The US is heading to the voting booths on Tuesday and Hollywood actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt is thousands of miles away from home, sitting down with Business Insider in a meeting room at European technology conference Web Summit in Lisbon.

The actor, who plays Edward Snowden in the recent Oliver Stone biopic, tells us he feels "paralyzed" to publicly make a prediction as to which way the vote will go. But he is prepared to talk about the frenetic discussion on social media around the election. While he admits scrolling through Twitter  to catch up on what's happening can be "cathartic," for the most part, he finds it deflating.

Gordon-Levitt said: "Just reading the internet — Twitter, Facebook, YouTube — and just reading the way people talk to each other on both sides — left wing, right wing — it is so discouraging because it's just useless. It's all this energy being put into these comment threads and nothing good comes out of them. Nothing. Nothing! People don't learn anything, they don't make anything, and I find that very discouraging."

He continued: "The way these social media platforms are built, it is not designed for discourse, it's not designed for critical thinking, it's not designed for rational discussion, it's not designed for anything productive like that. It's designed to make you scroll through, and scroll through, and scroll through so you can see more ads."

On his tech startup: The end goal was never to "make bank"

His comments make for a nice segue into the reason he's traveled to Portugal to be at a tech conference.

Gordon-Levitt is the founder of Hit Record, an online "collaborative production company" where creatives such as illustrators, producers, photographers, and musicians can work together to create films, advertisements, and other artistic projects.

The company started off as a pet project between Gordon-Levitt and his brother Dan in 2005, but has now grown into a "cashflow positive" business that "pays for itself" and has earned $2 million for the creators on the platform.

"There's a quote I like to say about money, which is actually attributed to Walt Disney, which is sort of ironic now, but he said: 'We don't make make movies to make money, we make money to make movies'," Gordon-Levitt said.

"That's how I really see it: The end goal with Hit Record was never to make bank ... it wasn't a startup, it was just a little thing I did with my brother and it grew. It's only now that we started to realize the more we are able to grow, the more big, cool projects we are able to do, the more features we can add to the site or the app, so let's approach it as a business."

Projects have included the "Hit Record on TV" variety show that was bought by Netflix, an ad for LG, and an art project with the US National Parks Foundation.

Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency whistleblower who Gordon-Levitt played in this year's biopic "Snowden" even participated in a recent project. The challenge to the community was to answer the question: Do you think technology is good or bad for democracy?

Below is Snowden's response. He's optimistic and while he believes there are certainly times when technology can be used for the wrong reasons — mass surveillance, for example — ultimately, he thinks it's a force for good.

Meeting Edward Snowden — and his parents

Gordon-Levitt met Snowden during the filming of the movie to help him get into character and get into the mind of someone who sacrificed his former life and went into exile in order to do what he felt was right for the country. The actor flew to Russia, where Snowden was in hiding, for a secret rendezvous.

The first thing Snowden said, according to Gordon-Levitt, was: "Perhaps you can settle a dispute: Is it 'Hit Record' [the noun] or 'Hit Record' [a verb]?" (The answer: It's a play on both.)

"Honestly, that was the first thing he asked me. I was really honored that he had heard about it," Gordon-Levitt added.

Gordon-Levitt describes Snowden as a "private guy" who "sort of feels awkward about having a movie made about his life," but that they found a common bond in technology.

"We really identified with a love for computers and a love for the internet. Coming from different places — him from the engineering side, me from the creative side — both of us have a pretty strong emotional identification with the internet and feel kind of passionate, on behalf of our generation, this is the mark of our generation, this is a beautiful thing, and this can be the chance to create a more egalitarian world," Gordon-Levitt said.

Gordon-Levitt grew up with computers. His father ensured the house had a personal computer when they first became available to consumers. 

But the Snowden and Gordon-Levitt family are very different too. Gordon-Levitt's parents were peace activists, while Snowden's father was in the Coast Guard and his grandfather worked for the FBI. Gordon-Levitt jokes he and Edward Snowden found a "middle ground."

Snowden's parents came to the "Snowden" premiere in New York. Afterwards, they came up to Gordon-Levitt and gave him the "most meaningful feedback" he received about playing the part.

Gordon-Levitt said: "His mom took me aside and said: 'You really reminded me of my son.' And his dad looked me in the eye and said: 'I want to thank you for doing this, for standing up for him. I know this is going to be hard for you, you're going to attract criticism for doing this'."

The difference between Snowden and Julian Assange

Given his close relationship with one of the world's most famous whistleblowers, we asked Gordon-Levitt's view on WikiLeaks' role in this year's US election.

The organization published a series of hacked documents related to the Clinton campaign in the final weeks leading up to the vote. Coincidentally, WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange released a statement during Web Summit, justifying its decision to leak the emails.

Gordon-Levitt pauses, for the only time in our animated conversation, and lets out a long "umm."

"It's really complicated. I played Edward Snowden, so I know a fair bit about this stuff, but I learnt a lot more about Snowden than I did about WikiLeaks. There's overlap between the two because WikiLeaks [editor] Sarah Harrison was with Edward Snowden helping him get out of Hong Kong, but there's also a difference between the two," Gordon-Levitt said.

"I heard someone put it this way, and I actually think both Edward Snowden and Julian Assange would probably agree with this: Edward Snowden wants to improve the system and Julian Assange wants to break it down. Maybe that's an oversimplification, but that's what it seems like, and I guess, who am I to judge which is the right approach?"

SEE ALSO: 'Snowden' portrays the infamous NSA leaker as a hero, but leaves many big questions unanswered

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Donald Trump can function on barely any sleep — and why you shouldn't copy him

Amazon has scored Robert De Niro's first TV series as it continues to beef up its Prime Video content in its war against Netflix.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the new mafia drama will star De Niro and fellow Oscar winner Julianne Moore. It will be directed by David O'Russell, whose previous work includes "Silver Lining Playbook" and "American Hustle."

But De Niro's new show won't come cheap for Amazon. It's reportedly paying $160 million for the 16-episode show, while De Niro is getting paid $850,000 per episode.

That would make De Niro one of the highest paid actors on TV, right behind the three lead costars of "The Big Bang Theory," who are each getting paid $1 million a pop, based on Variety's estimates. "Gilmore Girls" Lauren Graham gets $750,000 per show, while Kevin Spacey gets $500,000 for each "House of Cards" episode, Variety says. The highest paid actor among Amazon shows is Jeffrey Tambor from "Transparent" at $275,000 per show.

Amazon has been stepping up its investment in its Prime Video service lately. In a clear sign that it's going after Netflix, Amazon made its video service available to non-Prime members in April, launching a standalone video service that can be purchased month by month. Prior to that, Prime Video was only available through the $99 annual Prime membership, which gives access to two-day free shipping and a bunch of video and music content.

It's also doubling its spend on video content in the second half of this year, compared to last year, CFO Brian Olsavsky said in the most recent earnings call. Amazon last disclosed its investment amount on video content back in 2014, when it spent a total of $1.3 billion. 

De Niro is the latest high-profile movie star to make the transition to TV. Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson are part of HBO's "True Detective," while Netflix recently landed Jonah Hill and Emma Stone for its new series "Maniac."

SEE ALSO: Amazon is hiring full-time house cleaners — possibly for its Prime membership program

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A hacker reveals a simple way to come up with a strong password that's easy to remember

In "Call of Duty" multiplayer, a confrontation between two players typically lasts anywhere from one to three seconds. It's a lightning-fast, twitchy game, where the player who fires the first shot usually wins. 

It's all about reflexes, and in the good "Call of Duty" games, nothing else is like it. You develop an innate feel for the game, meaning you know when you've beaten another player in this rapid-fire quickdraw before it's even over. 

Unfortunately, thanks to the fickle nature of the internet, things won't always go your way. In this year's game, "Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare," players are complaining about unfairness caused by the game's servers.

Here's an example:

In case you're not familiar with what's going on here, the player hits the enemy multiple times to no avail, while seemingly being killed by one shot. That's a situation like what I described above, where you as the player know you should have won, but didn't.

It came from this imgur album, which was posted on the game's official subreddit. Players have been complaining about this since the game's multiplayer beta in October.

Dueling views

Without getting too deep into technical jargon, this is basically a discrepancy between what you saw and what the game's online server saw. Oftentimes, the "killcam" (which shows the other player's point of view of the confrontation) looks completely different from what happened on your screen.

It's been present in the multiplayer for every "Call of Duty" game (and other multiplayer shooters), but players are claiming it's worse than usual in "Infinite Warfare." Of course, since it's Reddit, those who make the complaints have been told by some that they're imagining things or that they just need to get better at the game.

Anecdotally, I can say I've noticed the same problem in "Infinite Warfare." There are frequent situations where I feel like I should have gotten a kill, but I didn't because of the game's online infrastructure.

For full disclosure, I am also not very good at the game.

I'm also on the record as disliking the multiplayer mode as a whole, with the seemingly unfair lag being just part of the problem. Hopefully developer Infinity Ward will resolve the issue and find a way to make the game feel more fair. 

SEE ALSO: In a year of great shooters, the new 'Call of Duty' can't compete

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This hidden iPhone feature will boost your reception

Jimmy Fallon took a lot of heat for his unserious interview with Donald Trump earlier this year, but another comedian set him straight on Fallon's own show.

The host of HBO's "Real Time," Bill Maher, lived up to his image as a no-nonsense, foulmouthed political comedian and commentator when he joined Fallon on Monday night's "Tonight Show."

Maher tried to make some political points, saying that while he doesn't think much of Hillary Clinton's candidacy ("She campaigns like a hospice nurse") he believes Fallon's young audience needs to know that this presidential election is unique — and not in a good way, from his point of view.

"This has never happened before, this kind of an election," Maher said.

He said that Russia hacked Democratic Party organizations, but that FBI is "with Russia."

Fallon tried to take things in a more lighthearted direction, but when the interview turned to giggles, Maher quickly shut him down.

"It's not funny," Maher said.

Fallon quickly agreed and shut his mouth.

Maher mentioned the "mea culpa" he made on "Real Time" recently, when he said Democrats, including himself, made a "big mistake" when they "cried wolf" on other Republicans who were, in retrospect, more tempered than Trump, such as Mitt Romney or John McCain.

"It would never have been the end of the world with those guys. This is different. This guy is different. They have no respect for the rule of law," Maher said of the Trump campaign on Monday.

Maher also saved some time to slam undecided voters, telling Fallon what he would tell that group.

"I would say, 'Really? I mean, he's a racist, a liar, a tax cheat, a deadbeat, a Russian agent, and a sexual predator. How do you find your way out of the door in the morning?'" Maher said.

