China is retaliating against the latest chip sanctions by the US, banning exports of rare minerals to the US that are vital to semiconductor production.
The US has been working for years to block China’s access to advanced chip technology, using its export restrictions to prevent US and international companies that rely on US technology from exporting the latest tech to China. While the sanctions originally targeted a limited number of companies, such as Huawei and ZTE, the US Commerce Department has expanded that list to include an additional 140 companies.
In response, according to AP News, China has banned exports of antimony, gallium, germanium, and other materials used in various high-tech and military applications. The country is the world’s main source of gallium and germanium. The two materials are used in semiconductors for the automotive and mobile industries. Antimony is a key component in batteries, as well night-vision products, nuclear weapons, and flame retardants. As such, a ban on exports to the US could have a significant impact on the US tech industry.
China’s Foreign Ministry took the opportunity to condemn the latest action by the US.
“China has lodged stern protests with the U.S. for its update of the semiconductor export control measures, sanctions against Chinese companies, and malicious suppression of China’s technological progress,” Lin Jian, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said Tuesday.
“I want to reiterate that China firmly opposes the U.S. overstretching the concept of national security, abuse of export control measures, and illegal unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction against Chinese companies,” Lin said.
China is already taking measures to secure its ability to make advanced semiconductors, making a concerted effort to recruit semiconductor engineers from the West. The move is already drawing attention from intelligence agencies..
The situation is not likely to improve in the coming months, with the incoming Trump administration promising steep tariffs on goods from China, which will likely lead to additional retaliatory export bans.
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Mobilewalla, a data broker that collects and sells sensitive location data.
According to the FTC, Mobilewalla collected data from real-time bidding exchanges, as well as from third-party data aggregators. More often than not, customers had not given consent and had no knowledge—nor any way of knowing—that Mobilewalla had collected their data.
“Persistent tracking by data brokers can put millions of Americans at risk, exposing the precise locations where service members are stationed or which medical treatments someone is seeking,” said FTC Chair Lina Khan. “Mobilewalla exploited vulnerabilities in digital ad markets to harvest this data at a stunning scale. The FTC is cracking down on firms that unlawfully exploit people’s sensitive location data and ensuring that we protect Americans from unchecked surveillance.”
To make matters worse, Mobilewalla retained the raw data without anonymizing it, and had no policy to strip the data of sensitive information. As a result, individual mobile devices could be easily identified by the data, data the company then sold to third parties.
“Mobilewalla collected massive amounts of sensitive consumer data – including visits to health clinics and places of worship – and sold this data in a way that exposed consumers to harm,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC is acting today to stop these invasive practices and protect the public from always-on surveillance.”
Under the FTC’s proposed action, Mobilewall would “be banned from collecting consumer data from online advertising auctions for purposes other than participating in those auctions,” and would be banned “from selling sensitive location data, including data that reveals the identity of an individual’s private home.” The ban on collecting data is the first time the FTC has taken such action.
The FTC’s action against Mobilewalla also includes:
Retention of data from auctions: The company is prohibited from collecting or retaining consumer data while participating in online advertising auctions for any other purpose than participating in the auction;
Sensitive location data program: The company must create a sensitive location data program that develops a comprehensive list of sensitive locations and that is designed to prevent the use, sale or disclosure sensitive location data or otherwise using sensitive location data in any product or service;
Data deletion: The company must implement a method for consumers to request deletion of their location data from the company and to delete certain types of older data. The company must also delete historic location data and any work product from this data.
Mandated privacy program: The company is required to establish a comprehensive privacy program that protects consumers’ personal information; assess the program annually; and train employees and contractors who have access to sensitive data;
Supplier assessment program: The company is required to set up a supplier assessment program designed to confirm whether consumers have provided consent for the collection and use of location data and will be prohibited from collecting or using location data if it cannot obtain records showing that consumers provided consent; and
Disclosures to consumers: The company must provide a method for consumers to withdraw consent for the use of their data and must delete and stop collecting that data.
Data collection companies and data brokers have become a scourge of the modern tech industry. Hopefully the FTC’s action against Mobilewalla won’t be the last such action the agency takes against the entire industry.
Fintech company Beeks Group joins the growing list of companies disillusioned with Broadcom’s purchase of VMware, migrating away from the platform after a 10x price increase.
