EU details its taxes on tech companies’ revenue

The European Union has vowed to counter tech companies’ tax maneuvers by targeting their revenue, and it’s now clearer just what that will involve. In an interview with Le Journal du Dimanche, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said the EU would unveil plans to tax tech firms’ revenue at a rate between “2 percent and 6 percent,” most likely skewing closer to 2 percent. That may not seem like much, but Le Maire portrayed it as a “starting point.” It’s better to get a policy you can implement quickly than deal with “interminable negotiations,” he said, adding that it can be improved later.

The official EU directive would be unveiled in the “coming weeks,” according to the minister.

Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook and other tech giants have been accused of using legal tricks to avoid paying taxes in European countries, such as routing profit through Ireland or even the British island of Jersey. A tax on revenue theoretically closes that loophole by collecting money where it’s earned (i.e. from the customers), rather than where it’s kept.

It’s doubtful that tech companies will accept any revenue tax without a fight, as they’ve maintained that their current financial arrangements are legal. Ireland has also objected to EU tax claims, to no one’s surprise — it directly benefits from companies doing business on its soil through those incentives. However, a relatively low tax rate could reduce objections within the EU nations themselves and make it more a matter of how much companies pay than whether they pay something at all.

Via: Reuters

Source: Le Journal du Dimanche (translated)

Medics may slow biological time to save soldiers’ lives

Battlefield medics frequently only have a brief window of opportunity to treat an injury before it’s fatal or causes permanent disabilities, and it’s frequently so fleeting that there’s not much they can do. DARPA is exploring an unusual solution to that problem: slow the biological processes to give medics more room to breathe. Its new Biostasis research program aims to bring cell activity to a near halt by using biochemicals that control energetics at the protein level. If animals like tardigrades and wood frogs can stabilize their cells to survive freezing and dehydration, similar techniques might offer more time to medics who want to treat wounds before a victim’s vital systems break down.

DARPA knows this won’t be easy. The trick is to slow down every cellular process at roughly the same rate — you can’t just pause a few while others run at full speed. You’d also have to minimize any damage when the cells return to their normal function.

The Biostasis program is still very young (its first day for answering proposers’ questions is March 20th), and DARPA isn’t expecting too much even from complete projects: it’s initially focusing on “benchtop” proofs of concept and will focus on real-world uses as the program nears its 5-year end. If it has any success, though, the program could prove to be a breakthrough for the medical field as a whole, not just in combat. Paramedics could buy themselves enough time to get a patient to hospital, and doctors could focus less on basic survival and more on full recoveries.

Source: DARPA

Can you really trust app store ratings? We asked the experts

As smartphones have soared in popularity, app development has exploded. There are currently more than 3.5 million Android apps and games in Google’s Play Store, and more than 2 million apps and games in Apple’s App Store, according to App Annie. With such a feast of choice, people need a little help separating the wheat from the chaff.

App stores offer a review rating system for precisely this purpose. After you download and install an app, you can rate it out of five stars and write up a review detailing your thoughts. Review scores are aggregated and used to determine an overall score for the app. The higher the score an app gets, the more people liked it, at least in theory. In practice, a lot of reviews are less than useful for prospective installers and there’s a thriving trade in fake reviews. One star, one-line reviews complaining that an app didn’t work on this or that device, or that there was some billing issue, aren’t always a good indication of whether the app will meet your needs. But what about multiple five-star ratings with repetitive, unnatural-sounding reviews?

Gaming the system

Good review scores are vital if you want a coveted place in the app store charts. They boost your chances of appearing on curated lists and recommendations, and the bottom line is they can persuade people to install your app. Little wonder then, that some developers are willing to bend, or even break, app store rules to get closer to five stars.

The fact that many developers game the system has been an open secret in the industry for years.

“While we haven’t performed any specific analysis to quantify the scale of the problem, fake reviews do exist and have been shown to materially affect app review scores,” Paul Barnes, regional director at App Annie, told Digital Trends.

