Bookmarks (36) clear filters

Summary List Placement Google is going after the healthcare industry with renewed intensity. Starting when Dr. David Feinberg joined the company in 2019, the tech giant is consolidating many of its health efforts onto a single team. Called "Google Health," it's got more than 500 managers, scientists, clinicians, engineers, and product experts right now – and plans to only get bigger. Read more: Google's secretive healthcare business wants to organize the world's health information, but insiders describe how turf wars and trust issues are hamstringing the operation A past iteration of the team, which tried to offer online personal health records, never took off. The company shut it down nearly 10 years ago, citing a lack of widespread adoption. But the new group is an ambitious, self-described "product area" within Google that's hoping to transform the way everyday people get care, and how the system delivers it. Inside Google, Google Health oversees artificial intelligence projects and work with Verily, YouTube, and search teams. It's also known to be a kind of medical voice and advisor to higher ups like CEO Sundar Pichai. Read more: As Verily looks to IPO, CEO Andrew Conrad says an inter-Alphabet 'sibling rivalry' with Google's own health team is hurting both companies. Externally, the team has ongoing projects with public health officials, academic medical centers, and health systems like Ascension. Business Insider identified 16 of the top leaders steering this still-developing part of Google's strategy into the future.  From members of former President Barack Obama's administration to scientists on the cutting edge of machine learning, it's a star-studded lineup given the difficult task of executing Google's overall health mission: "improving the lives of as many people as possible." Here's a rare look at the power players at Google Health, according to Google and other sources, listed alphabetically:  This article was initially published in August and has been updated to reflect the departures of Dr. Dominic King and Michael Macdonnell from the Google Health team. Afia Asamoah – Head of Legal Afia Asamoah has a long history with health initiatives within Alphabet: She was the first lawyer to support Google's health project back in 2014 when it was called Google Life Sciences. Her early work included the licensing of Google patents for a partnership with Alcon on a smart contact lens. When Life Sciences became Verily in 2015, Asamoah remained as the group's senior counsel, and becoming Verily's first trust and compliance officer. In 2019, she moved back over to the mothership and joined Google Health as their new head of legal. Dr. Robert Califf – Advisor, Clinical Policy and Strategy As the former head of the US Food and Drug Administration under Obama, Dr. Robert Califf is one of Google Health's highest-profile hire for regulatory work.  Starting in the fall of 2019, he's been leading clinical policy and strategy for Verily while also advising Google Health. In fact, his work with Verily, which centered on provider-friendly tech, began before he joined Alphabet full-time.  "My hope is that Silicon Valley and entrepreneurs nationwide will collaborate on building an environment capable of linking the more than 300 million people in the U.S. to information that helps them live healthy, productive lives," Califf wrote in 2017.  A cardiologist and researcher, he's still an adjunct professor at Duke University, where he helped create the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the largest academic clinical research organization, and Duke Forge, a center for health science data, according to Duke. Greg Corrado – Distinguished Scientist A Google "Distinguished Scientist," Greg Corrado is one Google's brainiest brains.  Armed with a PhD in neuroscience and master's degree in computer science from Stanford University, he heads Google Health's research and innovations division.  Lately, Corrado is focusing on machine learning in healthcare, overseeing research in genomics, clinical predictions, medical image interpretation, and novel signals research, according to Google. Prior to that, he cofounded the Google Brain team, which is laser focused on artificial intelligence. And before Google, he modeled human neural networks for a variety of applications at IBM. Jeff Dean — Senior Fellow, SVP of Google AI Jeff Dean has been at Google since 1999 and is something of a legend in the ranks. He was one of the earliest members of the Google Brain team, an autonomous research group, and now leads Google's entire AI division. Health has always been close to Dean's heart. In the 90s, he worked on statistical modeling for the World Health Organization before joining the tech giant – and he now oversees Google Health group as part of his duties. Dean has worked on research in using deep learning for electronic health records, and overseen the rollout of projects including a joint venture with Verily to use AI to screen for diabetic eye disease. Feinberg reports to Jeff Dean, who is one of Google CEO Sundar Pichai's small handful of direct reports. Dr. Karen DeSalvo – Chief Health Officer Dr. Karen DeSalvo is Google Health's Chief Health Officer and the broader company's "go-to medical expert," according to Google. She's meant to bring a holistic view of health to Google's products and services, as she said in a recent Google interview.  Lately, DeSalvo, as one of Google's most prominent voices in public health more broadly, is leading a lot of the tech giant's response to coronavirus outbreaks. One such project includes getting Google's search results to prioritize credible information about the pandemic.  DeSalvo is on the advisory board for Google's sister company Verily Life Sciences, as well as the board of directors at Welltower, a real estate investment trust, according to her resume. She also served on Humana's board until 2019.  Prior to joining Google, DeSalvo helped re-engineer healthcare in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. At the US Department of Health and Human Services, she facilitated upgrades to the US health system's sluggish IT. A physician and professor, much of her work and research has focused on barriers to care. Read more: One of Google's top doctors explains how its coronavirus response is feeding into its long-term plans to reinvent how people get health information Dr. David Feinberg — VP and Head When Dr. David Feinberg became the head of Google Health in January 2019, he took charge of a newly-formed organization made up of the Google Research health team, DeepMind Health, and one of Google's hardware teams. It was a major new effort to align Google's thinking about health under one roof, and a big signal that Google was taking health seriously. The health organization spans a range of consumer product and research projects, and insiders say Feinberg has spent a lot of his early term trying to determine what Google's role in healthcare should be. Not to mention how the company's various initiatives, including the life sciences arm Verily, should work together. Feinberg started as a child psychiatrist at UCLA, helping patients with mental health needs. He later went on to become CEO of Geisinger Health, overseeing a community of more than 3 million patients. Although David Feinberg leads Google Health, he reports to Jeff Dean – Google's head of all things artificial intelligence – a signal of how important AI is to the company's healthcare efforts. Read more: We just got our first look at what Google's grand plans are for healthcare after it brought in a top doctor to lead its health team Kristen Gill — COO, VP of BizOps, Business Finance Officer Kristen Gil has been directing business operations inside Google since 2007, working with leaders across the company on strategies to grow and monetize. Gil now oversees Google Health as part of her role – with one of the busiest job titles in the organization. She's helped Google to continually re-architect its structure as the company has grown, and can occasionally be seen at conferences offering a glimpse into the inner-workings of the tech behemoth. "I think [process] can both be a real way to unlock innovation and it can also be a real way to suck the life blood out of innovation," Gil told an audience at a re:Work event in 2016. Dr. Michael Howell – Chief Clinical Strategist As Google's chief clinical strategist, Dr. Michael Howell is focused on various applications of the company's technology within the healthcare system at large.  Much of his work at Google and elsewhere is about improving and studying the actual delivery of care — like using data from electronic health records to figure out how people get infections in hospitals, according to the company. Before Google, he was chief quality officer at the University of Chicago Medicine.  Alan Karthikesalingam – Research Lead, UK Dr. Alan Karthikesalingam is the head of Google Health's machine learning research group in London. A surgeon, he's a key figure in Google's work to aid medical diagnoses.  Prior to joining Google Health, he led DeepMind and Google's teams through landmark studies about breast cancer screening, blinding eye diseases, and patient deterioration with the US' Veterans Affairs, all of which tested various applications of AI, according to the company.  Now, Karthikesalingam's work is largely focused on Google's development of products for clinical care, AI safety, and algorithmic bias, according to Google. With a PhD in vascular surgery, master's in advanced surgical practice, and a medical degree, Karthikesalingam is still a practicing surgeon and lecturer at the Imperial College in London. Matt Klainer – VP, Business Development Matt Klainer leads up business development on Google Health, putting him in charge of all efforts to commercialize the business and form key partnerships. Klainer joined the Google Health team in January and replaced Virginia McFerran, previously of UnitedHealth Group, who was at Google Health for just seven months. Klainer reports to Donald Harrison, Google's president of global partnerships and corporate development, who's a direct report of Chief Business Officer Philipp Schindler. Klainer's tenure at Google spans back to 2008 and has seen him working on areas such as Android and consumer communications products. Paul Muret – VP, Product and Engineering A company veteran, Paul Muret joined Google in 2005 when it acquired his web analytics startup, Urchin. He then led the Google Analytics for several years, later adding Display, Video and Apps to his title responsibilities. In 2018, Muret moved over to a new VP role in AI and health, and CNBC reported that he advocated for the idea of forming the Google Health organization before Google named Feinberg CEO. Now, he leads Google Health's entire product division. Mike Pearson – Chief of Staff As Google Health's chief of staff, Mike Pearson is responsible for the execution of the health team's various projects. Pearson, who has previously worked on business development across Android and Google Life Sciences (before it was renamed Verily), reports directly to Feinberg at Google Health. Prior to joining Google's health wing, he helped erect CapitalG, Alphabet's private equity investment vehicle, led development of Android stores, and worked on strategy for apps. Dr. Lily Peng – Product Manager, Research Dr. Lily Peng leads the product management team for the medical imaging and diagnostics team at Google Health, which is one of the busiest in the organization.  Her team works with deep learning, with the goal of making healthcare more accurate, according to Google. Their recent projects tap AI to detect diseases, predict cardiovascular health factors, classify skin diseases, and more.  In fact, Peng's team recently made an algorithm that identifies diabetic retinopathy. It's already being used by doctors in India, Thailand, and Europe, according to Google. Before Google, Peng worked at Doximity, an online networking platform for medical professionals, and cofounded Nano Precision Medical, a medical device startup.  Read more: Meet the 37-year-old leading Google Health's biggest bet so far. Her work hints at what could be ahead for the secretive healthcare business. Linda Peters – VP, Quality and Regulatory Linda Peters started working at Google in the fall of 2019. She's tasked with making sure that Google's portfolio of health products — which includes cancer screening, image processing tools, and far more — lands regulatory approvals and otherwise complies with the law.  Prior to Google, Peters worked for medical device giant Becton Dickinson, where she reported directly to the CEO and oversaw areas including FDA approval of drugs and software.  Dr. Alvin Rajkomar – Research Scientist A researcher for Google Brain and product manager, Dr. Alvin Rajkomar is focused on a huge subset of Google Health's work: provider-facing tech tools.  He spends a lot of time combing through big clinical databases with deep learning. The goal is to find ways of improving care based on information from the masses.   Rajkomar is also a key leader in Google's oft-reported work with Ascension, which aims to create search tools for clinicians that call up patients' information from health records, among other things. His team of researchers, meanwhile, is similarly focused on tech that unifies patient information, from lab results to diagnoses, into one place for clinicians, according to Google. Outside of Google, Rajkomar is also a practicing physician at the University of California, San Francisco, and holds an adjunct faculty position.  Read more: Google is working with a massive health system to gather data on millions of patients. Here's an inside look at the tools they're developing. Shashidhar Thakur – VP, Engineering Shashidhar Thakur – known as "Shashi" to friends and colleagues – made his mark at Google working on search products including Google Discover and the knowledge graph. Thakur, who for many years worked closely with Google search guru Ben Gomes (now overseeing Google's education initiative), jumped over to the Google Health team in 2019 where he's currently VP of engineering. Insiders say Thakur's work in search and AI makes him perfectly placed for Google Health's ambitious to bridge the divide between health and tech.

