The social network's CFO called it a "headwind"
Market HighlightsThe growing need for technical assistance to support remote working facilities due to coronavirus is resulting in the high adoption of cloud computing solutions among giant IT companies.The rise in organizations observed to be benefitted by web scale IT market that can significantly reduce infrastructure cost and allow organizations focus on their main competencies can spur the expansion of the worldwide web scale IT market.As per MRFR study, the web scale IT global market can rise at above 17% CAGR through 2016 to 2022.Web scale IT solutions also impact the performance of an entire business through the need to created better management platforms and curb short comings.In addition, the growing focus beyond cloud computing is also another factor that can is pressing the demand for Web scale IT, thus can boost its market growth.Increased in IT organizations expanding their portfolio for cloud based services that include Platform as a Service (PaaS), Software as a Service (SaaS), and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is a factor that can prompt the expansion of the global web scale IT market 2020, reveals Market Research Future (MRFR).Competitive LandscapeMRFR identified notable web scale IT market players.They are; Nutanix Inc.(U.S.), Amazon Web Services, Inc.(U.S.), SimpliVity Corporation (U.S.), Microsoft Corporation (U.S.), CloudSigma Holding AG (Switzerland), Facebook, Inc. (U.S.),  Pivot3 Inc. (U.S.), Rackspace Inc. (U.S.), Nexenta Systems, Inc.(U.S.), VMware Inc.(U.S.), CloudBees, Inc.(U.S.), Google, Inc.(U.S.), Scale computing Inc.(U.S.), IBM Corporation(U.S.), Netflix, Inc. (U.S.), and Hewlett Packard Enterprise(U.S.) among others.
Duke's Twitter account was "permanently suspended" for violating the company's policy against hateful conduct, a spokesperson for the social network says.
And is willing to fine them hundreds of millions if they don't play nice Australian regulators have proposed to compel web giants to divulge forthcoming changes to the algorithms they use choose the content their users see, and to submit to binding arbitration when publisher seek payment for their content.…
The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a fresh wave of online conspiracy theories around fears of a future 'cashless society'.  Cashless payments more than tripled in the US between March and April – accounting for 8% to 31% of all transactions. It fell to account for 20% of transactions in June.  One social media post claiming the decline in cash payments has "nothing to do with the virus" has been repeatedly shared on Facebook and Twitter, potentially reaching millions of users.  Social media expert Tristan Hotham told Business Insider such conspiracies consist in a "grey area [that risks] sending users down the rabbit hole".  Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a fresh wave of online conspiracy theories around fears of a future "cashless society." Cashless transactions have spiked amid the pandemic, according to research from payments firm Square, more than tripling between March and April in the US – from 8% to 31% of all payments – before leveling off at 20% in June.  Earlier in July, Mississippi resident Wendy Singleton shared a lengthy post on Facebook, claiming to outline what "NO CASH ACTUALLY MEANS" for wider society.  The 700-word post – which has so far been shared 344,000 times – claims there will be "no more money in birthday cards ... no more charity collections ... banks [will] have full control of every single penny you own [and] the government will decide what you can and cannot purchase".  Prior to Singleton's own version of the post, it had previously been reposted on Twitter by a user named Louise Fallon, where it received 18,000 retweets and 56,000 likes, and before that by Colorado resident David Tweedy, again on Facebook, where it received 219,000 shares.  It reads: "If you are a customer, pay with cash. If you are a shop owner, remove those ridiculous signs that ask people to pay by card ... Banks are making it increasingly difficult to lodge cash [and] that has nothing to do with a virus... "Politics [and] greed is what is wrong with the world, not those who are trying to alert you to the reality in which you are blindly floating along whilst being immobilised by irrational fear." The World Health Organization was forced to clarify its position on cash payments in March, claiming British media reports had misrepresented its position on the issue. The Daily Telegraph, a British broadsheet, previously cited the WHO in an article suggesting dirty bank notes could be spreading the coronavirus.   But a WHO spokesperson told MarketWatch the organization's guidance had been "misrepresented" in news articles suggesting bank notes could spread COVID-19, adding: "We said you should wash your hands after handling money, especially if handling or eating food."  The idea of a "cashless society" has been in circulation for decades, with Sweden among those regularly touted as most likely the first nation to do away with bank notes altogether.  Even so, there remains a host of pros (speedy transactions, better economic data, reduced business risks) and cons (limited privacy, centralized control, digital fraud) which remain hotly debated.  Tristan Hotham, founder of the Social Media Research Centre, told Business Insider conspiracies such as these "thrive" through their combination of truth and fake information.  "We have known for a long time that society as a whole could eventually operate without physical cash," he said. "But these kinds of conspiracies gain traction by mixing that with total nonsense."  As the pandemic swept the planet, social media platforms have taken steps to counter misinformation around COVID-19, fearing the immediate consequences of letting conspiracies circulate unchallenged.  Hotham said: "It's interesting because, while this does make reference to the pandemic, it's sort of in that grey area, where it might not immediately put anyone in danger, in the way that anti-mask posts do. "But it could certainly send someone down the rabbit hole." Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Why thoroughbred horse semen is the world's most expensive liquid
Although probably still not as scandalous as Facebook’s involvement in the US political scene a few years back that opened a dozen cans of worms, the recent security incident at Twitter definitely has the social networking giant reeling from both the PR fallout as well as legal repercussions. Given its prominent role in today’s society, it’s not something it can … Continue reading
The CEO said Facebook does not "profit from misinformation or hate"
1
Advertisers are calling on Facebook to do more to combat hate speech.
Commentary: It's hard for Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook to keep up the pretense when posting massive profit in the middle of a pandemic-fueled recession.
In the congressional hearing Wednesday into antitrust concerns in the tech industry, the four CEOs who testified all touted their companies American roots, and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg warned of competition from China. The appeal to patriotism and nationalistic sentiments is a familiar tactic; the tech companies have used it repeatedly in recent years as they've come under increasing scrutiny. But it also has a long history — giant companies routinely tout their all-American roots and the threat of foreign competitors when their market power gets questioned. Policymakers should ignore such appeals, because they're meant to distract from the real harms the companies are causing, and the best way to compete with foreign rivals is through innovation, which monopolies throttle. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Patriotism, as Samuel Johnson observed some 245 years ago, is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Making an appeal to national sentiments — or, relatedly, warning about the dire threat from foreign competitors — is also a time-worn tactic of corporate leaders who seek to evade scrutiny of their companies' behavior or shed what they see as onerous regulations. And so, on Wednesday, with Big Tech under the harsh glare of a Congressional antitrust investigation, the CEOs were quick to dust off the old playbook.  The success of Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon — four companies with a combined market value of roughly $5 trillion — is the epitome of the American Dream, their CEOs told lawmakers at the House of Representatives antitrust hearing. The success of these four tech giants is something to be cheered; the result of the American system, not any nefarious actions or problems in the market's rules, they insisted. Apple, CEO Tim Cook said, is "a uniquely American company whose success is only possible in this country."  Amazon's Jeff Bezos discussed the lessons in self-reliance and ingenuity that he learned being the son of a high-school aged single mother and the adopted son of an immigrant father. And on it went. Most importantly, the CEOs implied or said directly, the US needs national champions like their companies to lead the internet age, because without them, foreign competitors — most worryingly, Chinese ones — will take over. "China is building its own version of the internet focused on very different ideas, and they are exporting their vision to other countries," warned Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of "proud American company" Facebook. "We believe in values — democracy, competition, inclusion and free expression — that the American economy was built on," he said. If it sounds familiar... These types of arguments aren't new. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer, deflected questions about her company's power by pointing at the threat from Chinese competitors in an interview with CNBC last year. In fact, these types of arguments long predate the scrutiny of the tech giants. They've been used for decades by all stripes of American corporations to evade concerns about their power. Financial services companies made similar arguments in the 1980s when they sought the repeal of regulations that limited their size and ability to operate across states lines, arguing that they needed to grow large to be able to compete against giant foreign banks. IBM and AT&T made such appeals when they faced antitrust scrutiny in the 1970s and 1980s, arguing that they were needed to help defend the US from the rising threat of competition from Japanese tech companies. Indeed, such patriotic or nationalist arguments go back as far as the 1910s, during some of the first efforts in the US at breaking up monopolies, said Matt Stoller, the author of "Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy." "This is a long-standing trend," he said. He continued: "It's always, 'give us more power, we'll defend you.'" Every US company has an all-American story The problem with such arguments is they're banal, irrelevant, and misleading. Pretty much any US company big or small has an all-American story to tell. At a basic level, the success of Amazon or Apple is no more or less impressive than that of the corner grocery that was founded by immigrants fleeing war or oppression. Nearly all founders and entrepreneurs have to overcome challenges and hardships, and the American system has led to outsized success for lots of companies past and present. Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, and Facebook weren't the first, and they won't be the last, regardless of whether regulators seek to limit their power. What's more, many of the companies that are being quashed by the tech giants have American stories too. We shouldn't ignore, for example, how Amazon used underhanded tactics to undermine Quidsi, the owner of Diapers.com, or how it allegedly throttled the business of a small company that sold books through its site just because Amazon has lots of American workers and Jeff Bezos was born to a single mother. While Americans may benefit from the services Amazon offers and the jobs it fills, they're hurt when it throttles competition. Prices can go up and employees of the competitors Amazon has stymied lose their jobs. There's little doubt that China and Chinese companies have a different vision for the internet than US companies. There are legitimate concerns about Chinese companies spreading the kind of surveillance and censorship that are endemic in China to other countries. But the best way to meet such international challenges is through encouraging innovation and competition here at home — not by giving the US tech giants a free pass to trample on their smaller domestic rivals. Giant monopolies tend to stop innovating. They become sclerotic and have trouble adapting as markets and fashions change. But breaking up said monopolies can spur innovation and the creation of whole new markets. Concentrated power destroys companies History bears this out, repeatedly. The worldwide dominance of the Big Three automakers in the 1950s and 1960s left them wholly unprepared for the oil shocks of the 1970s and the onset of competition from more nimble Japanese companies. Likewise, Boeing's troubles in recent years are attributable to its ability to wipe out all US competitors in the commercial airline market, said Stoller. "When you concentrate power, you destroy companies," he said. On the flip side, the antitrust actions against IBM and AT&T opened up the tech industry for Microsoft, Apple, and Intel and for the internet itself. And the later antitrust case against Microsoft allowed Google, Facebook, Netflix, and other companies to emerge. "It's pretty obvious that those companies wouldn't exist" if the Microsoft antitrust case hadn't happened," Stoller said. So ignore the patriotic appeals and the grim warnings about Chinese competition from the desperate CEOs. We'll all be better off if we break up Big Tech. Got a tip about Big Tech? Contact Troy Wolverton via email at [email protected], message him on Twitter @troywolv, or send him a secure message through Signal at 415.515.5594. You can also contact Business Insider securely via SecureDrop. Read more about antitrust issues in the tech industry: Newly released Steve Jobs emails, included in Congress' antitrust investigation, show how ruthless the Apple founder could be Trump says he'll 'bring fairness' to Big Tech via an executive order if Congress doesn't take action The FTC's latest shot at the tech giants has opened up an unexpected front in the war to constrain Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook Stunned venture capital investors say the government's move to kill the $1.4 billion acquisition of shaving upstart Harry's is a 'wakeup call' that could leave some types of startups unviable SEE ALSO: The Justice Department's new Big Tech investigation was announced with unusual fanfare, and some antitrust experts say it might not herald as big of a crackdown as it seems Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: A cleaning expert reveals her 3-step method for cleaning your entire home quickly
The "Stop Hate For Profit boycott did little to slow Facebook down
Australia's government has introduced draft legislation which would force Google and Facebook to pay news publishers for hosting their content. Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said the aim of the legislation is to give news companies fair remuneraton for original content. Google's Australia and New Zealand managing director said the draft legislation was a "heavy-handed intervention" that "threatens to impede Australia's digital economy and impacts the services we can deliver to Australians." Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. The Australian government said on Friday it plans to give Google and Facebook three months to negotiate with Australian media businesses fair pay for news content. The government has released a draft mandatory code of conduct that aims to succeed where other countries have failed in making the global digital giants pay for news siphoned from commercial media companies. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Google and Facebook would be the first digital platforms targeted by the proposed legislation but others could follow. "It's about a fair go for Australian news media businesses, it's about ensuring that we have increased competition, increased consumer protection and a sustainable media landscape," Frydenberg said. "Nothing less than the future of the Australian media landscape is at stake with these changes," he added. If the US-based platforms could not agree with the Australian media businesses on pricing after three months, arbitrators would be appointed to make a binding decision, the draft said. The draft will be open to consultation until August 28, with the legislation to be introduced to Parliament soon after, Frydenberg said. As well as payment, the code covers issues including access to user data and transparency of algorithms used to rank and present media content. Breaches of the code could attract penalties of up to 10% of the platform's annual turnover, or a 10 million Australian dollars ($7.2 milllion) fine. Google Australia and New Zealand managing director Mel Silva said the code discounts the significant value Google provided in free clicks on publishers' content. "Our hope was that the code would be forward thinking and the process would create incentives for both publishers and digital platforms to negotiate and innovate for a better future, so we are deeply disappointed and concerned the draft code does not achieve this," Silva said in a statement. "Instead, the government's heavy-handed intervention threatens to impede Australia's digital economy and impacts the services we can deliver to Australians," Silva added. When Spain passed laws on licensing links to news sites in 2014 Google withdrew its Google News service from the country entirely, and in 2018 when the EU floated the possibility of introducing a similar so-called "link tax" the company's top news executive refused to rule out the possibility of shuttering its business in Europe. Facebook Australia and New Zealand managing director Will Easton said in a statement his company was reviewing the code to "understand the impact it will have on the industry, our services and our investment in the news ecosystem in Australia." Frydenberg said the motive was not to protect Australian businesses from competition or disruption but to ensure they are paid fairly for original content. The conservative government is pushing ahead with the changes after the pandemic created an advertising revenue crisis for many Australian media companies.Join the conversation about this story »
Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge From a pure entertainment perspective, I am genuinely sorry that the House’s antitrust hearing targeting the big four tech companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google — took place Wednesday instead of next week. Because literally a day after a meeting attempting to determine if Big Tech was too big, three of the four companies in the hearing got bigger. (Google’s parent company, Alphabet, had a decline in revenue of about 2 percent, mostly due to a decline in search ads — but this was still better than analysts predicted.) None of these companies wanted their earnings numbers read aloud to them before questioning began The hearing was about how tech companies have consolidated their power. The coronavirus seems to be making that... Continue reading…
Hi! July has been a busy month for Business Insider's advertising and media team with lots of deep reporting on a wide breadth of companies. As we hit the middle of the summer slump, today's Insider Advertising newsletter highlights our most popular stories from the past month. These stories are part of Business Insider's subscription service that helps fund our reporting. If you'd like to subscribe to Business Insider, here is a 20% discount code for an annual subscription. There is also a one-month trial for $1. And to get this newsletter in your inbox daily, sign up here. Here are the can't-miss stories that our readers loved in July: Red Bull fires top North American executives following internal controversy over Black Lives Matter and the leak of an offensive presentation slide Patrick Coffee broke the news about Red Bull firing North American CEO Stefan Kozak and president and chief marketing officer Amy Taylor. The fires happened after employees leaked a letter to leadership criticizing Red Bull's response to Black Lives Matter and an offensive slide from a company presentation.  Insiders at Complex Networks said the company was built on Black culture but that the sales team 'whitewashed' advertising deals for brands, replacing Black people with white people in pitch decks Ashley Rodriguez and I dug into Complex Networks after former employees said ad-sales team at times downplayed the company's Black audience in sales pitches. Meet 12 top public relations recruiters to know right now Contributor Michael Kaminer identified the top PR headhunters that help link job candidates with employers. With the recent slew of layoffs created by the coronavirus, the recruiters said that there are still opportunities in areas like pharma, tech and healthcare communications. 