Log In | Subscribe | | |

apps

The growth of courier services, dedicated to food delivery, has in some markets become dominated by companies that began with on-line car and driver hire services, often mis-named "ride hailing." Their power in the market has enabled them to define the terms that they demand in contracts with food providers (often called, but often not, "restaurants"). At the pointy-end of such services is, in a significant number of markets, Uber, a company which has, since inception, displayed a disregard for local laws in countries which it has entered. It has also been widely criticised for the terms it imposes on the drivers and motorcycle riders it engages. As this case shows, it has also displayed a willingness to impose unfair contract terms on those it does business with.

CoNet Section: 

Two related statements from the IRS and other agencies highlight two specific risks. The first is password security and the second is phishing, etc. scams. By the way, "Summit Partners" (which appears in the statements) isn't a firm - it's someone's idea of a buzzword. Ignore it. It only means "other government agencies." Also, they have one thing dangerously wrong.

The world and his dog seem to be creating apps for you to get food deliveries from restaurants and take-aways. But the fad is already over. Here's five reasons why.

On 4th April, Mark Zuckerberg was in full PR mode: he'd posted family photos on Facebook, carefully emphasising that in his house both Jewish and Christian festivals are marked with food but no sign of frivolity and he'd been seen looking suitably tired. He'd brushed off, at least so far as America is concerned, his refusal to appear before a British Parliamentary Committee. And he'd had a bit of the news agenda taken away from his own, and Facebook's bad news stream by the shooting at YouTube. And so, on a conference call with media selected by Facebook's PR people, when he began to present what he calls "Hard Questions: Q&A with Mark Zuckerberg on Protecting People’s Information" he was not expecting anything like the BBC's Hard Talk. And so it proved: he set the agenda, questions were soft and answers were nebulous.

CoNet Section: 

Binary options are a simple concept: they pay a fixed return, or nothing. It's a bit like a KickStarter campaign: if you hit the target, you get your money, if you miss it, you don't. But with binary options, the risks are different: fail and you lose your investment. So, there's another way of looking at it: it's a bet and if you lose, you lose your stake, so it's not like an ordinary option where you might still get back some of your original investment. For sophisticated investors and financial adrenalin junkies, they are fine. For everyone else, they are very high risk. Aussie regulator ASIC says that risk is rarely properly explained, and often it is not explained at all.

BIScom Subsection: