After a disastrous app relaunch, Sonos’s chief executive has resigned – but the dire app remains. Wrong way round, surely? CC-licensed photo by Patrick Quinn-Graham on Flickr.
You can sign up to receive each day’s Start Up post by email. You’ll need to click a confirmation link, so no spam.
There’s another post coming this week at the Social Warming Substack on Friday at 0845 UK time. Free signup.
A selection of 9 links for you. Unrelaunched. I’m @charlesarthur on Twitter. On Threads: charles_arthur. On Mastodon: https://newsie.social/@charlesarthur. Observations and links welcome.
Sonos CEO Patrick Spence steps down after disastrous app launch • The Verge
Chris Welch:
»
Sonos CEO Patrick Spence is resigning from the job as of Monday, effective immediately, with board member Tom Conrad filling the role of interim CEO. It’s the most dramatic development yet in an eight-month saga that has proven to be the most challenging time in Sonos’ history.
The company’s decision to prematurely release a buggy, completely overhauled new app back in May — with crucial features missing at launch — outraged customers and kicked off a monthslong domino effect that included layoffs, a sharp decline in employee morale, and a public apology tour. The Sonos Ace headphones, rumoured to be the whole reason behind the hurried app, were immediately overshadowed by the controversy, and my sources tell me that sales numbers remain dismal. Sonos’ community forums and subreddit have been dominated by complaints and an overwhelmingly negative sentiment since the spring.
In October, Sonos tried to get a handle on the situation, which, by then, had spiraled into a full-on PR disaster, by outlining a turnaround plan. The company vowed to strengthen product development principles, increase transparency internally, and take other steps that it said would prevent any mistake of this magnitude from ever happening again. I can also report for the first time that Sonos hired a crisis management public relations firm to help navigate the ordeal.
…In case you were wondering, that [new] direction [outlined by a spokesperson] will not include a return to the old Sonos app; Pategas said the company remains fully committed to the new software, which has received a slew of bug fixes and gradually added back previous features over the last several months. It’s gotten better, but even this far along, complaints remain about speakers randomly vanishing from the app and other problems.
…Conrad’s career includes a 10-year tenure as chief technology officer at Pandora and two years as VP of product at Snapchat. He worked on Apple’s Finder software during the ’90s. Most recently, Conrad served as chief product officer for the ill-fated Quibi streaming service. Pategas believes he’s a great fit for the interim CEO position because he’s keenly aware of the company’s current predicament; Conrad and chief innovation officer Nick Millington have already been spearheading Sonos’ fix-the-app effort for months.
«
Spence gets $1.875m as severance pay, which must soften the blow a little. The fix-the-app effort has had next to no effect, in my experience: on opening the app, it takes about 10 seconds to update. By contrast, the third-party Sonophone app updates at once, and covers both old and new speaker sets.
Sonos is in deep trouble. Revenues are shrinking and losses are growing. Where is the growth going to come from? Where will the profits come from? Why don’t they just swallow their pride and buy Sonophone? Hard questions. Good products, good firmware, lousy user interface.
There’s a suspicion on Reddit that Sonos’s next move will be to introduce a subscription model. That sounds just like what a struggling – or even successful – company would do.
unique link to this extract
Global fact-checkers were disappointed, not surprised, Meta ended its program • Rest of World
Ananya Bhattacharya:
»
While reports of U.S.-based fact-checkers being blindsided are doing the rounds, global fact-checking organizations have seen Facebook’s support for the program waning for some time now.
“I don’t think this decision came out of nowhere,” Zainab Husain, managing editor of the Pakistan-based Soch Fact Check, told Rest of World. Soch Fact Check is made up of 10 journalists who put out editorials fact-checking misinformation. Husain said she’d heard rumors of the program shutting down for the past two years.
Since 2016, Meta has attempted to combat misinformation by partnering with credible fact-checking organizations in 119 countries to label misinformation and link out to explanatory posts from its partners. All of Meta’s partners are certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which ensures standardization across the globe. The organizations flag and label content — decisions related to content and account removal are then made entirely by Meta, multiple fact-checking organizations and civil society groups told Rest of World.
In response to questions, Meta directed Rest of World to its company blog post.
“Meta has been gradually lowering its investment in fact-checking for years,” Eliška Pírková, senior policy analyst and global freedom of expression lead at digital rights nonprofit Access Now, told Rest of World. Some fact-checking organizations that spoke to Rest of World said the fallout will likely be limited because Meta failed to make substantial fact-checking investments in their regions to begin with.
