Connect with us

Gaming

Foxconn pulls back on its $10 billion factory commitment – TechCrunch

Published

on

Well that didn’t last long.

In 2017, Foxconn announced the largest investment of a foreign company in the United States when it selected Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin for a new manufacturing facility. Buttressed by huge economic development grants from Wisconsin, an endorsement from President Trump, and Foxconn CEO Terry Gou’s vision of a maker America, the plant was designed to turn a small town and its environs into the futuristic “Wisconn Valley.”

Now, those dreams are coming apart faster than you can say “Made in America.”

In an interview with Reuters, a special assistant to Gou says that those plans are being remarkably scaled back. Originally designed to be an advanced LCD factory, the new Foxconn facility will instead be a much more modest (but still needed!) research center for engineers.

It’s a huge loss for Wisconsin, but the greater shock may be just how obvious all of this was. I wrote about the boondoggle just a few weeks ago, as had Bruce Murphy at The Verge a few weeks before that. Sruthi Pinnamaneni produced an excellent podcast on Reply All about how much the economic development of Mount Pleasant tore the small town asunder.

The story in short: the economics of the factory never made sense, and economics was always going to win over the hopes and dreams of politicians like Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who championed the deal. Despite bells and whistles, televisions are a commodity product (unlike, say, airfoils), and thus the cost structure is much more compatible with efficient Asian supply chains than with American expensive labor.

Yet, that wasn’t the only part of the project that never made any sense. Foxconn was building in what was essentially the middle of nowhere, without the sort of dense ecosystem of suppliers and sub-suppliers required for making a major factory hum. (Plus, as a native of Minnesota, I can also attest that Wisconsin is a pile of garbage).

Those suppliers are everything for manufacturers. Just this past weekend, Jack Nicas at the New York Times observed that Apple’s advanced manufacturing facility in Austin, Texas struggled to find the right parts it needed to assemble its top-of-the-line computer, the Mac Pro:

But when Apple began making the $3,000 computer in Austin, Tex., it struggled to find enough screws, according to three people who worked on the project and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements.

In China, Apple relied on factories that can produce vast quantities of custom screws on short notice. In Texas, where they say everything is bigger, it turned out the screw suppliers were not.

There are of course huge manufacturing ecosystems in the United States — everything from cars in Detroit, to planes in Washington, to advanced medical devices in several major bio-hubs. But consumer electronics is one that has for the most part been lost to Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and of course, China.

Geopolitically, Foxconn’s factory made a modicum of sense. With the increasing protectionism emanating from Western capitals, Foxconn could have used some geographical diversity in the event of a tariff fight. The company is Taiwanese, but manufacturers many of its products on the mainland.

And of course, a research center is still an enormous gain for a region of Wisconsin that could absolutely use high-income, professional jobs. Maybe the process of rolling out a next-generation manufacturing ecosystem will take more time than originally anticipated, but nothing is stopping further expansion in the future.

Yet, one can’t help but gaze at the remarkable naïveté of Wisconsin politicians who offered billions only to find that even massive subsidies aren’t enough. It’s a competitive world out there, and the United States has little experience in these fights.

India may put friction on foreign firms to protect domestic startups

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. (MONEY SHARMA/AFP/Getty Images)

One of the major battles for tech supremacy is over the future of the Indian IT market, which is rapidly bringing more than a billion people onto the internet and giving them robust software services. I’ve talked a bit about data sovereignty, which mandates that Indian data be stored in Indian data centers by Indian companies, pushing out foreign companies like Amazon, Google, and Alibaba.

Now, it looks like India is taking a page from the Asian tiger-school of development, and is going to increasingly favor domestic firms over foreign ones in key industries. Newley Purnell and Rajesh Roy report in the WSJ:

The secretary of India’s Telecommunications Department, Aruna Sundararajan, last week told a gathering of Indian startups in a closed-door meeting in the tech hub of Bangalore that the government will introduce a “national champion” policy “very soon” to encourage the rise of Indian companies, according to a person familiar with the matter. She said Indian policy makers had noted the success of China’s internet giants, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Tencent Holdings Ltd. , the person said. She didn’t immediately respond to a request for more details on the program or its timing.

