YouTube Posted a Video on the Official YouTube Channel. It Quickly Became the Most-Hated YouTube Video of All Time

This is a story about the most-hated YouTube video anybody ever posted to YouTube. In fact, it might just be the most-hated video anybody ever posted anywhere.

Even more embarrassing: it’s a video that YouTube itself posted to the official YouTube Spotlight channel. And people really don’t like it. (It’s embedded below.)

The irony is, this was was supposed to be a big, easy win for YouTube. It’s the YouTube Rewind 2018 video, which is intended to be a feel-good, end-of-year, wrap-up video about YouTube moments and personalities. YouTube has posted a version every year since 2010. It’s usually a fan favorite.

Only, not this year. This year, they blew it big time.

11 million dislikes and counting

After just over a week, the official YouTube Rewind 2018 video now has more “down votes” or “dislikes” than any other video in YouTube history. As of this writing, nearly 130 million people have watched it, and 11 million gave it a thumb’s down.

Compare that to just 2.2 million who clicked that they liked it.

We’ll get into why the video bombed so badly, along with a lesson or two for anyone trying to cultivate an audience. But first, let’s put those numbers in context.

Because until this week, the most-hated video of all time was the video for Justin Bieber’s “Baby,” which has 9.9 million dislikes.

It took eight long years for that many people to vote down “Baby,” and meanwhile the Bieber video also has 10 million likes, so it’s slightly net positive.

YouTube could only dream of hitting those kinds of numbers. 

It’s so bad! (How bad is it?)

Again, the video is below, so you can judge for yourself. I recommend you watch it in Chrome with video speed controller enabled and tuned to 180 percent or so. That’s what I did.

It was still interminable, although I admit I’m not exactly the demo they’re looking for. Anyway, it starts with Will Smith (fair enough), saying that for the 2018 video, he’d like to see lots of Fortnite and YouTube personality Marques Brownlee.

He gets his wish as it cuts to a Fortnite Battle Bus full of YouTubers–including Brownlee.

And from then it goes through a frantic, massive series of jump cuts and quick edits, moving from one YouTuber and scene to another, with almost no context or way to follow what’s going on.

Worse in the minds of many viewers, is that the video ignores many popular YouTube stars in favor of people who aren’t even really YouTubers–like Stephen Colbert, John Oliver and Trevor Noah, for example. And that really created some controversy.

‘A a chaotic barrage of clips’

Don’t just take my word for it, or the thousands of YouTube users who left negative comments, or the millions who down-voted it. Instead, for a fantastic explanation, I’d go to Brownlee, the YouTube personality whom Will Smith wanted to see.

Sure enough, he created a response video (despite the fact that he briefly stars in the original), where he explains the production process and agrees with millions of other people that, yes, it’s pretty horrible.

The problem, he thinks, is that the millions of YouTuber viewers who watched it were expecting what YouTube used to give them in its year-end Rewind videos: a collection of top moments starring the most popular creators.

But YouTube wants something different, as Brownlee puts it: a safe sizzle reel that it can demo for advertisers. So it can’t feature creators like say, PewDiePie, who has the most-subscribed channel on YouTube and sort of represents the site’s original organic creators–but who has also been tied to white supremacists

The result, as Brownlee puts it, is “a chaotic barrage of clips that’s just really hard to watch,” since YouTube wants to give the appearance of including tons and tons of video personalities–without including the ones like PewDiePie that will turn off big advertisers. But that only makes more obvious the omission of some big YouTube stars that YouTube isn’t particularily happy to have.

If YouTube wants to fix the video for next year, Brownlee suggests: “You’ve got to leave some stuff out. You can leave me out. I don’t mind.”

Here’s the infamous YouTube Rewind video–followed by Brownlee’s response. Let me know what you think in the comments.

California is Considering Taxing Texts. Here's the 1 Insane Detail Hardly Anyone Has Noticed

Absurdly Driven looks at the world of business with a skeptical eye and a firmly rooted tongue in cheek. 

It sounded bad. 

So bad, in fact, that it was just the sort of thing you’d expect from California.

My home state has a certain reputation —  especially among those who don’t live there — for taxing its inhabitants,

This week, there came news of a potential new tax, one that sounded so Californian as to border on parody.