«
The web headline – what search engines see, as opposed to the headline shown to humans visiting the page – is “Meta drops fact-checking partnerships; global watchdogs scramble”. That’s not close to what the story says! If you think I’m harping on about this, it’s because news organisations are clearly telling search engines one thing, and readers another. Which one is meant to be correct, exactly? If you remembered “global fact-checkers disappointed” and tried a search on it, would this page be turned up? This needs fact-checking, really.
That said, the whole fact-checking business has hung so heavily on Facebook for ages that you’d be foolish not to have diversified much earlier.
unique link to this extract
Ministers mull allowing private firms to make profit from NHS data in AI push • The Guardian
Kiran Stacey and Dan Milmo:
»
Keir Starmer on Monday announced a push to open up the government to AI innovation, including allowing companies to use anonymised patient data to develop new treatments, drugs and diagnostic tools.
With the prime minister and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, under pressure over Britain’s economic outlook, Starmer said AI could bolster the country’s anaemic growth, as he put concerns over privacy, disinformation and discrimination to one side.
“We are in a unique position in this country, because we’ve got the National Health Service, and the use of that data has already driven forward advances in medicine, and will continue to do so,” he told an audience in east London.
“We have to see this as a huge opportunity that will impact on the lives of millions of people really profoundly.”
Starmer added: “It is important that we keep control of that data. I completely accept that challenge, and we will also do so, but I don’t think that we should have a defensive stance here that will inhibit the sort of breakthroughs that we need.”
…Starmer said on Monday that AI could help give the UK the economic boost it needed, adding that the technology had the potential “to increase productivity hugely, to do things differently, to provide a better economy that works in a different way in the future”.
Part of that, as detailed in a report by the technology investor Matt Clifford, will be to create new datasets for startups and researchers to train their AI models. Data from various sources will be included, such as content from the National Archives and the BBC, as well as anonymised NHS records.
Officials are working out the details on how those records will be shared, but said on Monday that they would take into account national security and ethical concerns.
…The Department for Work and Pensions was using an algorithm to flag up benefit fraud, which one MP believed had mistakenly led to dozens of people having their payments cancelled removed. A facial recognition tool used by the Metropolitan police was found to make more mistakes recognising Black and Asian faces than white ones under certain settings. And an algorithm used by the Home Office to flag up sham marriages had been disproportionately selecting people of certain nationalities.
«
But were the marriages sham, or not? Also, those are relatively primitive applications. There’s lots of potential for AI here; but nobody wants to imagine a better system. It really is a confederation of Eeyores.
(Starmer’s speech on AI is at the Financial Times.. inexplicably behind the paywall.)
unique link to this extract
The cravenness of Mark Zuckerberg • Financial Times
Jemima Kelly:
»
I should start by saying that I have some major issues with the whole concept of fact-checking in the context of social media, which I have expressed publicly a number of times. When a Bloomberg columnist asked for examples of fact-checkers showing political bias, Meta sent back three pieces, including a column I wrote in 2021, in which I argued that fact-checking is often used as censorship. I have also written positively about community notes, though that system has limitations as well.
And while the online spread of mis- and disinformation concerns me greatly, it is pretty much impossible for fact-checking to be done truly objectively given that all humans have biases. Choices have to be made about which claims to check and which to wave through. So the idea that you can thoroughly “fact-check” an entire social network has always been a fantasy. And there are few financial incentives for platforms to do so (unless they are worried about being fined by regulators).
The problem I have with all this is not so much the substance of what is going on at Meta. I even think that moving the content moderation teams from the Bay Area to Austin, Texas — a Democratic city in a largely very Republican state — so as to “help remove the concern that biased employees are overly censoring content”, as Zuckerberg wrote on Threads, is a fairly sensible idea. But the very phrasing of that gives away his true motives: this is not about principles, but optics and pleasing the soon-to-be-resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
My issue with Zuckerberg is his spinelessness and opportunism. Ask yourself this: is there any chance that Zuckerberg would be making all these changes at Meta — he has also appointed Trump ally Dana White to the board, and replaced Nick Clegg with prominent Republican Joel Kaplan as president of global affairs — if Kamala Harris had won in November?
«
Copyright (probably) won’t save anyone from AI • Techtris
James Ball on the perennial issue of “ah but we can sue the AI chatbot creators for copyright infringement”:
»
Sometimes, AIs output chunks of text that are just reproducing copyright material upon which they were trained. These are simple – everyone agrees these violate copyright, and if they’re too common, these will result in lost cases and payouts.
