China's Didi sets up JV with BAIC unit to work on NEV projects

FILE PHOTO: A woman walks past a sign of station for Didi Chuxing in Beijing, China January 2, 2019. REUTERS/Jason Lee/File Photo

BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s Didi Chuxing said it had set up a joint venture (JV) with Beijing Electric Vehicle Co., a unit of state-owned BAIC, to work on new energy vehicle and artificial intelligence projects.

The JV, BAIC-Xiaoju New Energy Auto Technology Co. Ltd, aims to develop “next-generation connected-car systems”, Didi, China’s largest ride-hailing operator, said on Monday.

This is the first JV between Didi and state-owned BAIC, which wants to stop selling gas-driven car models by 2025 as China shifts the industry toward new energy vehicles.

The JV comes at a time when China’s market for new energy vehicles (NEVs), a category comprising electric battery cars and plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, is rapidly growing even as the country’s wider auto market cools.

In 2018, car sales in the world’s biggest auto market hit reverse for the first time since the 1990s. But NEV sales were a bright spot, jumping 61.7 percent to 1.3 million units, China’s Association of Automobile Manufacturers has said.

NEV sales in China will hit 1.6 million this year, the industry body estimates.

Didi said there are already 400,000 NEVs registered on its platform through its partnerships with leading electric vehicle makers including BYD.

Didi, whose backers include Uber Technologies Inc, Apple Inc and Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp, is reshuffling its domestic business as it expands globally with new services in South America and Australia.

Reporting by Yilei Sun and Cate Cadell in Beijing; Editing by Himani Sarkar

China's Didi, BAIC set up joint venture to work on NEV projects

FILE PHOTO: A woman walks past a sign of station for Didi Chuxing in Beijing, China January 2, 2019. REUTERS/Jason Lee/File Photo

BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s Didi Chuxing said it had set up a joint venture (JV) with Beijing Electric Vehicle Co., a unit of state-owned BAIC, to work on new energy vehicle and artificial intelligence projects.

The JV, BAIC-Xiaoju New Energy Auto Technology Co. Ltd, aims to develop “next-generation connected-car systems”, Didi, China’s largest ride-hailing operator, said on Monday.

This is the first JV between Didi and state-owned BAIC, which wants to stop selling gas-driven car models by 2025 as China shifts the industry toward new energy vehicles.

The JV comes at a time when China’s market for new energy vehicles (NEVs), a category comprising electric battery cars and plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, is rapidly growing even as the country’s wider auto market cools.

In 2018, car sales in the world’s biggest auto market hit reverse for the first time since the 1990s. But NEV sales were a bright spot, jumping 61.7 percent to 1.3 million units, China’s Association of Automobile Manufacturers has said.

NEV sales in China will hit 1.6 million this year, the industry body estimates.

Didi said there are already 400,000 NEVs registered on its platform through its partnerships with leading electric vehicle makers including BYD.

Didi, whose backers include Uber Technologies Inc, Apple Inc and Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp, is reshuffling its domestic business as it expands globally with new services in South America and Australia.

Reporting by Yilei Sun and Cate Cadell in Beijing; Editing by Himani Sarkar

Who Should Govern Your Data? Inside the Privacy Debate in Davos

Grüezi from the snow-coated Swiss Alps, in whose fir-studded, canvas blanc landscape the World Economic Forum recently transpired.

An inescapable theme at this year’s summit was data privacy. The topic happens, ironically, to play counterpoint to another central theme—that datavore dubbed “artificial intelligence,” as Adam Lashinsky, this newsletter’s regular, weekday author, noted in an earlier column (and elsewhere).

The two concepts are inversely related, a Yin and Yang. Businesses are looking to fill their bellies with as much information as possible, extracting insights that might give them an edge over the competition. Indeed, data-guzzling machine learning processes promise to amplify businesses’ ability to predict, personalize, and produce. But in the wake of a seemingly endless string of data abuses and breaches, another set of stakeholders has grown increasingly vocal about implementing some, let’s call them “dietary restrictions.” Our appetites need limits, they say; left unchecked, the fast-and-loose practices feeding today’s algorithmic models threaten to undermine the autonomy of consumers and citizens everywhere.