The idea of national champions is simple. Unlike the innovation world of Silicon Valley, there are obvious sectors in an economy that need to be fulfilled. Food and clothes have to be sold, deliveries made, all kinds of industrial goods need to be built. Rather than creating a competitive market that requires high levels of duplicate capital investment, the government can designate a few companies to take the lead in each market to ensure that they can invest for growth rather than in, say, marketing costs.

If done well, such policies can rapidly industrialize a country’s economic base. When done poorly, the lack of competition can create lethargy among entrepreneurs, who have already won their markets without even trying.

The linchpin is whether the government pushes companies to excel and sets aggressive growth targets. In Korea and China, the central governments actively monitored corporate growth during their catch-up years, and transferred businesses to new entrepreneurs if business leaders failed to perform. Can India push its companies as hard without market forces?

As the technology industry matures in the West, entrepreneurs will look for overseas as their future growth hubs. The challenge is whether they will be let in at all.

Video game geopolitics

Nexon’s MapleStory2 game is one of its most profitable (Screenshot from Nexon) .

Korea and Japan are two of the epicenters of the video game industry, and now one of its top companies is on the auction block, raising tough questions about media ownership.

Nexon founder Kim Jung Ju announced a few weeks ago that he was intending to sell all of his controlling $9 billion stake in the leading video game company. The company has since executed something of a multi-stage auction process to determine who should buy those shares. One leading candidate we’ve learned is Kakao, the leading internet portal and chatting app in Korea.

The other leading candidate is China-based Tencent, which owns exclusive distribution rights in China of some of Nexon’s most important titles.

Tencent has been increasingly under the sway of China’s government, which froze video game licensing last year as it worked to increase content regulation over the industry. Now the question is whether it will be politically palatable to sell a leading star of Korea’s video game industry to its economic rival.

From the Financial Times:

Mr Wi added that Nexon would be an attractive target for Tencent, which pays about Won1tn in annual royalties to the South Korean game developer. But selling the company to Tencent would be “politically burdensome” for Mr Kim, given unfavourable public opinion in South Korea towards such a sale, he cautioned.

“Political risks are high for the deal. Being criticised for selling the company to a foreign rival, especially a Chinese one, would be the last thing that Mr Kim wants,” said Mr Wi.

Such concerns around Chinese media ownership have become acute throughout the world, but we haven’t seen these concerns as much in the video game industry. Clearly, times have changed.

TechCrunch is experimenting with new content forms. This is a rough draft of something new – provide your feedback directly to the author (Danny at danny@techcrunch.com) if you like or hate something here.

Share your feedback on your startup’s attorney

My colleague Eric Eldon and I are reaching out to startup founders and execs about their experiences with their attorneys. Our goal is to identify the leading lights of the industry and help spark discussions around best practices. If you have an attorney you thought did a fantastic job for your startup, let us know using this short Google Forms survey and also spread the word. We will share the results and more in the coming weeks.

What’s Next

  • More work on societal resilience

This newsletter is written with the assistance of Arman Tabatabai from New York

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Gaming

For All Mankind sets its alternate timeline sights on Mars in S3 trailer

Published

on

The space race shifts to Mars in For All Mankind S3.

The fictional battle for the domination of space between the US and Russia shifts its focus from the Moon to Mars for the third season of For All Mankind. Ars staffers have dubbed this relatively underappreciated gem “Moon Show,” and Apple TV+ has now released the official trailer for the show’s third outing on the streaming platform.

(Some spoilers for the prior two seasons.)

Ars Senior Technology Reporter Andrew Cunningham picked the series for our 2021 TV Technica list, praising its “complex, likable, memorable characters.” Series creator Ronald D. Moore (Battlestar Galactica) has made a point of trying to keep the show reasonably close to reality, despite the science-fiction concept, often consulting the original NASA plans for guidance and incorporating archival footage throughout the season. And as Cunningham wrote last year, “its repurposing and deepfaking of historical footage is fascinating both as a storytelling device and as a technical achievement.”

