2020年12月8日 星期二

On Tech: Airbnb stock might sound cool …

But you probably would do better with an index fund.

Airbnb stock might sound cool …

Dev Valladares

A dirty secret of initial public offerings is that even the coolest ones may make only a handful of people rich — and it may not be regular people, employees or even most investors who get a windfall.

DoorDash and Airbnb are expected to make a big splash selling their stock for the first time to the public, and at higher stock prices than anticipated even a few weeks ago.

But buying stock in relatively young and unproven companies — which usually describes technology companies selling their stock to the public for the first time — is often a coin-toss bet.

Even the professional investors who buy stock in hot companies before they go public don’t always get rich, unless they throw their money around early in a company’s life and get lucky. Companies you’ve probably heard of, like Uber, Lyft, Snapchat and Slack, were at best meh I.P.O. investments.

Look at Airbnb. Among the investors who got a special chance to buy Airbnb stock about four years ago, each $10,000 of stock they bought will be worth about $11,500 if Airbnb starts selling its shares to the public for $60 each. Nice!

But if your cousin had invested $10,000 about four years ago in a simple fund that mirrored the ups and downs of the S&P 500 stock index, he would now have $15,600. Even nicer.

ADVERTISEMENT

The pandemic hurt business for Uber and Lyft, but their stocks were losers before then. Uber’s stock price has bounced back and is now up 30 percent since the spring. Still anyone who bought Uber shares in its 2019 I.P.O. — and even the professional investors who bought its stock in the four years before that — would have made far more money buying an index fund. Uber employees who were hired before the I.P.O. and were paid partly in stock would have been better off getting paid in an index fund, too.

People who bought Snapchat’s stock in its 2017 initial public offering had to wait more than three years to not lose money. Slack recently agreed to sell itself at a price that wasn’t a significant gain from the price of its first stock sale to the public last year. Once again, your cousin would have done better.

These are cherry-picked examples. There are companies whose stock prices have soared since their I.P.O.s and made people rich: Zoom Video is a prominent example in technology. And the people who have already bet on the restaurant-delivery app DoorDash stand to make a mint when the company goes public this week.

That’s the point. It’s hard to predict the young companies that will win, and the definition of victory is often in the eye of the beholder.

ADVERTISEMENT

Airbnb will be a confetti-and-champagne moment for the prominent start-up investment firm Sequoia, which bet on the company early. And it’s certainly faring better than people expected when travel froze early this year. Even if Airbnb isn’t a killer stock this week, it could be in a year or 20 years. Investors could be rolling in it if they hold the stock, and it goes up. (Or they could be even bigger losers if they hold the stock and it goes down.) No one can confidently predict the outcome.

Take that lesson to heart if you see people screaming on Robinhood about their splurge on a hot I.P.O. Cool companies don’t always make good investments. And when they do, it’s not necessarily good for everyone.

(A version of this newsletter was published in The New York Times’s live business briefing.)

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

No, really. What if nearly everyone hates your business?

I’ve written here before about the crummy economics of food-delivery services such as DoorDash and Uber Eats for restaurants, delivery couriers and the companies themselves, which tend to lose gobs of money.

Lots of people love the convenience of having a buffet of restaurant ordering options at the tap of an app — (for a price). But I want to ask again: If one set of people loves your business but many others hate it, will it survive?

This is a renewed question because of recent news reports — from the public radio station KQED in the Bay Area and the nonprofit news organization The City in New York — that some couriers who deliver meals for app companies are collaborating to push for more influence in their pay and working conditions, or to form alternatives that make them less reliant on the whims of the companies.

My colleague Brian X. Chen and others have also written about the budding industry of mostly small food-ordering apps that promise to be friendlier to restaurants by charging them smaller commissions than Uber Eats and its peers typically do, or giving them more autonomy over when orders come in.

The gripes with services like DoorDash and Uber Eats aren’t entirely unique to food-delivery app companies, of course. In most industries, companies’ workers and business partners tend to argue for better terms, and that’s particularly true for companies like food-delivery apps that connect buyers and sellers. And in addition to diners, food-delivery services have been a lifeline for some restaurants and couriers particularly as the pandemic has closed or limited many indoor-dining options.