The subject of data stewardship clearly occupied the minds of the most powerful politicians in attendance. In the main hall of the forum, two heads of state shared their concerns on Wednesday. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said the topic will be one of two primary agenda items for the G20 Summit he is hosting in Osaka in June. (The other is climate change.) Later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Europe to find an approach to data governance distinct from the U.S.’s style, where corporations dominate, as well as the Chinese one, where the state seeks total control.

While policy-makers leaned, unsurprisingly, toward lawmaking, some members of the business set countered their notions with alternative views. Jack Ma, Alibaba’s founder, cautioned against regulation, arguing that it restricts innovation. During a panel on digital trust I moderated on Thursday, Rod Beckstrom, the former CEO of ICANN, an Internet governance group, argued that Europe went astray when it adopted the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, last year, and he advised against the U.S. pursuing a similar path. Instead, Beckstrom proposed adding a privacy-specific amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one separate from the Fourth Amendment’s guard against warrantless searches and seizures. A provocative, if quixotic, idea.

By all measures, the disruptive, data-centric forces of the so-called fourth industrial revolution appear to be outpacing the world’s ability to control them. As I departed Davos, a conference-sponsored shuttle in which I was seated careened into a taxi cab, smashing up both vehicles. (No major injuries were sustained, so far as I could tell; though two passengers visited the hospital out of an abundance of caution.) While waiting in the cold for police to arrive and draw up a report, I was struck by how perfectly the incident encapsulated the conversations I had been observing all week.

We are all strapped, inextricably, to a mass of machinery, hurtling toward collision. Now what must be done is to minimize the damage.

A version of this article first appeared in Cyber Saturday, the weekend edition of Fortune’s tech newsletter Data Sheet. Sign up here.

The Pitfalls of Facebook Merging Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp Chats

In an effort led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook has plans to rearchitect WhatsApp, Instagram direct messages, and Facebook Messenger so that messages can travel across any of the platforms. The New York Times first reported the move Friday, noting also that Zuckerberg wants the initiative to “incorporate end-to-end encryption.” Melding those infrastructures would be a massive task regardless, but designing the scheme to universally preserve end-to-end encryption—in a way that users understand—poses a whole additional set of critical challenges.

As things stand now, WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted by default, while Facebook Messenger only offers the feature if you turn on “Secret Conversations.” Instagram does not currently offer any form of end-to-end encryption for its chats. WhatsApp’s move to add default encryption for all users was a watershed moment in 2016, bringing the protection to a billion people by flipping one switch.

Facebook is still in the early planning stages of homogenizing its messaging platforms, a move that could increase the ease and number of secured chats online by a staggering order of magnitude. But cryptographers and privacy advocates have already raised a number of obvious hurdles the company faces in doing so. End-to-end encrypted chat protocols ensure that data is only decrypted and intelligible on the devices of the sender and recipient. At least, that’s the idea. In practice, it can be difficult to use the protection effectively if it’s enabled for some chats and not for others and can turn on and off within a chat at different times. In attempting to unify its chat services, Facebook will need to find a way to help users easily understand and control end-to-end encryption as the ecosystem becomes more porous.

“The big problem I see is that only WhatsApp has default end-to-end encryption,” says Matthew Green, a cryptographer at Johns Hopkins. “So if the goal is to allow cross-app traffic, and it’s not required to be encrypted, then what happens? There are a whole range of outcomes here.”

WhatsApp users, for example, can assume that all of their chats are end-to-end encrypted, but what will happen in Facebook’s newly homogenized platform if an Instagram user messages a WhatsApp user? It’s unclear what sort of defaults Facebook will impose, and how it will let users know whether their chats are encrypted.

Facebook can also glean more data from unencrypted chats and introduce monetizable experiences like bots into them. The company has had a notoriously hard time earning revenue off of WhatsApp’s 1.5 billion users, in part because of end-to-end encryption.

“We want to build the best messaging experiences we can; and people want messaging to be fast, simple, reliable and private,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement on Friday. “We’re working on making more of our messaging products end-to-end encrypted and considering ways to make it easier to reach friends and family across networks. As you would expect, there is a lot of discussion and debate as we begin the long process of figuring out all the details of how this will work.”

