Embracer says it’s looking out for shareholders after cutting almost 1,400 jobs
▻https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/embracer-says-it-s-looking-out-for-shareholders-after-cutting-almost-
“Our overruling principle is to always maximize shareholder value in any given situation.”
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #embracer_group #business #finance #investissements #ressources_humaines #licenciements
Oscar Lemaire sur X : "Et allons-y pour le thread des résultats financiers de Sony.
▻https://twitter.com/oscarlemaire/status/1757676174535184840
Et allons-y pour le thread des résultats financiers de Sony.
Microsoft prepares to take Xbox everywhere - The Verge
▻https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/12/24067370/microsoft-xbox-playstation-switch-games-future-hardware
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25276282/xbox_horizon.png)
Microsoft’s Xbox business needs to get bigger. The company’s Xbox Series S and X sales still lag behind Sony’s PlayStation 5, and Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer has previously admitted its Xbox Game Pass subscriptions were slowing down, too. He admitted that in 2022, a dry year for Xbox games after Microsoft’s big exclusive Bethesda game Starfield was delayed.
An Xbox Game Pass slowdown might be why I’m hearing that a number of Xbox exclusives are coming to consoles with which Microsoft usually competes. Sources familiar with Microsoft’s plans tell The Verge that the company is getting ready to launch a select number of Xbox games on PS5 and Nintendo Switch. Weeks of rumors suggest that Hi-Fi Rush, Sea of Thieves, and even Bethesda titles like Starfield and Indiana Jones could appear on non-Xbox platforms.
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #microsoft #console_xbox #console_playstation #console_switch #analyse #rumeur
Disney and Epic Games to Create Expansive and Open Games and Entertainment Universe Connected to Fortnite - The Walt Disney Company
▻https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-and-epic-games-fortnite
The Walt Disney Company and Epic Games will collaborate on an all-new games and entertainment universe that will further expand the reach of beloved Disney stories and experiences. Disney will also invest $1.5 billion to acquire an equity stake in Epic Games alongside the multiyear project. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals.
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #the_walt_disney_company #disney #epic_games #acquisition #finance #partenariat
Microsoft’s recent layoffs contradict what the company promised of its merger, the FTC says. - The Verge
▻https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065150/microsofts-recent-layoffs-contradict-what-the-company-promised-of-its-merg
Microsoft’s recent layoffs contradict what the company promised of its merger, the FTC says.
Pour le détail des observations de la FTC, voir les captures jointes à ce Tweet :
▻https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1755309305866154194
Réponse de Microsoft :
Microsoft says Activision was already planning ‘significant’ layoffs. - The Verge
▻https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/8/24066089/microsoft-says-activision-was-already-planning-significant-layoffs
Microsoft says Activision was already planning ‘significant’ layoffs.
Plus détaillée dans ce Tweet :
▻https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1755626533048209882
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #microsoft #acivision_blizzard #ftc #business #rachat #acquisition #finance #ressources_humaines #licenciements
Appel à la grève à Ubisoft le 14 février - 02/02/2024 à 08:19 - Boursorama
▻https://www.boursorama.com/actualite-economique/actualites/appel-a-la-greve-a-ubisoft-le-14-fevrier-5f98481067f330df46abf67d4b83a70
Le syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses du jeu vidéo (STJV), Solidaires Informatique et la CFE-CGC Fieci appellent à une grève nationale des salariés d’Ubisoft France le 14 février pour dénoncer des hausses de salaires jugées insuffisantes, ont-ils annoncé jeudi.
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #ubisoft #ressources_humaines #stjv #solidaires_informatique #cfe_cgc_fieci #grève #salaires #pouvoir_d_achat
#Frontex, Cutro è un ricordo sbiadito: sorvegliare dall’alto resta la priorità
Un anno dopo la strage, l’Agenzia europea della guardia di frontiera investe ancora su velivoli per sorvolare il Mediterraneo. Dal 2016 a oggi la spesa supera mezzo miliardo di euro. Una strategia dagli esiti noti: più respinti e più morti
Frontex è pronta a investire altri 158 milioni di euro per sorvegliare dall’alto il Mediterraneo. A un anno dal naufragio di Steccato di Cutro (KR), costato la vita a 94 persone, la strategia dell’Agenzia che sorveglia le frontiere esterne europee non cambia. Anzi, si affina con “occhi” sempre più efficaci per rintracciare e osservare dall’alto le imbarcazioni in difficoltà. “Si continua a pensare che Frontex sia un’innocua gregaria degli Stati, senza responsabilità -spiega Laura Salzano, docente di diritto dell’Ue presso l’Università di Barcellona-. Ma in mare, sempre di più, le sue attività hanno conseguenze dirette sulla vita delle persone”.
Lo racconta, in parte, anche la strage di Cutro del 26 febbraio 2023. Alle 22.26 della sera prima infatti fu l’Agenzia, attraverso il velivolo “Eagle 1”, a individuare per prima la “Summer love” e a segnalarla, quand’era a circa 40 miglia delle coste crotonesi, al Frontex coordination centre. Da Varsavia le coordinate della nave furono girate alle autorità competenti: tra queste anche l’International coordination centre (ICC) di Pratica di mare (RM) in cui, allo stesso tavolo, siedono le autorità italiane e la stessa Agenzia che ha il dovere di monitorare quello che succede. “Nonostante fosse noto che c’erano persone nella ‘pancia della nave’ e il meteo stesse peggiorando, si è deciso di attivare un’operazione di polizia e non di ‘ricerca e soccorso’ -spiega Salzano-. Questa classificazione a mio avviso errata è responsabilità anche dell’Agenzia”. Un errore che potrebbe aver inciso anche sul ritardo nei soccorsi.
Lo stabilirà la Procura di Crotone che, a metà gennaio 2024, non ha ancora chiuso le indagini sulla strage. Qualcosa di quanto successo quella sera, però, si sa già, perché il processo contro i presunti manovratori dell’imbarcazione è già in fase di dibattimento. “La prima barca della Guardia costiera -spiega Francesco Verri, avvocato di decine di familiari delle vittime- arriva sul luogo del naufragio alle 6.50, quasi tre ore dopo il naufragio: salva due persone ma recupera anche il cadavere di un bambino morto di freddo. Perché ci hanno impiegato così tanto tempo per percorrere poche miglia nautiche? Sulla spiaggia la pattuglia è arrivata un’ora e 35 minuti dopo il naufragio. Da Crotone a Cutro ci vogliono dieci minuti di macchina”. Domande a cui dovranno rispondere le autorità italiane.
Al di là delle responsabilità penali, però, quanto successo quella notte mostra l’inadeguatezza del sistema dei soccorsi di cui la sorveglianza aerea è un tassello fondamentale su cui Frontex continua a investire. Con importi senza precedenti.
Quando Altreconomia va in stampa, a metà gennaio, l’Agenzia sta ancora valutando le offerte arrivate per il nuovo bando da 158 milioni di euro per due servizi di monitoraggio aereo: uno a medio raggio, entro le 151 miglia nautiche dall’aeroporto di partenza (budget di 100 milioni), l’altro a lungo raggio che può superare le 401 miglia di distanza (48 milioni).
▻https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/i/web/post/658926323750966119
Documenti di gara alla mano, una delle novità più rilevanti riguarda i cosiddetti “Paesi ospitanti” delle attività di monitoraggio: si prevede infatti espressamente che possano essere anche Stati non appartenenti all’Unione europea. In sostanza: il velivolo potrebbe partire da una base in Tunisia o Libia; e, addirittura, si prevede che un host country liaison officer, ovvero un agente di “contatto” delle autorità di quel Paese, possa salire a bordo dell’aeromobile. “Bisogna capire se sarà fattibile operativamente -sottolinea Salzano-. Ma non escludere questa possibilità nel bando è grave: sono Paesi che non sono tenuti a rispettare gli standard europei”.