But I keep thinking about how many unhappy participants there seem to be in the food-delivery app system. Maybe this is growing pains for this kind of app, which is still relatively novel, and maybe this reflects more on difficult economic circumstances for small businesses and low-wage workers.

In either case, all the unhappiness is something that food-delivery apps can’t ignore or wish away.

Before we go …

  • It’s challenging to get people to use a coronavirus-exposure app: But the apps that notify people about their contacts who have tested positive for the virus can work, my colleague Jennifer Valentino-DeVries wrote, if people trust them and are encouraged to use them. One test at the University of Arizona found the tool sent alerts for up to 12 percent of transmissions, which researchers said helped control the outbreak on campus.
  • The New Zealand mosque shooter was radicalized on YouTube: Among the findings of a New Zealand government investigation into the 2019 mass killing in Christchurch was that the shooter had been radicalized more on YouTube than he had in the darker corners of the internet, according to my colleague Charlotte Graham-McLay. The Times technology columnist Kevin Roose also has a Twitter thread on the missed opportunities to take YouTube’s dangers seriously.
  • Everything bad about the internet in one article: My colleague Jack Nicas chronicled the 21-year-old Trump supporter who impersonated the president’s family members and political figures for nearly a year on Twitter before the president and the company took notice. This mischief that spun out of control helped the impersonator attract online followers, blare conspiracy theories and collect money from bogus fund-raisers.

Hugs to this

This TikTok video is one for the nerds: one of the famous instrumental songs from “Star Wars,” beautifully played on the harp.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2020年12月7日 星期一

On Tech: Can body cameras improve policing?

Body cameras are brimming with possibility, but they’re not a magic remedy for misconduct.

Can body cameras improve policing?

Leonardo Santamaria

Do more watchful eyes on police officers make law enforcement more accountable and make everyone — the police and the public — safer?

Those are central questions concerning police-worn body cameras, but evidence has been mixed that they alter police behavior, improve trust between law enforcement and citizens, or are worth the cost and other downsides.

Ashley Southall, my colleague who covers crime and policing in New York, recently wrote about the nuanced findings of a yearlong pilot study of body cameras. The research found that wearing the cameras led to a higher reporting of the bogus stops that have fueled accusations of racial bias and harassment against the New York Police Department, enabling more transparency into police activity.

That finding doesn’t tell the whole story. Ashley spoke with me about the benefits of police body cameras, and where hopes for the technology fall short.

Shira: The report found that New York police officers who wore body cameras reported almost 40 percent more stops of people on the street. Why?

Ashley: The federal monitor who oversees stop-and-frisk changes in the Police Department believed that officers weren’t always sure if they did the right thing when they stopped someone to look for criminal activity. Those stops — when supervisors or the federal monitor reviewed them — were more likely to be questionable and sometimes even unlawful than reported stops that weren’t recorded.

ADVERTISEMENT

But officers knew they could get in trouble if they didn’t document these stops. The monitor believed that concern was weighing on officers’ minds when they were wearing a camera.

Did wearing the body cameras make it less likely that the officers would use force?

No, this research found the body cameras had no significant effect on arrests or officers’ use of force. A previous study in Washington came to similar conclusions.

What are the hopes about body cameras, and what’s the reality?

One of the big hopes is that the public might see an independent record of questionable or deadly encounters.

ADVERTISEMENT

But those expectations aren’t always fulfilled. When police body-camera footage exists, it’s not always made available quickly or in full to the public. If it is, sometimes the video is not conclusive, and it leaves a void that gets filled by accusations that police are hiding something.

What do police officers say about body cameras?

For rank-and-file officers, body cameras can be a blessing or a curse.

Even an officer working with his best understanding of the law might stop and search someone without meeting the standard of reasonable suspicion. If the person files a complaint, body-camera video can make it more likely for an error to lead to punitive discipline. On the other hand, if someone files a false complaint of use of force, body-camera footage can affirm that the officer was doing his or her job correctly.

Are there examples of body cameras helping to change policing?

They’re beginning to change how the N.Y.P.D. handles emergency calls.