Broadcom purchased VMware in late 2023, and wasted no time dramatically increasing prices for existing customers. AT&T filed a lawsuit against Broadcom, alleging breach of contract after the company wanted to charge AT&T 1,050% more. There have been additional reports of other companies, some with tens of thousands of VMware virtual machines, migrating to competing products in response to Broadcom’s tactics.
According to The Register, Beeks Group is the latest to migrate away from VMware following a 10x price increase. Interestingly, Beeks was another company with tens of thousands of VMware VMs, to the tune of more than 20,000 in 20 datacenters.
Matthew Cretney, Beeks head of production, told the outlet that Beeks received a bill for 10x what it had traditionally paid VMware. At the same time, the company’s clients said that VMware was not longer critical to their operation, freeing Beeks to explore alternatives.
Ultimately, the fintech company settled on OpenNebula, an open-source solution that can use a number of hypervisors, although KVM is often the preferred choice. The migration was not without its challenges, as code that relied on VMware APIs had to be rewritten to target OpenNebula. Nonetheless, relying on an open-source solution ensures that Beek will never face this issue again.
As The Register points out, Beeks joins the likes of Geico, John Deere, Computershare, and Boyd Gaming in migrating away from VMware due to Broadcom’s tactics. While Broadcom is well known for squeezing every last penny of profit out of products, it’s tactics may end up destroying VMware’s value.
In the dynamic world of digital marketing, Google has long been a titan, reigning supreme over the multibillion-dollar advertising landscape. For years, businesses looked to Google Ads as the engine of growth—the catalyst that could transform a dollar of ad spend into a profitable return. However, according to Steve Chou, e-commerce expert and host of the YouTube channel “MyWifeQuitHerJob,” Google’s golden days are fading, and the cracks in its advertising empire are starting to show.
“Five years ago, a Google ads campaign could turn $1 into $5. Three years ago, it was more like $1 into $3. Today, businesses are losing money faster than ever before,” Chou said in a recent video, outlining a harsh new reality that has rattled the foundation of online advertising.
Listen to our conversation about the ad-pocalypse that Google is facing!
In the last five years, Chou says, the average cost of advertising for retail brands on Google Ads has risen between 40-50%. And just in the last year, the cost per click (CPC) for retail search has surged an additional 20% for the median advertiser. The escalating costs have not gone unnoticed by major agencies either, who are quietly reeling in ad spend for their clients. “This isn’t another ‘how to fix your Google ads’ video,” Chou emphasized. “This is about understanding the biggest shift in digital marketing that is crippling Google’s search and ad business.”
The Decline of Google’s Ad Effectiveness
So, why are Google Ads increasingly “going to crap,” as Chou puts it? The answer is multifaceted, with several key issues converging to erode the effectiveness of the platform. Part of the problem, according to Chou, is increased competition. But more alarmingly, whistleblowers and former Google executives have revealed a series of practices that could be contributing to this decline.
“If you’ve been following the news, you know that Google is in the middle of an antitrust case, and there have been a lot of whistleblowers,” Chou explained. “A few executives have revealed that Google has been quietly increasing ad prices to meet internal revenue targets.”
This, Chou argues, is where the illusion of natural competition falls apart. Google sets what is known as a “floor price” for ads—the minimum amount an advertiser must bid to get any exposure at all. “This isn’t a free-market bidding system,” Chou pointed out. “Google artificially raises these floor prices behind the scenes, and advertisers have no idea.” These silent price increases have led to an inflated ad market that does not genuinely reflect advertiser demand or value.
“This is not natural competition. This is Google just increasing their price because they can,” he continued. “The kicker is that these price increases are silent—they do it behind the scenes without informing advertisers.”
The Automation Illusion
Another critical shift has been Google’s move toward automated campaign management. Google now promotes its “smart” automation tools and artificial intelligence as an easier way for advertisers to manage their campaigns. The promise is alluring: let AI handle the complexities of bidding, targeting, and optimizing, leaving advertisers with a “hands-free” experience.
“It’s actually super easy to launch an advertising campaign now,” said Chou. “But you’re basically at the mercy of Google to spend your money haphazardly with very little transparency.” He pointed to Google’s Performance Max (PMax) campaigns, a relatively new offering that gives Google full control over the allocation of ad budgets across its platforms.
“Performance Max sounds great on paper,” Chou said. “But in reality, Google provides little or no visibility into how your money is actually being spent. It’s one big black box—you put money in, and Google decides how much to display your ads, with almost no transparency for the advertiser.”