Facebook emphasizes that this gradual process will allow it to work out all the kinks before debuting a monolithic chat structure. But encryption’s not the only area of concern. Privacy advocates are concerned about the potential creation of a unified identity for people across all three services, so that messages go to the right place. Such a setup could be convenient in many ways, but it could also have complicated ramifications.

In 2016, WhatsApp started sharing user phone numbers and other analytics with Facebook, perforating what had previously been a red line between the two services. WhatsApp still lets users make an account with only a phone number, while Facebook requires your legal name under its controversial “real name” policy. The company maintains this rule to prevent confusion and fraud, but its rigidity has caused problems for users who have other safety and security reasons for avoiding their legal or given name, such as being transgender.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Thursday evening, Zuckerberg wrote that, “There’s no question that we collect some information for ads—but that information is generally important for security and operating our services as well.” An indelible identity across Facebook’s brands could have security benefits like enabling stronger anti-fraud protections. But it could also unlock an even richer and more nuanced user data trove for Facebook to mine, and potentially make it harder to use one or more of the services without tying those profiles to a central identity.

“The obvious identity issue is usernames. I’m one thing on Facebook and another on Instagram,” says Jim Fenton, an independent identity privacy and security consultant. “In some ways, having the three linked more closely together would be good because it would make it more transparent that they are connected. But there are some Instagram and WhatsApp users who don’t want to use Facebook. This might be seen as a way to try to push more people in.”

Such a change to how chat works on the three brands isn’t just a potentially massive shift for users—it also seems to have stirred deep controversy within Facebook itself, and may have contributed to the departure last year of WhatsApp cofounders Jan Koum and Brian Acton.

End-to-end encryption is also difficult to implement correctly, because any oversight or bug can undermine the whole scheme. For example, both WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger currently use the open-source Signal protocol (used in the Signal encrypted messaging app), but the implementations are different, because one service has the encryption on by default and the other doesn’t. Melding these different approaches could create opportunities for error.

“There’s a world where Facebook Messenger and Instagram get upgraded to the default encryption of WhatsApp, but that probably isn’t happening,” Johns Hopkins’ Green says. “It’s too technically challenging and would cost Facebook access to lots of data.”

And while end-to-end encryption can’t solve every privacy issue for everyone all the time anyway, it’s harder to know how to take advantage of it safely when a service doesn’t offer it consistently, and creates potential privacy issues when it centralizes identities.

“I think they can work this out,” Fenton says. “The bigger problem in my opinion is user confusion.”


More Great WIRED Stories

Zuckerberg to integrate WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger: NYT

(Reuters) – Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg is planning to unify the underlying messaging infrastructure of the WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger services and incorporate end-to-end encryption into these apps, the New York Times reported on Friday.

WhatsApp and Facebook messenger icons are seen on an iPhone in Manchester , Britain March 27, 2017. REUTERS/Phil Noble

The three services will, however, continue as stand-alone apps, the report said, citing four people involved in the effort.

Facebook said it is working on adding end-to-end encryption, which protects messages from being viewed by anyone except the participants in a conversation, to more of its messaging products, and considering ways to make it easier for users to connect across networks.

“There is a lot of discussion and debate as we begin the long process of figuring out all the details of how this will work,” a spokesperson said.

After the changes, a Facebook user, for instance, will be able send an encrypted message to someone who has only a WhatsApp account, according to the New York Times report.

Integrating the messaging services could make it harder for antitrust regulators to break up Facebook by undoing its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, said Sam Weinstein, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

“If Facebook is worried about that then one way it can defend itself is to integrate those services,” Weinstein said.

But Weinstein said breaking up Facebook is viewed as an “extreme remedy” by regulators, particularly in the United States, so concerns over antitrust scrutiny may not have been a factor behind the integration.

MAJOR TRADEOFFS

Some former Facebook security engineers and an outside encryption expert said the plan could be good news for user privacy, in particular by extending end-to-end encryption.

“I’m cautiously optimistic it’s a good thing,” said former Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos, who now teaches at Stanford University. “My fear was that they were going to drop end-to-end encryption.”

However, the technology does not always conceal metadata – information about who is talking to whom – sparking concern among some researchers that the data might be shared.

Any metadata integration likely will let Facebook learn more about users, linking identifiers such as phone numbers and email addresses for those using the services independently of each other.

