|Day's Range||140.05 - 140.05|
Outdoorsy is looking to become travelers' one-stop-shop to plan their next vacation. For the first time on Yahoo Finance the rental RV company announced the launch of 'experiences.' This will allow customers to book tours, activities, and attractions right from its website. The co-founder of Outdoorsy Jen Young joins Yahoo Finance to share the details.
A new bipartisan bill would require big tech companies to disclose how much consumer data is worth and how it's being used.
Plus, the US may expel yet more of Huawei and a Senate bill would force big tech to disclose how much your data is worth.
When Google launched its "Be Internet Awesome" curriculum for educators acouple of years ago, it focused its efforts on teaching children about onlinesafety
Are you investing in Microsoft? Learn the main competitors of technology giant Microsoft and the stiff competition facing in this technology industry leader.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Facebook Inc. appears to be moving ahead with the Supreme Court-like content oversight board it has been discussing for a year. It’s a worthy step but also a 1% solution for a unimaginably vast problem. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-founder and chief executive officer, has been talking for more than a year about an independent authority that would become a final arbiter about whether a social network post should stay online or be wiped away for breaching the company’s rules against hate speech, calls to violence or other abuses. People can also appeal to the independent body if they think one of their posts has been unfairly flagged or removed. Facebook has solicited feedback on the structure for this Supreme Court-like body, and Bloomberg News on Monday described some of the company's deliberations to come up with the best structure and policies. (Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor and Bloomberg Opinion columnist, pitched the concept of an independent oversight board to Facebook. I haven’t spoken with him about this oversight body.)This is a promising idea, and I’m glad that Facebook, Google’s YouTube, Twitter Inc. and other internet gathering places are all (belatedly) thinking hard about how to deal with the inevitable and sometimes deadly downsides of giving billions of people a public megaphone. Sensible principles, however, must be tested and revised against reality, and I hope when the board does its work it will give the public opportunities to assess how well it’s working. But no one can pretend that this board of perhaps dozens of people will be able to tackle more than a minuscule fraction of disputed posts a year. That’s useful for high-profile judgment calls, such as the doctored video of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that surfaced recently on Facebook and for which Facebook faced criticism about how it handled the situation. Indeed, a Facebook executive suggested recently that the oversight board would be helpful for “dozens” of cases every year in which there is debate within the company on the right approach for a post or video. Dozens of cases are immaterial to Facebook’s scale. The company says that it gets millions of reports every week from people worldwide who believe posts have nudity, graphic violence, hate speech or other potentially inappropriate materials. Many of the judgement calls are made by relatively low-wage contractors who are left scarred by the experience of sifting through the worst of humanity to make split-second calls on whether a post violates Facebook’s rules. It is the hidden horror show behind the internet’s most popular hangouts. A Supreme Court would be the opposite end of this. A high gloss, highly selective, presumably well-paid group that would would deliberate how to best balance free expression and the protection of people from harassment, violence or manipulation. Facebook likes ideas that “scale,” and the Supreme Court cannot possible scale to the 2.7 billion people who use Facebook’s internet hangouts. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing, but let’s also not pretend an oversight board is anything close to a silver bullet. I also can’t help think that there is too much focus on Facebook’s policies and procedures and not enough on what the company does in real life. Facebook’s favorite excuse is that terrorism, calls to violence, promotions of illegal drugs, child exploitation or other abuses “are not allowed” on its internet hangouts. That’s because Facebook has written rules, and those rules have specific prohibitions against all manner of misdeeds. And yet all those abuses are rampant because Facebook exists in the real world and not on paper.Facebook is a reflection of the world, with the best and worst of humanity amplified and exposed to a wide audience. That means Facebook’s good intentions don’t matter. Its purported diligence and earnestness do not matter. What matters is what the company does when its good intentions meet reality, and too often Facebook has failed in that regard. Groups in Myanmar complained repeatedly that people in the country were systematically harnessing Facebook to sow hatred and violence against the Rohingya ethnic minority in the country, and yet Facebook could not or would not do anything to stop it. Would the supporters of the Rohingya in Myanmar be served by a Facebook Supreme Court? Would it matter if they appealed to an oversight board about genocide after the fact? Again and again, people broadcast in real time acts of violence on Facebook, and the company believes it should continue to allow live video on its site that is difficult or impossible to police until after the harm has already been done. Setting and enforcing rules for 2.7 billion people is not simple. Dealing with an open space for billions of people is often reactionary. Facebook too often ignores systematic problems until someone important complains or until it’s too glaringly obvious to ignore. Each country also has its own norms about the appropriate balance of free expression and harmful speech. And one post or photo on its own may be innocuous but it becomes dangerous as part of a pattern to encourage violence or sow division in an electorate. Assuming it is transparent about its work, having an oversight board for Facebook’s high-profile content disputes is a good step. But the public and regulators should continue to press Facebook and its peers on the bigger, pernicious problems.To contact the author of this story: Shira Ovide at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Shira Ovide is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. She previously was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
slipped Monday after a top analyst lowered his price target on Google's corporate parent. Alphabet's stock price fell 0.52% to $1,116.06, or a decline of $5.79, following a decision by a MoffettNathanson analyst Michael Nathanson to cut his price target to $1,250 a share, down from $1,290 previously.
