Skip to main content

Big Tech and Big Talk: Did tech giants deliver on any of their promises in 2019?

Most marquee tech companies stepped into 2019 with a mountain of responsibilities on their shoulders.

Mired in lawsuits and with a Congress teeming with inexorable questions hot on their heels, tech giants this year came to terms with the fact that their jobs were simply not just building new, shiny slabs of glass or figuring out how to emulate human emotions in virtual assistants. They will remember 2019 as a precursor to a new era — one where they could no longer escape the broader implications of their actions and products.

Recommended Videos
The span of time between 2010 to 2020 brought some of the most amazing technological advances the world has ever seen, so in the spirit of reflection, we’ve compiled a series of stories that take a look back at the previous decade through a variety of different lenses. Explore more of our Ten Years of Tech series.
ten years of tech tenyearsoftech 4

No longer are these organizations perceived as the ones shaping our future. They are instead being put under the proverbial microscope and considered threats to our present due to alarmingly adverse effects on culture, environment, and politics.

So in 2019, tech companies scrambled to shake that image off through fresh commitments and bold promises. However, it has quickly become evident that they have forgotten that the issues they vowed to address and fix are deeply sewn into the very fabric of their businesses and, indeed, their very existence. As the year progressed, those promises began to fall apart.

Broken promises to go green

Last month, prominent tech leaders including Apple’s Tim Cook, Google’s Sundar Pichai, and others signed a renewed commitment to the Paris Agreement. “Humanity has never faced a greater or more urgent threat than climate change — and it’s one we must face together. Apple will continue our work to leave the planet better than we found it and to make the tools that encourage others to do the same,” tweeted Cook.

Yet, the actions of the companies Cook and his counterparts manage have largely contradicted their vows to save the Earth.

Apple CEO Tim Cook and Apple's Chief Design Officer Jonathan Ive
BRITTANY HOSEA-SMALL/Getty Images

That irony was on full display a few weeks ago when Apple, Google, Amazon, and other manufacturers actively promoted Black Friday and Cyber Monday, raking up billions in sales. These shopping frenzies are known to be detrimental to the environment. With new items making their way into people’s homes, millions of discarded electronics end up in landfills, releasing toxic chemicals into the soil. On top of that, as e-commerce platforms like Amazon rush to deliver hundreds of thousands of new orders in a matter of hours, more diesel trucks and airplanes leave packaging hubs, causing air pollution to spike. Producing these products itself is a carbon-intensive process. While Amazon has ordered 100,000 electric delivery vans from automaker Rivian, they likely won’t be fully deployed for another decade.

This year especially, Cyber Week sales faced public backlash across the globe. Protests broke out against consumerism in the United States, Europe, and other locales. For the tech companies, unfortunately, it was business as usual. In Paris, dozens gathered outside Amazon’s French headquarters and blocked various shopping and logistics centers across the city. Amazon, in a statement to the BBC, said that “it respected the right to protest but disagreed with the actions of these individuals.”

A disturbing pattern

Apple spent much of the year lobbying against the Right to Repair legislation that would potentially allow consumers to easily and economically fix their broken devices instead of being left with no option other than to buy new ones. Earlier this year, an Apple lobbyist managed to postpone the bill through what seemed to amount to fearmongering, telling members of the California State Assembly’s Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee that iPhones’ batteries may explode if consumers tried to get them replaced through third-party services.

The iPhone maker also makes it harder for anyone to disassemble and assemble its products. It even went as far as to limiting its phones’ functions when owners swapped a defective part out for a genuine Apple replacement through third-party repair programs.

iFixit

On a personal note, when my MacBook Pro’s SSD died a couple of months ago, I was told by the Apple service rep that I had to get the entire motherboard replaced, which would cost me nearly as much as a new computer. Luckily, I did research online and found that it was possible for me to keep the laptop alive through an external SSD — and that’s just what I did.

Google also blocks ads from third-party repair programs, including trusted names like iFixit, arguing that third parties could give misleading tech support.

Apple does boast about how it now employs recycled components in a handful of its latest products like the MacBook Air. But those efforts barely make up for the impact new Apple devices have on the environment. The company, like most others, also runs a trade-in program, but that only gets you Apple Store credits or a discount on an Apple product. Meanwhile, the amount of waste Apple sends to landfills continues to be on the rise.

What’s more, true-wireless earphones — which are all the rage of late — like the Apple AirPods are nearly impossible to repair mainly because the internals of these devices are glued together at the factory to achieve that sleek, creaseless look. In iFixit’s repairability index, AirPods and the Beats Powerbeats Pro (also made by Apple) got abysmal 0/10 and 1/10 ratings, respectively.

In 2015, Apple sent over 13 million pounds of waste to landfills. Last year, that number reached 36.5 million pounds.

