Lucasfilm has decided not to renew The Acolyte for a second season, according to Deadline and Variety. Fans won't get to see how the show was supposed to end and won't get to know how the plotlines its creator, Leslye Headland (Russian Doll), teased at the end of the first season would unravel. Engadget Senior Editor Devindra Hardawar called The Acolyte "Star Wars at its best" in his review, discussed how unique its premise was, and drew parallels between the series and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. 

Deadline says the show had a strong start and garnered 4.8 million views in the first day it became available for streaming, reaching 11.1 million views after five days. However, viewership fell in the coming weeks, and its finale was reportedly the poorest performing finale for a Star Wars series. 

The Acolyte was a mystery-thriller story featuring a former Jedi trainee played by Amandla Stenberg, who's suspected of committing a series of crimes. Her former Jedi Master played by Lee Jung-jae (Squid Game) now has to find her to get to the bottom of things. Manny Jacinto, who played the smuggler Qimir, gained a lot of attention online due to this shirtless scenes. It was revealed in the later episodes that he plays a bigger role in the story, and viewers were even supposed to learn his real name in the next season. 

The show is still available to watch on Disney+ for those who don't mind not getting closure for its story. 

The sports streaming service Fubo has temporarily fended off a huge financial threat from Disney-Fox-Warner’s potential competitor Venu Sports and its collection of sports broadcasting licenses thanks to a recent court ruling. A federal judge in the Southern District of New York granted Fubo’s request for an injunction in its antitrust case against the joint sports streaming venture and its parent companies.

US District Judge Margaret Garnett wrote in an opinion issued earlier today such a concentrated collection of media power would eliminate consumers’ choices. The launch of Venu would also “hike prices on both consumers and other distributors” and create a “multi-year monopolistic runway” in the sports streaming sector for Disney, Fox and Warner.

“Even if the [joint venture] defendants swear that such price-hiking and competition excluding will not actually occur (though…there is good reason to believe that it will),” the opinion reads, “one purpose of antitrust injunctions is to prevent anticompetitive incentives from forming in the first place so that American consumers do not have to simply take their word for it and hope for the best.”

Garnett also wrote the injunction is needed because of “quintessential harms that money cannot adequately repair” if Fox-Disney-Warner’s Venu Sports moves forward.

Fox-Disney-Warner first announced its plans to launch a live sports streaming channel in February and later revealed the name and price for its Venu Sports streaming service. The joint sports streaming venture will cost viewers $42.99 a month with a seven-day free trial and promises 14 channels of live sporting events with access to ESPN+ and four of its spinoff channels, the Fox network and both of its Fox Sports channels and a handful of Warner Bros. owned cable networks such as TNT and TruTV, according to a press release.

Fubo filed its lawsuit a couple of weeks after Fox-Disney-Warner’s initial announcement. Fubo’s antitrust lawsuit accused the trio of media giants of staging “a years-long campaign” to weaken its sports streaming service. The suit also claimed the joint venture would concentrate too many entities in one service and would hinder competitiveness and jack up prices for viewers and distributors.

The injunction puts a temporary hold on Fox-Disney-Warner’s plans for Venu Sports. Its fate will ultimately be determined by the antitrust case in federal court.

Next time you're craving a chalupa supreme, you might not be ordering from a person. Taco Bell is expanding its program for using AI voice recognition in drive-thrus. After testing the technology in more than 100 locations in 13 states, the fast food chain's parent company aims to add voice-powered AI capabilities to hundreds more Taco Bell drive-thrus in the US by the end of the year.

"With over two years of fine tuning and testing the drive-thru Voice AI technology, we’re confident in its effectiveness in optimizing operations and enhancing customer satisfaction," said Lawrence Kim, chief innovation officer for Yum! Brands. The company also owns KFC and is currently testing Voice AI in five locations for that chain in Australia.

It sounds a little goofy, but in practice, this is an application of AI that people who aren't early adopters might encounter in the wild. There are lots of splashy headlines about chatbots that sound like celebrities, but this type of practical use case shows where and how voice AI might appear in a person's routine and workplace. The press release centers the employee experience as one of the reasons for pursuing the technology. "Tapping into AI gives us the ability to ease team members’ workloads, freeing them to focus on front-of-house hospitality. It also enables us to unlock new and meaningful ways to engage with our customers," Taco Bell Chief Digital & Technology Officer Dane Mathews said.

That's the positive side. On the negative side, there are still plenty of imperfections yet to be resolved in the tech. McDonald's ran a similar effort exploring drive-thrus powered by AI, but called off its program earlier this summer. Customers had encounters that were equal parts frustrating and hilarious with the AI ordering options during the testing phase. There's also a concern that if the kinks in these AI systems do get worked out, the easing of team members' workloads could turn into losing some team members' jobs.

The rise and fall of MoviePass is one of those stories just begging for the documentary treatment and, well, HBO has got you covered. The platform just set a premiere date of May 29 for MoviePass, MovieCrash, a documentary helmed by filmmaker Muta’Ali and produced by none other than Mark Wahlberg.

The film chronicles the “meteoric rise and stranger-than-fiction implosion” of the movie ticket subscription platform, which originally set the world on fire when it first launched back in 2011. However, it wasn’t long before the company realized that the “all you can eat” approach that works so well with gyms and other membership clubs is a weird fit for movie theaters, particularly at the service’s low price point. In just eight years, the company went from the fastest growing subscription service since Spotify to total bankruptcy.

As the trailer shows, the documentary will feature interviews with many of the major players involved in the various stages of MoviePass. This includes original co-founder Stacy Spikes and former CEO Mitch Lowe. There will also be plenty of interviews with journalists who covered the service, FTC personnel and former subscribers. Incidentally, the trailer promises an anecdote in which a customer sent a box of feces to the MoviePass offices, and we don’t want to miss that.

Though premiering on HBO at 9PM ET on May 29, the documentary will also be available on-demand via Max. Director Muta’Ali has made a few good documentaries, including Yusuf Hawkins: Storm Over Brooklyn and Cassius X: Becoming Ali.

As for MoviePass, well, it’s a long and complicated story. The app captured the hearts of theater-goers in 2011 by promising unlimited trips to the cinema for a single monthly subscription fee. The love affair didn’t last. The company ceased operations in 2019 and filed for bankruptcy in 2020. Between those dates, there have been reports of wire fraud, securities fraud and significant data breaches, among other outlandish scenarios. In short, it’s perfect fodder for a documentary.

MoviePass is actually still around. Co-founder Spikes recently bought the company’s assets, brought on new investors and re-launched the service. However, the updated pricing model is on the confusing side, with credits and tiers, and seems to have not captured lightning in a bottle for the second time.

Disney has expanded its partnership with Warner Bros. Discovery to offer a streaming bundle sometime this summer. The companies have announced that they'll soon give people the option to pay for Disney+, Hulu and Max subscriptions together in the US. Hulu on Disney+ recently came out of beta, a few months after Disney took full ownership of the former late last year. An ad-free bundle with the two services costs $20, while a Max subscription without ads costs $16 a month. An offering with all three will most likely be cheaper than $36, and viewers will have the option to get their ad-supported versions if they want to pay even less. 

Disney's ESPN is also working with Warner Bros. Discovery, as well as Fox Sports, to launch a streaming sports service, the companies announced back in February. The joint service will stream sporting events from all the networks the companies own, including games from the NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA.

"This new offering delivers for consumers the greatest collection of entertainment for the best value in streaming, and will help drive incremental subscribers and much stronger retention," said JB Perrette, the CEO and President for Warner Bros. Discovery's Global Streaming and Games. Indeed, subscribers might be less inclined to give up a bundle of three if ever they decide to cull the services they're paying for. As The New York Times notes, Disney has seen good results from its Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ bundle, so we can probably expect it to come up with more offerings like it. 

The companies have yet to reveal pricing and an exact release date for their new product, but they said it will be available for purchase on any of the streaming platforms' websites. Subscribers might also get notifications to get the bundle for an additional payment if they already have any of the services, similar to how Disney+ members get asked if they want to pay $2 more for Hulu content. 

Disney has expanded its partnership with Warner Bros. Discovery to offer a streaming bundle sometime this summer. The companies have announced that they'll soon give people the option to pay for Disney+, Hulu and Max subscriptions together in the US. Hulu on Disney+ recently came out of beta, a few months after Disney took full ownership of the former late last year. An ad-free bundle with the two services costs $20, while a Max subscription without ads costs $16 a month. An offering with all three will most likely be cheaper than $36, and viewers will have the option to get their ad-supported versions if they want to pay even less. 

