Computers and the Internet

Latest story

175 Shares170 Views

U.S. Blasts Google Over Paying $10 Billion a Year to Cut Out Search Rivals

by

The Justice Department and 38 states and territories on Tuesday laid out how Google had systematically wielded its power in online search to cow competitors, as the internet giant fiercely parried back, in the opening of the most consequential trial over tech power in the modern internet era.In a packed courtroom at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, the Justice Department and states painted a picture of how Google had used its deep pockets and dominant position, paying $10 billion a year to Apple and others to be the default search provider on smartphones. Google viewed those agreements as a “powerful strategic weapon” to cut out rivals and entrench its search engine, the government said.“This feedback loop, this wheel, has been turning for more than 12 years,” said Kenneth Dintzer, the Justice Department’s lead courtroom lawyer. “And it always turns to Google’s advantage.”Google denied that it had illegally used agreements to exclude its search competitors and said it had simply provided a superior product, adding that people can easily switch which search engine they use. The company also said that internet search extends more broadly than its general search engine and pointed to the many ways that people now find information online, such as Amazon for shopping, TikTok for entertainment and Expedia for travel.“Users today have more search options and more ways to access information online than ever before,” said John E. Schmidtlein, the lawyer who opened for Google.The back-and-forth came in the federal government’s first monopoly trial since it tried to break up Microsoft more than two decades ago. This case — U.S. et al. v. Google — is set to have profound implications not only for the internet behemoth but for a generation of other large tech companies that have come to influence how people shop, communicate, entertain themselves and work.Over the next 10 weeks, the government and Google will present arguments and question dozens of witnesses, digging into how the company came to power and whether it broke the law to maintain and magnify its dominance. The final ruling, by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, could shift the balance of power in the tech industry, which is embroiled in a race over artificial intelligence that could transform and disrupt people’s lives.A government victory could set limits on Google and change its business practices, sending a humbling message to the other tech giants. If Google wins, it could act as a referendum on increasingly aggressive government regulators, raise questions about the efficacy of century-old antitrust laws and further embolden Silicon Valley.“It is a test of whether our current antitrust laws — the Sherman Act, written in 1890 — can adapt to markets that are susceptible to monopolization in the 21st century,” said Bill Baer, a former top antitrust official at the Justice Department, adding that Google was “indisputably powerful.”The case is part of a sweeping effort by the Biden administration and states to rein in the biggest tech companies. The Justice Department has filed a second lawsuit against Google over its advertising technology, which could go to trial as early as next year. The Federal Trade Commission is separately moving toward a trial in an antitrust lawsuit against Meta. Investigations remain open in efforts that could lead to antitrust lawsuits against Amazon and Apple.The Justice Department filed the case accusing Google of illegally maintaining its dominance in search in October 2020. Months later, a group of attorneys general from 35 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and the District of Columbia filed their own lawsuit arguing that Google had abused its monopoly over search. Judge Mehta is considering both lawsuits during the trial.The case centers on the agreements that Google reached with browser developers, smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers to use Google as the default search engine on their products. Since the lawsuit was filed, more than five million documents and depositions of more than 150 witnesses have been submitted to the court. Last month, Judge Mehta narrowed the scope of the trial, while allowing the core claims of monopoly abuse in search to remain.The trial unfolded on Tuesday in Courtroom 10 at Washington’s federal courthouse, a complex minutes from Capitol Hill. It drew a large crowd, with some people standing in line to enter as early as 4:30 a.m. Officials from the Google rivals Yelp and Microsoft also attended, as did dozens of attorneys and staff from the Justice Department, states and Google after years of work on the case.Judge Mehta began the proceedings punctually. In the government’s opening statement, Mr. Dintzer focused on the search agreements Google had struck with Apple and others. He referenced internal company documents that described how Google would not share revenue with Apple without “default placement” on its devices and how it worked to ensure that Apple couldn’t redirect searches to its Siri assistant.“Your honor, this is a monopolist flexing,” Mr. Dintzer said.In blunt language, Mr. Dintzer also argued that Google had tried to hide documents from antitrust enforcers by including lawyers on conversations and marking them as subject to attorney-client privilege. He showed a message from Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, asking for the chat history to be turned off in one conversation.“They turned history off, your honor, so they could rewrite it here in this courtroom,” Mr. Dintzer said.William Cavanaugh, a lawyer for the states, echoed Mr. Dintzer’s concerns about Google’s agreements to become the default search engines on smartphones. He added that Google had limited a product used to place ads on other search engines to hurt Microsoft, which makes the Bing search engine.In response, Mr. Schmidtlein, Google’s lawyer, argued that the company’s default agreements with browser makers don’t lock up the market the way that the Justice Department said. Browser makers such as Apple and Mozilla both promote other search engines, he said, and it was easy for users to switch their default search engine.Using a slide show, Mr. Schmidtlein demonstrated the number of taps or clicks required to change the default on popular smartphones. People who wished to switch their search engine but did not know how could search Google for instructions or watch a video tutorial on YouTube, which Google owns, he said.The government’s evidence was coming from “snippets and out-of-context” emails, he said.The lawyers also sparred over whether Google was as dominant as the government claimed. The Justice Department and the states said Google competes primarily with broad search engines that act as a single place to look for multiple types of information. But Mr. Schmidtlein said Google’s universe of competitors was wider, including online retailers like Amazon, food delivery apps like DoorDash and travel booking sites like Expedia.In the afternoon, the Justice Department called Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist, as its first witness to establish that the company had long been aware of its power in search and deliberately tried to sidestep antitrust scrutiny.In more than three hours of testimony, Mr. Varian was asked about views that he shared with other Google employees on the power of defaults, the threat of Microsoft’s entry into search and his awareness of language that could invite the attention of antitrust regulators. The Justice Department drew from Mr. Varian’s emails and memos from as far back as the early 2000s.Mr. Varian is scheduled to return to the witness stand on Wednesday.Nico Grant More

More stories

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    A California Land Mystery Is Solved. Now the Political Fight Begins.

