Daily Archives: June 13, 2021

A House antitrust panel on Friday unveileda bipartisan agenda made up of five bills that would give regulators greater authority to rein in the power of tech giants.

The billsput forwardby leaders of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee followa blockbuster report released by the Judiciarypanel last year alleging ways that Alphabet, Amazon, Apple and Facebook abuse their market power. The report was approved on a party-line vote earlier this year.

Each of the five bills unveiled on Friday includes a Republican co-sponsor.

A bill sponsored by subcommitteeChairman David CicillineDavid CicillineHillicon Valley: House targets tech giants with antitrust bills | Oversight chair presses JBS over payment to hackers | Trump spokesman to join tech company | YouTube suspends GOP senator House unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants On the Money:Tech giants face rising pressure from shareholder activists |House Democrats urge IRS to reverse Trump-era rule reducing donor disclosure |Sen. Warren, Jamie Dimon spar over overdraft fees at Senate hearing MORE (D-R.I.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Lance GoodenLance GoodenHillicon Valley: House targets tech giants with antitrust bills | Oversight chair presses JBS over payment to hackers | Trump spokesman to join tech company | YouTube suspends GOP senator House unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants Roy introduces bill blocking Chinese Communist Party members from buying US land MORE (R-Texas) would prohibit tech giants from self-preferencing their own products on their platforms, targeting alleged anti-competitive behaviorfrom Apple in its App Store and Amazon on its digital marketplace.

Another bill, sponsored by Reps. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalNew Alzheimer's drug sparks backlash over FDA, pricing Hillicon Valley: House targets tech giants with antitrust bills | Oversight chair presses JBS over payment to hackers | Trump spokesman to join tech company | YouTube suspends GOP senator Simmering Democratic tensions show signs of boiling over MORE (D-Wash.) and Gooden, would eliminate the ability of dominant platforms to use their control over multiple businesses to self-preference or disadvantage competitors in ways that undermine free and fair competition.

Rep. Hakeem JeffriesHakeem Sekou JeffriesPelosi signals no further action against Omar House unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants Wray grilled on FBI's handling of Jan. 6 MORE (D-N.Y.) and ranking member Ken BuckKenneth (Ken) Robert BuckHouse unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants Roy introduces bill blocking Chinese Communist Party members from buying US land Conservative group pressuring lawmakers with financial ties to tech giants MORE (R-Colo.)are sponsoring a bill that would prohibit platforms from acquiring competitive threats by dominant platforms.

This bill comes as Facebook is facing a lawsuit from theFederal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general that targets its acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, and similar criticism has been raised over Googles deal to buy fitness tracking company Fitbit.

Another bill sponsored by Reps. Mary Gay ScanlonMary Gay ScanlonHouse unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants House Democrats to Schumer: Vote again on Jan. 6 probe Democrats introduce bill seeking to protect voting rights of people in subsidized housing MORE (D-Pa.) and Burgess Owens (R-Utah) would require online platforms to lower barriers for users and businesses to switch data to other services.

The final bill introduced Friday by Reps. Joe NeguseJoseph (Joe) NeguseHouse unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants Overnight Health Care: House Democrats pressure Biden to expand Medicare | Intel community: Competing COVID-19 origin theories not 'more likely than the other' | WHO: Africa in 'urgent need' of 20 million second vaccine doses 70 percent of House Democrats pressure Biden to expand Medicare in American Families Plan MORE (D-Colo.) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) would increase the filing fees paid to antitrust agencies for merger reviews. Its a companion bill to one introduced by Sens. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharHouse unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants Democrats reintroduce bill to create 'millionaires surtax' Senate Democrats befuddled by Joe Manchin MORE (D-Minn.) and Chuck GrassleyChuck GrassleyHouse unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants Iowa governor questions lack of notice on migrant children flights to Des Moines Senate crafts Pelosi alternative on drug prices MORE (R-Iowa) that was added to the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act that the upper chamber passed Tuesday.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have been critical of the market power of tech giants, but House Republicans had been hesitant to back some of the recommendations outlined by Democrats in last years report.