In order to achieve the sustainability promises, hardware makers like Apple and Google will also have to rethink their annual launch strategies. Releasing a new phone or laptop every year, sometimes without significant improvements but always with a big marketing push to convince users to upgrade, doesn’t fall in line with their supposed green goals.

CEO Jeff Bezos promised Amazon will be carbon-neutral by 2040. But the truth is that time frame is simply not acceptable as a climate emergency looms over our planet. Reports say the world is nowhere close to avoid global warming, and companies like Amazon are among the biggest contributors to greenhouse emissions.

Not paying their way

Tech companies incessantly exploit legal loopholes to pay less tax. A recent report alleged that in the last decade, they have successfully avoided paying a total of $100 billion in taxes. The study declared Amazon as the worst offender and found the e-commerce company paid just $3.4 billion this decade despite earning $960.5 billion in revenues. That brings Amazon’s effective tax rate to about 12.7%, whereas the headline tax rate in the United States has been 35%.

When Bezos announced a $98.5 million (0.09% of income) donation to several nonprofits supporting the homeless population, U.K. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn called him out and asked him to “just pay his taxes”.

Profiting from your personal data

Another topic these tech companies waxed lyrical about in 2019 was data privacy.

“Consumers shouldn’t have to tolerate another year of companies irresponsibly amassing huge user profiles, data breaches that seem out of control, and the vanishing ability to control our own digital lives.” wrote Apple’s Cook in a Time op-ed.

Earlier this year, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg outlined his vision for a privacy-focused future and social network. Google’s Pichai, in a New York Times op-ed, said: “We have a responsibility to lead. And we’ll do so in the same spirit we always have, by offering products that make privacy a reality for everyone.”

The White House

But those words began to lose weight as the year unfolded. Facebook suffered about a dozen data breaches and was at the center of a security scandal every other week. In April, a leak compromised the Facebook data of over 540 million users. In September, phone numbers of 419 million users were found on an unsecured server. These oversights ended up costing the tech giant billions over just the past year.

In July, the Federal Trade Commission slapped a $5 billion fine — the largest ever imposed on any company for violating user privacy — on Facebook for unlawfully compromising data of millions in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. On top of that, the social network was forced to pay an additional $100 million for issuing misleading statements.

In August, it was revealed that human contractors have been covertly listening to private conversations from voice assistants such as Siri, Google Assistant, and Alexa, as well as Skype calls, and more. When called out, companies either made it optional or abandoned the practice altogether. But significant damage had already been done to their credibility as none of them, including the self-proclaimed pro-privacy Apple, alerted its users beforehand.

Despite explicitly saying it doesn’t on multiple occasions, Apple was also recently found collecting location data from iPhones, even when the owner had the setting turned off. It also accepts upward of $10 billion from Google, which it often likes to poke at for all the data it collects, in exchange for setting Google as the default search engine on Safari.

Google also rolled out a range of new security features in 2019. Most notably, it began allowing users to set their data on self-destruct mode. But the shortest duration you can configure is three months and experts say, by that time, Google’s algorithms would have already harvested and processed your data, rendering it mostly useless for users.

Political concerns

Moreover, the lines between politics and tech continued to blur as the U.S. gears up for the 2020 presidential elections — and no company was more in the Senate’s crosshairs than Facebook. The social network played a pivotal role in the 2016 elections and enabled organizations to misuse its reach to sway and manipulate voters.

At the end of 2018, Zuckerburg, in a lengthy post, reflected on his company’s past year and claimed they’ve “fundamentally altered their DNA to focus more on preventing harm in all our services.”

But that barely seems to be the case today. Facebook continues to overlook and undermine its platform’s impact on societies across the globe. The company, unlike Twitter, also refuses to fact-check political ads, allowing anyone to easily push propaganda and misinformation.

As actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen put it in his recent speech: “Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.”

Those are just the big ones. There are many sother examples of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies not living up to its lofty rhetoric.

Google, which “doubled down on its commitment to be a representative, equitable, and respectful workplace,” is still cracking down on unions and rally organizers. Most recently, the search engine giant fired four employees who protested against the company doing business with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The National Labor Relations Board is now investigating Google over the firings.

Amazon signed the following statement in August: “Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits.” Yet, just weeks after that, the e-commerce company cut medical benefits for hundreds of part-time Whole Foods workers.

This year marked itself as a period of great change for several of these companies. Apple parted ways with its renowned head of design, Jony Ive. Zuckerburg spent more time in Washington than Facebook’s California headquarters. Google faced the inevitable as its founders took a back seat and handed over the rains to Pichai.

2019 set the stage for how tech companies will be perceived for the next decade. Their breakthroughs will not be celebrated, but scrutinized. They oversee our generation’s most powerful communication channels and each one of their actions will have far greater ripples than they have before. The question is are they capable of looking past their stock values to deliver on the promises?