    by

    Tech industry investors spent roughly $900 million buying land to build a dream city in a rural part of the Bay Area. It could be years, though, before they can do anything with it.Jan Sramek was 15 years old the first time he tried to get a government to do something he wanted. Back then, he was an internet- and science fiction-obsessed teenager growing up in Drevohostice, in the Czech Republic.The problem was his town of 1,400 people had only dial-up internet service. He persuaded the local government to pay an internet service provider to bring the town a broadband connection. He was even paid a commission for it, Mr. Sramek wrote in “Racing Towards Excellence,” a sort of self-help book for ambitious young adults he co-wrote in 2009.The next campaign for Mr. Sramek could be more profitable. It could also be longer, harder and, in all likelihood, nastier.The revelation last week that Mr. Sramek is leading a group of Silicon Valley moguls in an audacious plan to build a new city on a rolling patch of farms and windmills in Northern California was the unofficial beginning of what promises to become a protracted and expensive political campaign. More

  • 138 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Orders Ban on New Investments in China’s Sensitive High-Tech Industries

    by

    The new limits, aimed at preventing American help to Beijing as it modernizes its military, escalate a conflict between the world’s two largest economies.President Biden escalated his confrontation with China on Wednesday by signing an executive order banning new American investment in key technology industries that could be used to enhance Beijing’s military capabilities, the latest in a series of moves putting more distance between the world’s two largest economies.The order will prohibit venture capital and private equity firms from pumping more money into Chinese efforts to develop semiconductors and other microelectronics, quantum computers and certain artificial intelligence applications. Administration officials stressed that the move was tailored to guard national security, but China is likely to see it as part of a wider campaign to contain its rise.“The Biden administration is committed to keeping America safe and defending America’s national security through appropriately protecting technologies that are critical to the next generation of military innovation,” the Treasury Department said in a statement. The statement emphasized that the executive order was a “narrowly targeted action” complementing existing export controls and that the administration maintained its “longstanding commitment to open investment.”Narrow or not, the new order comes at perhaps the most fraught moment in the U.S.-China relationship since President Richard M. Nixon and Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger opened a dialogue with Beijing in the early 1970s. A series of expanding export controls on key technologies to China has already triggered retaliation from Beijing, which recently announced the cutoff of metals like gallium that are critical for the Pentagon’s own supply chain.Mr. Biden has stressed that he wants to stabilize relations with China following a Cold War-style standoff over a spy balloon shot down after crossing through American airspace and the discovery of a broad Chinese effort to put malware into power grids and communications systems. He has sent Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen and other officials to renew talks with Chinese officials in recent months. Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, is expected to go to China in coming weeks.Indeed, the president seemed intent on not antagonizing Beijing with Wednesday’s order, making no comment about his action and leaving it to be announced through written material and background briefings by aides who declined to be identified.Still, China declared that it was “very disappointed” by the order, which it said was designed to “politicize and weaponize trade,” and it hinted at retaliation.“The latest investment restrictions will seriously undermine the interests of Chinese and American companies and investors, hinder the normal business cooperation between the two countries and lower the confidence of the international community in the U.S. business environment,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy, said in a statement.Administration officials said the president’s order is part of their effort to “de-risk” the relationship with China but not to “decouple” from it. Wednesday’s announcement, though, takes that effort to a new level. While export bans and concerns about Chinese investment in the United States have a long history, the United States has never before attempted such limits on the flow of investment into China.In fact, for the past few decades, the United States has encouraged American investors to deepen their ties in the Chinese economy, viewing that as a way to expand the web of interdependencies between the two countries that would gradually integrate Beijing into the Western economy and force it to play by Western rules.U.S. government reviews in recent years, however, concluded that investments in new technologies and joint ventures were fueling China’s military and its intelligence-collection capabilities, even if indirectly. American officials have been actively sharing intelligence reports with allies to make the case that Western investment is key to China’s military modernization plans — especially in space, cyberspace and the kind of computer power that would be needed to break Western encryption of critical communications.Administration officials cast the effort as one motivated entirely by national security concerns, not an attempt to gain economic advantage. But the order itself describes how difficult it is to separate the two, referring to China’s moves to “eliminate barriers between civilian and commercial sectors and military and defense industrial sectors.’’ It describes China’s focus on “acquiring and diverting the world’s cutting-edge technologies, for the purpose of achieving military dominance.”(The text of Mr. Biden’s order refers only to “countries of concern,” though an annex limits those to “the People’s Republic of China” and its two special administrative areas, Hong Kong and Macau.)Mr. Biden and his aides discussed joint efforts to limit high-tech investment with their counterparts at the recent Group of 7 summit meeting in Hiroshima, Japan. Several allies, including Britain and the European Union, have publicly indicated that they may follow suit. The outreach to other powers underscores that a U.S. ban may not be that effective by itself and would work only in conjunction with other major nations, including Japan and South Korea.The executive order, which also requires firms to notify the government of certain investments, coincides with a bipartisan effort in Congress to impose similar limits. An amendment along those lines by Senators Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, was added to the Senate version of the annual defense authorization bill.Several Republicans criticized the president’s order as too little, too late and “riddled with loopholes,” as Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, put it.“It is long overdue, but the Biden administration finally recognized there is a serious problem with U.S. dollars funding China’s rise at our expense,” Mr. Rubio said. “However, this narrowly tailored proposal is almost laughable.”Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said the new order should go after existing investments as well as sectors like biotechnology and energy.“We need to stop the flow of American dollars and know-how supporting” China’s military and surveillance apparatus “rather than solely pursuing half measures that are taking too long to develop and go into effect,” Mr. McCaul said.The United States already prohibits or restricts the export of certain technologies and products to China. The new order effectively means that American money, expertise and prestige cannot be used to help China to develop its own versions of what it cannot buy from American companies.It was unclear how much money would be affected. American investors have already pulled back dramatically over the past two years. Venture capital investment in China has plummeted from a high of $43.8 billion in the last quarter of 2021 to $10.5 billion in the second quarter of this year, according to PitchBook, which tracks such trends. But the latest order could have a chilling effect on investment beyond the specific industries at stake.In a capital where the goal of opposing China is one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement, the only sounds of caution in Washington came from the business community. While trade groups praised the administration for consulting them, there was concern that the downward spiral in relations could speed a broader break between the world’s two largest economies.“We hope the final rules allow U.S. chip firms to compete on a level playing field and access key global markets, including China, to promote the long-term strength of the U.S. semiconductor industry and our ability to out-innovate global competitors,” the Semiconductor Industry Association said in a statement.Gabriel Wildau, a managing director at the consulting firm Teneo who focuses on political risk in China, said the direct effect of the executive order would be modest, given its limited scope, but that disclosure requirements embedded in the order could have a chilling effect.“Politicians increasingly regard corporate investments in China as a form of collusion with a foreign enemy, even when there is no allegation of illegality,” he said.The Treasury Department, which has already consulted with American executives about the forthcoming order, will begin formally taking comments before drafting rules to be put in place next year. But American firms may alter their investment strategies even before the rules take effect, knowing that they are coming.A series of expanding export controls on key technologies to China has already triggered retaliation from Beijing.Florence Lo/ReutersChina’s own investment restrictions are broader than the new American rules — they apply to all outbound investments, not just those in the United States. And they reflect a technology policy that in some ways is the opposite of the new American restrictions.China discouraged or halted most low-tech outbound investments, like purchases of real estate or even European soccer clubs. But China allowed and even encouraged further acquisitions of businesses with technologies that could offer geopolitical advantages, including investments in overseas businesses involved in aircraft production, robotics, artificial intelligence and heavy manufacturing.The latest move from Washington comes at a rare moment of vulnerability for the Chinese economy. Consumer prices in China, after barely rising for the previous several months, fell in July for the first time in more than two years, the country’s National Bureau of Statistics announced on Wednesday.While Chinese cities and some businesses have declared 2023 a “Year ›of Investing in China” in hopes of a post-Covid revival of their local economies, President Xi Jinping has created an environment that has made many American venture capital firms and other investors more cautious.Western companies that assess investment risk, like the Mintz Group, have been investigated and in some cases their offices have been raided. A Japanese executive was accused of espionage, and a new anti-espionage law has raised fears that ordinary business activities would be viewed by China as spying.The Biden administration’s previous moves to restrain sensitive economic relationships have taken a toll. China’s telecommunications champion, Huawei, has been almost completely blocked from the U.S. market, and American allies, starting with Australia, are ripping Huawei equipment out of their networks. China Telecom was banned by the Federal Communications Commission, which said it “is subject to exploitation, influence and control by the Chinese government.”At the same time, the United States — with the somewhat reluctant help of the Dutch government, Japan and South Korea — has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent China from building up its own domestic capability to manufacture the most high-end microelectronics by itself.Washington has banned the export of the multimillion-dollar lithography equipment used to produce chips in hopes of limiting China’s progress while the United States tries to restore its own semiconductor industry. Taken together, it is an unprecedented effort to slow an adversary’s capabilities while speeding America’s own investment.Keith Bradsher More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon to Meet Regulators as U.S. Considers Possible Antitrust Suit