Facebook could use that data to charge more for advertising and targeted services, although it also would have to forgo ads based on message content in Messenger and Instagram.

Other major tradeoffs will have to be made too, Stamos and others said.

Messenger allows strangers to contact people without knowing their phone numbers, for example, increasing the risk of stalking and approaches to children.

Silhouettes of mobile users are seen next to a screen projection of Instagram logo in this picture illustration taken March 28, 2018. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

Systems based on phone numbers have additional privacy concerns, because governments and other entities can easily extract location information from them.

Stamos said he hoped Facebook would get public input from terrorism experts, child safety officers, privacy advocates and others and be transparent in its reasoning when it makes decisions on the details.

“It should be an open process, because you can’t have it all,” Stamos said.

Reporting by Munsif Vengattil in Bengaluru, Jan Wolfe in Washington and Joseph Menn in San Francisco; Writing by Katie Paul; Editing by Tom Brown

U.S. universities unplug from China's Huawei under pressure from Trump

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Top U.S. universities are ditching telecom equipment made by Huawei Technologies and other Chinese companies to avoid losing federal funding under a new national security law backed by the Trump administration.

FILE PHOTO: Graduates attend commencement at University of California, Berkeley in Berkeley May 16, 2015. REUTERS/Noah Berger/File Photo

U.S. officials allege Chinese telecom manufacturers are producing equipment that allows their government to spy on users abroad, including Western researchers working on leading-edge technologies. Beijing and the Chinese companies have repeatedly denied such claims.

The University of California at Berkeley has removed a Huawei video-conferencing system, a university official said, while the UC campus in Irvine is working to replace five pieces of Chinese-made audio-video equipment. Other schools, such as the University of Wisconsin, are in the process of reviewing their suppliers.

UC San Diego, meanwhile, has gone a step further. The university in August said that, for at least six months, it would not accept funding from or enter into agreements with Huawei, ZTE Corporation (000063.SZ) and other Chinese audio-video equipment providers, according to an internal memo. The document, reviewed by Reuters, said the moratorium would last through February 12, when the university would revisit its options.

“Out of an abundance of caution UC San Diego enacted the six-month moratorium to ensure we had adequate time to begin our assessment of the equipment on campus and to prevent the campus from entering into any agreements that could later be viewed as inconsistent with the NDAA,” UC San Diego spokeswoman Michelle Franklin said in response to Reuters’ questions about the memo.

These actions, not previously reported, signal universities’ efforts to distance themselves from Chinese companies that for years have supplied them with technical equipment and sponsored academic research, but which are now in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.

The moves are a response to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Donald Trump signed into law in August. A provision of that legislation bans recipients of federal funding from using telecommunications equipment, video recording services and networking components made by Huawei or ZTE. Also on the blacklist are Chinese audio-video equipment providers Hikvision, Hytera, Dahua Technology and their affiliates.

U.S. authorities fear the equipment makers will leave a back door open to Chinese military and government agents seeking information. U.S. universities that fail to comply with the NDAA by August 2020 risk losing federal research grants and other government funding.

That would be a blow to public institutions such as the sprawling University of California system, whose state funding has been slashed repeatedly over the last decade. In the 2016-2017 academic year, the UC system received $9.8 billion in federal money. Nearly $3 billion of that went to research, accounting for about half of all the university’s research expenditures that year, according to UC budget documents.

HUAWEI UNDER SIEGE

The new law is part of a broader Trump administration strategy to counter what it sees as China’s growing threat to U.S. economic competitiveness and national security.

The president has slapped tariffs on a slew of Chinese goods and made it tougher for foreign companies to purchase minority stakes in U.S. tech companies, causing Chinese investment in Silicon Valley to plunge.

In addition, Trump last year signed legislation prohibiting the U.S. government from buying certain telecom and surveillance equipment from Huawei and ZTE. And he is considering a similar ban on Chinese equipment purchases by U.S. companies.

At the center of the storm is Huawei, a global behemoth in smartphones and telecom networking equipment. The company’s chief financial officer has been under house arrest in Canada since December for allegedly lying about Huawei’s ties to Iran. Another Huawei employee was arrested this month in Poland on espionage allegations.

Huawei did not respond to a request for comment.