(Bloomberg) -- Qualcomm Inc. faces another European Union antitrust fine a year after being ordered to pay 997 million-euro ($1.13 billion) penalty for thwarting rival suppliers to Apple Inc., according to three people familiar with the latest case.The chip giant may be fined as soon as next month, said the people, who asked not to be named because the process isn’t public. That would make it the last U.S. technology firm to get a large antitrust penalty from Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.Vestager is due to step down later this year after punishing Google with more than $9 billion in fines and ordering Apple to pay more than 14 billion euros in back taxes. She warned in May she was "definitely not done yet" with big tech as she weighs potential new probes into Amazon.com Inc., Google and Apple.The EU’s current Qualcomm investigation targets 3G chips for internet mobile dongles sold between 2009 and 2011. Regulators allege these were sold below cost in order to push Icera, now owned by Nvidia Corp., out of the market. The EU took the unusual move of sending an extra antitrust complaint to Qualcomm last year to bolster its arguments of a "price-cost" test it used to show far below cost the prices were.Qualcomm and the European Commission declined to comment on the fine. The timing of the penalty could slip beyond the EU’s August summer break, one of the people said.Last year Qualcomm was handed the EU’s fifth-largest antitrust penalty over payments to Apple that the EU said were an illegal ploy to ensure only its chips were used in iPhones and iPads. Qualcomm is challenging the fine at the EU courts.Qualcomm, the largest maker of chips for mobile phones, is unique among semiconductor makers in that it gets most of its profit from licensing patents. Makers of handsets pay the company royalties, whether or not they use its chips. That lucrative profit pool has come under attack as governments around the world scrutinized Qualcomm’s business practices.To contact the reporters on this story: Aoife White in Brussels at email@example.com;Gaspard Sebag in Paris at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at email@example.com, Peter Chapman, Molly SchuetzFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Alphabet Inc.'s Google said on Monday it will invest an additional 1 billion euros ($1.14 billion) to build data centers in the Netherlands, including a new facility in Middenmeer. The company had previously said it is spending 1.5 billion euros to build and then expand a data center currently under construction in Eemshaven, Netherlands. On a call with reporters, Joe Kava, Google's chief of data centers, said the two sites will employ around 500 people once they are built.
New investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to questions about the marital history of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota paper says. Meanwhile, a bill wants tech firms to disclose the value of users’ data.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom urged Bay Area business leaders to focus on the advantages of doing business in the Golden State while also promising action on the state's homeless problem that's garnering national headlines.
