1
00:00:04,440 --> 00:00:12,360
Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

2
00:00:12,360 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland,

3
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:18,959
Speaker 1: and I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the

4
00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:21,520
Speaker 1: tech are you? It's time for the tech News for

5
00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:27,240
Speaker 1: a Thursday, August tenth, twenty twenty three. First up, I've

6
00:00:27,280 --> 00:00:31,920
Speaker 1: got a short update on the Epic versus Apple legal saga.

7
00:00:32,000 --> 00:00:34,960
Speaker 1: So for people who aren't up to speed, Epic is

8
00:00:34,960 --> 00:00:38,960
Speaker 1: the company that makes the insanely popular game Fortnite. That

9
00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:43,320
Speaker 1: game is available on a lot of platforms, including Apple's iOS.

10
00:00:44,120 --> 00:00:48,280
Speaker 1: Fortnite's revenue depends heavily on in app purchases, but Apple

11
00:00:48,360 --> 00:00:52,000
Speaker 1: has this pesky policy in that Apple takes a healthy

12
00:00:52,080 --> 00:00:58,240
Speaker 1: chunk between fifteen to thirty percent of every in app transaction. Epic,

13
00:00:58,400 --> 00:01:01,400
Speaker 1: in an attempt to circumvent those rules and to keep

14
00:01:01,440 --> 00:01:05,240
Speaker 1: more of the money for themselves, urged players on iOS

15
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:09,200
Speaker 1: to make transactions outside of the app that would then

16
00:01:09,240 --> 00:01:13,319
Speaker 1: be applied to their accounts in game. Apple objected to

17
00:01:13,360 --> 00:01:16,760
Speaker 1: this workaround and removed Fortnite from its app store, and

18
00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:19,840
Speaker 1: this started a big old legal battle between the companies,

19
00:01:19,880 --> 00:01:23,840
Speaker 1: with Epic arguing that Apple's policies are predatory and they're

20
00:01:23,920 --> 00:01:27,800
Speaker 1: anti competitive. Because Apple requires developers to use Apple's in

21
00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:31,440
Speaker 1: house payment processing system for in app payments, you can't

22
00:01:31,560 --> 00:01:35,039
Speaker 1: go anywhere else. This legal battle has gone back and

23
00:01:35,080 --> 00:01:39,039
Speaker 1: forth over the last few years. Sometimes Epic makes some progress,

24
00:01:39,080 --> 00:01:43,240
Speaker 1: sometimes Apple wins some progress. In California, Epic won a

25
00:01:43,319 --> 00:01:46,760
Speaker 1: case where a judge ruled that Apple had been engaging

26
00:01:46,760 --> 00:01:50,000
Speaker 1: in anti competitive practices and that the company should allow

27
00:01:50,040 --> 00:01:53,640
Speaker 1: for alternative forms of payment. Apple then appealed that ruling

28
00:01:53,680 --> 00:01:58,080
Speaker 1: to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Apple partially

29
00:01:58,160 --> 00:02:00,440
Speaker 1: won that case. One of the things that one was

30
00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:04,280
Speaker 1: a stay on that specific part of the ruling, and

31
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:06,919
Speaker 1: that gave Apple three months to petition the Supreme Court

32
00:02:07,440 --> 00:02:11,320
Speaker 1: to hear the case. Epic then appealed directly to the

33
00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:15,360
Speaker 1: Supreme Court in an effort to negate the stay that

34
00:02:15,440 --> 00:02:19,760
Speaker 1: the Ninth Court Circuit Court awarded, and Epic argued that

35
00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:23,440
Speaker 1: otherwise allowing Apple to continue this practice would cause harm

36
00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:26,720
Speaker 1: not just to Epic but to other developers as well

37
00:02:26,760 --> 00:02:31,440
Speaker 1: as to consumers. The Supreme Court denied epics plea to

38
00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:35,359
Speaker 1: negate the stay, so the stay remains in place. Now,

39
00:02:35,400 --> 00:02:36,680
Speaker 1: I guess we have to wait and see if the

40
00:02:36,680 --> 00:02:40,800
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will hear out the actual Apple versus Epic case. Also,

41
00:02:40,880 --> 00:02:44,640
Speaker 1: while Apple has budged a bit on its policy about

42
00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:49,240
Speaker 1: having to use Apple's payment systems in other places, the

43
00:02:49,280 --> 00:02:53,520
Speaker 1: company reserves the right to charge a commission on payments

44
00:02:53,560 --> 00:02:55,920
Speaker 1: that are outside of its own in house system. So,

45
00:02:55,960 --> 00:02:58,800
Speaker 1: in other words, Apple still is pointing to a cut

46
00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:02,480
Speaker 1: of every transaction even if you're not using Apple's own

47
00:03:02,480 --> 00:03:07,240
Speaker 1: payments system. Sometimes that cut means that it actually ends

