WEBVTT - Tech News: The Supreme Court Hands Epic a Setback

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.360
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.360 --> 0:00:15.720
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland,

0:00:15.760 --> 0:00:18.959
<v Speaker 1>and I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the

0:00:18.960 --> 0:00:21.520
<v Speaker 1>tech are you? It's time for the tech News for

0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:27.240
<v Speaker 1>a Thursday, August tenth, twenty twenty three. First up, I've

0:00:27.280 --> 0:00:31.920
<v Speaker 1>got a short update on the Epic versus Apple legal saga.

0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:34.960
<v Speaker 1>So for people who aren't up to speed, Epic is

0:00:34.960 --> 0:00:38.960
<v Speaker 1>the company that makes the insanely popular game Fortnite. That

0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:43.320
<v Speaker 1>game is available on a lot of platforms, including Apple's iOS.

0:00:44.120 --> 0:00:48.280
<v Speaker 1>Fortnite's revenue depends heavily on in app purchases, but Apple

0:00:48.360 --> 0:00:52.000
<v Speaker 1>has this pesky policy in that Apple takes a healthy

0:00:52.080 --> 0:00:58.240
<v Speaker 1>chunk between fifteen to thirty percent of every in app transaction. Epic,

0:00:58.400 --> 0:01:01.400
<v Speaker 1>in an attempt to circumvent those rules and to keep

0:01:01.440 --> 0:01:05.240
<v Speaker 1>more of the money for themselves, urged players on iOS

0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:09.200
<v Speaker 1>to make transactions outside of the app that would then

0:01:09.240 --> 0:01:13.319
<v Speaker 1>be applied to their accounts in game. Apple objected to

0:01:13.360 --> 0:01:16.760
<v Speaker 1>this workaround and removed Fortnite from its app store, and

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:19.840
<v Speaker 1>this started a big old legal battle between the companies,

0:01:19.880 --> 0:01:23.840
<v Speaker 1>with Epic arguing that Apple's policies are predatory and they're

0:01:23.920 --> 0:01:27.800
<v Speaker 1>anti competitive. Because Apple requires developers to use Apple's in

0:01:27.880 --> 0:01:31.440
<v Speaker 1>house payment processing system for in app payments, you can't

0:01:31.560 --> 0:01:35.039
<v Speaker 1>go anywhere else. This legal battle has gone back and

0:01:35.080 --> 0:01:39.039
<v Speaker 1>forth over the last few years. Sometimes Epic makes some progress,

0:01:39.080 --> 0:01:43.240
<v Speaker 1>sometimes Apple wins some progress. In California, Epic won a

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:46.760
<v Speaker 1>case where a judge ruled that Apple had been engaging

0:01:46.760 --> 0:01:50.000
<v Speaker 1>in anti competitive practices and that the company should allow

0:01:50.040 --> 0:01:53.640
<v Speaker 1>for alternative forms of payment. Apple then appealed that ruling

0:01:53.680 --> 0:01:58.080
<v Speaker 1>to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Apple partially

0:01:58.160 --> 0:02:00.440
<v Speaker 1>won that case. One of the things that one was

0:02:00.480 --> 0:02:04.280
<v Speaker 1>a stay on that specific part of the ruling, and

0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:06.919
<v Speaker 1>that gave Apple three months to petition the Supreme Court

0:02:07.440 --> 0:02:11.320
<v Speaker 1>to hear the case. Epic then appealed directly to the

0:02:11.360 --> 0:02:15.360
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court in an effort to negate the stay that

0:02:15.440 --> 0:02:19.760
<v Speaker 1>the Ninth Court Circuit Court awarded, and Epic argued that

0:02:20.320 --> 0:02:23.440
<v Speaker 1>otherwise allowing Apple to continue this practice would cause harm

0:02:23.520 --> 0:02:26.720
<v Speaker 1>not just to Epic but to other developers as well

0:02:26.760 --> 0:02:31.440
<v Speaker 1>as to consumers. The Supreme Court denied epics plea to

0:02:31.520 --> 0:02:35.359
<v Speaker 1>negate the stay, so the stay remains in place. Now,

0:02:35.400 --> 0:02:36.680
<v Speaker 1>I guess we have to wait and see if the

0:02:36.680 --> 0:02:40.800
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court will hear out the actual Apple versus Epic case. Also,

0:02:40.880 --> 0:02:44.640
<v Speaker 1>while Apple has budged a bit on its policy about

0:02:45.120 --> 0:02:49.240
<v Speaker 1>having to use Apple's payment systems in other places, the

0:02:49.280 --> 0:02:53.520
<v Speaker 1>company reserves the right to charge a commission on payments

0:02:53.560 --> 0:02:55.920
<v Speaker 1>that are outside of its own in house system. So,

0:02:55.960 --> 0:02:58.800
<v Speaker 1>in other words, Apple still is pointing to a cut