The fact that many developers game the system has been an open secret in the industry for years. A brief web search for “paid app reviews” or similar terms reveals several services selling app reviews and installations to artificially boost the standing of apps in the main app stores. While a small number of app reviews might cost $2 to $3 each, developers buying in bulk can secure discounts, with reviews costing below a mere 50 cents.

There’s no gray area here – this practice violates the Google Play Developer Program Policies and Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines. It can result in the removal of suspect reviews, the removal of the app, or even the expulsion of the developer from the program.

“Both Apple and Google have demonstrated they take the issue extremely seriously, and they continuously monitor reviews left on their respective stores,” Barnes said.

The problem is that determining what constitutes a fake review is easier said than done. Many of these services employ real users who download and install the apps and then post glowing reviews. While developers used to buy reviews in big chunks and post suspiciously similar write ups, things have gotten more sophisticated.

You can now dictate the wording of reviews, decide on post frequency, and stir in some four-star reviews alongside the five-star reviews to make it look more natural. Some of these paid app review services also guarantee they will replace any reviews that are deleted.

“We want ratings and reviews to be authentic and a true reflection of comments from the users.”

“We want ratings and reviews to be authentic and a true reflection of comments from the users,” Andrew Ahn, product manager at Google Play, told Digital Trends. “Spammy reviews, such as off-topic comments, solicitation, content with profanity, are just some of the categories we filter out. We also prohibit fake or incentivized reviews.”

Interestingly, the practice of buying reviews isn’t just about securing positive feedback for your own app — it can also be used to knock the competition down.

“There are two types of issues with incentivized reviews,” Ahn said. “One is buying good reviews to better promote your own app, and the other is buying negative reviews to harm competing apps. We cover both cases to keep the ecosystem clean and fair.”

Meteoric success, like what happened with the game Flappy Bird, immediately raises questions, as does a sudden drop in ratings, like with CNN’s iOS app.

In July 2017, CNN’s iOS app was “review bombed,” meaning the app store was flooded with malicious reviews over the course of a single week. It went from receiving around 30 reviews a day total, to receiving thousands of negative reviews between July 5 and July 11.

“It’s unclear if this was caused by automated bots or a coordinated approach from a politically-motivated group that opposes the network,” Barnes said.

Even when suspicious reviews are flagged, it seems that developer expulsions and app takedowns are relatively rare. If the manipulation isn’t blatant, it’s easy to imagine how difficult it might be to prove wrong doing on the part of a developer.

“We are able to filter out most incentivized reviews, so it does not impact the placement or presentation of an app in a meaningful way,” Ahn said. “In some egregious cases, we may take down the app for violating the Google Play Developer Program Policies.”

If you’re having trouble trusting app store ratings, we don’t blame you.

Quietly removing suspect reviews and giving developers a slap on the wrist is an understandable approach; Google and Apple don’t want to alienate app developers or deal with them too harshly.

The saga of an app called Dash and its removal from the App Store is an interesting, and rare example of an ejection that turned into a public argument. It’s tough to know the truth of the matter in a case like that. Apple claimed the developer paid for reviews, and the developer stated it was his relative’s account that was tied to his credit card, which in turn was also tied to his own account. Other apps, like One Night Stand: Adult Hook up, which is discussed in greater detail on Reddit and is still available in the App Store with a rating of 4.9 out of 5, seem to be clearly breaking the rules with impunity.

While developers buying fake reviews can be difficult to detect, there is a much clearer incentivization strategy we’ve seen in a few apps and games over the years. Sometimes you’ll be offered a free in-app purchase or some in-game currency in return for a positive review. If the developer explicitly asks for a five-star review, then this breaks the same guidelines as buying fake reviews, but there’s some wiggle room here.