48
00:03:07,280 --> 00:03:10,120
Speaker 1: up being more expensive to use an alternative than to

49
00:03:10,240 --> 00:03:12,639
Speaker 1: use Apple, which I'm sure is going to initiate a

50
00:03:12,680 --> 00:03:16,640
Speaker 1: lot more court cases because that still sounds anti competitive

51
00:03:16,720 --> 00:03:20,640
Speaker 1: as all get out to my ears. On Tuesday, Nvidia

52
00:03:20,680 --> 00:03:24,160
Speaker 1: announced that its new GH two hundred chip is going

53
00:03:24,200 --> 00:03:28,520
Speaker 1: to be ideal for companies that are in the AI sector,

54
00:03:28,720 --> 00:03:31,639
Speaker 1: especially ones that are building out things like large language models.

55
00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:35,640
Speaker 1: The GH two hundred combines the same GPU chip as

56
00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:40,280
Speaker 1: the H one hundred, which is like the flagship chip

57
00:03:40,440 --> 00:03:43,840
Speaker 1: that Nvidia makes for the AI industry right now, but

58
00:03:44,040 --> 00:03:47,720
Speaker 1: this one also pairs with it a seventy two core

59
00:03:48,520 --> 00:03:53,240
Speaker 1: ARMS central processor seventy two cores and also a whopping

60
00:03:53,560 --> 00:03:59,320
Speaker 1: one hundred and forty one gigabytes of memory. That's insane.

61
00:03:59,640 --> 00:04:03,200
Speaker 1: The chip are going to start shipping next year, maybe

62
00:04:03,240 --> 00:04:06,840
Speaker 1: second quarter. I don't often talk about the hardware side

63
00:04:07,040 --> 00:04:09,000
Speaker 1: of the AI boom. I talk a lot about the

64
00:04:09,800 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 1: models and stuff, but not necessarily the underlying hardware. But

65
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:16,320
Speaker 1: you have to understand it is companies like Nvidia that

66
00:04:16,360 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 1: are making that hardware viable right that it's creating a

67
00:04:21,800 --> 00:04:26,480
Speaker 1: market for AI hardware, and it's really enabling the AI

68
00:04:26,640 --> 00:04:30,080
Speaker 1: boom in many ways because more companies can have access

69
00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:33,960
Speaker 1: to the actual circuitry used to run this and not

70
00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:38,360
Speaker 1: just rely upon cloud based strategies that kind of thing.

71
00:04:38,400 --> 00:04:41,560
Speaker 1: So yeah, I should probably do a full episode about

72
00:04:41,640 --> 00:04:45,880
Speaker 1: the underlying hardware that is powering the AI revolution. The

73
00:04:45,920 --> 00:04:49,800
Speaker 1: White House is increasing restrictions on US investments into Chinese

74
00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:56,040
Speaker 1: tech companies, specifically ones that are in the AI, high tech, chip,

75
00:04:56,240 --> 00:05:01,160
Speaker 1: and quantum computing sectors. Those three sectors in partic This

76
00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:06,400
Speaker 1: executive order will actually go into effect next year and

77
00:05:06,400 --> 00:05:12,120
Speaker 1: will require American companies to disclose investments in these Chinese sectors. Now,

78
00:05:12,160 --> 00:05:16,680
Speaker 1: previously the US has banned exports of American tech to China.

79
00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:20,120
Speaker 1: Now we're seeing kind of a similar move covering investment

80
00:05:20,360 --> 00:05:25,000
Speaker 1: into Chinese tech companies. The Biden administration sites concerns over

81
00:05:25,080 --> 00:05:29,960
Speaker 1: national security as the motivation for these bands. China's Commerce

82
00:05:30,040 --> 00:05:34,000
Speaker 1: Ministry has denounced this strategy. The ministry says that it

83
00:05:34,279 --> 00:05:38,120
Speaker 1: quote deviates from the principles of fair competition and the

84
00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:42,320
Speaker 1: market economy that the US consistently advocates end quote, And

85
00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:44,240
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's true. I think it does

86
00:05:44,520 --> 00:05:48,120
Speaker 1: like it does seem to fly in the face of

87
00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:52,840
Speaker 1: the general market velosophy of the United States. However, we

88
00:05:52,880 --> 00:05:59,080
Speaker 1: also have to acknowledge that China has backed countless hacker

89
00:05:59,160 --> 00:06:04,400
Speaker 1: groups and attacks against US companies and government agencies, and

90
00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:07,800
Speaker 1: China has infiltrated systems left, right and center in the

91
00:06:07,880 --> 00:06:11,320
Speaker 1: United States and in other places. So there's definitely an

92
00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:14,000
Speaker 1: element of self preservation going on here. It's not just

