now, for those of you who want to erase the whole kit and caboodle, let’s get down to business.

This is one of the best TVs you can buy under $1,000

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

The Pros


Dressed for success

Credit: Reviewed / Lee Neikirk
The 2018 Vizio P-Series looks better than ever. I really like how slimmed down and pointy the tabletop feet are this year.

Vizio’s 2018 P-Series looks really good this year. It’s all smooth, sturdy silver from the bezels to the sharp, caltrop-like feet. The rear of the TV is the usual charcoal-colored plastic, but it’s inlaid with filigree and patterns that dance from one side to the other. Our 55-inch is particularly striking and sleek, even for a TV with a full-array LED backlight.

Vizio-P-Stand
Credit: Reviewed / Lee Neikirk
The feet sit almost at the very edges of the display, so measure your tabletop stand if you’re thinking of buying. That’s doubly true for the 65- and 75-inch models.

The remote isn’t anything too special, but if you like your remote to have a robust button selection, Vizio’s got yer back matey. This mid-sized remote control’s main feature are its six dedicated app buttons (for Vudu, Netflix, Amazon, Xumo, Crackle, and iHeartRadio).

You’ll find the standard number pad and rockers for volume and channel, too. It’s not my favorite remote, but it gets the job done.

Vizio-P-Remote
Credit: Reviewed / Lee Neikirk
The included remote isn’t my favorite, but it does have a lot of useful app hotkeys. I’m still not sure what Xumo is, though, and I do this 40 hours a week.

This year’s P-Series still has a robust port selection. You get five HDMI inputs! You’ll also find a single USB 2.0 port (on the 55-inch, anyway), shared component/composite inputs, a LAN (ethernet) input, and both optical and analog audio outs.

Vizio-P-Ports
Credit: Reviewed / Lee Neikirk
The P-Series still has 5 HDMI inputs, plus all the legacy video connections. Internal antennas are back this year, too.

Last but definitely not least, this year the P-Series (and all of Vizio’s 2018 models) have built-in digital tuners again, so external satellite/antenna users won’t have to find any workarounds.

Vizio-P-Bezel
Credit: Reviewed / Lee Neikirk
The P-Series isn’t the thinnest TV in profile, but it’s still pretty compact and flush for being a full-array local dimming model.

The final verdict? The 2018 P-Series improves upon the 2017 model’s design and physical attributes in just about every category.

However, as always I only have a single sample size. Sound off in the comments or shoot me an email if you’ve had a different experience!

Rock solid picture quality

The first thing we did when Best Buy delivered the 55-inch P-Series was set it up on a table adjacent to our editorial area. TVs almost never get brought upstairs to the ol’ bullpen, so this was pretty exciting for me. Assembly was easy, and after a brief setup, the TV was on (in “retail” mode) playing its demo reel.

The next half hour was interesting, because almost every single person who walked into the room ended up wandering over, mesmerized, by the P-Series’ flashy picture. While this might be a testament to how much my co-workers need to upgrade their TVs at home, it’s also a testament to how good the 2018 P-Series looks.

Vizio-P-PQGeneral
Credit: Reviewed / Lee Neikirk
Overall, the P-Series is one of the better-looking LED TVs I’ve seen all year, even outside of HDR mode. The 55-inch does a lot with not a lot of dimming zones.

Time in the lab corroborated a lot of what I expected to see by knowing the TV’s specs in advance. While this TV performs admirably during standard dynamic range (SDR) content, it really shines—heh heh—while playing HDR content.

It doesn’t have the quantum dots of the P-Series Quantum (or one of Samsung’s QLED models), but it’s still very bright and colorful.

Vizio-P-HDRBrightness
Credit: Reviewed / Lee Neikirk
Initial firmware yielded HDR peaks around 950 nits, which is pretty amazing for a TV that doesn’t have quantum dots.

One of the biggest concerns from AV enthusiasts about the 2018 P-Series lineup is that it has less local dimming zones than the 2017 model. The 2017 55-inch Vizio P-Series had 126 local dimming zones, while our 55-inch 2018 model has 56, which is remarkably less.

Despite that, I was very impressed by the P55-F1’s local dimming. I threw some really difficult APL-based test patterns at it (basically, a tiny 1 or 2% white square in the middle of the screen, while the rest of the screen is black). I slowly increased the size of the square in one-percent degrees, watching as the P-Series’ ABL (auto brightness limiting) slowly relented and the squares got brighter and brighter—a system which has some drawbacks that I’ll cover in the next section.

