Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: And how the tech are you. It's time for the
Speaker 1: tech news for Tuesday, August nine, twenty two. First up
Speaker 1: earlier today, late yesterday, depending on where you were. Google
Speaker 1: had a bit of a hiccup as services became unavailable
Speaker 1: briefly around the world. Apparently a software update did not
Speaker 1: go as bland and took Google offline, and that prompted
Speaker 1: a lot of buzz online. The company restored services pretty quickly,
Speaker 1: but you know, the outage was enough to launch a
Speaker 1: billion jokes about how you're supposed to Google, why Google
Speaker 1: is down? If Google is down, and I'm sure for
Speaker 1: people who go to Google to type out, you know,
Speaker 1: the full U r L for a website inside the
Speaker 1: search field, that was quite distressing. Now jokes aside the
Speaker 1: outage as brief as it was, actually served as another
Speaker 1: reminder of how intrinsic Google has become to the web
Speaker 1: experience for many of us out there. And that's kind
Speaker 1: of another way of saying that maybe we should be
Speaker 1: really careful when we're putting our eggs in various baskets.
Speaker 1: We might have put way too many in Google's might
Speaker 1: have is that's that's too weak. We have put too
Speaker 1: many eggs in Google's baskets. See also Meta but also
Speaker 1: in Google news, the company is in a patent dispute
Speaker 1: battle with the speaker company so Nos. Now, these patent
Speaker 1: lawsuits are pretty common in the tech industry. I recently
Speaker 1: talked about how Apple and Ericsson are in a global
Speaker 1: struggle over patent um and that's a five G patent
Speaker 1: in that case, and the two companies are trying to
Speaker 1: hash out a licensing agreement. You know, Apple doesn't want
Speaker 1: to pay so much and Ericson wants them to pay more.
Speaker 1: So that's going on. Well in this case with Google
Speaker 1: and with so Nos, Google is saying that so Nos
Speaker 1: has violated seven patents relating to Google's smart speaker technology
Speaker 1: or smart assistant technology. At the heart of the matter
Speaker 1: is so Nos launching its own voice activated smart assistant.
Speaker 1: You see, Google worked with so nos on smart speakers
Speaker 1: to incorporate the Google Assistant feature in the so nos products.
Speaker 1: And I have to be careful how I say this stuff,
Speaker 1: because I actually have one of those speakers in this room,
Speaker 1: and if I say one of the activation phrases, then
Speaker 1: it'll start talking to me. Anyway, Google is essentially saying,
Speaker 1: we worked hard to incorporate our smart assistant with your products,
Speaker 1: and you paid very close attention to that, and then
Speaker 1: you copied our work to launch your own competing smart
Speaker 1: assistant product, and since we hold patents on that technology,
Speaker 1: we're going to sue you. Now, if for some reason
Speaker 1: you've been paying really close attention to patent disputes in
Speaker 1: tech for a couple of years, you might actually remember
Speaker 1: that in twenty twenty, we saw kind of the flip
Speaker 1: of this. So NOS sued Google for a similar reason.
Speaker 1: So NOS was saying that Google had copied so Nose
Speaker 1: technology when Google was developing its own line of smart speakers. Oh,
Speaker 1: how the turns have tabled. Google lost that court case
Speaker 1: and had to change the design of its speakers in
Speaker 1: order to avoid facing potential bands around the world or else,
Speaker 1: you know, licensed the technology from so NOS. A SONOS
Speaker 1: rep by the way, has remained somewhat defiant in the
Speaker 1: face of this new lawsuit from Google, saying that SONS
Speaker 1: has prevailed in every court case so far but that's
Speaker 1: largely referring to the cases where so Nose had sued Google.
Speaker 1: In this case, Google is suing so nos So. The
Speaker 1: shoes you see are on other feet now, so we'll
Speaker 1: have to see how this plays out. Also, I knew
Speaker 1: this is serious business and we're talking about millions or
Speaker 1: billions of dollars at play here, but I can't help
Speaker 1: but get the feeling that these these enormous corporations are
Speaker 1: essentially angry toddlers on a playground squabbling with one another
Speaker 1: when we cover these kinds of stories. In India, the
Speaker 1: government has suspended mobile internet service in two regions. Manipur,
Speaker 1: which is in the northeast of India borders Myanmar, was
Speaker 1: scheduled to have internet service shut down for five days.