0:02:59.360 --> 0:03:02.480
<v Speaker 1>of every transaction even if you're not using Apple's own

0:03:02.480 --> 0:03:07.240
<v Speaker 1>payments system. Sometimes that cut means that it actually ends

0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:10.120
<v Speaker 1>up being more expensive to use an alternative than to

0:03:10.240 --> 0:03:12.639
<v Speaker 1>use Apple, which I'm sure is going to initiate a

0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:16.640
<v Speaker 1>lot more court cases because that still sounds anti competitive

0:03:16.720 --> 0:03:20.640
<v Speaker 1>as all get out to my ears. On Tuesday, Nvidia

0:03:20.680 --> 0:03:24.160
<v Speaker 1>announced that its new GH two hundred chip is going

0:03:24.200 --> 0:03:28.520
<v Speaker 1>to be ideal for companies that are in the AI sector,

0:03:28.720 --> 0:03:31.639
<v Speaker 1>especially ones that are building out things like large language models.

0:03:32.160 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>The GH two hundred combines the same GPU chip as

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:40.280
<v Speaker 1>the H one hundred, which is like the flagship chip

0:03:40.440 --> 0:03:43.840
<v Speaker 1>that Nvidia makes for the AI industry right now, but

0:03:44.040 --> 0:03:47.720
<v Speaker 1>this one also pairs with it a seventy two core

0:03:48.520 --> 0:03:53.240
<v Speaker 1>ARMS central processor seventy two cores and also a whopping

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:59.320
<v Speaker 1>one hundred and forty one gigabytes of memory. That's insane.

0:03:59.640 --> 0:04:03.200
<v Speaker 1>The chip are going to start shipping next year, maybe

0:04:03.240 --> 0:04:06.840
<v Speaker 1>second quarter. I don't often talk about the hardware side

0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:09.000
<v Speaker 1>of the AI boom. I talk a lot about the

0:04:09.800 --> 0:04:13.640
<v Speaker 1>models and stuff, but not necessarily the underlying hardware. But

0:04:14.080 --> 0:04:16.320
<v Speaker 1>you have to understand it is companies like Nvidia that

0:04:16.360 --> 0:04:21.360
<v Speaker 1>are making that hardware viable right that it's creating a

0:04:21.800 --> 0:04:26.480
<v Speaker 1>market for AI hardware, and it's really enabling the AI

0:04:26.640 --> 0:04:30.080
<v Speaker 1>boom in many ways because more companies can have access

0:04:30.120 --> 0:04:33.960
<v Speaker 1>to the actual circuitry used to run this and not

0:04:34.080 --> 0:04:38.360
<v Speaker 1>just rely upon cloud based strategies that kind of thing.

0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:41.560
<v Speaker 1>So yeah, I should probably do a full episode about

0:04:41.640 --> 0:04:45.880
<v Speaker 1>the underlying hardware that is powering the AI revolution. The

0:04:45.920 --> 0:04:49.800
<v Speaker 1>White House is increasing restrictions on US investments into Chinese

0:04:49.880 --> 0:04:56.040
<v Speaker 1>tech companies, specifically ones that are in the AI, high tech, chip,

0:04:56.240 --> 0:05:01.160
<v Speaker 1>and quantum computing sectors. Those three sectors in partic This

0:05:01.240 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 1>executive order will actually go into effect next year and

0:05:06.400 --> 0:05:12.120
<v Speaker 1>will require American companies to disclose investments in these Chinese sectors. Now,

0:05:12.160 --> 0:05:16.680
<v Speaker 1>previously the US has banned exports of American tech to China.

0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:20.120
<v Speaker 1>Now we're seeing kind of a similar move covering investment

0:05:20.360 --> 0:05:25.000
<v Speaker 1>into Chinese tech companies. The Biden administration sites concerns over

0:05:25.080 --> 0:05:29.960
<v Speaker 1>national security as the motivation for these bands. China's Commerce

0:05:30.040 --> 0:05:34.000
<v Speaker 1>Ministry has denounced this strategy. The ministry says that it

0:05:34.279 --> 0:05:38.120
<v Speaker 1>quote deviates from the principles of fair competition and the

0:05:38.160 --> 0:05:42.320
<v Speaker 1>market economy that the US consistently advocates end quote, And

0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:44.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I think that's true. I think it does

0:05:44.520 --> 0:05:48.120
<v Speaker 1>like it does seem to fly in the face of

0:05:48.279 --> 0:05:52.840
<v Speaker 1>the general market velosophy of the United States. However, we

0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:59.080
<v Speaker 1>also have to acknowledge that China has backed countless hacker

0:05:59.160 --> 0:06:04.400
<v Speaker 1>groups and attacks against US companies and government agencies, and

0:06:05.000 --> 0:06:07.800
<v Speaker 1>China has infiltrated systems left, right and center in the

0:06:07.880 --> 0:06:11.320
<v Speaker 1>United States and in other places. So there's definitely an

