When you buy through our links, Business Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

Sling TV is one of the best live TV streaming services you can sign up for without breaking the bank. With plans starting at $40 a month, it's an excellent midrange option with a healthy assortment of popular channels and features that cord-cutters crave. 

But Sling isn't the only live TV option out there, and there are some areas where it falls behind more expensive services. To help you decide if Sling TV is the right choice for you and your household, we've broken down everything you need to know, including our thoughts on what it's like to use and how it stacks up to its main competitors.

What is Sling TV?

Sling is a live TV streaming service that offers access to many popular cable and satellite channels via an internet connection. That means no bulky cable boxes or tricky contracts, and you can get Sling for a fraction of the cost of most traditional pay-TV providers. 

The service offers two primary plans geared toward different types of programming: Sling Orange leans toward sports, and Sling Blue toward news and entertainment. You can also combine both plans to get access to all of their channels, and there are add-on packages you can buy to unlock even more networks and premium stations, like Starz and Showtime.

How much is Sling TV?

Sling TV offers three primary plans, with prices starting at $40 a month. All Sling plans include 50 hours of DVR storage, but members can pay $5 a month extra to unlock DVR Plus with 200 hours. 

Here's how much each of Sling TV's three main plans cost:

*Sling Blue and Orange + Blue pricing and total channel offerings vary depending on location. Local NBC, Fox, and ABC stations are only available in select cities. Members must pay an extra $5 in areas that include all three local stations.

What channels come with Sling TV?

Both Sling Orange and Blue start with the same selection of 25 channels, including popular cable networks like CNN, HGTV, Food Network, and more. But in addition to this base lineup, each plan has its own unique assortment of additional channels.

Orange has seven exclusive sports and family channels, including ESPN, Disney Channel, and Freeform. Meanwhile, Blue has 17 exclusive news and entertainment channels, including Discovery Channel and TLC, and local stations from ABC, Fox, and NBC in supported markets. On the downside, there is no option to stream your local CBS channel. 

Sling TV also offers several add-on packages that you can purchase for an additional cost to unlock even more channels. Bundles like Sports Extra, Entertainment Extra, News Extra, and Kids Extra cost an extra $6 to $11 a month, each including anywhere from six to 14 additional channels. The Sports Extra add-on, for example, includes ESPNU, MLB Network, NBA TV, and more for $11 a month.

Many of these extra channels are included with base offerings from more expensive competitors like YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, and Fubo, but some viewers may prefer how Sling TV lets you save money by offering these networks as optional add-ons.

Check out our Sling TV channels guide for a full breakdown of networks and features included with each plan and add-on.

Does Sling TV offer a free plan?

Sling TV does offer a free streaming option called "Freestream" that anyone can watch without an account. Though this plan does not include any traditional cable or local networks, it does feature access to over 400 ad-supported live internet TV channels. 

Some of these stations are offshoots of major networks that broadcast select content from their libraries. For instance, you can watch channels like AMC Thrillers and VH1 I Love Reality.

These free internet channels aren't a substitute for true cable or satellite TV offerings, but they're a nice option for cord-cutters who aren't ready to commit to a paid subscription.

How do I stream Sling TV?

The Sling TV app is supported on several media players and mobile products, including all of the best streaming devices from Apple, Roku, Fire TV, and Chromecast, as well as iOS and Android phones, Xbox Series X|S, web browsers, and more. The app is also available directly through many of the best TVs from brands like Samsung, LG, Sony, Hisense, Vizio, and TCL. 

Check out a full list of every supported device on the Sling website.

What is Sling TV like to use?

After testing Sling on a web browser, smart TV, and Roku Ultra, we found the service to be intuitive and easy to use, an important characteristic for subscribers making the switch from cable. In our experience, streaming is stable and without interruption, but your results may differ based on your network connection quality. 

Sling's interface lets you access a traditional channel guide where you can sort channels by their name or genre, and you can see which networks you've most recently watched. Once you choose a program and start watching live TV, you can press down on your remote to toggle an overlay on the bottom of the screen, which lets you see details about the program or jump into other content. 

You can also press up on your remote to easily return to the full-screen guide from any live channel. The program you were watching keeps playing on a small pop-up screen in the lower right corner until you select another channel.

Outside the guide, Sling has a menu on the left side of the screen that lets you access a homepage with content recommendations, your DVR recordings, on-demand content, and settings. This is all simple to navigate, and there are no glaring omissions. 

Is Sling TV worth it?

Sling is an excellent live TV streaming option for viewers who don't want to spend much money but still want more than the bare minimum. It lacks some perks that come with Hulu's pricier live TV service, like unlimited DVR and a complimentary Disney Plus subscription, but it includes some key networks that cheaper services, like Philo, are missing.