Watch the video below:

SEE ALSO: 29 celebrities who love and endorse Donald Trump

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Letterman rips Trump, calls him a 'damaged human' who should be 'shunned'

Alec Baldwin's impersonation of Donald Trump on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" is so spot-on, it's hard to imagine that he initially doubted he could do it.

On Tuesday, the former "30 Rock" actor said he found the impersonation "difficult" to do on WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show." Baldwin said he typically impersonates figures he admires, such as Robert De Niro and Al Pacino.

"Most of the time, there’s some degree of appreciation, you embody someone you like," he said. "I don’t hate Trump, but he's not somebody I admire. So it was more difficult."

It was his former "30 Rock" boss and costar Tina Fey who suggested to "Saturday Night Live" creator Lorne Michaels that Baldwin should step into the show's Trump role. Baldwin said he didn't think he could be successful at the impression. But after studying the real-estate mogul's speaking habits and mannerisms, he pulled it off.

"You get lucky," Baldwin said. "I also think people were ready to take that version of him, which is so aggressive. He’s the head writer of his own comedy routine. Everything he just supplied to us."

As successful as the impression is (except, of course, with Trump), Baldwin is ready to pack it up.

"I hope it’s over," the actor said. "If he wins, I imagine there could be some opportunity for that. But I want my weekends back, so I can go be with my kids."

Listen to the entire interview below:

SEE ALSO: 'Donald Trump' locks lips with his alleged conspirators and makes up with 'Hillary Clinton' on 'SNL'

DON'T MISS: The history of Donald Trump and NBC's love-hate relationship that made him a star

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Media rigging the election!': Trump slams SNL for mocking his debate performance

There's a widely held conviction among people who support Donald Trump for president that goes something like this: Despite some of the more wacky things he says, or a lack of specific policy proposals, they say, "He's a successful businessman."

When CNN's Poppy Harlow recently talked to voters in Ohio, a swing state that's struggling economically, she heard that line "a lot." Harlow asked one woman what about Trump's career made her confident that he's a "successful businessman."

"First of all, he had a television show," the woman said.

She was of course talking about "The Apprentice," the NBC reality show hosted by Trump that was a giant hit when it premiered in 2004 and is still very much at the core of his appeal to his voters (though after 14 seasons, he's now off the show for good). I'd argue it's even the principal reason he's been able to become the Republican nominee for president.

Of course, Trump was famous long before "The Apprentice," as a colorful New York City real-estate figure, one who was known at least as much for his failures, extravagant lifestyle, eccentric behavior, and checkered romantic history as for his accumulated assets. A 1991 feature in Spy magazine summed him up with the headline, "How to Fool All of the People, All of the Time: How Donald Trump Fooled the Media, Used the Media to Fool the Banks, Used the Banks to Fool the Bondholders, and Used the Bondholders to Pay for the Yachts and Mansions and Mistresses."

"The Apprentice" made Trump a national pop-culture figure way beyond New York tabloids and glossy magazines, but more importantly, it promoted a different view of Trump: a confident but measured businessman who knew how to spot a good deal and foster success, and when to cut someone loose with a simple, "You're fired."

What you learn about Trump on 'The Apprentice'

I recently rewatched the very first episode of "The Apprentice." Seen in retrospect, it almost looks like a roadmap for Trump's campaign strategy in 2016.

The show starts with Trump introducing the business world of New York City, "the real jungle," where you can "make it big." The implication is that Trump owns this city.

"My name is Donald Trump, and I'm the largest real estate developer in New York," he tells the camera from the back of a limo.

In fact, he wasn't and isn't. The claim, often made by Trump, has been widely debunked. "He's a dear friend of mine, but it wouldn't be accurate for him to say that,'' Richard S. LeFrak, a scion of one of New York's most active real estate families, told The New York Times in 2004. The New York Observer, owned by Trump's son-in-law, ranked him as the 14th most powerful person in New York real estate in 2011.

"The Apprentice" touts Trump's properties, from resorts and residences to Miss Universe. It mentions the "billions of dollars in debt" Trump once faced in the early '90s, but he tells us, "I fought back and won, big-league" (a taste of an expression that's become commonplace from him). He also says his company is "stronger than ever." It's a trajectory he also promotes on the campaign trail.

At the time of the show's premiere, however, Trump's Atlantic City casino holdings were burdened by $2 billion in bond debt that they struggled to repay, according to The New York Times, which goes unmentioned in the first episode of "The Apprentice." (Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts sought bankruptcy protection in 2004 and Trump's stake in the company was reduced.)

"The Apprentice" repeatedly spouts superlatives including Trump calling his name the "highest-quality brand" with no evidence. "The Apprentice" was a show under NBC Entertainment, not its news division, and Trump was hardly running for office. As on most reality shows, fact-checking was less than rigorous.

How Donald Trump thinks about women

Most of "The Apprentice" runs on the high-concept gimmicks of your usual reality competition. Sixteen people compete in silly weekly tasks that have little to do with the work of a business executive for the "dream job of a lifetime." Trump's "boardroom" is actually a studio, and it's made to look darker than a movie mob hangout.

But Trump's personality plays a crucial role in the middle of all this. His commentary is peppered with themes that have popped up again and again in the current election.

For example, Trump's treatment of women adds a strange flavor to the competition.

"Women have a tougher time in the workplace — or so they say," Trump tells his mix of male and female contestants. (He eventually splits them up into separate teams of men vs. women, in a gender war that admittedly makes for entertaining TV.)