93
00:06:14,040 --> 00:06:17,640
Speaker 1: a case of we're treating you unfairly. It's we're being

94
00:06:17,680 --> 00:06:21,640
Speaker 1: attacked and we're trying to find ways to mitigate that. Now,

95
00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:24,480
Speaker 1: a lot of critics are saying, this actually isn't that

96
00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:28,200
Speaker 1: likely to affect China that much, because it's not like

97
00:06:28,320 --> 00:06:30,960
Speaker 1: China has a shortage of access to money to fund

98
00:06:31,080 --> 00:06:33,760
Speaker 1: these kind of things. And there are other investors around

99
00:06:33,800 --> 00:06:37,200
Speaker 1: the world who seem to be a little reluctant to

100
00:06:37,720 --> 00:06:42,240
Speaker 1: acquiesce to a ban on investing in such Chinese technologies.

101
00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:44,479
Speaker 1: But this is going to have a big impact on

102
00:06:44,600 --> 00:06:47,120
Speaker 1: venture firms and private equity groups here in the United

103
00:06:47,160 --> 00:06:50,480
Speaker 1: States that we're hoping to make some serious bank while

104
00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:54,920
Speaker 1: backing Chinese tech initiatives. Dan Ackerman, the editor in chief

105
00:06:55,000 --> 00:06:58,039
Speaker 1: of Gizmoto and the author of a book titled The

106
00:06:58,160 --> 00:07:03,039
Speaker 1: Tetris Effect, is soon Apple, the Tetris company, and the

107
00:07:03,080 --> 00:07:07,720
Speaker 1: filmmakers behind the movie Tetris, which is an Apple TV

108
00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:12,600
Speaker 1: Plus film. Apple produced it. Ackerman is claiming that the

109
00:07:12,600 --> 00:07:17,400
Speaker 1: filmmakers have plagiarized his work, that screenwriter Noah Pink adapted

110
00:07:17,520 --> 00:07:21,640
Speaker 1: Ackerman's book without his permission and without compensation. And this

111
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:26,480
Speaker 1: gets tricky because both the movie and the book are

112
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:30,280
Speaker 1: detailing the real world events that led to Tetris emerging

113
00:07:30,320 --> 00:07:34,720
Speaker 1: from the then Soviet Union to become a global phenomenon,

114
00:07:35,120 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 1: and how a Dutch American businessman played a pivotal role

115
00:07:38,760 --> 00:07:41,760
Speaker 1: in that story. This is a real world story, so

116
00:07:41,880 --> 00:07:45,920
Speaker 1: it's been told multiple times. It's not like Ackerman was

117
00:07:45,960 --> 00:07:49,160
Speaker 1: the first person to write about this. Now that being said,

118
00:07:49,760 --> 00:07:54,320
Speaker 1: Ackerman argues that the film contextualizes the story as if

119
00:07:54,360 --> 00:07:57,640
Speaker 1: it were like a Cold War era thriller, which his

120
00:07:57,640 --> 00:08:00,240
Speaker 1: book also did. So he says, it's not just that

121
00:08:00,280 --> 00:08:02,560
Speaker 1: we're both telling the same story, it's that we're telling

122
00:08:02,600 --> 00:08:06,480
Speaker 1: it the same way, and his lawsuit lists twenty two

123
00:08:06,560 --> 00:08:10,720
Speaker 1: points of similarity between his book and the film's screenplay

124
00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:14,360
Speaker 1: or the film itself. Ackerman also alleges that the Tetris

125
00:08:14,360 --> 00:08:19,240
Speaker 1: Company and its CEO, Maya Rodgers, denied Ackerman's attempts to

126
00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:22,960
Speaker 1: secure film and TV rights to his book by denying

127
00:08:23,000 --> 00:08:25,800
Speaker 1: him the use of the Tetris license. So, in other words,

128
00:08:26,320 --> 00:08:30,400
Speaker 1: he couldn't end up, you know, having the film rights

129
00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:33,680
Speaker 1: or TV rights to his story because Tetris would not

130
00:08:33,960 --> 00:08:37,520
Speaker 1: allow him to license the IP at all. And how

131
00:08:37,520 --> 00:08:39,760
Speaker 1: do you tell the story that way? This kind of

132
00:08:39,760 --> 00:08:43,880
Speaker 1: feels similar to me to the recent film The Beanie Bubble.

133
00:08:44,240 --> 00:08:46,240
Speaker 1: That's where we got the story behind the people who

134
00:08:46,320 --> 00:08:50,000
Speaker 1: created beanie babies, but the film didn't manage to land

135
00:08:50,040 --> 00:08:53,319
Speaker 1: a license to actually show beanie babies in the movie,

136
00:08:53,520 --> 00:08:56,760
Speaker 1: so they have stand ins instead. There are no actual

137
00:08:56,800 --> 00:09:00,920
Speaker 1: beanie babies in the Beanie bubble film. It's really weird anyway.