One of Sling's most attractive features is how it lets you choose between two affordable base plans to keep costs low. If you don't care about watching sports on ESPN networks, opting for Sling Blue at only $40 a month saves you a great deal of money compared to signing up for a service like Fubo, which costs double the price and forces you to pay for channels you might not want. Sling Blue even includes local channels in big cities, which is something that Philo's less expensive service lacks.  

However, if you're looking for a live TV streaming solution to suit a big household with varied viewing needs, Sling may not be for you. Though you can customize a comprehensive plan with options for many different tastes by subscribing to Sling Orange + Blue and tacking on packages like the Sports Extra plan and DVR Plus, the cost adds up quickly. To get a fully inclusive Sling TV package with a channel selection and set of features that rivals Hulu + Live TV or YouTube TV's base offerings, you'll end up paying about the same or, in some cases, even more than those services charge.

Sling is ultimately best for people who just want an Orange or Blue plan to get the essentials of cable TV but don't want to pay extra for all the other channels that come with more expensive services.

The bottom line

Starting at $40 a month, Sling TV is a competitive option for subscribers who want an affordable live TV streaming service that provides popular news, sports, entertainment, and family programming. 

It's considerably cheaper than most competing live TV streaming services, and it offers more sports and news channels than Philo, Sling's top budget competitor. Though Philo is even cheaper at just $25 a month, Sling has plans that include stations like ESPN, NFL Network, CNN, ABC, NBC, and Fox, which are all missing from Philo.  

Ultimately, Sling TV cements itself as a unique midrange option that rests between Philo's true budget pricing and the more common $65-$75 starting prices of other live TV services. Options like Hulu + Live TV remain a better fit for people willing to pay more for additional channels and extra perks like unlimited DVR, but in an age of rising prices, Sling TV's lower costs provide a nice streaming solution for first-time cord cutters switching over from cable or satellite TV.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/gOfP6A5
via IFTTT

• Fisker is in talks with four automakers for possible acquisition, according to CEO Henrik Fisker.
• Fisker's CEO held an all-hands with staff on Thursday.
• The company has warned it could go out of business this year.

Fisker CEO Henrik Fisker told staff during an all-hands meeting on Thursday that the company was in talks with four automakers for a potential buyout, according to a recording of the event viewed by Business Insider.

"We still have some time to get other offers on Fisker," he told staff on Thursday. "We do have four car companies that have signed NDAs. However, they obviously need time to get to some diligence."

The company did not specify who the four automakers were or how long it may take for the companies to complete due diligence as they work toward a potential agreement.

A deal with a major automaker that was rumored to be Nissan fell through earlier this year. The CEO told his staff on Thursday that the company has been working with Deutsche Bank to find a buyer. One offer to buy the company hadn't been "sufficient," he said, according to the recording.

The all-hands meeting comes two days after Fisker warned investors it could seek bankruptcy protection within 30 days if it could not shore up more liquidity. The company said in the regulatory filing that it had just $54 million in cash equivalencies as of April 16 and "believes that its available liquidity will not be sufficient to meet its current obligations."

A spokesperson for Fisker declined to comment.

Do you work for Fisker or have a tip? Reach out to the reporter via a non-work email and device at gkay@businessinsider.com

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/zbdhtc9
via IFTTT

• Meta introduced its AI-powered chatbot Meta AI across its social media and messaging platforms. 
• The tool is similar to ChatGPT and Gemini, offering text generation and image creation.
• But it can't be disabled — despite the AI chatbot previously saying that it could be.

Meta released a new AI-powered assistant on its apps last week, and users can't seem to escape it, whether they want to or not.

The prompt "ask Meta AI anything" shows up whenever you click on the search bar in Instagram and Facebook. It also shows up as a chat on messaging apps Messenger and WhatsApp.

The newly released Llama 3 LLM powers the tool, and Meta calls it "the most intelligent AI assistant you can use for free." It's also available in 12 countries outside the US.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Wednesday in a first-quarter earnings call that the company is on its path "to having the most used and best AI assistant in the world."

But some social media fans aren't happy about the change, with one X post comparing it to "when Apple force-download that U2 album onto everyone's iPhone." So Business Insider took a look at what the AI does, how it competes against other chatbots — and if there is a way of avoiding the technology.

What it does

Meta AI is similar to other AI chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT or Google's Gemini. According to the tool, it can help with a "wide range of topics, from general knowledge to more specific questions." That includes generating text, offering suggestions, and creating images.

Users can access Meta AI in their feeds, chats, and search. They can also view the history of conversations in the chat section on Messenger and Instagram.

The tool is free for Meta users and can be used without exiting your app. It can also create AI-generated images by asking it to "imagine" a description of what you want the image to be.

Users can make GIFs, too, by asking the chatbot to animate the image. The assistant can make a moving photo — although the GIFs aren't like the general meme ones offered in iPhone messaging to add humor or commentary to conversations.

How does it compare to other AI chatbots?