The shift from manual control to “smart” automation has left advertisers with fewer options to fine-tune their campaigns. Advertisers, many of whom have spent years mastering Google’s advertising system, are feeling disempowered. “It’s like Google wants to keep things obscure,” Chou said, “so they can unload their junk ad inventory without anyone noticing.”
Customer Service: From Advisors to Salespeople
Chou, who has been running Google Ads for his seven-figure e-commerce store Bumblebee Linens for over 17 years, has witnessed a dramatic shift in the support advertisers receive from Google.
“Google was awesome five years ago,” he recalled. “They were very supportive to advertisers. If you had a problem, they would be there to help you fix it.” But over time, Google’s customer service morphed into a sales operation, aimed at upselling features rather than solving problems.
“All of a sudden, my Google reps started becoming salesmen,” he said. “These days, if you get a call from a Google rep, it’s someone who barely knows how to run Google Ads but is eager to push new features that get you to spend more money.”
Chou noted that this shift is reflective of Google’s overall strategic pivot—focused less on helping advertisers succeed and more on squeezing every penny possible out of its existing customer base. “At some point, Google made the decision to grow revenue at all costs, even at the expense of advertiser support,” he added.
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Google’s Decline
The core of Google’s ad business relies on advertisers continuing to believe that Google is the best platform for reaching customers. But, as Chou pointed out, artificial intelligence is emerging as a formidable competitor to traditional search engines.
“When you look at Google’s business model, it makes sense. Google doesn’t make more money if you find the perfect product right away,” Chou explained. “Google makes money when you click on sponsored links—even if that means clicking through a bunch of ads before you find what you really want.” This stands in stark contrast to AI models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which are designed to deliver precise answers without forcing users to sift through advertisements.
Chou argued that Google’s revenue model depends on a “friction-filled” user experience, whereas AI-driven solutions are focused on eliminating friction altogether. “Google’s ideal scenario is that you click on as many sponsored links as possible,” he said. “But with AI, people are beginning to understand there’s a better way—you can just get the answer you need, without all the noise.”
A Future in Question
The erosion of Google’s advertising effectiveness, paired with the rise of artificial intelligence, poses a significant threat to Google’s future dominance. “The only way Google can keep up with Wall Street estimates is to squeeze sellers,” Chou asserted. “But they can only squeeze so much before the dam breaks.”
The broader implication is clear: Google, which has long been synonymous with the internet itself, is facing one of the greatest challenges to its core business model since its inception. “If Google doesn’t evolve to provide real value instead of just inflated ad prices, they’re going to get disrupted,” Chou warned.
As advertisers grow frustrated with rising costs, lack of transparency, and declining support, many are starting to explore alternative channels. For some, that means turning to social media platforms like TikTok or Facebook, while for others, it means embracing AI-powered tools that offer direct answers without the need for a dozen clicks.
The future of digital marketing is changing, and the traditional Google Ads playbook is no longer the sure bet it once was. As Steve Chou puts it, “What you do next could save your marketing budget—and possibly your entire business.”
Tesla fans eager to use a 100% autonomous robotaxi or robot are in for a disappointment, with the company acknowledging humans will be remotely controlling them.
True autonomous cars and robots are one of the biggest challenges facing the technology sector. Tesla, and CEO Elon Musk, have touted their autonomous solution, even receiving criticism for overselling what the company’s products are actually capable of.
In a recent job posting, Tesla reveals that its autonomous products won’t be truly autonomous, with humans occasionally taking over control.
Tesla AI’s Teleoperation team is charged with providing remote access to our robotaxis and humanoid robots. Our cars and robots operate autonomously in challenging environments. As we iterate on the AI that powers them, we need the ability to access and control them remotely. This requires building highly optimized low latency reliable data streaming over unreliable transports in the real world. At Tesla, we control the entire hardware and software stack, end to end. Our goal is to integrate our hardware, firmware and backend expertise to achieve a cutting-edge system. Our remote operators are transported into the device’s world using a state-of-the-art VR rig that allows them to remotely perform complex and intricate tasks. Working with hardware teams, you will drive requirements, make design decisions and implement software integration for this custom teleoperation system.
The company outlines the specific responsibilities associated with the role.