Speaker 1: The government was doing that because of expectation of quote,
Speaker 1: tribal protests end quote. The other region where we've seen
Speaker 1: internet service interrupted is Kashmir, which is in the north
Speaker 1: of India, very far away from Manipur. Kashmir borders Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: and China. Kashmir is also home to a population of
Speaker 1: of Muslims, Kashmiri Muslims. Now that's relevant because of the
Speaker 1: observation of Maharam, which is and by the way, my
Speaker 1: apologies for my pronunciation. I'm sure I'm butchering it, but
Speaker 1: that is a time of warning, and the suspension of
Speaker 1: the Internet service coincides with a Muslim holy observation, which
Speaker 1: seems significant to me. Digital rights and human rights groups
Speaker 1: have long protested the Indian government's practice of shutting down communications.
Speaker 1: The government defends these decisions. The government says that this
Speaker 1: is a measure they take in order to ensure public order,
Speaker 1: uh to to quiet unrest in other words, But the
Speaker 1: rights groups point out that these kinds of moves cut
Speaker 1: off entire populations from the rest of the world. And
Speaker 1: it's certainly the case that India is very quick to
Speaker 1: jump on the let's shut it all down course of action.
Speaker 1: And we've also seen the Indian government laid down a
Speaker 1: lot of pressure on companies to do stuff like crack
Speaker 1: down on the population's ability to communicate during times of unrest,
Speaker 1: while simultaneously allowing government officials unfettered access to platforms, even
Speaker 1: if those officials are actively spreading this information. So yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a complicated matter. Last week, Amazon announced its
Speaker 1: intention to purchase another company and this one has privacy
Speaker 1: advocates very much concerned. The company would be I Robot.
Speaker 1: That's the company that brought us the roomba. You know,
Speaker 1: the robot that sucks. I mean it's it's a robot vacuum. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the deal is valued at one point seven billion dollars.
Speaker 1: And you might wonder why privacy advocates are worried in
Speaker 1: the first place. Well, it's because the roomba, in an
Speaker 1: effort to do the best vacuum job, it can effectively
Speaker 1: maps out your home as it moves around. It figures
Speaker 1: out where the doors are, where the furniture is, where
Speaker 1: the walls are, all that kind of stuff. So, in
Speaker 1: other words, Amazon already wants to hear what you have
Speaker 1: to say by giving you or convincing you to buy
Speaker 1: their smart speakers. They want to know what you're watching
Speaker 1: using like an Amazon Fire device or Amazon Prime Video.
Speaker 1: And now they want to know where you put the
Speaker 1: ottoman in your living room by using your room but
Speaker 1: to spy on you, he got a guy on the inside.
Speaker 1: Now what would Amazon do with this kind of information. Well,
Speaker 1: Amazon is constantly making new products that are meant to
Speaker 1: interact on a smart level. And if the company knows
Speaker 1: how you've laid out your house, it can market more
Speaker 1: effectively to you, or sell that information to a third
Speaker 1: party that's interested in it. It can suggest stuff for
Speaker 1: you to upgrade your home, and in turn will gather
Speaker 1: even more data for Amazon. And it starts to look dystopian,
Speaker 1: pritty darn quickly. Now, I should add the Amazon has
Speaker 1: simply announced the intention to acquire Robot. The process still
Speaker 1: has to go through regulatory approval, and there's some expectation
Speaker 1: that the United States Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, is
Speaker 1: going to push back against this planned deal. The FDC
Speaker 1: has recently taken a more aggressive stance against big tech acquisitions. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know. Recently, the FTC indicated its opposing Meta's planned
Speaker 1: purchase of the company Supernatural, which makes fitness games for
Speaker 1: virtual reality setups. So geeg Wire quotes a lawyer named
Speaker 1: Ethan Glass who says he figures there's a chance that
Speaker 1: the FTC will conduct a quote unquote deep investigation of
Speaker 1: the deal and a twenty five percent chance that the
Speaker 1: FTC will challenge the acquisition outright. As it stands, Amazon
Speaker 1: hopes to have this deal complete by August four, three
Speaker 1: at the latest and has committed to paying I Robot
Speaker 1: more than ninety million dollars if regulators deny the acquisition.
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal has an article pointing out that
Speaker 1: an antitrust bill that's been taking shape in Congress is
Speaker 1: in danger of being abandoned. All right, So Congress is
Speaker 1: about to go into recess. So it's kind of like
Speaker 1: when you went to recess in elementary school, except instead
Speaker 1: of running outside to go play on the swings, Congress
Speaker 1: ambles outside and accepts numerous, numerous and enormous contra usitions
Speaker 1: from lobbying groups. Pardon my cynicism, but it's been a
Speaker 1: bad year anyway. It seems pretty clear that Congress will
Speaker 1: not speed up work on the antitrust bill before recessing.