0:06:11.360 --> 0:06:14.000
<v Speaker 1>element of self preservation going on here. It's not just

0:06:14.040 --> 0:06:17.640
<v Speaker 1>a case of we're treating you unfairly. It's we're being

0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:21.640
<v Speaker 1>attacked and we're trying to find ways to mitigate that. Now,

0:06:21.680 --> 0:06:24.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot of critics are saying, this actually isn't that

0:06:24.720 --> 0:06:28.200
<v Speaker 1>likely to affect China that much, because it's not like

0:06:28.320 --> 0:06:30.960
<v Speaker 1>China has a shortage of access to money to fund

0:06:31.080 --> 0:06:33.760
<v Speaker 1>these kind of things. And there are other investors around

0:06:33.800 --> 0:06:37.200
<v Speaker 1>the world who seem to be a little reluctant to

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:42.240
<v Speaker 1>acquiesce to a ban on investing in such Chinese technologies.

0:06:42.560 --> 0:06:44.479
<v Speaker 1>But this is going to have a big impact on

0:06:44.600 --> 0:06:47.120
<v Speaker 1>venture firms and private equity groups here in the United

0:06:47.160 --> 0:06:50.480
<v Speaker 1>States that we're hoping to make some serious bank while

0:06:50.480 --> 0:06:54.920
<v Speaker 1>backing Chinese tech initiatives. Dan Ackerman, the editor in chief

0:06:55.000 --> 0:06:58.039
<v Speaker 1>of Gizmoto and the author of a book titled The

0:06:58.160 --> 0:07:03.039
<v Speaker 1>Tetris Effect, is soon Apple, the Tetris company, and the

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:07.720
<v Speaker 1>filmmakers behind the movie Tetris, which is an Apple TV

0:07:07.839 --> 0:07:12.600
<v Speaker 1>Plus film. Apple produced it. Ackerman is claiming that the

0:07:12.600 --> 0:07:17.400
<v Speaker 1>filmmakers have plagiarized his work, that screenwriter Noah Pink adapted

0:07:17.520 --> 0:07:21.640
<v Speaker 1>Ackerman's book without his permission and without compensation. And this

0:07:21.680 --> 0:07:26.480
<v Speaker 1>gets tricky because both the movie and the book are

0:07:26.600 --> 0:07:30.280
<v Speaker 1>detailing the real world events that led to Tetris emerging

0:07:30.320 --> 0:07:34.720
<v Speaker 1>from the then Soviet Union to become a global phenomenon,

0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:38.440
<v Speaker 1>and how a Dutch American businessman played a pivotal role

0:07:38.760 --> 0:07:41.760
<v Speaker 1>in that story. This is a real world story, so

0:07:41.880 --> 0:07:45.920
<v Speaker 1>it's been told multiple times. It's not like Ackerman was

0:07:45.960 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 1>the first person to write about this. Now that being said,

0:07:49.760 --> 0:07:54.320
<v Speaker 1>Ackerman argues that the film contextualizes the story as if

0:07:54.360 --> 0:07:57.640
<v Speaker 1>it were like a Cold War era thriller, which his

0:07:57.640 --> 0:08:00.240
<v Speaker 1>book also did. So he says, it's not just that

0:08:00.280 --> 0:08:02.560
<v Speaker 1>we're both telling the same story, it's that we're telling

0:08:02.600 --> 0:08:06.480
<v Speaker 1>it the same way, and his lawsuit lists twenty two

0:08:06.560 --> 0:08:10.720
<v Speaker 1>points of similarity between his book and the film's screenplay

0:08:10.840 --> 0:08:14.360
<v Speaker 1>or the film itself. Ackerman also alleges that the Tetris

0:08:14.360 --> 0:08:19.240
<v Speaker 1>Company and its CEO, Maya Rodgers, denied Ackerman's attempts to

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:22.960
<v Speaker 1>secure film and TV rights to his book by denying

0:08:23.000 --> 0:08:25.800
<v Speaker 1>him the use of the Tetris license. So, in other words,

0:08:26.320 --> 0:08:30.400
<v Speaker 1>he couldn't end up, you know, having the film rights

0:08:30.440 --> 0:08:33.680
<v Speaker 1>or TV rights to his story because Tetris would not

0:08:33.960 --> 0:08:37.520
<v Speaker 1>allow him to license the IP at all. And how

0:08:37.520 --> 0:08:39.760
<v Speaker 1>do you tell the story that way? This kind of

0:08:39.760 --> 0:08:43.880
<v Speaker 1>feels similar to me to the recent film The Beanie Bubble.

0:08:44.240 --> 0:08:46.240
<v Speaker 1>That's where we got the story behind the people who

0:08:46.320 --> 0:08:50.000
<v Speaker 1>created beanie babies, but the film didn't manage to land

0:08:50.040 --> 0:08:53.319
<v Speaker 1>a license to actually show beanie babies in the movie,

0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:56.760
<v Speaker 1>so they have stand ins instead. There are no actual

0:08:56.800 --> 0:09:00.920
<v Speaker 1>beanie babies in the Beanie bubble film. It's really weird anyway.