And a million accusing Eastern fingers pointed toward the west and its serial predilection for socialized nonsense. (I’m not sure how many of those fingers came from East Coasters, how many from Russians and how many from Russians who had emigrated to the East Coast.)

The essence of the tax lies in the fact that people have stopped talking on the phone so much. 

Yes, California currently taxes phone calls. It dedicates the revenue raised to providing the least fortunate with some sort of telecommunications service.

It does the same with other utilities, too.

The phone call revenue has, naturally, fallen as telephonic talking has fallen, so the state proposes taxing texts. Doing this, says California’s Public Utilities Commission, could raise $44.5 million.

Which leaves one small, painful detail: Not many people send text messages.

You might think you do, because texting has become a generic term for constantly saying things in writing to people via your phone — only to occasionally be misunderstood.

Yet the majority of people use iMessage, WhatsApp or even Facebook Messages. These are sent over the internet. 

And, if California suddenly decided it now wants to include these over-the-web services in its tax proposals, does that mean it can start taxing every email? 

Now there’s a delicious revenue-generating idea that could instantly finance so many Californian projects and deter people from sending those dreary reply-all emails that plague business life. 

Naturally, phone industry lobbyists are drinking — I mean, working — late into the night to prevent California’s proposal from being instituted in a vote on January 10.

Should it pass, there might be enormous confusion, with users assuming that all their phone messaging is being taxed? 

What if they stopped texting altogether? 

That simply wouldn’t be the modern world anymore.

Self-Driving Cars? Don't Hold Your Breath

Yeah, yeah, I know. Self-driving cars are just around the corner. Any day now. They’re being tested everywhere. They’re going to revolutionize transportation. Put thousands of Uber drivers and teamsters out of work. Don’t hold your breath.

Despite conventional wisdom, AI programmers haven’t been able to solve basic problems, like identifying pedestrians, or differentiating between dogs and children. AI programmers have totally failed to implement programs that exhibit anything resembling common sense, which is exactly what’s needed to drive in a world full of humans.

According to a recent article on NPR, in California (the only state that requires the reporting of automobile deaths from autonomous vehicles) there have been three deaths in about 10 and 15 million miles of autonomous driving, That compares VERY unfavorably to conventional driving, where it would typically take 260 million miles to result in three deaths.

According to the Guardian, a whistleblower at Uber recently revealed that Uber’s self-driving program results in an accident every 15,000 miles. By comparison, the average human gets in 3 to 4 accidents over 65 years while driving an average of 13,474 miles a year, for roughly one accident every 250,000 miles. That’s a pretty big delta for a technology that’s supposedly right around the corner:

Self-driving cars are particularly hazardous to pedestrians, according to NPR, because their ability to recognize pedestrians somewhat more than 90 percent of the time. Humans, by contrast, are incredibly good at spotting other humans, with a success rate probably around 99.99 percent. Even AI proponents at Carnegie Mellon admit that a five year old child can out perform AI when it comes to common sense decisions. As NPR explains:

“[autonomous vehicles] can’t figure out what a pedestrian is or [what] a pedestrian is going to do. They can’t separate a child from a dog. Sometimes a tree branch overhanging the road will be taken as something in the way.”

Such limitations have huge consequences, as when an autonomous vehicle killed a pedestrian because it couldn’t perceive that she was walking a bicycle. Similarly, simply slapping some stickers on a stop sign–an action that wouldn’t fool a toddler–can confuse a self-driving car.

And that’s far, far beyond the capability of any AI program, because it literally requires human intelligence.

Thus, according to the Guardian, so-called “self-driving” cars will always need a human being present to “take the wheel” when the AI program fails. It should seem obvious, though, that any automobile that requires a human “minder” isn’t really self-driving; it’s just doing cruise control on steroids.

So, while cars will be able to parallel park on their own, and function reasonably well in environments, like freeways, where human behavior is well-delineated, it seems highly unlikely, despite all the rosy hype, that fully autonomous cars are in our near future. Barring the emergence of the “singularity” (which seems unlikely), self-driving cars will remain an oxymoron.

But, but… what about all the breakthroughs we’ve been seeing in AI?

Not ready for prime time, I’m afraid. While AI programmers have successfully improved their programs’ ability to play games with bounded, well defined rules, they’ve been stumped when comes to operating inside environments (like businesses) where the rules are flexible and unbounded.

