2021年7月9日 星期五

On Tech: Does Big Tech make good neighbors?

We want our online orders, and we want them now. But we don't seem ready for Big Tech moving in, too.

Does Big Tech make good neighbors?

We want our online orders, and we want them now. But we don't seem ready for Big Tech moving in, too.

Irene Suosalo

On Tech is taking a vacation next week. We'll be back in your inboxes on Monday, July 19.

Digital life reaches far beyond our screens into the real world. That means we must figure out how to live with the impacts of technology in our backyards.

It isn't always easy. Some residents of towns near e-commerce processing centers complain about traffic, pollution and safety risks from delivery vans and trucks. Communities where water is in short supply are worried about the needs of internet computer centers that use water to keep equipment cool. Neighbors sometimes gripe about noise or garbage from nearby commercial kitchens and mini-warehouses for delivery services like Uber Eats.

Conflicts over shared space and limited public resources are nothing new. But we are increasingly living side-by-side with the physical manifestations of the technology services that we want and need. And I'm not sure that we are equipped to deal with them as our new neighbors.

Not so long ago, technology's impact on our physical world wasn't quite so obvious. Sure, any website needed computing hubs, and e-commerce companies had warehouses and delivery drivers. What has changed is the rapid growth in demand for all of these things and our desire for more technology-enabled conveniences faster than ever, leading to added stresses on public infrastructure.

ADVERTISEMENT

To meet demand, Amazon and other internet shopping companies have been opening merchandise warehouses and package distribution centers closer to where we live. That brings noise, traffic and pollution into more neighborhoods as a trade-off for speedier deliveries. Companies that deliver burritos, booze or bananas to our door likewise need to have real estate and transportation close to our homes and work. And the effects of climate change have made the competition for energy and water more urgent.

No individual or company is solely at fault for this situation. Our collective demand for more online everything is to blame, and the public, our elected officials and companies need to confront this new reality far more directly.

An article this week by The Information (subscription required) about clashes over Amazon package operations in Milford, Mass., mentioned that the company formed a task force last year to address communities' concerns about the repercussions of its delivery operations. Milford also appointed two liaison officers to share residents' concerns with Amazon.

I don't know if that's substantive collaboration or window dressing, but it feels like a good first step to acknowledge that changing the places we live comes with tough questions about whether new neighbors are doing more good than harm.

ADVERTISEMENT

Again, these types of concerns aren't new. People would probably prefer to have an Amazon warehouse in town over a garbage dump or a polluting factory. That doesn't invalidate citizens' worries about the trade offs.

Last year, I spoke with Richard Mays, the mayor of The Dalles, Ore., a town that is home to multiple computer data centers. He said that there was disagreement among residents over whether those operations contributed enough in taxes, job opportunities and other benefits compared with what they take in the form of stress on roads and the energy grid.

Our conversation stuck with me because it got to the heart of the issue: Are these tech companies, many of them now in our backyards and on our streets, contributing more than they're taking?

It's a wildly subjective assessment. And the drawbacks from newcomers, especially high-profile companies, might be harder to swallow. You might have put up with traffic from the office park nearby, but a similar level of congestion could feel worse if it's because of a DoorDash delivery hub.

ADVERTISEMENT

Our more tech-dependent lives call for more awareness by the public and smart public policy to effectively manage the ripple effects. We all have a stake in figuring out how to greet the future that we want while keeping intact the communities that we love.

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

Subscribe Today

We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times with this special offer.

Before we go …

  • The White House vs. corporate bigness: President Biden outlined an executive order on Friday to target industries where a few companies have a lot of power, including in technology, my colleagues David McCabe and Cecilia Kang report. David Leonhardt wrote in The Morning newsletter about why many economists believe a lack of competition is holding back the U.S. economy and wages.
  • How you can help prevent a cyberattack at work: The Washington Post walks through warning signs in emails or phone calls (!) that criminals could be trying to break into your company's computer systems. One tip: Beware emails that appear to be from a boss asking for account credentials. (Also note that cyberattacks are never one person's fault but are a collective problem.)
  • Time to cash in on those old Pokémon cards: The trading cards based on the 1990s video game characters have skyrocketed in value recently, "fueled by nostalgia, new ways to sell online and a surplus of free time during the pandemic," Bloomberg News reports. Listings of Pokémon cards on eBay increased 1,046 percent in the first three months of 2021.

Hugs to this

Did you catch the pure moment of joy (the twirl!) when the 14-year-old Zaila Avant-garde won the Scripps National Spelling Bee? She is also a talented basketball player who can dribble six balls at once.

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. You can also read past On Tech columns.