138
00:09:01,320 --> 00:09:04,920
Speaker 1: Ackerman says that the Tetris company stonewalled his own attempts

139
00:09:04,960 --> 00:09:08,599
Speaker 1: to have his work adapted into a film and simultaneously

140
00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:12,160
Speaker 1: used his book as source material for a movie of

141
00:09:12,200 --> 00:09:15,520
Speaker 1: their own. So he is seeking around five million dollars.

142
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:18,880
Speaker 1: And this might not be an open and shutcase even

143
00:09:18,920 --> 00:09:22,720
Speaker 1: with those points of similarity, because the people that the

144
00:09:22,760 --> 00:09:26,400
Speaker 1: stories about happened to be the producers of the movie,

145
00:09:26,559 --> 00:09:30,599
Speaker 1: right like the people that are the the the protagonists

146
00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:34,960
Speaker 1: of this story are producing the film. So there could

147
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:37,959
Speaker 1: be a very valid argument to make that they were

148
00:09:38,040 --> 00:09:42,160
Speaker 1: the source of all the information used in the screenplay

149
00:09:42,360 --> 00:09:45,640
Speaker 1: and that they were also the principal sources for Akerman,

150
00:09:45,800 --> 00:09:49,040
Speaker 1: and that the argument is that the story wasn't taken

151
00:09:49,040 --> 00:09:52,120
Speaker 1: from Akerman, The story was taken from the people who

152
00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:55,480
Speaker 1: experienced it, and they just happened to be the source

153
00:09:55,520 --> 00:09:58,480
Speaker 1: for both works. That could be the argument we see.

154
00:09:58,920 --> 00:10:02,840
Speaker 1: Although if Akerman is able to argue that the presentation

155
00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:06,440
Speaker 1: of the story is the way it is because of

156
00:10:06,480 --> 00:10:10,800
Speaker 1: his book, then I think he's got a fairly solid case.

157
00:10:10,880 --> 00:10:13,680
Speaker 1: It's just this is a tough situation. We'll have to

158
00:10:13,679 --> 00:10:16,720
Speaker 1: see if the court allows all the blocks to fall

159
00:10:16,720 --> 00:10:18,400
Speaker 1: into place, or if this is one of those cases

160
00:10:18,400 --> 00:10:21,400
Speaker 1: where you accidentally drop that S shape block in the

161
00:10:21,400 --> 00:10:24,959
Speaker 1: wrong spot and really mess things up for yourself. Okay,

162
00:10:25,000 --> 00:10:26,920
Speaker 1: we're going to take a quick break and we'll be

163
00:10:27,000 --> 00:10:39,960
Speaker 1: back with some more news stories. US regulatory agencies are

164
00:10:40,000 --> 00:10:44,360
Speaker 1: coming down hard on nearly a dozen financial institutions relying

165
00:10:44,400 --> 00:10:47,920
Speaker 1: on so called off channel messaging apps to conduct financial deals,

166
00:10:48,200 --> 00:10:50,920
Speaker 1: you know, like discussing trades and that kind of thing.

167
00:10:51,920 --> 00:10:53,960
Speaker 1: And that is a big no note because some of

168
00:10:54,000 --> 00:10:57,160
Speaker 1: these messaging apps they don't keep a log of messages,

169
00:10:57,440 --> 00:11:00,600
Speaker 1: and the financial sector is heavily regulated, so these kinds

170
00:11:00,600 --> 00:11:03,400
Speaker 1: of deals aren't allowed to happen off the books. That

171
00:11:03,440 --> 00:11:06,640
Speaker 1: would be illegal. Everything is supposed to be well documented

172
00:11:06,960 --> 00:11:10,839
Speaker 1: and preserved, and the nature of these apps makes that impossible.

173
00:11:11,080 --> 00:11:15,520
Speaker 1: So in total, the regulators hit eleven financial institutions with

174
00:11:15,640 --> 00:11:19,559
Speaker 1: more than half a billion dollars in fines. If you're curious,

175
00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:23,720
Speaker 1: the one that was hit hardest was Wells. Fargo SEC

176
00:11:23,920 --> 00:11:26,199
Speaker 1: hit them for one hundred and twenty five million dollars,

177
00:11:26,600 --> 00:11:29,280
Speaker 1: and the Commodity Futures Training Commission hit them for another

178
00:11:29,320 --> 00:11:32,760
Speaker 1: seventy five million dollars. On top of that, the regulators

179
00:11:32,760 --> 00:11:37,120
Speaker 1: say that the violations occurred at all different levels within

180
00:11:37,240 --> 00:11:40,400
Speaker 1: these financial institutions. This wasn't a case of like some

181
00:11:40,520 --> 00:11:43,520
Speaker 1: new hire not understanding that they can't use watts app

182
00:11:43,880 --> 00:11:48,559
Speaker 1: to talk about big trades. It was all through different levels,

183
00:11:48,600 --> 00:11:52,880
Speaker 1: including supervisors, managers, leadership, that kind of stuff. So big o' yikes.