(Bloomberg) -- Alphabet Inc.’s Google said it would invest 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) to expand its data center infrastructure in the Netherlands.A new facility will be built in Agriport, about 30 miles north of Amsterdam, while an existing site about 130 miles further north, in Eemshaven, will be expanded.In a statement Monday, Joe Kava, vice president of Google’s Global Data Centers, noted that the Netherlands was attractive for its "ample sustainable energy sources."Tech companies are choosing to locate their data centers in regions of the world with access to renewable power, reducing their reliance on fossil fuels. Rich wind and hydroelectric resources, as well as cooler climates that help save on air conditioning, make places like the Netherlands prime destinations. Facebook Inc. has a facility in Lulea, northern Sweden, and Microsoft Corp.’s data center in the Netherlands is a regional hub for its cloud computing services.Google didn’t specify what its new facilities would be used for.In 2018, the search giant announced it had invested 1.5 billion euros into its Netherlands data center operations. The expansions announced Monday bring that total to 2.5 billion euros, it said.To contact the reporter on this story: Nate Lanxon in London at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Giles Turner at email@example.com, Peter ChapmanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Enter the phrase “reach for yield” into Google, and the search engine will return 335,000 results in less than a second. So no-one should be blindsided by the revelation that investment managers have been tempted to boost returns by buying riskier securities in recent years. Regulators should still be asking hard questions right now of the portfolio managers they oversee.H2O Asset Management, a unit of French bank Natixis SA, is seeing billions of euros head for the door after the Financial Times reported last week that the fund had bought a bunch of bonds linked to entrepreneur Lars Windhorst.While the firm was transparent in reporting the securities it held, it took the FT to trace the threads between an Italian lingerie maker and a German real estate company and link them back to Windhorst. To investors, it looks like H2O loaned a large sum of money to the entrepreneur, dressing its actions up as a series of uncorrelated investments in private bonds sold by a diverse range of companies.Announcing a package of measures intended to stem the withdrawals, Natixis said on Monday that the fund had switched to “record these securities at their transactional value in case of an immediate total sale, rather than recording them at their standard market value.”I have no idea what the alleged standard market value for such illiquid securities would be and, I would suggest, neither does H20, no matter how hard it worked its spreadsheet to perform whatever cashflow analysis it could on Windhorst’s companies. But after “valuations obtained this Sunday from international banks,” H2O has revalued its holdings.H2O isn’t saying what the new, lower “transactional” valuations are. But the drop in the bonds’ aggregate weighting in the funds to less than 2% of assets under management, down from as much as 9.7% less than a week ago, gives some flavor of the discounts being applied.The move suggests Bruno Crastes, H2O’s co-founder and chief executive officer, is considerably less ebullient about those unlisted investments than he was in a video posted by the H24 Finance news service on Friday. In the English transcript of that interview supplied by H2O’s public relations firm, Crastes says that “obviously there is no reason for us to not continue in the future to invest in those private bonds.”That didn’t stop his firm from selling about 300 million euros ($342 million) of the private placements at the end of last week, according to my colleagues at Bloomberg News. Presumably the price those sales fetched is closer to the values produced by Sunday’s ringing around, rather than the market values ascribed to the bonds a week ago. But there’s a wider issue here than one fund manager juicing its returns. The reach for yield referred to at the start of this article is likely to have become even more desperate in recent years – and financial regulators need to be on their toes to safeguard the public from portfolio managers playing fast and loose with what counts as a liquid investment.Some $13 trillion of what we still laughingly refer to as the fixed-income market currently generates negative yields, meaning the only fixed aspect of the securities is that buyers end up paying for the privilege of stashing their cash in bonds:Even the $2.4 trillion global market for high-yield bonds is undergoing something of an identity crisis as non-investment grade debt offers less than two-thirds of the average yield investors have enjoyed in the past twenty years:With yields on government bonds at record lows in several countries, the temptation to roll down the credit curve into lower- or even non-rated fixed-income securities becomes harder to resist. And the risk of investors getting spooked and all heading for the exit at once has been shown to be a clear and present danger by the recent exoduses endured by H20, Neil Woodford and Swiss asset manager GAM Holding AG.Financial markets are built on several different types of origami. They range from the relatively simple maturity transformation of borrowing short-term money and lending it for a longer period, to more complex engineering such as collateralized debt obligations that slice securities into different risk buckets.Liquidity transformation, though, arguably poses the biggest risk to investors, since it can lead to their hard-earned capital being trapped in investments that turn out to be far harder to sell than the marketing brochures might have you believe. Here’s where the shoe has pinched three times in the past year; so liquidity, or rather the lack thereof, is exactly where regulators should be focusing their attention, to unearth any landmines before stretched valuations in the credit market cause the next financial crisis.To contact the author of this story: Mark Gilbert at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Edward Evans at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Mark Gilbert is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering asset management. He previously was the London bureau chief for Bloomberg News. He is also the author of "Complicit: How Greed and Collusion Made the Credit Crisis Unstoppable."