0:09:01.320 --> 0:09:04.920
<v Speaker 1>Ackerman says that the Tetris company stonewalled his own attempts

0:09:04.960 --> 0:09:08.599
<v Speaker 1>to have his work adapted into a film and simultaneously

0:09:08.720 --> 0:09:12.160
<v Speaker 1>used his book as source material for a movie of

0:09:12.200 --> 0:09:15.520
<v Speaker 1>their own. So he is seeking around five million dollars.

0:09:15.960 --> 0:09:18.880
<v Speaker 1>And this might not be an open and shutcase even

0:09:18.920 --> 0:09:22.720
<v Speaker 1>with those points of similarity, because the people that the

0:09:22.760 --> 0:09:26.400
<v Speaker 1>stories about happened to be the producers of the movie,

0:09:26.559 --> 0:09:30.599
<v Speaker 1>right like the people that are the the the protagonists

0:09:30.760 --> 0:09:34.960
<v Speaker 1>of this story are producing the film. So there could

0:09:35.000 --> 0:09:37.959
<v Speaker 1>be a very valid argument to make that they were

0:09:38.040 --> 0:09:42.160
<v Speaker 1>the source of all the information used in the screenplay

0:09:42.360 --> 0:09:45.640
<v Speaker 1>and that they were also the principal sources for Akerman,

0:09:45.800 --> 0:09:49.040
<v Speaker 1>and that the argument is that the story wasn't taken

0:09:49.040 --> 0:09:52.120
<v Speaker 1>from Akerman, The story was taken from the people who

0:09:52.400 --> 0:09:55.480
<v Speaker 1>experienced it, and they just happened to be the source

0:09:55.520 --> 0:09:58.480
<v Speaker 1>for both works. That could be the argument we see.

0:09:58.920 --> 0:10:02.840
<v Speaker 1>Although if Akerman is able to argue that the presentation

0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:06.440
<v Speaker 1>of the story is the way it is because of

0:10:06.480 --> 0:10:10.800
<v Speaker 1>his book, then I think he's got a fairly solid case.

0:10:10.880 --> 0:10:13.680
<v Speaker 1>It's just this is a tough situation. We'll have to

0:10:13.679 --> 0:10:16.720
<v Speaker 1>see if the court allows all the blocks to fall

0:10:16.720 --> 0:10:18.400
<v Speaker 1>into place, or if this is one of those cases

0:10:18.400 --> 0:10:21.400
<v Speaker 1>where you accidentally drop that S shape block in the

0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:24.959
<v Speaker 1>wrong spot and really mess things up for yourself. Okay,

0:10:25.000 --> 0:10:26.920
<v Speaker 1>we're going to take a quick break and we'll be

0:10:27.000 --> 0:10:39.960
<v Speaker 1>back with some more news stories. US regulatory agencies are

0:10:40.000 --> 0:10:44.360
<v Speaker 1>coming down hard on nearly a dozen financial institutions relying

0:10:44.400 --> 0:10:47.920
<v Speaker 1>on so called off channel messaging apps to conduct financial deals,

0:10:48.200 --> 0:10:50.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, like discussing trades and that kind of thing.

0:10:51.920 --> 0:10:53.960
<v Speaker 1>And that is a big no note because some of

0:10:54.000 --> 0:10:57.160
<v Speaker 1>these messaging apps they don't keep a log of messages,

0:10:57.440 --> 0:11:00.600
<v Speaker 1>and the financial sector is heavily regulated, so these kinds

0:11:00.600 --> 0:11:03.400
<v Speaker 1>of deals aren't allowed to happen off the books. That

0:11:03.440 --> 0:11:06.640
<v Speaker 1>would be illegal. Everything is supposed to be well documented

0:11:06.960 --> 0:11:10.839
<v Speaker 1>and preserved, and the nature of these apps makes that impossible.

0:11:11.080 --> 0:11:15.520
<v Speaker 1>So in total, the regulators hit eleven financial institutions with

0:11:15.640 --> 0:11:19.559
<v Speaker 1>more than half a billion dollars in fines. If you're curious,

0:11:19.880 --> 0:11:23.720
<v Speaker 1>the one that was hit hardest was Wells. Fargo SEC

0:11:23.920 --> 0:11:26.199
<v Speaker 1>hit them for one hundred and twenty five million dollars,

0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:29.280
<v Speaker 1>and the Commodity Futures Training Commission hit them for another

0:11:29.320 --> 0:11:32.760
<v Speaker 1>seventy five million dollars. On top of that, the regulators

0:11:32.760 --> 0:11:37.120
<v Speaker 1>say that the violations occurred at all different levels within

0:11:37.240 --> 0:11:40.400
<v Speaker 1>these financial institutions. This wasn't a case of like some

0:11:40.520 --> 0:11:43.520
<v Speaker 1>new hire not understanding that they can't use watts app

0:11:43.880 --> 0:11:48.559
<v Speaker 1>to talk about big trades. It was all through different levels,

0:11:48.600 --> 0:11:52.880
<v Speaker 1>including supervisors, managers, leadership, that kind of stuff. So big o' yikes.