The main difference that separates Meta AI from other chatbots is the ability to use it when you're in the social media app without exiting the app (ChatGPT, for example, is a stand-alone app). It's the first tool automatically implemented into multiple social media platforms.

Zuckerberg previously told The Verge that the goal with Llama 3 "wasn't to build something that was way ahead" but to bring AI to platforms like Facebook and Instagram.

But despite being available on the app, Meta AI isn't automatically connected to your social media accounts or personal information. If you ask it how many Instagram followers you have, it will ask you to share your username, and then it will tell you to look at the account yourself.

Can you turn it off?

Unlike other chatbots that you can use at your own will, you can't get rid of Meta AI.

Since its release, the tool has created quite an online stir, with users questioning the ability to turn it on or off. According to many, the chatbot also originally incorrectly said it could be disabled and provided instructions to do so when asked.

Meta seems to have fixed that issue because the chatbot now says it can't be removed.

But if users don't want to use it, they can search regularly on Instagram or Facebook without typing inquiries for the assistant. And on WhatsApp and Messenger, users can just ignore the Meta AI chats since they're not available in the search bar.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/sxBQeO4
via IFTTT

• The busy season for house sales has increased the focus on "curb appeal" for many homeowners.
• A home's exterior can influence potential buyers' perceptions and could increase resale value.
• Interior designers recommend installing exterior lighting and avoiding bold paint colors.

Now that we're entering the busy season for house sales, "curb appeal" is on many homeowners' minds more than ever, especially if they're gearing up to sell in the near future.

A home's exterior serves as the first impression as potential buyers scope out your home and can oftentimes hint at what lies inside. And getting the look right is worth it, especially if doing so can increase your resale value.

Business Insider asked three interior designers to share the biggest mistakes homeowners make when it comes to curb appeal.

Here's what they said to avoid if you want to have the best-looking house on the block.

Bold paint colors can make a home stand out in the wrong way.

Loud, trendy colors can make passersby take a double take, but not always in a good way. Although it's tempting to embrace the latest, boldest hues, it's not a wise idea when it comes to curb appeal.

"Sometimes standing out is not a good thing, especially when you are the only Pepto-Bismol pink residence in a neighborhood of neutrals," Sarah Latham, principal designer of Latham Interiors, told BI.

Insufficient exterior lighting can make a house look dim and less inviting.

According to Jessica Dorling, owner and principal designer of Dorling Design Studio, insufficient exterior lighting can negatively impact the curb appeal and functionality of your home.

"Adequate lighting is essential for enhancing your landscaping and curb appeal," she told BI, adding that curb appeal isn't confined to daylight hours.

"You want your home to exude the same warmth and hospitality at night as it does during the day, and effective exterior lighting is pivotal in achieving this," she said.

Dorling also said that when adding additional exterior lighting, don't overlook the importance of illuminating elements such as the stairs and house numbers.

Skipping out on regular maintenance can make a good home look run down.

Using temporary materials in exterior finishes that won't hold up to your local environment is a big mistake, said Latham.

The designer shared this example: If you select a wood siding that's going to have intense sun exposure and needs yearly maintenance you don't have time for, your home can soon look degraded and neglected. That's why it pays to use long-lasting, high-quality exterior materials appropriate to your climate.

The upkeep also applies to outdoor furniture and accessories.

"If a homeowner puts wicker furniture on a patio with no overhang in a snow environment, that furniture is going to age quickly and into disrepair," Latham added.

Clutter like toys and bikes can be a distracting eyesore for buyers.

When you're trying to sell your home, it's important to clean up outside in the name of curb appeal.

Sarah Storms, owner and principal designer of Styled by Storms shared that too much clutter is overpowering to prospective buyers.

"Your front yard is your first impression. Remember to put away your bikes or kids' sports equipment," she told BI. "Sometimes, the best appeal is just tidying up."

Not mirroring the style inside the home with outdoor elements can cause a disconnect.

"To ensure cohesion between the exterior and interior narratives of your home, it's crucial that they tell the same story," Dorling told BI.

"I often advise my clients to view their home as a book — if you're selecting a mystery novel, the inside of the book should be a mystery story and not a science-fiction story," she explained.

If the interior has been remodeled but the exterior hasn't, you're also doing your home a disservice, Dorling said.

Simply put, make sure the architectural styles match inside and out.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/KDbNOil
via IFTTT

• Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Apple CEO Tim Cook taken shots at each other's companies for years.
• They've traded barbs over Apple's prices and Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal. 
• Now, they've reached a new battleground: their competing AR headsets.

Meta's Mark Zuckerberg and Apple's Tim Cook have a long-standing feud. 

The two tech titans have been bickering since at least 2014, trading barbs over each other's products and business models. Over the years, their battle has escalated to include public jabs, pointed ad campaigns, and even a legal dispute.