Summary List Placement The age of artificial intelligence is well under way.  The concept of general AI, an advancement that would enable the tech to effectively surpass human abilities in nearly every task, is still decades (or more) off. But companies across corporate America are deploying the technology in operations ranging from supply chain, legal, customer service, recruitment, and IT. And not just as test projects, but as major enterprise-wide initiatives that are leading to millions of dollars in savings.   And while industry and experts have long-pushed for a set of standards to guide the technology, federal action is lagging well beyond the pace of adoption. But the rapid uptick among enterprises is putting new urgency on providers like Google, Microsoft, and IBM to more forcefully call for industry standards around AI and outline the protocols they have in place to ensure the services they provide are ethical and trustworthy.  The adoption of the tech has "moved beyond this science experiment world — or doing a lot of proof of concepts or pilots internally — into a space where companies are now actually really getting ready to or are already deploying AI into production systems," said Tracy Frey, the director of product strategy and operations for AI at Google Cloud. "It really brings to the fore these questions of responsibility, if they haven't already been raised."   Take facial recognition, for example. As headlines swirled around the potential issues with the technology, IBM put a halt on the development of its own software. Microsoft was even advocating on the issue as far back as 2018, when one of the company's top executives publicly called for federal regulation of the technology.  Read more: One of the leading GOP voices on AI says the party's priority is on protecting consumers from the dangers of the technology, while also making sure America doesn't lose the innovation battle with China through over-regulation The stakes are huge — particularly as the coronavirus pandemic accelerates the pivot to digital. Services like AI to help retailers improve the shopping experience can be a major selling point in convincing customers to also invest in their cloud services — an over $700 billion market that is typically branded as a battle for dominance between the tech giants.  There's been "two years worth of digital transformation in two months, so there is some urgency that comes with that," said Microsoft chief responsible AI officer Natasha Crampton.  AI is big business, so the stakes are high Many of the largest industry players have already had public issues where their AI systems have produced unpleasant results.  Google, for example, was forced to publicly apologize in April after one of its AI-based technologies identified a thermometer in the hands of a Black person as a "gun," versus labeling the product in a similar image with a white person as an "electronic device." A conversational AI tool that Microsoft deployed in 2016 quickly turned racist, Amazon scrapped a recruiting tool in 2018 that showed bias against women, and Facebook's ad algorithms have been criticized for discriminating based on both gender and race. AI systems that aren't properly tested for bias and fairness — that aren't checked for being "ethical" — could have seriously negative real-word consequences. An oft-cited example is the potential ramifications of an AI-backed machine that determines loan eligibility discriminating on the basis of race (one study suggests that this has already happened).  To fight against this kind of algorithmic bias, IBM, Microsoft, and Google are working to have audits in place to  make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. All three have invested heavily in operations dedicated to the trustworthiness of AI, including propping up new business units and cross-functional advisory committees, appointing new leaders, establishing mandatory training programs, and creating procedures to review the algorithms themselves. (Notably, Google faced controversy for its external AI ethics board last year and disbanded it in a matter of weeks.) IBM is even eyeing this area as a revenue stream: Offering up toolkits to help developers verify metrics like fairness in AI algorithms, which is a centerpiece to one of IBM's core products: Watson OpenScale, a platform that monitors for adverse events in models.  Determining success and tapping the ecosystem  Judging the success of something as nebulous as trust in a specific type of technology is hard.  Part of the challenge, according to Frey, is understanding how different societal biases would manifest themselves within AI applications. But understanding those biases is critical to safeguarding the data that is used to power the AI applications, Frey said — an argument that many other experts make, given the necessity for robust information sets to train the algorithms to act appropriately.   "The question is no longer is this actually likely to happen," she added. Now, there is an "understanding of what the experiences are across the full range of diversity, for example. And so knowing that, what do we want to do here in order to effect positive change?" But there is a limit to just how much the companies can accomplish on their own — particularly as AI startups continue to draw major funding from venture capitalists and other investors. That's where the ecosystem comes in, with partners like Team Gleason that are helping Microsoft create an open dataset to help power software to help those suffering from ALS.  And it's also a reason why the companies are so adamant about the role the federal government must also play — like requiring that developers like Microsoft "make available the technology in a way that it can be tested by third parties," per Crampton.  "We increasingly understand what these challenges are, but we don't always have easy to implement ways of mitigating them," she added. "There is much to be gained by working together on some of these hard problems as opposed to competing on them." SEE ALSO: How Stanley Black & Decker avoided 'pilot purgatory' in launching new tech projects that have saved it millions, and why it's making a broad call for partners with big new ideas Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: July 15 is Tax Day — here's what it's like to do your own taxes for the very first time

Summary List Placement If you've bought a new iPhone in the past few years, you might not think much about the fact that when you open Safari and type in a search the results you get come from Google. Most people use Google to search on the internet anyway — what you got was what you expected. It was familiar. It was also not an accident.  It's been a poorly-kept secret that Google pays Apple a lot of money for the privilege of being the default search option on iPhones, iPads, and Macs. What we didn't know, but do as a result of the Department of Justice lawsuit against the search giant filed on Tuesday, was just how much Google pays. According to the DOJ, it's roughly $10 billion a year.  Considering that Apple's devices account for half of all of Google's search traffic in the US, according to the lawsuit, it's no wonder the company is willing to pay. The deal is lucrative on both ends: Analysts at AllianceBernstein estimated that Google earns $25 billion annually in gross revenue — or 18% of its ad revenues — from Apple devices, while the DOJ also reported that Apple collects anywhere between $8 billion and $12 billion from Google each year, accounting for 17% and 26% of Apple's services revenue. Being the default option has benefits. Sure, you can change the search engine in Safari, it isn't even that hard. Even easier, you could simply type in the URL for another search engine.  Except, and this is important, almost no one does.  From the DOJ lawsuit: "For a general search engine, by far the most effective means of distribution is to be the preset default general search engine for mobile and computer search access points. Even where users can change the default, they rarely do. This leaves the preset default general search engine with de facto exclusivity. As Google itself has recognized, this is particularly true on mobile devices, where defaults are especially sticky." This is true of search engines and almost everything else about the devices and software we use on a daily basis. That's because — by design — the default settings are the most useful choice for the greatest number of people. It doesn't mean they're the actual best option, just that whoever built the device or the software felt like it would meet the needs of most users.  As a result, most people never change the default settings on any device they use. It's more convenient to just use the default. They don't require you to think about how to use something — you just use it.  In fact, it turns out that convenience is even more of a driving factor for most people than quality in many cases. We may not acknowledge it, but let's be honest, that's why fast food is a thing. That reality is also why companies work very hard to become the default. They will go through great effort to gain that position. Sometimes it happens because something is easier to use. Sometimes it's because it genuinely offers a better product or experience. Sometimes, they just spend large amounts of money through arrangements like the one between Google and Apple. The goal is the same — be the most convenient option for the most users and most people won't look elsewhere.  Starbucks, by the way, did the same thing. I like Starbucks coffee, but not because it's the best coffee you can buy. It's because they're everywhere. They also have a convenient app you can use to order what you want in advance, then walk in or drive up to whatever store happens to be on the way and just pick up your coffee. Because there will always be a Starbucks on the way to wherever you're going. The joke is that there are places where you can stand on a corner and look around and see multiple Starbucks locations on opposite sides of the street. It's a joke, but it's also true. There's also a good chance there's one inside your grocery store. That's convenient. Google grew, at first, because it was better than other options. It attracted users because its minimalistic design was fast and simple to use. That was a big deal at a time when the speed of your internet connection was still measured in bits per second. It also did a better job of discerning whether a website was a relevant and trustworthy result for whatever a user was searching for. There's a problem, however. Once you become the default option for whatever market you compete in, the incentive to be better decreases. Instead, the incentive is to maintain your position. Hence the $10 billion each year that Google is reportedly paying Apple. That $10 billion didn't make Google's search better. It didn't increase the quality of the results you get when you type something into the field at the top of your browser. It just bought the default position.  The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Google's search results aren't nearly as neutral as you might think, in many cases pointing you to other Google properties. Anyone who's noticed the increasing number of ads at the top of the search results page would probably agree it's not a better experience for users.  It's far easier for Google to skip the argument over which search engine is actually the best and simply pay money to be the default. Bing and DuckDuckGo are perfectly good search engines, but neither has better than single digit share of the search market. Even Microsoft, a company worth more than a trillion dollars, hasn't been able to make Bing a real competitor to Google. Google is the default. It's not exactly the most noble strategy, but it works. Of course, if you don't like that, you could change the default — but you probably won't.SEE ALSO: Quibi's biggest mistake was not knowing who its audience was — if it hadn't tried to beat TikTok and YouTube it might have stood a chance Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: What it takes to become a backup dancer for Beyoncé

Summary List Placement Music giant iHeartMedia wants a bigger piece of the $2.7 digital audio advertising pie. IHeartMedia has entered into an agreement to acquire Voxnest, a podcast technology startup, to grow its programmatic audio advertising as a complement to the ads it sells through direct deals. IHeartMedia declined to disclose the price of the acquisition of Voxnext, in which it previously owned a minority share. IHeartMedia competes with Spotify and Pandora for ad dollars. Its biggest hits include 500 national podcast shows like "Stuff You Should Know," and "The Ron Burgundy Podcast" that collectively drive 250 million monthly downloads. Conal Byrne, president of the iHeartMedia Podcast Network, said that the acquisition helps fill in the tech piece of its podcast strategy. It faces stiff competition here from the likes of Google, which recently added more streaming audio inventory to its programmatic advertising platform; and Spotify, which has launched ad-insertion and metric tools for podcasts, helping to boost its ad business 25% last year. "We needed this tech piece to really blow this out and take the industry to the next level," Byrne said. "The industry needs a more sophisticated podcast marketplace." Podcast ad buying is still a fragmented process for advertisers that want to reach a big audience, and Voxnest's pitch is that it makes it easier for buyers and sellers to transact, said Brian Kaminsky, president of revenue and data operations at iHeartMedia. In theory, iHeartMedia will be able to fill ad inventory not sold through its direct deals, which now accounts for as much as 90% of its ad sales. "With the combination of our inventory, Voxnest's inventory, and this new programmatic approach, we will be able to service the ad-buying marketplace at scale with data and technology, which is a lot like the way they buy other digital media," he said. "It's been a little bit of a missing link in the way we monetize podcasts." Voxnest will operate as a standalone company within iHeartMedia and keep its existing leadership, including CEO Francesco Baschieri. The firm will continue to work with other publishers, and Bryne said he sees an opportunity for iHeartMedia to plug Voxnest's technology into other publishers and take a cut of ad sales. "In an industry where the sell-through rate is always short of 100%, this can drive that closer to 100% for every creator in the whole industry, starting with ourselves," he said. "Podcasting needs a more efficient, effective, faster way to monetize unsold inventory."Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: How waste is dealt with on the world's largest cruise ship