Speaker 1: They are not going to hold a vote, and then
Speaker 1: Congress will reconvene later the in the fall. But there's
Speaker 1: a limited number of days left for Congress to be
Speaker 1: in session. So there's this narrowing window of opportunity to
Speaker 1: get the antitrust bill in motion before it's kind of
Speaker 1: dead in the water. Now. The reason I'm even talking
Speaker 1: about antitrust bill on this show is that if passed,
Speaker 1: it would have massive consequences in the tech industry, particularly
Speaker 1: for the biggest companies in that industry. Uh. This is
Speaker 1: the law that would prevent tech companies from giving their
Speaker 1: own products and services preferential treatment over competitors. That would
Speaker 1: force Amazon to make some pretty big changes because the
Speaker 1: company has frequently been accused of promoting its own products
Speaker 1: over others in search results. Big tech companies have been
Speaker 1: spending millions of dollar is on ads trashing this bill,
Speaker 1: and so far the Senate has failed to schedule a
Speaker 1: vote on the matter, despite claims that there is bipartisan
Speaker 1: support for the measure. The tech companies have a list
Speaker 1: of warnings for anyone who supports the measure, claiming it
Speaker 1: will put the economy and danger, it will open up
Speaker 1: security vulnerabilities, and much more. Many analysts say that these
Speaker 1: warnings are at best weak arguments and at worst outright misinformation,
Speaker 1: but the bill supporters have felt the need to respond
Speaker 1: to those arguments in an effort to just keep the
Speaker 1: whole thing alive. Personally, I hope this does get scheduled
Speaker 1: for the fall session and that we do see a vote,
Speaker 1: but I'm not betting on it. Well, there's been a
Speaker 1: growing awareness to the influence of big companies in general
Speaker 1: and big tech companies in particular, it could be really
Speaker 1: hard to reverse all the momentum that's built up over
Speaker 1: the years. We've got more news stories to cover, but first,
Speaker 1: let's take this quick break. Last Friday, Meta introduced the
Speaker 1: Blender Bought three chat bought and asked users to have
Speaker 1: conversations with it. Now. The idea is that through conversations,
Speaker 1: Blender Bought three will learn how to interact with people
Speaker 1: more naturally and would be able to employ, or at
Speaker 1: least appear to employ, stuff like empathy and understanding. And
Speaker 1: it will also very quickly start claiming that Trump is
Speaker 1: still president of the United States and also make anti
Speaker 1: Semitic remarks and promote conspiracy theories because we can't have
Speaker 1: nice things. So within forty eight hours of it being
Speaker 1: unleashed upon Facebook users, the bot began saying stuff like
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg is not to be trusted and that he's creepy. Okay,
Speaker 1: so not everything it's said is wrong, uh so, but
Speaker 1: it's kind of funny that Meta's own butt is saying
Speaker 1: things that are very critical of Meta slash Facebook slash
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg. Journalists tested the chat bought, and they found
Speaker 1: that if they asked about Joe Biden, sometimes they were
Speaker 1: informed that Biden is a former vice president and that
Speaker 1: he ran for office in for president in but that
Speaker 1: he ultimately lost. Sometimes how about that? Huh? Now. When
Speaker 1: Meta first announced the bot last week, a representative claimed
Speaker 1: that the team behind the bot had quote conducted large
Speaker 1: scale studies, co organized workshops, and developed new techniques to
Speaker 1: create safeguards end quote. But it's really a different kettle
Speaker 1: of fish when the chat bot actually goes live. And
Speaker 1: I have some sympathy for that team, because creating a
Speaker 1: tool that's designed to learn as the tool is being used,
Speaker 1: brings along with it major risks. Even folks who don't
Speaker 1: actually believe conspiracy theories might mess with a bot just
Speaker 1: for funzies. You know, there's a type of juvenile glee
Speaker 1: that comes along with being sassy to a robot. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a butt, but it doesn't have feelings, right, You
Speaker 1: can't hurt its feelings, So you can act like a
Speaker 1: jerk to this butt, and there are no consequences, right, Like,
Speaker 1: you're not actually hurting anyone, so you're not gonna feel
Speaker 1: guilty about it or shame about what you've done, except
Speaker 1: that the body is learning and that these interactions will
Speaker 1: go on to inform future interactions. And that's where things
Speaker 1: can get really nasty really quickly. And I'm not sure