Here's when the rivalry began, and everything that's happened since.

The feud between Zuckerberg and Cook became public in 2014, when Cook lambasted Facebook's business model.

In September 2014, Cook gave an in-depth interview with Charlie Rose that touched on a range of topics, including privacy.

During the interview — which took place in the weeks following the infamous leaks of multiple female celebrities' nude photos stored on their iCloud accounts — Cook espoused Apple's commitment to privacy while denouncing the business models of companies like Google and Facebook. 

"I think everyone has to ask, how do companies make their money? Follow the money," Cook said. "And if they're making money mainly by collecting gobs of personal data, I think you have a right to be worried. And you should really understand what's happening to that data."  

Shortly after, Cook reiterated his stance in an open letter on Apple's dedicated privacy site. 

"A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realize that when an online service is free, you're not the customer. You're the product," Cook wrote. 

Cook's comments rankled Zuckerberg, who called the claims "ridiculous" and blasted Apple products as being expensive.

In an interview with Time later that year, Zuckerberg was reportedly visibly irritated by Cook's assertions. 

"A frustration I have is that a lot of people increasingly seem to equate an advertising business model with somehow being out of alignment with your customers," Zuckerberg told Time's Lev Grossman. "I think it's the most ridiculous concept. What, you think because you're paying Apple that you're somehow in alignment with them? If you were in alignment with them, then they'd make their products a lot cheaper!"

Their squabble came to a head following the Cambridge Analytica scandal when Cook criticized Facebook's actions.

In 2018, a whistleblower revealed that consulting firm Cambridge Analytica harvested user data without consent from 50 million users. 

During an interview with Kara Swisher and Chris Hayes in the months following, Cook was asked what he would do if he was in Zuckerberg's shoes.

Cook responded: "What would I do? I wouldn't be in this situation."

Cook said that Facebook should have regulated itself when it came to user data, but that "I think we're beyond that here." He also doubled down on his stance that Facebook considers its users its product. 

"The truth is, we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer — if our customer was our product," Cook said. "We've elected not to do that."

Zuckerberg hit back, calling Cook's comments "extremely glib."

"You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib. And not at all aligned with the truth," Zuckerberg said during an interview on The Ezra Klein Show podcast.

He refuted the idea that Facebook isn't focused on serving people and once again criticized the premium Apple places on its products. 

"I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm Syndrome and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you," he said. "Because that sounds ridiculous to me."

Privately, Zuckerberg was reportedly outraged by Cook's remarks — so much so that he ordered his employees to switch to Android devices.

In November 2018, The New York Times published a blockbuster report detailing the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The Times reported that Cook's comments had "infuriated" Zuckerberg, who ordered employees on his management team who used iPhones to switch to Android. 

Soon after the report published, Facebook wrote a blog post refuting some of the reporting by The Times — but not the Zuckerberg-Cook feud. 

"Tim Cook has consistently criticized our business model and Mark has been equally clear he disagrees. So there's been no need to employ anyone else to do this for us," Facebook wrote. "And we've long encouraged our employees and executives to use Android because it is the most popular operating system in the world."

In 2019, Zuckerberg and Cook had a meeting at the annual Sun Valley retreat in Idaho that went poorly, according to The New York Times.

According to The Times, Zuckerberg asked Cook for his advice following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Cook told Zuckerberg Facebook should delete the user data his company collects from outside of its family of apps, which "stunned" Zuckerberg and was akin to Cook saying Facebook's business was "untenable," The Times reported.

In August 2020, Zuckerberg jumped in the fray as Apple faced criticism over its App Store policies.

During a company-wide meeting, Zuckerberg openly criticized Apple, saying it has a "unique stranglehold as a gatekeeper on what gets on phones," according to a report from BuzzFeed News. 

Zuckerberg also said that the App Store blocks innovation and competition and "allows Apple to charge monopoly rents," BuzzFeed reported. 

Apple has been facing antitrust scrutiny from Congress and has been strongly criticized by developers — most notably "Fortnite" creator Epic Games — for the 30% fee it takes from App Store purchases. In 2020, Facebook said Apple blocked an update to Facebook's iOS app that would have informed users about the fee Apple charges.

Apple's iOS 14.5 software update angered Facebook, which says the privacy features could destroy part of its business.

That version of Apple's smartphone operating system, iOS, made it so that iPhone app developers would need permission from users to collect and track their data. While this affects any company that makes iOS apps, it also has a direct impact on Facebook's advertising business: It uses data tracking to dictate which ads are served to users. 

In an August 2020 blog post, Facebook said it may be forced to shut down Audience Network for iOS, a tool that personalizes ads in third-party apps. 

"This is not a change we want to make, but unfortunately, Apple's updates to iOS 14 have forced this decision," Facebook said. 

The complaints from Facebook and other developers led Apple to temporarily delay the new privacy tools, saying it wanted to "give developers the time they need to make the necessary changes."