0:11:54.559 --> 0:11:57.360
<v Speaker 1>Saudi Arabia has followed the EU's lead when it comes

0:11:57.400 --> 0:12:01.440
<v Speaker 1>to mandating a USB C charging port on smartphones moving forward.

0:12:01.600 --> 0:12:03.880
<v Speaker 1>You may recall that the EU ruled on this matter

0:12:04.040 --> 0:12:07.240
<v Speaker 1>not too long ago, and that's going to necessitate companies

0:12:07.280 --> 0:12:12.000
<v Speaker 1>like Apple to migrate away from proprietary ports, in Apple's case,

0:12:12.040 --> 0:12:15.959
<v Speaker 1>the lightning port, in order to adopt the USBC standard,

0:12:16.360 --> 0:12:20.080
<v Speaker 1>and this would make charging ports universal across the EU

0:12:20.200 --> 0:12:24.520
<v Speaker 1>and then obviously across Saudi Arabia. Now, so the philosophy

0:12:24.559 --> 0:12:27.240
<v Speaker 1>behind this is that it helps cut way down on

0:12:27.360 --> 0:12:30.720
<v Speaker 1>e waste because you would go out, you'd buy a phone,

0:12:31.040 --> 0:12:34.000
<v Speaker 1>and you would buy a USBC charging cable, and you

0:12:34.040 --> 0:12:36.840
<v Speaker 1>could still use that same cable even as you upgrade

0:12:36.880 --> 0:12:39.640
<v Speaker 1>your phone over the years, even if you switch models

0:12:39.640 --> 0:12:43.600
<v Speaker 1>and brands of phones. At least until some new charging

0:12:43.640 --> 0:12:47.200
<v Speaker 1>standard would replace USBC, or maybe you need to buy

0:12:47.200 --> 0:12:49.880
<v Speaker 1>a new USBC cable because your old one no longer works,

0:12:50.000 --> 0:12:52.400
<v Speaker 1>or it needs to be upgraded to a new standard

0:12:52.400 --> 0:12:56.000
<v Speaker 1>that is more powerful. But I can get behind this.

0:12:57.760 --> 0:13:00.160
<v Speaker 1>I often think back to when I have had a

0:13:00.160 --> 0:13:02.800
<v Speaker 1>whole bunch of different digital gadgets, like you know, like

0:13:02.800 --> 0:13:06.200
<v Speaker 1>a standalone camera and an MP three player and a

0:13:06.320 --> 0:13:08.840
<v Speaker 1>smartphone and all this kind of stuff, and all of

0:13:08.840 --> 0:13:11.959
<v Speaker 1>them had their own charging ports and cables, and if

0:13:12.000 --> 0:13:14.240
<v Speaker 1>you misplaced one of them, you were out of lock.

0:13:14.360 --> 0:13:16.199
<v Speaker 1>You would have to go out and buy a replacement,

0:13:16.240 --> 0:13:21.240
<v Speaker 1>and often those were way overpriced because you didn't have options,

0:13:21.559 --> 0:13:23.600
<v Speaker 1>so you had to buy the official one and obg

0:13:23.880 --> 0:13:28.080
<v Speaker 1>like ridiculously expensive. By adopting a standard, consumers can purchase

0:13:28.120 --> 0:13:31.520
<v Speaker 1>a cable from whichever merchant and manufacturer they like and

0:13:31.559 --> 0:13:35.040
<v Speaker 1>it should work just fine because it's a standard. Saudi

0:13:35.080 --> 0:13:38.640
<v Speaker 1>Arabia's law takes effect January first, twenty twenty five. It's

0:13:38.679 --> 0:13:43.240
<v Speaker 1>widely believed that Apple's iPhone fifteen will have a USB

0:13:43.440 --> 0:13:47.199
<v Speaker 1>C charging port, not because of Saudi Arabia, but certainly

0:13:47.280 --> 0:13:49.520
<v Speaker 1>the EU would have been a big part of that,

0:13:50.280 --> 0:13:53.360
<v Speaker 1>and according to Apple, Insider. There were even rumors that

0:13:53.440 --> 0:13:57.440
<v Speaker 1>Apple had planned to incorporate technology that would throttle both

0:13:57.559 --> 0:14:01.960
<v Speaker 1>data transfer speeds and charging speed if users were going

0:14:02.000 --> 0:14:05.679
<v Speaker 1>to plug in a USBC cable that was not Apple certified.