Speaker 1: what the solution is here, unless it's just to create
Speaker 1: bots that are not capable of learning through interactions, because
Speaker 1: there are always going to be people, some of them
Speaker 1: obviously horrible and some of them not, who will corrupt
Speaker 1: that kind of a thing, maybe out of mischief, maybe
Speaker 1: out of malice. Here's the thing, doesn't really matter what
Speaker 1: the motivation was, because the end result is similar in
Speaker 1: any case. So yeah, funny, funny ha ha. But it
Speaker 1: also it really points out how kind of nasty we
Speaker 1: all are online, or at least how nasty we can be.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, so on the service level, funny as you
Speaker 1: dig down ugly. Microsoft has issued a warning that Windows
Speaker 1: machines that have the latest supported processors could be susceptible
Speaker 1: to data damage. This warning applies to machines running Windows
Speaker 1: eleven or Windows Server twenty twenty two, and again affects
Speaker 1: those that are running on the latest processors, and the
Speaker 1: data damage in this case is a risk of data loss. Now,
Speaker 1: this whole thing gets super technical. So I suggest for
Speaker 1: those of you who have these kinds of machines, or
Speaker 1: perhaps oversee i T operations in a big organization, to
Speaker 1: look into it further. Microsoft is urging users to install
Speaker 1: a Windows eleven or Windows Server twenty twenty two preview
Speaker 1: update which was released on June twenty three, or a
Speaker 1: security update that was released on July twelve, in order
Speaker 1: to work around this problem. Here in the United States,
Speaker 1: the Senate recently voted in favor of the Reduction Act
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty two, which now goes to the House
Speaker 1: for a vote before it would then go to the
Speaker 1: President to be signed into law. The Act contains a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff meant to tackle inflation, but also other
Speaker 1: issues like climate change. To that end, one element in
Speaker 1: the bill allows for a tax credit for the purchase
Speaker 1: of new electric vehicles, but there are some parameters and
Speaker 1: restrictions involved, and as ours Technical points out, one of
Speaker 1: those restrictions might actually mean that no one will be
Speaker 1: able to take advantage of that tax credit for a while.
Speaker 1: See the credit has some usual stuff in it, like
Speaker 1: there's a limit on the price tag for new vehicles
Speaker 1: that are eligible for this tax cut or this tax credit.
Speaker 1: I guess I should say, so if an electric vehicle
Speaker 1: sedan cost dollars or less, then that would qualify. But
Speaker 1: if let's say you're out there to buy an electric vehicle,
Speaker 1: but you want to buy the luxury one, that tax
Speaker 1: credit is not gonna apply because the price tag is
Speaker 1: going to be too high. They're gonna say like, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: you don't need the tax credit, you're buying a luxury vehicle.
Speaker 1: This is where people who are buying, you know, a
Speaker 1: a a sedan meant to get the family around that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. Beyond that, the bill says that the
Speaker 1: tax credit will only apply if the batteries in the
Speaker 1: electric vehicle were mostly made in North America. That includes
Speaker 1: a requirement that the materials that were extracted and processed
Speaker 1: to make the batteries were done so in North America
Speaker 1: or in a country that has a free trade agreement
Speaker 1: with the United States. So that's where the hurdle is.
Speaker 1: Right now, China serves as the world's source for stuff
Speaker 1: like lithium, so it's possible that every electric vehicle that
Speaker 1: is available in the United States this year will not
Speaker 1: meet the criteria necessary to qualify for that tax credit.
Speaker 1: Now on the other hand, the US government is pushing
Speaker 1: really hard to encourage more domestic production, and that's good
Speaker 1: for a lot of reasons. Places like China have horrendous
Speaker 1: human rights records, They have practiced mining and processing techniques
Speaker 1: that are caused massive environmental damage, and trade with China
Speaker 1: also represents a vulnerability in the event of a trade
Speaker 1: dispute like we saw with the trade war under President Trump.
Speaker 1: Moving production to the United States, where there are more
Speaker 1: strict protections in place, both for employees and the environment,
Speaker 1: has clear benefits. It's an increased cost, you know, economically,
Speaker 1: but in all other aspects it's kind of like a boost.