184
00:11:54,559 --> 00:11:57,360
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia has followed the EU's lead when it comes

185
00:11:57,400 --> 00:12:01,440
Speaker 1: to mandating a USB C charging port on smartphones moving forward.

186
00:12:01,600 --> 00:12:03,880
Speaker 1: You may recall that the EU ruled on this matter

187
00:12:04,040 --> 00:12:07,240
Speaker 1: not too long ago, and that's going to necessitate companies

188
00:12:07,280 --> 00:12:12,000
Speaker 1: like Apple to migrate away from proprietary ports, in Apple's case,

189
00:12:12,040 --> 00:12:15,959
Speaker 1: the lightning port, in order to adopt the USBC standard,

190
00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:20,080
Speaker 1: and this would make charging ports universal across the EU

191
00:12:20,200 --> 00:12:24,520
Speaker 1: and then obviously across Saudi Arabia. Now, so the philosophy

192
00:12:24,559 --> 00:12:27,240
Speaker 1: behind this is that it helps cut way down on

193
00:12:27,360 --> 00:12:30,720
Speaker 1: e waste because you would go out, you'd buy a phone,

194
00:12:31,040 --> 00:12:34,000
Speaker 1: and you would buy a USBC charging cable, and you

195
00:12:34,040 --> 00:12:36,840
Speaker 1: could still use that same cable even as you upgrade

196
00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:39,640
Speaker 1: your phone over the years, even if you switch models

197
00:12:39,640 --> 00:12:43,600
Speaker 1: and brands of phones. At least until some new charging

198
00:12:43,640 --> 00:12:47,200
Speaker 1: standard would replace USBC, or maybe you need to buy

199
00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:49,880
Speaker 1: a new USBC cable because your old one no longer works,

200
00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:52,400
Speaker 1: or it needs to be upgraded to a new standard

201
00:12:52,400 --> 00:12:56,000
Speaker 1: that is more powerful. But I can get behind this.

202
00:12:57,760 --> 00:13:00,160
Speaker 1: I often think back to when I have had a

203
00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:02,800
Speaker 1: whole bunch of different digital gadgets, like you know, like

204
00:13:02,800 --> 00:13:06,200
Speaker 1: a standalone camera and an MP three player and a

205
00:13:06,320 --> 00:13:08,840
Speaker 1: smartphone and all this kind of stuff, and all of

206
00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:11,959
Speaker 1: them had their own charging ports and cables, and if

207
00:13:12,000 --> 00:13:14,240
Speaker 1: you misplaced one of them, you were out of lock.

208
00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:16,199
Speaker 1: You would have to go out and buy a replacement,

209
00:13:16,240 --> 00:13:21,240
Speaker 1: and often those were way overpriced because you didn't have options,

210
00:13:21,559 --> 00:13:23,600
Speaker 1: so you had to buy the official one and obg

211
00:13:23,880 --> 00:13:28,080
Speaker 1: like ridiculously expensive. By adopting a standard, consumers can purchase

212
00:13:28,120 --> 00:13:31,520
Speaker 1: a cable from whichever merchant and manufacturer they like and

213
00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:35,040
Speaker 1: it should work just fine because it's a standard. Saudi

214
00:13:35,080 --> 00:13:38,640
Speaker 1: Arabia's law takes effect January first, twenty twenty five. It's

215
00:13:38,679 --> 00:13:43,240
Speaker 1: widely believed that Apple's iPhone fifteen will have a USB

216
00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:47,199
Speaker 1: C charging port, not because of Saudi Arabia, but certainly

217
00:13:47,280 --> 00:13:49,520
Speaker 1: the EU would have been a big part of that,

218
00:13:50,280 --> 00:13:53,360
Speaker 1: and according to Apple, Insider. There were even rumors that

219
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:57,440
Speaker 1: Apple had planned to incorporate technology that would throttle both

220
00:13:57,559 --> 00:14:01,960
Speaker 1: data transfer speeds and charging speed if users were going

221
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:05,679
Speaker 1: to plug in a USBC cable that was not Apple certified.