U.S. universities have already felt the sting of Trump’s China policies. The State Department shortened the length of visas for certain Chinese graduate students. And the administration is considering new restrictions on Chinese students entering the United States. Chinese students are by far the largest group of international students in the United States and provide a lucrative source of revenue for universities.

Pressure to dump Huawei and other Chinese telecom suppliers is adding to the strain.

In addition to the University of Wisconsin, a half dozen institutions, including UC Los Angeles, UC Davis and the University of Texas at Austin, told Reuters they were in the process of reviewing their telecommunications equipment, or had already done so and determined they were NDAA compliant.

At Stanford University, Steve Eisner, the director of export compliance, told Reuters the school did a “scrub” of the campus, but “luckily” did not find any equipment that needed to be removed.

But for Stanford and other academic institutions, Huawei is more than an equipment vendor. Huawei participates in research programs, often as a sponsor, at dozens of schools, including UC San Diego, the University of Texas, the University of Maryland and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

In addition to an explicit equipment ban, the NDAA calls for creating regulations that would limit research partnerships and other agreements universities have with China. The law requires the Secretary of Defense to work with universities on ways to guard against intellectual property theft and create new regulations aimed at protecting academics from exploitation by foreign countries. Universities that fail to comply with those rules risk losing Defense Department funding.

UC San Diego highlighted this section of the law in a campus newsletter in September.

Fears of a more rigorous crackdown from Washington would seem to be justified. In June, 26 members of Congress sent a letter to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, sounding an alarm over Huawei’s research partnerships with more than 50 U.S. universities that “may pose a significant threat to national security.”

The lawmakers called on DeVos to require universities to turn over information on those agreements.

Separately, a White House report from June points to a research partnership on artificial intelligence between UC Berkeley and Huawei as a potential opening for China to gather intelligence that could serve Beijing’s military and strategic ambitions. That partnership started in 2016.

“COOLING” RELATIONS WITH HUAWEI

UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said the university does not participate in research involving trade secrets. He said the school only enters research partnerships whose findings can be published publicly. Such open-source research is not subject to federal regulations.

Mogulof said UC Berkeley has no plans to change any of the research partnerships it has with Huawei. The company is involved in at least five UC Berkeley research initiatives, including autonomous driving, augmented reality and wireless technology, in addition to artificial intelligence.

Slideshow (3 Images)

Still, a person with knowledge of the matter said the university’s relationship with Huawei had “cooled,” and that some Berkeley researchers are choosing not to proceed with their research agreements with the company to avoid scrutiny from university and government officials.

The chill is spreading. The United Kingdom’s Oxford University this month cut ties with Huawei, announcing it would no longer accept funding for research or philanthropic donations.

“The decision has been taken in the light of public concerns raised in recent months surrounding UK partnerships with Huawei,” a university spokesman said in a statement.

Reporting by Heather Somerville and Jane Lanhee Lee; Editing by Greg Mitchell and Marla Dickerson

Google, Facebook spend big on U.S. lobbying amid policy battles

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Alphabet Inc’s Google disclosed in a quarterly filing on Tuesday that it spent a company-record $21.2 million on lobbying the U.S. government in 2018, topping its previous high of $18.22 million in 2012, as the search engine operator fights wide-ranging scrutiny into its practices.

FILE PHOTO – The outside of the Google offices is seen in Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S., January 18, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Segar

In its filing to Congress on Tuesday, Facebook Inc disclosed that it also spent more on government lobbying in 2018 than it ever had before at $12.62 million. That was up from $11.51 million a year ago, according to tracking by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Google’s spent $18.04 million on lobbying in 2017, according to the center’s data.

Google and Facebook declined to comment beyond their filings.

U.S. lawmakers and regulators have weighed new privacy and antitrust rules to rein in the power of large internet service providers such as Google, Facebook and Amazon.com Inc. Regulatory backlash in the United States, as well as Europe and Asia, is near the top of the list of concerns for technology investors, according to financial analysts.

Microsoft Corp spent $9.52 million on lobbying in 2018, according to its disclosure on Tuesday, up from $8.5 million in 2017 but below its $10.5 million tab in 2013.

Apple Inc spent $6.62 million last year, compared to its record of $7.15 million in 2017, according to center data going back to 1998.