Mentre lavora per dispiegare la sua flotta anche sull’altra sponda del Mediterraneo, Frontex investe sulla “qualità” dei servizi richiesti. Nel bando si richiede infatti che il radar installato sopra il velivolo sia in grado di individuare (per poi poter fotografare) un oggetto di piccole dimensioni a quasi dieci chilometri di distanza e uno “medio” a quasi 19. Prendendo ad esempio il caso delle coste libiche, più la “potenza di fuoco” è elevata più il velivolo potrà essere distante dalle coste del Nordafrica ma comunque individuare le imbarcazioni appena partite.
La distanza, in miglia nautiche, che l’ultimo bando pubblicato da Frontex nel novembre 2023 prevede tra l’aeroporto di partenza del velivolo e l’area di interesse da sorvolare è di 401 miglia. Nella prima gara riguardante questi servizi, pubblicata dall’agenzia nell’agosto 2016, la distanza massima prevista era di 200 miglia
Frontex sa che, oltre alla componente meccanica, l’efficienza “tecnica” dei suoi droni è fondamentale. Per questo il 6 e 7 settembre 2023 ha riunito a Varsavia 16 aziende del settore per discutere delle nuove frontiere tecnologiche dei “velivoli a pilotaggio remoto”. A presentare i propri prodotti c’era anche l’italiana Leonardo Spa, leader europeo nel settore aerospaziale e militare, che già nel 2018 aveva siglato un accordo da 1,6 milioni di euro per fornire droni all’Agenzia.
L’ex Finmeccanica è tra le 15 aziende che hanno vinto i bandi pubblicati da Frontex per la sorveglianza aerea. Se si guarda al numero di commesse aggiudicate, il trio formato da DEA Aviation (Regno Unito), CAE Aviation (Stati Uniti) ed EASP Air (Spagna) primeggia con oltre otto contratti siglati. Valutando l’importo delle singole gare, a farla da padrone sono invece due colossi del settore militare: la tedesca Airbus DS e la Elbit System, principale azienda che rifornisce l’esercito israeliano, che si sono aggiudicate in cordata due gare (2020 e 2022) per 125 milioni di euro. Dal 2016 a oggi, il totale investito per questi servizi supera i cinquecento milioni di euro.
“La sorveglianza è una delle principali voci di spesa dell’Agenzia -spiega Ana Valdivia, professoressa all’Oxford internet institute che da anni analizza i bandi di Frontex- insieme a tutte le tecnologie che trasformano gli ‘eventi reali’ in dati”. E la cosiddetta “datificazione” ha un ruolo di primo piano anche nel Mediterraneo. “La fotografia di una barca in distress ha un duplice scopo: intercettarla ma anche avere un’evidenza digitale, una prova, che una determinata persona era a bordo -aggiunge Valdivia-. Questa è la ‘sorveglianza’: non un occhio che ci guarda giorno e notte, ma una memoria digitale capace di ricostruire in futuro la nostra vita. Anche per i migranti”. E per chi è su un’imbarcazione diretta verso l’Europa è vitale a chi finiscono le informazioni.
Nell’ultimo bando pubblicato da Frontex, si prevede che “il contraente trasferirà i dati a sistemi situati in un Paese terzo se è garantito un livello adeguato di protezione”. “Fanno finta di non sapere che non possono farlo -aggiunge Salzano- non potendo controllare che Paesi come la Tunisia e la Libia non utilizzino quei dati, per esempio, per arrestare le persone in viaggio una volta respinte”. Quello che si sa, invece, è che quei dati -nello specifico le coordinate delle navi- vengono utilizzate per far intervenire le milizie costiere libiche. Per questo motivo i droni si avvicinano sempre di più alla Libia. Se nel 2016 l’Agenzia, nella prima gara pubblicata per questa tipologia di servizi, parlava di area operativa nelle “vicinanze” con le coste italiane e greche, fino a 200 miglia nautiche dall’aeroporto di partenza, dal 2020 in avanti questa distanza ha superato le 401 miglia.
Lorenzo Pezzani, professore associato di Geografia all’università di Bologna, ha esaminato giorno per giorno i tracciati di “Heron”, il più importante drone della flotta di Frontex: nel 2021 l’attività di volo si è concentrata tra Zuara e Tripoli, il tratto di costa libica da cui partiva la maggior parte delle barche.
“Il numero di respingimenti delle milizie libiche -spiega Pezzani autore dello studio “Airborne complicity” pubblicato a inizio dicembre 2022- cresce all’aumentare delle ore di volo del drone e allo stesso tempo la mortalità non diminuisce, a differenza di quanto dichiarato dall’Agenzia”. Che tramite il suo direttore Hans Leijtens, entrato in carica a pochi giorni dal naufragio di Cutro, nega di avere accordi o rapporti diretti con la Libia. “Se è così, com’è possibile che un drone voli così vicino alle coste di uno Stato sovrano?”, si chiede Salzano. Chi fornirà il “nuovo” servizio per Frontex dovrà cancellare le registrazioni video entro 72 ore. Meglio non lasciare troppe tracce in giro.
▻https://altreconomia.it/frontex-cutro-e-un-ricordo-sbiadito-sorvegliare-dallalto-resta-la-prior
#migrations #réfugiés #frontières #militarisation_des_frontières #complexe_militaro-industriel #business #Méditerranée #mer_Méditerranée #Cutro #surveillance_aérienne #Leonardo #Elbit_System #Airbus #host_country_liaison_officer #radar #technologie #DEA_Aviation #CAE_Aviation #EASP_Air #Libye #gardes-côtes_libyens
Embracer Group Cancels ‘Deus Ex’ Video Game, Lays Off Workers - Bloomberg
▻https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-29/embracer-group-cancels-deus-ex-video-game
The Swedish gaming company Embracer Group AB is canceling a video game in the beloved Deus Ex series after two years of development and will lay off a number of employees as part of an ongoing initiative to cut costs, according to people familiar with the moves.
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #embracer_group #eidos_montréal #ressources_humaines #licenciements #jeu_vidéo_deus_ex
The Damage - Aftermath
▻https://aftermath.site/microsoft-activision-blizzard-layoffs-survival-report
As of now, news reports and comments from laid-off employees suggest that many parts of the company were hard hit: Activision Blizzard’s six-years-in-the-making survival game was canceled, and much of its team, including its director, was laid off. The Overwatch 2 team lost dozens of employees, including its lead narrative designer, in a round of cuts that did not seem to factor in seniority or talent. Activision subsidiaries like Sledgehammer, High Moon, and Toys for Bob – which have all contributed to Call of Duty in recent years – reportedly lost significant percentages of their workforces. Current and former Activision Blizzard employees tell Aftermath that community and customer service departments across the company wound up in especially bad shape, with “almost all” Game Masters – employees who oversee and moderate World of Warcraft servers – being let go.
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #activision_blizzard #abk #microsoft #cwa #ressources_humaines #licenciements
Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are ‘as painful as possible’ for Firefox - The Verge
▻https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-ios-browser-rules-firefox
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25250663/firefox_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
“We are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Apple’s proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-specific apps,” DeMonte says. “The effect of this would be to force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations — a burden Apple themselves will not have to bear.”