This is not to say that AI–as currently implemented–can’t be useful. Facial recognition, for example, is good enough to be useful to law enforcement. AI programs can play games (which have bounded rules) much better than humans. AI is excellent at looking for patterns in huge data sets. But none of those functions require common sense, which is required for a fully autonomous vehicle.

I fully expect to get plenty of pushback on this column because I’ve been making similar observations about AI literally for decades and I always get exact same pushback. Every freakin’ time. I’ve come to the conclusion that arguing with AI true believers is like arguing with fundamentalists about the end of the world which )like the long-awaited “singularity”) never seems to actually arrive. 

Japan rules out asking private firms to avoid telecoms gear that could be malicious

FILE PHOTO: Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga attends a news conference at Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s official residence in Tokyo, Japan May 29, 2017. REUTERS/Toru Hanai

TOKYO (Reuters) – Japan’s government has no plan to ask private companies to avoid buying telecommunications equipment that could have malicious functions, such as information leakage, its top spokesman, Yoshihide Suga, said on Thursday.

The comment suggests Japan does not intend, for the moment, to extend to private firms a policy of not buying such equipment for the government, after it issued a policy document on Monday on the need to maintain cybersecurity during procurement.

While China’s telecoms equipment supplier Huawei Technologies, and ZTE (0763.HK) are not explicitly named, sources said last week the change aimed at preventing government procurement from the two Chinese makers.

Reporting by Chang-Ran Kim and Sam Nussey; Editing by Clarence Fernandez

Kubernetes etcd data project joins CNCF

techrepublic

Kubernetes: The smart person's guide

Kubernetes: The smart person’s guide

Kubernetes is a series of open source projects for automating the deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications. Find out why the ecosystem matters, how to use it, and more.

Read More

How do you store data across a Kubernetes container cluster? With etcd. This essential part of Kubernetes has been managed by CoreOS/Red Hat. No longer. Now, the open-source etcd project has been moved from Red Hat to the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF).

What is etcd? No, it’s not what happens when a cat tries to type a three-letter acronyms. Etcd (pronounced et-see-dee) was created by the CoreOS team in 2013. It’s an open-source, distributed, consistent key-value database for shared configuration, service discovery, and scheduler coordination. It’s built on the Raft consensus algorithm for replicated logs.

Also: Kubernetes’ first major security hole discovered

Etcd’s job is to safely store critical data for distributed systems. It’s best known as Kubernetes’ primary datastore, but it can be used for other projects. For example, “Alibaba uses etcd for several critical infrastructure systems, given its superior capabilities in providing high availability and data reliability,” said Xiang Li, an Alibaba senior staff engineer.

When applications use etcd they have more consistent uptime. Even when individual servers fail, etcd ensures that services keep working. This doesn’t just protect against what would otherwise prove show-stopping failures, it also makes it possible to automatic update systems without downtime. You can also use it to coordinate work between servers and set up container overlay networking.

In his KubeCon keynote, Brandon Philips, CoreOS CTO, said: “Today we’re excited to transfer stewardship of etcd to the same body that cares for the growth and maintenance of Kubernetes. Given that etcd powers every Kubernetes cluster, this move brings etcd to the community that relies on it most at the CNCF.”


Must read


That doesn’t mean Red Hat is walking away from etcd. Far from it. Red Hat will continue to help develop etcd. After all, etcd is is an essential part of Red Hat’s enterprise Kubernetes product, Red Hat OpenShift.

Moving forward, etcd will only grow stronger. It being used by more and more companies, as Kubernetes is adopted by almost every cloud container company. In particular, Phillips said, he expects far more work to be done on etcd security.

Related stories:

Only Chumps Work More than 40 Hours a Week

Last month, I pointed out that Elon Musk was horribly wrong when he stated that “nobody ever changed the world on 40 hours a week.” That column got more than the usual amount of pushback, half of which seemed to come from worker-bees inside high-tech firms and the other half from people who are starting their own business. Both groups of critics are wrong but for different reasons. Allow me to explain:

If You’re Employed by Somebody Else

Not to put too fine a point on it, if you’re working 100 hours a week while being paid for 40 hours, you should listen carefully for the sound of a power tool and trumpet fanfare, because you’re being royally screwed.