0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:08.280
<v Speaker 1>So in other words, yes, Apple would use a standard,

0:14:08.600 --> 0:14:13.280
<v Speaker 1>but it would throttle any standard cable that wasn't Apple certified,

0:14:13.800 --> 0:14:17.480
<v Speaker 1>and that would artificially inhibit that cable's performance. But the

0:14:17.520 --> 0:14:20.040
<v Speaker 1>EU lawmakers have now said, if you do that, we

0:14:20.280 --> 0:14:23.760
<v Speaker 1>ban iPhone sales in the EU because the EU does

0:14:23.800 --> 0:14:27.480
<v Speaker 1>not play around with this stuff. Gizmodo has an article

0:14:27.520 --> 0:14:31.080
<v Speaker 1>by Thomas Jermaine titled c neet deletes thousands of old

0:14:31.160 --> 0:14:34.480
<v Speaker 1>articles to game Google Search. I think that article is

0:14:34.480 --> 0:14:36.880
<v Speaker 1>worth a read, but I'm actually going to go into

0:14:36.880 --> 0:14:38.920
<v Speaker 1>it a little bit here, so it's not just a recommendation.

0:14:39.440 --> 0:14:41.560
<v Speaker 1>The name of the game here is SEO, which, in

0:14:41.600 --> 0:14:46.240
<v Speaker 1>case you're not familiar with that initialism, that's search engine optimization.

0:14:46.880 --> 0:14:49.440
<v Speaker 1>This is an umbrella term for strategies that are meant

0:14:49.480 --> 0:14:53.600
<v Speaker 1>to improve a website's ranking in search results, primarily Google

0:14:53.680 --> 0:14:56.480
<v Speaker 1>search results, but it can apply to other search engines

0:14:56.480 --> 0:14:59.840
<v Speaker 1>as well. So SEO, when you really boil it down,

0:15:00.160 --> 0:15:04.280
<v Speaker 1>is all about figuring out what a search algorithm actually values.

0:15:04.320 --> 0:15:08.440
<v Speaker 1>You're kind of reverse engineering the approach to the algorithm

0:15:08.560 --> 0:15:11.360
<v Speaker 1>uses in order to rank search results, and then you

0:15:11.480 --> 0:15:14.480
<v Speaker 1>apply what you've learned to your own website so that

0:15:14.520 --> 0:15:18.480
<v Speaker 1>you can boost your websites appearance in search results. For example,

0:15:19.440 --> 0:15:21.640
<v Speaker 1>maybe you notice that trends are showing an increase in

0:15:21.680 --> 0:15:25.760
<v Speaker 1>searches around a particular topic, so you might rush to

0:15:25.800 --> 0:15:29.000
<v Speaker 1>create a page centered on that topic and then use

0:15:29.040 --> 0:15:31.640
<v Speaker 1>lots of stuff like links to and from that page

0:15:31.640 --> 0:15:35.320
<v Speaker 1>to help boost its performance. Gizmodo's report is about how

0:15:35.440 --> 0:15:38.480
<v Speaker 1>c net has been removing articles like thousands of them

0:15:38.560 --> 0:15:41.480
<v Speaker 1>over the past several months, and that this is a

0:15:41.600 --> 0:15:45.640
<v Speaker 1>case of c net attempting to prune material that could

0:15:45.640 --> 0:15:48.760
<v Speaker 1>otherwise be dragging the site as a whole down in

0:15:48.800 --> 0:15:53.200
<v Speaker 1>search results. So the thought is that older articles get

0:15:53.280 --> 0:15:57.320
<v Speaker 1>very little traffic and that they could be hurting the

0:15:57.440 --> 0:16:02.160
<v Speaker 1>c net's rankings and search overall. Because if Google's search

0:16:02.240 --> 0:16:05.080
<v Speaker 1>algorithm says, oh, not very many people are going to

0:16:05.160 --> 0:16:07.840
<v Speaker 1>this site when you take into account all the different

0:16:07.840 --> 0:16:10.800
<v Speaker 1>web pages, then it must not be very good, so

0:16:10.800 --> 0:16:12.880
<v Speaker 1>we're going to rank it lower. That's kind of the

0:16:12.960 --> 0:16:15.880
<v Speaker 1>thought here. So the idea is that you remove this

0:16:16.120 --> 0:16:19.120
<v Speaker 1>dead weight, you know, you cut the anchor away from you,

0:16:19.600 --> 0:16:23.520
<v Speaker 1>and the remaining pages on your website have better traffic

0:16:23.800 --> 0:16:26.680
<v Speaker 1>and better engagement, and that means you rank better in

0:16:26.720 --> 0:16:29.760
<v Speaker 1>search results. That's the thinking. Google, by the way, denies

0:16:29.800 --> 0:16:32.080
<v Speaker 1>that this is the way it works, but then SEO

0:16:32.440 --> 0:16:35.080
<v Speaker 1>experts say, no, this is part of how it works.