#apple #mozilla #firefox #mobile #business #dma #ue #union_européenne
Spotify accuses Apple of ‘extortion’ with new App Store tax - The Verge
▻https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052162/spotify-apple-app-store-tax-eu-dma
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23951393/STK088_VRG_Illo_N_Barclay_2_spotify.jpg)
Spotify — one of Apple’s biggest critics — says Apple’s new plan to comply with the European Union’s tech regulations is “a complete and total farce.” In a post published on Spotify’s website, the company calls Apple’s new app installation fee “extortion, plain and simple” and says Apple is trying to force developers not to leave its store.
Apple’s Proposed Changes Reject the Goals of the DMA — Spotify
▻https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-01-26/apples-proposed-changes-reject-the-goals-of-the-dma
For almost five years – 1,782 days – we have been asking the European Commission to take action against Apple. In a world that values competition and innovation, we found it unacceptable to stand by and allow gatekeepers like Apple to go unchecked.
So you can imagine our excitement when the Digital Markets Act (DMA) was created and passed into law to once and for all put an end to this unfair stifling of innovation disguised by Apple as security protections. We were proud of Europe for leading the way and assumed that Apple would have no choice but to comply with the letter and the spirit of the law.
But as Apple has just shown the world, they don’t think the rules apply to them.
Apple is nothing if not consistent. While they have behaved badly for years, this takes the level of arrogance to an entirely new place. Under the false pretense of compliance and concessions, they put forward a new plan that is a complete and total farce. Essentially, the old tax was rendered unacceptable under the DMA, so they created a new one masquerading as compliance with the law.
#apple #spotify #mobile #business #dma #ue #union_européenne
When Apple takes the European Commission for fools: An initial overview of Apple’s new terms and conditions for iOS app distribution in the EU - The Platform Law Blog
▻https://theplatformlaw.blog/2024/01/26/when-apple-takes-the-european-commission-for-fools-an-initial-overv
Thus, my initial reaction to Apple’s announcement (and related documentation) is that Apple is not seriously complying with the DMA. The objectives of the DMA are to bring contestability and fairness in digital markets, and this is not achieved here. Apple shows disdain for both the DMA and app developers. Its approach to DMA implementation appears to do little for users, other than to deprive them from meaningful choice on the need for protection. That should not be tolerated.
Microsoft Cancels Big New Blizzard Game After Six Years of Development - Bloomberg
▻https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-25/microsoft-cancels-big-new-blizzard-game-after-six-years-of-development
Video-game maker Blizzard Entertainment canceled one of its biggest projects on Thursday as part of a reorganization under new owner Microsoft Corp. that led to mass layoffs of 1,900 people, or 8% of the gaming division’s total staff. The cancelation of the game, codenamed Odyssey, left Blizzard employees reeling as some lost their jobs and others were left wondering about the future of the studio.
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #activision_blizzard #microsoft #acquisition #rachat #ressources_humaines #licenciements #annulation #jeu_vidéo_odyssey #moteur_de_jeu #unreal_engine
Apple announces changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store in the European Union - Apple
▻https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-changes-to-ios-safari-and-the-app-store-in-the-european-union
Apple today announced changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store impacting developers’ apps in the European Union (EU) to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The changes include more than 600 new APIs, expanded app analytics, functionality for alternative browser engines, and options for processing app payments and distributing iOS apps. Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — new risks the DMA poses to EU users. With these steps, Apple will continue to deliver the best, most secure experience possible for EU users.
The new options for processing payments and downloading apps on iOS open new avenues for malware, fraud and scams, illicit and harmful content, and other privacy and security threats. That’s why Apple is introducing protections — including Notarization for iOS apps, an authorization for marketplace developers, and disclosures on alternative payments — to reduce risks and deliver the best, most secure experience possible for users in the EU. Even with these safeguards in place, many risks remain.
La réponse du principal challenger d’Apple en matière de distribution d’apps hors App Store :
Tim Sweeney sur X :
▻https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1750589570880516402
Apple’s plan to thwart Europe’s new Digital Markets Act law is a devious new instance of Malicious Compliance.
They are forcing developers to choose between App Store exclusivity and the store terms, which will be illegal under DMA, or accept a new also-illegal anticompetitive scheme rife with new Junk Fees on downloads and new Apple taxes on payments they don’t process.
Apple proposes that it can choose which stores are allowed to compete with their App Store. They could block Epic from launching the Epic Games Store and distributing Fortnite through it, for example, or block Microsoft, Valve, Good Old Games, or new entrants.
The Epic Games Store is the #7 software store in the world (behind the 3 console stores, 2 mobile stores, and Steam on PC). We’re determined to launch on iOS and Android and enter the competition to become the #1 multi-platform software store, on the foundation of payment competition, 0%-12% fees, and exclusive games like Fortnite.
Epic has always supported the notion of Apple notarization and malware scanning for apps, but we strongly reject Apple’s twisting this process to undermine competition and continue imposing Apple taxes on transactions they’re not involved in.
There’s a lot more hot garbage in Apple’s announcement. It will take more time to parse both the written and unwritten parts of this new horror show, so stay tuned.
Célébration, cependant, chez Fortnite :
▻https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1750616130174234859
Remember Fortnite on iOS?
How bout we bring that back.
Later this year Fortnite will return in Europe on iOS through the @EpicGames Store.
(shoutout DMA - an important new law in the EU making this possible). @Apple, the world is watching.
#mobile #jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #apple #epic_games #dma #digital_markets_act #ue #union_européenne #ouverture
Microsoft lays off 1,900 Activision Blizzard and Xbox employees - The Verge
▻https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/25/24049050/microsoft-activision-blizzard-layoffs
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25247723/1237824985.jpg)
Microsoft is laying off 1,900 employees at Activision Blizzard and Xbox this week. While Microsoft is primarily laying off roles at Activision Blizzard, some Xbox and ZeniMax employees will also be impacted by the cuts.
24 Days Into 2024 And 3,900+ Video Game Layoffs Have Been Announced
►https://kotaku.com/game-industry-layoffs-how-many-2024-unity-twitch-1851155818
Within the last few years, video game industry layoffs have unfortunately become more commonplace. In 2023, we saw near-weekly layoffs across the entire industry. When the dust had settled, at least 6,000 jobs across publishers, developers, and other video game-related companies had been terminated. Sadly, it appears 2024 will outpace that, if the first few weeks of the year are any indication.
Most folks didn’t expect 2024 to be much better, but I’m not sure anyone was ready for it to be possibly worse—yet this year has kicked off with a string of big and small layoffs signaling that the corporate bloodletting rituals aren’t ending anytime soon. So Kotaku is going to try and track all of 2024’s layoffs as they happen. Hopefully, we don’t have to update this post that much.
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #microsoft #activision_blizzard #zenimax #king #xbox #acquisition #rachat #ressources_humaines #licenciements
Zuckerberg’s Meta Is Spending Billions To Buy 350,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs | PCMag
▻https://www.pcmag.com/news/zuckerbergs-meta-is-spending-billions-to-buy-350000-nvidia-h100-gpus
https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/articles/00QibsrrAeoNsAxiw6ExCbD-1.fit_lim.size_1200x630.v1705600238.jpg But to get there, Meta is going to need Nvidia’s H100, an enterprise GPU that’s adept at training large language models. “We’re building an absolutely massive amount of infrastructure to support this,” Zuckerberg said. “By the end of this year, we’re going to have around 350,000 Nvidia H100s. Or around 600,000 H100 equivalents of compute if you include other GPUs.”