Let’s suppose you’re an entry level programmer in Silicon Valley who makes the industry average of roughly $100,000 a year. Pretty good money, eh? Well, let’s see.

If you’re working 100 hour weeks and take two weeks off for vacation (good for you!), you’re spending 5,000 hour a year at work, which means you’re making $20 an hour, which is about what you’d make if you were doing auto body repair. And you wouldn’t have any student loans.

Now let’s suppose you’re an entry level marketer making $50,000 a year. (Note: in high tech, women are MUCH more likely to land a job in marketing than in programming.) In that case, if you’re working 100 hour weeks, you’re making $10 an hour, which is less than you’d make working as a cashier at WalMart. And again, you’d have no student loans.

So even though your salary looks as if you’re firmly in the middle-class, you’re really working for peanuts. You may be thinking at this point: “Well that’s the way it is. Companies need us to work extra-hard to remain competitive.” That’s total bullsh*t.

Take Rock Star Games, for instance–a company that’s been recently in the news for requiring programmers to work many hours of unpaid overtime. RSG is a subsidiary of Take Two Interactive, which is traded on NASDAQ as TTWO.

According to the Take Two’s fiscal year 2018 10K SEC filing, the company grossed $1.8 billion and netted $174 million. Their R&D budget was $196 million so, if they wanted to, they could increase their R&D personnel across the entire company by 50% and still maintain a net profit of around $74 million.

Actually, it’s a bit more complicated than that because “General & Administration” expense tends rise when R&D expenses get higher. But you get the point; the money is there. Of course, not every high tech firm is profitable but where does it say that the burden of unprofitability should be borne by the workers rather than the investors or the often-quite-highly-paid top managers?

When I named Don Lyon’s excellent book Lab Rats as one of my 7 best books of 2018, I included a quote that neatly summarizes the ridiculous implicit contract that high tech firms (and the many others that imitate them) foist upon employee:

First, you are lucky to be here. Also, we do not care about you. We offer no job security. This is not a career. You are serving a short-term tour of duty. We provide no training or career development. If possible, we will make you a contractor rather than an actual employee, so that we do not have to provide you with health benefits or a 401(k) plan. We will pay you as little as possible. We do not care about diversity: African Americans and Latinos need not apply. Your job will be stressful. You will work long hours under constant pressure and with no privacy. You will monitored and surveilled. We will read your email and chat messages, and use data to measure your performance. We do not expect you to last very long. Our goal is to burn you out and churn you out. 

While the summary itself is brilliant, I emphasized the last line because research shows that working consistently long hours gives a short-term burst of productivity, which then declines and turns into negative productivity. The plan is literally to burn you out.

This personnel strategy is idiotic, especially in industries where highly talented people are difficult to come by. But companies, even (especially!) high tech ones embrace all sorts of idiotic strategies. Witness the open plan office, a well-document productivity toilet that’s become ubiquitous.

Now, you may think that you don’t have a choice and that you must participate in the insanity simply to remain employed. Not true. Here’s an alterative: Stare reality right in the face. Realize–at a gut level–that if you burn yourself out you’ll be fired, regardless of how much you’ve contributed to the company’s success.

Therefore–and this is important so read the rest of this graf very, very carefully–you may very well have MORE job security if you don’t burn yourself out… even if you irritate your bosses by refusing to work crazy hours. But let’s suppose that you DO get fired because you won’t work-til-you-drop. You’ll be far readier to find another job if you’re fired when you’re still sane than after you’re burned-out.

In fact, maybe you should spend a few hours a week lining up new opportunities, just in case. Something to do in the free time that you’ll have when you’re smart enough not to succumb to Stockholm Syndrome.

If You’re Self-Employed

The “calculate your hourly wage” stuff described above doesn’t apply when you’re self-employed. Just to be clear, by “self-employed,” I mean starting your own business with multiple clients and customers rather than a contractor with a single client–which is the same thing as being employed but worse.

When you’re self-employed, you’re going to put whatever resources you have available into creating your own personal success. Those resources very much include your time. Indeed, when you first go freelance (for instance), the one resource you’ve got a-plenty is your time.

That’s the way it is. You may not even make minimum wage in your first year. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is getting your business up and running. I get it. I’ve been there. You’re playing the long game. Good for you!