It’s common for apps and games to ask for reviews via a pop-up after you’ve been using the app or playing the game for a while. These pop-ups may repeat every so often until you go ahead and leave a review. Someone came up with the bright idea of sending users who gave a positive score to the normal app store review page but diverting users who gave a low score — often anything less than five stars – to their own website to leave feedback. This is a loophole that doesn’t seem to be breaking any rules right now, but we know it’s on Google’s radar.

There are no statistics on how many apps are removed from app stores because of incentivized reviews, but Google removed more than 700,000 “bad apps” last year alone. The majority were copycats, contained inappropriate content, or were considered potentially harmful malware, but the fake review issue is also being treated seriously.

Android developers looking to challenge suspicious reviews can do it from the Play Console. This will bring the attention of a specialist, who will decide whether the review violates posting policy and needs to be removed or not. The rest of us can use this form to report Play Store reviews as inappropriate or spam, or you can go to the review, tap the three-dot icon, and hit Spam. You can also go to the very bottom of the app listing and hit Flag as inappropriate if you notice fake reviews.

For anyone that uses Amazon’s Appstore, there’s another tool at your disposal. It may only have around 600,000 apps and games to choose from, but because Amazon has had issues with fake reviews on other kinds of products for years now, there’s an independently-developed review analyzer tool called ReviewMeta that also works for apps. Paste the link into the tool and it provides a simple pass or fail by analyzing the public data to look for things like repetitive phrases or suspicious one review accounts with unverified purchases. It’s not perfect, but it’s interesting to try out and see a clear methodology for rooting out fake reviews.

For Apple’s App Store, the best way to report fake reviews is to contact iTunes support.

If you’re having trouble trusting app store ratings, we don’t blame you. We would like to see all the major players take more action to combat fake reviews. Luckily, there are plenty of trustworthy websites out there that review apps and games, and you can always dig into our curated lists of the best Android apps, best iOS apps, and our weekly App Attack column.

Editors’ Recommendations

• Apple acquires music-recognition app Shazam; competition review commences
• Escape reality with the best augmented reality apps for Android and iOS
• Amazon Echo (2017) review
• Apple iPhone X review
• Huawei responds to dispute over dubious Mate 10 Pro reviews on Best Buy website

5 emerging technologies that prove MWC is about more than just smartphones

Mobile World Congress in Barcelona is naturally heavily-focused on smartphones, mobile accessories, and apps, but if you pound the halls for long enough, you’ll find lots of interesting technology that doesn’t fall cleanly into those categories. We uncovered some intriguing new gadgets and technologies at MWC 2018, so here are our favorites from the show.

Modius – Weight loss headset

Simon Hill/Digital Trends

What if you could suppress your appetite or speed up your metabolic rate by wearing a special headset that gives you small electric shocks behind the ears for an hour a day? It may sound crazy, but that’s the promise of Modius, which sends low-power electrical impulses to your vestibular nerve, to activate your hypothalamus.

We uncovered some intriguing new gadgets and technologies at MWC 2018.

We first wrote about Modius before its successful Indiegogo campaign. With 4,000 headsets shipped and mounting evidence that it works, we’re about to put it to the test ourselves in a full review, but we took the chance to try it out for a few minutes at MWC and talk to one of the highly-credible neuroscientist founders, Dr Jason McKeown MD.

It feels just like it sounds, a tingling sensation via the electrodes which are attached to the bony area behind your ears that gets stronger as you move up through the 10 levels. It also creates a feeling like you’re swaying or rocking, which wears off instantly when the Modius headset is turned off. The science behind it is sound, but the clever thing about Modius is that it achieves a known effect without the need for invasive surgery.

Weight loss is big business, so interest in a gadget like this is no surprise. We’ll need to use it for a few weeks to put it through its paces and see what the impact is, but we’re hopeful about the technology. Stay tuned for our in-depth review.