But neither the media nor big tech thinks these are what their argument centres upon – it will be relatively easy to minimise this kind of obvious copyright violation. The NYT included these in their lawsuit because they generate good headlines and are an obviously winnable part of the argument. They are not core to the case.
Instead, the media is trying to argue that AIs shouldn’t be able to ingest their copyrighted material even if what it outputs doesn’t violate copyright. That’s a more difficult case to make: it is essentially asking the courts to create a new threshold, allowing behaviour from humans but not if an automated system is doing it. That could be harder than it first looks.
Q: But when I research an article, I DON’T DOWNLOAD AND COPY MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS AT ONCE
An AI ‘learning’ by ingesting copyrighted material feels like an injustice in a way that a human doing the same does not. Part of this is just normative: humans and AIs are different. Part of it is about the amount of money at stake, and the threat to the existing industries. But part of it is about scale: no human writer uses copyright materials in anything like the volumes of modern AI systems.
That might tempt people to think that this is why the copyright argument is winnable: if AI companies are making copies of all of this copyrighted work to power their models, surely that copy breaches copyright, even if it isn’t published to the public? This definitely feels like it’s an argument on surer footing.
However, it’s not without its problems. The first is that AI models don’t use their training data in the way many of us might imagine. If we’ve thought about how something like ChatGPT answers our questions, we might imagine that it takes our questions and looks it up against a database containing all of its training data – like we might look up a record in an archive, or a book in a library.
In reality, ChatGPT and its rivals don’t actually store their training data, let alone run queries against it. Instead, the data is used to create ‘weightings’ which influence how it responds to different prompts, and then it is discarded. There is no permanent copy of the training data packaged alongside commercial AI models – by the time the model is launched, the training data is surplus to requirements.
«
James and I are on exactly the same page here. I don’t see the copyright lawsuits prevailing.
unique link to this extract
How research credibility suffers in a quantified society • Social Science Space
Berend van der Kolk:
»
Academia is in a credibility crisis. A record-breaking 10,000 scientific papers were retracted in 2023 because of scientific misconduct, and academic journals are overwhelmed by AI-generated images, data, and texts. To understand the roots of this problem, we must look at the role of metrics in evaluating the academic performance of individuals and institutions.
To gauge research quality, we count papers, citations, and calculate impact factors. The higher the scores, the better. Academic performance is often expressed in numbers. Why? Quantification reduces complexity, makes academia manageable, allows easy comparisons among scholars and institutions, and provides administrators with a feeling of grip on reality. Besides, numbers seem objective and fair, which is why we use them to allocate status, tenure, attention, and funding to those who score well on these indicators.
The result of this? Quantity is often valued over quality. In [the book] The Quantified Society I coin the term “indicatorism”: a blind focus on enhancing indicators in spreadsheets, while losing sight of what really matters. It seems we’re sometimes busier with “scoring” and “producing” than with “understanding”.
As a result, some started gaming the system. The rector of one of the world’s oldest universities, for one, set up citation cartels to boost his citation scores, while others reportedly buy(!) bogus citations. Even top-ranked institutions seem to play the indicator game by submitting false data to improve their position on university rankings!
While abandoning metrics and rankings in academia altogether is too drastic, we must critically rethink their current hegemony. As a researcher of metrics, I acknowledge metrics can be used for good, i.e., to facilitate accountability, motivate, or obtain feedback and improve. Yet, when metrics are not used to obtain feedback but instead become targets, they cease to be good measures of performance, as Goodhart’s law dictates. The costs of using the metrics this way probably outweigh the benefits.
«
There are so many interlocking perverse incentives in academia at the moment: “success” measured in papers published and impact, while for academic journal publishers, getting more subscribers by accepting more papers in more niche topics in more obscure journals maximises revenue and profit. Everything needs a reset.
unique link to this extract
Tubi or not Tubi • The Washington Post
Travis Andrews:
»
King Arthur pursued the Holy Grail. Indiana Jones scoured for precious artifacts. Harold and Kumar sought White Castle burgers.
Adam Schmersal hunts for a different type of jewel: the most ridiculous movies on the most ridiculous streaming service. And he’s struck pay dirt again and again.
There’s “Dracula’s Angel,” a gothic horror romance that’s animated in the style of the Sims video game series. There’s the films of Dustin Ferguson, a director who puts out B-movies at an astonishing rate. Their titles speak for themselves: “Spider Baby, or the Maddest Story Ever Told,” “Demonoids From Hell,” “Amityville in the Hood,” “Arachnado 2: Flaming Spiders.” And don’t forget “Big Bad CGI Monsters.”