Responsible for developing the Unreal application[SC1] [DS2] that our Remote Operators use to interface with our cars and robots
Influence architectural and UX decisions with a focus on usability, security, reliability, and high performance
Choose technologies that will allow us to scale with our growing fleet of cars and robots while efficiently utilizing cloud infrastructure and managing costs
Setup and maintain monitoring, metrics & reporting systems for fine-grained observability and actionable alerting
Tesla is one of the leaders in autonomous driving tech, and is quickly establishing itself in the robotics field. If it has to fall back on remote control by humans, it illustrates just how difficult it is to deliver true autonomous operations.
Apple is facing a new challenge in the form of a lawsuit by its employees claiming the company is spying on them via their personal accounts.
Apple has a long history of being extremely secretive and successful in its attempts to prevent leaks about upcoming products and services. Based on an employee lawsuit, it seems some within the company believe it is going too far, infringing on the “fundemental human right” to privacy that Apple champions.
In a report by Semafor, the lawsuit says that employees must give up their own right to privacy in exchange for working at the company.
“For Apple employees, the Apple ecosystem is not a walled garden. It is a prison yard. A panopticon where employees, both on and off duty, are subject to Apple’s all-seeing eye,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit goes on to say that employees are encouraged to mix their home and work life and digital accounts, giving the company the ability to track what they do even when using their personal iCloud accounts and devices.
“For Apple employees, the Apple ecosystem is not a walled garden. It is a prison yard. A panopticon where employees, both on and off duty, are subject to Apple’s all-seeing eye,” the lawsuit says.
Semafor goes on to say that Apple actively discourages employees from using a work-only iCloud account, which would be the easiest way to bypass the company’s surveillance.
Apple critics have long argued that the company’s stance on privacy is more marketing than reality, with the company working hard to cash in on consumers’ growing unease with data-mining services and companies. If Apple loses this lawsuit, it will go a long way toward validating those claims, and paint the company as one that champions privacy while actively undermining it with its own employees.
Intel announced CEO Pat Gelsinger has retired, an unsurprising development given the company’s current state and the issues surrounding Gelsinger’s attempted turnaround efforts.
Frank Yeary, interim executive chair of the board, touted Gelsinger’s efforts to revitalize the company’s manufacturing process, while at the same time acknowledging that much remains to do.
“On behalf of the board, I want to thank Pat for his many years of service and dedication to Intel across a long career in technology leadership,” Year said. “Pat spent his formative years at Intel, then returned at a critical time for the company in 2021. As a leader, Pat helped launch and revitalize process manufacturing by investing in state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing, while working tirelessly to drive innovation throughout the company.
“While we have made significant progress in regaining manufacturing competitiveness and building the capabilities to be a world-class foundry, we know that we have much more work to do at the company and are committed to restoring investor confidence,” Year continued. “As a board, we know first and foremost that we must put our product group at the center of all we do. Our customers demand this from us, and we will deliver for them. With MJ’s permanent elevation to CEO of Intel Products along with her interim co-CEO role of Intel, we are ensuring the product group will have the resources needed to deliver for our customers. Ultimately, returning to process leadership is central to product leadership, and we will remain focused on that mission while driving greater efficiency and improved profitability.”
Gelsinger, who’s retirement is effective December 1, said being CEO of the company was the honor of his lifetime.
“Leading Intel has been the honor of my lifetime – this group of people is among the best and the brightest in the business, and I’m honored to call each and every one a colleague. Today is, of course, bittersweet as this company has been my life for the bulk of my working career. I can look back with pride at all that we have accomplished together. It has been a challenging year for all of us as we have made tough but necessary decisions to position Intel for the current market dynamics. I am forever grateful for the many colleagues around the world who I have worked with as part of the Intel family.”
A Series of Missteps
Gelsinger was tapped to replace Bob Swan as CEO of the beleaguered chipmaker in early 2021, with the hope that his strong engineering background would help the company return to its manufacturing roots and regain its past glory.
At the time, Gelsinger was vocal in his belief that past CEOs had lost their way, and promised to bring back the “maniacal” focus on manufacturing that made the company such a powerhouse in past years.
In some ways, Gelsinger succeeded with his mandate. Under his leadership, the company invested billions to build out its manufacturing capabilities, setting up new factories and foundries around the world. The company also became the poster child for a resurgence of US-based manufacturing, receiving billions from the CHIPS ACT, aimed at bolstering US semiconductor manufacturing.