Apple and Microsoft did not respond to requests to comment. A filing from Amazon was expected later on Tuesday.

Google disclosed that new discussion topics with regulators in the fourth quarter included its search technology, criminal justice reform and international tax reform. The company is perennially among the top spenders on lobbying in Washington along with a few cable operators, defense contractors and healthcare firms.

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai, who testified in December before a U.S. House of Representatives panel for the first time, has said the company backs the idea of national privacy legislation. But he has contested accusations of the company having a political bias in its search results and of stifling competition.

Susan Molinari, Google’s top U.S. public policy official, stepped down to take on an advisory role this month.

Facebook said discussing “election integrity” with national security officials was among its new lobbying areas in the fourth quarter. The filing said the company continued to lobby the Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating its data security practices.

Reporting by Paresh Dave; Additional reporting by Diane Bartz in Washington; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Sonya Hepinstall

Glassdoor Just Announced the 50 Best Jobs in America for 2019 (Is Your Job on the List?)

Some of the highlights in the 2019 best jobs rankings include:

  • A red-hot tech job — Data Scientist — takes the #1 spot

  • #1 most in-demand bob: Software Engineer (#10) with 49,007 open jobs.

  • Twenty-two jobs are new to the list this year, including Security Engineer (#17), Recruiter (#28), and Brand Manager (#48).

According to Amanda Stansell, Glassdoor economic research analyst, the results point out some important trends. Says Stansell:

“As we look closer at the Best Jobs in America for 2019, we’re seeing continued demand for highly-skilled workers, especially in tech and health care roles. Paired with today’s tight labor market, this demand heightens competition among employers to recruit and retain top-performing talent. This is why we’re seeing more employers across industries invest in workplace culture, transparent communication with senior leadership, clear career mobility and attractive compensation packages in order to keep employees satisfied in their jobs long-term.”

Here’s Glassdoor’s list of the 50 Best Jobs in America for 2019. Is your job on it?