Summary List Placement Scrolling through videos on social media may seem like carefree fun, but the logistics behind it are an increasingly serious business. ByteDance, the China-based parent company of the social media streaming service TikTok, has leased 53 megawatts of data-center space across three locations in northern Virginia, a source with knowledge of the transactions said, facilities that could consume more annual power than 25,000 homes. That's on top of 9 megawatts ByteDance leased in 2019, according to data from DataCenter Knowledge.  The company, which has come under scrutiny in recent months from the Trump administration, is just one among an expanding universe of businesses for whom data centers are key.   In Totowa, New Jersey, meanwhile, Digital Realty Trust, a $41 billion public real-estate company that is one the country's largest data-center developers, has broken ground on a sprawling 600,000-square-foot complex after locking down a major commitment from Bloomberg LP, the financial data and media firm, several sources with knowledge of the transaction said. A spokesman for Bloomberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment. ByteDance did not respond to an inquiry about its data-center deals. The transactions are just the latest activity in a booming sector that straddles both the technology and property markets. Data-center demand has dramatically risen in recent years thanks to a host of drivers. Those include the growing consumption of storage-heavy streaming content, the proliferating internet-of-things that has connected everything from cars and appliances to remote software and systems, and also the increasing migration of businesses to cloud based storage and applications. Read More: We talked to 8 studio execs, investors, and brokers about the big money pouring into film and TV production spaces. Here's a look at the opportunities — and risks — for this hot real-estate play. The coronavirus pandemic, while causing other areas of the real estate industry such as retail and hotels to wilt, has only given lift to the already surging sector, experts say. The audience data firm Nielsen, for instance, reported that US consumption of streaming content rose more than 30% through the first three quarters of the year to 7.1 trillion minutes as lockdowns and lingering virus concerns have encouraged more viewers to watch from home. And as companies continue to put off a return to the office, more have scrambled to move more of their data and operations from onsite servers into the digital ether so that they can be more readily accessible to employees working remotely. The lynchpin behind all of it are tens of thousands of megawatts of data centers. Big investors like Goldman Sachs and Apollo are jumping in  The demand has given a boost to established players in the industry, including public companies such as Digital Realty Trust and Equinix, the largest data center company by market value at over $71 billion. Shares of data center REITs have risen on average by about 25% this year, according to the REIT investment and research firm Cohen & Steers, compared to an overall 12% decline in the broader REIT market, which has been battered by the virus crisis. The industry's performance has also caught the attention of major investment firms that want to make inroads into the lucrative business. On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs announced it had hired Scott Peterson, the former chief investment officer of Digital Realty Trust, and Goldman's merchant banking division plans to invest $500 million from an infrastructure fund to make up to $1.5 billion of data center acquisitions in the US and around the globe. Read More: Real-estate developers are building costly cold storage space before they even have tenants lined up. They're betting the risky move could be a winning investment as grocery deliveries surge. Other bluechip investors have crowded into the market as well. Apollo Global Management announced last week that it purchased a portfolio of nearly 500 existing cellular towers and hundreds of additional tower sites that are under development. That infrastructure is seen as closely linked to the data center business, especially with the arrival of 5G, whose faster speeds will require both more transmission infrastructure and storage space and increasingly seamless connections between the two. In May, KKR said it would invest $1 billion from an infrastructure fund it operates to build and buy data centers in Europe in a venture called Global Technical Realty. And last year, Blackstone announced it had acquired a 90% interest in seven data centers in Virginia owned by the property REIT Corporate Office Properties Trust in a deal that valued the buildings at $265 million. "Global internet traffic has grown 20% to 30% per year and the amount of data in data centers is growing at about the same pace," said Nadeem Meghji, the head of US real estate investments for Blackstone. "And with the arrival of 5G, you'll see the consumption of even more content from people's phones and devices." Meghji also expected broad demand from businesses across the economy to continue to fuel growth. "Only 30% of companies have moved their data storage off premises into a data center so far," Meghji said. "That adoption will grow." Data centers require enormous amounts of power Unlike other property types that have attracted robust investor interest in recent years, such as warehouse space, data centers can be particularly complex and expensive to operate and build. Most require enormous supplies of power, backup generators to prevent outtages, robust ventilation systems to cool football field sized rooms crammed with servers that can reach ovenlike temperatures, and connectivity to established networks of fiber optic cabling that serve as the nation's superhighways for data. Development has nonetheless boomed as capital has flooded in. "You're getting pension funds investing in data centers now, which is a huge change from a few years ago," said Steve Berkman, a real-estate attorney at Paul Hastings in San Francisco who has worked on data center deals on the West Coast. The amount of new colocation capacity in leading data center markets such as Northern Virginia, Dallas, Silicon Valley, and the New York area grew by 5% in the first half of the year to 2.7 gigawatts of total inventory, according to data from CBRE, about 20% of the power consumed by all of New York City. Colocation spaces are akin to the coworking business in the office sector, offering takers flexible space in which to grow their data footprint. They are only a segment of the larger market. Huge data consumers have also been active building and leasing their own facilities. Facebook recently began operating in a $1 billion data center it built in Henrico County in Northern Virginia, the country's largest and most active data center market. The social media giant has outlined plans to more than double the size of the complex. Even more space is on the way, with about 373 megawatts of colocation facilities under construction, CBRE said. All of that supply has put a modest strain on pricing in the industry, with average charges falling from $129 per kilowatt of monthly power consumption to $121 in the first half of the 2020 in those prime data-center markets, according to CBRE. Developers have compensated for tightening profits by building and operating space more economically. Some data-center companies have even begun to experiment with the idea of submerging servers in tubs of mineral oil, which is more efficient at dispersing heat than air and can reduce hefty cooling costs. Microsoft has tested underwater data centers. "A decade ago, the rule of thumb was it cost $40 million a megawatt to build," said Pat Lynch, a senior managing director at CBRE who oversees the company's data center solutions group. "Today it's a quarter of that, so there's still a healthy margin in the business even if prices fall slightly." How a big supply pipeline is changing the competitive landscape  The tightening economics and the large pipeline of supply are expected to prompt consolidation in the industry, allowing major players to enhance profitability by gaining economies of scale through acquisitions that avoid the risks of building from the ground up. Digital Realty Trust, according to several sources, was in talks, for instance, to purchase the $8.9 billion rival data center REIT Cyrus One last year, although the deal appeared to fizzle earlier this year. The data-center industry's tenancy is dominated by huge customers such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, Google, Oracle, and IBM, which use the facilities both for their own operations and multi-billion dollar cloud computing and storage businesses that cater to corporate and government clients. Smaller companies too have found a niche, highlighting the diverse ecosystem of users behind the demand for data center space. Data Canopy, a Maryland-based cloud-storage provider, has leased space in 16 data center locations across the country totaling about 10 megawatts that cater to small customers. Ryan Barbera, the company's founder and CEO, said he expects its footprint to as much as double in the next year and revenue to pick up by 30% or more. He is already contemplating a first fundraising round for the company. "2020 has been pure growth for us from a business standpoint and the best year that we have ever had," Barbera said. "When Covid happened we frankly began implementing a lot of austerity. Instead, companies that in the past talked about a cloud transformation made the move after realizing it's just as important or more important than other areas of their business at a moment like this." Disclosure: KKR is a large shareholder in Axel Springer, which owns Business Insider. Have a tip? Contact Daniel Geiger at dgeiger@businessinsider.com or via encrypted messaging app Signal at +1 (646) 352-2884, or Twitter DM at @dangeiger79. You can also contact Business Insider securely via SecureDrop. SEE ALSO: We talked to 8 studio execs, investors, and brokers about the big money pouring into film and TV production spaces. Here's a look at the opportunities — and risks — for this hot real-estate play. SEE ALSO: Meet the 4 dealmakers driving Blackstone's $325 billion commercial real estate portfolio. They walked us through how they're thinking about opportunities in the downturn. SEE ALSO: Nasdaq's CEO says the cloud is the 'future of the industry' and the tech could be used to conduct actual trading within the next decade Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: July 15 is Tax Day — here's what it's like to do your own taxes for the very first time

Summary List Placement Before he was Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai was best known for turning Chrome into the world's most popular web browser – but the methods Google used to get ahead of its rivals are currently under scrutiny. This week, the House antitrust subcommittee released the findings of an investigation into anti-competitive practices across Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google.  The 449-page document accuses Google of being "an ecosystem of interlocking monopolies" and an "overwhelmingly dominant" online search provider. One of the report's many conclusions is that Google has used its dominance in one market to favor its own products, with its Chrome web browser being one example. The report highlighted how Google began promoting its Chrome browser at the top corner of the Google.com homepage in 2009 in an effort to get Internet Explorer users to switch. It also revealed that not all employees were happy about it. "I find the very, very high-profile promotion of Google Chrome on Google.com quite frankly, startling," read one email between Chrome employees from 2009, which was obtained by the committee and cited in the report. In another piece of correspondence from 2009, Pichai, who was vice president of product development at the time, told employees to "promote through Google.com" and to push users to set Chrome as their default browser. Further documents confirmed that the web promotion performed well for Google at the time, driving "a tremendous number of downloads," according to one email. The report alleges that Google saw the growing importance of Chrome for the company's overall success, with then-CEO Eric Schmidt telling employees that the browser would be a primary portal to cloud services. This was despite Google later telling the Justice Department's Antitrust Division in a 2019 presentation that Chrome was launched "as a defensive move to protect users' access to Google's products," according to the report. In a statement responding to the overall conclusions of the antitrust documents, a Google spokesperson said that Google's products "help millions of Americans." "We compete fairly in a fast-moving and highly competitive industry. We disagree with today's reports, which feature outdated and inaccurate allegations from commercial rivals about Search and other services," they added.SEE ALSO: The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Oracle vs. Google legal battle today, but experts say that it's hard to predict which way the tremendously important case will go Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Epidemiologists debunk 13 coronavirus myths