    by

    Amazon’s meetings with the Federal Trade Commission, known as “last rites” meetings, are typically a final step before the agency votes on filing a lawsuit.Amazon is scheduled to meet with members of the Federal Trade Commission next week to discuss an antitrust lawsuit that the agency may be preparing to file to challenge the power of the retailer’s sprawling business, according to a person with knowledge of the plans.The meetings are set to be held with Lina Khan, the F.T.C. chair, and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, who are F.T.C. commissioners, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions are confidential.The meetings signal that the F.T.C. is nearing a decision on whether to move forward with a lawsuit alleging that Amazon has violated antimonopoly laws. Such discussions are sometimes known as “last rites” meetings, named after the prayers some Christians receive on their deathbed. The conversations, which are usually one of the final steps before the agency’s commissioners vote on a lawsuit, give the company a chance to make its case.If the F.T.C. files suit, it would be one of the most significant challenges to Amazon’s business in the company’s nearly 30-year history. Amazon, a $1.4 trillion behemoth, has become a major force in the economy. It now owns not just its trademark online store, but the movie studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the primary care practice One Medical and the high-end grocery chain Whole Foods. It is also one of the world’s largest provider of cloud computing services.The F.T.C. has investigated Amazon’s business for years. The company’s critics and competitors have argued that the once-upstart online bookstore has used its retailing clout to squeeze the merchants that use its platform to sell their wares. U.S. officials have grown increasingly concerned about the influence and reach of giant tech companies like Amazon, Google and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. The Justice Department has filed several antitrust lawsuits against Google, with two scheduled to go to trial next month. The F.T.C. has also sued Meta over accusations that it snuffed out young competitors by buying Instagram and WhatsApp.Some of those efforts have stumbled in the courts. Federal judges declined this year to stop Meta from acquiring a virtual reality start-up and Microsoft from buying the video game powerhouse Activision Blizzard, dooming F.T.C. challenges to both deals. In 2022, the Justice Department also lost its bid to challenge UnitedHealth Group’s plan to buy a health tech company.Stacy Mitchell, a co-executive director of the advocacy organization Institute for Local Self-Reliance and an Amazon critic, said she hoped the F.T.C. would pursue a sweeping case against the tech giant. She said the agency should focus on how Amazon’s control of the retail business — from its store to its logistics network that delivers packages — let it hurt competitors and merchants.“It’s a watershed moment,” she said. “What we need to see from the F.T.C. is a case that targets the core of Amazon’s monopolization strategy.”Amazon has said that it competes aggressively with other retailers and that efforts to regulate its business would only hurt consumers and the businesses that sell products through its site.Under the leadership of Andy Jassy, Amazon’s chief executive, the retailer has recently been in retrenchment mode. The company has cut costs, laying off thousands of workers as growth slumped after a soaring period fueled by the pandemic. Last week, Amazon announced that its revenue in the second quarter of the year had increased 11 percent, to $134.4 billion, beating analysts’ expectations.In June, the F.T.C. sued Amazon in a separate case that accused the company of tricking users into subscribing to its Prime fast-shipping membership program and then making it difficult for them to cancel.Amazon has also faced scrutiny from states and regulators in other countries. The District of Columbia’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against the company in 2021, arguing that it had used unfair pricing policies against merchants on its site. The lawsuit was thrown out by a judge, though the attorney general has tried to revive the case. California filed a similar lawsuit last year that is moving forward. In December, Amazon also reached a deal to end a European Union antitrust investigation by agreeing to change some of its practices.If the F.T.C. sues, it would formally pit Ms. Khan — who has been one of Amazon’s most prominent detractors — against the company.While a law student at Yale, Ms. Khan had argued that Amazon’s growth represented a failure of American antitrust laws, which she said had become myopically focused on consumer prices as a measure of whether businesses were violating the law. Amazon’s prices were often low, she wrote in a widely read 2017 paper, but that failed to account for other ways it could bully players across the economy.The paper’s success supercharged a debate in Washington about the power of the tech giants. In 2019, federal antitrust regulators decided to investigate some of the companies. In keeping with a longstanding practice of dividing responsibilities, the Justice Department agreed to look at Google and Apple while the F.T.C. examined Facebook and Amazon.President Biden named Ms. Khan chair to oversee the F.T.C. — giving her control of the Amazon investigation — roughly two years later. More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Indiana Tests if the Heartland Can Transform Into a Chip Hub