Facebook escalated the feud to a full-page ad in The New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.

 

 

 

 

—Dave Stangis (@DaveStangis) December 16, 2020

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

In the ads, Facebook argued that the changes would hurt small businesses that advertise on Facebook's platform.

"Without personalized ads, Facebook data shows that the average small business advertiser stands to see a cut of over 60% in their sales for every dollar they spend," the ad reads, which was posted by Twitter user Dave Stangis. 

Apple hit back, telling Business Insider that it was "standing up for our users." 

"Users should know when their data is being collected and shared across other apps and websites — and they should have the choice to allow that or not," an Apple spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, Facebook also said it would help Epic Games, the company behind "Fortnite," in its legal battle against Apple.

Epic Games had accused Apple of violating antitrust laws and engaging in anticompetitive behavior regarding the App Store's fees and policies.

Facebook said it planned to help Epic with discovery for the trial. 

Zuckerberg also lashed out at Apple during an earnings call in 2021, saying the company frequently interferes with how Facebook's apps work.

When discussing Facebook's suite of messaging apps during the company's fourth-quarter earnings call, Zuckerberg made a clear dig at Apple, saying the iPhone maker made "misleading" privacy claims. 

"Now Apple recently released so-called nutrition labels, which focused largely on metadata that apps collect rather than the privacy and security of people's actual messages, but iMessage stores non-end-to-end encrypted backups of your messages by default unless you disable iCloud," Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg went on to describe Apple as "one of our biggest competitors" and said that because Apple is increasingly relying on services to fuel its business, it "has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work, which they regularly do to preference their own."

"This impacts the growth of millions of businesses around the world," he added.

But Cook hasn't backed down from his view that Facebook's business model of harvesting user data and selling it to advertisers is harmful to consumers.

During a speech at the European Computers, Privacy and Data Protection Conference the same week, Cook discussed business models that prioritize user engagement and rely on user data to make money. Though he didn't mention Facebook by name, Cook made several references that alluded to the platform.

"At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement — the longer the better — and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible," Cook said.

Facebook launched another ad campaign in 2021 aimed at proving the need for personalized advertising amid its ongoing battle with Apple.

The initiative, titled "Good Ideas Deserve to be Found," makes the case that personalized ads help Facebook users discover small businesses, particularly during the pandemic. 

"Every business starts with an idea, and being able to share that idea through personalized ads is a game changer for small businesses," Facebook said in a blog post announcing the theme. "Limiting the use of personalized ads would take away a vital growth engine for businesses."

Cook called Facebook's objections to the privacy update "flimsy arguments" during an interview with The New York Times.

During a podcast interview with Kara Swisher, Cook said that he believes society is in a privacy crisis and that he's been "shocked" that there's been pushback to the new feature to this degree. 

"We know these things are flimsy arguments," Cook told The Times. "I think that you can do digital advertising and make money from digital advertising without tracking people when they don't know they're being tracked."

Cook also said he doesn't view Facebook as a competitor, contrary to what Zuckerberg has said.

"Oh, I think that we compete in some things," Cook said. "But no, if I may ask who our biggest competitor are, they would not be listed. We're not in the social networking business."

Apple's iOS 14.5 update finally rolled out in April 2021, and Facebook paid steeply for it.

"The impact of iOS overall as a headwind on our business in 2022 is on the order of $10 billion," then-Meta CFO David Wehner estimated in an earnings call that year.

In March 2024, Meta, Microsoft, X, and Match Group joined Epic Games in arguing that Apple has been flouting a 2021 court-ordered injunction that required the company to let developers show users links to alternative payment systems beyond the App Store.

Apple, for its part, said in January that it had "fully complied" with the injunction.

The latest battleground in Apple and Meta's feud is their work on virtual and augmented reality.

Apple released its Vision Pro headset in February, and Zuckerberg was quick to offer his critique of the competitor to Meta's Quest headsets.

"I have to say that before this, I expected that Quest would be the better value for most people since it's really good and like seven times less expensive, but after using [Vision Pro] I don't just think that Quest is the better value, it's the better product, period," Zuckerberg said in a video on Threads. "They have different strengths, but overall Quest is better for the vast majority of things that people use mixed reality for."

Zuckerberg says many people "assumed that Vision Pro would be higher quality because it's Apple and it costs $3,000 more."

"I know that some fanboys get upset whenever anyone dares to question if Apple's going to be the leader in a new category," he said. "But the reality is that every generation of computing has an open and a closed model. And yeah, in mobile, Apple's closed model won, but it's not always that way."

In Meta's first quarter earnings call in April, Zuckerberg said he didn't think AR glasses would find mainstream success without "full holographic displays."

"I still think that that's going to be awesome and is the long-term mature state for the product," he said. "But now, it seems pretty clear that there's also a meaningful market for fashionable AI glasses without a display."

Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth has also taken shots at Apple over its Vision Pro.

"As soon as I put the headset on, I can see what trade-offs they made and why they made them. And, perhaps definitionally, those aren't the trade-offs I would have made," he said.

Bosworth called the Vision Pro's motion blur "really distracting" and said the headset was "very uncomfortable to use."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/wlU8BWz
via IFTTT

• Southwest announced it will leave four airports this year following fewer expected Max deliveries.
• The network adjustment includes flight reductions in Atlanta and Chicago, too.
• A slowdown in production at Boeing amid the 737 Max fallout has left airlines with fewer aircraft.

The ongoing Boeing 737 Max 9 fallout is continuing to burn airlines.

Southwest Airlines on Thursday posted a larger-than-anticipated quarterly loss and said it expects to receive just 20 Boeing 737 Max 8 planes this year, 26 fewer than previously expected, as the manufacturer works to fix production problems

With so few planes being delivered, the all-Boeing carrier has undertaken cost-cutting measures like limiting hiring, reducing service in some markets, and slashing 4 airports completely.

The airports losing Southwest service are:

• Syracuse Hancock International Airport in New York

• Bellingham International Airport in Washington

• Cozumel International Airport in Mexico

• Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Texas

Boeing's Max 8 is a smaller version of the Max 9 that was involved in the Alaska Airlines door plug blowout, but both have been impacted by the production slowdown at Boeing following the near-disaster in January.

Southwest also said it would "significantly restructure other markets," including putting capacity reductions at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and Chicago O'Hare International Airport.

"To improve our financial performance, we have intensified our network optimization efforts to address underperforming markets," Southwest CEO Bob Jordan said in the earnings report, noting the impact could go into 2025.

"I want to sincerely thank our Employees, the airports, and the communities for all their incredible support over the years."

None of the four airports will be left without airline service after Southwest's exit, though Bellingham in north Washington state near the Canadian border will have only a few flight options.

Meanwhile, Southwest will still serve Houston from its busy Hobby hub.

Carriers, including Alaska, Europe's Ryanair, and United Airlines, have faced similar fallouts to Southwest.

All three have voiced frustration over the fewer aircraft they'll receive from Boeing this year, effectively slowing growth and forcing them to cut flying — something that could increase airfare.

The backlash has prompted Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun to announce his resignation from the company effective year-end.

Moreover, Boeing chair, Larry Kellner, will not run for reelection, and Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Stan Deal will also be stepping down, the company said. Thirty-year Boeing veteran Stephanie Pope has replaced Deal as the company's first female head.

New management will have much more to deal with than just the Max crisis, given an influx of whistleblowers who have come forward with further allegations against the planemaker.

Sam Salehpour, a veteran Boeing employee and 40-year aerospace engineer, told Senate lawmakers last week that the planemaker threatened him to keep quiet about what he saw as quality lapses on the Boeing 787 and Boeing 777 planes.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/B2TPwvp
via IFTTT

• Russia's economy can't afford to win or lose the war in Ukraine, one economist says.
• That's because Russia can't afford the cost of rebuilding and securing Ukraine.
• The cost of repairing its own nation is already "massive," Renaud Foucart says.

Russia's economy is completely dominated by its war in Ukraine, so much that Moscow cannot afford either to win or lose the war, according to one European economist.

Renaud Foucart, a senior economics lecturer at Lancaster University, pointed to the dire economic situation facing Russia as the war in Ukraine wraps up its second year. 

Russia's GDP grew 5.5% year-over-year over the third quarter of 2023, according to data from the Russian government. But most of that growth is being fueled by the nation's monster military spending, Foucart said, with plans for the Kremlin to spend a record 36.6 trillion rubles, or $386 billion on defense this year.

"Military pay, ammunition, tanks, planes, and compensation for dead and wounded soldiers, all contribute to the GDP figures. Put simply, the war against Ukraine is now the main driver of Russia's economic growth" Foucart said in an op-ed for The Conversation this week.

Other areas of Russia's economy are hurting as the war drags on. Moscow is slammed with a severe labor shortage, thanks to young professionals fleeing the country or being pulled into the conflict. The nation is now short around 5 million workers, according to one estimate, which is causing wages to soar.

Inflation is high at 7.4% — nearly double the 4% target of its central bank. Meanwhile, direct investment in the country has collapsed, falling around $8.7 billion in the first three quarters of 2023, per data from Russia's central bank.

That all puts the Kremlin in a tough position, no matter the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Even if Russia wins, the nation can't afford to rebuild and secure Ukraine, due to the financial costs as well as the impact of remaining isolated from the rest of the global market. 

Western nations have shunned trade with Russia since it invaded Ukraine in 2022, which economists have said could severely crimp Russia's long-term economic growth.

As long as it remains isolated, Russia's "best hope" is to become "entirely dependent" on China, one of its few remaining strategic allies, Foucart said.

