Team news is starting heat up ahead of Formula E’s Gen3 debut next season, and today one of the bigger expected announcements was made official. Ahead of the Berlin E-Prix, McLaren Racing announced its move to Formula E for season nine, committing to fielding a team when the series’ new spec makes its first competitive laps. Rumors began to swirl weeks ago that the company was coming to the all-electric racing series.
True to the reports, McLaren will acquire the Mercedes-EQ Formula E Team. Current team principal Ian James will remain to ensure “a smooth transition.” Mercedes-EQ is the current world championship team and driver Nyck de Vries won the individual series title in 2021 to complete the double trophy season. McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown explained that it was “satisfying” to provide a new home for the “class-leading” Formula E team that Mercedes has built. No word on a driver line-up just yet, but de Vries’ stablemate Stoffel Vandoorne will move to DS Penske next season.
“McLaren Racing always seeks to compete against the best and on the leading edge of technology, providing our fans, partners and people with new ways to be excited, entertained and inspired,” Brown said in a statement. “Formula E, like all our racing series, fulfills all those criteria.”
McLaren is certainly no stranger to Formula racing. As the second-oldest active team in F1, the constructor made its debut in 1966 at Monaco. It amassed eight constructors championships in the 70s, 80s and 90s with 12 individual drivers championships. Its most recent trophy-winning season was 2008 when Lewis Hamilton won his first championship (and did so in quite dramatic fashion).
McLaren also has experience racing EVs as it competes in the off-road Extreme E series. The racing series is still in its infancy after it first debuted in 2021, however, like Formula E and Formula 1, Extreme E is also sanctioned by the FIA (Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile). McLaren also fields two cars in IndyCar as Arrow McLaren SP, an open-wheel series it returned to in 2021 after a 40-year break. The team is a joint effort between Arrow Electronics, McLaren Racing and Schmidt Peterson Motorsports.
McLaren joins Maserati as a major manufacturer entering Formula E next season. Maserati announced in January that it would participate in the series, and in April it revealed a partnership with the Monaco-based ROKiT Venturi Racing. Nissan also recently took full ownership of the e.dams team it has partnered with since 2018. In the lead up to this weekend’s Berlin E-Prix, German team ABT Sportsline revealed plans to return to Formula E next season and Avalanche Andretti announced it would run Porsche powertrains starting in 2023.
Google’s I/O 2022 keynote was disappointing if you were expecting a major Android upgrade that tackled deep-seated issues, at least based on the details shared so far. The company didn’t spend much time discussing Android 13, and most of the announced updates were known, minor or both. They were largely defined by media and privacy controls. The release as-is won’t be a revelation unless you’re a tablet owner. While we might not have seen all of Android 13’s features just yet, and there are already some genuinely useful improvements (such as a brand new Wallet app), the status quo will largely remain intact.
And that’s unfortunate. While Android is a very capable platform with some exceptional hardware to match, there’s no one device that nails every experience consistently well. Buy a powerful phone and you’ll probably be saddled with quirky software; get your dream Android variant and you may have to put up with mediocre cameras or chips. It’s time Google and manufacturers worked together to produce devices you could more easily recommend to others.
Software: Too much or not enough?
Sam Rutherford/Engadget
To be fair, Google is only partly responsible for the current state of affairs. The very beauty of Android is the potential for vendors to add their own spin — a uniformly Google-made experience would defeat the point.
The company still plays an important role, though, and it’s increasingly clear there’s more it can do. Use a Pixel 6 or another phone with ‘pure’ Android 12 and you’ll realize the stock OS, while visually cohesive and free of fluff, is still relatively barebones. You won’t get an advanced camera app, extensive media integration, special browser features or other clever tricks you often get with customized Android experiences. The polish isn’t always there, either — just ask Pixel owners. Apple had its share of dodgy updates in years past, but it appears to have ironed out the glitches that Google occasionally leaves in.
