The ironic part is that the real "gatekeepers of the internet" are the cable companies, but they can't take advantage of it.
What technological innovations have the cable companies led in the past 20 years to avoid becoming commodities?
The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
111–118 of 118 posts
Re: The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder, did you read the scientific papers linked? Apple are just the new peacocks - there is much historical evidence of sexual signalling in consumption markets, and I urge you to read the papers linked: you may well learn something from them, and either your opinion of MacBooks will change, or it may even become stronger, for the understanding therein..
I wonder as well if you read the papers too? you may learn something from them as well. "We investigate the idea that women’s flaunting of designer products functions as a signaling system directed at same-sex rivals who pose a threat to a woman’s relationship. We hypothesize that some women use pricey possessions to signal to other women that their romantic partner is especially devoted to them. In turn, flaunting d…
Yes, I did read the papers, with great interest.
And the point is: It doesn't seem to fit Apple any more, by your reckoning.
But it did at some stage. You don't get to mass-market acceptance without a phase where you dominate the signalling markets. Those middle-class students with MacBooks' are the norm today - but there was a phase where it wasn't so, in Apples' history. Don't overlook that transition.
Re: The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
#113The ironic part is that the real "gatekeepers of the internet" are the cable companies, but they can't take advantage of it.
What technological innovations have the cable companies led in the past 20 years to avoid becoming commodities?
What improvements has Facebook made over Myspace? And do these justify the billions in valuation?
Re: The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
#114Fun experiment to try out on your computer and experience the gradual death of the internet: block all domains and subdomains from Google and Facebook in your `/etc/hosts` file, and see how many other websites fail to function. I've had this enabled for 6 months and I've seen websites stopped working as they should, e.g.: - I couldn't reset my password in Twitch, it required (for some reason) access to both Facebook…
Analyzing how websites work without Google or Facebook given that they were designed with the availability of those in mind is pointless. To truly see what it would be like without Google or Facebook we'd have to test how websites work without Google or Facebook given that they were designed without the availability of those in mind. The saying "if things were different, things would be different" comes to mind.
It's not about how websites depend on Google or Facebook being available. It's about the leverage Google and Facebook gain over you through data collection once they are nearly omnipresent on the web, and the growing inability of opting-out from those two tech giants without crippling your basic web experience.
Re: The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid employees and not slaves. This distinction is not terribly meaningful especially for bronze age manual laborers. One could argue that slavery might have been better than getting paid for this kind of work. A slave is at least a nominal investment. A worker is infinitely replaceable.
Huh... can't say I ever anticipated running into someone who would seriously put forward the claim that slavery might be better than voluntarily working for pay...
Don't take it out of context, OP is saying that at one point in time in a particular place, slavery may have possibly been more "secure" or reliable as far as having food, water, and shelter.
This is in no way excusing or apologizing for slavery or saying eh, it wasn't so bad.
Re: The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
#116I honestly find it very easy to not use any of their services. They all have quality competitors.
I'm overlooking the easy "It's easy for me so it's easy for everyone" because I'm interested what phone you use?
You can use an Android phone without a Google account or any Google apps.
You can even install an open-source replacement for the core Play Services Framework that many non-Google apps seem to require.
Re: The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid employees and not slaves. This distinction is not terribly meaningful especially for bronze age manual laborers. One could argue that slavery might have been better than getting paid for this kind of work. A slave is at least a nominal investment. A worker is infinitely replaceable.
Huh... can't say I ever anticipated running into someone who would seriously put forward the claim that slavery might be better than voluntarily working for pay...
Slavery, which is to turn people into personal property, is an abomination. Even the ancients described slavery as "unnatural". In certain situations, however, it might be preferable. You don't deliberately leave your bike out in the rain. But you would if your bike was responsible for keeping itself out of the rain.
Re: The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment is talking about paid monthly services as YouTube Red vs Netflix. Sure Google has the worlds most popular (mostly free) video site, monetized by advertising, but it can't seem to beat Netflix at paid subscriptions. It hasn't been able to beat Facebook at social networking either. Keep in mind that YouTube was a purchase for Google, as was Instagram for Facebook. Both probably very important for them long…
I'm loving Google Play Music, although the branding really sucks.
Sure, they have clients, but it's far from being a huge hit (contrary to, for example, Spotify).
The amount of people using it are extremely small, which is doubly bad when you consider it's almost-out-of-the-box on Android phones, which are so popular.