Meanwhile, the costs of rebuilding its own nation are already "massive," he added, pointing to problems like broken infrastructure and social unrest in Russia.

"A protracted stalemate might be the only solution for Russia to avoid total economic collapse," Foucart wrote. "The Russian regime has no incentive to end the war and deal with that kind of economic reality. So it cannot afford to win the war, nor can it afford to lose it. Its economy is now entirely geared towards continuing a long and ever deadlier conflict."

Other economists have warned of trouble coming for Russia amid the toll of its war in Ukraine. Russia's economy will see significantly more degradation ahead, one London-based think tank recently warned, despite talk of Russia's resilience in the face of Western sanctions.

This story was originally published in February 2024.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/gCbBora
via IFTTT

• Markets are too optimistic about a soft landing, JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon told The Wall Street Journal.
• He expects soft landing odds to be half of what markets are pricing in.
• "Don't get lulled into a false sense of security because the today looks okay."

Things aren't looking particularly rosy for markets and the economy, Jamie Dimon said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. 

"The odds of a soft landing, the market kind of prices in 70%. I think it's half of that," the JPMorgan chief said. "It looks a little bit more like the '70s to me, and I point out to a lot of people, things looked pretty rosy in 1972 — they were not rosy in 1973."

Dimon referred to a US slowdown at that time, when an oil crisis sent inflation soaring and a recession took hold, a dire situation known as stagflation.

But this time around, Dimon sees different reasons for why markets should stay cautious.

That includes massive fiscal deficits and upcoming inflation drivers, from green energy initiatives to the world's rearming. Dimon also remains wary about the Federal Reserve's efforts to reduce its balance sheet, citing that no one knows the full effects of doing so.

"Don't get lulled into a false sense of security because the today looks okay, that tomorrow is gonna be okay," he said. 

For now, the economy is visibly strong, Dimon said, with consumers staying in good shape. But even that hints at problems to come, given how reliant the economy has become on fiscal spending for its own success.

"The deficit is 6% of GDP, almost $2 trillion," he said. "That's driving a lot of this growth and that will have other consequences, possibly down the road, called inflation, which may not go away like people expect."

Once such problems take hold, they're also likely to stay for the long-term, extending into 2025 and 2026, Dimon warned.

His latest comments are another installment in a slew of warnings Dimon has made this past month. In his April letter to shareholders, the CEO also cautioned against market optimism, following up with similar outlooks during JPMorgan's earnings call. 

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/QVpqtxI
via IFTTT

• Justices are under pressure to issue a quick ruling on Donald Trump's sweeping immunity claim.
• Special counsel Jack Smith wants justices to send the case right to trial.
• A delay would increase the likelihood Trump avoids another potential trial before the election.

Within the first minutes of the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments Thursday in a landmark case over whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in a federal case over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a hypothetical question surrounding a president ordering an assassination was posed.

"If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Trump's attorney D. John Sauer.

Sauer argued it could.

"It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act," Saur replied.

Sotomayor interjected, "It could, and why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons."

"And isn't that the nature of the allegations here, that he's not doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility, he's doing it for personal gain?" Sotomayer asked.

Sauer followed up, "I agree with that characterization of the indictment and that confirms immunity."

Sauer and the justices spent some time Thursday morning debating whether certain hypothetical situations would be considered "private acts" or an "official acts" under Sauer's argument.

The nation's highest court will weigh whether to fully or even partially support Trump's unprecedented claim of presidential immunity, which protects former presidents from facing criminal charges if their actions were related to the job.

It's unclear when the Supreme Court will release its decision on Trump's claims. If the justices adhere to their normal schedule, a ruling would be released at the end of June. Special counsel Jack Smith has urged justices to deal with the former president's case quickly so the trial over Trump's underlying charges related to trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election can proceed.

Trump's trial was supposed to have begun last month, but depending on how the Supreme Court rules in this case, it could be delayed past the election. Legal observers have repeatedly pointed out that the former president could count it as a victory even if justices reject his sweeping immunity claims if their decision takes up more time. If Trump were to win the election in November, he could even find ways to scuttle Smith's prosecution entirely.

As of now, Trump's Manhattan hush-money trial is his only criminal trial to have started. Trump could not attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court due to the New York trial, in which he stands charged with 34 counts of business fraud related to hush-money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels.

His other cases, including another Smith-led case focused on Trump's hoarding of classified documents, don't yet have trial dates and are unlikely to be tried before the election.

The justices could also fundamentally change the presidency itself. Never before has a former president faced criminal prosecution. Their ruling could have sweeping effects on the future of the presidency, particularly if they accept some of Trump's argument that a Nixon-era Supreme Court decision on civil immunity applies to criminal charges as well. Smith and many legal scholars have argued that such immunity could empower the presidency to the point where the nation's highest office in the land would be above the law the executive branch is required to enforce.