#meta #business #ia #intelligence_artificielle #investissement
One-Third of Game Developers Say Their Company Was Hit By Layoffs Last Year - IGN
▻https://www.ign.com/articles/one-third-of-game-developers-say-their-company-was-hit-by-layoffs-last-year
In stark contrast to a year of blockbuster video game hits, one of the biggest ongoing industry trends in 2023 was the prevalence of mass layoffs. While actual figures are difficult to get ahold of, estimates suggest the number of workers laid off in games last year approached or exceeded 10,000, and 2024 isn’t looking much better. Now, a GDC survey of developers suggests that one-third of all game developers were impacted by layoffs last year, either directly or by witnessing them happen at their company.
L’article traite par ailleurs d’IA et de chaîne de blocs basés aussi sur la même enquête de la GDC.
#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #business #ressources_humaines #licenciements #blockchain #ia #intelligence_artificielle
US Supreme Court has had enough of Epic vs. Apple, refuses to hear appeals, Tim Sweeney says the fight to open-up iOS ’is lost… a sad outcome for all developers’ | PC Gamer
▻https://www.pcgamer.com/us-supreme-court-has-had-enough-of-epic-vs-apple-refuses-to-hear-appeals-ti
The US Supreme Court has ended the legal battle between Apple and Epic, for now at least, by refusing to hear either side’s appeals in their long-running dispute over iOS store policies (as reported by Reuters).
Apple had appealed against a lower court’s ruling which ordered certain changes to iOS policies, while Epic had appealed against the same court’s ruling that iOS policies around distribution and monetisation were not in violation of federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court justices gave no reason for their decision to deny both appeals.
“The court battle to open iOS to competing stores and payments is lost in the United States,” said Epic CEO Tim Sweeney. "A sad outcome for all developers.
"Now the District Court’s injunction against Apple’s anti-steering rule is in effect, and developers can include in their apps “buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP”."
While Epic may have lost the war, the ruling about Apple’s anti-steering rule was the one battle it did win: Apple has to let app developers direct users to non-iOS means of paying for content. The company has to comply with the court’s ruling but, in an unsurprising turn of events, has chosen to go the route of malicious compliance: Apps can now direct users outside of the iOS payment ecosystem but, drum roll please, Apple is still demanding a 27% cut of any purchases. In its own words:
"Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales ("transactions") to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app."
#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #business #apple #epic_games #monopole #justice
Enquête sur les #dérives du #business très lucratif des #revues_scientifiques
Des éditeurs de revues scientifiques profitent de leur rôle central dans la diffusion du savoir pour s’enrichir, au détriment des universités et laboratoires, à bout de souffle. Les dérives se multiplient et menacent tant la confiance accordée à la science que la recherche elle-même.
« C’est juste du racket », « ça me rend fou », s’insurge l’économiste de la décroissance, Timothée Parrique, sur X (ex-Twitter), début novembre. Pour consulter l’étude scientifique qu’il convoite, ce chercheur doit débourser pas moins de 30 euros. « Impossible d’accéder aux textes parce qu’ils sont soumis à des paywalls, par des éditeurs qui ne contribuent en rien à leur production », proteste-t-il.
De fait, les éditeurs de revues scientifiques ne financent pas l’activité de recherche, pas plus qu’ils ne rétribuent les auteurs. Les scientifiques sont payés par les structures qui les emploient et le budget de la recherche est principalement supporté par l’Etat.
Même l’étape de la « relecture par les pairs », phase essentielle au cours de laquelle des scientifiques contrôlent la pertinence et la rigueur d’une recherche avant publication, ne coûte rien aux éditeurs : les « pairs » travaillent pour les revues sur la base du volontariat.
Les universités produisent la recherche… et paient ensuite des sommes colossales pour accéder aux publications. Rien qu’en 2020, les institutions françaises ont déboursé 87,5 millions d’euros en abonnement aux revues scientifiques.
« Leur coût a explosé depuis les années 1980, c’est ce qu’on a appelé la crise des périodiques : les grands éditeurs ont augmenté les prix des abonnements de façon bien supérieure à l’inflation [entre 1986 et 2004, le prix des revues a augmenté 2,5 fois plus vite que le coût de la vie], explique Margaux Larre-Perrez, consultante science ouverte pour datactivist, société coopérative spécialisée dans l’ouverture des données. Ces journaux se le permettent car ils ont un prestige et ils répondent à un besoin. Donc les universités paient. »
Ce fonctionnement permet au marché de l’édition scientifique, dominé par une poignée de sociétés, d’être particulièrement lucratif. Les six premiers éditeurs à l’échelle mondiale – Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Wolters Kluwer, Thomson Reuters et Taylor & Francis – ont présenté en 2015 un chiffre d’affaires cumulé de 7,5 milliards d’euros. Elsevier et Springer Nature ont réalisé des marges hors normes, frôlant les 40 %, soit plus qu’Apple (35 %).
De l’autre côté, le monde académique étouffe. En juin 2023, le directeur général délégué à la science du Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Alain Schuhl, alertait sur le fait que le CNRS était « au bord du gouffre ».
Paye ta publication
Alain Schuhl dénonce un autre système, celui des frais de publications, ou APC (Article Processing Charges). Ceux-ci sont payés par les auteurs pour permettre une publication en accès libre immédiat. Les APC peuvent être importants : jusqu’à 9 750 euros par article pour les revues du prestigieux groupe Nature.
« Les APC se sont développés dans les années 2000, ils étaient une alternative de financement pour les revues créées en opposition aux journaux classiques sur abonnement, développe Margaux Larre-Perrez. L’objectif était de construire un autre modèle économique : tous les articles sont accessibles gratuitement, et les auteurs prennent en charge les frais d’édition. »
Flairant la bonne affaire, l’oligopole a progressivement intégré cette alternative dans son propre modèle économique, en développant notamment des revues « hybrides », fonctionnant à la fois sur abonnement et sur APC pour les articles en libre accès. « C’est devenu le modèle dominant dans les revues prestigieuses, comme Nature. Ces journaux récoltent de l’argent des deux côtés : les universités paient pour avoir accès aux revues, et paient des APC. »
A l’échelle mondiale, les institutions ont donné plus d’un milliard de dollars en frais de publication à l’oligopole – aujourd’hui constitué d’Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis et Wiley – entre 2015 et 2018. Le montant payé pour les APC en France a triplé entre 2013 et 2020, passant de 11,3 millions d’euros par an à plus de 30 millions. La facture pourrait atteindre 50 millions d’euros en 2030 si la tendance se poursuit, voire 68 millions si elle s’accélère.
En cause, la multiplication des APC, mais aussi l’explosion de leur coût : le CNRS a par exemple observé une hausse de 139 % des frais de publication chez Frontiers Media et de 746 % chez Mdpi entre 2017 et 2020.
Publier ou mourir
Si les éditeurs s’offrent tant de libertés, c’est parce que les scientifiques leur sont pieds et mains liés : dans le monde de la recherche, nul n’ignore la maxime « publier ou mourir ». Le mérite d’un chercheur – et donc l’avancée de sa carrière – est principalement déterminé à partir de la quantité d’articles qu’il publie, et du prestige des revues dans lesquelles il le fait.
Les universités ont elles aussi tout intérêt à encourager leurs chercheurs à publier beaucoup, et dans des revues reconnues : elles sont hiérarchisées à partir de ces critères, notamment dans le cadre du prestigieux classement annuel des meilleures universités, réalisé par l’Université de Shanghai.