Disney's ESPN is also working with Warner Bros. Discovery, as well as Fox Sports, to launch a streaming sports service, the companies announced back in February. The joint service will stream sporting events from all the networks the companies own, including games from the NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA.

"This new offering delivers for consumers the greatest collection of entertainment for the best value in streaming, and will help drive incremental subscribers and much stronger retention," said JB Perrette, the CEO and President for Warner Bros. Discovery's Global Streaming and Games. Indeed, subscribers might be less inclined to give up a bundle of three if ever they decide to cull the services they're paying for. As The New York Times notes, Disney has seen good results from its Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ bundle, so we can probably expect it to come up with more offerings like it. 

The companies have yet to reveal pricing and an exact release date for their new product, but they said it will be available for purchase on any of the streaming platforms' websites. Subscribers might also get notifications to get the bundle for an additional payment if they already have any of the services, similar to how Disney+ members get asked if they want to pay $2 more for Hulu content. 

Disney has expanded its partnership with Warner Bros. Discovery to offer a streaming bundle sometime this summer. The companies have announced that they'll soon give people the option to pay for Disney+, Hulu and Max subscriptions together in the US. Hulu on Disney+ recently came out of beta, a few months after Disney took full ownership of the former late last year. An ad-free bundle with the two services costs $20, while a Max subscription without ads costs $16 a month. An offering with all three will most likely be cheaper than $36, and viewers will have the option to get their ad-supported versions if they want to pay even less. 

Disney's ESPN is also working with Warner Bros. Discovery, as well as Fox Sports, to launch a streaming sports service, the companies announced back in February. The joint service will stream sporting events from all the networks the companies own, including games from the NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA.

"This new offering delivers for consumers the greatest collection of entertainment for the best value in streaming, and will help drive incremental subscribers and much stronger retention," said JB Perrette, the CEO and President for Warner Bros. Discovery's Global Streaming and Games. Indeed, subscribers might be less inclined to give up a bundle of three if ever they decide to cull the services they're paying for. As The New York Times notes, Disney has seen good results from its Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ bundle, so we can probably expect it to come up with more offerings like it. 

The companies have yet to reveal pricing and an exact release date for their new product, but they said it will be available for purchase on any of the streaming platforms' websites. Subscribers might also get notifications to get the bundle for an additional payment if they already have any of the services, similar to how Disney+ members get asked if they want to pay $2 more for Hulu content. 

Proton Mail has introduced Dark Web Monitoring for its paid users, which will keep them informed of breaches or leaks they may have been affected by. If anything's been spotted on the dark web, the feature will send out alerts that include information like what service was compromised, what personal details the attackers got (e.g. passwords, name, etc.) and recommended next steps. At launch, you’ll have to visit the Proton Mail Security Center on the web or desktop to access these alerts, but the company says email and in-app notifications are on the way.

Proton

Dark Web Monitoring is intended to be a proactive security measure. If you’ve used your Proton Mail email address to sign up for a third-party service, like a social media site, and then hackers steal user data from that service, it would let you know in a timely manner if your credentials have been compromised so you can take action (hopefully) before any harm is done. It seems a fitting move for the service, which already offers end-to-end encryption and has made privacy its main stance since the beginning. Dark Web Monitoring won’t be available to free users, though.

“While data breaches of third-party sites leading to the leak of personal information (such as your email address) can never be entirely avoided, automated early warning can help users stay vigilant and mitigate worse side effects such as identity theft,” said Eamonn Maguire, Head of Anti-Abuse and Account Security at Proton.

Just as Engadget was hitting publish on its first posts, I was putting a freshly minted English degree to use working at an indie bookshop in Los Angeles. In seemingly unrelated news, Amazon had just reported its first profitable year after switching from selling books to selling “everything” four years before. (It still sold a lot of books.)

Our bookstore did a good job keeping shelves stocked with a balance of the more worthy popular hits and smaller, better fare. But we couldn’t have every book a customer might want, so we offered to order any in-print title. If a distributor had it, it’d take about a week to get in, longer if we had to go through the publisher. That seemed fine for most customers.