“It’s unreal what he does,” says Schmersal, a 36-year-old service technician in Ohio. “It’s not good.”
Then there’s “Baby Cat,” about a woman who falls in love with a cat, which is played by a human wearing cat ears. Yes, romantically. “I couldn’t predict the next five seconds the entire time I was watching,” Schmersal says.
He dubs these flicks Tubi Treasures, and he has been posting his discoveries to Reddit for the past year.
These are the kind of movies you might have once found mindlessly flipping through the channels, back before streaming came along and algorithms began crafting our entertainment diets.But Tubi is a streaming service that doesn’t feel like one. Owned by Fox, it’s free, so long as you can stomach a few ads (you know, like old TV). It’s a type of streaming service referred to in the industry as a FAST service — free, ad-supported TV.
You probably already have it installed somewhere — your phone, your smart TV, your gaming system, your Roku, who knows, maybe your microwave — without even knowing it.
«
At last a good headline. (Though the web headline is different, and boring.) I’m pretty sure I haven’t got Tubi installed anywhere. It claims to have the biggest streaming library of anyone. Then again, Sturgeon’s Law applies: 90% of anything is crap.
unique link to this extract
Mirror journalists given individual online page-view targets • Press Gazette
Dominic Ponsford:
»
Mirror journalists have been given individual targets for online page views in a move that has raised concerns for some about the potential impact on editorial quality and future job security.
Some journalists whose roles are currently more focused on supporting the print edition are particularly concerned about hitting online page-view targets.
Page views is seen by some as a metric that encourages reporters to produce quickly-written stories with overly sensational headlines about a narrow range of topics (such as the weather and TV) .
In 2015 Wired reported: “The page view notoriously spawned that most reviled of internet aggravations: clickbait. Quality became less important than provocation; the curiosity gap supplanted craft.”
Some argue that returning visitors or dwell time are better metrics to focus on because they encourage a community of returning readers who may ultimately be persuaded to register with a publication or even subscribe. But chief executive Jim Mullen told staff last year: “I need to get the page views. That is the way we sell advertising blocks, and advertising blocks deliver revenue.”
…Monthly targets for Mirror reporters start at around 250,000 page views per month and vary from journalist to journalist depending on previous performance and the subject matter they are covering. Some are as high as one million page views per month.
Some individuals feel the new page-view targets are unfairly high. One insider said they did not know anyone who had come close to hitting their targets in previous months.
However another Reach source told Press Gazette many journalists have previously met and exceeded their new online targets.
«
For clarity: the Mirror (formerly Daily Mirror, formerly one of the biggest and only left-wing tabloid in Britain) is now owned by Reach plc, which also owns loads of local papers, where it has imposed similarly daft targets. This is surely going to lead to a death spiral: those targets aren’t feasible, and don’t make commercial sense either. Pageviews was bad a decade ago, and it’s bad now.
unique link to this extract
Worldwide smartphone shipments grew 6.4% in 2024, despite macro challenges • IDC
»
According to preliminary data from the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker , global smartphone shipments increased 2.4% year-over-year (YoY) to 331.7 million units in the fourth quarter of 2024 (4Q24).
This marks the sixth consecutive quarter of shipment growth, closing the whole year with 6.4% growth and 1.24 billion shipments, marking a strong recovery after two challenging years of decline. We expect the market to continue growing in 2025, albeit at a slower pace, as refresh cycles continue growing and pent-up demand is fulfilled.
…While Apple and Samsung maintained the top two positions in Q4 and for the year, both companies witnessed YoY declines, and their shares shrunk thanks to the super aggressive growth of Chinese vendors this year—who drove the overall market by focusing on low-end devices, rapid expansion and development in China. Outside of Apple and Samsung, Xiaomi came in third for the quarter and the year, with the highest YoY growth rate among the Top 5 players.
«
Amazingly, Apple has outsold Samsung for two entire years straight – while three Chinese vendors (Xiaomi, Transsion and OPPO) sold nearly as many as the two giants combined.
Just to remind you that this is a huge, multi-billion dollar business which continues to tick over, and probably will do for decades to come.
unique link to this extract
| • Why do social networks drive us a little mad? • Why does angry content seem to dominate what we see? • How much of a role do algorithms play in affecting what we see and do online? • What can we do about it? • Did Facebook have any inkling of what was coming in Myanmar in 2016? Read Social Warming, my latest book, and find answers – and more. |
Errata, corrigenda and ai no corrida: none notified
The Overspill: when there's more that I want to say 