Summary List Placement The most important legal brawl in technology is finally going before the US Supreme Court. Oracle and Google will face off Wednesday before the Supreme Court, which will decide a landmark patent infringement case that could have far-reaching implications in the way software is developed, integrated and monetized in the tech industry. The Supreme Court marks a significant moment in what has been a decade-long battle between the two parties. A lot is on the line in a case that has the potential to alter the very nature of software development. The case centers on Oracle's allegation that Google stole critical elements of its Java technology to develop its Android operating system. Google has hit back, arguing that Oracle cannot own this type of code — known as APIs, or application programming interfaces — which make it possible for software programs to talk to each other. In fact, this type of code is widely used in the industry for integrating pieces of software and web services.  The Supreme Court's ruling, which is expected early next year, could potentially shake up the tech industry, said Rob Siegel, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist and a management lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. If Google wins, "the software and tech industry runs as it has for the last three decades," he told Business Insider.  On the other hand, a victory for Oracle could trigger a "mad scramble" as tech companies try to figure out the legal ramifications of using another vendor's API, he said.  "Some companies clarify that their APIs are open and that they won't sue others," Siegel said. "Some companies get aggressive and litigate.  Those that litigate get ostracized after a while as other companies will try to avoid doing business with them and will avoid integrating their software." Google counts several of its peers as allies in this fight: Google's position has been endorsed by other tech giants, led by IBM, Microsoft and RedHat, the open source software behemoth which is now owned by Big Blue. Google also has the support of prominent technology advocacy groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Mozilla. "Computer interfaces are not copyrightable. That simple, yet powerful principle has been a cornerstone of technological and economic growth for over sixty years," IBM said in a legal brief. Oracle, for its part, has won support from several prominent tech executives, including Scott McNealy, former CEO of Sun Microsystems, the company that invented Java which Oracle acquired in 2010. Perhaps more importantly, Oracle will argue its case before the Supreme Court with the backing of an important player: the Trump administration.  The Trump endorsement Analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group speculated that politics could play a role in the case. The legal battle is going before the Supreme Court at a time when Oracle founder and chief technology officer Larry Ellison is widely known to enjoy the support of President Donald Trump. This was underscored by Oracle's surprise victory in the TikTok negotiations. "You also have the political element in the court system now, and the administration likes Oracle and doesn't care much for Google and has been willing to apply pressure on the court to protect friends," Enderle told Business Insider. "Given bending to that pressure would reflect poorly on the court, and the court knows this, it makes the outcome kind of a crapshoot.  Given the court's conservative makeup now, Oracle likely has the advantage." The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Oracle, but the court chose to take the case anyway. "Ordinarily the views of the Justice Department carry a lot of weight in the Supreme Court,"  Tyler Ochoa, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, who specializes in copyright law and signed a brief in favor of Google, told Business Insider. "So you already have at least four judges that either think the court of appeals was wrong or at least think it's an important issue that they need to resolve." In a brief endorsing Oracle's case, former Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that Google's "idiosyncratic approach would seem to allow any copyist to carve out the most popular parts of a pre-existing work, on the ground that familiar content is likely to make the second work more commercially appealing to admirers of the first. That result would be antithetical to the purposes of copyright." The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may also sway things. "She's been strongly pro-copyright in her opinions in recent years, said Professor Ochoa. Ginsberg, Ochoa believes, would have been "almost a certain" vote for Oracle.  A decade-long battle is heading towards a conclusion Kent Walker, Google's senior vice president for global affairs, maintained this week that the legal battle is affirming the tradition of innovation in the software industry. "We spoke for software developers, computer scientists, businesses and consumers who support software innovation," he said in a statement. "Developers want to create applications that work across platforms, without fearing that companies will misuse copyright law to block interoperability." Oracle reaffirmed its view that Google is guilty of theft. "We made clear that Google's conduct (theft) must be judged under the law as it is, not as Google would like it to be," Oracle Executive Vice President Ken Glueck said in a statement. "Google's self-serving approach to intellectual property is undeniably arrogant." Ultimately, the case's outcome may hinge in no small part on whether the Supreme Court grasp the intricacies involved, and the potential shockwaves through the tech industry. "Software copyrightability is really tricky," said Professor Ochoa. "It's going to help if the Justices really understand the software. Hopefully they're a little tech savvy." Got a tip about Oracle or another tech company? Contact this reporter via email at bpimentel@businessinsider.com, message him on Twitter @benpimentel or send him a secure message through Signal at (510) 731-8429. You can also contact Business Insider securely via SecureDrop. Got a tip about Google? Reach out to hlangley@businessinsider.com or message him on Signal or Telegram at (628) 228-1836.  Claim your 20% discount on an annual subscription to BI Prime by clicking here. SEE ALSO: Enterprise tech salaries revealed: How much Oracle, IBM, SAP, Cisco, Dell, VMware, ServiceNow and Workday pay engineers, developers, data scientists and others SEE ALSO: How much product managers are paid at enterprise giants like Oracle, Cisco, VMware, SAP, ServiceNow and Workday — and how the job is evolving Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Why some Hong Kong skyscrapers have gaping holes

Summary List Placement We're approaching a year since Google declared its plan to acquire wearables company Fitbit for $2.1 billion, and the deal still hasn't closed.  The acquisition has been under intense scrutiny around the world, and right now European regulators are digging deep into the deal. Earlier this week it was reported that the merger could be close to clearing after Google offered some concessions to regulators, but Reuters now reports that rivals say these aren't enough. Google showed us this week that it's still serious about hardware, and it has big ambitions in wearables. It recently snapped up Canadian smartglasses maker North, while acquiring Google could help catch Apple in what is becoming one of the next big tech battlefields. But it's not Fitbit or nothing. Here are some other wearables health companies that Google could try to snap up if its Fitbit deal doesn't succeed (or even if it does), based on expert opinions and Business Insider's own analysis.SEE ALSO: Google's secretive healthcare business wants to organize the world's health information, but insiders describe how turf wars and trust issues are hamstringing the operation Withings French health tech company Withings has had a rocky few years. What began as a single connected body scale turned into an ecosystem of health tech products sold under the Withings brand. In 2016, Nokia acquired the company and rebranded all of its products. Two years later, it sold it back to cofounder Éric Carreel. "I think they would be a great acquisition because they're a much stronger healthcare play, and they get healthcare better than pretty much anyone else," said Anshel Sag, a senior analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy. Withings has a much smaller user base than Fitbit's, which could potentially make it an easier buy. "Withings could be an option but really not on the same level as Fitbit," Creative Strategies analyst Carolina Milanesi told Business Insider. However, Withings will want to tread carefully. "The Nokia acquisition has left a bad taste in their mouth and I think they would want to avoid that at any cost," said George Jijiashvili, a senior analyst covering wearables at Omidia.      Mobvoi Chinese tech company Mobvoi already counts Google as one of its investors, and helped take a version of Google's Wear OS operating system to China (where Google operates in a very limited capacity). Multiple analysts said it would be a no-brainer for Google to acquire them if it weren't for what is currently a heated geopolitical climate between the US and China. "I think they're rather interesting," said Omidia's George Jijiashvili. "They keep bringing out nice Wear OS smartwatches. They're very tightly knit with Google."  The Beijing-based company was even started by ex-Googlers who once told TechCrunch that much of the company's DNA was inspired by their former employer. Fossil's smartwatch business Google and Fossil have had a good thing going. Google provides its Wear OS operating system, and Fossil builds smartwatches for its variety of licence brands such as Michael Kors and Diesel. It's helped Google get its software on more wrists without having to manufacture its own devices, but according to a recent Counterpoint Research report, Fossil only captured 2.1% of global smartwatch shipment revenues. Of course, Google buying all of Fossil would make little business sense, but analysts say the company could feasibly break off Fossil's smartwatch business in an acquisition to give it access to the technology and talent.  In 2019, Google paid Fossil $40 million for an undisclosed new smartwatch technology, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. However, it would likely also require Fossil Group to give up on its smartwatch ambitions for it to happen. "I think Fossil would still be a very good fit," said Moor Insights & Strategy's Sag.   Oura The wearables war won't just be fought on the wrist. Smart ring companies have gained some traction by offering more subtle health trackers. Oura is probably the best-known smart ring maker right now, helped partly by its work in a study this year to detect early symptoms of COVID-19. Smart ring maker Motiv, Oura's biggest rival, was acquired by access security company Proxy earlier this year, and smart rings could be a logical area for Google to pursue. "Oura are gaining traction with the NBA around Covid," said Anshel Sag at Moor Insights & Strategy. "That would be an interesting one." Polar Analysts say Garmin would likely pose a similar antitrust headache were Google to every try to acquire it, but Polar is a similar big name in the fitness wearables space with a smaller user base, meaning Google may be able to snap it up with less trouble. "Because they're smaller scale compared to Fitbit, they would potentially cause less problems with regulators," said Jijiashvili at Omidia. "Polar are releasing new dedicated swimming and running watches here and there, but they don't crop up a lot when it comes to talking about market share. It's low volume, high engagement." Whoop When Google announced its intentions to acquire Fitbit, CB Insights singled out Whoop as one of the wearables startups that could be next in line for acquisition. Whoop's edge is in its recovery tracking, giving users a better picture of how much strain a workout has put on their body, and how much rest they need before getting back on the treadmill. Like Oura, it's found new purpose with the pandemic, rolling out an update to let users more easily keep an eye on their respiratory rate. Its Series D round, raised last year, was actually led by Fitbit investor Foundry Group. Suunto Finnish sports watch maker Suunto is a much smaller company than Fitbit, which would make it easier for Google to clinch a deal. Omidia's Jijiashvili highlighted the company as a potential acquisition target and said it would bring "the hardware angle" Google is after. "Suunto is notorious a private company and I don't know if they'd be up for acquisitions or not," he added. Matrix Industries Matrix Industries is another potential hot acquisition target that was flagged by CB Insights. The Menlo Park, California, startup makes a smartwatch powered by body heat and has garnered a lot of attention for its unique thermoelectric technology. Battery life is a major limitation in consumer wearables right now, and one that companies such as Google and Apple will be looking to do whatever they can to improve. Matrix's edge is that its smartwatch never needs charging, but the unique technology could be attractive beyond the wrist alone. Its smartwatch is also still quite niche, making it perfect for someone like Google to snap it up and make it more mainstream.