19 media startups that top VCs say are poised to take off in 2020, as the pandemic reshapes the industry With the media and advertising industries taking a hit during the pandemic, Ashley Rodriguez and Dan Whateley asked 11 venture-capital investors which companies are poised to take off this year. Their picks include esports company PlayVS and food media company Food52. A YouTube star breaks down how much money a video with 1 million views makes her As part of an ongoing series where creators break down how much money they make, Amanda Perelli talked with Shelby Church about how she monetizes 1.5 million YouTube subscribers. Her videos with about 1 million views make between $2,000 to $5,000. Walmart is pushing harder into advertising with a new tool that shows if people buy a product after seeing an ad for it Walmart has steadily been building up its advertising business to compete for e-commerce ad dollars that primarily go towards Amazon. In Walmart's latest move, it created a measurement tool to show advertisers how many people buy a product in-store or online after viewing an ad. Walmart tested the feature with big packaged goods companies like Procter & Gamble and Nestle. Fewer than 3% of US executives at ad giant Havas are Black. Read the deck outlining its ambitious plan to increase diversity. Ad holding companies that have long been criticized for their diversity efforts are starting to shine light on their practices. Patrick Coffee reported that Havas Group's data shows that 2.67% of its US executives are Black and that the company has a new seven-step plan to increase diversity. The 19 advertising execs who wield the most power and sway over Facebook Tanya Dua has been covering this month's Facebook boycott that hundreds of brands are participating in. She identified the marketers who are part of Facebook's invitation-only global client council that wield the most influence, including Anheuser-Busch InBev's global marketing chief Pedro Earp and Steve King, chief operating officer at Publicis Groupe. GMMB insiders say the top progressive ad and PR agency has a problem with microaggressions Sean Czarnecki dug into Omnicom Group's  advertising and PR firm GMMB. The firm is known for its progressive work, but some former and current employees said microaggressions against people of color were commonplace. Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Pathologists debunk 13 coronavirus myths
Documents made public Wednesday as part of a Congressional antitrust hearing give insight into the concerns of tech's most powerful CEOs leading up to game-changing acquisitions. Amazon, Facebook and Google all made big purchases of startups whose technology, the documents reveal, their teams found to be lacking. Instead, the deals got done because the companies feared losing market share or wanted a leg up in a new sector.  Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. If you're looking to sell your tech startups to one of the big tech giants, an intimidating reputation will take you further than good technology.  Market position, "land grabs," and winning were all top considerations for the CEOs at Amazon, Facebook and Google ahead of major acquisitions, according to emails and instant messages made public on Wednesday as part of Congressional hearing over possible anticompetitive practices in tech. The documents give unique insight into the thought processes of these powerful (and often rash) men on the eve of big purchases, which over time have proven to completely rewrite the technology landscape. Ultimately, the messages show, none of these companies made their most high-profile acquisitions because of the quality of the technology. Google, which acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion in October 2006, considered the video streaming website a threat because it meant people were searching for things away from Google.com, the documents show. Ultimately, its product was less important to Google than its position as a top video startup. In one email, Peter Chane, who founded and oversaw Google Video, said that YouTube's "systems wouldn't be valuable to us" and described its content quality as "worse than ours." But Google's Jeff Huber defended the talks and wrote that at the very least, opening M&A talks would raise the price tag for Google's competitor Yahoo if it wanted to acquire YouTube itself. Plus, Huber said, YouTube was located a quick drive away from Google in Palo Alto. It might seem like an arbitrary advantage, but it sure worked out for YouTube.  Perhaps the most insecure emailer was Amazon, which spent months trying to "undercut" Diapers.com before acquiring its parent company Quidsi for $545 million in November 2010. Emails show extensive deliberations, referred to as the "Plan to Win," which addressed Amazon's internal strategy to price match and "meet or beat" Diapers.com's order time cut off of 6 p.m. (The plan also required Amazon to fix a bug on its website: a widget that gave shoppers to option to browse "used" diapers.)   In 2017, Amazon shuttered its Quidsi properties altogether. In other words, its plan was a success. Bezos was absent from the Diapers.com emails, but played a more active role fretting over market dominance in documents surrounding Amazon's acquisition of doorbell camera startup Ring for $1 billion in March 2018.  "To be clear, my view here is that we're buying market position — not technology. And that market position and momentum is highly valuable," Bezos wrote to Amazon Vice President Dave Limp on December 15, 2017, according to the documents. Others on Bezos's team made clear that Ring didn't have much to offer that Amazon couldn't build itself. "They don't have any interesting hardware secret sauce either in IP, manufacturing process, or people," vice president Robert Stites wrote to Limp on November 1, 2017, in an email arguing against the deal. "I'm not inclined unless our intent is to just benchmark pricing."  Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg took a similar attitude leading up to its acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012. Instagram, then a small but growing photo-sharing app, came into Zuckerberg's line of sight as he fretted over how long users spent on Facebook's mobile app, according to the documents. Every second spent on Instagram's app was a second not spent looking at Facebook. "Instagram is eating our lunch. We should have owned this space but we're losing quite badly," an unnamed Facebooker wrote in a redacted IM transcript from January 2012. "Not losing strategic position in photos is worth a lot of money," Mike Shroepfer, Facebook's technology chief, wrote to Zuckerberg on March 9, 2012, ahead of the deal. Once the acquisition went through, Zuckerberg was more direct about his reason for buying Instagram: it was stiff competition. "One thing about startups though is you can often acquire them," Zuckerberg wrote on April 9, 2012 One email of particular interest during the hearing on Wednesday came from Facebook's chief financial officer, David Wehner, in a February 2014 thread about Facebook's $19 billion WhatsApp acquisition earlier that month.  "A big concern expressed it that we're going to spend 5-10% of our market cap every couple of years to shore up our position," Wehner wrote in defense of the deal. "I hate the word 'land grab' but I think that is the best convincing argument and we should own that. ... We are being aggressive about seizing that opportunity as it is transforming the communications landscape." (Apple CEO Tim Cook was also part of the hearing, though the company's M&A history was not a big concern for lawmakers.) Consolidation is nothing new in the land of tech, and in many cases strategic acquirers get lauded for the wisdom behind deals that increase their power and eliminate risk. But not every acquisition is about dominance or eliminating obstacles.  When the $194 billion enterprise tech giant SAP acquired Qualtrics for $8 million in 2018, SAP added a top-of-the-line market research and data analysis product to its offerings. If SAP saw market research as its only growth opportunity, that would be one thing. But the point of the acquisition wasn't to make SAP the market leader in that sector. It was to give SAP more ground in its competition against Oracle and Microsoft to dominate in cloud software more broadly. Then there are deals like Cisco's May acquisition of ThousandEyes, a network security startup whose technology Cisco plans to tie into its existing products. Cisco bought the company because it made more sense than developing its own tool that could do the same thing. This is all to say: it's possible for a large tech company to acquire a startup for reasons other than fear of the underdog. But if these messages from executives at Facebook, Amazon, and Google show anything, it's that making tech's mega giants feel insecure is a great way to go from startup founder to multi-millionaire. SEE ALSO: When colleagues accused Mark Zuckerberg's personal security chief of racism and harassment, the family said there was no evidence. In sworn declarations, 3 workers said otherwise. Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: What makes 'Parasite' so shocking is the twist that happens in a 10-minute sequence
Image: U.S. Army Esports / Facebook An amendment proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) that would ban the US military from recruiting on Twitch failed a House vote Thursday evening. Had it passed, it would have been an amendment to the House Committee on Appropriations bill, which is part of the process in how the Pentagon’s annual budget is set. The vote is now at 45 yeas to 105 nays. Majority is not in favor of @AOC's bill. The US Navy and Army have stated they will continue to stream on Twitch and declined to comment on pending legislation.— Shannon Liao (@Shannon_Liao) July 30, 2020 Ocasio-Cortez tweeted her frustration at trying to win over her colleagues Thursday evening: Imagine trying to explain to your colleagues who are members of Congress what... Continue reading…