PureLiFi – Internet through light

We’re big fans of PureLiFi, in fact the Edinburgh-based company won our cool tech award at MWC last year for its internet through light technology. At MWC 2018 PureLiFi has been showing off its receiver technology integrated into a Dell laptop, and a case for the Samsung Galaxy S5.

As the spectrum crunch approaches, the ability to complement Wi-Fi networks with Li-Fi systems will become more and more essential. We streamed a video from Digital Trends onto the Galaxy S5 via an overhead strip light and it worked flawlessly. The connection is currently capable of 42Mbps up and down.

Further miniaturization and integration into smartphones is on the horizon and we hope to be connecting to the internet on a flagship phone using Li-Fi within the next three years.

Elliptic Labs – Ultrasound gestures

In the past, ultrasound pioneers Elliptic Labs showed off how ultrasound technology can replace proximity sensors in phones, turning the screen on when your hand or face is close to it. That tech made it into the Xiaomi Mi Mix handsets, enabling the manufacturer to shave bezels down. Elliptic Labs also added some other gestures for things like tweaking the volume and snapping selfies.

At MWC 2018, we caught up with the team to see their newest demo, which enables you to control a smart speaker and a light with simple gestures that work from a short distance. By double tapping with your palm you can activate Alexa, and a single palm tap can cut it off, all without having to touch the speaker or utter a word. They also had a light that you could brighten by holding your hand at one side of the speaker, or dim by holding it at the other side, something that could just as easily work with volume.

The devices they showed are just prototypes for now, but we found the ability to stop Alexa in midstream by holding up our hand really useful, so we hope to see it integrated into an actual smart speaker soon.

Energous – Wireless charging at distance

Simon Hill/Digital Trends

We’ve been excited about the prospect of truly wireless charging for a few years now – the idea that your phone might charge up in your pocket or your smartwatch while it’s still on your wrist. It would be great to be freed from cables and charging pads, but mid-field charging has remained elusive so far. After meeting with Energous at MWC we’re convinced that it’s coming, but we still don’t know when.

The demo they showed us involved a smart speaker prototype set up as a transmitter, capable of sending power via radio frequencies to a phone, a smartwatch, and a pair of wireless earbuds at a range of up to 3 feet. The top of the speaker also doubled as a near-field charging pad, much like Qi wireless chargers.

We’ve been excited about the prospect of truly wireless charging for a few years now.

Energous recently secured FCC approval, confirming that the technology is completely safe, and announced the first consumer product set to use it – which, somewhat surprisingly, turned out to be smart underwear called Skiin. Chip manufacturer Dialog is also working with Energous which could allow for much easier adoption of the technology as device makers will be able to buy a chipset that supports it.

Both Energous and Dialog were tight-lipped on partners, but you can imagine a company like Apple with an ecosystem that includes speakers to act as transmitters and phones, smartwatches, and wireless earphones that need charging would be a good fit. However, we fear it may be a couple of years yet before this goes mainstream.

Ossia – Wireless charging at distance

Simon Hill/Digital Trends

Another player in the mid-field wireless charging space is Ossia, and Chief Technology Officer Hatem Zeine gave us an impressive demonstration at MWC. The technology transmits power via radio frequencies at the same 2.4Ghz as Wi-Fi, but a different channel, so it doesn’t interfere. The device receiving the power sends out a signal that can bounce off surfaces like walls, tables, and windows, but is absorbed by the human body or liquids. The transmitter replicates the path of successful signals to send power back, and it checks 100 times per second, so it’s not washing you or other people in the room in power.

With two large transmitters set up at one end of the room, we saw a receiver unit light up. To prove it wasn’t just coming from the box, Hatem held another receiver in the path and then moved it around and blocked it to demonstrate the path of the power. The transmitters are big and they can send out around 10W, but the receiving device only gets around 1W. That can be boosted with multiple transmitters.

Next, Hatem plugged in a Samsung Galaxy S7 and showed it charging up, then he moved to the back of the room, showing that the phone could keep charging, even at a distance of around 10 feet or more. The charge rate does go down the further you move away, but it’s impressive to see it working at distance, and it also continued to charge when he put the receiver in his pocket.