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The internet was supposed to render geography irrelevant.(2) But the corporations that dominate the internet have turned out to be remarkably concentrated, geographically speaking. In internet publishing and web search portals, a somewhat ungainly but very important North American Industry Classification System category, 58% of all U.S. jobs in December could be found in just five counties, and more than 70% in the top 10.The location quotient is a measure of how concentrated an industry is in a particular place — a quotient of 1 means it’s right at the national average — and the location quotients in the above table make clear that this particular industry is heavily concentrated in the top five counties, especially the three bordering San Francisco Bay. In San Mateo County, home of Facebook Inc., one is about 30 times more likely to encounter an internet publishing and web search portal employee than in the country in general. Just to the south in Santa Clara County, the heart of Silicon Valley and the home of Google and its corporate parent Alphabet Inc., it’s 27 times more likely. Just to the north in San Francisco County, home of Twitter Inc. and Pinterest Inc., it’s 13 times more likely. The Bureau of Labor Statistics actually didn’t release fourth-quarter San Mateo County data for the sector, presumably because it was so dominated by Facebook that this would amount to disclosing private information, so I backed out the numbers using metropolitan-area data and a little elbow grease. The BLS did release San Mateo County numbers for the third quarter, and the employment total and location quotient were close to those I came up with (the average weekly wage was higher, at $8,872), so I don’t think this was much of a stretch.Related: Where Microbrewery Jobs Are OverflowingFinancial Jobs Aren’t Just in New YorkA Booming Local Health-Care Industry Isn’t Always a Good ThingEmployment location quotients of 30 and 27 are, it should be stressed, quite high, especially for such populous counties (San Mateo County has about 770,000 inhabitants; Santa Clara County nearly 2 million). Wayne County, Michigan, the headquarters of the U.S. automobile industry, had a December employment location quotient for motor vehicle manufacturing of 16.7; the District of Columbia’s location quotient for federal government employment was 13 and change.Santa Clara County did have a dizzying December location quotient of almost 64 for electronic computer manufacturing (thanks mainly, one assumes, to Cupertino-based Apple Inc.) and 40 for semiconductor machinery manufacturing (industry leader Applied Materials Inc. is based in the city of Santa Clara), but those are at least industries that revolve around creating complex, tangible products, which it stands to reason necessitates lots of people working in the same place. The internet is on first impression different: It’s everywhere, and it can be worked on from anywhere. Yet employment at the corporations that shape it is concentrated in a handful of places in the U.S. and has been getting more so. In March 2014, the top five counties accounted for 48% of the nation’s internet publishing and web search portal jobs, and the top 10 62%.Facebook and Google have been expanding overseas, so it’s possible that this focus on U.S. data is somewhat misleading — sadly there’s no global counterpart to the hyper-detailed Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages from which the data in this column (as well as pieces over the past few days on breweries, financial services and health care) is taken. Also, it’s not all about engineers at Facebook and Google: As the lower average wages outside of Silicon Valley indicate, this category also includes journalists working at online enterprises such as BuzzFeed Inc. and Vox Media Inc. in New York and elsewhere. It may also include contract workers slowly going crazy moderating Facebook pages in Phoenix; it’s often hard to know for sure how specific corporate activities are classified by the BLS, because the BLS isn’t allowed to say, but the goal is to assign the people working at a location to the industry sector that best fits what most of them are working on.Traditional media has a tendency toward concentration, too: Los Angeles County has 27% of the nation’s jobs in motion picture and sound recording industries. New York County (aka Manhattan) has 18% of all U.S. periodicals publishing jobs. The two counties together account for 20% of broadcasting employment. But the top-five and top-10 counties’ shares of jobs in these sectors are much smaller than with internet publishing and web search portals, and in motion pictures and periodicals, the very top counties have actually been losing employment share in recent years as media companies shift production to less expensive locales.In their much-cited 2009 review of what drives economic activity and the resulting wealth to “agglomerate” in certain cities, economists Edward Glaeser and Joshua Gottlieb wrote that:The largest body of evidence supports the view that cities succeed by spurring the transfer of information. Skilled industries are more likely to locate in urban areas and skills predict urban success. Workers have steeper age-earnings profiles in cities and city-level human capital strongly predicts income. It is possible that these effects will be reduced by ongoing improvements in information technology, but that is not certain and has not happened yet.It’s presumably the value of this transfer of information among skilled workers that has driven internet companies to concentrate in a few places. High costs in those places and those “ongoing improvements in information technology” might drive dispersion, although there’s no sign of that yet in this data. Politics might, too: As Facebook in particular has been discovering lately, having your employees concentrated in a few places can mean having few friends in Washington. But for now, the work of internet publishing and web search portals remains tightly clustered along the San Francisco Bay, and to a lesser extent the Hudson River and Puget Sound. Geography still seems to matter, a lot.Coming Tuesday: the sectors with the highest location quotients.