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was among the powerful tech executives who testified Wednesday in front of lawmakers regarding their companies' potential antitrust violations. During the hearing, never-before-seen messages were made public detailing why the cofounders of Instagram, Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, felt compelled to sell their app to Facebook in 2012. Systrom and early Instagram investor Matt Cohler discussed what to tell Zuckerberg about the photo app's future plans. In the text exchange, Systrom expresses concern about sending Zuckerberg into "destroy mode" if he turned down an acquisition offer, and being unable to "escape the wrath of Mark." Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Never-before-seen text messages from 2012 show just how careful Instagram cofounders felt they needed to be in dealing with the "wrath" of Mark Zuckerberg in the months before Facebook acquired the photo-sharing app for $1 billion. A text exchange between Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom and early investor Matt Cohler, then a partner at Benchmark, show the two strategizing how much to disclose to Zuckerberg about the photo-sharing app's future plans, and the cofounders' decision whether to get acquired or continue on independently. In the text conversation, Systrom voices his concerns to Cohler about possibly sending Zuckerberg into "destroy mode" or encountering "the wrath of Mark" if the Instagram cofounders were to rebuff Facebook's interest in buying the app. The text messages were made public Wednesday as Zuckerberg — as well as the CEOs of Apple, Google, and Amazon — appeared in front of the House Judiciary's antitrust subcommittee to answer lawmakers' questions about any potential violations of antitrust regulations. The exchange between Systrom and Cohler was just one of a trove of documents the House subcommittee made public during Wednesday's hearing to demonstrate possible anticompetitive practices by the four big US tech companies. Although Facebook's purchases of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 weren't challenged at the time, lawmakers at Wednesday's hearing heavily scrutinized the acquisitions. Some representatives argued that Facebook's app acquisitions and clones of other platforms' features — like Snapchat's Stories and, most recently, TikTok — were evidence of monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior. The committee also published several email threads and online chat logs showing conversations that took place among Zuckerberg and various Facebook executives and employees to demonstrate the company's mindset during Instagram's $1 billion acquisition. By the start of 2012, Facebook was touting that its company comprised 95% of the social media market. However, Instagram was rapidly threatening that lead: In March 2012, Instagram's average daily users was growing at a rate of more than 1,700% week-over-week and 9.2 million percent month-over-month, according to documents published Wednesday. In emails Zuckerberg sent in 2012, the CEO calls Instagram a "threat," and reasons that buying Instagram would be a way to successfully "neutralize" its success. Zuckerberg told colleagues that Instagram "can hurt us meaningfully without becoming a huge business," and that acquiring Instagram would be "buying" time for the company. But Zuckerberg's plans to take on Instagram didn't come as a surprise to the app's cofounders, as is apparent by the text exchange between Systrom and Cohler. Systrom said he feared turning down an acquisition offer from Facebook would send Zuckerberg into "destroy mode" — a concern that Cohler affirmed. "Mark doesn't react emotionally, he reacts based on competition," Systrom later writes to Cohler. "Bottom line I don't think we'll ever escape the wrath of [M]ark. It just depends how long we avoid it." Just two months after this conversation took place, Facebook acquired Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012. In response to questions from Rep. Jerry Nadler at Wednesday's hearing, Zuckerberg acknowledged the company viewed Instagram "as a competitor and a complement to our services" in 2012. The chair of the big tech hearing, Rep. David Cicilline, later told Axios that Zuckerberg's testimony proved Facebook displayed "classic monopoly behavior" and should be broke up. However, Zuckerberg also reasoned that Facebook had simply "adapted features" from competitors in response to lawmakers' grilling about whether it cloned competitors' products in order to maintain its social media dominance. Zuckerberg also argued that Facebook still faces competition from platforms like YouTube and TikTok. The Facebook CEO also disagreed with lawmakers' characterization that his conversations with Facebook executives regarding acquisition targets were viewed as a threat "in any way."SEE ALSO: Facebook, Google, and the US government all have their own reasons to make you believe that TikTok is unsafe and scary — and they're all self-serving Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Why Pikes Peak is the most dangerous racetrack in America
As the coronavirus crisis leads Google to slow its overall hiring, it's still continuing to "aggressively" bring on workers for its cloud unit.  There are a handful of valuable skills that help Google Cloud employees thrive, said Google Cloud's VP of Human Resources, Brigette McInnis-Day.  Empathy, self-reflection, and a willingness to collaborate are all important. Visit Business Insider Premium for more stories. As the coronavirus crisis forces companies to tighten budgets and cut staff, the cloud industry appears to be thriving, including within Google.  While the company saw its first-ever revenue decline in the second quarter as advertisers pulled back because of the pandemic, its Cloud unit was an earnings bright spot.  In fact, executives said that the cloud unit was still "hiring aggressively," despite a company-wide hiring slow-down for the remainder of the year. "What we're doing in Cloud is being very deliberate about which targeted areas we need growth," Brigette McInnis-Day, Google Cloud's vice president of human resources, told Business Insider in late June, adding that the unit is focused on its technology divisions, customer success, and emerging markets teams.  In the nine months since McInnis-Day joined Google Cloud to help grow its team, she's found that there are a set of valuable interpersonal skills that help employees thrive.  Now that Google's hiring process — which includes multiple interviews, often over several days — takes place entirely online, it can actually help those more subtle skills stand out. Talking with potential hires when both parties are at home "provides more confidence and comfort in themselves versus coming into a new environment," McInnis-Day said.  "I think it's beneficial both for the candidate and for the interviewer because you see them in a more of a personal environment," she said, "So you get to see more of what the candidate shares with you." McInnis-Day walked us through what Google is looking for in new hires, so if you want to impress a Google Cloud recruiter, here are the traits you should try to emphasize: Empathy  As the Google Cloud Platform continues to grow, the team actively recruits engineers that it believes can build products based on what customers need, according to McInnis-Day .  "We're in a unique time," she said. "From a technical perspective, it's really asking questions to understand the business issues, to make sure we know what we're solving for." Listening to feedback and following through is a big part of retaining customers and building trust, McInnis-Day said, and the technology team is just as active in Google's relationship-building process as the sales and customer service teams are. The ability to translate customer feedback into concrete product decisions requires empathy.  "It's very important that the solution is mirroring what's needed," she said.  Self-reflection Self-reflection and empathy go hand-in-hand, McInnis-Day said. As the coronavirus pandemic forced workers across the country to stay at home — and with more companies considering permanent remote work— Google Cloud engineers were pushed to think about how it would impact the long-term goals for their products. In some cases, that meant redefining what was important.  "They're very self reflective and they know what they need or want." McInnis-Day said of employees. "They know what questions to ask."  Honest, open reflection is key to building strong, intuitive products at any tech company, she said. Software engineers should always think beyond standard benchmarks and not be too proud to ask questions. McInnis-Day often asks herself, "Are they going to challenge the status quo?" "We're also finding high-humility in the people — the candidates — we're seeing," McInnis-Day said. "They can tolerate ambiguity and also can take risks." Willingness to collaborate Collaboration is encouraged across tech companies and fostered through the open work environments, plentiful places for employees to relax, and mini kitchens littered throughout campuses at Google, Facebook and Microsoft. The need for effective, enthusiastic collaboration has only increased since local stay-at-home orders went into place, McInnis-Day said. Employees leverage in-house tools to work with their teams and bounce ideas off each other.  "I think the piece that's been so amazing to me coming in to work at Google is their collaborative tools," McInnis-Day said.  Online collaboration has been a big part of Google Cloud's growth in the last few months during the pandemic, she said: "And then we look for that in the candidates as well."SEE ALSO:  Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Pathologists debunk 13 coronavirus myths
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos joined the leaders of Apple, Facebook, and Google on July 29 to testify before Congress on antitrust issues.  For Bezos, how Amazon competes with its third-party selling business comprised quite a bit of the questioning.  Bezos maintained that Amazon elevates small business owners like its third-party sellers. But some Amazon sellers don't agree.  Amazon did not respond to a request for comment for this story.  Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. When Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos testified with three other tech leaders on July 29 on antitrust issues, many of those who make their livelihood on Amazon's retail marketplace tuned in. There are approximately 1.7 million third-party sellers on Amazon, according to Bezos, and more than 200,000 of them generated more than $100,000 in sales last year. They comprise 60% of product sales on Amazon — collectively beating the retailer at its own game.  Some of those merchants, along with those who oversee online seller communities or provide consulting work to sellers, told Business Insider they weren't happy with how Bezos talked about sellers during the hearing. Bezos stressed that Amazon's retail dominance is partially thanks to these third-party sellers. He also referred in his opening remarks to everyday folks who have benefitted from Amazon's marketplace, like Sherri Yukel, a mother and aristan who now employs 80 people to run her Amazon-based business.  