Speaker 1: It also improves national security because you're no longer dependent
Speaker 1: upon a foreign source for that material. But we are
Speaker 1: not there yet, like we are nowhere close to being
Speaker 1: able to produce stuff at scale. So citizens are going
Speaker 1: to potentially find it really frustrating that there's a law
Speaker 1: that theoretically would reward them for making the switch from
Speaker 1: internal combustion engine vehicles to electric ones, but technically they
Speaker 1: can't take advantage of it because of supply chain and
Speaker 1: production issues. Fun times. On the subject of electric vehicles,
Speaker 1: let's talk about Tesla for a second, the Department of
Speaker 1: Motor Vehicles in the state of California has a bone
Speaker 1: to pick with Tesla. The DMV says that Tesla has
Speaker 1: misrepresented features like autopilot and full self driving mode. The
Speaker 1: DMV is saying Tesla's systems, which are really under the
Speaker 1: category of automated driver assist features, come across in Tesla's
Speaker 1: you know wording as being more of a fully automated solution,
Speaker 1: and that the company has made what amounts to deceitful
Speaker 1: claims as to what the vehicles are actually capable of doing.
Speaker 1: The d MV has four complaints. Two of them are
Speaker 1: just the names autopilot and full self driving and those
Speaker 1: of you all who have been listening to my show
Speaker 1: for a while, No, I also take issue with those
Speaker 1: terms because I feel that they said an expectation that's
Speaker 1: unrealistic and in some cases incredibly dangerous. Elon Musk, by
Speaker 1: the way, has dismissed this sort of concern. He says,
Speaker 1: what's the idiot just takes a name for, you know,
Speaker 1: saying what it does, And I guess, like, okay, but
Speaker 1: you're marketing that, like that's the whole marketing push. You're
Speaker 1: you're you're trying to send a concept and a message
Speaker 1: to people. You can't have it both ways. I mean,
Speaker 1: I get the whole Shakespeare Watson, a name that arose
Speaker 1: by any other name would smell as sweet. I understand,
Speaker 1: But I don't know. If you have a system that's
Speaker 1: not really autopilot and you call it autopilot, I think
Speaker 1: I think there's a complaint there, But that's that's me,
Speaker 1: that's not a court. Maybe a court will find it differently. Anyway.
Speaker 1: The d m V has two other complaints, not just
Speaker 1: the names of these things, and those complaints have more
Speaker 1: to do with how Tesla markets it's full self driving
Speaker 1: capability feature. Like one of the two complaints is about
Speaker 1: how there's a statement on Tesla's website that a driver
Speaker 1: essentially has to quote get in and tell the car
Speaker 1: where to go end quote. The d m VS claim
Speaker 1: is that that's inaccurate and it further represents a deceptive
Speaker 1: practice under California law. Now, the DMV does acknowledge something
Speaker 1: that I have also pointed out in the past. If
Speaker 1: you bother to read Tesla's pages about these features. As
Speaker 1: you read, you will find disclaimers that these features are
Speaker 1: not fully autonomous systems, and that a driver's supervision is
Speaker 1: always necessary. That language is in there. However, the d
Speaker 1: m V says, the fact that Tesla includes those disclaimers
Speaker 1: doesn't erase these other statements that seem to be to
Speaker 1: the contrary. So instead, what the DMV is saying is
Speaker 1: that Tesla is just contradicting itself, which creates confusion and
Speaker 1: ultimately is a deceptive practice and potentially dangerous. So DMV
Speaker 1: is saying Tesla is trying to have its cake and
Speaker 1: eat it too, right, It's trying to use wording that
Speaker 1: in one way seems like really appealing marketing to customers
Speaker 1: and then also include a disclaim Ahimer that says no,
Speaker 1: but for reals, it's not what we just said. It
Speaker 1: was in an effort to avoid accountability in the event
Speaker 1: of something going wrong. We'll have to see how this develops. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've got a couple more stories in just a moment,
Speaker 1: but first let's take another quick break. Okay, we're gonna
Speaker 1: close out with just a couple of quick stories. One
Speaker 1: is to stick with vehicles again. The Automotive News reports
Speaker 1: that more than a hundred eight vehicles will be dropped
Speaker 1: from production schedules around the world due to the ongoing
Speaker 1: semiconductor chips shortage, and more than one hundred thousand of
Speaker 1: those will be cut from manufacturing facilities here in North America.