1. Data Scientist
Number of Job Openings: 6,510
Median Base Salary: $108,000

2. Nursing Manager
Number of Job Openings: 13,931
Median Base Salary: $83,000 

3. Marketing Manager
Number of Job Openings: 7,395 
Median Base Salary: $82,000  

4. Occupational Therapist
Number of Job Openings: 17,701
Median Base Salary: $74,000

5. Product Manager
Number of Job Openings: 11,884
Median Base Salary: $115,000

6. Devops Engineer
Number of Job Openings: 4,657
Median Base Salary: $106,000

7. Program Manager
Number of Job Openings: 14,753
Median Base Salary: $87,000

8. Data Engineer
Number of Job Openings: 4,739
Median Base Salary: $100,000

9. HR Manager
Number of Job Openings: 3,908 
Median Base Salary: $85,000 

10. Software Engineer
Number of Job Openings: 49,007 
Median Base Salary: $104,000 

11. Mechanical Engineer
Number of Job Openings: 5,949  
Median Base Salary: $75,000  

12. Physician Assistant
Number of Job Openings: 9,819   
Median Base Salary: $105,000  

13. Sales Manager
Number of Job Openings: 21,695 
Median Base Salary: $65,000  

14. Sales Engineer
Number of Job Openings: 3,145 
Median Base Salary: $90,000  

15. Operations Manager
Number of Job Openings: 18,311  
Median Base Salary: $68,000  

16. Strategy Manager
Number of Job Openings: 2,783   
Median Base Salary: $140,000  

17. Security Engineer
Number of Job Openings: 4,683    
Median Base Salary: $102,000 

18. Construction Manager
Number of Job Openings: 3,334   
Median Base Salary: $75,000 

19. Speech Language Pathologist
Number of Job Openings: 29,467    
Median Base Salary: $72,000 

20. Project Manager
Number of Job Openings: 30,107  
Median Base Salary: $75,000 

21. Product Designer
Number of Job Openings: 2,158   
Median Base Salary: $100,000 

22. Java Developer
Number of Job Openings: 6,636  
Median Base Salary: $85,000 

23. Executive Assistant
Number of Job Openings: 4,858  
Median Base Salary: $60,000 

24. Electrical Engineer
Number of Job Openings: 7,191  
Median Base Salary: $77,000 

25. Finance Manager
Number of Job Openings: 3,747  
Median Base Salary: $118,000 

26. Business Analyst
Number of Job Openings: 13,340   
Median Base Salary: $72,000 

27. Solutions Architect
Number of Job Openings: 6,969    
Median Base Salary: $127,000 

28. Recruiter
Number of Job Openings: 9,782     
Median Base Salary: $48,000 

29. Business Development Manager
Number of Job Openings: 6,348    
Median Base Salary: $80,000 

30. Dental Hygienist
Number of Job Openings: 2,805   
Median Base Salary: $67,250  

31. Data Analyst
Number of Job Openings: 5,456  
Median Base Salary: $60,000

32. Nurse Practitioner
Number of Job Openings: 18,997   
Median Base Salary: $102,000

33. Applications Engineer
Number of Job Openings: 2,591   
Median Base Salary: $77,000

34. QA Manager
Number of Job Openings: 1,923  
Median Base Salary: $91,250 

35. Risk Manager
Number of Job Openings: 3,924 
Median Base Salary: $100,500 

36. Communications Manager
Number of Job Openings: 2,009 
Median Base Salary: $80,000 

37. Physical Therapist
Number of Job Openings: 34,899 
Median Base Salary: $70,000 

38. Facilities Manager
Number of Job Openings: 3,472 
Median Base Salary: $65,000  

39. Systems Engineer
Number of Job Openings: 16,793  
Median Base Salary: $90,000  

40. Customer Success Manager
Number of Job Openings: 2,601  
Median Base Salary: $65,000 

41. Radiologic Technologist
Number of Job Openings: 6,115 
Median Base Salary: $48,000

42. Restaurant Manager
Number of Job Openings: 21,754  
Median Base Salary: $49,000  

43. Software Engineering Manager
Number of Job Openings: 1,445 
Median Base Salary: $153,000  

44. Software Developer
Number of Job Openings: 11,833  
Median Base Salary: $80,000 

45. Safety Manager
Number of Job Openings: 2,180   
Median Base Salary: $71,000  

46. UX Designer
Number of Job Openings: 3,333    
Median Base Salary: $89,000   

47. Office Manager
Number of Job Openings: 18,681     
Median Base Salary: $42,000  

48. Brand Manager
Number of Job Openings: 1,500      
Median Base Salary: $85,000   

49. Software Development Manager
Number of Job Openings: 1,178      
Median Base Salary: $140,000    

50. Systems Administrator
Number of Job Openings: 8,278   
Median Base Salary: $68,000     

Apple, Amazon called out for 'incorrect' Taiwan, Hong Kong references

TAIPEI/SHANGHAI (Reuters) – One of China’s top government-linked think tanks has called out Apple Inc, Amazon.com Inc and other foreign companies for not referring to Hong Kong and Taiwan as part of China in a report that provoked a stern reaction from Taipei.

FILE PHOTO: An electronic screen displays the Apple Inc. logo on the exterior of the Nasdaq Market Site following the close of the day’s trading session in New York City, New York, U.S., August 2, 2018. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo

The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) said in a report this month that 66 of the world’s 500 largest companies had used “incorrect labels” for Taiwan and 53 had errors in the way they referred to Hong Kong, according to China’s Legal Daily newspaper. It said 45 had referred to both territories incorrectly.

Beijing considers self-ruled Taiwan a wayward province of China and the former British colony of Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997 and operates as a semi-autonomous territory.

China last year ramped up pressure on foreign companies including Marriott International and Qantas for referring to Taiwan and Hong Kong as separate from China in drop down menus or other material.

The report was co-written by CASS and the Internet Development Research Institution of Peking University. An official at the Internet Development Research Institution told Reuters that it had not yet been published to the public and declined to provide a copy.

A spokesman for Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen said Taiwan would not bow to Chinese pressure.

“As for China’s related out-of-control actions, we need to remind the international community to face this squarely and to unite efforts to reduce and contain these actions,” Alex Huang told reporters in Taipei.

Beijing has stepped up pressure on Taiwan since Tsai, from the pro-independence ruling party, took office in 2016.

That has included rising Chinese scrutiny over how companies from airlines, such as Air Canada, to retailers, such as Gap, refer to the democratic island in recent months.