He said these small business owners succeed thanks to Amazon's focus on "supporting sellers and giving them the best tools we could invent." That claim that Amazon is dedicated to supporting sellers is what rubbed some merchants the wrong way. The animosity between Amazon and some of its sellers goes back years Paul Rafelson — a tax law attorney and chairman of the Online Merchants Guild, a trade association — said sellers in his online communities were displeased when Bezos emphasized Amazon's support of small businesses on its marketplace throughout the hearing. "People were sick to their stomach with his fake sincerity," Rafleson said. The animosity may seem unwarranted at first brush. But for years, merchants have pushed back on several challenges of selling on Amazon. Some of the most contentious points include the lack of communication when Amazon suspends a seller account and Amazon re-producing what other brands and manufacturers are already selling. Both can cost a business dearly. Scott Needham, an Amazon merchant with $50 million a year in sales and host of "The Smartest Amazon Seller" podcast, is one seller who has struggled with Amazon's account suspension system. His company BuyBoxer has been suspended twice in recent years; one suspension in May slashed his sales by about 90% in just one day. In both instances, Amazon did not communicate with BuyBoxer on why it was suspended until several days after, costing the company tens of thousands of dollars in sales. "There are certain things where I think, 'How does a trillion dollar company not solve certain parts of this puzzle?'" Needham said. "There are many legitimate businesses on Amazon, just mom-and-pops, tens of thousands that rely on them. They just under-invest in keeping those sellers up and running." "There are all these stories of ways that Amazon has basically ruined seller's lives," Rafelson previously told Business Insider. "One strong suspension or misunderstanding can destroy a seller's business." Lawmakers drilled down on how Amazon competes with its own merchants Some merchants pay big money to ex-Amazon executives for the secret sauce in getting ahead on the massive marketplace — but sometimes Amazon itself beats the little guys out. Sellers have stated for years that Amazon will sometimes duplicate items from their own catalog that perform well on the website. The retailer has access into the data on third-party sales, and some say they do not use that data in good faith. Jeff Peterson told The Wall Street Journal in 2012, for instance, that his $30 stuffed-animal pillows once sold gangbusters on Amazon — until Amazon started selling its own animal pillows for $12 apiece.  State Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, who represents parts of Seattle, was keen on asking Bezos how his employees use third-party sales data. "The issue that we're concerned with here is very simple," Jayapal said. "You have access to data that far exceeds the sellers on your platforms with whom you compete." Bezos did not provide a clear answer on how that data is used. "What I can tell you is we have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private-label business," the CEO said. "But I can't guarantee you that policy has never been violated." Another way in which sellers must compete against Amazon is in the retailer's search function. Getting on the first place or on the first row when a consumer searches, say, "iPhone case" is the target of many sellers. But, as The Wall Street Journal's Dana Mattiloi reported last year, Amazon usually claims the first spot for its own line of products.  "I find it very troubling when you search for something, and the second row down will be brands from Amazon," Needham said. "I know sellers who would kill for that spot." He added, "The fact that they give it to themselves — I do not know how (Bezos) can be up there in front of Congress and say that everything is equal." Some say there's bigger fish to fry yet While sellers were happy to see their long-emphasized problems reach the House Judiciary subcommittee, they say it's unclear how lawmakers can do much more besides make Bezos sweat. Amazon seller consultant James Thomson, who was previously a senior manager at the mega-retailer, said the issues raised in the hearing may cast Amazon as an unfair competitor — but not necessarily one that acted unlawfully. After all, sellers consent to giving Amazon their sales data. It may leave a bad taste in someone's mouth, but it's not illegal.  "This is a situation where there are a lot of people who don't like Amazon, or think Amazon is unfair, immoral, or not nice," Thomson told Business Insider.  Thomson added, "Is it fair? I'll let someone else decide that, but fairness has nothing to do with it. Do we have laws that know how to properly address companies this big? At this point, I don't think the laws have kept up adequately." That viewpoint is echoed by Jason Boyce, who sold on Amazon for nearly 17 years and now consults third-party merchants on how to succeed on the platform. Boyce said Amazon needs to be broken up, but the United States' current laws don't provide a path for that.  "I'm honestly both disgusted by the behavior of these big companies, while simultaneously understanding why they do the things they do to capture more market share and squash competition," Boyce, the co-author of the forthcoming book "The Amazon Jungle," told Business Insider. "It's part of their DNA."SEE ALSO: 'Amazon is not their friend': Amazon sellers are organizing against the retail giant as the FTC and DOJ continues their anti-trust probe Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: What makes 'Parasite' so shocking is the twist that happens in a 10-minute sequence
The creators of a short-form video app called Triller filed a lawsuit Wednsday against TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance. In the lawsuit, Triller alleges TikTok is infringing on its patent, approved in 2017, for the video-editing, sountrack-adding software made notable by TikTok. TikTok currently faces an uncertain future in the US, as the Trump administration weighs banning the app due to its ties to China. TikTok's US users and creators have started planning for a future without the app, and some popular TikTok influencers recently moved to Triller. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. The short-form video app Triller is suing the company behind the social-media juggernaut TikTok, alleging that the viral app is pirating Triller's patented technology to use audio tracks to edit multiple videos together.  Triller claims that it had patented the video format back in 2017 that has been made famous by TikTok, and that the app as it stands today continues to violate Triller's US trademark. Lawyers representing Triller are asking for damages, as well as the court to file an injunction against ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, to prevent further alleged infringement of Triller's patent. The patent infringement complaint, first reported by The Wrap, was filed Wednesday in US District Court for the Western Division of Texas. Although ByteDance is located in China, TikTok operates globally and maintains offices in Austin, Texas. The patent Triller is referencing was filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office back in 2015, the year Triller was founded. The patent, approved in 2017, covers "systems and methods for creating music videos synchronized with an audio track."  In a statement provided to Business Insider, Triller CEO Mike Lu claims TikTok paid some creators to "actually not post on Triller," a move he called "neither ethical nor legal." Lu also said Triller plans to add an alleged antitrust violation to the complaint. "If every 200B company could just pay their customers to not join a startup competitor, entrepreneurship in America would die and no new companies could ever exist," Lu said in the statement. Representatives for TikTok did not immediately return Business Insider's request for comment. A representative for Triller said TikTok has not yet responded to the lawsuit. The lawsuit comes as TikTok faces increased scrutiny around its ties to China, and the amount of access and influence the foreign government has over user data and content moderation. Just earlier this month, President Donald Trump publicly said he's considering banning the app in the US due to these concerns. TikTok has been a dominant force in the short-form video-sharing space and has amassed more than 2 billion downloads globally. But TikTok's uncertain future in the US has already led creators and users to panic. In recent weeks, tech companies have taken advantage of the chaos to lure the app's loyal US following — estimated around 80 million strong — to their rival platforms. Triller is among those competing apps that have already seen user interest and download numbers spike. Just earlier this week, Triller got a boost when a group of prominent TikTok stars with a combined following of nearly 50 million followers announced they were taking their talents to the rival Los Angeles-based app. One of the TikTok influencers, Josh Richards, told the Los Angeles Times he was migrating to Triller "given my responsibility to protect and lead my followers and other influencers" after hearing the US government voice concerns about TikTok's ties to China. Triller was founded back in 2015 as a music video-editing tool. The app reports around 64 million active users a month. According to figures provided to the Times by app-analytics firm Sensor Tower, Triller has just 130 million downloads compared with TikTok's 2.3 billion globally. However, TikTok's roots can be traced back to 2014, when short-form video-making app Musical.ly was founded in the US. The app hit to the No. 1 spot in the US App Store in the summer of 2015, and was purchased by ByteDance in late 2017 in a deal valued at $1 billion. ByteDance shut down Musical.ly a year later, merging it into the TikTok platform in markets outside of China. You can view Triller's lawsuit in full below: Triller v TikTok (PDF) Triller v TikTok (Text)   Read more: Inside the rise of TikTok, the viral video-sharing app that US officials are threatening to ban due to its ties to China Instagram has reportedly offered cash to high-profile TikTok users to lure them to its new short-form video service, Reels 'We are not the enemy': TikTok CEO slams Facebook for attacking the Chinese company and launching 'copycat' product Short-form video app Triller has hired 18-year-old TikTok star Josh Richards as its chief strategy officer and an investor says it's looking to raise $250 million in new funding Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: How waste is dealt with on the world's largest cruise ship
From building a brand identity to generating ROI based leads and running effective social media campaigns, we are a leading digital marketing agency with a stellar reputation for creating trusted brands that stand out from the rest.Brand awareness is mainly about generating organic results by targeting potential customers that are more likely to convert into leads and help your business thrive.Great content loaded with keywords and optimised with proper SEO tactics is a great strategy to make your website successful.SEO not just helps you rank your website higher but also attracts the right audience and eventually converts them to sales.Facebook currently the #1 social media platform with over 2.45 billion monthly active users followed by YouTube (2 billion), Instagram (1 billion), Twitter (330 million), and LinkedIn (260 million).Posting amusing, heart-warming, and unique content on these platforms can easily get your more shares, clicks, and conversions.