"I'll tell you, they're looking awfully good, fellas," Trump says of the female team to the men.

The gimmick of the first episode is that the teams have to sell lemonade on the street. One woman gives her phone number to a man in exchange for buying a cup of lemonade, and later admits, "I was surpised that, yeah, I did use sex to sell lemonade."

The women win.

Trump is 'like really, really rich'

The prize of the winning team on the first "Apprentice" episode is that they get to go to Trump's penthouse home in his Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.

The women are impressed from the moment they see the giant, sparkling gold front door.

"This is, like, rich. Like really, really rich," one says.

"When we went up to Donald's apartment, words can't describe how beautiful it was. Everything you saw was breathtaking," another says to the camera afterward.

To me and I suspect many people, Donald Trump's home looks a little ridiculous. There's an indoor fountain. Nearly every surface of the apartment is plated in gold. It's hard to imagine how you wouldn't get dizzy living in it.

But the contestants are floored. This is the life they want.

"If you're really successful, you'll all live just like this," Trump tells them.

"We can only wish," one contestant says.

Trump has been making a similar pitch to the American people since launching his presidential campaign in 2015: that he can help out those who have fallen on hard times because he knows how the system works. He can help you live more like him.

"The Apprentice" put together the best possible version of Trump it could. The "successful businessman" you see is a TV fantasy, and one the show sold well. Editors on the show have described how they stitched together the footage. Trump's role was reportedly "carefully crafted and manufactured in postproduction to feature a persona of success, leadership, and glamour, despite the raw footage of the reality star that was often 'a disaster.'" Editors claim that on the set, Trump had trouble reciting facts and talked about how he'd like to "drill" female crew members.

"We were told to not show anything that was considered too much of a 'peek behind the curtain,'" Jonathon Braun, a supervising editor on the first six seasons of the show, said.

That strategy has served Trump well. Without "The Apprentice" and the carefully curated image of Trump it insinuated into millions of American homes, it's hard to imagine how Trump could have ever sold the American people on his ultimate pitch: becoming president.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Shark Tank' investor Robert Herjavec reveals the biggest mistakes small businesses make

Election Day is here, and many celebrities are hitting the polling booths and making their political voices heard by voting and subsequently posting on social media.

While a number of stars have shared photos of themselves participating in early voting in recent weeks, others are now documenting themselves standing in line with their fellow citizens and receiving their "I Voted" stickers on Election Day.

From Taylor Swift to Ludacris, here are 32 celebrities who have rocked the vote this election:

SEE ALSO: 30 celebrities who love and endorse Hillary Clinton

Katy Perry

Instagram Embed:
http://instagram.com/p/BMAj-MYApTv/embed/
Width: 658px

Taylor Swift

Instagram Embed:
http://instagram.com/p/BMjht18hMbW/embed/
Width: 658px

Eva Longoria

Instagram Embed:
http://instagram.com/p/BMRy4spAhzi/embed/
Width: 658px

Follow BI Video: On Twitter

Join the conversation about this story »

While many responded with shock to Donald Trump's upset win for president in Tuesday's election, "Late Show" host Stephen Colbert addressed divisions among voters and called for unity.

At the end of his hourlong live election-night special on Showtime, "Stephen Colbert's Live Election Night Democracy's Series Finale: Who's Going To Clean Up This S‑‑‑?" Colbert seemed deflated and defeated, and he acknowledged thinking he'd see Hillary Clinton take the Oval Office. But beyond that, he underlined the adverse effect he said the election has had on the country.

"Now I think we can agree that this has been an absolutely exhausting, bruising election for everyone, and it has come to an ending that I did not imagine," Colbert said while still awaiting the election's final results, which were favoring Trump. "We all now feel the way Rudy Giuliani looks. Seeing this election, people all around the world … everybody's going to be saying, 'Has America lost its mind?' And the answer is, evidently, 'Back off buddy — we got 300 million guns, and we're kinda stressed right now.'"

He said politics had divided Americans in ways that were unfathomable to how he and others thought about politics and elections when he was a kid.

"By every metric, we are more divided than ever as a nation," he said. "But you know what, everybody feels that way … Both sides are terrified of the other side, and I think that's why the voting booth has a curtain, so you have some place to hide after the election's over."

And at least now that it's over, whether you're horrified or celebrating, Colbert believes it's time to put away the rage and find harmony and agreement.

"Politics is everywhere, and that takes up precious brain space we could be using to remember all the things we actually have in common," Colbert said. "So whether your side won or lost, we don't have to do this s--- for a while," Colbert said. "Above all, we as a nation agree that we should never, ever have another election like this one. Now please get out there and kiss a Democrat. Go hug a Republican. Go give a Libertarian a reach-around. You survived. Good night, and God bless America."

Watch the video below:

SEE ALSO: The 50 best movies of all time, according to critics on Metacritic

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Harry Potter' fans are skeptical about the new film — here’s why

Robert De Niro will make his TV debut on Amazon through a new crime series directed by David O. Russell.

Not much is known about the yet-to-be-titled show, but it won't come cheap for Amazon: De Niro is reported to be making $850,000 per episode.

To figure out where De Niro's pay stands among other actors in shows produced by rival TV streaming apps, we looked through a recent report published by Variety. The report, based on Variety's own survey of actors and industry people last month, gives a glimpse into what the top stars make for each episode.

