Meanwhile Apple don't need to do things like that because they ban alternative stores from a day 1. I wonder is both evil.
Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
481–490 of 495 posts
Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
#482Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have 45% phones to chose from.
That's another switch of the goal posts. Clearly, any brand with 50% or more is considered dominant.
Not at all, we are still talking about choice, and clearly the law decides how it goes, not random Apple haters on HN.
Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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." They're literally a cartel.
So if they actually said this, it's definitely anti-competitive collusion. If someone can trace that directly to pricing ... well price collusion is definitely illegal.
Look no further than the price fixing both companies engage in when it comes to mobile app distribution and mobile app payments.
Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Non-google app stores cannot automatically update aps, 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 onl…
> If Mozilla could get their shit together, they could potentially reclaim their number one spot... but Firefox lost that spot multiple times. Mozilla never had #1. And I don't know what world you live in, but Google has pushed Chrome with the equivalent of billions in advertising. There's simply no way Mozilla can compete with that considering the kind of budget they're on. If you want a fair estimate, look the time…
Netscape was the dominant browser from at least 1995 to the end of 1998. It overtook Mosaic to become #1 with Mosaic being a very, very distant #2.
At its peak it had 90+% of the market share.
Firefox nearly overtook IE until Chrome was released. If Firefox had not been consistently a dumpster fire, I think it could have maintained at least 50/50 with Chrome.
I switched to Chrome not because Google had good advertising but simply because it was _better._ Firefox has always had issues and Mozilla can't seem to make a browser that doesn't shit itself every now and then.
Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any indications that a market for rail is actually more efficient?
It's not! One of the end results is taking trains across national borders is way more annoying than it should be. That in turn I believe has lead to warped statistics on the viability of rail for long distances!
International passenger rail is a bit of a niche of the overall rail market, but if you compare north America to Europe here, Europe is doing much better.
Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here are just a few of the things you aren’t considering: * how many people worldwide keep their google places information up-to-date and not their local government office or their website. * how advertisers can get value for their search ad campaigns; how to convince them of this * how much google ad/targeting intelligence comes from off-site (eg Adsense, partner programs, xml ads) * how many websites and website ow…
Apple has all that data, if not better, on a much more valuable audience at that, and can market themselves as "privacy friendly" because only they will leverage said data and won't let anyone in on their platform, and naturally you will trust Apple. Hell they can even throw a spin on how it's about "privacy" and not about taking another way to bank on their walled garden monopoly and the Apple crowd here will gobble…
Sure. Let's say Apple users gobble it up.
Apple's shareholders won't.
They'll want to know where their 10bn (ish) USD went that Apple currently gets from Google.
Is Apple going to increase their device sales substantially because of an Apple search engine? I think everyone who is going to buy Apple has bought Apple, so I think not.
On the other hand, if Apple sells ads on Apple search, and they charge the same fees Google does, they'll still need 50bn in turnover to drop Google; Advertisers aren't going to double their marketing budget, they'll split it based on the ROI, and unless Apple ads convert as good or better than Google, this is a net loss.
Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remaking Google requires engineering talent and lots of clickstream data (ie. Hundreds of Billions of search queries and information about what search results were clicked by which users). Nobody else has this, and until they do, they won't be able to recreate Google.
Is it not like statistical certainty: i.e. you need a million or so queries to cover the range of your possible outcomes, and the hundreds of billions just takes you from 0.999999 certainty to 0.9999999999999999999? You do NOT get added benefit from big data by taking it from millions to hundreds of billions. It becomes just a lesson in scale, without bringing any added benefit of insight.
With ML methods, they do benefit from taking data from millions to billions.
You can see that yourself with Google by searching for something obscure (eg. "how to unblock a drain jammed with cat fur") and getting three friends to click the 2nd search result. Come back in a week, and suddenly the 2nd result is now the first result! (ignore the videos and answer box)
It turns out just three new data points is enough to influence ranking for that query. It even affected related queries if you change the word "jammed" for "gunked".
Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google Maps has a better data collection method (bugging their userbase to collect data for them, encouraging users to collect even more as Google Scouts) and also the dataset of Waze, while Apple has a much more laborious process where an Apple Contractor (initially in Austin or Cupertino) modifies points of interest, business hours, road alignments, etc manually. Apple started to ship this operation over to India 5…
I wish more people would realize they are literally working for Google without getting paid to do this work. If it's out of a greater sense of helping people and contributions, OpenStreetMap needs to be better known.
If the goal is just helping people, why would OpenStreetMaps be preferred over Google Maps?
I love answering questions on Maps and providing information for others (in my eyes: effectively working for them, not Google). Google Maps seems like it has a significantly larger user base, so my contributions help significantly more people.
It's very much a help-and-be-helped community, too. I can ask questions about businesses and have answers from other people in just a couple minutes. I don't imagine I'd have the same quality/speed asking questions on OSM (if they even have that feature?).
Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Mozilla could get their shit together, they could potentially reclaim their number one spot... but Firefox lost that spot multiple times. Mozilla never had #1. And I don't know what world you live in, but Google has pushed Chrome with the equivalent of billions in advertising. There's simply no way Mozilla can compete with that considering the kind of budget they're on. If you want a fair estimate, look the time…
Netscape was the dominant browser from at least 1995 to the end of 1998. It overtook Mosaic to become #1 with Mosaic being a very, very distant #2. At its peak it had 90+% of the market share. Firefox nearly overtook IE until Chrome was released. If Firefox had not been consistently a dumpster fire, I think it could have maintained at least 50/50 with Chrome. I switched to Chrome not because Google had good advertisi…
> If Firefox had not been consistently a dumpster fire, I think it could have maintained at least 50/50 with Chrome.
It took 6 years for Chrome to gain 50% market share. In 6 years, firefox had barely taken 25% from IE.
If you're arguing that this difference in success is explained by the technological gap between chrome and firefox being much larger than the technological gap between firefox and IE, you need a reality check.
Otherwise, you need to acknowledge the fact that Chrome had something firefox didn't have, and it was not a technological advantage.