181–190 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has nothing to do with you being on a corp network. I've gotten that on my personal computer
Then how do they choose who to flip the switch on for it? Purely fingerprinting of searches completely at random with no direction?
Breaking down Google is not gonna work. I guess that the simplest solution is to forbid Google from being in the ad exchange business. Take down AdX and most of the monopolizing effects they have on the ecosystem would be dampened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it would be a competitive thing. In chess capturing your opponents pieces to weaken them is a valid strategy you will see in any tournament. Capturing Netflix's marketshare by offering a cheaper alternative is competitive. Putting your enemy in disadvantaged positions is just part of the game.
I don't understand how your analogy is even remotely relevant. In chess, both sides can make the exact same moves. Neither side can change the rules. Neither side can impose any extra costs on the other side in an asymmetric way. It's a classic example of a level playing field, and it's the exact opposite of the asymmetric roles that Apple and Netflix play on the iOS platform. The only way in which your analogy could…
That is an option for Netflix. If they made their own platform they could offer a more competitive price.
Apple was created in 1996. Netflix was made in 1997. Maybe a good strategy of having a dominant streaming platform in 202x would have been to launch a mobile platform. Netflix had the same chance as Apple to take that path, but they didn't. Apple can now capitalize on good moves that it made in the past. In chess you can't just recognize that you are in a bad position and then ask a tournament organizer if you can be reset into an equal position again. Either you continue playing that bad position, or you resign.
>But it's neither possible nor desirable for every app maker to create their own OS and perhaps even their own hardware.
If you have no choice but to charge more than your competitors and you can't justify the extra cost with extra features or whatever and people stop using your service and you go bankrupt then you have lost the game.
>The definition of "competitive" you seem to be using here is not useful.
It seems useful to me. It's the basis of what makes this game interesting.
What incentive is there for states to sue over monopolies? Is it simply to advocate for their constituencies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then how do they choose who to flip the switch on for it? Purely fingerprinting of searches completely at random with no direction?
I don't know how it's decided but yeah pretty sure it's just based on searches and randomness. Someone searching for programming terms related to openings and willing to answer the questions is likely to be a good candidate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Not a Google engineer) Google's engineers are notoriously loose-lipped (which is a good thing!!!). There's no way they would be able to keep a secret like this. Anytime a customer's private data gets accessed, you either a) need approval by someone or b) "break the glass", which is only reserved for oncall fires. Either way, it gets audited. The only way I would believe something like this is if an executive/higher…
You can perform these analyses with 'anonymized' data to both observe the broad trends across a huge dataset, and still claim you haven't invaded privacy. With the scale of surveillance data available to Google, this is how they have their cake and eat it too. Once you know that note-taking apps (e.g.) are a hugely growing space, it's easy to use publicly available data to find the startups making a splash. Not once…
As more data comes out about Google, Apple, Amazon, one simple underlying thing becomes clear: a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant . Apple's App Store insider knowledge lets them discover popular apps, then boot them off the platform when they decide to compete. Amazon sees what products are successful and profitable, then makes knock-offs which they promote over…
Does this only go for internet companies? Or do you think it applies to Walmart selling its own Equate brand of everything or Costco selling its own Kirkland brand of everything?
Still waiting for investigators to look into Chrome. In 2009 we were finally getting rid of IE and the web browser market was a healthy ecosystem with lots and lots of innovation happening. Today we are soon back on a browser monoculture with the owner of the most popular product being a company that has enormous interest in killing certain parts of the ecosystem and also has a long history of killing of their own pr…
Safari/WebKit on iOS is a far worse offender. Part of the reason you can't escape the app store tax is because WebKit intentionally gimps webapps. Even Microsoft wasn't this dirty with IE, you could always install other browsers.
I'll listen
- when Safari has anyone near the marketshare across all mobile devices as Chrome has on desktop and mobile.
- Apple has spent billions on promoting it
- has intentionally gimped several top ten web properties for other browsers
until then this is a problem for iOS users, including me, not an internet problem.
I get it, Safari is annoying, but lets not compare Apple fleecing their own users (including me) with Google trying to finish off what Microsoft failed to: to kill the open web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Not a Google engineer) Google's engineers are notoriously loose-lipped (which is a good thing!!!). There's no way they would be able to keep a secret like this. Anytime a customer's private data gets accessed, you either a) need approval by someone or b) "break the glass", which is only reserved for oncall fires. Either way, it gets audited. The only way I would believe something like this is if an executive/higher…
How does Google respond to secret FISA orders which by law cannot be audited or known by anyone but the direct receiver and one pre-screened attorney?
Still waiting for investigators to look into Chrome. In 2009 we were finally getting rid of IE and the web browser market was a healthy ecosystem with lots and lots of innovation happening. Today we are soon back on a browser monoculture with the owner of the most popular product being a company that has enormous interest in killing certain parts of the ecosystem and also has a long history of killing of their own pr…
Safari/WebKit on iOS is a far worse offender. Part of the reason you can't escape the app store tax is because WebKit intentionally gimps webapps. Even Microsoft wasn't this dirty with IE, you could always install other browsers.