0:16:35.560 --> 0:16:37.760
<v Speaker 1>Google just doesn't want you to go out there and

0:16:37.800 --> 0:16:40.720
<v Speaker 1>start blasting out old articles in an effort to game

0:16:40.760 --> 0:16:43.480
<v Speaker 1>the system, which is what people are saying c net

0:16:43.520 --> 0:16:47.640
<v Speaker 1>is doing. I actually suspect that how Stuff Works has

0:16:47.720 --> 0:16:49.440
<v Speaker 1>done this in the past. I don't have any proof

0:16:49.480 --> 0:16:52.720
<v Speaker 1>on that, just other than I've had trouble finding my

0:16:52.760 --> 0:16:55.280
<v Speaker 1>own articles on that site, and I wrote for them

0:16:55.320 --> 0:16:58.960
<v Speaker 1>for like a decade, so it's it's a little weird

0:16:58.960 --> 0:17:01.040
<v Speaker 1>that I can't find very much many articles that I've

0:17:01.040 --> 0:17:03.880
<v Speaker 1>written on there, although maybe they just updated them and

0:17:03.920 --> 0:17:06.439
<v Speaker 1>removed my byline. I don't know. But yeah, it's kind

0:17:06.440 --> 0:17:08.320
<v Speaker 1>of a bummer because it means that people who have

0:17:08.480 --> 0:17:13.199
<v Speaker 1>been writing have lost a lot of their portfolio of

0:17:13.280 --> 0:17:15.960
<v Speaker 1>work that they could show off to other people. And

0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:18.359
<v Speaker 1>it just is kind of depressing to see that you know,

0:17:18.400 --> 0:17:21.359
<v Speaker 1>creative types like yours truly have to remember the stuff

0:17:21.400 --> 0:17:25.040
<v Speaker 1>we make isn't even at all permanent, which makes me

0:17:25.080 --> 0:17:27.200
<v Speaker 1>wonder why I'm even doing this. Okay, wait, i gotta

0:17:27.240 --> 0:17:29.240
<v Speaker 1>step out of it. I've got a couple more stories

0:17:29.240 --> 0:17:32.720
<v Speaker 1>to get through, all right. So Disney is getting ready

0:17:32.720 --> 0:17:36.960
<v Speaker 1>to hike prices for its streaming services again. It's starting

0:17:37.000 --> 0:17:38.920
<v Speaker 1>to get a bit ridiculous with the number of services

0:17:38.920 --> 0:17:42.240
<v Speaker 1>and options within those services. But here we go. For

0:17:42.280 --> 0:17:45.480
<v Speaker 1>those subscribe to the ads supported tiers for Disney Plus

0:17:46.000 --> 0:17:51.000
<v Speaker 1>Hulu or Disney Plus and Hulu, there's no change. The

0:17:51.040 --> 0:17:53.720
<v Speaker 1>monthly fee is going to stay exactly the same. But

0:17:54.080 --> 0:17:57.080
<v Speaker 1>if you want the no ads version of Disney Plus,

0:17:57.520 --> 0:17:59.920
<v Speaker 1>that's going from ten ninety nine per month to thirty

0:18:00.000 --> 0:18:03.120
<v Speaker 1>teen ninety nine per month starting October twelfth. If you're

0:18:03.119 --> 0:18:06.160
<v Speaker 1>going ad free on Hulu, that goes from fourteen ninety

0:18:06.200 --> 0:18:09.600
<v Speaker 1>nine per month to seventeen ninety nine per month. And

0:18:09.640 --> 0:18:12.359
<v Speaker 1>if you want both of them with no ads, you

0:18:12.400 --> 0:18:15.919
<v Speaker 1>can opt in for a new tier called Duo Premium

0:18:16.119 --> 0:18:19.160
<v Speaker 1>that launches in early September. That one is nineteen ninety

0:18:19.240 --> 0:18:22.439
<v Speaker 1>nine per month, or hey, you could go Duo Basic

0:18:22.680 --> 0:18:25.200
<v Speaker 1>that's Disney Plus and Hulu with ads. That's nine ninety

0:18:25.280 --> 0:18:28.040
<v Speaker 1>nine per month. That's kind of why it is right now, Oh,

0:18:28.119 --> 0:18:31.400
<v Speaker 1>sports fans, there are options for you too. ESPN Plus

0:18:31.560 --> 0:18:34.359
<v Speaker 1>with ADS is going to be ten ninety nine per month,

0:18:34.720 --> 0:18:37.120
<v Speaker 1>But if you wanted to lump that into Disney Plus

0:18:37.240 --> 0:18:40.800
<v Speaker 1>and Hulu packages, well you could go basic. That means

0:18:40.880 --> 0:18:44.120
<v Speaker 1>all the platforms are ADS supported. That combined package will

0:18:44.119 --> 0:18:47.240
<v Speaker 1>cost you fourteen ninety nine per month. Or you could

0:18:47.240 --> 0:18:50.760
<v Speaker 1>go AD free on Hulu and AD free on Disney Plus. However,

0:18:51.080 --> 0:18:54.240
<v Speaker 1>ESPN Plus is still AD supported, that ends up being

0:18:54.240 --> 0:18:57.280
<v Speaker 1>twenty four ninety nine a month. There are other options too.