Répondre à ces exigences permet parallèlement aux établissements de débloquer de précieux fonds pour la recherche. Les plans d’investissement d’avenir (PIA), lancés en 2009 par l’Etat et dotés de 20 milliards d’euros en 2020, réservent une enveloppe pour les « initiatives d’excellence » portées par des universités.
« Les dotations sont accordées par le ministère selon les dossiers déposés. Dans les critères, se trouve l’"excellence" de la recherche, précisent Claire Calvel et Victor Chareyron, normaliens de l’ENS Cachan et auteurs d’une synthèse sur le financement de l’Enseignement supérieur en France. Ainsi, la présence de chercheurs reconnus dans leur champ est un atout indéniable. Le nombre de publications et le prestige des revues jouent donc un rôle dans l’attribution de ces financements. »
Les laboratoires de recherche sont soumis à la même logique de prestige quand ils cherchent des financements « sur projet », un mode de fonctionnement de plus en plus fréquent.
Trottinette et hydroxycloroquine
D’un côté, il y a donc des scientifiques contraints de publier, des Universités et des laboratoires sommés de prouver leur excellence, et de l’autre, des éditeurs qui s’enrichissent grâce à leurs poules aux œufs d’or. De quoi attirer le renard dans le poulailler.
En 2020, une étude se fait remarquer parmi les nombreuses recherches sur l’épidémie de Covid-19. Un manuscrit affirme que la prise d’hydroxychloroquine – alors envisagée comme remède contre le Covid-19 – permet de prévenir les accidents… de trottinette.
Parmi les auteurs : Didier Lembrouille, Otter F. Hantome (« auteur fantôme ») et Nemo Macron, en honneur au chien du Président. L’étude est une succession de farces, et pourtant, elle est publiée dans l’Asian Journal of Medicine and Health, après un paiement de 55 dollars.
Les (vrais) chercheurs derrière ce canular ont un objectif : sensibiliser le grand public aux revues « prédatrices ». Ces journaux frauduleux ont l’apparence de revues scientifiques sérieuses, mais n’en respectent pas la déontologie. La relecture par les pairs y est par exemple partielle ou inexistante.
Ces journaux sollicitent souvent directement les scientifiques pour les inciter à soumettre leurs recherches. Des mails de revues prédatrices ? « J’en ai plein, idem pour mes collègues, confirme Paule-Emily Ruy, doctorante à l’Atlantic Technological University, à Galway, en Irlande. J’ai commencé à en recevoir quand j’ai publié pour la première fois. Plus tu publies, plus elles te contactent. »
Parmi les mails que Paule-Emilie Ruy n’a pas encore supprimés, figure une proposition de Mdpi. « Il est évident que certaines revues sont totalement frauduleuses, mais d’autres se situent dans une zone grise, comme Mdpi, atteste Margaux Larre-Perrez. Cet éditeur possède quelques dizaines de journaux avec une relecture par les pairs classique et publie parallèlement des milliers de numéros spéciaux, qui ne sont pas relus de façon rigoureuse, mais qui génèrent beaucoup d’APC. »
Des usines à articles
Attirés par ce marché lucratif, sont nés dans l’ombre de la production scientifique les paper mills, ou usines à articles. Ces entreprises produisent de faux manuscrits et proposent aux chercheurs d’acheter une place d’auteur – sans participer à l’élaboration de l’étude. La Science Publisher Company propose par exemple d’endosser le rôle de premier auteur de l’article « Obésité chez les hommes en âge de travailler : facteurs, risques hormonaux, métaboliques et hémodynamique d’arythmies cardiaques », pour 2 150 dollars.
« Ces entreprises sont nées de la pression qui pèse sur les chercheurs, en particulier dans certains pays. Un doctorant chinois en médecine doit par exemple publier un article dans un journal reconnu pour obtenir son diplôme, explique Marie Soulière, senior manager chez l’éditeur Frontiers et membre du Comité d’éthique des publications (COPE). Vu cette "demande", des entreprises ont commencé à offrir la possibilité de payer pour ajouter son nom à un article. Avec la technologie, elles ont évolué pour vendre des articles complètement factices, bien plus rapides à produire. »
Les paper mills œuvrent surtout en Chine, en Inde, en Russie, en Ukraine ou en Iran. L’impact de ces usines à papiers n’est pas anecdotique. Selon une étude publiée en 2022 par COPE et le syndicat des éditeurs scientifiques, STM, à partir d’une analyse de 53 000 articles scientifiques, les revues reçoivent entre 2 % et 46 % d’articles frauduleux. Au total, 457 faux articles sont passés entre les mailles du filet et ont été publiés.
Changer les règles de l’édition
Ces dérives prolifèrent au détriment de la confiance du public envers la science, et de la recherche elle-même, qui s’appuie sur les publications antérieures pour avancer. Des structures, comme le CNRS, appellent à faire bouger les choses. En 2021, il a modifié les critères d’évaluation de ses scientifiques, qui reposent désormais sur la qualité des résultats et non plus sur le nombre de publications et le prestige des revues.
La structure a aussi conseillé à ses chercheurs de ne plus payer d’APC. La législation française permet de déposer son manuscrit dans les archives ouvertes 6 à 12 mois après publication, quel que soit le contrat passé avec l’éditeur.
La loi de programmation de la recherche fixe parallèlement un objectif de 100 % de publications en accès ouvert en 2030. Pour y parvenir, un plan du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur appelle notamment à développer les revues dites « diamant », en libre accès immédiat et sans frais pour les chercheurs.
Celles-ci sont prises en charge par les universités et organismes de recherche. Si elles représentent 73 % des revues en libre accès dans le monde aujourd’hui, elles ne produisent que 44 % des articles en open access, en raison de leurs moyens limités.
▻https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/enquete-derives-business-tres-lucratif-revues-scientifiques/00109325
#édition_scientifique #publish_or_perish
–-
ajouté à la métaliste sur l’éditions scientifique :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/1036396
C’était l’heure de commencer une #métaliste sur la #publication_scientifique
#business #édition_scientifique #arnaque #revues_scientifiques #revues_prédatrices #escroquerie #recherche #droits_d'auteur #recherche #université #ESR #coût #profit #publish_or_perish
#Data_Mining : quand #Elsevier écrit sa propre loi…
Le leader mondial incontesté de l’#édition_scientifique, Elsevier s’engage en faveur d’une simplification du #data_mining. De nouvelles conditions d’accès, dévoilées le mois dernier, vont grandement simplifier l’#accès à l’un des principaux corpus de #publications_scientifiques. D’autres #éditeurs devraient prochainement adopter un modèle similaire. C’est notamment le cas du principal concurrent d’Elsevier, #Springer.
#Sci-Hub Tears Down Academia’s “Illegal” #Copyright #Paywalls
Founded by #Alexandra_Elbakyan, a researcher born and graduated in Kazakhstan, [Sci-Hub]’s main goal is to provide the less privileged with access to science and knowledge.
"Poursuivant ses efforts pour faire de l’entreprise un modèle de rentabilité, Elsevier vient de modifier sa politique concernant le droit des chercheurs à déposer leurs publications en #archive_ouverte : ce #dépôt est désormais conditionné à un #embargo (délai entre publication dans la revue et mise en accès libre via l’archive ouverte) de 12 à 24 mois selon les revues.