In S1, an astronaut named Ed Baldwin (Joel Kinnaman) became the Apollo 10 commander. His foil was fellow astronaut Gordo Stevens (Michael Dorman), a stereotypical hard-drinking, womanizing fighter pilot. Apollo 10 was the “dress rehearsal” for the historic Apollo 11 Moon landing when American astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon. But in this alternate timeline, the decision not to land on the Moon with Apollo 10 meant the USSR beat America to the punch. Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov made history instead.

Enlarge / An alternate timeline where mankind walks on Mars? Yes, please!

YouTube/Apple TV+

Throughout the first season, both countries found water on the Moon, and America set up the first Moon base in 1974, followed shortly thereafter by a Soviet lunar base eight miles away. The first season ended with a complicated two-part episode involving a desperate launch of Apollo 25 to conduct an Apollo 24 relief and rescue mission. A post-credits scene set in 1983 featured a sea launch of a Sea Dragon rocket with a plutonium payload, bound for the US Jamestown colony on the Moon.

The second season was set during the same 1980s time period during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In the show’s alternate timeline, the US and the Soviet Union were now fighting over which country would control the rich resources on the Moon. NASA was becoming more militarized as a result, and Baldwin became commander of a new nuclear-powered space shuttle called Pathfinder.

During the season, the lunar Jonestown colony grappled with massive solar flares, sabotage by Russian cosmonauts, and a damaged nuclear reactor, requiring a daring repair mission in duct-taped space suits. (RIP the two astronauts who performed the repairs and kept the reactor from melting down but perished from vacuum exposure.) Ultimately, the threat of all-out nuclear war was neutralized, and the final scene showed a human in a spacesuit walking on the surface of Mars.

Clearly we're getting more pulse-pounding space walks.
Enlarge / Clearly we’re getting more pulse-pounding space walks.

YouTube/Apple TV+

And that’s where the third season picks up. In the 1990s, the battle for space turned to Mars, and it’s not just a race between the US and Russia. Private industry has entered the fray in the form of a company called Helios. “Some say private citizens have no business in space exploration,” we hear Dev Ayesa (Edi Gathegi) declare. “I emphatically disagree.” (He appears to be Helios CEO.) But NASA is determined not to come in second place again—”to anyone.”

Scientists hope to find possible signs of life and sufficient resources (like water) to support large-scale human colonization. But such an ambitious mission rarely runs smoothly. Most notably, a massive dust storm on Mars obscures both landing sites forcing the astronauts to make a blind landing. Judging by the wild cheers of mission control in the trailer, NASA succeeds. But if past seasons are any indication, that successful landing is just the beginning.

The third season of For All Mankind premieres on Apple TV+ on June 10, 2022.

Listing image by YouTube/Apple TV+

Continue Reading

Gaming

There’s something seriously wrong with Homelander in The Boys S3 trailer

Published

on

An uneasy peace will be shattered in The Boys S3.

The Boys is coming back to Prime Video for its third season, and the streaming platform has released the official trailer. Our crew of misfits had arrived at some closure in their battle against the “supes” and gone their separate ways at the end of the second season. But it looks like that uneasy peace is about to be shattered, given the number of exploding bodies and glowing laser eyes showcased in the trailer.

(Spoilers for S2 below.)

As I’ve written previously, the show is based on the comic book series of the same name by Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson. The Boys is set in a fictional universe where superheroes are real but are corrupted by corporate interests and a toxic celebrity-obsessed culture. The most elite superhero group is called the Seven, operated by the Vought Corporation, which created the supes with a substance called Compound V. The Seven is headed up by Homelander (Antony Starr), a violent and unstable psychopath disguised as the All-American hero. Homelander’s counterpart as the head of the titular “Boys” is Billy Butcher (Karl Urban), a self-appointed vigilante intent on checking the bad behavior of the Seven—especially Homelander, who brutally raped Butcher’s wife, Becca (Shantel VanSanten).

