Source Code: Your daily look at what matters in tech.
To give you the best possible experience, this site uses cookies. If you continue browsing. you accept our use of cookies. You can review our privacy policy to find out more about the cookies we use.
next-upnext upauthorJanko RoettgersNoneDo you know what's coming next up in the world of tech and entertainment? Get Janko Roettgers' newsletter every Thursday.9147dfd6b1
September 24, 2020
Amazon is entering the cloud gaming arena, with a twist: The company unveiled a new game streaming service, dubbed Luna, at a press event Thursday. Early access to the service will launch to a small group of people in the coming weeks. On its surface, Luna is similar to Google Stadia: Consumers will be able to play on PCs, mobile devices and Fire TVs (or in Stadia's case, Chromecasts), with games being streamed directly from the cloud. Amazon will also sell a dedicated game controller that is supposed to cut down on cloud gaming latency.
A major difference between Luna and other existing cloud gaming services, however, is Amazon's business model. Luna doesn't want to be a Netflix-like all-you-can-eat service, nor will it require users to purchase individual titles. Instead, the company is looking to work with game publishers to launch their own dedicated subscription channels on Luna, at a price of their choosing.
Amazon will kickstart things with its own Luna+ channel, which will give subscribers access to what the company vaguely described as "a growing number of" games, including titles like Resident Evil 7, Control and Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons for a fee of $5.99 per month.
Additionally, Amazon has struck a partnership with Ubisoft to launch its own subscription channel on Luna, which will give subscribers access to titles like Assassins Creed: Valhalla, Far Cry 6 and Immortals Fenyx Rising for a separate monthly fee that has yet to be announced.
Amazon didn't announce any channels from additional publishers at launch. "You'll see other channels over time," Amazon's VP of Entertainment Devices and Services Marc Whitten told Protocol following the announcement. He also suggested that feedback from publishers had been largely positive: "They are pretty excited about the idea," he said.
The channel subscription model is new for cloud gaming, but it will look very familiar to anyone who has followed Amazon's media ambitions over the years. Amazon first launched Amazon Channels as a marketplace for subscription video services in late 2015. Since then, Channels has turned into the largest reseller for video subscriptions online: In 2018, the Diffusion Group estimated that the platform was responsible for around half of all HBO direct-to-consumer subscriptions.
Whitten openly credited the success of Channels as an inspiration for Luna, adding that the company wants to incorporate some of the lessons learned over the years from reselling video services, which include a bigger emphasis on the brands of individual publishers.
Whitten didn't want to reveal too many additional details about Luna — Amazon is still keeping mum on the pricing of the Ubisoft channel, for instance — but suggested that it could be complementary to other cloud gaming services on the market. "I don't buy into the idea that there is one model," he said. Instead, Whitten argued, it could open the market to a new generation of gamers. "Things like Luna help publishers broaden access to games," Whitten said.
Amazon has clearly learned from Channels how successful subscriptions can be, but the experience also taught the company about the challenges of operating marketplaces on other companies' platforms. Case in point: To avoid Apple's stringent App Store rules — which games maker Epic is currently fighting — Luna will be launching as a progressive web app on iOS, effectively allowing people to play top-tier games in a web browser.
From Your Site Articles
- Amazon is good at so many things. Why is it bad at games? - Protocol ›
- Google and Microsoft are betting big on gaming in 2020 - Protocol ›
- Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick on cloud gaming ... ›
- Microsoft hopes to leapfrog Google Stadia by taking xCloud to Android ›
- Microsoft's new cloud gaming service is more about the cloud than ... ›
Janko Roettgers
Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.
People
Beeper built the universal messaging app the world needed
It's an app for all your social apps. And part of an entirely new way to think about chat.
Beeper is an app for all your messaging apps, including the hard-to-access ones.
Image: Beeper
January 22, 2021
David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.
January 22, 2021
Eric Migicovsky likes to tinker. And the former CEO of Pebble — he's now a partner at Y Combinator — knows a thing or two about messaging. "You remember on the Pebble," he asked me, "how we had this microphone, and on Android you could reply to all kinds of messages?" Migicovsky liked that feature, and he especially liked that it didn't care which app you used. Android-using Pebble wearers could speak their replies to texts, Messenger chats, almost any notification that popped up.
That kind of universal, non-siloed approach to messaging appealed to Migicovsky, and it didn't really exist anywhere else. "Remember Trillian from back in the day?" he asked, somewhat wistfully. "Or Adium?" They were the gold-standard of universal messaging apps; users could log in to their AIM, MSN, GChat and Yahoo accounts, and chat with everyone in one place.
<p>Migicovsky has spent the last two years building a modern equivalent. It's called Beeper, and it pulls 15 different messaging services — including WhatsApp, Slack, Instagram and iMessage — into a single app. The app launched this week, and will cost $10 a month for anyone who wants to use it. Migicovsky said roughly 40 people have been using the app for the last few months, and that he's come to rely on it completely. "Beeper went down for me a couple of weeks ago, and I had to fix it," he said. "And for the hours I was fixing it, I had to open up Slack, Telegram, Signal, everything. It was like going back to the Stone Ages." </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="1">
</div>
</div></p><p>To explain how Beeper works, and why Migicovsky thinks it's valuable, you have to understand the protocols. In the early days of online messaging (otherwise known as The Adium Era), many messaging services were based on a protocol called Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, or XMPP. When it was designed, XMPP intended to make all kinds of communication on the internet, from text to video to file transfers, into decentralized systems. For a while, it worked: From AIM to Google Talk to the early days of Facebook Chat, some of the biggest messaging services used XMPP. </p><p>A few years later, Google and Facebook — and soon others — decided to stop supporting XMPP. Some argued XMPP was too complicated a protocol and simply didn't work; others said they could develop features more quickly by keeping everything in-house. "Today, group conversations, sharing your day with stickers or emojis and messaging across multiple devices have become second nature to many of us," Google product manager Mayur Kamat <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150704141805if_/https://plus.google.com/+MayurKamat/posts/ETBvtp9VYav" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">wrote in 2015</a> announcing the switch from Google Talk (which supported XMPP) to Hangouts (which didn't). Whatever the reason, messaging apps soon became walled gardens, with everything run — and stored — in one place.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="2">
</div>
</div></p><p>In the last few years, though, a group of developers has been building a new protocol, one they hope can offer all the openness and decentralization of XMPP but with all the modern features people need now: encryption, voice and video, integrations with other apps and the like. It's called Matrix. "Matrix is our effort to right the balance" after decades of great tech being turned into walled gardens, said Matthew Hodgson, Matrix's technical co-founder. "If you were going to build the holy grail of messaging," the team asked themselves several years ago — a service where anyone can participate, where everything is encrypted, where nothing is locked off from the ecosystem — "what would it look like?" Some of this tech has been built in the past, but always inside a single company or service. They wanted to build it and give it to the internet.</p><p>Ultimately, Hodgson said, Matrix is more than a messaging protocol. "It's a real-time database for any kind of information," he said, from financial tickers to drone flights to VR streams. "Matrix just gives you the building blocks to synchronize it between different deployments." Messaging just happens to be something with which Hodgson and his team have plenty of experience. Not to mention, it's kind of a killer app. Matrix-based messaging can support a whole ecosystem of apps, the way email protocols do. It's all end-to-end encrypted, and it's resilient by virtue of not being housed in a single data center. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="3">
</div>
</div></p><p>"When Slack goes down for six hours," Hodgson said, "or Signal goes down for 24 hours, people realize, 'hang on, all my eggs are in one basket.'" There are already decentralized, harder-to-kill apps like Slack or Signal running on Matrix, where there's less security risk or possibility of downtime. He added: "The narrative is swinging in our direction." Millions of users use Matrix messaging tools already, he said, including the entire French government, which uses a Slack-like tool called Element that is built by the Matrix team.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTUxMjQ3Mi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MDIzNzU0NX0.NPrsWaIEy9RUG90_cIsyZMFW7foaGyiuP_vHdD2T-Ok/img.png?width=980" id="ce4ab" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="37ea800dd363bb5c0c588b2727990131" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Beeper chats">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Beeper tries to wrangle lots of messaging apps into one. Eventually, that might not be necessary.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Image: Beeper</small></p><p>Matrix is key to Beeper, but in a slightly different way. Migicovsky isn't trying to build a brand-new chat service to compete with WhatsApp; he's trying to wrangle all the services people use into a system that feels more open. So he's taking advantage of a Matrix feature called Bridges, which pulls other apps into the Matrix ecosystem. Sometimes this is easy: Migicovsky said IRC and Telegram have great APIs, making it easy to send and read messages from other apps. Most others are a bit hackier, though Migicovsky said it's rarely impossible: "If you can open something in a browser, we can get to it."<br></p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="4">
</div>
</div></p><p>One of Beeper's most enticing integrations is with iMessage, which would mean users could access their iMessages on Android or Windows through the Beeper app. This one is stupendously hacky. If a Beeper user has a Mac that's always on and connected to the internet, it's easy; Beeper just connects to the same relay that delivers messages to all your Apple devices, and sends them to Beeper. But if you don't have a Mac that fits the description, there's only one way in. "We wrote an app for jailbroken iPhones that acts as a relay," Migicovsky said. "There's a database on the iPhone called sms.db. And so we just read and write to that." </p><p>But wait, it gets hackier! There's no way to get everyone to jailbreak their iPhones, so Migicovsky found a workaround. "I buy used old cracked-screen iPhones for cheap," he said. "I jailbreak them, and send them to people with the app installed. And they just set it up and leave it somewhere connected to Wi-Fi." There's a box full of semi-busted iPhones, all the way back to the iPhone 4, on his desk right now. The plan works, though it doesn't exactly scale. "We tried a lot of different things," Migicovsky said. "It might not be like this forever." </p><p>There's one part of this setup that Migicovsky actually quite likes. "You control the phone," he said. All the code is open source, and Beeper encrypts all messages; only users have their passwords to access them. But if you really don't want Beeper getting your texts anymore, just unplug that jailbroken iPhone, and you're done.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="5">
</div>
</div></p><p>Migicovsky has lots of ideas for how to improve Beeper as a product, and messaging in general. "No one has really innovated in chat in the last 10 years," he said, before allowing that maybe Slack and Discord get a little credit. But that's it. He's not sure what better looks like, though. He's intrigued by new ways to sort and organize messages, even how threads could look. "I'm really just excited about having this ... not a blank canvas, a malleable canvas," he said.</p><p>The list of places people message seems to get longer every day, and Migicovsky wants Beeper to support them all. "I want to build LinkedIn and Snapchat, and I'm not dating but a lot of people want Tinder messages on this," he said. He's not trying to replace those apps entirely, though. "Discord's amazing," he said, by way of example. "It has cool animations, you have the audio chat that's really good, it's got this social element." For Discord things, people should use Discord. But texting with friends or sharing photos shouldn't be a Discord thing. Or an Instagram thing, or a WhatsApp thing, or a Signal thing, or a Slack thing. It definitely shouldn't be all of those, separately.</p>"It would be wonderful if we didn't have to build what we built," Migicovsky said. "And you could just look me up, like in a phone book or something, and say, 'I want to talk to Eric.'" In the long run, Matrix might help make that possible — already, it appears some of Twitter's decentralization work through Project Bluesky is <a href="https://twitter.com/bluesky/status/1352302821140549632" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">being done on Matrix</a>, and Hodgson said he's had conversations with a number of big players in the tech world about build a more open and interoperable messaging ecosystem. For now, the best anyone can do is put everything in one place. It's hacky, but it's progress.
Keep Reading
Show less
David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.
Power
Everything you need to know about the Roblox direct listing
The company is expected to go public via direct listing on the New York Stock Exchange in February.
Roblox CEO David Baszucki is taking the company public.
Photo: Ian Tuttle/Getty Images
January 22, 2021
Hirsh Chitkara (@ChitkaraHirsh) is a researcher at Protocol, based out of New York City. Before joining Protocol, he worked for Business Insider Intelligence, where he wrote about Big Tech, telecoms, workplace privacy, smart cities, and geopolitics. He also worked on the Strategy & Analytics team at the Cleveland Indians.
January 21, 2021
Roblox is a video game platform, though it describes itself alternatively as a "metaverse," "human co-experience platform" and "new category of human interaction." It's expected to go public via direct listing on the New York Stock Exchange in February.
In simpler terms, Roblox enables developers to build games within the Roblox virtual world, which looks like a crossover between Minecraft and Lego. Developers publish and distribute their games through Roblox to an audience of some 31.1 million daily active users.
<p>Here's everything you need to know about the company and its direct listing.</p>
What Does Roblox Do?
<p>Many of the core Roblox experiences are free, but the virtual currency, Robux, can be used to customize player avatars, unlock premium games and purchase in-game perks. Roblox makes money by charging users for Robux and through its <a href="https://www.roblox.com/premium/membership" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">subscription service</a>, Roblox Premium, which offers discounts and access to exclusive content. Developers keep <a href="https://developer.roblox.com/en-us/articles/developer-economics#:~:text=When%20you%20start%20developing%20on,via%20our%20virtual%20currency%20Robux" target="_blank">a portion</a> of the Robux generated through their games, and can cash out through the <a href="https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/203314100-Developer-Exchange-DevEx-FAQs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Developer Exchange Program</a>. </p><p>An active Roblox developer community means content is always changing. On my homepage, for instance, Roblox gives me the option to play a <a href="https://www.roblox.com/games/4996049426/UPDATE-All-Star-Tower-Defense?refPageId=7098b58b-fcbf-42bd-86a0-fcd00216ed05" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tower defense game</a>, <a href="https://www.roblox.com/games/166986752/Plane-Crazy?refPageId=7098b58b-fcbf-42bd-86a0-fcd00216ed05" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">flight simulator</a>, <a href="https://www.roblox.com/games/364802243/Freeze-Tag-NEW-MAP?refPageId=7098b58b-fcbf-42bd-86a0-fcd00216ed05" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">freeze tag simulator</a>, a <a href="https://www.roblox.com/games/920587237/Adopt-Me?refPageId=7098b58b-fcbf-42bd-86a0-fcd00216ed05" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pet game</a> reminiscent of Nintendogs and a <a href="https://www.roblox.com/games/5596703547/Weight-Lifting-Simulator-5?refPageId=7098b58b-fcbf-42bd-86a0-fcd00216ed05" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">weight-lifting simulator</a>. Developers have created more than 18 million games/experiences for the Roblox platform, though users <a href="https://venturebeat.com/2019/12/09/robloxs-10-biggest-games-of-all-time-each-with-more-than-a-billion-plays/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tend to gravitate</a> to a much smaller subset of the available content. Flexibility in gameplay is critical to Roblox's long-term value proposition, since it hopes to avoid the boom-and-bust cycle of a typical standalone game. </p><p>If you feel old reading any of the above, it's probably because over half of Roblox users were born after 2006. But what the community lacks in life experience, it makes up for with enthusiasm: Roblox <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1315098/000119312520298230/d87104ds1.htm#INDEX" target="_blank">users spent a total</a> of 22.2 billion hours on the platform for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2020, which comes out to 2.6 hours per day for each active user. With children locked out of other social activities during the pandemic, Roblox experienced a massive uptick in usage; total time spent on the platform <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/16/technology/roblox-tweens-videogame-coronavirus.html" target="_blank">doubled between February and July 2020</a>.</p>Roblox's Financials
<p>Roblox isn't yet profitable, but it has managed to grow revenue at an impressive clip. According to the company's S-1, Roblox generated $588.7 million in revenue for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2020, representing a 68% jump from the same period in 2019. Costs grew even faster than revenue, however, so Roblox posted a $205.9 million consolidated net loss in the 2020 period, down from the $46.3 million consolidated net loss in the first nine months of 2019.</p><p>Roblox's highest expense is developer exchange fees, which accounted for roughly 26% of total expenses in the first nine months of 2020. Other significant costs include server fees, consumer safety (Roblox contracts out some 1,700 agents to monitor its platform to uphold community standards), research and development investment and the 30% fee owed to Apple and Google for mobile OS purchases. </p>What Could Go Wrong?
<p>Three themes stand out from Roblox's S-1: loss of user interest, access to distribution channels and user safety.</p> <p><strong>Children's attention is notoriously fickle, </strong>and Roblox is asking investors to bet billions on its ability to remain relevant for years to come. For every Lego or Nintendo that has defined multiple generations of childhoods, there's a Club Penguin, Neopets or Webkinz that quickly went from all the rage to irrelevant.</p><ul><li>"The multitude of other entertainment options, online gaming, and other interactive experiences is high, making it difficult to retain users who are dissatisfied with our platform and seek other entertainment options," Roblox writes. "Moreover, the majority of our users are under the age of 13. This demographic may be less brand loyal and more likely to follow trends, including viral trends, than other demographics."</li><li>Another concern is that Roblox won't be able to sustain its boost in user activity after the pandemic subsides. The company writes: "The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting social distancing, shelter-in-place and similar restrictions led to increased developer and creator and user engagement on our platform relative to our quarterly forecast and historic trends. These increases in user activity are almost certainly not indicative of our financial and operating results in future periods."</li></ul> <p><strong>Roblox's access to distribution channels is contingent </strong>upon external partnerships.</p><ul><li>In December 2020, Roblox <a href="https://www.scmp.com/tech/apps-social/article/3112379/us-gaming-platform-roblox-licensed-release-china-company-plans-go" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gained approval</a> to operate in China through a joint venture with Tencent. This could be an enormous revenue opportunity, but it comes with uncertainty given the <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/23/21531154/judge-denies-trump-administration-ban-wechat-tencent-china" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tense relations</a> between the U.S. and China.</li><li>Apple and Google also have significant leverage over Roblox. "For the nine months ended September 30, 2020, 34% of our revenue was attributable to Robux sales through the Apple App Store and 18% of our revenue was attributable to Robux sales through the Google Play Store, and during the same period 68% of our engagement hours on the platform were from users who signed up through the Apple App Store and Google Play Store," the company writes. Roblox raises the possibility that Apple or Google could damage their profitability by changing fee structures or data policies. </li></ul> <p><strong>Roblox needs to uphold high safety standards</strong> since so many children are on the platform; failing to do so would damage their reputation. </p><ul><li>The company writes: "We have faced allegations that our platform has been used by criminal offenders to identify and communicate with children and to possibly entice them to interact off-platform, outside of the restrictions of our chat, content blockers, and other on-platform safety measures. While we devote considerable resources to prevent this from occurring, we are unable to prevent all such interactions from taking place." </li><li>Roblox also brings up the possibility that developers make content that the community considers "illicit, explicit, profane, or otherwise objectionable." The company bans such content, but with millions of experiences available, some could slip through the cracks. </li></ul>Who Gets Rich?
<p>Investors in Roblox saw the company's valuation grow seven times over the past year. In February 2020, Roblox raised $150 million in a series G round that valued it at $4 billion. Then in January 2021, Roblox closed a $520 million series H round that generated an astounding $29.5 billion valuation.</p><p>This valuation may seem absurd to some. Is a children's video game (OK, "platform") worth <a href="https://www.barrons.com/articles/ford-has-a-hidden-asset-just-like-gm-its-stock-could-rise-soon-too-51611159634" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">nearly as much as Ford</a>? Whether Roblox can justify its valuation in the long run, here's who stands to gain from a stellar IPO, based on shareholder disclosures from the <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1315098/000119312520298230/d87104ds1.htm#rom87104_3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">S-1 filing</a> on Nov. 19, 2020:</p><ul><li>Altos Ventures <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/roblox-s-1-ipo-filing-released.html#:~:text=Altos%20Ventures%20is%20Roblox's%20largest,and%20Tiger%20Global%20owns%207.3%25." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">owned</a> 21% of shares.</li><li>Meritech Capital owned 10% of shares. </li><li>Roblox founder, president and CEO David Baszucki owned 12% of outstanding shares.</li><li>Index Ventures owned 9.9% of shares. </li></ul>What People Are Saying
<p><strong>"The S-1 makes plain exactly how big Roblox's ambitions are: It's trying to build an entire new world, with a new economy, a new currency, a new everything, and not just for kids. The company wants to be thought of like a tech giant, not a game developer."</strong> —Protocol's David Pierce <a href="https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/sourcecode/the-metaverse-goes-public-roblox-s1-ipo?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">wrote in Source Code</a> after Roblox filed its S-1.</p><p><strong>"Roblox could be to Facebook what Shopify is to Amazon, the non-social media social media firm. Just as hospitals, doctors offices, headquarters, shopping malls, and campuses are being bypassed and shifting hundreds of billions in stakeholder value, Roblox could disrupt the kid attention economy. Roblox is set to go public this month, and will create meaningful shareholder value. Prediction: stock trades up 70% or more on first trade. More important, Roblox could be the first social media firm whose shareholder value isn't designed to extract value from the least powerful stakeholder, kids."</strong> —NYU Professor Scott Galloway in his <a href="https://www.profgalloway.com/roblox-and-the-dispersal-of-creativity" target="_blank">No Mercy / No Malice newsletter</a>.</p>
Keep Reading
Show less
Hirsh Chitkara (@ChitkaraHirsh) is a researcher at Protocol, based out of New York City. Before joining Protocol, he worked for Business Insider Intelligence, where he wrote about Big Tech, telecoms, workplace privacy, smart cities, and geopolitics. He also worked on the Strategy & Analytics team at the Cleveland Indians.
People
Amazon’s head of Alexa Trust on how Big Tech should talk about data
Anne Toth, Amazon's director of Alexa Trust, explains what it takes to get people to feel comfortable using your product — and why that is work worth doing.
Anne Toth, Amazon's director of Alexa Trust, has been working on tech privacy for decades.
Photo: Amazon
January 18, 2021
David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.
January 18, 2021
Anne Toth has had a long career in the tech industry, thinking about privacy and security at companies like Yahoo, Google and Slack, working with the World Economic Forum and advising companies around Silicon Valley.
Last August she took on a new job as the director of Alexa Trust, leading a big team tackling a big question: How do you make people feel good using a product like Alexa, which is designed to be deeply ingrained in their lives? "Alexa in your home is probably the closest sort of consumer experience or manifestation of AI in your life," she said. That comes with data questions, privacy questions, ethical questions and lots more.
<p>During CES week, when Toth was also on a popular panel about the future of privacy, she hopped on a Chime call to talk about her team, her career and what it takes to get users to trust Big Tech. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="1">
</div>
</div></p><p><em>This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.</em></p><p><strong>How does the Trust team work? That's what it's called, right?</strong></p><p>Yeah. I work on the Alexa Trust org, it's part of the Alexa organization overall. The team that I work on is responsible for building all the privacy features, all the privacy controls and settings, and thinking about privacy across Alexa, as well as accessibility. So the aging teams, the accessibility teams, Alexa for Everyone, all reside within this organization. And we're thinking about content issues and the whole gamut. So really all of the all of the policy dimensions and how they manifest in consumer-accessible controls and features is what this team thinks about.</p><p><strong>Why is that one team? You just named a bunch of different, equally important things. What is the tie that binds all of those things?</strong></p><p>Well … I think it's trust, right? It's, how do we develop trustworthy experiences? We are very much a horizontal organization that works throughout the Alexa org. </p><p>And the Alexa org actually is much larger than I even anticipated. When I first was interviewing with the organization, I was really surprised at how big and how quickly it's grown. So it's truly a horizontal effort to think about the customer experience, and all of these areas where there are potential trust issues, and try to deal with them very proactively. </p><p><strong>That's a much bigger definition of trust than I would have guessed. I feel like we talk about trust a lot as sort of synonymous with privacy, and so "what do you do with my data" is the core question. But then when you put things like accessibility and ethics in there, it broadens the definition of what you're looking at in this really interesting way.</strong></p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="2">
</div>
</div></p><p>Yeah, it's a very expansive view. I have worked on privacy for most of my career. It often presents as a defensive issue for companies, right? And even the word "privacy" brings up a sort of connotation that makes you think about all the things you don't want people to know. </p><p>But I think of it really as an opportunity to innovate and to try to create more positive experiences, rather than to think of it as a defensive posture. How are we enabling the usage of data to help create better experiences for customers? Because that's really, ultimately what customers want: for you to use data to make this better for me. And I'm totally good with that. The concern is when I'm not sure what I'm getting out of you using my data, and you have it, and why do you have it? That's the area that's problematic. And what I see, and what we're trying to do, is to be very transparent, and to demonstrate time and again how your data is actually benefiting you in this product experience.</p><p><strong>That's actually one of the things I wanted to talk about. You said in another interview that so much of privacy and security is basically just, like, don't screw up. There's no positive experience, it's just there until you ruin it. It's interesting to think about it the other way: to say, "What does it look like to be more proactive about privacy and data security?" What does that look like for you, in terms of how to actually put it in front of people in a way that feels useful, instead of just having pop-ups that say, "Don't worry, we're not using your data for bad things?"</strong><br></p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="3">
</div>
</div></p><p>Designing for privacy, or designing for trust more specifically, is about baby steps. It's like developing a relationship with a person, right? You have to earn the trust. And you have to do things in the beginning that over time become less important. So the wake word: We rely very heavily on the wake word. You have to invoke Alexa. But the use of the wake word, and the training around that, is in order to make people comfortable with the fact that we are only streaming your requests to the cloud once the wake word has been invoked. </p><p>That is about interjecting some conscious friction, to create a trusted experience so that later when we have more advanced features, more advanced conversational-type elements, you'll be in a place where you're comfortable with that experience. It moved you along that learning curve, and got to that place where you trust us to do that for you effectively. </p><p>I think it was on Twitter or on LinkedIn, I saw that there was an article that had gone viral. There was a security organization that did a breakdown of an Echo device because there was a theory the mic-off button was in fact just cosmetic. So they did a whole breakdown and sort of mapped out the electronics to prove, in fact, if the red light is on, the wiring to the mic is disabled. The red light and the mic cannot both be on at the same time and vice versa. That was a design choice. There are a lot of choices that are about getting people comfortable with the device, and feeling that degree of trust so that later down the road, we can introduce more features that people will be more likely to use. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="4">
</div>
</div></p><p><strong>But it's telling even that those sort of conspiracy theories exist, right? People think the same thing about Facebook turning on their microphone. Does it feel like there is this perception hole that every big tech company is in right now? That you, as Alexa, have to go out of your way to convince people that you're doing the right thing, as opposed to even starting in a neutral place? It just feels like we're in this place where people are learning to be suspicious about things that they don't understand.</strong></p><p>I'm kind of a hardened cynic. That's just my natural disposition on things. So yes, I think we are in a period of time right now where skepticism is at an all-time high. And I think deservedly so, in the world we're living in at the present moment.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="5">
</div>
</div></p><p>But what I'm often heartened by is that people have put this device into their homes, into their most sacred private spaces with their families with their loved ones. To do that is a big leap of faith and trust in Amazon and Alexa. So the mere fact that we're there is already a sign that people have extended to us the benefit of the doubt and have said "we trust you." </p><p>So it's not even so much about having to earn that trust in the first place as it is having to be worthy of that trust, right? Or be worthy of that privilege of being in that space. That's the goal for me: to make sure that we continue to be worthy of the trust they've already placed in us, which is not a hurdle everyone gets over. </p><p><strong>What about as you think about things like default settings versus giving people choice? You can give people all the options in the world, but we know for a fact that most people are never going to change anything. So I'm suspicious of the idea that that's a solution to these problems, but it's definitely part of the solution. How do you think about making good decisions for people versus letting people make decisions?</strong> </p><p>First of all, no two people have the exact same notions of privacy. It's different generations, different cultures, different backgrounds, different experiences, all driving different expectations. No matter where you set a default, it's not going to be right for everybody. So there has to be the ability to change it. And you have to make that easy to find. <br></p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="6">
</div>
</div></p><p>So in the Alexa context, voice-forward commands to try to make it as easy as possible to be able to say, "why did you do that," or "delete what I just said," or "delete everything I have ever said" — those kinds of interactions help reduce the friction in privacy, they make it easier for people to exercise those those options. </p><p>Your default settings generally represent your organizational bias, in one way or the other. And in this case, the default settings that we have reflect our ability to use data in a way that's going to improve the product and make it better for the customer. So that's where they are. And that's how they've been determined. But they're not immovable. And that's the most important part. </p><p><strong>Well, that education piece seems hard, though. We've seen Facebook, for instance, try to explain why it collects a lot of data. And it doesn't necessarily track for a lot of people. There was this big dustup with WhatsApp, people lost their minds. Is it harder than you're making it sound to help people understand what you're doing with their data?</strong></p><p>In some ways, I think that this product gives you a more immediate example of that data benefit than other products. I mean, I spent a lot of my career talking about the benefits of targeted advertising, and how if you're going to get an ad, better to get a targeted ad than one that's irrelevant. But the relative benefit to you as a customer, as an individual, for that use of your data doesn't really feel as meaningful as the types of experiences or improvements we're able to make. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="7">
</div>
</div></p><p>And there's lots of data, particularly looking at introducing Alexa into new countries and languages and dialects, where the ability to use that voice data to dramatically improve our responses and our accuracy is something that is noticeable by people over time. I think people would recognize that, that trajectory.</p><p><strong>That's fair. And it does seem like most people, when you explain it to them, will understand pieces of it like that.</strong> </p><p>This is why I love "Alexa, why did you do that?" Because Alexa doesn't always get it right the first time, and to be able to actually ask and get a response about what that reasoning was, and you can see it in real time — you can't do that with a lot of other experiences. That's a cool one that I hope more people use. </p><p>But we are faced with some real challenges under regulation about explainable AI. These technologies are getting more and more sophisticated, and when they work really well, sometimes we're delighted, and sometimes we're creeped out. It's that balancing act of like, "Wait a minute, that was really useful … should I be worried?" Which is why trust is so important to develop, so that when you get to that moment, you can offer a customer benefit without it being intrusive, or invasive or feeling somehow uncomfortable. Devices should learn!</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="8">
</div>
</div></p><p><strong>You're a privacy person, so I have a current events question for you: We're in the middle right now of this privacy versus transparency debate, where it's either better to let people use encrypted services because they can't be watched or becomes a problem because bad people can do bad stuff in those encrypted services and nobody can find them. And obviously, this shows up in lots of scary ways recently. Where do you fall on the debate?</strong></p><p>I will have to speak to this on a personal level, but all the messaging apps I use are end-to-end encrypted for primary messaging. I think it's important, and I think that there's a role that they play that is important. There are lots of people who think that people aren't really concerned about privacy in the world, and we've passed that moment where privacy is an issue. Just based on the number of people that I've seen crop up on Signal and Telegram in the last week, I can tell you that people really are paying attention. So I think that if that's the indicator that we should be looking at, then I would say privacy is not dead. People really do care. And it's something everybody should be paying attention to.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="9">
</div>
</div></p>
Keep Reading
Show less
David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.