Nonetheless, under his tenure, Intel also experienced devastating layoffs, and some of the worst quarterly results in company history. The company has seen some of its top engineers leave, many to join rivals or start their own chip firms.
Throughout its troubles, Gelsinger has often been dismissive of rivals, especially ARM and AMD. Gelsinger has been notoriously dismissive of ARM’s potential to upend the industry.
And overall, I think what you’re seeing is the industry is excited around the AIPC. And as I declared this generation of AIPC at our Innovation Conference a couple of months ago, we’re seeing that materialize and customers, competitors seeing excitement around that. ARM and Windows client alternatives, generally, they’ve been relegated to pretty insignificant roles in the PC business.
Despite that confident proclamation, ARM has continued to grow as a threat to Intel’s dominance, with Microsoft even launching its Windows Copilot PCs on ARM architecture first.
“Alder Lake, all of sudden, boom! We are back in the game! AMD in the rearview mirror in clients, and never again will they be in the windshield,” Gelsinger said in early 2022.
A Mixed Legacy
To add insult to injury, Intel’s fortunes under Gelsinger have fallen so low that Qualcomm expressed interest in buying the company, either in whole or in part. Reports indicated that Intel leadership was open to the deal, seeing it as a viable option to help turn the company around.
The fact that Intel is even seen as a potential takeover target, let alone that the company’s leadership would be open to the possibility, is a stark milestone that illustrates just how far it has fallen from its glory days.
While Gelsinger has done much to revitalize the company’s manufacturing, there’s no denying that his tenure as CEO will be marked by a mixed legacy, one that left the company more vulnerable than it has ever been in its long and storied history.
Negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty have failed to yield a result, with the participants agreeing to meet for one final negotiation.
Once hailed as a wonder of modern ingenuity, plastics have emerged as one of the greatest environmental threats the world has seen. Microplastics have invaded very possible part from the world, from the deepest sea trenches to human brains and human reproductive organs. Environmental groups and many governments have been pushing for a ban on single-use plastics, as well as some of the other dangerous types.
According to Graham Forbes, Greenpeace Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and Global Plastics Campaign Lead at Greenpeace USA, the latest negotiations yielded no results, but the negotiating parties still have a chance to hammer out a meaningful agreement.
“Every day that governments allow polluters to continue flooding the world with plastic, we all pay the price,” Forbes said. “This delay comes with dire consequences for people and the planet, ruthlessly sacrificing those on the frontlines of this crisis. But this week over 100 Member States, representing billions of people, rejected a toothless deal that would have accomplished nothing, and stood before the world committing to an ambitious treaty. Now, it’s time they stand by this promise and deliver.
“For the next meeting, the assignment for member states is clear: the ambitious majority must break through fossil fuel influence and the obstruction of a few, to deliver an effective agreement with binding global targets and measures to reduce plastic production. They must fight for protections against dangerous chemicals, bans on single-use plastics, reuse targets, and an equitable financing plan. They must use their power to ensure the INC process is inclusive and just, prioritize access for the communities most affected by plastic pollution.”
“We stand at a historic crossroads. The opportunity to secure an impactful plastics treaty that protects our health, biodiversity and climate remains within reach. Strong political headwinds make this more challenging, but the lesson from INC5 is clear: ambitious countries must not allow the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, backed by a small minority of countries, to prevent the will of the vast majority. A strong agreement that protects people and the planet is our only option.”
Threads may have orders of magnitude more users than Bluesky, but the latter accounts for far more traffic to The Boston Globe than Meta’s platform.
As X (formerly Twitter) continues to devolve, the decentralized Bluesky and Meta’s Threads have emerged as the two strongest possibilities for a successor. Threads has more users, by far, with the app reportedly having more than 300 million users. According to Axios, the platform added more than 35 million users in November alone, on top of the 275 million users it had at the end of October. In contrast, Bluesky reportedly has roughly 22 million users.
Despite the disparity in numbers, Bluesky users appear to offer more value. According to Matt Karolian, Bluesky users account for several times more traffic and conversions for The Boston Globe than Threads users.
Traffic from Bluesky to @bostonglobe.com is already 3x that of Threads, and we are seeing 4.5x the conversions to paying digital subscribers.
The revelation is good news for Bluesky, and reinforces its status as one of the primary candidates for a true Twitter replacement. The numbers also suggest that, while Threads user numbers may benefit from Meta’s existing user base, Bluesky’s users are likely far more engaged.