Trump and his allies have repeatedly hinted that if immunity is not granted, they may try to prosecute President Joe Biden as a form of retribution.

The former president has never been shy about suggesting his political rivals should be sent to prison.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/hLX9tnV
via IFTTT

• President Joe Biden signed the TikTok divest-or-ban bill into law on Wednesday.
• TikTok said it would challenge the law in court, citing First-Amendment violations.
• Legal experts said Congress' national-security argument could still win over free-speech concerns in courts.

Congress passed a bill this week that will force TikTok's owner to sell its US assets or face removal from mobile-app stores. President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on Wednesday. Parent company ByteDance now has between 9 months and a year to sell or spin off the app in the US.

What comes next will be an all-out legal battle.

TikTok has vowed to "move to the courts," where it plans to challenge the law as "a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans on TikTok," per an internal memo sent to staff on Saturday. The company will likely ask for a preliminary injunction, stopping the countdown clock on its sale until legal questions are sorted out.

Other parties, like TikTok creators, may launch separate legal challenges in the coming weeks, as they have done in the past. First-Amendment-focused organizations like the ACLU or the EFF could file amicus briefs defending TikTokers' free-speech rights.

Will these legal challenges work? Maybe…

Earlier attempts to ban or force a sale of TikTok often haven't stood up in court.

Trump's 2020 order to ban TikTok was halted by a federal judge who said it likely exceeded executive authority. A Montana law that attempted to ban the app was struck down in 2023 by a federal judge who said it overstepped state power and "likely violates the First Amendment."

This time, however, could be different. The reason? Congress is arguing that TikTok poses a national-security risk, and the courts tend to defer to that governing body when it comes to issues of national security, experts told Business Insider. The federal government has more authority on that subject than a state like Montana does.

"The court will look at the merits of the case, but really driven by deference to Congress as having much more understanding of the national-security risks than the judges themselves do," Matthew Schettenhelm, a senior litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, told BI. Schettenhelm estimated the law had a 70% chance of surviving a legal challenge.

It's a coin toss when national-security interests come up against speech protections

If this law wasn't about protecting national security, TikTok's case would be a slam dunk. Its argument that the law violates free speech is clear, as passing a bill that could lead to a ban will box out tens of millions of Americans from an app they use to say things every day.

While the bill is framed around forcing new ownership of TikTok, it's likely to result in a ban, which strengthens the free-speech argument. The Chinese government has signaled it opposes a TikTok divestment. Its foreign ministry said last month that a forced sale was "sheer robbers' logic." Its government has the final say on the export of TikTok's algorithm, which would make the app much harder to spin-off.

Restricting free speech would be a big problem for the bill if it didn't have national-security interests at its core. While First-Amendment arguments are well supported in court, national-security concerns also have a lot of sway, legal experts told BI.

"The First Amendment is the trump card that basically allows you to prevail if you can plausibly make a First-Amendment argument," said G.S. Hans, an associate clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and associate director of its First-Amendment clinic. "National security also is a trump card, and the government often wins when it claims that. The question for me is, which trump card does the court think is more valuable?"

Security arguments have stood up in the past for more narrow cases against TikTok. A federal judge upheld a Texas law that blocked state employees from using the app on state-owned devices and networks, saying it was a "reasonable restriction on access to TikTok in light of Texas's concerns."

Show us your smoking-gun evidence, Congress

Legal experts said the evidence the US government brings to court to prove that TikTok is a national-security risk will be central to its case. It has to demonstrate that a forced divestiture or outright ban is necessary.

"It can't be just conclusory, or in other words to say, 'We think there's a national security threat. Therefore we should ban the app,'" said Lena Shapiro, director of the First Amendment clinic at the University of Illinois College of Law. "They have to provide evidence."

Congress' bipartisan bill is the culmination of years of political attacks from Washington on TikTok's operations. Politicians fear its owner ByteDance, which is headquartered in China, could be forced to share US user data with the Chinese Communist Party because of a standing National Intelligence Law. US officials have also raised concerns that the CCP could use TikTok to censor or promote information and even influence an election, serving its own interests. TikTok has denied both of these claims.

"We believe the facts and the law are clearly on our side, and we will ultimately prevail," a TikTok spokesperson told BI in a statement. "We have invested billions of dollars to keep US data safe and our platform free from outside influence and manipulation."

Congress hasn't proven that an outright sale or ban of TikTok is the only way to protect national-security interests. Other less severe efforts like a national data privacy law could solve some of its concerns without limiting speech, for example.

"The government bears the burden of pointing to an important interest in instituting this law," said Ramya Krishnan, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which filed a legal challenge against Texas's state-device ban last year. "There's the onus of showing that it could not achieve its interest in narrower ways."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/Iwhdsa7
via IFTTT