Power
What TV remotes tell us about power struggles in streaming
TV remote controls are a major battlefield in the TV wars, which are fought one branded button at a time.
LG's 2021 smart TV remote control features a total of three buttons for voice control.
Image: LG
January 13, 2021
Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.
January 13, 2021
Don't touch that dial: As TV manufacturers are unveiling their 2021 models at this year's virtual CES, they're also giving us a first look at the remote controls that will be shipping with those big, shiny and smart TV sets.
There were a few surprises. LG's remotes come with built-in NFC to transfer videos from mobile devices to the TV, and Samsung's remotes incorporate solar cells that are meant to reduce battery waste. The new crop of 2021 TV remotes also perfectly encapsulates the conflicts and power struggles in the TV industry, from streaming services vying for attention to voice assistant platforms' fierce competition.
<p>
There are more branded buttons on this year's TVs than ever, giving us a taste of the conflicts behind the scenes.
</p><h3>Money and power: The branded button</h3><p>
It's been 10 years since <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2011-01-04-netflix-one-click-remotes-coming-to-nearly-every-device-it-str.html" target="_blank">Netflix first partnered</a> with makers of streaming devices and smart TVs to add a dedicated Netflix button to their remote controls. Fast forward a decade, and those shortcut buttons are ubiquitous — and multiplying.<br>
</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="1">
</div>
</div></p><p>
Take Hisense for example. The Chinese smart TV maker ships some of its 2021 TVs with a remote that has six branded buttons for streaming services, including not only Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and YouTube, but also free streaming service Tubi as well as relative newcomers Disney+ and Peacock.
</p><p>
Branded buttons like these have long been paid product placements, with streaming services paying around $1 per remote to put their brand closer to a consumer's fingertips. However, as streaming services grow, these buttons have also become part of numerous turf wars. Netflix, for instance, has for years forced device makers to include a branded button in order to get access to its app, according to industry insiders.
</p><p>
And while TV makers were long happy to just take the extra revenue, they're increasingly looking to compete with their own streaming services. Remotes from both LG and Samsung feature dedicated buttons for their respective ad-supported streaming services, with Samsung notably only giving branded buttons to two other streaming services (Netflix and Prime Video).
</p><p>
Not every company is that constrained, though. Including a button for its own collection of free streaming channels, Vizio's 2021 remote features a whopping seven branded shortcut buttons.
</p><h3>Disputed territory: Smart TV platform remotes</h3><p>
While companies like LG and Samsung have long designed TV remote controls to their own liking, TV makers that license smart TV operating systems have much less freedom. TVs that run Roku's operating system need to ship with a Roku remote, whereas TVs using Amazon's smart TV OS tend to include remotes that look just like those that come with the company's own streaming devices.
</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="2">
</div>
</div></p><p>
Google has given TV and streaming device makers more liberties in the past, resulting in a range of different remotes. Now, the company apparently seems to institute stricter requirements. Google has developed its own reference remote, and is said to "strongly recommend" that manufacturers adopt it, <a href="https://twitter.com/androidtv_rumor/status/1348632021749407744" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">according to</a> the usually well-informed Android TV Guide Twitter account.
</p><p>
This new mandate coincides with Google's switch to its new branded user interface, which emphasizes Google-selected content recommendations over individual apps. As part of that strategy change, Google is also imploring TV and streaming device makers to include a dedicated button for its Watchlist feature, which is essentially a bookmarking service for individual shows and movies across desktop, mobile and TV.
</p><p>
There's only one problem: Netflix is not on board with platforms disaggregating its catalog, and instead prefers that viewers fire up the Netflix app to discover new titles. As a result, <a href="https://www.techhive.com/article/3599868/netflix-drags-streaming-tv-backward-cord-cutters-take-note.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Netflix has forced Google</a> to disable the Watchlist feature for Netflix originals on TV-connected devices. Users can still add Netflix tiles to their Google Watchlist on the web, but they can't edit that list or even rate Netflix titles on Android TV devices — making the Watchlist button effectively a shortcut to disputed territory.
</p><h3>The final frontier: Voice assistants</h3><p>
The microphone button has quickly become one of the most coveted properties on TV remote controls. Google has made its own Google Assistant the default voice platform for Android TV devices, and Amazon is relying on its Alexa assistant for TVs running Fire TV OS. On third-party devices, the two companies are increasingly butting heads.
</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="3">
</div>
</div></p><p>
For example, South Korean electronics giant LG is using its own webOS as the software platform for its smart TVs, but began adding support for third-party voice assistants a few years ago — a process that hasn't always gone smoothly.
</p><p>
In 2020, LG let consumers access the Google Assistant via its main voice search button, effectively making it the default voice engine for its TVs. The company also had a partnership with Amazon to integrate Alexa, but Google rejected the idea of sharing the mic button, forcing LG to institute a less than intuitive workaround: People who preferred to use Amazon's voice assistant were instructed to forgo the mic button altogether and long-press the Prime Video button to trigger Alexa.
</p><p>
This time around, LG decided to give Amazon's voice assistant a slightly more prominent placement in the form of a dedicated Alexa button. To keep all things equal, it also added a dedicated Google Assistant button to its 2021 remote control. And because LG's webOS does offer some basic voice commands to change channels or open apps, the company also kept the default microphone button on its remote.