Speaker 1: We just don't have enough microchips to build modern cars,
Speaker 1: or at least as many as we had planned. Your
Speaker 1: typical modern vehicle can have a few thousand micro ups
Speaker 1: in it. I think the average is somewhere around three thousand,
Speaker 1: and they control everything from your entertainment system to fuel
Speaker 1: injection and beyond. While the computerization of vehicles has provided
Speaker 1: a lot of new functionality and safety features and really
Speaker 1: good stuff, the semiconductor shortage has highlighted just how dependent
Speaker 1: we have become on microchip technology. Auto Forecast Solutions says
Speaker 1: that already in North America, facilities have had to cut
Speaker 1: more than one million vehicles from production this year, So
Speaker 1: that one hundred thousand plus is for the rest of
Speaker 1: the year. So, I mean, you know, what's another hundred
Speaker 1: thousand if you've already had to cut a million. But yeah,
Speaker 1: this continues to be an enormous challenge for the automotive
Speaker 1: industry and for customers. As for when we will actually
Speaker 1: emerge from this semiconductor shortage crisis. That is hard to say.
Speaker 1: There have been some analysts who thought that we would
Speaker 1: be out of it already, that we would be well
Speaker 1: pasted it. There's say that it will happen sometime next year. Uh,
Speaker 1: and there are quite a few that say they don't
Speaker 1: expect it to improve until or later. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: expect to see more shortages at dealerships and high prices
Speaker 1: for the limited supply of vehicles that are already out there. Um,
Speaker 1: I don't think we're gonna be able to see a
Speaker 1: sustainable market for used vehicles right now. You can occasionally
Speaker 1: find used vehicles marked at a price that's higher than
Speaker 1: they were when you drove them off the lot. That
Speaker 1: never happens. It's crazy because you know, I think everyone
Speaker 1: knows that when you get into a brand new car
Speaker 1: and you drive it off the lot, the value depreciates
Speaker 1: by an enormous, enormous percent, Like it's ridiculous how many
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars are marked off the value of the
Speaker 1: car just because you've owned it for you know, a second.
Speaker 1: Now we're seeing that change quite a bit because of
Speaker 1: the semiconductor shortage, where you can have a used vehicle
Speaker 1: Earth more than what it was when you purchased it.
Speaker 1: Not in every case, but it has happened and it's
Speaker 1: kind of crazy. Finally, we've talked quite a bit this
Speaker 1: year about Netflix and the company's attempts to find ways
Speaker 1: to grow in the wake of subscriber losses or at
Speaker 1: least two stem subscriber losses. We've seen subscribers leave the
Speaker 1: uh the service for the first time, like more people
Speaker 1: leaving than new people coming in, and it has really
Speaker 1: rocked the company. Well, one area that Netflix has experimented
Speaker 1: with is with games. And I'm sure a lot of
Speaker 1: you are out out there are aware of this, but
Speaker 1: some of you might not be. If you are a
Speaker 1: Netflix subscriber and you have an iOS or Android device
Speaker 1: that has the Netflix app on it, you have access
Speaker 1: to twenty four games right now. There's another twenty six
Speaker 1: planned to be added to the service, and you can
Speaker 1: play them. If you're a subscriber to Netflix, you can
Speaker 1: use your your phone and access these games, and they're
Speaker 1: supposed to be least premium games, but according to ap Topia,
Speaker 1: less than one percent of all Netflix subscribers have actually
Speaker 1: done that. So if the company was hoping that games
Speaker 1: would convince users to stick with Netflix. It looks like
Speaker 1: there's some bad news out there, at least as far
Speaker 1: as the game's ability to retain customers is concerned. But hey,
Speaker 1: if you weren't aware that Netflix has games, now you are.
Speaker 1: Maybe you can open up your Netflix app on your
Speaker 1: iOS or Android device and check it out and see
Speaker 1: if maybe there's a game there that you like to play.
Speaker 1: Who knows, Uh, I haven't done that. I'm a Netflix subscriber,
Speaker 1: So maybe after this episode, I'll, out of curiosity check
Speaker 1: it out. Maybe there'll be a game that will finally
Speaker 1: pull me away from Marvel Puzzle Quest because that's the
Speaker 1: only game I play on my phone. Um, got to
Speaker 1: catch them all. All right, that's it for this episode
Speaker 1: for the TECHNIQUS for Tuesday, August two. Hope you are
Speaker 1: all well. If you would like to get in touch
Speaker 1: with me about a topic you'd like me to cover
Speaker 1: in a future episode of Text Stuff, you can do
Speaker 1: that in one of a couple of ways. One is
Speaker 1: to download the I Heart Radio app. It's free to download.
Speaker 1: You can navigate over to tech Stuff. There's little microphone
Speaker 1: icon you click on that you can leave a voice
Speaker 1: message up to thirty seconds in length. The other way
Speaker 1: is to send me a message on Twitter. The handle
Speaker 1: for the show is tech Stuff H s W and
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is
Speaker 1: an I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.