Nevertheless, I struggled to spot even a hint of the blooming or flashlighting that very often affects TVs with a lower amount of local dimming zones. This doesn’t mean you won’t see any yourself—I watched and tested the P-Series primarily in Calibrated Dark mode, which is probably the darkest mode even in HDR—but they were impressive results nevertheless.

Vizio-P-Dimming-Reflectivity
Credit: Reviewed / Lee Neikirk
Thumbs up! The P-Series’ local dimming is excellent, showing almost zero flashlighting or blooming. Reflectivity might be a different matter if your room has lots of light, though.

On top of its local dimming, the P-Series was also a strong performer where color accuracy and motion handling is concerned. Because all of the P-Series sets have 120 Hz panels, they’re adept at handling many flavors of motion, from Blu-rays that play at 24 fps to basic cable programming and video games.

Finally, this is definitely a very solid TV for 4K/HDR viewing. The data is below, but suffice to say the P-Series looks like one of 2018’s best choices in terms of HDR performance.

All in all, despite having less zones than the 2017 model, the 2018 P-Series is as good (or better) in just about every major picture quality category.

Performance Data (Calibrated Dark mode)

  • SDR Black Level: 0.05 nits
  • SDR Reference Brightness: 195.10 nits
  • HDR Black Level: 0.08 nits
  • HDR Peak Brightness: 949.30 (as of 6/18/18)
  • SDR Color Gamut coverage: 99%
  • HDR Color Gamut coverage: 93% (as of 6/18/18)

Some data and information will be added soon, including more information on the P-Series’ HDR brightness measurements following an expected firmware update.

Pick your home assistant of choice—er, not you Bixby

The P-Series continues to use the “Vizio Cast” smart system, which is basically just Google Cast but with elements that are proprietary to Vizio. In summary, you can control the P-Series with your phone and cast any content to the screen that you could cast using Google Cast. The TV also has apps like Netflix and YouTube pre-installed, so you won’t have to do much tinkering if you don’t want to. It’s a simple, clean system that may not wow anyone, but you won’t mind that it’s part of the TV.

Vizio-P-Smart
Credit: Reviewed / Lee Neikirk
Vizio continues using the “Vizio Cast” (Google Cast-based) smart platform this year. It’s swell, but it isn’t a huge selling point.

What’s new this year is that the P-Series (and most of Vizio’s 2018 lineup) is now compatible with both Alexa and Google Home, the integrated voice assistants for Amazon and Google—guess we need to add Vizio TVs to the long list of everything that works with Alexa.

Whether or not you use one of those assistants already and how smartly “integrated” your home is obviously affects the appeal of this feature, but as a jumping off point, it’s a great addition to the TV’s list of features.


More information on the P-Series’ voice assistant functionality is coming soon—please check back!

Now’s your chance to get All-Clad cookware at an incredible price

artificial intelligence 5291510 1920

— Our editors review and recommend products to help you buy the stuff you need. If you make a purchase by clicking one of our links, we may earn a small share of the revenue. However, our picks and opinions are independent from USA TODAY’s newsroom and any business incentives.

All-Clad is one of the brands that, when they hold a sale, people lose their minds. While we found other cookware brands that perform better, there’s no doubt that All-Clad is one of the best money can buy.

However, that reliability often comes with a hefty price tag. But during All-Clad’s Factory Seconds VIP Sales, you can find steep discounts that make it much easier to upgrade your cookware. You’ll need to use the code ACJVIP18 to access the sale and start shopping.

The discounts you’ll find in these sales, which only happen a few times a year, are always impressive. We’re particularly into this 9-inch stainless/nonstick frying pan, which is only $50 right now compared to the full price of $115. There are lots of pots and pans available for similar discounts. And if you’re in the market for prep accessories like mixing bowls and kitchen shears, All-Clad’s got you covered too.

But wait! What does “factory seconds” mean? Basically, these are the products that couldn’t be sold at full price due to minor imperfections like surface scratches and dents. If you want your new cookware to look flawless, this might not be the sale for you. But pots, pans, and the like will get these kinds of marks through normal use anyway, so if you can look past the surface, you can score some amazing deals on new high-end cookware.

Use the code ACJVIP187 to access the All-Clad Factory Seconds VIP Sale

Prices are accurate at the time of publication, but may change over time.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2ylon5D