Nevertheless, even if you’re self-employed, it’s both unwise and shortsighted to work more than 40 hours a week on a regular basis because, while you’ll get a burst of productivity (you’ll get more done), the extra hours have diminished returns over time and within any time period. Let me explain.

Working long hours over a long period of time is a recipe for burn-out. No matter how committed you are, or how much you “love” your job, you will end up killing the proverbial goose that might otherwise lay you the golden egg of success.

In addition, working extra hours within a day or week has diminishing returns. Even if you get 25% more done working 50 rather than 40 hours, you’re not going to get 20% more done if you work 60 rather than 50 hours. It’s probably more like 10% at most.

Similarly, working 70 hours rather than 60 hours won’t even give you that 10%. Chances are you’ll start making mistakes that will need correction which means extra work, so the productivity “gain” is probably negative 10%… or worse.

Entrepreneurs who willfully and unwisely burn themselves out like this remind me of an observation that a dear friend of mine made a while back: “Every boss I’ve ever worked for has been an *sshole, including now that I’m self-employed.”

The challenge when you’re self-employed is to have both the self-discipline and self-confidence to NOT work long hours. That’s especially true if you truly love your job. If you’re lucky enough to be in that situation, the LAST THING you want is to work yourself to the point where it’s no longer fun. 

If you quit work each day in the middle of doing something you enjoy, you’ll start the next day excited and motivated to do more. If you continue to work each day until you simply can’t do any more, you’ll start the next day tired and bored. Again, I know this because I’ve been there and done that.

So there you are. While all of us will have “crunch times” when we need to put in some extra hours, we can’t afford to make it a habit, much less let dysfunctional corporate cultures force it down our throats.

FCC to probe whether major carriers gave false coverage information

FILE PHOTO – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) logo is seen in Washington February 26, 2015. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

(Reuters) – The Federal Communications Commission said on Friday it was investigating whether major wireless service providers submitted false information about their coverage areas.

Under here the FCC’s Mobility Fund Phase II mapping program, the agency would allocate up to $4.53 billion over the next decade to advance high-speed mobile broadband service in rural areas that would not be served without government support.

The program required major mobile providers to submit data on their coverage reach to determine areas lacking unsubsidized services and in need of government funding.

“A preliminary review of speed test data submitted through the challenge process suggested significant violations of the Commission’s rules. That’s why I’ve ordered an investigation into these matters,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement here

The FCC said it had suspended the next step of finalizing the eligibility of areas that need funding support, pending the investigation.

Reporting by Vibhuti Sharma in Bengaluru

Facebook to buy back additional $9 billion of shares

A picture illustration shows a Facebook logo reflected in a person’s eye, in Zenica, March 13, 2015. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic

(Reuters) – Facebook Inc (FB.O) will buy back an additional $9 billion of its shares, as it looks to pacify investors following a slump in its stock.

The social media giant’s shares, which have tumbled more than 22 percent this year, rose nearly 1 percent in extended trading.

The new program is in addition to a share buyback plan of up to $15 billion announced by the company last year.

Facebook is being investigated by lawmakers in Britain after consultancy Cambridge Analytica, which worked on Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential campaign, obtained personal data of 87 million Facebook users from a researcher.

Concerns over the social media giant’s practices, the role of political adverts and possible foreign interference in the 2016 Brexit vote and U.S. elections are among the topics being investigated by British and European regulators.

Reporting by Vibhuti Sharma in Bengaluru; Editing by Anil D’Silva

Qualcomm unveils new chip to power 5G smartphones

Visitors are seen by a booth of Qualcomm Inc at the China International Big Data Industry Expo in Guiyang, Guizhou province, China May 27, 2018. Picture taken May 27, 2018.  REUTERS/Stringer

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Chip supplier Qualcomm Inc (QCOM.O) on Tuesday unveiled a new generation of mobile phone processor chips that will power 5G smartphones in the United States as soon as next year.

The key feature of the Snapdragon 855 chip, launched at an event in Hawaii, is a so-called modem for phones to connect to 5G wireless data networks with mobile data speeds of up to 50 or 100 times faster than current 4G networks.

Mobile carriers are investing in 5G networks and are eager to sell 5G phones and data plans to recoup investment costs.

Qualcomm, the largest supplier of mobile phone chips, said Snapdragon 855 would power Samsung 5G smartphones that Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (005930.KS) said on Monday would be released in the United States in the first half of 2019.