But sometimes “about a week” was too long. A few people came right out and said, “Nah, I’ll order it on Amazon.” In 2005, Amazon launched Prime, the membership program that, for $79 a year, gave customers unlimited two-day shipping on most orders. At launch, CEO Jeff Bezos called it “‘all-you-can-eat’ express shipping.” No one knew at the time how hungry the world was for Amazon’s brand of convenience. And now, nearly two decades later, we’ve seen the shifts that accommodate that buffet — in labor, retail and the entire customer experience.

Prime wasn’t an overnight success. It’s estimated that six years after launch, just four million households paid for the service. But 10 years later, in 2021, Bezos claimed it had accrued 200 million members worldwide. Outside of that milestone, Amazon hasn’t made its membership numbers public, but it’s likely the figure is higher now.

That shipping should be both free and fast has become an expectation, and no company has done more to alter the landscape of logistics than Amazon. On its own, the company operates over a hundred warehouses in the US, each ranging from 600,000 to four million square feet. Each one employs between 1,000 and 1,500 people, and an army of around 750,000 robots works alongside humans in many locations.

The company operates a fleet of cargo planes, is experimenting with drone deliveries and deploys thousands of delivery vans — though none of those Amazon-branded vans are driven by actual employees. Rather, separate companies, known as delivery service partners (DSP), subcontract drivers to operate those vans. Amazon employs 1.5 million people either full or part time (with one million in the US), but those figures don’t include independent contractors and temporary personnel. In addition to the DSP program, Amazon Flex lets individuals use their own cars to deliver smile-emblazoned packages to porches. The company outsources delivery to traditional providers too, relying on both UPS and the US Postal Service, the latter it has compelled to deliver packages on Sundays since 2013.

Such vast orchestration to deliver Stanley Quenchers and pimple patches faster than anyone has paid off. However, it’s hard to look at growth and revenue numbers without considering the human costs. Contracted drivers pee in bottles because meeting quotas leaves no time for bathroom breaks. Workers sustain serious injuries at automated warehouses. The company has been sued for retaliatory firing, intrusive employee surveillance practices and failure to follow COVID safety guidelines. Amazon again made the dirty dozen list in 2023 for workplace safety, according to the advocacy group National COSH. And while it has taken steps to improve, with better compensation, the company takes anti-union actions typical of a massive corporation, joining others in calling the National Labor Relations Board “unconstitutional.”

Apart from worker issues, Amazon’s dominance has made life harder for retail businesses in general, particularly the big chains. The Amazon Effect became shorthand for the mall-emptying squeeze of e-commerce on traditional retail. Even businesses that team up with Amazon don’t fare well. Third-party sellers on the site are subject to punitive measures and must contend with increasing fees, which sometimes put them out of business. Sellers who do perform well have seen products copied and sold by Amazon’s private label. Notable partnerships have had dismal results, such as when Borders outsourced its early web sales or the exclusivity deal with Toys ‘R’ Us. Of course, Borders no longer exists, and Toys ‘R’ Us filed for bankruptcy in 2017.

Trying to beat Amazon on speed and price is pointless. Joining them is unwise. So retailers compete in other ways. At the bookstore, we focused on our strengths: a varied, multi-talented staff who could size up a customer’s reading tastes and stick a good book in their hands. If someone came into our store circa 2005 and said they were into fantasy, there’s a good chance our book buyer would pass them a copy of George R.R. Martin’s latest, years before HBO had anything to do with it.

We had a curated ‘zine section and hosted live events with bestselling authors, cult magazine founders and local writers. But mostly, we capitalized on folks who wanted something more from their shopping experience than just speed and convenience, people who didn’t mind if it took a week to get a book, as long as it came with a little local community. Some just wanted to browse books while sitting under the tree (there’s a tree in the middle of the store), petting a cat (in my day, that was Lucy) and listening to what we felt were pretty wicked playlists.

Today, Skylight Books is still a force of creativity and verve in the Los Feliz neighborhood, and it has even expanded into an annex next door. In general, after the initial casualties from the retail apocalypse and COVID, independent bookstores are doing OK, with established names staying put and new stores opening. Elsewhere in the retail industry, big chains continue to close locations, but independent retail seems to be growing. Personally, I enjoy the new bakeries, brewpubs and bulk stores that have sprung up around the neighborhoods where I now live.