We narrowed down the list to the shows produced by Netflix, HBO, Amazon, and Hulu, since they're the four most popular standalone TV streaming services. Check out how much the highest-paid actors are estimated to make per episode:

You can see the full Variety report here>>

SEE ALSO: 12 tips on how to get a high-paying job at Google even with a low GPA

8. Aaron Paul (The Path, Hulu): $225,000 per episode

7. [TIE] Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Veep, HBO): $250,000 per episode

7. [TIE] Billy Bob Thornton (Goliath, Amazon): $250,000 per episode

Trevor Noah wasn't in the mood for jokes when "The Daily Show" went live at 11 p.m. ET on Tuesday as it was becoming clear that Donald Trump was on a path to winning the presidential race.

"This is it, the end of the presidential race, and it feels like the end of the world," the host said. "You know, I'm not going to lie, I don't know if you've come to the right place for jokes tonight, because this is the first time throughout this entire race where I'm officially s---ting my pants."

By the time the show was on, Trump was defeating Hillary Clinton in the battleground states and breaking through in traditionally Democratic ones. It left Noah, who has been an adamant critic of Trump, somewhat dumbfounded.

"I genuinely do not understand how America can be this disorganized or this hateful," he said. "I don't know which one it is."

Noah's sense of humor wasn't totally dampened. He made light of the global markets reacting negatively to Trump's probable win, including America's neighbor to the South.

"The Mexican peso is crashing," he said. "That's what's happening to Mexico's currency, which means that if Trump does win, Mexico can't afford to pay for that wall."

Watch the video below:

SEE ALSO: Alec Baldwin explains the hardest thing about impersonating Donald Trump

DON'T MISS: John Oliver explains the outdated reason we still vote on Tuesdays

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'A racist, xenophobe, misogynist in the White House': Clinton supporters react to Trump's victory

Growth of subscription-video-on-demand (SVOD) services in the US has slowed considerably over the last year as competition in the online video streaming space intensifies. Heavy hitters like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime are increasingly squeezed by new competitors with exclusive content and niche video offerings.  

International markets, and specifically, the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region will be paramount for both established SVOD players and new entrants looking to establish themselves in the successful video space.

The SVOD market in the APAC region is poised for explosive growth over the next five years due to increased mobile adoption, amplified broadband expansion, and enhanced purchasing power.

In a recent report from BI Intelligence, we explore how slowing SVOD growth in the US will lead to a surge in the APAC region.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the report:

• While SVOD services are increasingly rooted among US households, growth is beginning slow. Growth in North American SVOD subscriptions is set to fall from 30% in 2014 to 4% by 2018.
• The best opportunity for continued growth lies in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. The region had nearly 42 million SVOD subscribers in 2015, but could have up to 158 million by 2021.
• The increasing adoption of smartphones and mobile data is propelling growth in mobile video viewing across APAC, which is poised to outpace the rest of the world.
• Rising purchasing power in APAC underlines the opportunity for online video services. China and emerging Asian economies represent nearly two-thirds (63%) of global economic growth.
• Content creators and marketers stand to gain from SVOD’s push into the APAC region. Content creators can benefit from the surge in short-form video, while marketers can capitalize on advanced product placements.

In full, the report: 

• Forecasts SVOD subscribers in the APAC region.
• Explores the factors behind SVOD’s slowing growth in the US.
• Breaks down reasons why APAC is ripe for massive online video growth.
• Discusses who will benefit from SVOD growth in APAC.

Interested in getting the full report? Here are two ways to access it:

1. Subscribe to an All-Accesspass to BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report and over 100 other expertly researched reports. As an added bonus, you'll also gain access to all future reports and daily newsletters to ensure you stay ahead of the curve and benefit personally and professionally. » Learn More Now
2. Purchase & download the full report from our research store. » Purchase & Download Now

Join the conversation about this story »

This story was delivered to BI Intelligence Apps and Platforms Briefing subscribers. To learn more and subscribe, please click here.

Smartphones have become the most popular device for playing on digital games, according to a new survey of 10,000 consumers across 10 countries released by PayPal.

The survey found that 78% of the US respondents play digital games on their smartphones, compared with 59% on tablets and 47% on laptops.

However, gamers spent more time and money on games played on PCs and gaming consoles:

• When asked about the amount of time they spend playing a mobile game, the most popular choice was 30 minutes to one hour.
• When asked the same question about playing games on PCs and gaming consoles, the most popular choice among the respondents was one to two hours.
• Among US respondents, the average spend on mobile gaming (both game downloads and in-app purchases) was $12 per month.
• That’s lower than the reported average spend on PC gaming ($17 per month) and spend on games for gaming consoles ($22 per month), according to the survey data.

PayPal commissioned the report from SuperData Research, which predicted that mobile gaming would account for $37.6 billion of the worldwide $77.3 billion digital gaming market by the end of this year.

Gaming developers are experimenting with new ways to monetize the increasing engagement among mobile users with mobile games. For example, developers are starting to offer rewarded advertising, which offer in-game rewards for watching an ad in the gaming app.

This allows developers to monetize games without requiring the gamers to purchase anything. Developers can also use targeted in-app messages and push notifications to persuade users to make in-app purchases.

Over the better part of the past decade, developers have flocked to create mobile games as smartphones became a mainstream consumer device. Technological evolutions including faster processors, larger screens, more input points, and better overall graphics capabilities, combined with dropping prices, brought the ability for gaming via smartphone to audiences larger than ever before.

In that growth and through that transition, smartphones as a gaming arena experienced its own evolution. More developers flocked to this medium, and the gaming sections of app stores became saturated. While mobile gaming apps using an up-front paid downloading model, wherein consumers paid a typically nominal fee to download an app, flourished in the early days of mobile gaming, the deluge of apps led to a change in monetization strategy.

More apps started using the free-to-play (F2P) model, wherein a consumer can download an app for free, and is then later monetized either via in-app purchases or in-app advertising. Since that transition, most consumers have been conditioned to expect quality mobile gaming apps for little or no cost.

Jessica Smith, research analyst for BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, has compiled a detailed report on mobile gaming that examines how the mobile gaming market has been affected by the transition to F2P monetization.

It also takes a close look at how saturation in the mobile gaming category, combined with the standard F2P model, has led to numerous issues for developers, including spiking marketing costs, the premium on acquiring users who will spend heavily within a game (called whales), and the impact that it's having on mobile gamers who do not spend in-app. The report then identifies innovations in mobile app marketing and engagement that seek to alleviate the issues of F2P and inadequate monetization in the fact of mounting marketing costs. 

• The mobile gaming app market is so big it makes other app categories seem small by comparison. Mobile gaming apps accounted for 20% of active apps in Apple's App Store in March 2016, according to AppsFlyer. That’s more than double the second most popular category, business apps.
• It's only going to keep growing as quality smartphones become more accessible and more consumers look to their smartphones for gaming. In the US alone, 180.4 million consumers will play games on their mobile phones in 2016, representing 56% of the population and a whopping 70% of all mobile phone users, according to estimates from eMarketer.
• This quick growth is resulting in numerous growing pains. Saturation in the market has led to the dominance of the free-to-play (F2P) monetization model, which in turn has led to sky-high marketing costs.
• As marketing costs for mobile gaming apps has skyrocketed, so has the tendency for apps to focus on the very small segment of players who spend money in-app. This has resulted in game mechanics that optimize the amount of money being spent by this small user group, which can often alienate the large swath of users who do not spend money in-app.
• There are numerous new solutions coming to market that offer developers and publishing houses a diverse selection of monetization models which combine in-app purchases with other methods.

In full, the report:

• Sizes up the current mobile gaming app market and its future growth trajectory.
• Examines the role of free-to-play (F2P) games in the greater mobile gaming ecosystem.
• Identifies the major threats and opportunities inherent in the current mobile gaming market and in peripheral markets such as marketing.
• Explains the current monetization conundrum wherein the vast majority of revenue comes abysmally small segments of mobile gamers.
• Presents new approaches and solutions that can help mobile gaming apps monetize without alienating swaths of mobile gamers.

To get your copy of this invaluable guide, choose one of these options:

1. Subscribe to an ALL-ACCESS Membership with BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report AND over 100 other expertly researched deep-dive reports, subscriptions to all of our daily newsletters, and much more. >> START A MEMBERSHIP
2. Purchase the report and download it immediately from our research store. >> BUY THE REPORT

The choice is yours. But however you decide to acquire this report, you’ve given yourself a powerful advantage in your understanding of the world of mobile gaming.

Join the conversation about this story »

Hillary Clinton had the support of the biggest names in show business and a plurality of the popular vote, but Donald Trump's unprecedented movement to the Oval Office could not be stopped. He had an upset win in the Electoral College.

For Trump's own celebrity supporters, including Stephen Baldwin and Ted Nugent, his victory was met with congratulations and praise.

But for a larger swath of celebrities in the US and abroad — a number of whom even campaigned for Clinton— a Trump presidency has prompted them to express disbelief, fear, and rallying cries on social media.

From Lady Gaga to J.K. Rowling, here's how left-leaning stars reacted to Trump's victory:

SEE ALSO: 29 celebrities who love and endorse Donald Trump

Lady Gaga

Tweet Embed:
https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/796215921253777408
🙏say a prayer America

A fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton, Gaga protested outside of Trump Tower in New York City early Wednesday morning.

Instagram Embed:
http://instagram.com/p/BMmk-oGAgy_/embed/
Width: 658px

Seth MacFarlane

Tweet Embed:
https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/796210127376261122
I truly cannot visualize the rambling, incoherent creature I saw at the debates now addressing the nation from the Oval Office.

Time Warner stock dipped 2% on Wednesday, with investors likely spooked that Donald Trump, the presumptive next president of the US, could move to block its $85 billion acquisition by AT&T.

When the deal was announced in October, Trump came out swinging against it, and vowed not to allow it through.

“In an example of the power structure I’m fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN — a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” Trump said the day that the AT&T-Time Warner news came out.

He also said he would break up the Comcast-NBCUniversal merger for similar reasons.

Trump's words, however, may not translate into action.

“A Trump administration will be a wildcard for antitrust enforcement,” Gene Kimmelman, head of policy group Public Knowledge, and a former antitrust official himself, told Bloomberg. “Trump certainly railed against consolidation during the campaign, but we don’t know what kind of enforcers he’ll select to steer competition policy.”

AT&T CFO John Stephens said Wednesday, at a conference, that he was looking forward to working with Trump and "optimistic" regulators would approve the Time Warner deal, according to Reuters.

Net neutrality

One Trump proclamation that could actually benefit AT&T is his stance against "net neutrality," which requires all web data to be treated the same.

AT&T and other mobile carriers have been criticized for trying to maneuver around net neutrality through policies like "zero-rating."