Elsevier journal editors ’may be asked to resign’ in open access row
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/387746
Un hashtag clandestin pour partager la science inaccessible
Entire editorial staff of #Elsevier journal Lingua resigns over high price, lack of open access
Pour pouvoir passer en accès libre, tous les journalistes d’un journal scientifique démissionnent
« Depuis plusieurs années, de nombreuses voix s’élèvent contre son modèle économique, basé sur l’acquisition des droits de publications de travaux de recherche qui sont pour la plupart financés par de l’argent public. »
La vente d’articles scientifiques : du « #racket »
Je voudrais aussi mentionner qu’Elsevier n’est pas le créateur de ces articles. Tous les articles sur leur site ont été écrits par des chercheurs, et les chercheurs ne reçoivent pas d’argent sur ce qu’Elsevier collecte. Cela est très différent de l’industrie de la musique ou du film, où les créateurs reçoivent de l’argent pour chaque copie vendue. Mais l’économie des articles de recherche est très différente. Les auteurs de ces articles ne reçoivent pas d’argent. Pourquoi enverraient-ils leurs travaux à Elsevier dans ce cas ? Ils se sentent contraints de le faire, parce que Elsevier est un propriétaire de ce qu’on appelle des “ journaux à haut impact ”. Si un/e chercheur/se veut être reconnu, avoir une carrière – il ou elle a besoin de publier dans de tels journaux.
#Elsevier and the 25.2 Billion Dollar A Year Academic Publishing #Business
Les coûts cachés du #libre_accès
Chaque année, les universités suisses dépensent des millions de francs pour leurs abonnements à des revues scientifiques. L’alternative du libre accès y remédie, mais partiellement.
En cause notamment : la facture salée pour les universités et hautes écoles, qui se montait à 70 millions de francs pour la seule année 2015 selon une récente étude.
Global publishing giant wins $15 million damages against researcher for sharing publicly-funded knowledge
The court awarded $15 million damages to the scientific publisher on the basis of 100 articles published by #Elsevier that had been made available without permission on Sci-Hub and a similar site called LibGen. At the time of writing, Sci-Hub claims to hold 62 million scientific research papers – probably a majority of all those ever published – most of which are unauthorized copies. According to a report in the scientific journal Science last year, it is Elsevier which is most affected by #Sci-Hub’s activities:
#Alexandra_Elbakyan, une chercheuse du Kazakhstan qui a créé un outil pour libérer les recherches scientifiques
Le marché extraordinairement lucratif de la publication scientifique est-il mauvais pour la science ?
Même les scientifiques qui luttent pour une réforme n’ont souvent pas conscience des origines du système : comment, durant les années prospères après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, des entrepreneurs construisirent leurs fortunes en soustrayant l’édition des mains des scientifiques, développant ainsi l’industrie à une échelle inimaginable auparavant. Et nul n’a été plus créatif et ingénieux que Robert Maxwell qui a fait des revues scientifiques une spectaculaire machine à faire de l’argent permettant ainsi son ascension dans la société britannique. Maxwell deviendra un membre du Parlement, un baron de la presse défiant Rupert Murdoch, et une des figures les plus célèbres de la société britannique. Mais sa véritable importance était bien plus grande que ce que la majorité d’entre nous ne réalise. Aussi improbable que cela puisse paraître, peu de personnes durant le siècle dernier ont contribué davantage à la façon dont la science est traitée aujourd’hui que Maxwell.
German researchers resign from Elsevier journals in push for nationwide #open_access
Five leading German scientists have resigned from their editorial positions at journals published by Elsevier, the latest step in a battle over open-access and subscription policies between the Dutch publishing giant and a consortium of German libraries, universities, and research institutes.
Reçu aujourd’hui, le 13 décembre 2017, par mailing-list du #FNS (#Fonds_national_suisse_de_la_recherche_scientifique)
–-> le diable est dans le détail... et dans ce cas dans la promotion du #gold_open_access :
La « #Gold_Road » : les chercheuses et chercheurs publient directement dans une revue scientifique Open Access permettant un accès électronique, libre, gratuit et immédiat à tous ses articles. Les coûts de publications, connus sous le nom de « Article Processing Charges » (APCs), sont généralement payés par l’auteur, son institution ou un autre bailleur de fonds .
–-> je copie-colle pour que ça soit clair :
Les coûts de publications, connus sous le nom de « #Article_Processing_Charges » (#APCs), sont généralement payés par l’auteur, son institution ou un autre bailleur de fonds
Lettre envoyée le 13 décembre 2017 aux directeurs de labo de l’#Université_Grenoble_Alpes
L’éditeur Springer, qui publie plusieurs centaines de revues académiques au format numérique dans toutes les disciplines, fait actuellement l’objet d’une négociation ardue par le consortium Couperin, qui regroupe l’ensemble des établissements d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche français. Cet éditeur entend appliquer des tarifs exorbitants et l’objectif de la négociation est de le faire revenir sur ces prix.
On turning down poorly-paid, limited value, academic work
I’m sorry but I’m going to decline. I’ve written lots of short introductions on [this topic], including for another encyclopaedia, and I’d just be repeating myself. I’m unsure of the worth of such reference works anyway, and since I don’t have time to write everything I want to write, I’m unwilling to spend time on something I don’t. It might be different if this was either fairly paid, or would be available open access, rather than at high cost. I’m a little reluctant to recommend other people given the low pay for intellectual work, from a commercial publisher, but you might try one of the other authors of books on [this topic].
Remember #Aaron_Swartz. Génie généreux poussé au suicide il y a 5 ans.
« La différence entre Jobs, Gates et Aaron, c’est que lui voulait rendre le monde meilleur, pas gagner de l’argent »
Meet the pirate queen making academic papers free online
[Alexandra] Elbakyan’s scientific communism mirrors the Western association between democracy and information openness.
Un chiffre d’affaires de 8,3 milliards € pour #RELX (#Elsevier) en 2017
RELX, ex-Elsevier, parmi les plus importants groupes éditoriaux du monde, ne connaît pas la crise : son rapport annuel pour 2017 annonce un chiffre d’affaires de 8,395 milliards €, en hausse de 4 %, et des bénéfices de 2,6 milliards €. Si le géant de l’édition académique et de l’organisation d’événements s’inquiète d’une tendance de la recherche à prôner l’accès ouvert, ses résultats économiques restent stables année après année.
La science à portée de tous !
#Jean-Claude_Marcourt poursuit la mise en place du #décret « Open Access » en Fédération #Wallonie-Bruxelles.
Quand #Elsevier publie un rapport sur le #open_data... tu te dis que quelque chose ne tourne pas rond ou qu’il y a un beau business derrière... mais tu le signales quand même sur seenthis (même si tu ne l’as pas encore lu) :
OPEN DATA. THE RESEARCHER PERSPECTIVE
Contre les prix trop élevés d’accès aux publications, les scientifiques font le mur
En plein essor du libre accès aux publications scientifiques, de nouveaux outils émergent pour aider à trouver facilement – et sans payer – des articles placés derrière un coûteux « paywall » ou une autre forme d’abonnement
#Paywall : The Business of Scholarship
Paywall: The Business of Scholarship, produced by #Jason_Schmitt, provides focus on the need for open access to research and science, questions the rationale behind the $25.2 billion a year that flows into for-profit academic publishers, examines the 35-40% profit margin associated with the top academic publisher Elsevier and looks at how that profit margin is often greater than some of the most profitable tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Google. For more information please visit: Paywallthemovie.com
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/729037
#film #documentaire #film_documentaire
Swedish ISP punishes #Elsevier for forcing it to block #Sci-Hub by also blocking Elsevier
Norwegian research institutions have decided not to renew their agreement with #Elsevier
The offer from Elsevier is a long way from fulfilling the Norwegian requirements for open access to research articles. There is also no movement in transitioning the agreement from paying to read to paying for open publishing. The agreement with Elsevier will therefore not be renewed for 2019. The rectorates at the universities of #Bergen, #Oslo, #Tromsø and #Trondheim all support this decision.