Although the report did not receive GOP support, Buck at the time released a separate GOP-backed report that agreed with the majoritys staff views of the effects of big techs market dominance but opposed some of the recommendations.

In a statement announcing the legislation Friday, Buck underscored the need for immediacy on the issue.

These companies have maintained monopoly power in the online marketplace by using a variety of anticompetitive behaviors to stifle competition. This legislation breaks up Big Techs monopoly power to control what Americans see and say online, and fosters an online market that encourages innovation and provides American small businesses with a fair playing field. Doing nothing is not an option, we must act now, Buck said.

Cicilline touted the bills as a way to level the playing field.

Right now, unregulated tech monopolies have too much power over our economy. They are in a unique position to pick winners and losers, destroy small businesses, raise prices on consumers, and put folks out of work. Our agenda will level the playing field and ensure the wealthiest, most powerful tech monopolies play by the same rules as the rest of us, he said in a statement.

The bipartisan bills are already facing pushback from the tech industry.

Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress, a self-described center left tech industry coalition, arguedthe legislation could lead to banning conveniences for consumers from Amazon, Apple and Google.

Instead of focusing on helping families, these proposals inexplicably target a bunch of technological conveniences that most people really like, Kovacevich said in a statement.

But other companies that have been critical of the leading tech giants, such as Spotify and Roku, cheered the proposed legislation.

The agenda comes as thebiggest tech firms are also facing increased legal challenges over allegations of anti-competitive behavior.

In addition to the case the FTC and many states are beginning against Facebook, Google is facing a series of antitrust lawsuits from states and the DOJ.

Last month, Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine (D) filed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, alleging the e-commercebehemothhas engaged in anti-competitive business practices.

The companies have all defended themselves against the allegations of anticompetitive behavior.

Apple is also facing antitrust allegations, but from the developer behind the popular Fortnite game, Epic Games.

The lawsuit in California federal court wrapped up last month and a decision is expected from the judge next month. The case revolves around Apples 30 percent commission fees for apps, and its requirement for developers to use the Apple in-app payment system.

Apple has defended its policies, arguing that it helps maintain privacy and security for users.

Updated at 3:27 p.m.

Read the original post:

House unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants ...

House lawmakers proposed a raft of bipartisan legislation aimed at reining in the countrys biggest tech companies, including a bill that seeks to make Amazon.com Inc. and other large corporations effectively split in two or shed their private-label products.

The bills, announced Friday, amount to the biggest congressional broadside yet on a handful of technology companiesincluding Alphabet Inc.s Google, Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc. as well as Amazon whose size and power have drawn growing scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators in the U.S. and Europe.

If the bills become lawa prospect that faces significant hurdlesthey could substantially alter the most richly valued companies in America and reshape an industry that has extended its impact into nearly every facet of work and life.

One of the proposed measures, titled the Ending Platform Monopolies Act, seeks to require structural separation of Amazon and other big technology companies to break up their businesses. It would make it unlawful for a covered online platform to own a business that utilizes the covered platform for the sale or provision of products or services or that sells services as a condition for access to the platform. The platform company also couldnt own businesses that create conflicts of interest, such as by creating the incentive and ability for the platform to advantage its own products over competitors.

A separate bill takes a different approach to target platforms self-preferencing. It would bar platforms from conduct that advantages the covered platform operators own products, services, or lines of business over those of another business user, or that excludes or disadvantages other businesses.

Continue reading here:

House Bills Seek to Break Up Amazon and Other Big Tech ...

Lawmakers on Friday debuted bipartisan bills that could fundamentally change how Big Tech does business in the U.S.

Driving the news: If passed, the bills could force Apple to change how it runs its app store, break apart Amazon's control of its marketplace and halt Facebook and Google from buying smaller rivals in an effort to remake the online ecosystem.

Why it matters: The legislation is the latest attempt by the government to curb the power of tech giants.

Details: House lawmakers have sponsored five bipartisan bills that represent the culmination of a years-long inquiry into the power of Big Tech.