You can install apps, launchers and other utilities to flesh things out, but that’s not realistic for some users. I wouldn’t hand a Pixel to a newcomer or anyone who wants strong out-of-the-box capabilities. Google could stand to improve its functionality and quality to more directly compete with its partners beyond the usual handful of (usually) temporary Pixel exclusives. While the company has lately shifted more toward regular feature drops than mammoth OS revisions, Android 13 as we know it is still somewhat disappointing on this front.
That’s not to let those partners off the hook. While phone makers don’t overdo customization as much as in years past, some non-stock Android experiences still include their share of arbitrary tweaks. Samsung is the classic example. While One UI is much cleaner and friendlier to third parties than past Samsung interfaces, it still tends to duplicate Google features or push services you probably won’t use. Do you really need two browsers, or to buy apps from the Galaxy Store? You’ll also see some over-the-top Android implementations from Chinese brands, although we’d note that Xiaomi has been reining in MIUI.
And the situation is seemingly getting worse in some cases. OnePlus originally attracted enthusiasts precisely because its customizations were limited and usually very helpful, but there has been evidence of the creeping influence of parent company Oppo’s top-heavy software design on devices like the OnePlus 10 Pro. The OnePlus Shelf pop-up menu got in the way during our review, for instance. Update policies have likewise sometimes taken steps backward, as Motorola still doesn’t guarantee more than one major OS upgrade for some phones. It would be great to see OnePlus and other vendors strike a more delicate balance that adds thoughtful touches without veering into excess or limiting software updates.
Hardware: Flies in the ointment
Igor Bonifacic/Engadget
Software hiccups wouldn’t be so problematic if the devices were more well-rounded. It’s all too common to find an Android phone that performs superbly in most respects, but has at least one weakness that tarnishes the experience or even proves a dealbreaker.
A quick survey of major Android phones illustrates this all too well. The regular Galaxy S22 series is one of the best all-rounders on the market today, but it has modest, non-expandable storage, a 1080p screen (fine, but not the 1440p some crave) and reduced features in its smallest version. Pixel 6? An outstanding value, but the notoriously fussy fingerprint reader and limited storage can kill interest quickly. The OnePlus 10 Pro is only a slight improvement over its predecessor, and still suffers from lackluster camera quality. You can overcome some of these limitations with spare-no-expense flagships like the S22 Ultra or Sony’s Xperia 1 IV, but then you’re likely spending well over $1,000 for the privilege.
It becomes even more of a challenge with more affordable models. Motorola is increasingly popular among budget users, but its confusing lineup and missing features (like NFC) create serious problems for shoppers. Samsung’s mid-tier phones can be sluggish or otherwise unexciting, and the Galaxy A53 even feels like a step backward. Handsets like the Poco F4 GT and upcoming Pixel 6a offer high-end processing power at a low price, but you can safely assume you’re making compromises in areas like camera tech. And don’t get us started on companies that deliver huge but low-resolution screens that can prove to be eyesores.
To be clear, every phone has its compromises. It wouldn’t be realistic to expect a perfect product from any brand, including those beyond Android. Apple is often conservative with iPhone design, and has been slow to embrace common Android features —120Hz and USB-C, anyone? More often than not, though, you’re choosing an Android device based on the major flaws you’re willing to tolerate, not because it’s clearly the best you can get for the money. Combine that with the software dilemmas mentioned earlier and a truly well-rounded Android phone can be very difficult to find.
Glimmers of hope
Google
This isn’t to say the Android phone industry is in a dire state. The very gripes at the heart of this piece underscore how far the platform has come. Android 12 (and soon 13) is decidedly more polished than previous iterations. Once-obnoxious brands like Samsung have shown some restraint, and it’s much easier to buy a budget phone that will make you genuinely happy, even if there are clear shortcomings.
You can also point to some devices that are showing the way forward. While Sony’s recent Xperia phones are increasingly expensive and geared toward niche audiences, they tend to deliver strong performance, good cameras, top-tier displays and moderately customized software. And if the Pixel 7 can address some of its predecessor’s hiccups, it might just be the Android phone to beat in the second half of the year.