The modem would also enable “computer vision” to help phones recognize objects and faces, and support a new Qualcomm fingerprint sensor that can read a user’s fingerprint through the glass screen of a smartphone.

The Samsung phone would be a major challenge for Apple Inc (AAPL.O), its biggest rival in the premium handset market in the United States as the iPhone maker is locked in a legal battle with Qualcomm. Citing sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reported on Monday that Apple would wait until at least 2020 to release its first 5G iPhones.

Reporting by Stephen Nellis; Editing by Richard Chang

Trump panel wants to give USPS right to hike prices for Amazon, others

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States Postal Service should have more flexibility to raise rates for packages, according to recommendations from a task force set up by President Donald Trump, a move that could hurt profits of Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and other large online retailers. The task force was announced in April to find ways to stem financial losses by the service, an independent agency within the federal government. Its creation followed criticism by Trump that the Postal Office provided too much service to Amazon for too little money.

FILE PHOTO – A view shows U.S. postal service mail boxes at a post office in Encinitas, California in this February 6, 2013, file photo. REUTERS/Mike Blake/Files

The Postal Service lost almost $4 billion in fiscal 2018, which ended on Sept. 30, even as package deliveries rose.

It has been losing money for more than a decade, the task force said, partially because the loss of revenue from letters, bills and other ordinary mail in an increasingly digital economy have not been offset by increased revenue from an explosion in deliveries from online shopping.

The president has repeatedly attacked Amazon for treating the Postal Service as its “delivery boy” by paying less than it should for deliveries and contributing to the service’s $65 billion loss since the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, without presenting evidence.

Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post, a newspaper whose critical coverage of the president has repeatedly drawn Trump’s ire.

The rates the Postal Service charges Amazon and other bulk customers are not made public.

“None of our findings or recommendations relate to any one company,” a senior administration official said on Tuesday.

Amazon shares closed down 5.8 percent at $1,669.94, while eBay (EBAY.O) fell 3.1 percent to $29.26, amid a broad stock market selloff on Tuesday.

The Package Coalition, which includes Amazon and other online and catalog shippers, warned against any move to raise prices to deliver their packages.

“The Package Coalition is concerned that, by raising prices and depriving Americans of affordable delivery services, the Postal Task Force’s package delivery recommendations would harm consumers, large and small businesses, and especially rural communities,” the group said in an emailed statement.

A mailbox for United States Postal Service (USPS) and other mail is seen outside a home in Malibu, California, December 10, 2014. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

Most of the recommendations made by the task force, including possible price hikes, can be implemented by the agency. Changes, such as to frequency of mail delivery, would require legislation.

The task force recommended that the Postal Service have the authority to charge market-based rates for anything that is not deemed an essential service, like delivery of prescription drugs.

BAD NEWS FOR AMAZON

“Although the USPS does have pricing flexibility within its package delivery segment, packages have not been priced with profitability in mind. The USPS should have the authority to charge market-based prices for both mail and package items that are not deemed ‘essential services,’” the task force said in its summary.

That would be bad news for Amazon and other online sellers that ship billions of packages a year to customers.

“If they go to market pricing, there will definitely be a negative impact on Amazon’s business,” said Marc Wulfraat, president of logistics consultancy MWPVL International Inc.

If prices jumped 10 percent, that would increase annual costs for Amazon by at least $1 billion, he said.

The task force also recommended that the Postal Service address rising labor costs.

The Postal Service should also restructure $43 billion in pre-funding payments that it owes the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, the task force said.

Cowen & Co, in a May report, said the Postal Service and Amazon were “co-dependent,” but that Amazon went elsewhere for most packages that needed to arrive quickly.

Cowen estimated that the Postal Service delivered about 59 percent of Amazon’s U.S. packages in 2017, and package delivery could account for 50 percent of postal service revenue by 2023.

The American Postal Workers Union warned against any effort to cut services. “Recommendations would slow down service, reduce delivery days and privatize large portions of the public Postal Service. Most of the report’s recommendations, if implemented, would hurt business and individuals alike,” the union said in a statement. 

Amazon, FedEx Corp (FDX.N) and United Parcel Service Inc (UPS.N) did not return requests for comment.

Reporting by Diane Bartz and Jeffrey Dastin; editing by Bill Berkrot