Zero-rating is when wireless carriers don't count data used with certain streaming services against your data cap. For example, T-Mobile offers zero-rating for several popular services like Spotify, Netflix, and YouTube. AT&T is planning on having its DirecTV Now streaming TV service, which the company thinks will be its main TV product by 2020, be totally zero-rated. That means you can stream all you want without worrying about your data usage.

This sounds great for customers, but critics say it runs afoul of net neutrality. Why? Because AT&T could potentially use zero-rating to hurt its competitors unfairly.

Here's how:

If the AT&T-Time Warner deal goes through, AT&T would still likely make Time Warner pay a fee to have its content zero-rated. But since AT&T would own Time Warner, that money would just be shifting from one division of the company to another. That could give AT&T-Time Warner an unfair advantage over other content providers like Netflix, as they would have to pay that fee out of their own pocket.

But if Trump dismantled net neutrality, that argument might all be moot. The Wall Street Journal says it would be "difficult, but not impossible" for Trump to destroy the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules.

Additional reporting by Steve Kovach.

SEE ALSO: The Huffington Post is removing its editor's note that called Trump a 'racist,' 'misogynist,' and 'serial liar'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Donald Trump's full victory speech

Click for story >>>

Join the conversation about this story »

lThis story was delivered to BI Intelligence "Digital Media Briefing" subscribers. To learn more and subscribe, please click here.

Streaming music startup Electric Jukebox has launched a device similar to an Amazon Fire Stick that plugs into a TV’s HDMI port.

The device, named after its parent company, costs £169 ($187), and the price includes a 12-month subscription to the company's music streaming service.

After the first year, Electric Jukebox listeners are switched to an ad-supported version of the service, or they can opt to pay £52 ($57) per year to maintain it in full. The service also comes with a voice-control enabled remote control that can access a 29 million song library. It seems that music services are going after the nearly 90% of UK adults who do not subscribe to any music streaming products.

Streaming subscriptions may be too expensive for many UK listeners, according to a recent survey conducted by Zuora and YouGov. Only 10%, or 5.2 million, of consumers in the UK subscribe to digital streaming services, like Spotify and Apple Music. The survey suggests that music streaming services should experiment with pricing tiers to attract subscribers, as 48% of those surveyed think on-demand streaming is too costly.

• The average subscriber pays £7.07 ($7.70) per month for a music streaming subscription. While the initial financial outlay for Electric Jukebox is high, users will pay around £4 ($4.40) per month after their first year. Competitors like Spotify and Apple Music charge £10 ($11.01) per month.
• Lack of smartphone and offline playback are major feature omissions. Subscribers have to use the new service with a TV or HDMI-enabled device, and Electric Jukebox is making a major bet on the living room. Consumers may want to spend the extra cash to get music subscriptions on all devices, not just their TVs or other devices with an HDMI port.

Competitors are investing in UK music services. Apple has reportedly hired 16 employees from subscription service Omnifone, which was created by Electric Jukebox founder Rob Lewis, and filed for bankruptcy this summer, according to TechCrunch.

In addition, Apple is scooping up some of Omnifone’s technology, which could include around 50 patents. Although UK consumers have so far been unimpressed by the subscription services on the table, competition is heating up as various music streaming players look to bring the winning offering to market.

Jessica Smith, research analyst for BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, has compiled a detailed report on streaming media devices that sizes up this market by device category and takes a more granular dive into each.

The report includes new shipments forecasts, identifies major players, and assesses the advantages and weaknesses of each device category. It also examines how usage and ownership may vary among device categories and the implications of this upswing on various ancillary markets, like advertising and app development.

Here are some key takeaways from the report:

• Streaming media device adoption is rising fast as over-the-top (OTT) streaming video services — such as Netflix and HBO NOW — make it easier than ever to ditch traditional pay-TV. We expect global shipments of streaming media devices to grow at a 10% compound annual growth rate (CAGR), from 240 million in 2016 to 382 million in 2021.
• Over the next few years, we expect the market for streaming media devices to grow and consolidate. In the long term, newer technologies like virtual reality will become a leading connected device segment. However, in the next five years, smart TVs, gaming consoles, and media streamers will remain the top categories by a wide margin.
• Smart TVs currently dominate shipments, accounting for three-quarters of device shipments in 2015. As people upgrade their TVs, the global installed base of smart TVs will grow from 584 million in 2016 to 896 million in 2021.
• As streaming media device uptake rises, stakeholders throughout the larger media ecosystem will need to adapt to consumers' changing habits. Legacy TV providers will likely need to offer skinny bundles or their own OTT subscriptions to stay relevant, while advertisers will want to capitalize on the opportunities available in targeting streaming viewers using demographic and behavioral data. App developers, platform creators, and game makers will also have a stake in where and how streaming activity develops.

In full, the report:

• Identifies the major device categories in the streaming media market.
• Sizes up the current reach and shipments forecast for each device category.
• Compares and contrasts the benefits and downsides of each device category within the greater streaming media ecosystem.
• Examines the major players in each device category.
• Assesses the gap between streaming media device installed base and usage.
• Explores how this growing market is impacting other industries in its peripherals.

To get your copy of this invaluable guide to the streaming media device universe, choose one of these options:

1. Subscribe to an ALL-ACCESS Membership with BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report AND over 100 other expertly researched deep-dive reports, subscriptions to all of our daily newsletters, and much more. >> START A MEMBERSHIP
2. Purchase the report and download it immediately from our research store. >> BUY THE REPORT

The choice is yours. But however you decide to acquire this report, you’ve given yourself a powerful advantage in your understanding of the ever-changing world of streaming media devices.