    by

    Over the past 14 months, Indiana began converting 10,000 acres of corn and bean fields into an innovation park. State leaders met with the chief executives of semiconductor giants in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan. And they hosted top Biden administration officials to show off a $100 million expansion of chip research and development facilities at a local university.The actions were driven by one main goal: to turn Indiana into a microchip manufacturing and research hub, almost from scratch.“We’ve never done anything at this scale,” said Brad Chambers, who was Indiana’s commerce secretary in charge of economic development. “It’s a multibillion-dollar commitment by the state to be ready for the transitions that are happening in our global economy.”“We’ve never done anything at this scale,” said Brad Chambers, Indiana’s commerce secretary.Kaiti Sullivan for The New York TimesIndiana’s moves are a test of the Biden administration’s efforts to stimulate regional economies through the $52 billion CHIPS and Science Act, a landmark package of funding that is planned to begin going out the door in the next few months. The program is intended to bolster domestic manufacturing and research of semiconductors, which act as the brains of computers and other products and have become central to the U.S. battle with China for tech primacy.The Biden administration has promised that the CHIPS Act will seed high-paying tech jobs and start-ups even in places with little foundation in the tech industry. In a speech in May last year, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who oversees the chips program, said she was looking at how the program would help “different places in the heartland of America.”She added, “I think we will really unleash an unbelievable torrent of entrepreneurship and capital opportunity.”Gina Raimondo, the U.S. secretary of commerce, is overseeing the CHIPS Act program. Jared Soares for The New York TimesThat makes Indiana a prime case study for whether the administration’s efforts will pan out. Unlike Arizona and Texas, which have long had chip-making plants, Indiana has little experience with the complicated manufacturing processes underlying the components, beyond electric vehicle battery manufacturing and some defense technology projects that involve semiconductors.Indiana now wants to catch up to other places that have landed big chip manufacturing plants. The push is supported by Senator Todd Young, a Republican from Indiana, who was a co-author on the CHIPS Act and has been a leading voice on increasing funds for tech hubs. Companies and universities in Indiana have applied for multiple CHIPS Act grants, with the aim of winning awards not only for chip manufacturing but also for research and development.Some economists said the Biden administration’s goals of turning farmland into advanced chip factories might be overly ambitious. It took decades for Silicon Valley and the Boston tech corridor to thrive. Those regions succeeded because of their strong academic research universities, big anchor companies, skilled workers and investors.Many other areas don’t have that combination of assets. Indiana has for decades faced a brain drain among some of its more educated young people who flock to larger cities for work, according to the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Some industrial policy proponents see the investments as a way to reverse that exodus, as well as a broader trend toward deindustrialization that hollowed out communities in the Rust Belt.But it’s unclear whether the program can achieve such ambitious goals — or whether the Biden administration will judge it to be more effective to spread out investments around the country or concentrate them in a few key hubs.“Many pieces have to come together,” said Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He added that the federal government’s plan to initially put $500 million into tech hubs was too small and estimated it would take $100 billion in government aid to create 10 sustainable tech hubs.Indiana does have some advantages. The state has ample land and water — which are necessary for large chip factories that use water to cool equipment and rinse silicon wafers — and it has relatively stable weather for the highly sensitive production process. It also has Purdue University, with an engineering school that has promised to turn out the technicians and researchers needed for chip production.Yet the state faces stiff competition. In January 2022, Indiana lost a bidding war to Ohio over plans by Intel, the big U.S. chip-maker, to build two factories valued at $20 billion.“We learned a lot of lessons,” Mr. Chambers said about the failure. The biggest, he said, was to have a more attractive package of land, infrastructure and work force programs ready to offer big chip companies.A year later, Indiana won a $1.8 billion investment from SkyWater, a Minneapolis-based chip-maker, to build a factory with 750 jobs adjacent to Purdue’s campus.SkyWater, a Minneapolis-based chip maker, plans to invest $1.8 billion in a factory in Indiana. SkyWaterIndiana beat out four other states vying for SkyWater’s chip facility.SkyWaterState leaders acknowledge that any tech transformation could take years, especially if there is no anchor plant by even larger chip manufacturers such as TSMC, the world’s biggest maker of cutting-edge chips.Mr. Young said he and other state leaders were in talks with big chip makers for a contract that would compare to the $20 billion that Intel committed to Ohio. But “all net new job creation in my lifetime has been created by new firms and young firms,” he said.Indiana’s chip-making metamorphosis is now centered on a tech park, LEAP Innovation District, in the town of Lebanon near Interstate 65, which connects Indianapolis and Purdue in West Lafayette. The town is surrounded by 15,000 square miles of corn and bean farms.The park began taking shape along with the CHIPS Act. In 2019, Mr. Young was a co-author of the Endless Frontier Act with Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat of New York and then the Senate minority leader. The bill was the precursor to the CHIPS Act.As the bill wound through Congress, Mr. Young was in regular contact with Eric Holcomb, Indiana’s governor, and Mitch Daniels, then Purdue’s president, on details of the proposal. Mr. Young said Indiana’s manufacturing roots would be its asset, if the state’s factory sector could transition to making advanced chips.“I realized that Indiana and, more broadly, the heartland stood to disproportionately benefit from the investments that we would be making,” he said in an interview last month.Mr. Holcomb and Mr. Chambers then created a plan for a tech manufacturing park. Within months, they began buying corn and bean farms in Lebanon for what became the LEAP Innovation District.In September, Ms. Raimondo and Secretary of State Antony Blinken toured Purdue University’s clean rooms, seen here, for chip research.Kaiti Sullivan for The New York TimesPurdue is also working on a $100 million expansion of semiconductor research and development.Kaiti Sullivan for The New York TimesIn May 2022, Mr. Holcomb unveiled LEAP and began installing new water and power lines and a new road there. Mr. Holcomb, Mr. Chambers and Mr. Young also traveled to more than a dozen countries to meet with the executives of chip companies like SK Hynix and TSMC. They offered cheap rent in the LEAP district, tax incentives, access to labs and researchers at Purdue, and training programs at the local Ivy Tech Community College.Some of the work paid off. When Indiana beat out four other states for SkyWater’s $1.8 billion chip facility, the company said it was impressed by the coordination between state leaders and Purdue’s new president, Mung Chiang, who launched the nation’s first semiconductor degree programs to nurture workers for chip makers.Mung Chiang, Purdue University’s president, has rolled out a semiconductor degree program to nurture chip workers. Kaiti Sullivan for The New York TimesIn September, Mr. Chiang invited Ms. Raimondo and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to tour Purdue’s clean rooms for chip research and to see plans for a $100 million expansion of semiconductor research and development, including 50 new faculty to work on advanced chip science.“I think you have all the ingredients,” Ms. Raimondo said in a discussion with Mr. Holcomb and Mr. Chiang during the visit. Indiana officials now await word on how much CHIPS Act funding they may get. Some early results from the LEAP district initiative offer a mixed picture of where things might go.In May 2022, the park landed its first tenant — Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company, not a chip maker. More