(1) I realize that this has become something of a straw man, and that by this point far more has been written attacking the idea that the internet renders geography irrelevant than espousing it. But as someone who was at least halfway paying attention in the 1990s, I think it's fair to say that most people in those days assumed that universal connectivity would lead to a spreading out of economic activity rather than a concentration.To contact the author of this story: Justin Fox at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Brooke Sample at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Justin Fox is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He was the editorial director of Harvard Business Review and wrote for Time, Fortune and American Banker. He is the author of “The Myth of the Rational Market.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In many ways, the economic debate in the U.S. has been stuck for quite a while. Progressives want higher taxes on the rich, more spending on the poor and more government health care; conservatives and libertarians want less. The 2016 election brought some innovation, with Donald Trump’s protectionism and the socialist revival sparked by Bernie Sanders. But the biggest breath of fresh air is coming from Democratic presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.Just since the start of this year, Warren has released no fewer than 19 detailed economic policy proposals. This outpouring of ideas has been so dramatic that it has spawned Twitter hashtags such as shehasaplan. Warren’s ideas are neither the cautious, technocratic tweaks that tend to emerge from centrist think tanks, nor the bold but vague promises often issued by the socialist left. Nor are they merely a laundry list of campaign promises. Instead, they represent a coherent, unified program for transforming the U.S. economy.Four Warren proposals stand out as particularly original. The first calls for allocating some corporate board seats to workers -- an idea commonly known as co-determination. Used in Germany, the co-determination system has the potential not just to ensure that company policies take account of the interests of employees, but also to increase productivity by allowing workers to contribute more of their knowledge to the corporate decision-making process.Warren’s second fresh idea is regulation of big technology companies. Although her proposal calls for companies such as Facebook, Alphabet (Google) and Amazon to be broken up, in practice most of her ideas involve enhanced oversight rather than traditional antitrust remedies. Since platforms such as Amazon and Google tend to have strong network effects -- people usually want a one-stop-shop for online retail and a single website for internet search -- breaking them up wouldn’t lead to a competitive market in the long run. Warren’s plan seems to recognize this, and would instead treat these companies more like utilities, forcing them to allow smaller businesses to profit off of the infrastructure they create.The third big innovation concerns housing. With costs for shelter eating a bigger piece of Americans’ paychecks, and local government paralyzed by incumbent homeowners, the country needs a big solution. Warren’s would combine incentives for raising zoning density with increased public construction.But the biggest Warren idea is industrial policy, which she calls “economic patriotism.” Instead of relying on tariffs as President Donald Trump has done, Warren would promote exports. She would also leverage research and infrastructure to promote U.S. industry, and pressure countries to stop holding down the value of their currencies against the dollar. This represents a decisive break with the free-trade consensus of the past few decades, but isn't simply a return to traditional inward-looking protectionism.These four ideas, which are the most unique and original among Warren’s impressive oeuvre, give a picture of the senator’s economic philosophy. A good term for it might be “progressive industrialism.” Though Warren wants to rebalance the economic power of labor and capital, and use government to assist the needy, she also wants to harness private industry to create growth. Her plans for technology regulation and her export promotion would boost small businesses, while her housing plan would leverage the power of private development and her co-determination plan would more closely align the interests of labor and capital. The strategy is reminiscent of the New Deal, in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt strove to integrate private industry with government spending in order to advance both growth and equality. It also bears some resemblance to the strategies used by Germany and Japan to recover from World War II.Warren’s ideas are also notable for their specificity. In their recent book “Concrete Economics,” economist Brad DeLong and historian Stephen S. Cohen argued that successful policy programs should have concrete goal instead of leaving the future up to the vagaries of the market. Warren seems intent on doing exactly that -- under her industrialist program, Americans would get more housing, more opportunity to start their own businesses and more respect and power at work. They would also get more child care, cancellation of student debt, assistance with addiction, and a number of other tangible benefits. A health care plan is surely also forthcoming.This isn't to say that Warren’s plans are ideal in their current form. Her co-determination plan could benefit from the inclusion of German-style worker councils, her industrial policy should remove its harmful “buy-American” provision, her corporate tax plan might discourage investment and her wealth tax might run into constitutional obstacles.But ultimately no set of big, transformational ideas will be perfect. The New Deal certainly wasn’t. But by thinking big, combining intelligence with ambition, and being willing to engage both the public and private sectors, Warren has set herself up to be the closest thing modern American politics has to a successor to FDR. Now it remains to be seen if she can communicate this vision to the public in an inspiring way.To contact the author of this story: Noah Smith at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Facebook Inc. and Apple Inc. are most at risk if government regulators are serious about pursuing antitrust actions against Big Tech.