I can’t, as a commerce writer, ignore that a decent portion of my job directs readers to Amazon’s website. The company is playing a part in displaying the very words you’re reading, as Engadget’s site is facilitated by Amazon Web Services (AWS) through Yahoo’s cloud partnership. The company is one of the biggest on the planet, the second largest employer in the US and a good portion of every retail dollar spent in the US goes into Amazon’s revenue chest.

With its acquisition of Whole Foods’ 500+ stores, Amazon is doing fine in the physical retail sector. Yet the company doesn’t tend to win when it tries to fabricate other retail experiences. Amazon Books, Amazon Style and Amazon 4-Star were all small-scale retail spaces that tried to leverage Amazon’s brand, massive trove of buyer data and cutting-edge retail technology. At their peak, those stores comprised about 70 brick-and-mortar locations, all of which are now closed. The cashierless Amazon Go still has more than 20 locations in the US, but Amazon shut down nine of them in 2023 and hasn’t announced plans to open more.

Those misfires could be statistically inevitable; more than half of new businesses go under before they hit the 10-year mark. But perhaps those stores failed because, as physical spaces, they couldn’t capitalize on Amazon’s primary strength: zero-effort buying. Shopping at Amazon.com isn’t particularly pleasant. The website is cluttered and confusing. Suspect products and fake reviews erode shoppers’ trust. It isn’t even the cheapest place to shop. But that 1-Click™ buy button and turbo delivery makes stuff appear on our doorsteps like it slid there on greased rails.

Yet when people get up the energy to leave their homes, they may hope for more: human experiences created by people from their own neighborhoods who do what they do out of passion, not because market data indicates dollars to be had in a given sector. With its trillion-dollar valuation, Amazon isn’t going anywhere, but under its massive shadow, there’s still room for businesses that focus on the human element of commercial transactions, places where people might want to spend some of the time Amazon’s speed and convenience may have saved them.

To celebrate Engadget's 20th anniversary, we're taking a look back at the products and services that have changed the industry since March 2, 2004.

I knew what I was getting into when I sat down for a press screening of Dune Part 2: A towering sci-fi epic best viewed on an enormous theater screen, just like Denis Villeneuve's first Dune film. What I didn't realize was that it would also give me a serious back massage — it really does kick butt. That was my experience at an Atlanta-area AMC, where the film whipped the Dolby Cinema seats into such a frenzy that, for one thrilling sequence, I felt like I was actually riding a sandworm plowing through the spice-filled desert of Arrakis.

Now, I can't guarantee you'll have the same ride at a normal theater (unless the subwoofer is cranked up obscenely high). What makes AMC's Dolby Cinema locations unique is that they feature rumbling transducers in every recliner seat, in addition to powerful dual-laser Dolby Vision projectors and enveloping Atmos sound. I've seen tons of films in AMC Dolby Cinemas since those screens began rolling out in 2017, but Dune Part 2 is the first time the haptic seats actually felt like they enhanced my moviegoing experience. When I rushed out to the bathroom in the middle of the film, I noticed that my body was still vibrating, the way you sort of feel after a deep massage by expert fingers.

Technically, you're still better off watching Dune Part 2 in IMAX theaters — it was actually filmed for that enormous format, and true IMAX theaters also deliver enough walloping low-end sound to shake your core without the need for rumbling seats. But it's hard to find full-sized IMAX screens, and for most US viewers it'll likely be easier to find a nearby AMC Dolby Cinema.

Let's be clear: I'm no fan of theater gimmicks, like the moving seats and various weather effects in 4DX cinemas. So I'm genuinely surprised how much I appreciated a heavy dose of recliner rumbling in Dune Part 2. Perhaps it's because the film is also fanbtastic — not that I expected any less from Villeneuve, a director who turned the first Dune into a cinematic feast and was also miraculously able to deliver a Blade Runner sequel that surpassed the original.

Photo by NIKO TAVERNISE for Warner Bros.

Dune Part 2 picks up where the first film abruptly ended, with Paul Atreides and his mother making their way through the desert with its native inhabitants, the Fremen. It's immediately clear that this isn't actually a sequel to the first film, it's genuinely a second half, with all of the action and more spectacle that many felt were lacking before.