Elsevier : un écart salarial de 40% entre les femmes et les hommes
En vertu de The Equality Act de 2010 au Royaume-Uni, les sociétés qui emploient plus de 250 personnes sont tenues de publier les chiffres sur les écarts de rémunérations entre leurs employés femmes et hommes. Le groupe éditorial Elsevier, qui emploie environ 1300 personnes en Grande-Bretagne, a donc publié ses données. Et l’écart salarial atteint près de 40 %...
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/771330
#hommes #femmes #salaire #inégalités #discriminations
Publications scientifiques : la justice française ordonne aux FAI de bloquer Sci-Hub et LibGen, à la demande des éditeurs Elsevier et #Springer_Nature
En France, comme dans d’autres pays, #Elsevier et #Springer Nature ont donc saisi la justice pour obliger les fournisseurs d’accès internet à bloquer #Sci-Hub ainsi que #LibGen, un moteur de recherche d’articles et livres scientifiques qui facilite aussi l’accès aux contenus soumis à un péage. Les deux hébergeraient respectivement plus de 70 millions et plus de 25 millions d’articles scientifiques, d’après les éditeurs.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/771342
#justice #France #FAI #blocage #contournement
Decline to review manuscript
“ I do not believe that journals with Articles processing charges propose a sustainable model for the publication of scientific research. Hence I must decline writing a report on this paper, nor will I suggest you colleagues. ”
Les universités suisses paient 70 millions aux éditeurs scientifiques, mais veulent les faire plier
Les institutions suisses dépensent plus de 70 millions de francs par an pour accéder aux articles publiés dans les revues scientifiques. Alors que l’open access gagne du terrain, la mainmise des éditeurs commerciaux sur la diffusion de travaux de recherche est toujours plus contestée. Universités, bibliothèques et chercheurs se sont alliés pour négocier avec les grandes maisons d’édition. Mais à peine lancées, les discussions prennent déjà du retard.
‘Too greedy’: mass walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees
Entire board resigns over actions of academic publisher whose profit margins outstrip even Google and Amazon.
More than 40 leading scientists have resigned en masse from the editorial board of a top science journal in protest at what they describe as the “greed” of publishing giant Elsevier.
Enquête sur les #dérives du #business très lucratif des #revues_scientifiques
Des éditeurs de revues scientifiques profitent de leur rôle central dans la diffusion du savoir pour s’enrichir, au détriment des universités et laboratoires, à bout de souffle. Les dérives se multiplient et menacent tant la confiance accordée à la science que la recherche elle-même.
Every Video Game Industry Layoff In 2024
►https://kotaku.com/game-industry-layoffs-how-many-2024-unity-twitch-1851155818
This year is already looking to be another horrible one for people making games
#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #business #ressources_humaines #licenciements
Exclusive: Unity Software to cut 25% of staff in ‘company reset’ continuation | Reuters
▻https://www.reuters.com/technology/unity-software-cutting-25-staff-company-reset-continuation-2024-01-08
Videogame software provider Unity Software (U.N) will target laying off approximately 25% of its workforce, or 1,800 jobs, the company said in a regulatory filing and internal company memo on Monday.
After the announcement, Unity shares were up nearly 5% in after-hours trading.
#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #finance #business #unity #licenciements
$46bn wiped off Tencent’s market cap after China proposes new gaming curbs - Nikkei Asia
▻https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/46bn-wiped-off-Tencent-s-market-cap-after-China-proposes-new-gaming-cur
Shares in China’s biggest gaming companies plunged in Hong Kong on Friday after Beijing issued draft regulations aimed at curbing players’ spending, with $46 billion wiped off Tencent Holdings’ market capitalization.
#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #finance #business #tencent_holdings #bourse #dépenses #budget #dépenses #mobile
EU’s AI Act Falls Short on Protecting Rights at Borders
Despite years of tireless advocacy by a coalition of civil society and academics (including the author), the European Union’s new law regulating artificial intelligence falls short on protecting the most vulnerable. Late in the night on Friday, Dec. 8, the European Parliament reached a landmark deal on its long-awaited Act to Govern Artificial Intelligence (AI Act). After years of meetings, lobbying, and hearings, the EU member states, Commission, and the Parliament agreed on the provisions of the act, awaiting technical meetings and formal approval before the final text of the legislation is released to the public. A so-called “global first” and racing ahead of the United States, the EU’s bill is the first ever regional attempt to create an omnibus AI legislation. Unfortunately, this bill once again does not sufficiently recognize the vast human rights risks of border technologies and should go much further protecting the rights of people on the move.
From surveillance drones patrolling the Mediterranean to vast databases collecting sensitive biometric information to experimental projects like robo-dogs and AI lie detectors, every step of a person’s migration journey is now impacted by risky and unregulated border technology projects. These technologies are fraught with privacy infringements, discriminatory decision-making, and even impact the life, liberty, and security of person seeking asylum. They also impact procedural rights, muddying responsibility over opaque and discretionary decisions and lacking clarity in mechanisms of redress when something goes wrong.
The EU’s AI Act could have been a landmark global standard for the protection of the rights of the most vulnerable. But once again, it does not provide the necessary safeguards around border technologies. For example, while recognizing that some border technologies could fall under the high-risk category, it is not yet clear what, if any, border tech projects will be included in the final high-risk category of projects that are subject to transparency obligations, human rights impact assessments, and greater scrutiny. The Act also has various carveouts and exemptions in place, for example for matters of national security, which can encapsulate technologies used in migration and border enforcement. And crucial discussions around bans on high-risk technologies in migration never even made it into the Parliament’s final deal terms at all. Even the bans which have been announced, for example around emotion recognition, are only in place in the workplace and education, not at the border. Moreover, what exactly is banned remains to be seen, and outstanding questions to be answered in the final text include the parameters around predictive policing as well as the exceptions to the ban on real-time biometric surveillance, still allowed in instances of a “threat of terrorism,” targeted search for victims, or the prosecution of serious crimes. It is also particularly troubling that the AI Act explicitly leaves room for technologies which are of particular appetite for Frontex, the EU’s border force. Frontex released its AI strategy on Nov. 9, signaling an appetite for predictive tools and situational analysis technology. These tools, which when used without safeguards, can facilitate illegal border interdiction operations, including “pushbacks,” in which the agency has been investigated. The Protect Not Surveil Coalition has been trying to influence European policy makers to ban predictive analytics used for the purposes of border enforcement. Unfortunately, no migration tech bans at all seem to be in the final Act.
The lack of bans and red lines under the high-risk uses of border technologies in the EU’s position is in opposition to years of academic research as well as international guidance, such as by then-U.N. Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, E. Tendayi Achiume. For example, a recently released report by the University of Essex and the UN’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner (OHCHR), which I co-authored with Professor Lorna McGregor, argues for a human rights based approach to digital border technologies, including a moratorium on the most high risk border technologies such as border surveillance, which pushes people on the move into dangerous terrain and can even assist with illegal border enforcement operations such as forced interdictions, or “pushbacks.” The EU did not take even a fraction of this position on border technologies.
While it is promising to see strict regulation of high-risk AI systems such as self-driving cars or medical equipment, why are the risks of unregulated AI technologies at the border allowed to continue unabated? My work over the last six years spans borders from the U.S.-Mexico corridor to the fringes of Europe to East Africa and beyond, and I have witnessed time and again how technological border violence operates in an ecosystem replete with the criminalization of migration, anti-migrant sentiments, overreliance on the private sector in an increasingly lucrative border industrial complex, and deadly practices of border enforcement, leading to thousands of deaths at borders. From vast biometric data collected without consent in refugee camps, to algorithms replacing visa officers and making discriminatory decisions, to AI lie detectors used at borders to discern apparent liars, the roll out of unregulated technologies is ever-growing. The opaque and discretionary world of border enforcement and immigration decision-making is built on societal structures which are underpinned by intersecting systemic racism and historical discrimination against people migrating, allowing for high-risk technological experimentation to thrive at the border.
The EU’s weak governance on border technologies will allow for more and more experimental projects to proliferate, setting a global standard on how governments will approach migration technologies. The United States is no exception, and in an upcoming election year where migration will once again be in the spotlight, there does not seem to be much incentive to regulate technologies at the border. The Biden administration’s recently released Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence does not offer a regulatory framework for these high-risk technologies, nor does it discuss the impacts of border technologies on people migrating, including taking a human rights based approach to the vast impacts of these projects on people migrating. Unfortunately, the EU often sets a precedent for how other countries govern technology. With the weak protections offered by the EU AI act on border technologies, it is no surprise that the U.S. government is emboldened to do as little as possible to protect people on the move from harmful technologies.
But real people already are at the centre of border technologies. People like Mr. Alvarado, a young husband and father from Latin America in his early 30s who perished mere kilometers away from a major highway in Arizona, in search of a better life. I visited his memorial site after hours of trekking through the beautiful yet deadly Sonora desert with a search-and-rescue group. For my upcoming book, The Walls have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, I was documenting the growing surveillance dragnet of the so-called smart border that pushes people to take increasingly dangerous routes, leading to increasing loss of life at the U.S.-Mexico border. Border technologies as a deterrent simply do not work. People desperate for safety – and exercising their internationally protected right to asylum – will not stop coming. They will instead more circuitous routes, and scholars like Geoffrey Boyce and Samuel Chambers have already documented a threefold increase in deaths at the U.S.-Mexico frontier as the so-called smart border expands. In the not so distant future, will people like Mr. Alvarado be pursued by the Department of Homeland Security’s recently announced robo-dogs, a military grade technology that is sometimes armed?
It is no accident that more robust governance around migration technologies is not forthcoming. Border spaces increasingly serve as testing grounds for new technologies, places where regulation is deliberately limited and where an “anything goes” frontier attitude informs the development and deployment of surveillance at the expense of people’s lives. There is also big money to be made in developing and selling high risk technologies. Why does the private sector get to time and again determine what we innovate on and why, in often problematic public-private partnerships which states are increasingly keen to make in today’s global AI arms race? For example, whose priorities really matter when we choose to create violent sound cannons or AI-powered lie detectors at the border instead of using AI to identify racist border guards? Technology replicates power structures in society. Unfortunately, the viewpoints of those most affected are routinely excluded from the discussion, particularly around areas of no-go-zones or ethically fraught usages of technology.
Seventy-seven border walls and counting are now cutting across the landscape of the world. They are both physical and digital, justifying broader surveillance under the guise of detecting illegal migrants and catching terrorists, creating suitable enemies we can all rally around. The use of military, or quasi-military, autonomous technology bolsters the connection between immigration and national security. None of these technologies, projects, and sets of decisions are neutral. All technological choices – choices about what to count, who counts, and why – have an inherently political dimension and replicate biases that render certain communities at risk of being harmed, communities that are already under-resourced, discriminated against, and vulnerable to the sharpening of borders all around the world.
As is once again clear with the EU’s AI Act and the direction of U.S. policy on AI so far, the impacts on real people seems to have been forgotten. Kowtowing to industry and making concessions for the private sector not to stifle innovation does not protect people, especially those most marginalized. Human rights standards and norms are the bare minimum in the growing panopticon of border technologies. More robust and enforceable governance mechanisms are needed to regulate the high-risk experiments at borders and migration management, including a moratorium on violent technologies and red lines under military-grade technologies, polygraph machines, and predictive analytics used for border interdictions, at the very least. These laws and governance mechanisms must also include efforts at local, regional, and international levels, as well as global co-operation and commitment to a human-rights based approach to the development and deployment of border technologies. However, in order for more robust policy making on border technologies to actually affect change, people with lived experiences of migration must also be in the driver’s seat when interrogating both the negative impacts of technology as well as the creative solutions that innovation can bring to the complex stories of human movement.
▻https://www.justsecurity.org/90763/eus-ai-act-falls-short-on-protecting-rights-at-borders
#droits #frontières #AI #IA #intelligence_artificielle #Artificial_Intelligence_Act #AI_act #UE #EU #drones #Méditerranée #mer_Méditerranée #droits_humains #technologie #risques #surveillance #discrimination #transparence #contrôles_migratoires #Frontex #push-backs #refoulements #privatisation #business #complexe_militaro-industriel #morts_aux_frontières #biométrie #données #racisme #racisme_systémique #expérimentation #smart_borders #frontières_intelligentes #pouvoir #murs #barrières_frontalières #terrorisme
The Walls Have Eyes. Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
A chilling exposé of the inhumane and lucrative sharpening of borders around the globe through experimental surveillance technology
“Racism, technology, and borders create a cruel intersection . . . more and more people are getting caught in the crosshairs of an unregulated and harmful set of technologies touted to control borders and ‘manage migration,’ bolstering a multibillion-dollar industry.” —from the introduction
In 2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced it was training “robot dogs” to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border against migrants. Four-legged machines equipped with cameras and sensors would join a network of drones and automated surveillance towers—nicknamed the “smart wall.” This is part of a worldwide trend: as more people are displaced by war, economic instability, and a warming planet, more countries are turning to A.I.-driven technology to “manage” the influx.
Based on years of researching borderlands across the world, lawyer and anthropologist Petra Molnar’s The Walls Have Eyes is a truly global story—a dystopian vision turned reality, where your body is your passport and matters of life and death are determined by algorithm. Examining how technology is being deployed by governments on the world’s most vulnerable with little regulation, Molnar also shows us how borders are now big business, with defense contractors and tech start-ups alike scrambling to capture this highly profitable market.
With a foreword by former U.N. Special Rapporteur E. Tendayi Achiume, The Walls Have Eyes reveals the profound human stakes, foregrounding the stories of people on the move and the daring forms of resistance that have emerged against the hubris and cruelty of those seeking to use technology to turn human beings into problems to be solved.
▻https://thenewpress.com/books/walls-have-eyes
#livre #Petra_Molnar
Bobby Kotick : With gratitude - Activision Blizzard King
▻https://newsroom.activisionblizzard.com/p/bobby-kotick-december-note
Lettre d’adieu de Bobby Kotick, P-DG d’Activision Blizzard, qui quitte la société, après un rachat de la société par Microsoft :
A note from outgoing Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick, two months after the completion of the company’s merger with Microsoft.
Microsoft announces more Xbox leadership changes as Activision’s Bobby Kotick departs - The Verge
▻https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/20/24009129/microsoft-gaming-xbox-phil-spencer-bobby-kotick-activision-leadership-chan
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23926022/acastro_STK048_01.jpg)
Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick is stepping down officially December 29th. Microsoft has not appointed a direct replacement and instead has rolled the suite of Activision Blizzard executives — including Blizzard president Mike Ybarra, Activision publishing president Rob Kostich, and Activision Blizzard vice chair Thomas Tippl — under Microsoft’s game content and studios president Matt Booty.
#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #activision_blizzard #microsoft #business #acquisition #ressources_humaines #bobby_kotick #démission