Imagine the transmitters hidden in ceiling tiles when you walk into Starbucks, for example. Your phone or smartwatch would charge up without you having to do a thing.

There are other applications — we saw Ossia’s Forever Battery at CES. It is the same size as a standard AA battery, but can be charged wirelessly at distance and never degrades because there’s no need for a chemical reaction inside.

The hitch is that Ossia has yet to secure FCC approval, but Hatem is confident it will, and they are in talks with several manufacturers about integrating the technology into chipsets and devices. We’re looking forward to the day we no longer need cables, but it’s still impossible to predict precisely when it will come.

Editors’ Recommendations

• Stop Alexa with a wave of your hand with Elliptic Labs’ ultrasound technology
• Apple iPhone 11: News, rumors, specs, and more
• Google’s idea for radar-based gesture control could change the remote forever
• Wearables were scarce at Mobile World Congress, but a few piqued our interest
• Television talk dominates the opening salvo from CES 2018

Advertisers pull out of InfoWars’ YouTube channels

Brands are once again beating a hasty retreat after learning that they were running ads on objectionable YouTube channels. Several big brands (including Acer, Alibaba, Fox, Nike and Paramount) have suspended ads from InfoWars’ channels after CNN demonstrated that their commercials were streaming on the conspiracy-peddling network’s videos. The companies said they were not only unaware of the placement, but in numerous cases had set up exclusion filters to avoid displaying ads against content like this. Some also said they explicitly blacklisted InfoWars channels, but didn’t realize how many channels the company actually had.

The exposé even caught the non-profit USA for UNHCR inadvertently running ads on InfoWars, and it’s going one step further by pulling all ads from YouTube. It and other organizations are asking if they can recoup the advertising money they spent on InfoWars’ channels.

We’ve asked Google if it can comment on the findings. In a statement to CNN, a YouTube spokesperson declined to address how InfoWars slipped through the cracks of the sensitive subject filter and instead portrayed itself as striking a balance. It vows to “uphold free expression” even when it disagrees with ideas, but added that it doesn’t allow ads on videos covering “sensitive and tragic events.” InfoWars frequently promotes widely discredited conspiracies around such events, including the Parkland and Sandy Hook mass shootings.

The discovery and subsequent response highlight the ongoing challenges YouTube and some other ad-dependent services face. It’s impractical for them to require manual approval for ads, but that automation also leads to offensive material slipping through the cracks — not to mention debates over what “offensive” really means. YouTube’s recently instituted policy on objectionable content helps, but it’s clear the system still has some inconsistencies.

Via: The Verge

Source: CNN

Cuba’s ‘sonic attacks’ may have been a side-effect of spying

Remember those ‘sonic attacks’ against the American and Canadian embassies last summer, making staff queasy and raising all kinds of questions as to what happened? There might have an answer. University of Michigan researchers have theorized that the incidents were really the result of ultrasonic signals from poorly functioning surveillance equipment. While individual ultrasonic signals can’t harm people outside of extreme circumstances, multiple signals can clash with each other and produce a sound that’s just low enough to be audible.

The scientists tested their hypothesis by replicating the “chirping” from an AP video using two ultrasonic emitters that combined tones, one at 25kHz and another at 180Hz. That produced a similar-sounding 7kHz frequency with ripples of sound at an even 180Hz spacing. The team even built a device that would simulate eavesdropping by playing a song instead of the 180Hz tone.

Don’t rush to call the case closed. Researchers are quick to note that this doesn’t rule out other explanations. However, it’s certainly more plausible than some of the theories floating around the Cuba illnesses, such as poisoning. It’s no secret that Cuba wants to know what the US and Canada are doing, but it also wouldn’t gain much from inflicting nausea and headaches on embassy workers.

Source: University of Michigan