Summary List Placement From knock-off Rolex watches to fake pharmaceuticals, Google indexes many websites that sell counterfeit products. In June, the company finally began allowing users to request that sites hosting these fake goods be de-indexed from Google's search results – but Incopro, a brand-reputation consultancy, says Google's system is "extremely problematic" for brands. To report fake goods that appear in Google search results, a brand must fill out a form and submit a URL for the page hosting the counterfeit product. But brands can't submit an entire website for takedown, and therefore must send Google the URL of every individual counterfeit product. "It's like trying to mow a football pitch using a pair of scissors," said Mike Sweeney, director of service delivery and senior legal counsel at Incopro. "It just doesn't stack up for trying to tackle this problem at scale." Incopro, a brand protection software provider, is now putting pressure on Google to change its policy, hosting a webinar on Thursday in which it intends to lay out its findings in the shortcomings of Google's approach to combating counterfeits.  Sweeney said that the counterfeit goods submission system means a brand could feasibly have to submit thousands of individual URLs in order to have those products de-indexed by Google.  In research shared with Business Insider, Incopro said it discovered that a fake watch site, watchreplica.to, had 3,370 individual URLs indexed by Google, with just under 70% of its traffic coming from organic search, it claims. Sweeney said Incopro still welcomed Google's new fake-fighting tool, calling it a "sense of leveling up" from what came before it. "Typically you'd have to resort to sending takedown notices to the people operating the websites. And very often, the notices are either ignored or else are actioned only for the website to appear somewhere else on the internet where the infringement cycle begins all over again," he said. But the new system doesn't go far enough, Incopro says, and creates a potential headache for brands trying to swat down counterfeit products. "This new functionality is very limited in that it anticipates brands or their appointed agents notifying Google of their concerns on an individual URL-by-URL basis, and that's extremely problematic," said Sweeney. A Google spokesperson told Business Insider that the URL-based request system was by design and said that a full-site removal could limit access to legitimate goods. They added that Google has developed ways limit the visibility of websites that are consistently found to be selling counterfeit goods. "Demotion of websites which are unlawful and which serve no legitimate purpose is not an effective solution," said Sweeney. "These are websites which serve no legitimate purpose, which often fund serious, criminal activity and which are self-evidently unlawful.  Still, Google will not remove them." Users also need to create a Google account in order to submit the request, which Incopro is also calling out as a problematic element of Google's takedown system. In a report last year, Incopro found that for certain searches, up to 60% of first-page Google results were directing users to websites selling counterfeit products.SEE ALSO: Sundar Pichai says Google plans to be 'more flexible' with future office requirements, and will consider hybrid models to create better balance for employees Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: A cleaning expert reveals her 3-step method for cleaning your entire home quickly

Summary List Placement The coronavirus pandemic has led to dramatic shifts in shopping behavior as people avoided going to physical stores and began buying more online. That's been a boon for Amazon and delivery platforms like Instacart, which launched a self-serve ad platform in May. But traditional retailers like Walmart, CVS, and Kroger have also intensified the competition for advertising with their own ad sales platforms. While Amazon still rules e-commerce, the pandemic marks the beginning of a long-term change that could threaten its dominance of digital retail advertising. John Lods, CEO of digital media-buying agency Arm Candy, said his clients have been frustrated with Amazon's fees and hold on e-commerce and are eager to try advertising almost anywhere else. Amazon did not respond to a request for comment. Representatives for Walmart, CVS, Kroger, and Instacart declined to comment. Big brands are spending more of their ad budgets on e-commerce sites beyond Amazon Big brands like Hershey and Petco said as they've been moving more of their ad budgets to e-commerce, they're spending on platforms beyond Amazon to see how well they perform and diversify their revenue streams. Petco works with Instacart and Shipt, said Darren MacDonald, chief digital and innovation officer there, while Hershey has moved some money from Amazon to Kroger, Walmart, and Target, said Doug Straton, chief digital officer at Hershey. And Straton said the longer the pandemic continues, the more entrenched the shift to e-commerce will be. "Where e-commerce is now as a percentage of the overall business is where we thought it would be, maybe, in two to three years — and that kind of happened overnight," Straton said. Midsize advertisers that fund the top platforms are also attracted to places like Target and CVS But it's the millions of small and midsize advertisers that power the major digital platforms and that have been quickest to try out these alternatives to Amazon, because they can move faster than the CPG giants, ad execs said. "Smaller players can take advantage of new shopping behaviors," Lods said. "Big brands, however, have to approve budgets almost years in advance." John Smith, head of digital marketing at cell phone accessory maker BGZ Brands, said his company was able to quickly move ad dollars to Target and paid social when Amazon restricted the shipment of nonessential items early in the pandemic. He also said BGZ is particularly interested in CVS' site because people often bought his company's products there before the pandemic. Amazon and traditional advertising stand to lose the most Amazon remains the undisputed e-commerce leader, with its market share estimated to hit 38.7% in 2020. But Walmart's e-commerce market share is growing rapidly. And some agency executives think price and loyalty may lead some shoppers — and, consequently, advertisers — to choose it and other retailers over Amazon. "Look at the price on an Apple laptop from Amazon and Walmart; Walmart is going to win nine out of 10 times," said Sam Huston, chief strategy officer at agency 3Q Digital. Advertisers want more for their money too, and Instacart has been particularly effective in delivering on ad spend, said Craig Atkinson, chief client officer at media-buying agency Tinuiti. Atkinson called the e-commerce explosion "another nail in the coffin" of non-digital advertising and said dozens of his clients, which include Seventh Generation and The Honest Co, are experimenting with the new platforms. Only one client has made a significant shift away from Amazon so far. But, he added: "We've just scratched the surface" of the move toward e-commerce.SEE ALSO: The pandemic has thrown a wrench in plans to save the TV business. Industry insiders lay out what they're doing to fix it Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Why Pikes Peak is the most dangerous racetrack in America

Summary List Placement Antitrust seems to be back in fashion as a topic of concern in Washington, DC, particularly after Congress harangued the heads of four leading tech companies earlier this summer about their alleged anticompetitive moves. But any real effort to promote competition and constrain monopolies is going to require a major reassessment — and quite possibly a revamping — of laws, policies, and personnel, said antitrust law expert Gary Reback. Federal judges, under the influence of conservative, pro-market academics, have significantly restricted what counts as anticompetitive behavior. Meanwhile, it's unclear after years of bringing few antitrust cases whether the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have the personnel they need to step up enforcement, Reback said. The next Congress and whichever administration is in office next year are "going to have to figure out almost from scratch how they're going to enforce the antitrust laws," Reback told Business Insider in a recent interview. Antitrust enforcement appears to be coming to a head. Federal enforcement officials and state attorneys general have been investigating four of the tech giants — Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet — for more than a year. The Department of Justice reportedly is gearing up to file a suit against Alphabet — the parent company of Google — by the end of this month. But US enforcement authorities could run into trouble prosecuting those cases due to a lack of qualified personnel and skeptical federal judges, said Reback, who represents companies that have made antitrust complaints with the FTC about some of the tech giants. The government lacked litigators when it took on Microsoft The personnel problem is not a new one. As far back as the Microsoft trial 20 years ago, it was apparent that the federal government was lacking litigators who could prosecute antitrust cases, said Reback, whose work with companies harmed by the software giant's anticompetitive actions helped prepare the ground for the government's case. The Justice Department tapped an outside litigator — David Bois — to lead its prosecution of the case. Meanwhile, the team of in-house layers the agency assembled to put together the case was based in San Francisco, even though the trial took place in Washington, D.C. "I'm telling you, even back then it was a struggle within the Antitrust Division to find ... a good team to support Bois," Reback said. "You might logically argue," he continued, "'well, weren't there lawyers in Washington in the Justice Department that could have done this?' And the answer is no." The Department of Justice seems to have the ability to conduct a thorough antitrust investigation, Reback said. But it's unclear whether it has the personnel in place to litigate a case against Alphabet or any of the other tech giants, he said. It may well have to bring in outside attorneys, just like it did with the Microsoft case, he said. But personnel isn't the only thing antitrust enforcement officials need to evaluate — and not the only reason why they might conclude they need to hire private attorneys to litigate cases, Reback said. They also need to think long and hard about strategy. Antitrust officials are going to need to convince a skeptical judiciary The federal judiciary, under the influence of pro-laissez faire economists, has constrained the definition of what counts as illegal anticompetitive behavior. Over the last 40 years, judges and federal enforcement officials have largely discarded other competitive concerns and refocused antitrust enforcement on the issue of whether consumers have been harmed by having to pay higher prices. If they're going to be at all successful in taking on the Big Tech companies, antitrust officials are going to have to figure out how to combat that mindset, Reback said. One tactic the heads of the Antitrust Division and the FTC should take is to become "evangelists" to the judiciary about the need to constrain these companies, he said. "Somebody has to try to explain to Republican judges that we're in an unprecedented situation here," Reback said. He continued: "Even if you come from the position that you don't like government intervention in the economy ... we have here a set of circumstances that is different than anything that we've experienced before and that really does need your attention." But that need to convince conservative judges could be another reason for the DoJ to bring in outside litigators. Given the anti-government, anti-regulatory mindset of many federal judges, it's quite possible that a government attorney could make a solid case against one of the Big Tech companies and essentially be ignored because the attorney works for the Justice Department, Reback said. Antitrust officials need to consider "would a judge be more likely o listen to an outside litigator like David Bois representing the government than they would somebody from the DoJ," Reback said. "They shouldn't, but is it likely that they would?" New legislation could be needed Government policymakers are also going to have to figure out whether and what kind of legislation might be needed to redirect the judiciary and better address the anticompetitive actions being taken by the giants in tech and other industries, he said. Even with the way the judiciary has limited the laws, it's still possible even today to go to court and win an antitrust case, he said. But it's difficult, and it's pretty clear to Reback, at least, that legislation is needed to address areas where judges have "gone off the rails" in terms of allowing anti-competitive behavior. What's more debatable is just how much farther legislators should go in trying to curb today's monopolists. For his part, Reback favors legislation such as that put forward by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., that would essentially define a monopoly as a company that has more than 50% share of a particular market and would subject such companies' behavior to greater scrutiny. He's not, however, in favor of legislation that such as that pushed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would bar companies from both operating a platform or marketplace and competing against other companies on that same platform. Such a bill would bar Amazon, say, from hosting third-party retailers on its ecommerce site and selling goods on that same site. It might force Amazon to sell or close its marketplace. "I would hate to have to do [Warren's approach], in part because it would cause so much dislocation," he said. Regardless, new legislation is insufficient to curb the abuses of the tech giants, Reback said. Antitrust officials are going to need the right personnel, the right strategy — and the will to pursue cases. "Even if there's from, my perspective, good legislation, by itself, that's not going stop anything. It's not going to change anything," he said. "You will need go into court, and you will need to figure out how to do that." Got a tip about tech? Contact Troy Wolverton via email at twolverton@businessinsider.com, message him on Twitter @troywolv, or send him a secure message through Signal at 415.515.5594. You can also contact Business Insider securely via SecureDrop. Read more about the tech giant's antitrust troubles: 'Fortnite' maker Epic Games just set an antitrust trap for Apple, and Tim Cook walked right into it Big Tech's CEOs wrapped themselves in the flag and warned about China. Here's why their patriotic appeal was meaningless, misleading, and should be ignored. Newly released Steve Jobs emails, included in Congress' antitrust investigation, show how ruthless the Apple founder could be Trump says he'll 'bring fairness' to Big Tech via an executive order if Congress doesn't take action   SEE ALSO: The FTC's latest shot at the tech giants has opened up an unexpected front in the war to constrain Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Why thoroughbred horse semen is the world's most expensive liquid