(Bloomberg) -- In early June, the Museum of Plastic appeared in New York’s SoHo. Created to highlight the problem of ocean plastic, the space featured such exhibits as a giant receipt for $200 billion—the projected revenue for water in plastic bottles by 2022—listing other uses for the money, such as paying off the Fyre Festival debt. The pop-up was a marketing campaign to introduce Ever & Ever, a $1.99 bottle-shaped aluminum can with a screw-off top filled with soft-tasting water, balanced with electrolytes. The company says it’s coming to Walmart.com and Amazon.com “soon” and then to local convenience stores. It’s just one of a growing number of products being pitched as an alternative to the 50 billion single-use plastic bottles Americans use annually. Those consumers are more concerned about plastic in oceans than climate change, according to a new study by the Shelton Group; 80 percent said they would buy an alternative to single use plastic if given the option. It is, of course, absurd that water in any kind of container is touted as an environmental benefit. The only true eco-friendly way to consume water is to drink it from the tap.“Whether it’s water in bottles that are especially biodegradable, or water in cans, it’s something that’s a little better than plastic but shouldn’t be done at all,” says Peter Gleick, a scientist focused on water and climate issues and co-founder of the Pacific Institute. “Canned water is a marginal improvement over bottled water.” Even if someone created a 100 percent-recyclable bottle, the impact of transporting water to a packaging plant is notable, as is the packaging.Ever & Ever is the newest offering from All Market Inc., owners of Vita Coco coconut water. Mike Kirban, AMI co-founder and chief executive officer, conceived of it as a way to neutralize the environmental impact of difficult-to-recycle Tetra Pack packaging: The company estimates it sells around 1.2 million containers of coconut water a day, mostly in the material. Ever & Ever cans, however, are made of recycled aluminum and are easy to refill with water. Still, they aren’t dishwasher-safe or designed to be re-used indefinitely. “Is it better to use a re-useable water bottle?” asks Kirban. “Yes, of course it is, but it’s not where consumers are. Tap water isn’t always an option. Practicality is a reality.”Canned water is having a moment in the U.S. Liquid Death, from former Netflix executive Mike Cessario, has raised $1.6 million in seed funding, using the tagline “Murder your thirst.” It’s a breakout hit with an audience that wants to drink water out of a tallboy beer can. Aquaman’s Jason Momoa introduced Mana Nalu and shaved his beard in a viral video to bring attention to oceanic plastic.“Every brand is going to speak to a different audience and have a different message associated with it. For us, we want to make sure there’s an ocean,” said Dune Ives, executive director of the ocean activist group Lonely Whale, which helped develop Ever & Ever with AMI. While aluminum cans aren’t going to save the world, Ives argues they will help alleviate a problem. While about 91 percent of plastic ends up as waste, 67 percent of aluminum cans are recycled, worldwide. “If you’re counting on one person to save the planet, you will be disappointed,” she said.Meanwhile, AMI is turning its attention to another product in an emerging space: Sparkling Vita Coco infused with hemp, in flavors like ginger-apple and lemon-cardamom, will be available early in August—in cans.To contact the author of this story: Kate Krader in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Joshua Petri at email@example.comFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The tech giant’s multiclass voting structure makes it nearly impossible to challenge its plans for the People’s Republic.