0:18:57.560 --> 0:18:59.840
<v Speaker 1>There's ones where you can have live TV included, the

0:19:00.200 --> 0:19:02.680
<v Speaker 1>ones where you can have a subscription to all UFC

0:19:02.720 --> 0:19:05.080
<v Speaker 1>pay per views. In a year is a big old

0:19:05.119 --> 0:19:09.639
<v Speaker 1>complicated mess, and just a quick reminder a little flashback

0:19:09.720 --> 0:19:12.119
<v Speaker 1>back when Disney Plus first launched in twenty nineteen. You

0:19:12.119 --> 0:19:15.480
<v Speaker 1>know how much that cost six ninety nine per month.

0:19:16.080 --> 0:19:18.720
<v Speaker 1>It has doubled in price, or at least it will

0:19:18.760 --> 0:19:23.000
<v Speaker 1>have come October. According to multiple sources. Disney is also

0:19:23.200 --> 0:19:26.000
<v Speaker 1>following in Netflix's footsteps, and by that I mean exploring

0:19:26.040 --> 0:19:31.120
<v Speaker 1>ways to eliminate password sharing among households. Finally, you might

0:19:31.160 --> 0:19:33.760
<v Speaker 1>remember that last year NASA tested out a method that

0:19:33.800 --> 0:19:36.080
<v Speaker 1>could be used to divert an asteroid on an impact

0:19:36.119 --> 0:19:40.160
<v Speaker 1>trajectory with Earth. They were slamming a spacecraft into it.

0:19:40.240 --> 0:19:43.520
<v Speaker 1>They did that with an asteroid called Dimorphose, which was

0:19:43.560 --> 0:19:48.280
<v Speaker 1>in orbit around another asteroid called Didamus, not on a

0:19:48.320 --> 0:19:50.719
<v Speaker 1>collision course with Earth. This was just a test, and

0:19:50.800 --> 0:19:55.439
<v Speaker 1>now an astronomer team led by David Jewett have discovered

0:19:56.000 --> 0:20:00.199
<v Speaker 1>that apparently that impact caused boulders to eject off the

0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:04.440
<v Speaker 1>surface of Dimorphose. And the problem with that is that

0:20:04.480 --> 0:20:07.560
<v Speaker 1>if we were to use this method on an incoming asteroid,

0:20:07.800 --> 0:20:09.800
<v Speaker 1>what we might end up with is instead of one

0:20:09.840 --> 0:20:12.480
<v Speaker 1>big asteroid coming at us, we might have a whole

0:20:12.520 --> 0:20:16.919
<v Speaker 1>bunch of smaller bodies of rock flying at us. So

0:20:17.080 --> 0:20:21.360
<v Speaker 1>it's kind of like going from a cannonball to buckshot, or,

0:20:21.480 --> 0:20:25.360
<v Speaker 1>as Jewett has says, shrapnel from a hand grenade. This

0:20:25.400 --> 0:20:28.040
<v Speaker 1>is why the plan and Armageddon wouldn't have worked, y'all.

0:20:28.600 --> 0:20:32.000
<v Speaker 1>That documentary was so wrong. But yeah, you can't just

0:20:32.040 --> 0:20:33.520
<v Speaker 1>blow it up. You would just end up with the

0:20:33.520 --> 0:20:37.120
<v Speaker 1>same amount of mass just spread out some And yeah,

0:20:37.200 --> 0:20:39.439
<v Speaker 1>maybe some of the smaller pieces would burn up on

0:20:39.800 --> 0:20:42.959
<v Speaker 1>entry into the Earth's atmosphere, but others would make it

0:20:42.960 --> 0:20:45.760
<v Speaker 1>down and potentially cause massive amounts of damage. So this

0:20:45.800 --> 0:20:50.080
<v Speaker 1>could mean that we have to reevaluate that particular methodology

0:20:50.160 --> 0:20:54.560
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to diverting a near Earth object's trajectory.

0:20:54.600 --> 0:20:57.840
<v Speaker 1>If it's coming our way, it may be that slamming

0:20:57.880 --> 0:21:01.639
<v Speaker 1>something into it isn't the we need, but a lot

0:21:01.720 --> 0:21:03.640
<v Speaker 1>more work has to be done before we can come

0:21:03.680 --> 0:21:07.640
<v Speaker 1>to that determination. It is interesting, though. All Right, that's it.

0:21:07.840 --> 0:21:10.320
<v Speaker 1>I hope you are all well, and I'll talk to

0:21:10.359 --> 0:21:20.600
<v Speaker 1>you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production.

0:21:20.880 --> 0:21:25.920
<v Speaker 1>For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

0:21:26.040 --> 0:21:31.560
<v Speaker 1>or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.