What they're saying: A White House official tells Axios the administration will work with Congress as the process moves forward.

1. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act, led by Democratic Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who helms the antitrust subcommittee, and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Tex.), is meant to prevent dominant companies from unfairly disadvantaging rivals, such as preventing smaller companies from establishing their own prices for goods and services.

2. The Platform Competition and Opportunity Act, led by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), bans major online players from buying competitive threats. The bill is also supported by Reps. Cicilline, Nadler, Buck, Cawthorn, Gooden along with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl).

3. The Ending Platform Monopolies Act, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash) and supported by Reps. Cicilline, Nadler, Gooden, Cawthorn and Buck, could break up Amazon by making it illegal for the company to both own the platform and offer competing services on it.

4. The Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching (ACCESS) Act, led by Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa), and supported Reps. Cicilline, Nadler, Buck, Cawthorn and Burgess Owens (R-UT) is meant to increase competition by forcing companies to give consumers the ability to switch data between platforms.

5. The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, led by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Co) and supported by Reps. Buck and Cawthorn along with Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), would give enforcement agencies more teeth and resources by requiring higher fees for mergers valued at $1 billion and more.

Go deeper:

Murdoch empire pushes Republicans to back tech antitrust bills

Lawmakers ready antitrust bills to take on Big Tech

New tech antitrust hurdle: GOP divisions

What the Big Tech hearings really accomplished

House Judiciary's tech antitrust report urges sweeping legal changes

Editor's note: This story has been updated with more co-sponsors who signed onto the bills and a statement from the White House.

Continued here:

Congress unveils bills to dismantle tech giants - Axios

One of the biggest changes the COVID pandemic brought to the business world was the rapid evolution of remote work. What was once a mere perk no one could count on immediately turned into a core part of how white collar work took place.

Now, with the pandemic on the decline in the US, businesses are eager to rev up the capitalist machine. This raises a question: Should they keep full-time remote work open as an option or instead try to stick the cork back in the remote access software bottle? Or pick a compromise somewhere between the two, requiring two or three days back in the office per week?

There's no rulebook to follow, and major tech corporations haven't yet to agree. Just in the last week, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon have all updated their opinions. Spoiler alert, they're not on the same page.

For a company that just announced great new upgrades to its Facetime software, Apple sure doesn't seem to want its employees using it. The company's stance, revealed last week, is that all employees must come into the office on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, with an additional two weeks of fully remote work per year.

It's an expansion of their pre-pandemic policy, but still establishes an expectation of in-person attendance that won't accommodate anyone who needs to spend most of the week remote. The $2 trillion tech giant is clashing with its own employees over the matter, according to an internal letter:

We would like to take the opportunity to communicate a growing concern among our colleagues, says the letter, reported on by The Verge, That Apples remote/location-flexible work policy, and the communication around it, have already forced some of our colleagues to quit. Without the inclusivity that flexibility brings, many of us feel we have to choose between either a combination of our families, our well-being, and being empowered to do our best work, or being a part of Apple.

The letter comes with a series of formal requests, with the biggest being that Apple considers remote and location-flexible work decisions to be as autonomous for a team to decide as are hiring decisions.

Check out your top remote access software options over here

Just today Amazon revealed in an internal memo that office workers can now stay remote for two days out of each week, with an additional allotment of four weeks per year in which to work fully remote. It's the same as Apple's policies (with an extra two weeks of remotely working), but it's a shift towards remote work from Amazon's previous stance.

It is the first big update to the company's position on the remote work issue since March 2021, when Amazon said it would be returning to an office-centric culture. The clarification follows a backlash from employees who didn't want to leave their remote lifestyles, the Seattle Times notes.

We may see more compromises like this, as company cultures push for in-office work on one side while employees ask for more flexibility on the other. Then there's Facebook.

Facebook has been steadily leaning into the remote work ethos. It initially said in May 2020 that only senior and experienced employees could request permanent remote work, although CEO Zuckerberg said at the time that 50% of the company might be working remotely in another decade.