Summary List Placement In June, Google CEO Sundar Pichai made a set of commitments to improve diversity and equity across the company, which included promises to boost underrepresented groups in leadership roles and address problems in hiring and retention. Nothing was said on how much would apply to other "bet" companies, many of which operate largely independent of the Google mothership, but LinkedIn data reveals that many of them have been on a hiring spree to appoint new diversity leaders. Business Insider spotted that self-driving car company Waymo and AI research body DeepMind have both posted advertisements for diversity and inclusion leads in the last few weeks. Verily, one of Alphabet's life sciences companies, has also recently been on the hunt for a diversity strategy and program lead. In June, a Google senior recruitment specialist moved over to Loon with the new title of 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program Manager,' according to LinkedIn data. Around the same time, Alphabet moonshot division X  moved its 'Head of EID talent acquisition' into a new diversity lead position, as announced by X "captain" Astro Teller in a blog post. Google publishes data on its diversity figures each year. Its 2020 report reflected incremental progress, with women representing only 32% of the workforce (up from 31.6% a year before) and the number of black employees making up 3.7% of its 100,00-plus employees – up from 3.3% the year prior. However, these reports don't include data for the other "bets," which are largely treated and run like individual companies. But the run of new diversity leads across these Alphabet companies reflect how these problems don't stop at Google. Earlier this year, Alphabet's life science company Verily made a controversial move to suspend employee spot bonuses and redirect the money into diversity programs instead.  The decision led to backlash from employees, some of which co-signed a letter to management asking why the diversity programs weren't being invested "in their own right." "Given the differences in maturity and biz development that each Bet is at, no one Bet is alike in their equity, inclusion, diversity (EID) journey," said Salima Bhimani, chief equity and inclusion strategist for Alphabet's other bets, in an emailed statement to Business Insider. "Part of our work together over the last 3 years has been for the Bets to engage in thoughtful dialogue about how to do EID work and for them to lay the foundations for EID in their orgs." She added that "many established EID roles and teams early on, while others are now at the stage of their foundation build, where they are ready for EID leads, who will not come in starting from scratch."Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Epidemiologists debunk 13 coronavirus myths

Google is one of the most desireable places to work, regularly topping Glassdoor's "Best Places to Work" list. When considering who to bring on, the company looks for someone who has these four traits and weighs them equally: mastery of the actual role, cognitive ability (how smart you are), Googleyness, and leadership ability (even if you're not applying for a managerial role). Because many of the leadership traits Google looks for are the same as the Googleyness traits, Googleyness really accounts for a lot more than one-fourth of your score as a potential hire. Display Googleyness into your interview process by staying positive, highlighting ways you took an unconventional route, and being honest and asking for help when you need it. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Want to land a job at Google? A lot of people do. The tech giant is a highly desirable workplace, with average salaries of more than $116,00 according to the compensation site PayScale, along with annual bonuses and signing bonuses in some cases. Then there are the company's legendary perks, which included things like lavish food and free massages before the pandemic struck. More recently, Google gave its employees who work remotely $1,000 each to spend on their home offices. No wonder the company regularly makes it onto lists of the best places to work--it's number 11 in Glassdoor's ranking this year. And the company is constantly filling both technical and non-technical jobs all across the United States and around the world. What does it take to get hired at Google? You need to be skilled at the job you're applying for, but that only counts for 25% of the company's hiring decision, according to Jose Pinero, a career coach who helps job seekers land jobs at Google and other tech giants. Twenty-five percent is based on general cognitive ability--in other words, how smart you are--and another 25% is based on what they call "Googleyness," or whether your personality is a good fit for Google. A final 25% is based on an assessment of your leadership abilities, even if you're not applying for a managerial role. But since many of the leadership traits Google looks for are the same as the Googleyness traits, Googleyness really accounts for a lot more than one-fourth of your score as a potential hire. In a video at the Life at Google YouTube channel, Brinleigh Murphy-Reuter, a business recruiter at Google, describes Googleyness as "comfort with ambiguity, bias to action and a collaborative nature." That's not a lot go go on, but fortunately Jeff H. Sipe, an interview coach at Practice Interviews and a former recruiter who spent five years hiring people for Google provides a lot more detail in a video of his own. Sipe identifies 21 qualities that make up Googleyness, including positivity, humility, friendliness, playfulness, being a life-long learner, having a high EQ (emotional intelligence), courtesy, and valuing yourself and others.  So how do you display these desired traits during the interview process?  1. Be nice to everyone and stay positive. Remember that all your interactions, including with cafeteria employees and receptionists (if the interview is on site), may be included in your evaluation. So will your answers to questions that may seem like small talk, such as "How are you doing?" or "Did you have a good weekend?" Pinero says.  You will likely be faced with questions designed to elicit negativity, such as, "Tell me about a time you encountered a problem?" or "What do you dislike about having a manager?" he adds.  Don't take the bait--keep your answer upbeat. "They are testing your Googleyness," he says. "Will you speak negatively about your former manager or blame other people?" Doing either will raise a red flag at a Google interview.  2. Highlight anything unusual about your career.  Google is looking for people who follow an unusual path, Sipe says, so left turns in your career that you might normally downplay can actually help you. For example, did you quit a high-level job at a large company to launch a startup that failed? "Good!" he says. "That is a Googleyness item because Google will understand that first of all, you're not risk-averse, and secondly, you probably learned a ton." You can also get Googleyness points if, for instance, you had to drop out of high school, but got your GED and then learned coding on your own. 3. Show comfort with ambiguity. "Googleyness is really about embracing and finding joy in and appreciating the unknown," Sipe says in his video. "The interviews will challenge your ability to problem-solve with limited information." With that in mind, he says, "It's going to really, really show up if you don't show frustration, if you continue to work through and problem-solve." You can also display your comfort with ambiguity when the interview doesn't go as planned, for instance if you're moved from one conference room to another or if your video interview runs into technical difficulties, or if your interviewer is late. "When candidates got shifted around and had to move around during their interview days and they didn't let it bother them, it really, really showed up positively in the feedback," Sipe notes. 4. Don't pretend you know more than you do. Ask for help instead. Transparency is part of Googleyness, so this is the wrong time to fake it till you make it. "To pretend you know something you don't is a red flag. It's essentially inflating your experience or knowledge," says Grechen Jacobi, head of career services at Flatiron School, which teaches people to code and helps them land jobs at tech companies, including Google.  "It's really important, if you're going to pass the Googleyness test, when you don't know something, don't say nothing," she says. For instance, if confronted with a coding language you don't know, say something like, "I'm not deep on that but I know about this, is it similar?" she advises. "Ask clarifying questions. Ask for help. They'll probably help you." If you really want to shine, win extra points by following up later about whatever it was, she advises. "To show you're curious, go do a bit of research. Build something with it or write a blog post about what you've learned and then send it to your interviewer. Say, 'I was curious about that thing we talked about and I wanted to show this to you.'" Keep in mind that the purpose of the interview is not for you to have all the right answers, it's for you to demonstrate how you handle situations where you don't, she and other experts agree. So, even if you're frustrated, stay positive, talk through your thinking as you try to solve the problem, and just do your best. Remember that Google is looking to hire lifelong learners, not know-it-alls. "They want to help you," Jacobi says. "They're interviewing you because they want to find a great teammate."Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: A cleaning expert reveals her 3-step method for cleaning your entire home quickly

Tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have come to dominate the global economy thanks, in some part, to their marketing efforts. Amazon overtook Procter & Gamble to become the world's top advertiser in early 2020, and tech companies are top destinations for marketing talent at a time when ad agencies have shed thousands of jobs. Business Insider analyzed the US Office of Foreign Labor Certification's most recent quarterly disclosure data for the largest tech names to reveal what they pay employees in their marketing departments. Salaries vary widely. Amazon paid a marketing specialist $95,000, and Apple paid a creative director $300,000. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Technology giants like Facebook, Google, Amazon, Uber, and Airbnb have only increased their dominance in recent years thanks to their ability to change consumer behaviors and, in some cases, create entirely new industries. One thing all these names have in common is a heavy reliance on marketing. Amazon overtook Procter & Gamble to become the world's top advertiser in early 2020. Consequently, tech companies are top destinations for marketing talent at a time when ad agencies have shed thousands of jobs. And while they offer competitive pay, with an account manager at Twitter making around the same amount as an Omnicom employee in a similar role, the lack of $550,000 account lead or $880,000 chief creative officer jobs hints at a new sort of ad economy in which the traditional players no longer serve as gatekeepers. These companies have not been immune to the effects of the coronavirus. Airbnb and Uber took major hits as travel declined, and Google will see its ad revenue decline for the first time ever. Yet they continue to dominate their respective industries and some — like Amazon and Microsoft — look to emerge even stronger and employ more people than before the pandemic. The biggest tech companies also hire considerably more international talent than those in many other industries due to both their size and their need for people with unique skills. All are required to file paperwork for each visa-holding employee, including his or her title and salary, with the federal government. The US Department of Labor's Office of Foreign Labor Certification releases this information every quarter. The Department of Labor uses these numbers, which include "prevailing wages," or the minimum companies are required to pay for the jobs in question, to protect US employees' wages and prevent educated immigrant labor from being exploited. Business Insider chose some of the most recognizable and influential tech companies by ad spend, revenue, and market share and analyzed the latest available data on permanent green cards and temporary H-1B, H1B1, and E-3 visas to compile a portrait of what they pay employees in marketing roles. These numbers don't include every type of visa or any form of compensation beyond base salary. Spokespeople for all the companies included in this story either declined to comment or did not respond to related requests. Airbnb paid a global search engine marketing lead $250,000 Airbnb's business was decimated by the pandemic as travel came to an abrupt halt around the world, and in March the company suspended all marketing expenses as part of an attempt to save $800 million. But the company still filed for its IPO in August after raising an additional $2 billion as the short-term rental market began to rebound, though its estimated valuation dropped from $26 billion to $18 billion.  And while the company rarely runs big-budget broadcast ad campaigns, The Information reported in late 2019 that its marketing and sales budget had increased significantly in anticipation of going public, even as its losses doubled in the first quarter of that year. Airbnb is still one of the hottest companies in the world, and it continues to pay marketing executives very well more than two years after the departure of its former CMO Jonathan Mildenhall, who has not yet been replaced.  Some current salaries: Growth marketing manager, marketing technology: $150,000 Creative director, growth and traffic: $215,000 Global search engine marketing lead: $250,000 Director, marketing financial planning and analysis: $280,000 Amazon paid a creative services specialist $118,500 Amazon was well positioned to benefit from the pandemic. The company's year-over-year profits doubled in the second quarter thanks to consumers shopping from home and stocking up on essential products, though it also said it would spend $4 billion on what CEO Jeff Bezos described as coronavirus-related expenses. As a result of this boom, Bezos' personal net worth has also doubled to more than $200 billion. Bezos said Amazon created 125,000 full-time jobs from March to July. Most were for warehouse workers, and a majority of the 5,700 visas Amazon received in the most recent quarter went to engineers and developers.  But Amazon also became the largest advertiser in the world earlier this year and hired abroad for some top marketing jobs. These salaries offer a glimpse into the growing influence of disparate products such as Amazon's creative services team, its ad sales platform, and its gaming service Twitch: Senior product marketing manager, Twitch Prime Live: $91,100 Marketing specialist: $95,000 Ads account manager: $100,000 Creative services specialist: $118,500 Performance marketing sales analyst: $128,800 Marketing specialist: $134,400 Ad sales representative: $141,930 Manager, ads account management: $143,300 Senior marketing and field enablement operations manager: $185,000 Apple paid a creative director $300,000 Unlike most brands, Apple has its own dedicated ad agency in Omnicom's TBWA\Media Arts Lab, which handles most of its advertising. The company regularly gets attention for its cinematic campaigns, but stopped disclosing its ad budget to investors in 2016 and dramatically decreased digital marketing spend in 2019. Still, a number of the more than 3,500 visas that Apple received in the most recent quarter were for marketing jobs, from in-house creative directors and designers to content and communications managers. The company also recently expanded its search ad service beyond the App Store, and its revenue increased slightly in the first quarter of 2020 thanks to the enduring popularity of the iPhone despite significant setbacks in both supply chain and consumer demand. These are salaries and salary ranges within Apple's marketing department: Junior art director: $92,000 Associate creative director, design: $152,800 UX designer: $162,000 Marcom art director: $170,000 Public relations manager: $174,000 Brand content manager: $175,000 Producer, director: $202,600 Art director: $176,600 to $229,300 Marketing manager: $240,000 Associate creative director: $252,000 Design director: $290,000 Creative director: $300,000 Ad platform sales director: $202,600 to $324,200 Facebook paid a Latin America agency director $330,000 Facebook's marketing team is in flux with its CMO Antonio Lucio stepping down, but it still remains one of the biggest tech marketers.  Of the nearly 5,000 visas Facebook received in the most recent quarter, dozens were for jobs related to creative services, ad agency relations, and monetization of Facebook's various products. While it wasn't always a big spender, Facebook has considerably increased its ad investment over the years to rebuild consumer trust after a spate of controversies regarding privacy and misinformation on the platform. The company spent $9.8 billion on marketing and sales in 2019 versus $7.8 billion in 2018, per its 2019 annual report, and even ran its first Super Bowl commercial this year. Here's a selection from the approved visa applications that Facebook made on behalf of its marketing team: Marketing manager: $123,000 SMB marketing manager: $128,152 Creative strategist: $133,902 Communications planning manager: $138,354 Growth marketing analyst: $146,000 Marketing researcher: $154,000 Partnerships marketing communications manager: $164,322 Product marketing manager, gaming monetization: $174,000 Marketing science partner: $195,000 Creative strategist: $180,000 to $200,000 Product marketing lead: $203,102 Team lead, partner management: $197,434 to $217,434 Marketing research manager: $230,318 to $250,318 Agency director, Latin America: $330,000 Google paid a director of product marketing $315,000 In a stark illustration of  the pandemic's effects on the business world, eMarketer predicted that Google's US ad revenue would drop by about 5.3% in 2020, its first-ever annual decline. CEO Sundar Pichai told investors on the company's first quarter earnings call that business had already started to slow, and in an April memo to employees he said Google would reduce hiring in many areas for the remainder of the year, including "non business essential marketing and travel." Yet the company will remain the single largest player in the digital ad world, and it also received more visas in the most recent quarter than any other company on this list at nearly 11,000, quite a few of which were for international talent in marketing roles.  These are salaries and ranges from across the company's marketing division: Associate product marketing manager: $101,000 Marketing associate: $104,000 Marketing events manager: $123,900 Product marketing manager: $133,000 Marketing analyst: $144,000 Agency business development lead: $150,000 Marketing and analytics lead: $156,000 Product marketing manager: $164,000 Creative technologist: $191,000 Account marketing manager: $201,000 Creative lead: $260,000 Creative director: $290,000 Director, product marketing management: $315,000 LinkedIn paid a product marketing group manager between $186,989 and $238,000 Microsoft acquired the jobs-focused social network in 2016, but it continues to operate nearly independently, as Digiday recently reported. Still, the platform continues to evolve into a robust business with its registered user base growing from 400 million people in December 2016 to 706 million people as of July 2020, and its revenue growing by 10% year-over-year in the most recent quarter.  Here's a range of what it pays its marketers:  Associate digital marketing manager: $109,554 to $116,000 Marketing operations analyst: $135,000 to $150,900 Product marketing manager, field transformation: $102,000 to $159,000 Product marketing manager: $124,315 to $159,000 Senior digital marketing manager: $138,606 to $202,000 Group manager, product marketing: $186,989 to $238,000 Microsoft paid a business development manager $240,000 Microsoft, like Amazon, has proven resilient during the pandemic, thanks in large part to the increased use of Teams and CEO Satya Nadella's focus on its cloud business. Software is still Microsoft's core product, as reflected by the fact that most of the 6,500-plus visas the company received in the last quarter were for programming and engineering jobs. But Microsoft's ad spend has remained more consistent than some of its competitors during the downturn thanks in part to a large campaign promoting Teams — and dozens of the aforementioned visas were for jobs in its vast marketing department. These are salaries and salary ranges for Microsoft marketing positions, which include disparate pay for jobs with similar titles: Product marketing manager: $118,000 Senior marketing communications manager: $125,500 Art director: $130,000 Communications manager: $130,000 Senior graphic designer: $157,000 Account technology strategist: $185,000 Group product marketing manager: $185,955 Channel marketing manager: $188,802 Business strategy manager: $190,000 Product marketing manager: $198,126 Business development manager: $240,000 Twitter paid a senior director of global growth and product marketing $347,000 While Twitter too initially took a hit from the pandemic with the advertising landscape coming under pressure, the company buoyed itself with a surge in users, and more users engaging with its ads in the second quarter of 2020.  Twitter's ad business remains significantly smaller than that of other household tech names, and it received around 360 visas in the most recent quarter. But its marketing team will only have more work on its plate down the line as the company explores a subscription model and additional streams of revenue. Here are some current salaries: Client account manager: $94,806 Lead, marketing manager: $180,000 Communications director: $250,000 Senior director, global growth and product marketing: $347,000 Uber paid a senior marketing manager $185,000 After a major overhaul of its marketing function last year, Uber's marketing team seems to have found its footing under SVP of marketing and public affairs Jill Hazelbaker and her deputies Mike Strickman, who handles growth and performance marketing, and Google vet Thomas Ranese, who leads product and brand marketing. While the company dukes it out with the state of California over a labor law that requires "gig economy" companies to reclassify their workers as actual employees on the one hand, its food delivery business has been booming on the other. Here's a snapshot of how much the ride-hailing company paid for marketing roles: CRM marketing specialist: $90,640 Senior marketing manager: $99,910 Market research manager: $113,531 Product marketing manager: $124,140 Senior performance marketing manager: $135,000 Senior creative operations manager: $155,736 Senior brand manager: $184,600 Senior marketing manager: $185,000 SEE ALSO: DTC salaries revealed: What top brands like Peloton, Wayfair, and Instacart pay marketing employees, from designers to senior managers Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: A cleaning expert reveals her 3-step method for cleaning your entire home quickly

Google's product inclusion team works on making the company's products better for more users, but it was born from one of Google's 20% projects. Annie Jean-Baptiste, Google's head of product inclusion, explains how the group came about in a new book. The group has worked on Google products including Pixel smartphones and virtual reality headsets. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Earlier this year, Google announced it had more than 2,000 employees across the company working on inclusion and diversity in its products. This group of "inclusion champions" was set up to think inclusively about things like gender, age, ethnicity, and disabilities as products are designed. But the group's origin story was born from one of Google's once-ubiquitous "20% projects," where employees dedicate 20% of their time to building something outside of their usual focus. Annie Jean-Baptiste, Google's head of product inclusion, has written about how the project came to be in an upcoming book, "Building For Everyone." In it, she explains how a group of Googlers got together to think about how they could better integrate inclusion in the product design process. "A few of us Googlers decided that the diversity and inclusion conversation could make for an interesting 20 percent project," she wrote. "At the time, when we talked about diversity and inclusion, we were usually discussing culture and representation; we were not discussing these topics in the context of product or business development." The breakthrough moment happened when an engineer named Peter Sherman approached her team. Sherman was working on a camera and a proximity sensor for one of Google's Pixel smartphone cameras, "both of which needed to work well for all users, regardless of skin tone," he wrote in a sidebar in the book. "The development team was very small though, and we had difficulty figuring out how to get the broad coverage we needed to make appropriate tuning decisions and subsequent validation testing," added Sherman. Jean-Baptiste took Sherman's challenge to a diversity summit run by Googlers in 2015, where the problem was discussed. "During that summit, many of the participants voiced first-hand experience with cameras failing to produce pleasing images as a function of skin-tone, but few knew the history of bias in the development of color photography and that we can really improve the experience is we think and develop inclusively," wrote Sherman. "These early discussions with different teams started to spark ideas and light a fire for our team," wrote Jean-Baptiste. Gradually, this evolved into a product inclusion team that would work across all of Google's products. For example, Jean-Baptiste explains how the team helped create Google's Daydream virtual reality headset – a process that involved going beyond thinking about different head sizes and glasses wearers, to factors such as sex and different hair textures. "We began to realize that this idea around intersectional inclusion in products could make a huge impact, so we embarked on a journey to figure it out," she wrote. "Our 20 percent group ultimately evolved into what is now known as product inclusion."SEE ALSO: Google cut more than a dozen jobs in 'people operations' as the company slows hiring, but Google says it's due to 'organizational changes' Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Epidemiologists debunk 13 coronavirus myths