Rather, the concern is that there’s a lot more room to grow. Companies ought to take a more holistic approach to phone design where there are few if any obvious sacrifices in the name of price, bragging rights, storage upsells or peddling services. Google could do more to lead by example, such as matching the more advanced software features of its vendor allies. It’s entirely possible to make a phone that excels simply through the lack of glaring weaknesses — it’s just a matter of finding the resolve to make that happen.
Trade industry groups representing tech giants, such as Google and Facebook, have filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to block HB 20. That’s the controversial law Texan law that bars social media websites from removing or restricting content based on “the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also allows users to sue large platforms with more than than 50 million active monthly users if they believe they were banned for their political views. As The Washington Post reports, it reflects Republicans’ claims that they’re being being censored by “Big Tech.”
A federal judge blocked HB 20 from being implemented last year, but the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision recently. The panel of judges agreed with the state of Texas that social networks are “modern-day public squares,” which means they’re banned from censoring certain viewpoints. One of the judges also said that social networks aren’t websites but “internet providers” instead. The panel allowed the law to take effect while its merits are still being litigated in lower court.
NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the groups representing the tech industry, have maintained that the law is an attack on the First Amendment and have previously questioned its constitutionality. In their emergency application, they said HB 20 is an “unprecedented assault on the editorial discretion of private websites… that would fundamentally transform their business models and services.”
They explained that under the law, platforms would have no choice but to allow the dissemination of “all sorts of objectionable viewpoints,” such as Russian propaganda justifying the invasion of Ukraine, posts supporting neo-Nazis, KKKs and Holocaust deniers, as well as posts encouraging dangerous behavior, such as disordered eating. “The Fifth Circuit has yet to offer any explanation why the District Court’s thorough opinion was wrong,” they wrote in their application (PDF).
NetChoice and CCIA also argue that by allowing the law to be enforced, it could influence and interfere with the decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Atlanta-based appeals court will decide the fate of a similar law in Florida that was initially blocked by a federal judge for violating Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The 5th Circuit panel’s shocking decision to greenlight the unconstitutional Texas HB 20—without explanation—demanded the extraordinary response of seeking emergency Supreme Court intervention.
Americans are mixed about whether the government should do more to hold tech companies accountable, and fewer are in favor of more regulation than they were last year, according to results released today from a Pew survey. Last year, more than half (56 percent) of Americans wanted more regulation of Big Tech. Now, only 44 percent of Americans want to see more government enforcement of tech companies. And the number of respondents who want less government regulation of the tech industry has doubled this year, from nine percent to 20 percent.
But those results shouldn’t suggest that the public has a rosier view of Big Tech or trusts that tech companies are getting it right. The majority of respondents still feel — as they have in years past — that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others censor political points that the companies find objectionable. More than three-quarters (or 77 percent) of Americans believe that social media platforms behave this way in 2022, which is only a slight increase from recent years.
As we’ve seen in the past, more Republicans than Democrats feel certain political views are targeted on social media — 92 percent of Republicans say censoring is likely occurring, compared to 66 percent of Democrats. And over recent years, the belief that social platforms possess and act on biases against conservatives has become such a frequent talking point amount right-wing lawmakers that the Senate held hearings on that very subject during the Trump presidency. According to a Politico analysis however, posts from conservative media outlets and right-wing media influences are more likely to go viral. Similarly, a New York University study found that social media platform algorithms are more likely to amplify conservatives than non-partisan or liberal figures. But even among left-wing respondents, the belief in political censorship among platforms has steadily increased in the last two years, according to Pew’s polling. While not as drastic as their Republican counterparts, a plurality Democrats (66 percent) maintain a belief that platforms censor based on political beliefs, up from 62 percent in 2018, and only 59 percent in 2020.
Yik Yak’s revived messaging app was supposed to bring back the days of truly anonymous local chat, but it may have inadvertently made life easier for creeps. Computer science student David Teather informedMotherboard that Yik Yak had a flaw that let attackers obtain both the precise location for posts (within 10 to 15 feet) and users’ unique IDs. Blend the two pieces of info and it’s possible to track a user’s movement patterns.