Many people in the tech industry are choosing to move to Canada over the US because of the US' restrictive immigration laws. Since 2013, Toronto has added more tech jobs than any other place in North America, including Silicon Valley. 25% of Canada's overall workforce are immigrants, and in the tech space that number is even higher — 40%. View more episodes of Business Insider Today on Facebook. Silicon Valley's reputation as the world's leading tech hub could be in jeopardy because of the United States' restrictive immigration laws. Tens of thousands of immigrant tech workers have flocked to Toronto in the past few years, making it the fastest growing tech hub in North America. Many of them are deliberately avoiding the US as the Trump administration clamps down on immigration. In June, President Donald Trump temporarily suspended visas known as H-1B visas, which are awarded to thousands of skilled immigrant workers each year. The visa suspension is prompting some immigrants, like former Silicon Valley product manager Asim Fayaz, to move north to Canada.  "There is a whole world out there, and you are probably better off going somewhere else because you'd be treated more human," said Fayaz, a Pakistani immigrant who now runs an online restaurant business in Toronto. "You don't need to be, like, pleading for your existence all the time." Every year, the US government reserves 85,000 H-1B visas for skilled foreign professionals — people like Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa and started companies such as Tesla and SpaceX in the US. Fayaz came to the US to attend the University of California, and landed a job after graduating with a master's degree in 2016. As an immigrant, trying to find work in the US was tough — he needed an American employer to not just hire him, but also sponsor his H-1B work visa. This year, immigration laws suddenly changed as Trump suspended the program, citing "an unusual threat to the employment of American workers" during the coronavirus pandemic. The move left thousands in limbo. But while the US is closing doors, Canada has been rolling out the welcome mat. Since 2013, the number of tech jobs in Toronto has skyrocketed from about 148,000 to 228,000, an increase of 54%. "We have over 100,000 people immigrate to the Toronto region each year, which is twice as many as San Francisco Bay Area," Jason Goldlist, cofounder of TechToronto, said. And we don't just attract the quantity. It's also quality because a fifth of these immigrants already have a STEM degree before they even arrive here. Canadian e-commerce giant Shopify is trying to capitalize on the opportunity. Following Trump's announcement, CEO Tobias Lutke — himself an immigrant from Germany — tweeted, "If this affects your plans consider coming to Canada instead." Sandeep Anand, the company's senior mobility lead, echoed Lutke's call for talent: "Whether they're already in Canada, whether they're globally present, we're looking to really expand our diverse workforce. And in some cases it does mean that we would need to relocate and provide immigration support, which we're happy to do," she told Business Insider Today. According to a 2016 study, 25% of Canada's workforce are immigrants. And in the tech space, that number is even higher — 40%, or 350,000 workers. And there's still room for more, says Ilya Brotzky, the founder & CEO of VanHack, a Canadian firm that helps place global talent in tech jobs across North America. Brotzky cited Canada's 3% unemployment rate in the tech sector, well below its overall unemployment rate.  "It's not like there's a bunch of Canadians waiting to take these jobs," Brotzky said. "The unemployment rate is really, really low. We can't find the people." Brotzky argues it makes economic sense for US companies to open offices in Canada, as well. "You have these people that can basically work in the same time zone, quick flight from you, really easy laws, super fast to set up, and you have the benefit of Canadian dollar salaries," he told Business Insider Today. "But more importantly, you have access to the global talent pool. So you can bring in any developer from around the world that's good." That's why Canada is trying to attract highly skilled foreign professionals through visa programs like the Global Talent Stream, launched in 2017. Immigration experts say it is like the H-1B program, but a lot better.  "It's a very fast processing time. It takes anywhere from roughly around two weeks to complete the first stage. And then the second stage, which is the work permit stage. It takes another two weeks. So you could be in Canada as quickly as a month," Blayne Kumar, founder of the immigration services company Bright Immigration, said. For Fayaz, the decision to move from the US to Canada came after he was laid off from his Silicon Valley company, when he and his wife became fed up with constantly worrying about their legal status. "It's not even like in 10 years, I will get it," he said. "It's like maybe, maybe not. Who knows, who cares. We don't need you in this country." And the recent suspension of the H-1B visa program only confirmed his worst fears. "You know that scene in movies where the actor is leaving the scene and the world is blowing up behind you, right? I feel like that — that I kind of managed to exit the scene somehow, magically," he said. "And I look back and the US is just blowing up." "So many of my friends, people that I worked with, went to school with, they're all impacted. And whenever I get a phone call, I just feel so sorry for all those people."SEE ALSO: Canada is way ahead in sRemote work could accelerate the tech industry's migration to Canada, where affordable costs of living and more open immigration policies are helping create tech hubs to rival Silicon Valleycooping up tech talent from the US DON'T MISS: Scientists and entrepreneurs are pioneering plastic alternatives with the goal of creating materials that can be recycled over and over Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Why thoroughbred horse semen is the world's most expensive liquid
Illustration by James Bareham / The Verge The surge in Facebook usage during early shelter-in-place orders in the United States was not just a blip. Daily users of Facebook increased 12 percent year over year, to 1.79 billion. Monthly usage across its family of apps, which also include Instagram and WhatsApp, rose 14 percent, to 3.14 billion. And Facebook’s mostly ad-based based business rose along with them: the company’s revenue was up 11 percent year over year, to $18.69 billion. “We’re glad to be able to provide small businesses the tools they need to grow and be successful online during these challenging times,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement. “And we’re proud that people can rely on our services to stay connected when they can’t always be together in... Continue reading…
Ford reported second-quarter earnings and beat Wall Street estimates. Ford lost $0.35 per share on an adjusted basis, with revenue of $19.4 billion. In after-hours trading, Ford stock moved higher on the news, up 3.5% to $7. Ford CFO Tim Stone also said that Ford has 150,000 reservations for its new Bronco SUV. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Ford reported second-quarter earnings after the markets closed on Thursday, and carmaker beat estimates. Ford lost $0.35 per share on an adjusted basis, with revenue of $19.4 billion. Analysts expected a loss of $1.30 per share, on revenue of $14.36 billion, according to Zacks. Ford had previously said that it expected to absorb an operating loss of $5 billion for the quarter. Shares moved higher one the news in after-hours trading, up 3.5% to $7. On a call with the media after results were announced, CFO Tim Stone said that Ford has racked up 150,000 reservations, and $100 each, for its new Bronco SUV, revealed earlier this month. CEO Jim Hackett later said on a call with analysts that Ford was hiring 2-3,000 new workers to build the Bronco in Michigan (one model will be assemble in Mexico). And COO Jim Farley indicated the Ford would add capacity for the vehicle as needed, with the current manufacturing requiring two shifts, rather than a full three. Stone also said that for expected to return to profitability in the third quarter. After warning that Ford could post a $5-billion operational loss, he said that the much better results could be attributed to "strong operational execution by the team." He also noted that Ford had already paid down $7.7 billion in borrowing on its credit lines from earlier in 2020, and that the company's balance sheet is well-fortified to make it through the year, with $39 billion in cash.  FOLLOW US: On Facebook for more car and transportation content! Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: How the Ford GT was aerodynamically designed
Welcome to TNW Basics, a collection of tips, guides, and advice on how to easily get the most out of your gadgets, apps, and other stuff. If you’re a writer, blogger, or any other kind of online content creator, you can’t get around it: numbers. You simply can’t hold yourself back from wanting to know how many people consumed your creation, be it pageviews or video views. But there’s another type of number, perhaps even more addictive, which is being formed independent from the publishing platform. It’s the chatter around your content, taking place on social media like Facebook, Twitter,… This story continues at The Next Web
Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, and Facebook all reported their second-quarter earnings on Thursday. These four, along with Microsoft, are the five most-valuable publicly traded companies on the S&P 500. These earnings reports come one day after the CEOs of Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, and Facebook testified before the House Judiciary's antitrust subcommittee over possible anticompetitive behavior. All four tech companies reported better-than-expected earnings. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Facebook Facebook beat Wall Street estimates for daily active users and reported double-digit revenue growth year-over-year, sending its stock soaring 8% in after-hours trading. Here are the key numbers, as well as Wall Street estimates, via Bloomberg: Revenue: $18.69 billion, up 11% year-on-year ($17.31 billion expected) Earnings Per Share (EPS) GAAP: $1.80 ($1.39 expected) Daily Active Facebook Users: 1.79 billion, up 12% year-on-year (1.74 billion expected) Monthly Active Facebook Users: 2.7 billion, up 12% year-on-year (2.63 billion expected) —Rob Price Amazon Amazon blew past Wall Street estimates, with $88.9 billion in sales last quarter, but fell short on growth with Amazon Web Services. Amazon stock was up by as much as 6% in after-hours trading. EPS (GAAP): $10.30 versus expectations of $1.50 per share Revenue: $88.9 billion versus expectations of $81.24 billion AWS: $10.81 billion versus expectations of $11.01 billion —Eugene Kim Apple Apple exceeded Wall Street estimates for its fiscal third quarter. Apple's stock was up 5% and passed $400 per share for the first time in after-hours trading. Q3 revenue: $59.7 billion. Analysts were expecting $52.3 billion. In the same quarter one year ago, Apple posted revenue of $53.8 billion. Q3 earnings per share (GAAP): $2.58. Analysts were looking for $2.07. In its third-quarter of 2019, Apple earned $2.18 a share. iPhone revenue: $26.4 billion, up 1.7% from $25.9 billion in its fiscal third-quarter 2019. Services revenue: $13.1 billion. Apple's revenue segment generated $11.5 billion in the same period last year. Wearables revenue: $6.4 billion. Apple posted $5.5 billion in revenue for its wearables business in last year's third quarter. —Lisa Eadicicco Alphabet Google parent company Alphabet reported revenue of $31.6 billion minus traffic acquisition costs, a decline of roughly 2% year-over-year. This is the first time in its trading history that it reported an annual decline in revenue, first reported by CNBC. Still, it beat Wall Street estimates. Revenue: $31.6 billion (minus traffic acquisition costs), vs expectation of $30.5 billion. EPS (GAAP): $10.13, vs expectation of $8.27. Net Income: $6.96 billion. Google Cloud revenue: $3.01 billion. YouTube ad revenue: $3.81 billion. —Hugh LangleySEE ALSO: Newly released Steve Jobs emails, included in Congress' antitrust investigation, show how ruthless the Apple founder could be Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: A cleaning expert reveals her 3-step method for cleaning your entire home quickly
While there are many close friendships among tech CEOs in Silicon Valley, there are plenty of feuds, too.  Some appear to be friendly rivalries — like Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff and Oracle CEO Larry Ellison — but others have become more contentious.  Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg, for example, have been openly feuding for years, while Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have made digs at each other over outer space.  Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Silicon Valley is a breeding ground for rivalries.  In a place where world-changing ideas are born and billions of dollars are at stake, it's only natural that rivalries develop between Silicon Valley's power players, ranging from friendly sparring to pointed critiques.  While some feuds, like the one between Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff and Oracle founder Larry Ellison, appear to be born out of a close friendship and mutual respect, others — like the one between Mark Zuckerberg and Evan Spiegel — started over a spurned acquisition offer.  Here are some of the long-standing feuds, friendly or otherwise, between some of the world's most powerful execs.SEE ALSO: Billionaire tech mogul Larry Ellison has said he's 'close friends' with Elon Musk. Here are six other tech exec friendships that have thrived in the competitive world of Silicon Valley. Elon Musk and Bill Gates Elon Musk and Bill Gates don't appear to have a warm relationship, at least if their comments about each other over the last six months are any indication.  Things heated up in February when Gates said during an interview with YouTuber Marques Brownlee that while Tesla has helped drive innovation and adoption of electric vehicles, he didn't buy a Tesla when making a recent vehicle purchase — he bought a Porsche Taycan.  In response, Musk tweeted that his conversations with Gates have always been "underwhelming."  Then, in July, Gates said in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" that Musk's comments about COVID-19 are "outrageous," as Musk has frequently downplayed the severity of the virus and questioned how the US has handled its coronavirus response.  "Elon's positioning is to maintain a high level of outrageous comments," Gates said. "He's not much involved in vaccines. He makes a great electric car. And his rockets work well. So he's allowed to say these things. I hope that he doesn't confuse areas he's not involved in too much." Musk took to Twitter a few days later to taunt Gates, tweeting, "Billy G is not my lover" and "The rumor that Bill Gates & I are lovers is completely untrue." Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk aren't competitors in any earthly pursuits, but they're bitter rivals when it comes to outer space.  Bezos founded his rocket company, Blue Origin, in 2000, while Musk founded SpaceX in 2002. Two years later, the pair met for dinner, and even then, things were getting testy. "I actually did my best to give good advice, which he largely ignored," Musk said after the meeting. In 2013, their rivalry heated up when SpaceX tried to get exclusive use of a NASA launch pad and Blue Origin (along with SpaceX rival United Launch Alliance) filed a formal protest with the government. Musk called it a "phony blocking tactic" and SpaceX eventually won the right to take over the pad. Months later, the two companies got into a patent battle, and soon after, Bezos and Musk took their feud public, trading barbs on Twitter. Once, when the BBC asked Musk about Bezos, he responded, "Jeff who?" For his part, Bezos has frequently criticized the idea of colonizing Mars — a main goal of SpaceX — describing the idea as "un-motivating." In May 2019, Musk jabbed at Bezos again, calling him a copycat for Amazon's plan to launch internet-beaming satellites. And last week, Musk repeated the claim, tweeting that Bezos is a copycat after Amazon acquired self-driving-taxi company Zoox for a reported $1.2 billion.  In July 2020, Musk made yet another dig at Bezos' space ambitions. In an interview with The New York Times' Maureen Dowd, took the opportunity to comment on Blue Origin, appearing to imply that Jeff Bezos is too old and Blue Origin too slow to ever make real progress.   "The rate of progress is too slow and the amount of years he has left is not enough, but I'm still glad he's doing what he's doing with Blue Origin," Musk said.  Kevin Systrom and Jack Dorsey Instagram founder Kevin Systrom and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey started out as close friends, but had a falling out around the time Instagram sold to Facebook.   According to the book "No Filter: The Inside Story of Instagram" by Sarah Frier, the pair met when they were early employees at Odeo, the audio and video site created by eventual Twitter cofounders Ev Williams and Noah Glass. Dorsey expected to dislike Systrom when he joined as a summer intern in the mid-2000s, but the pair ended up bonding over photography and expensive coffee.  Systrom and Dorsey stayed in touch even after Systrom got a full-time job at Google. Systrom was an early proponent of Twitter (then known as Twttr) and when he started working on Burbn, the precursor to Instagram, he reached out to Dorsey for guidance. Dorsey ended up becoming an early investor, putting in $25,000. When Burbn pivoted to Instagram, Dorsey became one of the app's biggest fans, cross-posting his Instagrams to Twitter and helping the app go viral soon after it launched. Dorsey eventually attempted to buy Instagram, but Systrom declined, saying he wanted to make Instagram too expensive to be acquired, according to Frier.  The Dorsey-Systrom relationship appeared to have soured in 2012, when Dorsey found out that Instagram had signed a deal to be acquired by Facebook, Twitter's biggest rival. According to Frier, Dorsey was hurt that Systrom hadn't called him first to discuss the deal, or to negotiate one with Twitter instead. Dorsey hasn't posted to his Instagram account since April 9, 2012, when he snapped a photo of an unusually empty San Francisco city bus — according to Frier, it was taken the morning he found out Instagram had sold. While Systrom had been quiet on Twitter for the last few years, he's recently begun using the platform again, and the pair even recently had a pleasant tweet exchange. Marc Benioff and Larry Ellison Oracle founder Larry Ellison and Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff met when Benioff began working at Oracle when he was 23. He was a star early on, earning a "rookie of the year" award that same year and becoming Oracle's youngest VP by age 26. He spent 13 years at Oracle, during which he became a trusted lieutenant to Ellison.  