Personally, though, I just loved being back in Villeneuve's vision of Frank Herbert's universe. As much as I appreciate the bombastic costumes and environments from David Lynch's Dune adaptation, I find this iteration far more immersive: Every room seems genuinely lived in, every custom feels like an organic outgrowth of a society that's existed for thousands of years. It's the sort of attention to detail we don't often see in films and TV today, when it's easier to shoot faux desert scenes on ILM's StageCraft set (aka "The Volume," the technology that was so thoughtlessly implemented in Quantumania).

Warner Bros.

Even if you don’t end up seeing Dune Part 2 in a Dolby Cinema (I swear, this isn’t an ad), it’s a film worth seeing on the big screen. Its vast scale and ambition can’t be contained on a TV, and its elaborate soundscape (including Hans Zimmer going extra hard for the score) deserves more than tinny flatscreen speakers or a mere soundbar.

Dune has always seemed like an unadaptable work, something so massive that it could only truly exist in Frank Herbert’s shroom-filled dreams. But once again, Villeneuve and his creative team have seemingly done the impossible: They’ve turned the fantasy of Dune into a cinematic reality. You owe it to yourself to pay tribute.

Following its autonomous food delivery launch in Miami and Fairfax, Virginia, Uber Eats will soon be offering the same robotic service in Japan — its first outside the US. It is once again collaborating with Google alum startup Cartken, with local compliance help from Mitsubishi Electric, to bring a fleet of Model C sidewalk delivery robots to select areas in Tokyo in March. Uber Eats Japan CEO Shintaro Nakagawa says the autonomous delivery service will solve the local labor shortage issue, while complementing the existing human delivery methods "by bicycle, motorbike, light cargo, and on foot."

Cartken's six-wheeled Model C uses six cameras and advanced AI models for autonomous driving plus obstacle detection, and remote control mode is available when needed. With guidance from Mitsubishi, the robot has been modified to suit local needs in Japan. For one, its speed is capped at 5.4 km/h or about 3.36 mph as per local regulation, which is a lot slower than the 6 mph top speed it's actually capable of. The loading capacity has also been reduced from 1.5 cubic feet to about 0.95 cubic feet (27 liters), likely due to the extra thermal insulation in the compartment. Uber Eats adds that for the sake of privacy, people's faces are automatically masked in footage captured by the robots.

While this is Uber Eats' robotic delivery debut in Japan, Cartken already has a presence there thanks to Mitsubishi. Since early 2022, the duo has worked with Starbucks, local e-commerce giant Rakuten and supermarket chain Seiyu in some parts of Japan. In the US, Cartken also has a partnership with Grubhub to provide autonomous food delivery service on college campuses, including the Ohio State University and the University of Arizona.

Even though Uber Eats has yet to share which Tokyo restaurants will be tapping into its robotic delivery service, it should have no problem seeking partnership given Cartken's prior local experience. That said, I highly doubt that the pair would risk trialing their robots through a crowd of drunkards in Shibuya just yet.

FuboTV, a streaming platform dedicated to live sports, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, accusing the companies of staging "a years-long campaign" to hamper its business. The company's lawsuit comes shortly Disney-owned ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery announced that they're launching a sports streaming service in the fall of 2024, which will give subscribers access to sporting events from the networks they own. FuboTV's complaint argued that the companies are stealing its playbook and that the launch of their joint venture will destroy competition and lead to price inflation for consumers. 

Further, FuboTV alleged that the launch of the defendants' streaming service is but "the latest coordinated step" in their "campaign to eliminate competition in the sports-first streaming market" and in their effort to block its business. The streaming service said the defendants charge it content licensing rates that are 30 to 50 percent higher than the rates they charge other distributors. They also allegedly force FuboTV to bundle "dozens of expensive non-sports channels" that "customers do not want" with their sports offerings as a condition of licensing their content. All these increase the costs FuboTV must pass onto its customers, the company explained. 

FuboTV also claimed that the companies in question have prevented it from being able to offer streaming products subscribers would like, including content available on Hulu. Plus, the defendants allegedly impose a limitation on how many subscribers can buy their content package, ensuring that FuboTV can't make a dent in the market. 