222
00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:08,280
Speaker 1: So in other words, yes, Apple would use a standard,

223
00:14:08,600 --> 00:14:13,280
Speaker 1: but it would throttle any standard cable that wasn't Apple certified,

224
00:14:13,800 --> 00:14:17,480
Speaker 1: and that would artificially inhibit that cable's performance. But the

225
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:20,040
Speaker 1: EU lawmakers have now said, if you do that, we

226
00:14:20,280 --> 00:14:23,760
Speaker 1: ban iPhone sales in the EU because the EU does

227
00:14:23,800 --> 00:14:27,480
Speaker 1: not play around with this stuff. Gizmodo has an article

228
00:14:27,520 --> 00:14:31,080
Speaker 1: by Thomas Jermaine titled c neet deletes thousands of old

229
00:14:31,160 --> 00:14:34,480
Speaker 1: articles to game Google Search. I think that article is

230
00:14:34,480 --> 00:14:36,880
Speaker 1: worth a read, but I'm actually going to go into

231
00:14:36,880 --> 00:14:38,920
Speaker 1: it a little bit here, so it's not just a recommendation.

232
00:14:39,440 --> 00:14:41,560
Speaker 1: The name of the game here is SEO, which, in

233
00:14:41,600 --> 00:14:46,240
Speaker 1: case you're not familiar with that initialism, that's search engine optimization.

234
00:14:46,880 --> 00:14:49,440
Speaker 1: This is an umbrella term for strategies that are meant

235
00:14:49,480 --> 00:14:53,600
Speaker 1: to improve a website's ranking in search results, primarily Google

236
00:14:53,680 --> 00:14:56,480
Speaker 1: search results, but it can apply to other search engines

237
00:14:56,480 --> 00:14:59,840
Speaker 1: as well. So SEO, when you really boil it down,

238
00:15:00,160 --> 00:15:04,280
Speaker 1: is all about figuring out what a search algorithm actually values.

239
00:15:04,320 --> 00:15:08,440
Speaker 1: You're kind of reverse engineering the approach to the algorithm

240
00:15:08,560 --> 00:15:11,360
Speaker 1: uses in order to rank search results, and then you

241
00:15:11,480 --> 00:15:14,480
Speaker 1: apply what you've learned to your own website so that

242
00:15:14,520 --> 00:15:18,480
Speaker 1: you can boost your websites appearance in search results. For example,

243
00:15:19,440 --> 00:15:21,640
Speaker 1: maybe you notice that trends are showing an increase in

244
00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:25,760
Speaker 1: searches around a particular topic, so you might rush to

245
00:15:25,800 --> 00:15:29,000
Speaker 1: create a page centered on that topic and then use

246
00:15:29,040 --> 00:15:31,640
Speaker 1: lots of stuff like links to and from that page

247
00:15:31,640 --> 00:15:35,320
Speaker 1: to help boost its performance. Gizmodo's report is about how

248
00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:38,480
Speaker 1: c net has been removing articles like thousands of them

249
00:15:38,560 --> 00:15:41,480
Speaker 1: over the past several months, and that this is a

250
00:15:41,600 --> 00:15:45,640
Speaker 1: case of c net attempting to prune material that could

251
00:15:45,640 --> 00:15:48,760
Speaker 1: otherwise be dragging the site as a whole down in

252
00:15:48,800 --> 00:15:53,200
Speaker 1: search results. So the thought is that older articles get

253
00:15:53,280 --> 00:15:57,320
Speaker 1: very little traffic and that they could be hurting the

254
00:15:57,440 --> 00:16:02,160
Speaker 1: c net's rankings and search overall. Because if Google's search

255
00:16:02,240 --> 00:16:05,080
Speaker 1: algorithm says, oh, not very many people are going to

256
00:16:05,160 --> 00:16:07,840
Speaker 1: this site when you take into account all the different

257
00:16:07,840 --> 00:16:10,800
Speaker 1: web pages, then it must not be very good, so

258
00:16:10,800 --> 00:16:12,880
Speaker 1: we're going to rank it lower. That's kind of the

259
00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:15,880
Speaker 1: thought here. So the idea is that you remove this

260
00:16:16,120 --> 00:16:19,120
Speaker 1: dead weight, you know, you cut the anchor away from you,

261
00:16:19,600 --> 00:16:23,520
Speaker 1: and the remaining pages on your website have better traffic

262
00:16:23,800 --> 00:16:26,680
Speaker 1: and better engagement, and that means you rank better in

263
00:16:26,720 --> 00:16:29,760
Speaker 1: search results. That's the thinking. Google, by the way, denies

264
00:16:29,800 --> 00:16:32,080
Speaker 1: that this is the way it works, but then SEO

265
00:16:32,440 --> 00:16:35,080
Speaker 1: experts say, no, this is part of how it works.