Benioff began working on Salesforce with Ellison's blessing, and Ellison became an investor, putting in $2 million early on.  But since then, the duo has publicly feuded on multiple occasions. In 2000, Oracle launched software that directly competed with Salesforce. Benioff asked Ellison to resign from Salesforce's board, and Ellison refused (he eventually left the board, but Benioff let him keep his stock and options). Over the years, Benioff and Ellison have sparred off and on: Ellison once mocked Salesforce, calling it an "itty bitty application" that's dependent on Oracle, while Benioff has called Oracle a "false cloud." And in 2011, Ellison ordered that Benioff be removed from the speaker lineup of Oracle's OpenWorld conference, which Benioff said was because Oracle was afraid he'd give a better speech.  But throughout it all, Benioff has described Ellison as his mentor. "There is no one I've learned more from than Larry Ellison," Benioff said in 2013. Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg There is no love lost between Apple CEO Tim Cook and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The two moguls have traded insults over the years, beginning as early as 2014, when Cook said in an interview that "when an online service is free, you're not the customer. You're the product." Shortly after, Zuckerberg appeared noticeably tense in an interview with Time when the subject of Cook's comments came up, saying, "'What, you think because you're paying Apple that you're somehow in alignment with them? If you were in alignment with them, then they'd make their products a lot cheaper!'" But the tension between Cook and Zuckerberg came to a head in the aftermath of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which private Facebook user data was stolen from 50 million users. In 2018, Recode's Kara Swisher asked Cook what he would do if he was in Zuckerberg's shoes, to which he responded: "What would I do? I wouldn't be in this situation." Zuckerberg was reportedly so incensed by Cook's comments that he asked executives to switch to Android phones. In a company blog post in 2018, Facebook confirmed the feud between the two execs: "Tim Cook has consistently criticized our business model and Mark has been equally clear he disagrees." Steve Jobs and Bill Gates In the early days of Apple and Microsoft, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates got along — Microsoft made software for the Apple II computer, and Gates was a frequent guest in Cupertino, where Apple is headquartered.  But the tides started to turn in the early '80s, when Jobs flew up to Microsoft's headquarters in Washington to try to convince Gates to make software for the Macintosh computer. Gates later described it as "a weird seduction visit" and said he felt like Jobs was saying "I don't need you, but I might let you be involved." Still, they remained relatively friendly until 1985, when Microsoft launched the first version of Windows and Jobs accused him of ripping off the Macintosh.  "They just ripped us off completely, because Gates has no shame," Jobs later told his biographer, Walter Isaacson, to which Gates replied: "If he believes that, he really has entered into one of his own reality distortion fields." The duo traded barbs for years, with Jobs calling Gates boring and Gates calling Jobs "weirdly flawed as a human being." Tensions remained high even after Microsoft invested in Apple to keep it afloat, with both Gates and Jobs insulting each other and their companies' products time and time again.  Still, they clearly respected and admired each other, despite their animosity. When Jobs died in 2011, Gates said: "I respect Steve, we got to work together. We spurred each other on, even as competitors. None of [what he said] bothers me at all." Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Zuckerberg have never seemed particularly chummy, but the rivalry between the two execs seems to have grown worse in the last few years.  Facebook has come under fire during the last several months over its decision not to fact-check political ads. In response, Dorsey announced last October that Twitter was suspending political advertising altogether, saying "political message reach should be earned, not bought." Dorsey also said at an event that month that Zuckerberg's argument that Facebook is an advocate for free speech "a major gap and flaw in the substance he was getting across," and that "there's some amount of revisionist history in all his storytelling." For his part, Zuckerberg hasn't been shy about criticizing Twitter, saying in an all hands that "Twitter can't do as good of a job as we can," according to leaked audio obtained by The Verge. In December, Dorsey unfollowed Zuckerberg on Twitter.  Larry Ellison and Bill Gates Gates and Ellison may have patched things up these days, but back in the late '90s and early 2000s, they were enemies.  While it seems like there's no real bad blood currently between the two, there definitely appears to have been a touchy relationship between the them throughout the '90s, mostly defined by Ellison trying to outdo Gates.  "He's utterly obsessed with trying to beat Bill Gates," former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold once told Vanity Fair. "I mean, the guy's got six billion bucks. You'd think he wouldn't be so dramatically obsessed that one guy in the Northwest is more successful. [With Larry] it's just a mania." Their animosity partly stemmed from Ellison's close friendship with Steve Jobs, a frequent opponent of Gates. But things took a more serious turn in 2000 when Microsoft was being investigated by the federal government over antitrust violations. At the time, several groups were openly supportive of Microsoft, and Ellison suspected they were being funded by Microsoft itself. He hired private investigators to in an attempt to out Microsoft and help out the feds.  Eventually, Microsoft lost the suit, and Gates stepped down as Microsoft CEO.  Evan Spiegel and Mark Zuckerberg Snap CEO Evan Spiegel and Mark Zuckerberg seemed to get off on the wrong foot right from the start, beginning with what may have been a Spiegel brush-off in 2012.  Snap had reportedly turned down an acquisition offer from Facebook on three separate occasions.  Spiegel and Zuckerberg haven't been friendly since. Facebook has mimicked many of Snapchat's features over the years — both on its own app and its subsidiary, Instagram — and the CEOs have made jabs at each other in public. In 2018, after Facebook cloned yet another Snapchat feature, Stories, Spiegel said: "We would really appreciate it if they copied our data protection practices also," a dig at Facebook's various privacy scandals. Steve Jobs and Michael Dell In 1997, Dell founder and CEO Michael Dell was asked for his opinion on Apple, which, at the time, was in dire straits. He responded that he'd "shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." That comment irritated Steve Jobs, who told his team in response: "The world doesn't need another Dell or HP. It doesn't need another manufacturer of plain, beige, boring PCs. If that's all we're going to do, then we should really pack up now." At an Apple keynote shortly after, Jobs said Dell's comments were "rude" and told him that Apple was coming for him.  Dell later softened his comments, saying that he was trying to make clear that he wasn't for hire.  But Dell rankled Jobs enough that, in January 2006, Jobs sent around this memo to the entire company: "Team, it turned out that Michael Dell wasn't perfect at predicting the future. Based on today's stock market close, Apple is worth more than Dell. Stocks go up and down, and things may be different tomorrow, but I thought it was worth a moment of reflection today." Mark Zuckerberg and Kevin Systrom Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram founder Kevin Systrom used to get along well — so well that Zuckerberg bought Instagram for $1 billion in 2012. But in the intervening years, the relationship between the two executives seemingly fell apart. When asked why he left, Systrom said, "no one ever leaves a job because everything's awesome." According to an April 2019 piece from Wired's Nick Thompson and Fred Vogelstein, Systrom and cofounder Mike Krieger left because of increasing tensions with Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg reportedly became increasingly controlling, banning Systrom from doing magazine profiles without approval, taking away Facebook tools that helped Instagram grow, testing location-tracking while Systrom was out on paternity leave, and adding a new button to Instagram that Systrom detested. 
The social network adds a handful of new features to its site to make it easier for people with disabilities to navigate.
The chief execs of Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Alphabet (FAAA) took turns defending their business practices during an antitrust hearing in Congress on Wednesday. Each CEO faced scrutiny over slightly different matters, but they generally projected the same idea: their successes are simply the result of their own ingenuity, and not due any monopolistic power-plays despite the mounting evidence. “The retail market we participate in is extraordinarily large and competitive,” said Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, according to the Wall Street Journal. Bezos, by far the world’s richest person, broke records earlier this month when his fortune grew by $13 billion in… This story continues at The Next Web
More

Top