201–210 of 495 posts
Does any of this surprise anyone? I thought the custom deals with large companies was common knowledge. So were the pack in deals with Gapps and Play store. What is the new info here?
The new info is that it is now available for legal action. The optimistic view would be that Epic is enough into it to bring more changes than Microsoft’s default browser ballot.
> After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company." ... > This unredacted graf shows that telcos get up to 25% of Google's app sales to keep them from developing rival app stores on the smartphones they sell and service. Insane reading.
The new FTC chair, Lina Khan, read this like Birdman, rubbing her hands.
Now if Google has a program to make happy its customers so that they don't leave... I wish all companies strategies were like that!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s likely the payoff is also to prevent apple from building its own search engine to compete. As googles payoff is so lucrative
Maybe, but Google Maps seems to do fine on iPhone. Google and Apple might have their own numbers on this that disagree, though.
Apple started to ship this operation over to India 5ish years ago, and their contractors over there produce much worse results as they are not hiring professional geographers with degrees like they did stateside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as…
which is basically nothing compared to google/apple of today.They are basically forcing you to use them as a middle-man for any app you want. While getting a cut from all transactions. Non-google app stores cannot automatically update aps, side-loading is hidden in menus behind scary warnings. IOS forcing you to use safari no matter what, and there is no way to side-load apps, nor any non-apple app stores. chrome de…
They can in Android 12.
> side-loading is hidden in menus behind scary warnings.
The warnings are minimal.
-- 1) Open Chrome.
-- 2) Find and Download APK. https://i.imgur.com/ZFZb1uE.png
-- 3) Accept warning and Open APK.
-- 4) Go to settings. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/R8FzTzP.png
-- 5) Toggle Install Unknown Apps for Chrome. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/K0ADO2q.png
-- 6) Click back (This only has to be done once)
-- 7) Click install. https://i.imgur.com/xVSndex.png
-- Done. https://i.imgur.com/fyasTK9.png
Once you do this for the first time, the process reduces down to 4 steps each time after: Open Chrome, Download APK, Open APK, Click Install. Done.
The ZOMG SKERRRY WARNINGS only show up once when you toggle the permission for that app and if you look at the screenshot, it's a reasonable disclaimer.
We have plenty of things to bash on Google here for... the sideloading process, however, is not one of them.
> chrome de facto sets web standards,
Chrome became the most popular browser simply because it is better.
If Mozilla could get their shit together, they could potentially reclaim their number one spot... but Firefox lost that spot multiple times. Not because of subterfuge, but because they continually drop the ball.
Chrome didn't exist in a vacuum and it didn't have the advantage of having a host operating system that had it installed from the start. There's a reason it's the primary engine now. It actually works better.
If that bothers you, use Firefox or De-Googled Chromium. Or if you really hate yourself... Safari.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as…
On a perhaps related note, I have noticed that a Google Meet that consumes just over 1Mbps on Google Chrome consistently consumes close to 4Mbps on Firefox. Same settings, same window size, same participants. I cannot help but wonder whether Chrome has implemented some standard browser feature more efficiently, or whether it has special native features just for Meets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in the entertainment industry. You're full of shit.
Lmk when you get invited to an after party with the talent in the Hollywood hills. And by talent mean 18-25 year old valley girls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Back in 2001 there weren't any real alternatives to windows - Mac OS X Public Beta (2000) - SUSE Linux 7.0 (2000) - Debian 2.2 (2000) - OpenBSD 2.7 (2000) - Solaris 8 (2000) - AmigaOS 3.9 (2000) - and so on... [0] Hardly “no alternatives” in my humble opinion. And in office space, MS-DOS was still a thing for quite some time. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_operating_systems#...
None of those had the broad software options of windows. Everyday users who wanted to complete office tasks, use the internet, and play games were locked into windows. (The 2001 ruling also took a while and was based on pre-2001 behavior by MS and likely future behavior.)
Firefox worked, as did Flash (hello NewGrounds!), Java (RuneScape), you could do a ton and be nigh invulnerable to all the malware on the internet of the early 2000s.