266
00:16:35,560 --> 00:16:37,760
Speaker 1: Google just doesn't want you to go out there and

267
00:16:37,800 --> 00:16:40,720
Speaker 1: start blasting out old articles in an effort to game

268
00:16:40,760 --> 00:16:43,480
Speaker 1: the system, which is what people are saying c net

269
00:16:43,520 --> 00:16:47,640
Speaker 1: is doing. I actually suspect that how Stuff Works has

270
00:16:47,720 --> 00:16:49,440
Speaker 1: done this in the past. I don't have any proof

271
00:16:49,480 --> 00:16:52,720
Speaker 1: on that, just other than I've had trouble finding my

272
00:16:52,760 --> 00:16:55,280
Speaker 1: own articles on that site, and I wrote for them

273
00:16:55,320 --> 00:16:58,960
Speaker 1: for like a decade, so it's it's a little weird

274
00:16:58,960 --> 00:17:01,040
Speaker 1: that I can't find very much many articles that I've

275
00:17:01,040 --> 00:17:03,880
Speaker 1: written on there, although maybe they just updated them and

276
00:17:03,920 --> 00:17:06,439
Speaker 1: removed my byline. I don't know. But yeah, it's kind

277
00:17:06,440 --> 00:17:08,320
Speaker 1: of a bummer because it means that people who have

278
00:17:08,480 --> 00:17:13,199
Speaker 1: been writing have lost a lot of their portfolio of

279
00:17:13,280 --> 00:17:15,960
Speaker 1: work that they could show off to other people. And

280
00:17:16,000 --> 00:17:18,359
Speaker 1: it just is kind of depressing to see that you know,

281
00:17:18,400 --> 00:17:21,359
Speaker 1: creative types like yours truly have to remember the stuff

282
00:17:21,400 --> 00:17:25,040
Speaker 1: we make isn't even at all permanent, which makes me

283
00:17:25,080 --> 00:17:27,200
Speaker 1: wonder why I'm even doing this. Okay, wait, i gotta

284
00:17:27,240 --> 00:17:29,240
Speaker 1: step out of it. I've got a couple more stories

285
00:17:29,240 --> 00:17:32,720
Speaker 1: to get through, all right. So Disney is getting ready

286
00:17:32,720 --> 00:17:36,960
Speaker 1: to hike prices for its streaming services again. It's starting

287
00:17:37,000 --> 00:17:38,920
Speaker 1: to get a bit ridiculous with the number of services

288
00:17:38,920 --> 00:17:42,240
Speaker 1: and options within those services. But here we go. For

289
00:17:42,280 --> 00:17:45,480
Speaker 1: those subscribe to the ads supported tiers for Disney Plus

290
00:17:46,000 --> 00:17:51,000
Speaker 1: Hulu or Disney Plus and Hulu, there's no change. The

291
00:17:51,040 --> 00:17:53,720
Speaker 1: monthly fee is going to stay exactly the same. But

292
00:17:54,080 --> 00:17:57,080
Speaker 1: if you want the no ads version of Disney Plus,

293
00:17:57,520 --> 00:17:59,920
Speaker 1: that's going from ten ninety nine per month to thirty

294
00:18:00,000 --> 00:18:03,120
Speaker 1: teen ninety nine per month starting October twelfth. If you're

295
00:18:03,119 --> 00:18:06,160
Speaker 1: going ad free on Hulu, that goes from fourteen ninety

296
00:18:06,200 --> 00:18:09,600
Speaker 1: nine per month to seventeen ninety nine per month. And

297
00:18:09,640 --> 00:18:12,359
Speaker 1: if you want both of them with no ads, you

298
00:18:12,400 --> 00:18:15,919
Speaker 1: can opt in for a new tier called Duo Premium

299
00:18:16,119 --> 00:18:19,160
Speaker 1: that launches in early September. That one is nineteen ninety

300
00:18:19,240 --> 00:18:22,439
Speaker 1: nine per month, or hey, you could go Duo Basic

301
00:18:22,680 --> 00:18:25,200
Speaker 1: that's Disney Plus and Hulu with ads. That's nine ninety

302
00:18:25,280 --> 00:18:28,040
Speaker 1: nine per month. That's kind of why it is right now, Oh,

303
00:18:28,119 --> 00:18:31,400
Speaker 1: sports fans, there are options for you too. ESPN Plus

304
00:18:31,560 --> 00:18:34,359
Speaker 1: with ADS is going to be ten ninety nine per month,

305
00:18:34,720 --> 00:18:37,120
Speaker 1: But if you wanted to lump that into Disney Plus

306
00:18:37,240 --> 00:18:40,800
Speaker 1: and Hulu packages, well you could go basic. That means

307
00:18:40,880 --> 00:18:44,120
Speaker 1: all the platforms are ADS supported. That combined package will

308
00:18:44,119 --> 00:18:47,240
Speaker 1: cost you fourteen ninety nine per month. Or you could

309
00:18:47,240 --> 00:18:50,760
Speaker 1: go AD free on Hulu and AD free on Disney Plus. However,

310
00:18:51,080 --> 00:18:54,240
Speaker 1: ESPN Plus is still AD supported, that ends up being

311
00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:57,280
Speaker 1: twenty four ninety nine a month. There are other options too.