  • 138 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Tech Firms Once Powered New York’s Economy. Now They’re Scaling Back.

    by

    For much of the last two decades, including during the pandemic, technology companies were a bright spot in New York’s economy, adding thousands of high-paying jobs and expanding into millions of square feet of office space.Their growth buoyed tax revenue, set up New York as a credible rival to the San Francisco Bay Area — and provided jobs that helped the city absorb layoffs in other sectors during the pandemic and the 2008 financial crisis.Now, the technology industry is pulling back hard, clouding the city’s economic future.Facing many business challenges, large technology companies have laid off more than 386,000 workers nationwide since early 2022, according to layoffs.fyi, which tracks the tech industry. And they have pulled out of millions of square feet of office space because of those job cuts and the shift to working from home.That retrenchment has hurt lots of tech hubs, and San Francisco has been hit the hardest with an office vacancy rate of 25.6 percent, according to Newmark Research.New York is doing better than San Francisco — Manhattan has a vacancy rate of 13.5 percent — but it can no longer count on the technology industry for growth. More than one-third of the roughly 22 million square feet of office space available for sublet in Manhattan comes from technology, advertising and media companies, according to Newmark.Consider Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. It is now unloading a big chunk of the more than 2.2 million square feet of office space it gobbled up in Manhattan in recent years after laying off around 1,700 employees this year, or a quarter of its New York State work force. The company has opted not to renew leases covering 250,000 square feet in Hudson Yards and for 200,000 square feet on Park Avenue South.Spotify is trying to sublet five of the 16 floors it leased six years ago in 4 World Trade Center, and Roku is offering a quarter of the 240,000 square feet it had taken in Times Square just last year. Twitter, Microsoft and other technology companies are also trying to sublease unwanted space.“The tech companies were such a big part of the real estate landscape during the last five years,” said Ruth Colp-Haber, the chief executive of Wharton Property Advisors, a real estate brokerage. “And now that they seem to be cutting back, the question is: Who is going to replace them?”Ms. Colp-Haber said it could take months for bigger spaces or entire floors of buildings to be sublet. The large amount of space available for sublet is also driving down the rents that landlords are able to get on new leases.“They are going to undercut every landlord out there in terms of pricing, and they have really nice spaces that are already all built out,” she said, referring to the tech companies.The tech sector has been a driver of New York’s economy since the late-90s dot-com boom helped to establish “Silicon Alley” south of Midtown. Then, after the financial crisis, the expansion of companies like Google supported the economy when banks, insurers and other financial firms were in retreat.Spotify is trying to sublet five of the 16 floors it leased six years ago in 4 World Trade Center, right.George Etheredge for The New York TimesSmall and large tech companies added 43,430 jobs in New York in the five years through the end of 2021, a 33 percent gain, according to the state comptroller. And those jobs paid very well: The average tech salary in 2021 was $228,620, nearly double the average private-sector salary in the city, according to the comptroller.The growth in jobs fueled demand for commercial space, and tech, advertising and media companies accounted for nearly a quarter of the new office leases signed in Manhattan in recent years, according to Newmark.Microsoft and Spotify declined to comment about their decision to sublet space. Twitter and Roku did not respond to requests for comment. Meta said in a statement that it was “committed to distributed work” and was “continuously refining” its approach.A few big tech companies are still expanding in New York.Google plans to open St. John’s Terminal, a large office near the Hudson River in Lower Manhattan, early next year. Including the terminal, Google will own or lease around seven million square feet of office space in New York, up from roughly six million today, according to a company representative. (Google leases more than one million square feet of that space to other tenants.) The company has more than 12,000 employees in the New York area, up from over 10,000 in 2019.Amazon, which in 2019 canceled plans to build a large campus in Queens after local politicians objected to the incentives offered to the company, has nevertheless added 200,000 square feet of office space in New York, Jersey City and Newark since 2019. The company will have added roughly 550,000 square feet of office space later this summer, when it opens 424 Fifth Avenue, the former Lord & Taylor department store, which it bought in 2020 for $1.15 billion.“New York provides a fantastic, diverse talent pool, and we’re proud of the thousands of jobs we’ve created in the city and state over the past 10 years across both our corporate and operations functions,” Holly Sullivan, vice president of worldwide economic development at Amazon, said in a statement.And though many tech companies continue to let employees work from home for much of the week, they are also trying to woo workers back to the office, which could help reduce the need to sublet space.Salesforce, a software company that has offices in a tower next to Bryant Park, said it was not considering subletting its New York space.“Currently I’m facing the opposite problem in the tower in New York,” said Relina Bulchandani, head of real estate for Salesforce. “There has been a concerted effort to continue to grow the right roles in New York because we have a very high customer base in New York.”New York is and will remain a vibrant home for technology companies, industry representatives said.“I have not heard of a single tech company leaving, and that matters,” said Julie Samuels, the president of TECH:NYC, an industry association. “If anything, we are seeing less of a contraction in New York among tech leases than they are seeing in other large cities.”Google plans to open St. John’s Terminal, right, a new campus near the Hudson River in Lower Manhattan, early next year.Tony Cenicola/The New York TimesFred Wilson, a partner at Union Square Ventures, said tech executives now felt less of a need to be in Silicon Valley, a shift that he said had benefited New York. “We have more company C.E.O.s and more company founders in New York today than we did before the pandemic,” Mr. Wilson said, referring to the companies his firm has invested in.David Falk, the president of the New York tristate region for Newmark, said, “We are right now working on several transactions with smaller, young tech firms that are looking to take sublet space.”Many firms are still pulling back, however.In 2017 and 2019, Spotify, which is based in Stockholm, signed leases totaling more than 564,000 square feet of space at 4 World Trade Center, becoming one of the largest tenants there. It soon had a space with all the accouterments you would expect at a tech firm — brightly colored flexible work areas, eye-popping views and Ping-Pong tables.But in January, Spotify said it was laying off 600 people, or about 6 percent of its global work force. The company, which allows employees to choose between working fully remotely or on a hybrid schedule, is also reducing its office space, putting five floors up for sublet.“On days when I’m by myself, I end up sitting in a meeting room all day for focus time,” said Dayna Tran, a Spotify employee who regularly works at the downtown office, adding that the employees who come in motivate themselves and create community by collaborating on an office playlist. More