Join the conversation about this story »

"Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling railed against bullies and hate as Donald Trump won the presidential election in the early hours on Wednesday.

During his campaign, Trump was criticized for speaking about immigrants, women, his opponents, and other groups in offensive ways. Rowling suggested that his win doesn't make "hate speech" acceptable.

"We stand together. We stick up for the vulnerable. We challenge bigots. We don't let hate speech become normalised. We hold the line," Rowling tweeted.

The British author has been outspoken in her opposition to Trump's presidential run and says she has suffered under the social-media bullying of the real-estate mogul's supporters.

"I've been called bitch, 'libtard' and plenty more tonight," she wrote on Twitter. "Quite proud really; who'd want these people's approval? #DegenerateArmy"

Rowling's tweets, of course, invited spirited replies from Trump supporters. After one person called her tweets "deep thoughts courtesy of an emo leftist," the author replied on Wednesday morning:

"Hey, I know I can't compare to the president elect. He has the deepest thoughts. So deep you'll need a big shovel to get at 'em. Bigly deep."

SEE ALSO: 'Harry Potter' author J.K. Rowling lashes back at the 'racists' who are against a black Hermione

DON'T MISS: Trevor Noah on election night: I do not understand how America can be 'this hateful'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Michael Moore tried to warn us that Trump’s chances of winning were much better than people thought

Though "The Force Awakens" became a global money-making monster that reminded us all why we love the "Star Wars" saga, that doesn't mean its director J.J. Abrams doesn't have any regrets.

While doing the commentary for "The Force Awakens" 3D Blu-ray Collector's Edition, out November 15 (yes, another version of the movie you can buy, and just in time for the holidays), Abrams addressed a moment that fans have been puzzled by since the film's theatrical release last December: why no hug between Chewbacca and General Leia after Han's death?

Returning from the attack on Starkiller Base, the Resistance fighters are without one of their legends, Han Solo, who was killed by Kylo Ren (still a spoiler?). In a very awkward moment, Leia passes Chewbacca to hug Rey, someone she has never met before.

Abrams states in the commentary, according to i09, that the scene is one of his biggest regrets. He admits it's a distraction that Leia and Chewbacca don't embrace.

Back in March, Abrams went into greater detail about the scene for /Film:

"My thinking at the time was that Chewbacca, despite the pain he was feeling, was focused on trying to save Finn and getting him taken care of. So I tried to have Chewbacca go off with him and focus on Rey, and then have Rey find Leia and Leia find Rey. The idea being that both of them being strong with the Force and never having met, would know about each other — that Leia would have been told about her beyond what we saw onscreen and Rey of course would have learned about Leia. And that reunion would be a meeting and a reunion all in one, and a sort of commiseration of their mutual loss.

"Had Chewbacca not been where he was, you probably wouldn’t have thought of it. But because he was right there, passed by Leia, it felt almost like a slight, which was definitely not the intention."

This is not the first head-scratcher concerning Chewbacca. The Wookiee was famously snubbed at the end of "Star Wars: A New Hope" when he wasn't given a medal at the ceremony celebrating the destruction of the Death Star, though Solo and Luke Skywalker were.

Here's hoping Chewie gets more love when he returns in "Star Wars: Episode VIII" in December of 2017.  

SEE ALSO: The best and worst superhero movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, ranked according to critics

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Harry Potter' fans are skeptical about the new film — here’s why

Alec Baldwin isn't happy about Donald Trump's win on Tuesday.

The actor, who has been impersonating the real-estate mogul in the last heated months of the presidential campaign on NBC's "Saturday Night Live," offered his followers a way to cope with the aftermath of the race.

"I think the thing to focus on now is our families. To love those that were put in our lives to care for. Also our respective health, work and faith," he wrote on Twitter early on Wednesday.

He then added, "The American political system is broken. Walk away from it for a while. As Coriolanus says, 'There is a world elsewhere.'"

Earlier that morning, as it was becoming increasingly clear that Trump would capture the American presidency, Baldwin expressed his disillusionment with American voters.

"I was taught in college that Americans choose their President like they choose laundry soap, [with] a knee-jerk brand loyalty devoid of reason," he tweeted.

Baldwin had been very vocal about his opposition to Trump's presidential run. During a radio interview on WNYC on Tuesday, he said he found that his personal feelings about Trump made the impression "difficult."

"Most of the time, there’s some degree of appreciation, you embody someone you like," he said. "I don’t hate Trump, but he's not somebody I admire. So it was more difficult."

And Trump has been clear about his dislike for Baldwin's portrayal of him, having said that it "stinks."

The question now is whether Baldwin will continue to play the current president-elect on "SNL." A show spokeswoman told Business Insider that it's not commenting and the actor's agent didn't immediately respond to our request for comment. 

But in the radio interview, Baldwin was pretty clear he's ready to walk away from the role.

"I hope it’s over," the actor said. "If he wins, I imagine there could be some opportunity for that. But I want my weekends back, so I can go be with my kids."

SEE ALSO: Alec Baldwin explains the hardest thing about impersonating Donald Trump

DON'T MISS: Trevor Noah on election night: I do not understand how America can be 'this hateful'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Media rigging the election!': Trump slams SNL for mocking his debate performance