Teather used a proxy tool to determine that YikYak sent both the precise GPS position and user ID with every message, even if users would normally only see vague distances and city identifiers. An independent researcher verified the findings for Motherboard, although it’s not clear if anyone has exploited the flaw so far.
Yik Yak hasn’t responded to requests for comment so far. The developer released three updates between April 28th and May 10th, but it’s not yet certain if they completely address exposed locations. However, it’s safe to say that the issue left users at risk, especially if they shared any sensitive information with local chatters.
Hours after Elon Musk said his Twitter buyout is temporarily on hold, Twitter’s CEO has said he still expects the deal to close, but “we need to be prepared for all scenarios.” In a series of tweets, Parag Agrawal didn’t directly address Musk’s earlier comments but he weighed in on yesterday’s leadership shakeup, which resulted in the firing of two senior Twitter executives.
The move had raised eyebrows not just because the two were popular longtime leaders at the company, but because many don’t expect Agrawal to keep the CEO job after the acquisition is finalized. (Musk has said he has no confidence in Twitter’s current leadership and reports suggest Musk intends to take over the CEO role at least temporarily.)
“Changes impacting people are always hard,” Agrawal said. “And some have been asking why a ‘lame-duck’ CEO would make these changes if we’re getting acquired anyway. The short answer is very simple: While I expect the deal to close, we need to be prepared for all scenarios and always do what’s right for Twitter.”
While I expect the deal to close, we need to be prepared for all scenarios and always do what’s right for Twitter. I’m accountable for leading and operating Twitter, and our job is to build a stronger Twitter every day.
Notably, Agrawal’s comments would seem to acknowledge the possibility that Musk’s buyout may not actually go through. The Tesla CEO, who has said ridding Twitter of bots is one of his top goals, stated earlier in the day that the deal was “temporarily on hold pending details supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users.” He later added that he was “still committed to the acquisition.”
Meanwhile, Twitter is also trying to navigate widespread uncertainty among employees, many of whom are uneasy about Musk’s plans for the company. In addition to cutting its top revenue and product executives Thursday, the company is also pausing all new hiring and rescinding some job offers, in an effort to cut costs.
Agrawal said Friday that he would continue “making hard decisions as needed.” “I won’t use the deal as an excuse to avoid making important decisions for the health of the company, nor will any leader at Twitter,” he tweeted.
The Biden administration has formally started its $45 billion effort to bring affordable and reliable high-speed broadband internet access to everyone in the US by 2030. The Internet for All funding is part of the $65 billion earmarked for broadband in the $1 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Starting today, states and other entities can apply for funding from three Internet for All programs.
“In the 21st century, you simply cannot participate in the economy if you don’t have access to reliable, affordable high-speed internet,” Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who is overseeing the distribution of the funds, said. “Thanks to President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Americans across the country will no longer be held back by a lack of high-speed internet access. We are going to ensure every American will have access to technologies that allow them to attend class, start a small business, visit with their doctor and participate in the modern economy.”
States could use the funding to install fiber-optic cables, put more Wi-Fi networks in place or even offer some people free broadband internet access. The launch of the program follows news earlier this week that the Biden administration has teamed up with 20 providers to offer subsidized internet service to low-income households.
Most of the Internet for All funding will be available from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. States and other territories will need to file a letter of intent and a budget for planning funds. They’ll then receive $5 million in planning funds to help them put together a five-year plan detailing how they’ll provide comprehensive internet access to all residents.
Each state that takes part in the program will receive at least $100 million from the BEAD pot of $42.5 billion. After that, funding allocations will be decided in part based on updated broadband coverage maps that the Federal Communications Commission is expected to release this fall.
Under the $1 billion Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program, funding will be allocated based on a “technology-neutral, competitive basis” to build, buy or improve infrastructure elements that carry “large amounts of data at high speeds over long distances.” As for the $1.5 billion State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program, that’s designed to bolster adoption and use of the internet with the help of digital literacy training.