  • 88 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Administration Unveils Tougher Guidelines on Mergers

    by

    The proposed road map for regulatory reviews, last updated in 2020, includes a focus on tech platforms for the first time.The Biden administration’s top antitrust officials unveiled tougher guidelines against tech mergers on Wednesday, signaling their deepening scrutiny of the industry despite recent court losses in their attempts to block tech deal-making.Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, and Jonathan Kanter, the top antitrust official at the Department of Justice, released draft guidelines for merger reviews that for the first time include a focus on digital platforms and how dominant companies can use their scale to harm future rivals.The guidelines — which generally provide a road map for whether regulators block or approve deals — show the Biden administration’s commitment to an aggressive antitrust agenda aimed at curtailing the power of companies like Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon.The guidelines, which aren’t enforced by law, follow a losing streak in the courts. A ruling last week prevented the F.T.C. from delaying the closing of Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of the video game maker Activision Blizzard. In January, a court sided against the F.T.C. in its lawsuit to stop Meta’s purchase of Within, a virtual reality app maker.The forceful antitrust posture is a pillar of President Biden’s agenda to stamp out economic inequality and encourage greater competition. “Promoting competition to lower costs and support small businesses and entrepreneurs is a central part of Bidenomics,” a senior administration official said in a call with reporters.The new guidelines would apply to all deals across the economy. But they highlight obstacles to competition among digital platforms, including how an acquisition of a nascent rival may be intended to kill off future competition. Such deals, known as killer acquisitions, are prevalent in the tech industry and at the heart of an F.T.C. antitrust lawsuit against Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The agency has accused Meta of buying Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 to prevent future competition.The F.T.C. and Justice Department also said they would look at how companies used their scale, including their large number of users, to ward off competition. These so-called network effects have helped companies like Meta and Google maintain their dominance in social media and internet search.The agencies also laid out ways in which mergers involving “platform” businesses, the model used by Amazon’s online store and Apple’s App Store, could harm competition. An acquisition could hurt competition by giving a platform control over a significant stream of data, the draft guidelines said, echoing concerns that tech giants use their vast troves of information to squash rivals.“As markets and commercial realities change, it is vital that we adapt our law enforcement tools to keep pace so that we can protect competition in a manner that reflects the intricacies of our modern economy,” Mr. Kanter said in a statement. “Simply put, competition today looks different than it did 50 — or even 15 — years ago.”While they lack the force of law, the guidelines can influence how judges look at challenges to mergers and acquisitions. The effort to update the guidelines has been closely watched by businesses and corporate lawyers that navigate regulatory scrutiny of megadeals.The guidelines were last updated in 2020. In 2021, Mr. Biden ordered the Justice Department and the F.T.C. to update them again as part of a broader effort to improve competition across the economy. The agencies will take public comment on the proposals and could make amendments before final guidelines are adopted.“These guidelines contain critical updates while ensuring fidelity to the mandate Congress has given us and the legal precedent on the books,” Ms. Khan said in a statement.While the F.T.C. experienced the recent court losses, it has forced some companies, including the chip-maker Nvidia and the aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, to abandon some large deals. The Justice Department blocked the publisher Penguin Random House from buying Simon & Schuster, using an unusual argument that the merger would harm authors who sold the publication rights to their books. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    As Businesses Clamor for Workplace A.I., Tech Companies Rush to Provide It