Facebook announced yesterday that all full-time employees can now work from home, as long as their jobs can be done remotely. They can even request to work across international borders, though there's no word on how likely they are to be approved. Those who choose to work in-person will be asked to come into that physical office at least half the time.

It's the most lenient new policy of those announced in the last week though it might not be as good as it sounds. One potential catch went unmentioned: Facebook has previously mentioned reducing the pay of those who move to cheaper areas.

The post-pandemic rules aren't set in stone, and we can expect to see plenty more employee letters arguing the case for expanded flexibility in the near future.

Excerpt from:

How Tech Giants Are Evolving Their Remote Work Stances - Tech.co

Amazon(NASDAQ:AMZN) announced on Thursday that it is following the lead of a number of other tech companies and recalling workers to the office, but only for three days a week. Employees will be allowed to continue to work out of their homes the other two days.

As the economy continues reopening after the pandemic, companies that allowed employees to telecommute to their jobs have begun opening their offices again, but are doing so tentatively, only for a few days a week.

Among those who have moved to the 3-and-2 schedule of office and home working include Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), Google, IBM (NYSE:IBM), and salesforce.com (NYSE:CRM).

Image source: Getty Images.

In a post on the aboutamazon.com site, Amazon said it is trying to balance what provides flexibility for its employees, but also what works best for customers.

As a result, some employees like hardware engineers and those in frontline operations will continue to work from the office, just as they always have, while others, such as sales and customer service employees, can continue working from home. Everyone else will adopt a hybrid schedule, though exceptions will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Conversely, corporate employees will have the option to work remotely for up to four weeks out of the year with no expectation they need to show up at the office.

While many would view the flexibility companies are offering as a benefit, some employees still see it as a burden. Apple employees recently sent CEO Tim Cook an open letter demanding they be allowed to continue working from home, expressing disappointment he didn't take into account their feelings about returning to the office.

They said Apple's record earnings show a remote workforce works, and they should be able to work from home if they want.

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the official recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. Were motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.

See the original post:

Amazon Joins Other Tech Giants in Setting "3 & 2" Workweek - The Motley Fool

The conservative group American Principles Project is putting pressure on Republicans to be wary of groups that have financial ties with tech giants, according to a letter published Monday.

The group warns congressional Republicans to be cautious about meeting with organizations that are accepting funds from the Silicon Valley giants.

The letter is hinged on the narrative conservatives have been pushing that tech giants are censoring content with an anti-conservative bias,though there is a lack of evidence to back upthose claims.

Each and every year, Big Tech is spending incalculable sums of money to launder its worldview, one that sacrifices American sovereignty and eliminates individual rights, through a network of seemingly disinterested conservative advocacy groups. Alas, it is hardly surprising then that as the threats to free speech online have grown, so too have the checks written by Big Tech, Jon Schweppe, the group's director of policy and government affairs, wrote in the letter.

He specifically calls out Facebook and Google. Both companiesback right-leaning think tanks and advocacy groups including the Cato Institute and Americans for Tax Reform.

Make no mistake, a meeting with an organization that takes notable sums of money from Google is no different than a meeting with a member of Googles Public Policy team, Schweppe wrote.

The letter does not go so far as to call for Republicans to stop meeting with the companies or groups that accept their funding entirely, but rather to carefully consider your interactions with Big Tech-funded groups especially when discussing issues related to content moderation and antitrust.

The letter was firstreported by Axios.

The pressure comes after seven House Republicans, led by the ranking member of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, Rep. Ken BuckKenneth (Ken) Robert BuckHouse unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants Roy introduces bill blocking Chinese Communist Party members from buying US land Conservative group pressuring lawmakers with financial ties to tech giants MORE (Colo.), in Aprilpledged to reject donations from Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple and Twitter.

But some Republicans, including five of those who signed on to the pledge, are not eligible for donations from some of the tech giants, including Facebook and Google, because they challenged the certification of election results to confirm President BidenJoe BidenEx-Biden adviser says Birx told him she hoped election turned out 'a certain way' Cheney rips Arizona election audit: 'It is an effort to subvert democracy' News leaders deal with the post-Trump era MOREs win ahead of the deadly insurrection at the Capitol.