For years, groups including the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest have pushed for mental health professionals or crisis workers, rather than police officers, to be the first ones responding to nonviolent people in emotional or mental health crises. New York recently announced a pilot program to do that.

ADVERTISEMENT

Many factors influenced the policy, but body-camera footage of officers killing people in emotional distress helped make it untenable for the city to continue as is. The footage also made it easier for the police to see that for themselves.

What’s your lesson from this research?

The big takeaways are that body cameras are brimming with possibility but you have to do something with the technology. And it’s not a magic remedy for police misconduct or a lack of public confidence in law enforcement.

Requiring body cameras, requiring officers to turn them on and ensuring the videos are reviewed can be tremendously helpful. But the effectiveness depends on how willing law enforcement is to use the videos, share them and learn from them.

(For more on the potential benefits and drawbacks of technology in law enforcement, check out my colleague Cade Metz’s article about some police departments using drones to respond to emergencies.)

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Tip of the Week

Dumb stuff is better sometimes

The New York Times’s consumer technology columnist, Brian X. Chen, is back with a thought exercise before you buy an internet-connected home gadget.

There is a “smart” version of just about every household device you can think of, including doorbells, thermostats, coffee makers and light switches.

But before you buy an internet-connected whatever for yourself or your loved ones this holiday season, ask yourself: When is a dumb thing better? Here are some smart products I believe are useful, and some that are not:

Worth it:

  • Light bulbs: When you’re ready to go to bed, saying, “Alexa, turn off the lights,” beats getting up to hit the light switch across the room.
  • Plugs: It’s handy to control anything plugged into a power outlet with a smartphone app. I schedule my space heater to turn off while I'm asleep and turn on just as I wake up.
  • Thermostats: Devices like the Nest can detect when no one is home and turn off the air-conditioner, helping reduce your bills and energy consumption.

And here are some smart products I hate:

  • Large kitchen appliances: Refrigerators with screens and cameras to alert you when you’re low on milk are an eyesore and will be expensive to repair when they inevitably break. I have never wished my refrigerator were connected to the internet.
  • Car consoles: I prefer a stereo system with physical knobs and a phone mount to look at a map on my smartphone. Those large touch-screen consoles are taking your eyes away from the road.
  • Doorbells: The Ring doorbell, which includes an internet-connected security camera, became a popular way to document package thefts, but it doesn’t seem to reduce the problem — and comes with a loss of privacy. I recently installed a dumb $30 wireless doorbell that recharges itself with each button press. How neat is that?

(Also check out the smart home devices recommended by the staff at Wirecutter, the product recommendation site that’s part of The Times.)

Before we go …

  • “Everyone is preparing for the worst and holding their breath”: My colleagues Michael Corkery and Sapna Maheshwari detailed how retailers and delivery companies are trying to manage the online orders that will course through America’s already pandemic-stretched delivery networks this month. They wrote that by one accounting, 7.2 million more packages need to be shipped each day this holiday season than the system has the capacity to handle. (I’ll have more on this in Tuesday’s newsletter.)
  • “Facebook moms” and the “Malarkey Factory”: The Times tech columnist Kevin Roose dug into the digital strategy of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. The tactics included devoting attention to women who shared a lot of uplifting material on Facebook, and being selective about when to combat false rumors that were amplified by the Trump campaign and its allies.
  • Hacking technology for good: To help his Army veteran dad with PTSD symptoms, Tyler Skluzacek designed a smartwatch app that recognizes traumatic nightmares and gently vibrates to interrupt the bad dream, Tyler and his father, Patrick, recounted to NPR. The app was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat PTSD-related nightmare disorder.
  • Yes, you’re right! A number of readers took issue with my point in Friday’s newsletter that there was something unique in services such as HBO Max and Netflix that give entertainment companies end-to-end control of their programming. They pointed out that Hollywood companies also used to own movie theaters and had exclusive contracts with writers, actors, directors and others.I still believe what’s happening now is different because of the ability to distribute online entertainment to people’s homes. But thank you, readers, for reminding me that what seems entirely novel often isn’t.

Hugs to this

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018