    by

    Amazon, Box, Salesforce, Oracle and others have recently rolled out A.I.-related products to help workplaces become more efficient and productive.Earlier this year, Mark Austin, the vice president of data science at AT&T, noticed that some of the company’s developers had started using the ChatGPT chatbot at work. When the developers got stuck, they asked ChatGPT to explain, fix or hone their code.It seemed to be a game-changer, Mr. Austin said. But since ChatGPT is a publicly available tool, he wondered if it was secure for businesses to use.So in January, AT&T tried a product from Microsoft called Azure OpenAI Services that lets businesses build their own A.I.-powered chatbots. AT&T used it to create a proprietary A.I. assistant, Ask AT&T, which helps its developers automate their coding process. AT&T’s customer service representatives also began using the chatbot to help summarize their calls, among other tasks.“Once they realize what it can do, they love it,” Mr. Austin said. Forms that once took hours to complete needed only two minutes with Ask AT&T so employees could focus on more complicated tasks, he said, and developers who used the chatbot increased their productivity by 20 to 50 percent.AT&T is one of many businesses eager to find ways to tap the power of generative artificial intelligence, the technology that powers chatbots and that has gripped Silicon Valley with excitement in recent months. Generative A.I. can produce its own text, photos and video in response to prompts, capabilities that can help automate tasks such as taking meeting minutes and cut down on paperwork.To meet this new demand, tech companies are racing to introduce products for businesses that incorporate generative A.I. Over the past three months, Amazon, Box and Cisco have unveiled plans for generative A.I.-powered products that produce code, analyze documents and summarize meetings. Salesforce also recently rolled out generative A.I. products used in sales, marketing and its Slack messaging service, while Oracle announced a new A.I. feature for human resources teams.These companies are also investing more in A.I. development. In May, Oracle and Salesforce Ventures, the venture capital arm of Salesforce, invested in Cohere, a Toronto start-up focused on generative A.I. for business use. Oracle is also reselling Cohere’s technology.Salesforce recently rolled out generative A.I. products used in sales, marketing and its Slack messaging service.Jeenah Moon for The New York Times“I think this is a complete breakthrough in enterprise software,” Aaron Levie, chief executive of Box, said of generative A.I. He called it “this incredibly exciting opportunity where, for the first time ever, you can actually start to understand what’s inside of your data in a way that wasn’t possible before.”Many of these tech companies are following Microsoft, which has invested $13 billion in OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT. In January, Microsoft made Azure OpenAI Service available to customers, who can then access OpenAI’s technology to build their own versions of ChatGPT. As of May, the service had 4,500 customers, said John Montgomery, a Microsoft corporate vice president.Aaron Levie, chief executive of Box, said generative A.I. creates “a complete breakthrough in enterprise software.”Michael Short/BloombergFor the most part, tech companies are now rolling out four kinds of generative A.I. products for businesses: features and services that generate code for software engineers, create new content such as sales emails and product descriptions for marketing teams, search company data to answer employee questions, and summarize meeting notes and lengthy documents.“It is going to be a tool that is used by people to accomplish what they are already doing,” said Bern Elliot, a vice president and analyst at the I.T. research and consulting firm Gartner.But using generative A.I. in workplaces has risks. Chatbots can produce inaccuracies and misinformation, provide inappropriate responses and leak data. A.I. remains largely unregulated.In response to these issues, tech companies have taken some steps. To prevent data leakage and to enhance security, some have engineered generative A.I. products so they do not keep a customer’s data.When Salesforce last month introduced AI Cloud, a service with nine generative A.I.-powered products for businesses, the company included a “trust layer” to help mask sensitive corporate information to stop leaks and promised that what users typed into these products would not be used to retrain the underlying A.I. model.Similarly, Oracle said that customer data would be kept in a secure environment while training its A.I. model and added that it would not be able to see the information.Salesforce offers AI Cloud starting at $360,000 annually, with the cost rising depending on the amount of usage. Microsoft charges for Azure OpenAI Service based on the version of OpenAI technology that a customer chooses, as well as the amount of usage.For now, generative A.I. is used mainly in workplace scenarios that carry low risks — instead of highly regulated industries — with a human in the loop, said Beena Ammanath, the executive director of the Deloitte A.I. Institute, a research center of the consulting firm. A recent Gartner survey of 43 companies found that over half the respondents have no internal policy on generative A.I.“It is not just about being able to use these new tools efficiently, but it is also about preparing your work force for the new kinds of work that might evolve,” Ms. Ammanath said. “There is going to be new skills needed.”Panasonic Connect began using Microsoft’s Azure OpenAI Service to make its own chatbot in February.Panasonic ConnectPanasonic Connect, part of the Japanese electronics company Panasonic, began using Microsoft’s Azure OpenAI Service to make its own chatbot in February. Today, its employees ask the chatbot 5,000 questions a day about everything from drafting emails to writing code.While Panasonic Connect had expected its engineers to be the main users of the chatbot, other departments — such as legal, accounting and quality assurance — also turned to it to help summarize legal documents, brainstorm solutions to improve product quality and other tasks, said Judah Reynolds, Panasonic Connect’s marketing and communications chief.“Everyone started using it in ways that we didn’t even foresee ourselves,” he said. “So people are really taking advantage of it.” More

  • 100 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Facial Recognition Spreads as Tool to Fight Shoplifting