</p><p>
The result: three separate voice assistant buttons on a single remote control.
</p><h3>Why those buttons won't disappear anytime soon</h3><p>
Consumers may have mixed feelings about all those branded buttons; some even try to figure out how to <a href="https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/10/30/shield-tv-remote-remap-netflix/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reprogram their remote controls</a>. However, people do also like cheap TVs, and with the average purchase price of a TV set <a href="https://www.protocol.com/tcl-roku-tv-profit-smartphone" target="_self">declining by 60% between 2014 and 2019</a>, manufacturers have to find new ways to monetize their products. A few dollars here and there can make a real difference in a business with razor-thin margins, and Samsung and Roku have demonstrated that <a href="https://www.protocol.com/samsung-tv-plus-on-phones" target="_self">there's real money to be made</a> in running and heavily promoting their own ad-supported streaming services.
</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="4">
</div>
</div></p><p>
Some of those extra buttons could be avoided if tech companies just played nice. Amazon, for instance, has long advocated for voice interoperability, which would allow companies like LG to add just a single microphone button to its TV remotes that could offer access to a multitude of voice assistants.
</p><p>
Google has been steadfast in rejecting such proposals, all but guaranteeing that future TVs will continue to have a whole lot of button bloat.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Roku is becoming the most powerful company in streaming ... ›
- Google's Android TV terms hurt Amazon's Fire TV efforts - Protocol ›
- Comcast is looking to enter the smart TV wars - Protocol — The ... ›
- Tubi shows the importance of ad-supported streaming services - Protocol — The people, power and politics of tech ›
Keep Reading
Show less
Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.
Power
Roku is becoming the most powerful company in streaming
A growing user base will give it even more power in content negotiations.
Roku's emerging as one of the streaming war's biggest winners.
Photo: Luke Sharrett/Getty Images
January 11, 2021
Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.
January 8, 2021
Roku's bet on smart TVs is paying off: Seven years after the company first began licensing its operating system to TV manufacturers, it has become a market leader in North America. Roku and its hardware partners sold more smart TVs in the U.S. in 2020 than competitors like Samsung, LG and Vizio, according to data from the NPD Group released by Roku on Friday.
Roku TVs had a 38% market share in the U.S. and a 31% market share in Canada, according to NPD's data. Roku also announced earlier this week that it had ended 2020 with 51.2 million active accounts, adding around 14 million accounts over the past 12 months. Altogether, consumers streamed 58.7 billion hours of entertainment through their Roku devices in 2020, according to a news release.
<p>Both data points demonstrate how much of a force the company has become in North America, giving it even more power in negotiations with media companies looking to run their services on Roku streaming sticks and TVs. However, they also highlight how much Roku's business has been solely focused on the TV space, giving competitors a chance to dominate other smart device categories.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="1">
</div>
</div></p><p>After first making a name for itself with its streaming boxes, Roku began licensing its operating system to TV manufacturers in 2014, with one of its early licensing partners including China's TCL, <a href="https://www.protocol.com/tcl-roku-tv-profit-smartphone" target="_self">then virtually unknown in North America</a>. With affordable TV sets and a UI that emphasized simplicity over fancy new features, TCL and Roku managed to grow their market share year after year; at the end of 2019, every third smart TV sold in the U.S. was running Roku's operating system.</p><p>The growing popularity of Roku TVs and streaming devices has helped the company grow its advertising business and negotiate more favorable contracts with media companies looking to launch their apps on its platform. Roku is not only demanding revenue and ad-sharing agreements for any app that runs on its platform, but is also increasingly pressing media companies to make parts of their catalog available via its own free Roku Channel streaming service. Last year, negotiations between AT&T and Roku broke down, resulting in HBO Max not being available in Roku devices for six months.</p><p>Roku's expansion into other hardware categories has been more of a mixed bag. The company has made its own wireless speakers that work only with Roku TVs and streaming devices, but listings on various ecommerce websites suggest only modest demand. Roku's wireless bookshelf speakers were ranked No. 2,850 on Amazon.com's sales charts for consumer electronics devices at the time of writing. For comparison, Amazon's own Echo Dot speaker ranked No. 1, with other Amazon speakers and smart displays following closely behind.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="2">
</div>
</div></p><p>At one point, Roku developed a dedicated Wi-Fi product <a href="https://www.techhive.com/article/3445378/a-fix-for-your-wi-fi-problems-from-roku.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">called Roku Relay</a> that was supposed to optimize wireless connectivity for Roku streaming devices. The company tested Relay with a small number of consumers, but ultimately decided to not bring it to market.</p><p>Roku has been making some headway in cooperating with third-party companies in the audio space with a licensing program for third-party sound bars and speakers. Participating companies can market their devices as Roku TV Ready and integrate software to simplify setup. Roku TV Ready partners include TCL, Hisense, Enclave, Sound United and Bose, with Element scheduled to launch its own Roku TV Ready products this month. On Friday, Roku also announced that TCL would launch the first Roku TV Ready wireless sound bar in the coming months.</p>
Keep Reading
Show less
Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.
Latest Stories
See more
Most Popular
Bulletins
January 22, 2021 11:32 EST
Get Source Code in your inbox
David Pierce's daily analysis of the tech news that matters.