Facebook and Google have paused donations to the Republicans who challenged the election results.

Read the original post:

Conservative group pressuring lawmakers with financial ties to tech giants | TheHill - The Hill

Data is apparently the new oil, and unlike the nonrenewable petroleum liquid we unearth with giant drilling rigs, its an unlimited resource that can be extracted in seconds. So why do we give it away for free?

To find an answer, you have to look back to the early days of the internet.

Decades ago, tech giants and the people who signed up for their services shook hands on a tacit pact. In exchange for access to their apps for free, companies like Facebook and Google would reserve a portion of our screens for advertisements. At the time, it seemed like a fair deal. After all, we were already used to ads on other content channels such as newspapers and televisions.

While years later the premise remains the same, that agreements boundaries have expanded in unimaginable ways at the cost of peoples privacy. Tech platforms have built empires by siphoning heaps of data from our internet (and real-life) activities to predict behaviors, by selling it (often covertly) to third-party brokers, and by leveraging that data to gain insights that other tech companies simply dont have. Whether youve tapped on a button or relocated to a new home, chances are these internet giants know about it.

This business model turned out to be outrageously profitable. In 2007, Facebook made about $150 million. Last year, it earned over $85 billion.

These companies wouldnt be as profitable as they are if they relied on private subscriptions instead of ads because, with a surplus of data, they can target way more people, extract invaluable insights out of it, and enable endless targeted campaigns, says Dr. Murat Kantarcioglu, a computer science professor and director of the Data Security and Privacy Lab at the University of Texas at Dallas.

An ad-free version will kill their services, he added.

So, if our personal information is such an indispensable cog in these multibillion-dollar businesses and the web itself, should we be getting a piece of the pie? A legion of emerging startups believe so, and they want to balance that increasingly uneven trade by paying you for your data.

Most recently, Datacy, a Delaware-based company, raised $2.4 million to help you make your data earn for you. Its browser add-on tracks you and collects anonymous data on which websites you visited and what kind of computer you are on, as well as information you may choose to link to from third-party platforms like Facebook.

Datacy puts your data up for sale, alongside other users, and depending on how much buyers bid on it, it deposits a monetary amount in your account. It usually ranges from $5 to $10.

Paroma Indilo, Datacys CEO, says if businesses have the option to acquire high-quality data directly from people, they wont have to rely on shady and intrusive tracking practices. Arming users with controls over what and how much of their data is being processed and in whose hands its ending up in will foster a healthier and more transparent market, he added in a conversation with Digital Trends.

That [healthy data market] can only happen when the relationship between buyers and sellers is more transactional, Indilo told Digital Trends, where both parties benefit proportionately and have an informed choice in deciding what to sell, to whom, for what purpose, and for what price.

Datacy isnt alone. Several data-monetization apps have cropped up over the years, although most of them havent quite been able to capture mass appeal.

Killi, a publicly traded Canadian firm, is one of the more successful ones. It works across mobile and the web, and it allows you to sell a wider range of your information, including your browsing habits, online shopping history, and location. Based on how regularly and how much youre willing to auction data off, you earn points that you can later swap for vouchers like Amazon gift cards.

So far, Killi hosts more than 100 million accounts although its unclear how many of them are actively trading their data and claims its adding at least a million new ones every week. It also told Digital Trends it has clients in leading companies such as Microsoft and HP that are looking for first-party data.

Microsoft and HP didnt respond to requests for comment from Digital Trends.

Neil Sweeney, Killis CEO, calls the data market a black box of human arbitrage and says the company wants to change that by letting people decide what they want to do with their information online.

The idea of selling your data, something which you are already giving away for free, sounds like a bargain many internet users have been waiting for. But theres a reason why data-monetization apps have struggled to go viral.