We spoke with Karen DeSalvo, Google's chief health officer, who's in charge of a clinical team at Google making products for clinicians and consumers. She said many of Google Health's coronavirus projects, like tracking and answering people's health-related questions, are part of broader strategy around users' "discover to action pathway."  Google wants to aid people's health-related searches, in other words, whether it's answering a simple question about symptoms or booking a telehealth appointment. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. It's been 20 months since Google's health efforts got revamped, and nearly a quarter of that time has been spent amid a pandemic. The team started when Dr. David Feinberg, the former CEO of Geisinger Health, joined Google in January 2019. From there, Feinberg as the head of Google Health brought together scientists, engineers, and managers from across Google in an effort to get many of the trillion-dollar company's healthcare projects under the same roof.  When the coronavirus pandemic started rolling across the US in March, the young team had to speed up projects that were only ideas — all while steering real people towards testing sites, hospitals, online appointments, and whatever else they came to Google for.   In the months since, Google Health's projects are taking on a theme that's baked into the team's broader healthcare strategy, Dr. Karen DeSalvo, Google's chief health officer, told Business Insider. Whether it's through YouTube, Maps, Google Assistant, or simply Google.com, the tech giant wants to guide consumers on their healthcare experience wherever and whenever they come into contact with the company. For those that ask Google for local testing sites, in other words, the goal is to actually get them to one. For those looking for doctors, the goal is to set up an appointment. Internally, the team calls it the "discover to action pathway," DeSalvo said.  Read more: We found the 18 leaders at Google who are deciding the future of the tech giant's healthcare business "We want to make sure we're thinking about the kinds of questions people are coming to us with, and how we can help them navigate that experience," she said.  It's a key part of Alphabet's overall goal as well. During Alphabet's earnings in July, CEO Sundar Pichai told investors there's been an enormous effort across search and product teams to provide locally relevant information about coronavirus in more than 70 languages in 200 countries.  "I'm looking at different types of user journeys and making sure each of them is getting deeper and better," Pichai said on the call. "So for example in Google, as people have started coming for more health-related information, how is that experience working?" Read more: 11 tech chiefs, analysts, and bankers in healthcare reveal how Amazon, Microsoft, and Google have used the coronavirus to make new inroads in the $3.6 trillion industry Google is flagging relevant health information based on your search terms DeSalvo said Google is well aware of its responsibility to uplift information that's credible, especially amid a pandemic. Her job is to lead a clinical team at Google Health tasked with making products for clinicians and consumers, she said. As one of Google's top doctors, DeSalvo also advises the rest of the company about health and coronavirus on a case by case basis. Prior to Google, she was New Orleans' health commissioner after Hurricane Katrina and helped the US Department of Health and Human Services respond to Zika and Ebola outbreaks.  "My experiences in public health, and in science and in medicine, are that it's really hard to get the right information to people," she said.  In response to people asking questions about COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, Google Health designed a self-assessment for coronavirus with health agencies around the world. It's triggered by certain search terms, and the results give people an idea of whether they should see a doctor or get tested.  It rolled out a similar screener for mental health in May, as Americans struggled to grapple with their new realities. Thoughts of suicide nearly doubled compared to the year before, and anxiety and depression increased more than fourfold in the last year.   Prompted by soaring demand for telehealth, Google's health unit also sped up development for a "virtual care feature" that launched in April.  If medical professionals are able to do phone or video visits, Google can now say so in a little blurb reading "Get online care" in their normal search results on Google.com and maps. It links to sites like Mount Sinai's telehealth services in New York, which has options for doctors' appointments.  A second aspect of the feature displays names of telehealth companies with links and price information when people search for things like "immediate care" in Search and Maps. That's not available everywhere in the US yet.  Other search upgrades show people active testing sites, credible health information on YouTube, and how to find guidance from their local health department, DeSalvo said. "We're trying to get the world's health information available for consumers where it matters," including for depression, anxiety, diabetes, and coronavirus, she said. Google's work helping people navigate their healthcare is still in its early days DeSalvo cautioned that Google Health's consumer-facing work is still early. For now, the group's machine learning is much farther along, with some devices already being used to make medical diagnoses faster and more accurate.  Another huge coronavirus project has been Google's contract-tracing program with Apple, which isn't related to user searches. Four US states and 16 countries or regions are using it to tell people if they've likely been exposed to coronavirus, according to the company. Ultimately, however, some industry leaders think Google could become a kind of Expedia for doctors' visits, per Business Insider's interviews. One of Google Health's oldest projects helps doctors search medical records, and obviously the tech giant's long history started with a humble search engine.  Read more: The man who helps hospitals and clinics move to Google's cloud shares how the coronavirus pandemic is shaping its healthcare push The larger company has asked Google Health specifically to think through how it can improve the world's health, which involves direct work with consumers — not just the providers who care for them, DeSalvo said. "If we're going to really make a difference in the lives of people's health, we have to do that by addressing not only tools and support for carers, but we have to do that as much as we can directly to consumers and other parts of the system," DeSalvo said.Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Why Pikes Peak is the most dangerous racetrack in America

Companies such as Amazon and Shopify have seen huge tailwinds to their e-commerce businesses during COVID-19. Not so much for Google. One top Wall Street analyst says it's something Google "needs to address" in the coming months. "I don't know if they have to acquire or develop their way back," he said. A recent internal reshuffle along with some changes to the selling process could help Google in its efforts to claw back in shopping, but it won't be easy. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. While companies such as Amazon, Shopify, and even Facebook have seen huge tailwinds to their e-commerce businesses during the pandemic, Google continues to lag behind. That much was made apparent when the company announced its Q2 earnings last week, revealing an 8% drop in search advertising revenue year on year – and a historic revenue decline overall. Now, Google and analysts have a renewed focus on shopping, but they want to know: can Google catch up? "There's clearly this spike in e-commerce activity – that's what's behind the rise of Amazon, eBay and Shopify – and at some level you wonder is Google less relevant to overall e-commerce than it used to be?" RBC analyst Mark Mahaney told Business Insider. "I think it's something they need to address," he added. Amazon has seen a monumental boost to online shopping during the pandemic,doubling profits to $5.2 billion in the second quarter and exceeding Wall Street expectation by a whopping 600%. Meanwhile, Shopify reported a revenue jump of 97% from a year earlier. "When we have this pandemic-induced spike in online retail, Amazon full participates, Shopify fully participates, and then Google doesn't," said Mahaney. "So it kind of highlights that they're less relevant in e-commerce, I guess that's the clear evidence. That's something to really mull." Google has made several recent notable changes in shopping, which analysts believe could pay off in the coming months. For example, at the end of June, it announced it would make it free for retailers to sell products in search results. Shortly before that, the company shuffled Prabhakar Raghavan – previously SVP of ads, commerce and payments – to the top of a huge internal structure where he'll also oversee search and geo, which could help Google in its efforts to push shopping.  In fact, on an investors call last week Google CEO Sundar Pichai said there would be a "long-term focused effort on shopping with the new leadership team," alluding to the benefits of the reorg in the coming months. But it will be a tough battle ahead, particularly going into the holiday months where Amazon will only reap more of the rewards. "I don't know if they have to acquire or develop their way back. And it may be that they just can't," said Mahaney. "They'll always be relevant, they'll just be at the margins slightly less relevant, and they have enough properties that that's ok. That could be the answer." He added: "If you wanted to sell on the internet, you once had to pay Google and it drove a lot of traffic your way. It's less obvious now that you have to pay Google to grow."SEE ALSO: Google's deal for Fitbit faces an EU probe — and regulators who watched the company break a major promise after buying DoubleClick in 2008 Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: How waste is dealt with on the world's largest cruise ship

The EU Commission has announced it is launching an in-depth probe into Google's proposal to acquire wearables maker Fitbit. "The Commission is concerned that the proposed transaction would further entrench Google's market position in the online advertising markets," it said in a statement. Google says the deal is about the devices, not the data. But after Google broke a major promise after acquiring DoubleClick in 2008, regulators are wary. Last week's antitrust hearing was a reminder of that. Are you a Google or Fitbit insider with more to share? You can contact this reporter securely using encrypted messaging app Signal (+1 628-228-1836) or encrypted email (hslangley@protonmail.com). Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. It's been nine months since Google announced its intentions to buy Fitbit for $2.1 billion, and the deal still hasn't closed. Now, the companies will have to wait even longer: the EU Commission just announced it has launched an in-depth probe into the deal with a decision to be made by Dec. 9, potentially extending the entire process to over a year. Compared with talk of Microsoft potentially snapping up TikTok for as much as $50 billion, Google's Fitbit deal might look like small potatoes, but it still would be one of the largest acquisitions Google has ever made. More importantly, the data of more than 28 million users would be sucked up into the Google mothership, and it's this bit that regulators are worried about.  Or, as the commission put it in a statement announcing the investigation: "The Commission is concerned that the proposed transaction would further entrench Google's market position in the online advertising markets by increasing the already vast amount of data that Google could use for personalization of the ads it serves and displays." In an effort to push the deal through, Google promised to keep this data in a separate "silo" away from its advertising business, but the EU said the pledge was "insufficient" and didn't cover "all the data that Google would access as a result of the transaction and would be valuable for advertising purposes."  The last time Brussels launched an all-out probe into one of Google's acquisitions was in 2007 when it investigated the company's plans to buy the internet advertising company DoubleClick. At the time, Google promised it wouldn't combine DoubleClick's database of user's web browsing information with Google's own account data, and the deal was approved following an extended investigation by the EU. Then in 2016, the company quietly removed that firewall and just meshed the two together anyway. Four years later, Google's move is coming back to bite it as regulators decide whether to approve or veto the Fitbit deal. Indeed, during last week's antitrust hearing, Val Demmings (D-FL) pressed Google CEO Sundar Pichai on whether he signed off on Google ultimately merging DoubleClick data with its own in 2016. "I am concerned that Google's bait and switch with DoubleClick is part of a broader pattern where Google buys up companies for the purposes of surveilling Americans," Demmings told Pichai. Like DoubleClick, user data is at the center of Google's Fitbit acquisition, and consumer groups from around the world have petitioned the regulators to closely scrutinize the deal. The European consumer organization BEUC said the deal would be a "test case" for analyzing potential data monopolies brought about through an acquisition. The Commission apparently listened, and says it will now investigate whether obtaining Fitbit's data would put Google at an unfair advantage, what the merger could mean for digital healthcare, and whether Google could "degrade the interoperability" of rival wearables that connect with Android. Google, for its part, insists this is all about hardware. "This deal is about devices, not data," said Google's SVP of devices and services Rick Osterloh in a statement, echoing a sentiment that Google has been sharing with reporters since the deal was announced. And if it were just about hardware, then Google would have a case. After all, Apple dominates the wearables market right now – something we were reminded of last week when the company announced its Q3 earnings. But the commission is more interested in the potential ramifications of Google grabbing Fitbit's data trove, and experts say the DoubleClick case is a lingering reminder for them to tread carefully.  Some commentators also believe that privacy should play a more central role in the investigation, which is currently focused primarily on competition. "I've argued generally that privacy is a competition problem," Tommaso Valletti, a professor of economics at Imperial College and prior chief economist of the Directorate General for Competition, told Business Insider. "I really hope that we won't repeat the same mistakes with DoubleClick," he said.Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Pathologists debunk 13 coronavirus myths