312
00:18:57,560 --> 00:18:59,840
Speaker 1: There's ones where you can have live TV included, the

313
00:19:00,200 --> 00:19:02,680
Speaker 1: ones where you can have a subscription to all UFC

314
00:19:02,720 --> 00:19:05,080
Speaker 1: pay per views. In a year is a big old

315
00:19:05,119 --> 00:19:09,639
Speaker 1: complicated mess, and just a quick reminder a little flashback

316
00:19:09,720 --> 00:19:12,119
Speaker 1: back when Disney Plus first launched in twenty nineteen. You

317
00:19:12,119 --> 00:19:15,480
Speaker 1: know how much that cost six ninety nine per month.

318
00:19:16,080 --> 00:19:18,720
Speaker 1: It has doubled in price, or at least it will

319
00:19:18,760 --> 00:19:23,000
Speaker 1: have come October. According to multiple sources. Disney is also

320
00:19:23,200 --> 00:19:26,000
Speaker 1: following in Netflix's footsteps, and by that I mean exploring

321
00:19:26,040 --> 00:19:31,120
Speaker 1: ways to eliminate password sharing among households. Finally, you might

322
00:19:31,160 --> 00:19:33,760
Speaker 1: remember that last year NASA tested out a method that

323
00:19:33,800 --> 00:19:36,080
Speaker 1: could be used to divert an asteroid on an impact

324
00:19:36,119 --> 00:19:40,160
Speaker 1: trajectory with Earth. They were slamming a spacecraft into it.

325
00:19:40,240 --> 00:19:43,520
Speaker 1: They did that with an asteroid called Dimorphose, which was

326
00:19:43,560 --> 00:19:48,280
Speaker 1: in orbit around another asteroid called Didamus, not on a

327
00:19:48,320 --> 00:19:50,719
Speaker 1: collision course with Earth. This was just a test, and

328
00:19:50,800 --> 00:19:55,439
Speaker 1: now an astronomer team led by David Jewett have discovered

329
00:19:56,000 --> 00:20:00,199
Speaker 1: that apparently that impact caused boulders to eject off the

330
00:20:00,240 --> 00:20:04,440
Speaker 1: surface of Dimorphose. And the problem with that is that

331
00:20:04,480 --> 00:20:07,560
Speaker 1: if we were to use this method on an incoming asteroid,

332
00:20:07,800 --> 00:20:09,800
Speaker 1: what we might end up with is instead of one

333
00:20:09,840 --> 00:20:12,480
Speaker 1: big asteroid coming at us, we might have a whole

334
00:20:12,520 --> 00:20:16,919
Speaker 1: bunch of smaller bodies of rock flying at us. So

335
00:20:17,080 --> 00:20:21,360
Speaker 1: it's kind of like going from a cannonball to buckshot, or,

336
00:20:21,480 --> 00:20:25,360
Speaker 1: as Jewett has says, shrapnel from a hand grenade. This

337
00:20:25,400 --> 00:20:28,040
Speaker 1: is why the plan and Armageddon wouldn't have worked, y'all.

338
00:20:28,600 --> 00:20:32,000
Speaker 1: That documentary was so wrong. But yeah, you can't just

339
00:20:32,040 --> 00:20:33,520
Speaker 1: blow it up. You would just end up with the

340
00:20:33,520 --> 00:20:37,120
Speaker 1: same amount of mass just spread out some And yeah,

341
00:20:37,200 --> 00:20:39,439
Speaker 1: maybe some of the smaller pieces would burn up on

342
00:20:39,800 --> 00:20:42,959
Speaker 1: entry into the Earth's atmosphere, but others would make it

343
00:20:42,960 --> 00:20:45,760
Speaker 1: down and potentially cause massive amounts of damage. So this

344
00:20:45,800 --> 00:20:50,080
Speaker 1: could mean that we have to reevaluate that particular methodology

345
00:20:50,160 --> 00:20:54,560
Speaker 1: when it comes to diverting a near Earth object's trajectory.

346
00:20:54,600 --> 00:20:57,840
Speaker 1: If it's coming our way, it may be that slamming

347
00:20:57,880 --> 00:21:01,639
Speaker 1: something into it isn't the we need, but a lot

348
00:21:01,720 --> 00:21:03,640
Speaker 1: more work has to be done before we can come

349
00:21:03,680 --> 00:21:07,640
Speaker 1: to that determination. It is interesting, though. All Right, that's it.

350
00:21:07,840 --> 00:21:10,320
Speaker 1: I hope you are all well, and I'll talk to

351
00:21:10,359 --> 00:21:20,600
Speaker 1: you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production.

352
00:21:20,880 --> 00:21:25,920
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

353
00:21:26,040 --> 00:21:31,560
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.