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

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

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

2021年7月8日 星期四

On Tech: A new digital life, same old problems

Despite our hopes, the internet hasn't erased the pressures and struggles of the old ways.

A new digital life, same old problems

Despite our hopes, the internet hasn't erased the pressures and struggles of the old ways.

Miriam Persand

There's a question at the heart of lots of fights about digital life: Should we hold what happens on the internet to a higher standard than the old ways of the analog world?

That's a link among the gripes about selling products on Amazon, distributing apps on smartphone app stores, trying to make a living on YouTube or renting homes on Airbnb. In all of those cases, people and businesses are complaining about the costs, rules and precariousness of activities that were even more burdensome in the olden days, if they were possible at all.

Some of these grievances are misplaced, and some reflect a fundamental anxiety about online life. The internet promised to upend the old ways, and it did erode the power of old gatekeepers, like Hollywood bosses or big box stores, that said yes or no to people trying to do what they love. But in their place are new and equally powerful digital gatekeepers, like Google and Apple, that can dictate who wins or loses.

I've been thinking about this topic because of a recent email from an On Tech reader in Tucson named Susan, about the app makers who say that Apple imposes unfair costs and complexities on them and iPhone users:

ADVERTISEMENT

For many, many years, crafts people have shared the profit with the shop selling their handcrafted items on consignment. When I started out in the '70s, it was 60 percent to me and 40 percent to the shop owner. Later on, the commission was sometimes 50/50.

This is why I'm somewhat bemused with the issue of the App Store taking a commission for programmers' apps. What is the difference between the App Store and the shop owner? Both are responsible for providing a place for display, for assuring the buyer of quality.

Susan isn't invalidating the complaints of app makers, but she is providing helpful context: This is the way it's always been done, and often for good reasons.

Stores have long dictated what products appear on their shelves and how aggressively they are promoted to potential shoppers. Apple is doing the virtual equivalent of that for apps. And as Susan (and Apple) points out, conventional stores typically keep a much bigger cut of a product's retail price than Apple's commission of up to 30 percent on some app transactions like streaming video subscriptions.

It's understandable to compare the old world to the digital one and think: This new way isn't so surprising, is it? It's a great point that I hear a lot from readers, and not only about Apple.

I've also heard from people asking if it's fair that some members of Congress are trying to change the law to stop Amazon from making its own brands of coffee and sundresses that compete with merchants on Amazon's digital mall. After all, conventional retailers have been doing the same thing forever with their store versions of Tylenol and Cheerios. Why are people making videos on YouTube or TikTok complaining about the breakneck pace and unpredictable paychecks when making a living in entertainment has always been a grind?

ADVERTISEMENT

Those are fair points. But I also think those complaints reflect a mismatch of expectations and reality about the internet. Anyone can now create and post anything online, but it can be incredibly difficult to get noticed. Enter the new gatekeepers that can be just as powerful and capricious as the old ones.

Someone who makes cat toys no longer needs to persuade a store to sell her products. She can set up her own website or sell on Amazon. But she still might have to spend a fortune advertising on Google or Amazon just to get noticed.

Likewise, a talented performer can make YouTube videos and skip trying to navigate the Hollywood studio system. But he is at the whims of Google's algorithms to get seen and ultimately paid. A person with a great idea for a video game can create an app rather than persuade a big company to make the game, but she is almost completely reliant on the dictates of app store owners like Google and Apple. (Dozens of attorneys general sued Google on Wednesday over claims the company abuses its dictatorial app power.)

It's still a marvel that people can now reach billions of potential fans with a few clicks. The old ways were burdensome and difficult, but the frustrations with the new ways are real.

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

Subscribe Today

We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times with this special offer.

ADVERTISEMENT

Before we go …

  • It's completely Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook: In an excerpt from my colleagues' new book on the company, Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang detail how Facebook's crises in the last five years have led to the diminished influence of Sheryl Sandberg, the company's second in command.
  • I need a database to track all the tech lawsuits: Dozens of attorneys general sued Google, the fourth antitrust lawsuit filed against the company by federal or state officials in the United States since October. This one accuses Google of abusing its power over Android phones and forcing unfair terms on app makers. The lawsuit also puts pressure on Apple, which runs its iPhone app store in similar ways, David McCabe and Dai Wakabayashi report.
  • GIANT KITTY: A three-dimensional digital image of a "cat the size of a yacht" is attracting crowds and fans in Tokyo, my colleagues Hikari Hida and Mike Ives write. The digital billboard calico pops up briefly to greet people and also snoozes a lot, just like real cats.

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. You can also read past On Tech columns.

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

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

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