    by

    Simon Mackenzie, a security officer at the discount retailer QD Stores outside London, was short of breath. He had just chased after three shoplifters who had taken off with several packages of laundry soap. Before the police arrived, he sat at a back-room desk to do something important: Capture the culprits’ faces.On an aging desktop computer, he pulled up security camera footage, pausing to zoom in and save a photo of each thief. He then logged in to a facial recognition program, Facewatch, which his store uses to identify shoplifters. The next time those people enter any shop within a few miles that uses Facewatch, store staff will receive an alert.“It’s like having somebody with you saying, ‘That person you bagged last week just came back in,’” Mr. Mackenzie said.Use of facial recognition technology by the police has been heavily scrutinized in recent years, but its application by private businesses has received less attention. Now, as the technology improves and its cost falls, the systems are reaching further into people’s lives. No longer just the purview of government agencies, facial recognition is increasingly being deployed to identify shoplifters, problematic customers and legal adversaries.Facewatch, a British company, is used by retailers across the country frustrated by petty crime. For as little as 250 pounds a month, or roughly $320, Facewatch offers access to a customized watchlist that stores near one another share. When Facewatch spots a flagged face, an alert is sent to a smartphone at the shop, where employees decide whether to keep a close eye on the person or ask the person to leave.Mr. Mackenzie adds one or two new faces every week, he said, mainly people who steal diapers, groceries, pet supplies and other low-cost goods. He said their economic hardship made him sympathetic, but that the number of thefts had gotten so out of hand that facial recognition was needed. Usually at least once a day, Facewatch alerts him that somebody on the watchlist has entered the store.Mr. Mackenzie adds one or two new faces a week to the Facewatch watch list that stores in the area share.Suzie Howell for The New York TimesA sign at a supermarket that uses Facewatch in Bristol, England. Suzie Howell for The New York TimesFacial recognition technology is proliferating as Western countries grapple with advances brought on by artificial intelligence. The European Union is drafting rules that would ban many of facial recognition’s uses, while Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, has encouraged retailers to try the technology to fight crime. MSG Entertainment, the owner of Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall, has used automated facial recognition to refuse entry to lawyers whose firms have sued the company.Among democratic nations, Britain is at the forefront of using live facial recognition, with courts and regulators signing off on its use. The police in London and Cardiff are experimenting with the technology to identify wanted criminals as they walk down the street. In May, it was used to scan the crowds at the coronation of King Charles III.But the use by retailers has drawn criticism as a disproportionate solution for minor crimes. Individuals have little way of knowing they are on the watchlist or how to appeal. In a legal complaint last year, Big Brother Watch, a civil society group, called it “Orwellian in the extreme.”Fraser Sampson, Britain’s biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner, who advises the government on policy, said there was “a nervousness and a hesitancy” around facial recognition technology because of privacy concerns and poorly performing algorithms in the past.“But I think in terms of speed, scale, accuracy and cost, facial recognition technology can in some areas, you know, literally be a game changer,” he said. “That means its arrival and deployment is probably inevitable. It’s just a case of when.”‘You can’t expect the police to come’Simon Gordon, the owner of Gordon’s Wine Bar in London, founded Facewatch in 2010. As a business owner, “you’ve got to help yourself,” he said. Suzie Howell for The New York TimesFacewatch was founded in 2010 by Simon Gordon, the owner of a popular 19th-century wine bar in central London known for its cellarlike interior and popularity among pickpockets.At the time, Mr. Gordon hired software developers to create an online tool to share security camera footage with the authorities, hoping it would save the police time filing incident reports and result in more arrests.There was limited interest, but Mr. Gordon’s fascination with security technology was piqued. He followed facial recognition developments and had the idea for a watchlist that retailers could share and contribute to. It was like the photos of shoplifters that stores keep next to the register, but supercharged into a collective database to identify bad guys in real time.By 2018, Mr. Gordon felt the technology was ready for commercial use.“You’ve got to help yourself,” he said in an interview. “You can’t expect the police to come.”Facewatch, which licenses facial recognition software made by Real Networks and Amazon, is now inside nearly 400 stores across Britain. Trained on millions of pictures and videos, the systems read the biometric information of a face as the person walks into a shop and check it against a database of flagged people.Facewatch’s watchlist is constantly growing as stores upload photos of shoplifters and problematic customers. Once added, a person remains there for a year before being deleted.‘Mistakes are rare but do happen’Every time Facewatch’s system identifies a shoplifter, a notification goes to a person who passed a test to be a “super recognizer” — someone with a special talent for remembering faces. Within seconds, the super recognizer must confirm the match against the Facewatch database before an alert is sent.Facewatch is used in about 400 British stores.Suzie Howell for The New York TimesBut while the company has created policies to prevent misidentification and other errors, mistakes happen.In October, a woman buying milk in a supermarket in Bristol, England, was confronted by an employee and ordered to leave. She was told that Facewatch had flagged her as a barred shoplifter.The woman, who asked that her name be withheld because of privacy concerns and whose story was corroborated by materials provided by her lawyer and Facewatch, said there must have been a mistake. When she contacted Facewatch a few days later, the company apologized, saying it was a case of mistaken identity.After the woman threatened legal action, Facewatch dug into its records. It found that the woman had been added to the watchlist because of an incident 10 months earlier involving £20 of merchandise, about $25. The system “worked perfectly,” Facewatch said.But while the technology had correctly identified the woman, it did not leave much room for human discretion. Neither Facewatch nor the store where the incident occurred contacted her to let her know that she was on the watchlist and to ask what had happened.The woman said she did not recall the incident and had never shoplifted. She said she may have walked out after not realizing that her debit card payment failed to go through at a self-checkout kiosk.Madeleine Stone, the legal and policy officer for Big Brother Watch, said Facewatch was “normalizing airport-style security checks for everyday activities like buying a pint of milk.”Mr. Gordon declined to comment on the incident in Bristol.In general, he said, “mistakes are rare but do happen.” He added, “If this occurs, we acknowledge our mistake, apologize, delete any relevant data to prevent reoccurrence and offer proportionate compensation.”Approved by the privacy officeA woman said Facewatch had misidentified her at the Bristol market. Facewatch said the system had ”worked perfectly.”Suzie Howell for The New York TimesCivil liberties groups have raised concerns about Facewatch and suggested that its deployment to prevent petty crime might be illegal under British privacy law, which requires that biometric technologies have a “substantial public interest.”The U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office, the privacy regulator, conducted a yearlong investigation into Facewatch. The office concluded in March that Facewatch’s system was permissible under the law, but only after the company made changes to how it operated.Stephen Bonner, the office’s deputy commissioner for regulatory supervision, said in an interview that an investigation had led Facewatch to change its policies: It would put more signage in stores, share among stores only information about serious and violent offenders and send out alerts only about repeat offenders. That means people will not be put on the watchlist after a single minor offense, as happened to the woman in Bristol.“That reduces the amount of personal data that’s held, reduces the chances of individuals being unfairly added to this kind of list and makes it more likely to be accurate,” Mr. Bonner said. The technology, he said, is “not dissimilar to having just very good security guards.”Liam Ardern, the operations manager for Lawrence Hunt, which owns 23 Spar convenience stores that use Facewatch, estimates the technology has saved the company more than £50,000 since 2020.He called the privacy risks of facial recognition overblown. The only example of misidentification that he recalled was when a man was confused for his identical twin, who had shoplifted. Critics overlook that stores like his operate on thin profit margins, he said.“It’s easy for them to say, ‘No, it’s against human rights,’” Mr. Ardern said. If shoplifting isn’t reduced, he said, his shops will have to raise prices or cut staff. More