"Each of these companies has consistently engaged in anticompetitive practices that aim to monopolize the market, stifle any form of competition, create higher pricing for subscribers and cheat consumers from deserved choice," FuboTV CEO David Gandler said in a statement. "By joining together to exclusively reserve the rights to distribute a specialized live sports package, we believe these corporations are erecting insurmountable barriers that will effectively block any new competitors from entering the market. This strategy ensures that consumers desiring a dedicated sports channel lineup are left with no alternative but to subscribe to the Defendants' joint venture."

Engadget has reached out to all three defendants: ESPN has declined to comment, while Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery have yet to get back to us. FuboTV is asking the court to prohibit the joint venture's launch or to impose restrictions, such as economic parity of licensing terms, on the defendants.

Following its autonomous food delivery launch in Miami and Fairfax, Virginia, Uber Eats will soon be offering the same robotic service in Japan — its first outside the US. It is once again collaborating with Google alum startup Cartken, with local compliance help from Mitsubishi Electric, to bring a fleet of Model C sidewalk delivery robots to select areas in Tokyo in March. Uber Eats Japan CEO Shintaro Nakagawa says the autonomous delivery service will solve the local labor shortage issue, while complementing the existing human delivery methods "by bicycle, motorbike, light cargo, and on foot."

Cartken's six-wheeled Model C uses six cameras and advanced AI models for autonomous driving plus obstacle detection, and remote control mode is available when needed. With guidance from Mitsubishi, the robot has been modified to suit local needs in Japan. For one, its speed is capped at 5.4 km/h or about 3.36 mph as per local regulation, which is a lot slower than the 6 mph top speed it's actually capable of. The loading capacity has also been reduced from 1.5 cubic feet to about 0.95 cubic feet (27 liters), likely due to the extra thermal insulation in the compartment. Uber Eats adds that for the sake of privacy, people's faces are automatically masked in footage captured by the robots.

While this is Uber Eats' robotic delivery debut in Japan, Cartken already has a presence there thanks to Mitsubishi. Since early 2022, the duo has worked with Starbucks, local e-commerce giant Rakuten and supermarket chain Seiyu in some parts of Japan. In the US, Cartken also has a partnership with Grubhub to provide autonomous food delivery service on college campuses, including the Ohio State University and the University of Arizona.

Even though Uber Eats has yet to share which Tokyo restaurants will be tapping into its robotic delivery service, it should have no problem seeking partnership given Cartken's prior local experience. That said, I highly doubt that the pair would risk trialing their robots through a crowd of drunkards in Shibuya just yet.

FuboTV, a streaming platform dedicated to live sports, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, accusing the companies of staging "a years-long campaign" to hamper its business. The company's lawsuit comes shortly Disney-owned ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery announced that they're launching a sports streaming service in the fall of 2024, which will give subscribers access to sporting events from the networks they own. FuboTV's complaint argued that the companies are stealing its playbook and that the launch of their joint venture will destroy competition and lead to price inflation for consumers. 

Further, FuboTV alleged that the launch of the defendants' streaming service is but "the latest coordinated step" in their "campaign to eliminate competition in the sports-first streaming market" and in their effort to block its business. The streaming service said the defendants charge it content licensing rates that are 30 to 50 percent higher than the rates they charge other distributors. They also allegedly force FuboTV to bundle "dozens of expensive non-sports channels" that "customers do not want" with their sports offerings as a condition of licensing their content. All these increase the costs FuboTV must pass onto its customers, the company explained. 

FuboTV also claimed that the companies in question have prevented it from being able to offer streaming products subscribers would like, including content available on Hulu. Plus, the defendants allegedly impose a limitation on how many subscribers can buy their content package, ensuring that FuboTV can't make a dent in the market. 

"Each of these companies has consistently engaged in anticompetitive practices that aim to monopolize the market, stifle any form of competition, create higher pricing for subscribers and cheat consumers from deserved choice," FuboTV CEO David Gandler said in a statement. "By joining together to exclusively reserve the rights to distribute a specialized live sports package, we believe these corporations are erecting insurmountable barriers that will effectively block any new competitors from entering the market. This strategy ensures that consumers desiring a dedicated sports channel lineup are left with no alternative but to subscribe to the Defendants' joint venture."

Engadget has reached out to all three defendants: ESPN has declined to comment, while Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery have yet to get back to us. FuboTV is asking the court to prohibit the joint venture's launch or to impose restrictions, such as economic parity of licensing terms, on the defendants.