Datas value lies at scale. Ad platforms, as well as machine learning algorithms, rely on information from billions of data points for effective yields. But these data-monetization apps dont have that volume to entice data buyers, and if they dont have enough buyers, they wont be able to shell out more than a few bucks to users. When Facebook, for instance, began actively tracking its users, it already had millions of profiles.

But what if Facebook and Google were forced to cough up a data tax by law? A few states and politicians such as Andrew Yang have proposed doing just that. The bottleneck here, however, is that such initiatives will be a nightmare to implement because its close to impossible to put a price on an individuals data. There are dozens of factors that could influence the compensation, and if left up to unregulated tech giants, they can manipulate their models to come up with the lowest figures.

Kantarcioglu feels that as long as there are safeguards to prevent misuse, theres merit in services like Datacy since they will help shed a light on what is the market value of a persons data. It will be an interesting data point for us to understand the value of the data, how we could price it, how we could understand the value creation, he told Digital Trends.

Irrespective of the value, advocates believe personal data monetization could worsen user privacy and undermine its future as a fundamental right. It can potentially commoditize data and turn it into a product, which ultimately will allow tech companies to exploit it however they wish to by paying just a paltry fraction of their revenues each year.

More importantly, such initiatives couple potentially spawn an environment of pay-for-privacy models that could put vulnerable groups at a disadvantage, says Stacy-Ann Elvy, a law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law. It will lead to a digital divide between people who can afford to protect their information by opting out of the data tax and those who will have to trade their data to retain free access to services, she added.

What we urgently need today, Elvy says, are movements like the California Consumer Privacy Act that could help consumers better understand their privacy rights and make it easier for them to exercise them. Whether consumers will trust entities associated with such movements to act on their behalf or in their best interest remains to be seen, she said.

See the original post:

Should Big Tech pay you for your data? Its possible, but also problematic - Digital Trends

Incoming Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon says he is for a flexible return to office policy for the tech giant's more than 41,000 strong global workforce.

"The reality is not the same in all locations, we are a global company. And things are improving significantly in the United States and San Diego where our headquarters is. And we have a phased approach to bring employees back to the workplace, we are now doing phase one. We expect there is going to be some flexibility," Amon said on Yahoo Finance Live.

Amon joined Qualcomm as an engineer in 1995 and rose the ranks to become president before being announced as the company's next CEO in early January. He officially takes over the top job on June 30.

Amon will be tasked with not only unleashing 5G opportunities and diversifying the company away from mobile phones, but also executing on the return to office plan post COVID-19 for workers around the world.

"The way we are approaching those things is there is a lot of good things about being connected with the company that we learned over the pandemic. I think we are going to keep what is good. And we are going to go back to also what's good being in the workplace. Of course it is not the same situation everywhere India still in a tough situation there," Amon explained.

Qualcomm company office in Silicon Valley. Qualcomm Incorporated is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications equipment company - San Jose, CA, USA - 2020

Qualcomm's views on the return to office life somewhat jibes with key customer Apple.

Apple CEO Tim Cook recently sent a letter to employees saying they would have to return to the office on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays beginning this fall. Most employees will have the option to work remotely twice a week.

Cook stressed that video calls cannot "replicate" the creativity that often pops up in an office setting.

The stance of both companies differs a bit from social media giants Twitter and Facebook. Both tech companies have said employees could work from home forever.

Flexible work options beyond the pandemic appears to be what most workers want.

Story continues

More than 50% of employees in a new McKinsey survey said they would like their organizations to adopt more flexible hybrid virtual-working models. "A hybrid model can help organizations make the most of talent wherever it resides, lower costs, and strengthen organizational performance," the survey's authors wrote.

Brian Sozzi is an editor-at-large and anchor at Yahoo Finance. Follow Sozzi on Twitter @BrianSozzi and on LinkedIn.

Whats hot from Sozzi:

Watch Yahoo Finance LIVE on the Yahoo Finance app, Verizon FIOS channel 604, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Roku, Samsung TV, Pluto TV, and YouTube. Online catch Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, SmartNews, and LinkedIn.

Original post:

Why this tech giant will have a flexible return to office policy for workers - Yahoo Tech