Nike Inc, Siemens AG, ABB, Subaru and others were also on the list. Apple, Amazon, ABB, Siemens, Subaru and Nike did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.

Reporting By Yimou Lee, Jess Macy Yu, Josh Horwitz; Additional Reporting by Shanghai Newsroom, Gao Liangping, Cate Cadell, Pei Li, Brenda Goh and Naomi Tajitsu in TOKYO; Editing by Paul Tait and Nick Macfie

Bracing for a Hazy Robo-Future, Ford and VW Join Forces

Sensor partnerships. Subsidiary acquisitions. Software collaborations. The autonomous driving world is about as incestous a place as Caligula’s palace, and it got a little more so today, when Ford and Volkswagen announced a formal and long-anticipated alliance.

“The alliance we are now building, starting from first formal agreement, will boost both partners’ competitiveness in an era of rapid change,” Herbert Diess, the CEO of Volkswagen, said on a call with reporters. He and Ford CEO Jim Hackett said the partnership—which is not a merger—will begin with the companies jointly developing and building medium-sized pickups and commercial vans, to debut as early as 2022. The automakers said the arrangement should “yield improved annual pre-tax operating results” by 2023. So hopefully, this makes everyone richer.

After that, well, the companies have signed a “memorandum of understanding” to collaborate on electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, and mobility services. The shape and details of those partnerships are yet to be determined.

Diess is right about that “rapid change” bit. The automotive industry has shifted remarkably in the last decade, with new vehicle and vehicle-adjacent tech players—Tesla, Waymo, Aurora, Argo AI—injecting fresh blood (and panic) into the business of building cars. Ford and VW seem to believe that banding together will help them not only survive, but thrive.

The companies will need to do that in a world where, eventually, someday, the human driver is obsolete. The path to self-driving domination is not yet clear. What services will automotive manufacturers manage for themselves? Which technologies will they build and own? Ford and VW have spent the last few years toying with different answers to these questions, and by joining forces, each has diversified its AV portfolio. It might be evidence, as automotive writer Pete Bigelow points out, that the companies are making smart, strategic decisions about how to spend their R & D dollars in this confusing, in-between time. Or that they’re flailing. Maybe both.

Both VW and Ford already have (quasi) in-house automated vehicle software teams. VW has built up a 150-person “Autonomous Intelligent Driving” unit as part of its Audi brand, which is building a full AV software stack. (Audi itself has pledged to spend $16 billion on electric and self-driving vehicles through 2023.) And the German automaker is working on self-driving with the AV developer Aurora, which is headed up by self-driving tech veterans.

Ford has a large stake in Pittsburgh-based AV software company Argo AI, whose work is a key element of the automaker’s pledge to have a fully automated robotaxi in operation by 2021. And it has spent time and money boning up on “mobility” tech, purchasing companies like transit software-maker TransLoc, transportation cloud platform Autonomic, (recently killed) shuttle service Chariot, and scooter-share company Spin. It’s trying to figure out how best to connect customers to transportation, and what they’d like to see out of a transportation service, anyway.

It’s not clear yet how these various minglings will affect Ford and VW’s work. Argo AI is involved in the discussions between the companies, but specifics are scarce. “We’re not going to speculate on the details of the advanced discussions that are ongoing,” says Alan Hall, a spokesperson for Ford.

Khobi Brooklyn, a spokesperson for Aurora, did not say what role the company might play in the alliance. “As we continue to build relationships across the transportation ecosystem with providers of vehicles, transportation networks and fleet management operations, we are confident that we will be able to deliver the benefits of self-driving technology safely, quickly, and broadly,” she wrote in a statement. Aurora has said that it has not ruled out working with other automotive manufacturers on self-driving cars; it also has partnerships with Hyundai and EV startup Byton.

Another element of this “diversification” that should benefit both companies: They get easier access to the others’ regional strengths—and regulatory environments. VW has invested serious money in South America, Africa, and China. But despite a new plan to establish a plant in Tennessee, the German carmaker is weaker in the US, Ford’s home turf. “From Volkswagen’s perspective, it would make a lot of sense to cooperate with an American player given that the regulatory conditions for preparing the breakthrough of autonomous driving are more advanced in the US than they are in Europe,” Diess told reporters. Break out those German-English dictionaries.


More Great WIRED Stories