The second season ended with a bloody showdown that saw the demise of Becca as well as the mutilation of Homelander’s supe squeeze, Stormfront (Aya Cash), who turned out to be a Nazi disguised as a “patriot.” Queen Maeve (Dominique McElligott) and Starlight (Annie Moriarty) successfully blackmailed Homelander into loosening his bullying stranglehold on the Seven. Meanwhile, the government cleared the Boys of all wrongdoing after they were publicly smeared as terrorists. A disillusioned Hughie (Jack Quaid) decided to try to fight the Seven through politics rather than violence and went to work for Congressperson Victoria Neuman (Claudia Doumit)—but he doesn’t know she’s actually a super-powered assassin with her own murderous agenda.

Enlarge / There’s something seriously wrong with Homelander—well, more wrong than usual.

YouTube/Prime Video

So what can we expect from the third season? We already knew that the first episode is entitled “Payback”—the name of an earlier Vought group of superheroes, loosely based on Marvel’s Avengers. Payback members include Eagle the Archer, who appeared in S2 of The Boys (played by Langston Kerman). He’s the one who recruited the Deep (Chace Crawford) and A-Train (Jessie T. Usher) to the Church of the Collective before the cult turned against him. A fictional Seven on 7 news report last summer informed us that Eagle had quit the superhero gig and is now trying to become a rapper.

Expect Payback to play a major role this season, since two other members are joining the cast: Soldier Boy (Jensen Ackles) and Crimson Countess (Laurie Holden). We also know that the third season will incorporate one of the comic’s most shocking storylines: Herogasm. In this standalone comic miniseries, the Boys infiltrate Vought’s annual superhero party, which turns out to be just one long weekend of kinky sex and drug use on a secluded island.

Continue Reading

Gaming

Star Wars content flurry confirmed: New Disney+ series, film updates

Published

on

Enlarge / We already know plenty about the upcoming Obi-Wan Kenobi, launching later this month, but a lengthy feature out this week chronicles all the other Disney+ content coming soon from a galaxy far, far away.

Lucasarts

When it comes to learning about new Star Wars content, there’s really no beating a massive, feature-length look behind the curtain at Lucasfilm and Disney. This month’s launch of the simply named Obi-Wan Kenobi series has proven a good occasion to get such a peek, thanks to a sweeping—and at times, frank—documentation of all things Star Wars from Vanity Fair.

The article primarily follows the lead actors of Disney+’s four upcoming live-action Star Wars series, though it also covers the IP’s apparently rocky path away from feature-length films and toward serialized TV content (though, yes, it does get to films by the end). It includes an acknowledgment from Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy that the company’s constant return to the old well, which has included a recast Han Solo and a CGI-tinged Luke Skywalker, isn’t sustainable. When pressed about those attempts, she replied, “Now it does seem so abundantly clear that we can’t do that.”

Put Thrawn on notice?

So while the new May 27 Obi-Wan series will return to popular characters and their original actors, the upcoming Disney+ material announced here leans toward expansions of characters who don’t necessarily date back to the original 1977 film. 2023’s Ahsoka will focus on the popular character from Clone Wars and reintroduced on The Mandalorian, and its premiere season will focus on a “continuous story” that will almost certainly involve the character’s refrain of hunting Grand Admiral Thrawn.

Andor, coming “late this summer,” stars Diego Luna as his Rogue One character Cassian Andor and will be helmed by longtime Bourne film series director Tony Gilroy. This “refugee story” will rewind years before the events of Rogue One to the character’s turning point from an anti-rebellion lone gun to a spy determined to stop the Empire’s rapid expansion, and it will revolve largely around the “adopted home” he takes up after his birth world is destroyed.

Lucasfilm tells fans to expect a third season of The Mandalorian somewhere between Andor and Ahsoka (meaning late 2022 or early 2023). Though details on that upcoming season are scarce, the Vanity Fair feature explores the debate original showrunners John Favreau and Dave Filoni had over whether to introduce an infantile, Yoda-like creature in the first season. We learn that Favreau was the one vociferously arguing in favor of “the child,” but the interview never says exactly what put Favreau’s vision over the top.

We do hear Favreau credit artist Chris Alzmann with the design of Grogu, at least. “There were a lot of different looks that popped up, and then we got one that finally clicked,” Favreau told Vanity Fair. “He had kind of a goofy, ugly look. We didn’t want him too cute.”

Continue Reading

Trending