Shubham Agarwal
Shubham Agarwal is a freelance technology journalist from Ahmedabad, India. His work has previously appeared in Firstpost…
Jeep Compass EV breaks cover—but will it come to the U.S.?
jeep compass ev us newjeepcompassfirsteditionhawaii  4

Jeep just pulled the wraps off the all-new Compass EV, and while it’s an exciting leap into the electric future, there's a catch—it might not make it to the U.S. anytime soon.
This is a brand new electric version of the Jeep Compass, and being built on Stellantis' STLA platform—the same architecture underpinning models like the Peugeot E-3008 and E-5008—it looks much slicker and packs a lot more inside than previous versions of the Compass.
Let’s start with what’s cool: the new Compass EV is packing up to 404 miles of range on a single charge, a 74 kWh battery, and fast-charging that gets you from 20% to 80% in about 30 minutes. Not bad for a compact SUV with Jeep's badge on the nose.
There are two versions: a front-wheel-drive model with 213 horsepower and a beefier all-wheel-drive version with 375 horsepower. That AWD setup isn’t just for looks—it can handle 20% inclines even without front traction, and comes with extra ground clearance and better off-road angles. In short, it’s still a Jeep.
The design's been refreshed too, and inside you’ll find the kind of tech and comfort you’d expect in a modern EV—sleek, smart, and ready for both city streets and dirt trails.
But here’s the thing: even though production starts soon in Italy, Jeep hasn’t said whether the Compass EV is coming to America. And the signs aren’t promising.
Plans to build it in Canada were recently put on hold, with production now delayed until at least early 2026. Some of that might have to do with possible U.S. tariffs on Canadian and Mexican vehicles—adding a layer of uncertainty to the whole rollout.
According to Kelley Blue Book, a Stellantis spokesperson confirmed that the company has “temporarily paused work on the next-generation Jeep Compass, including activities at” the Canadian plant that was originally meant to build the model. They added that Stellantis is “reassessing its product strategy in North America” to better match customer needs and demand for different powertrain options.
So while Europe and other markets are gearing up to get the Compass EV soon, American drivers might be left waiting—or miss out entirely.
That’s a shame, because on paper, this electric Jeep hits a lot of sweet spots. Let’s just hope it finds a way over here.

Read more
Charlie Cox singles out his least favorite Daredevil: Born Again episode
Charlie Cox in Daredevil: Born Again.

Daredevil: Born Again season 1 was largely reconceived after the 2023 actor and writer strikes. Dario Scardapane -- a veteran of The Punisher series on Netflix -- was brought in to be the new showrunner and he made a lot of changes to the series that were well-received. However, there's one episode that Scardapane didn't really change at all, and it happens to be the least favorite episode of Daredevil: Born Again's leading man, Charlie Cox.

During an appearance on The Playlist, Cox noted that he wasn't very fond of the season's fifth episode, "With Interest," which was a largely standalone episode that featured his character, Matt Murdock, in a bank during a hostage crisis.

Read more
Zoox recalls robotaxis after Las Vegas crash, citing software fix
zoox recall crash 1739252352 robotaxi side profile in dark mode

Amazon's self-driving vehicle unit, Zoox, has issued a voluntary safety recall after one of its autonomous vehicles was involved in a minor collision in Las Vegas. The incident, which occurred in April 2025, led the company to investigate and identify a software issue affecting how the robotaxi anticipates another vehicle’s path.
The recall, affecting 270 Zoox-built vehicles, was formally filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Zoox said the issue has already been addressed through a software update that was remotely deployed to its fleet.
Zoox’s robotaxis, which operate without driving controls like a steering wheel or pedals, are part of Amazon’s entry into the autonomous driving space. According to Zoox’s safety recall report, the vehicle failed to yield to oncoming traffic while making an unprotected left turn, leading to a low-speed collision with a regular passenger car. While damage was minor, the event raised flags about the system’s behavior in complex urban scenarios.
Establishing safety and reliability remain key factors in the deployment of the relatively new autonomous ride-hailing technology. Alphabet-owned Waymo continues to lead the sector in both safety and operational scale, with services active in multiple cities including Phoenix and San Francisco. But GM’s Cruise and Ford/VW-backed Argo AI were forced to abandon operations over the past few years.
Tesla is also expected to enter the robotaxi race with the launch of its own service in June 2025, leveraging its Full Self-Driving (FSD) software. While FSD has faced heavy regulatory scrutiny through last year, safety regulations are expected to loosen under the Trump administration.
Zoox, which Amazon acquired in 2020, says it issued the recall voluntarily as part of its commitment to safety. “It’s essential that we remain transparent about our processes and the collective decisions we make,” the company said in a statement.

Read more