131–140 of 212 posts
That's not "antitrust reform". It's so narrowly drawn that it affects only maybe Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Read the definition of "covered platform". Arguably it's a bill of attainder.
That's not "antitrust reform". It's so narrowly drawn that it affects only maybe Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Read the definition of "covered platform". Arguably it's a bill of attainder.
> That's not "antitrust reform". It's so narrowly drawn Almost by definition, anti-trust law is only going to narrowly effect a few companies. If a company isn't huge already, then the whole motivation for applying anti-trust law goes away. The whole point of anti-trust law is to narrowly target only a few of the very worst offenders in a market.
For example, Apple will likely be forbidden from making a device where the selling point is that it only runs code from their own app store, but if some random Android company does the same thing by vastly modifying AOSP/their hardware to the point where it can't be rooted and can only install apps via their own store, why are they not punished? as a consumer I'm equally harmed in the same ways by both companies, the only difference is that, in the second situation, my freedom being violated is less important when 50 million other americans aren't also suffering at the hands of that company.
> (2) BUSINESS USER.—The term “business user”— > [skip a little] (B) does not include a person that— > [skip a little] > (ii) is controlled by the Government of the People's Republic of China or the government of another foreign adversary. Might want to read not only the article but the actual legislation. This is an interesting snippet that says interesting things about how Congress is looking at the broader busines…
So is this good or bad for them I wonder? The word “adversary” seems to imply that it’s antagonist but hmmm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say I make a miracle drug for people with a rare disease, patent it, and it costs $0.01 to produce, and I'll watch people die unless they pay me >$1M. Am I a monopoly since I only have a few million in revenue?
If you create such a miracle drug why on earth would we want a policy that lets people die?
But you Mozilla stood by cheering, and taking Google's money, alienating your user base and sinking money into side projects instead.
Calling for new antitrust law seems just a multi-year detour to keep the status quo when there's an enforcement and bribery problem: how was Google able to acquire DoubleClick and YouTube, and Facebook to acquire WhatsApp with Zuckerberg basically lying to most governments in the world?
So you want a law to force Firefox onto iOS, including its inferior and power hungry rendering engine? Personally I'll be returning to using Mac OS later this year (after having used iOS the last three years), specifically to get away from the crap that fscking need-to-restart-now FF, and the frustratingly stalling or regressive PC hardware and O/S landscape has become.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari on mobile has lagged behind standards for a long time, because doing so wouldn't strengthen their app business. E.g. webrtc. Safari still lags behind many things. When you call people to be careful, you are missing the conflict apple has internally. Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast
The "standards" which are mainly controlled by Google? Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast I don't call that "progress" --- perhaps progress towards a Google monopoly, if you really insist. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Change is Google's weapon. They can churn the standards all they want in order to outrun competitors because only th…
I am extremely happy when I don't have to install an app, including when video chatting (which zoom is extremely guilty of).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So because Apple takes time to add features in a secure, private and efficient way they are being accused of lagging behind standards. And you literally just described the inherent problem. Developers will move to the platform that gives it the most flexibility and features. Users follow. And we end up back in IE days with less diversity and less competition.
That's generous. Apple also ships buggy implementations despite taking more time to ship. Then taking years to fix, if ever. And rarely backporting fixes to older releases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web has been progressing too fast, and most of the things that Safari has held back on are features that developers want but users don’t, like push notifications.
> The web has been progressing too fast How many Apple engineers does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: None, they just declare darkness to be an innovative new feature. I joke, but they did recently reveal that they're adding a toggle for Dark Mode in Safari: https://www.macrumors.com/2022/03/01/safari-feature-light-da...
>A fair playing field is vital to ensure that Mozilla and other independent companies can continue to act as a counterweight to big tech You literally exist on Google revenue provided in order to prevent antitrust litigation, hardly independent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the bill text also have thresholds that need to be met (such as revenue, user quantity, etc) for you to be subject to enforcement?
Yes. The thresholds are insanely high - like 1 in 8 people use it. Literally. 50 million US MAU or 1 billion worldwide (a smaller threshold of 100k business customers). And a market cap of 550 billion dollars (which automatically adjusts with inflation).
For reference:
> adjusted for inflation on the basis of the Consumer Price Index;
Hmm... I wonder if this sort of verbiage might make much more of an impact on a hundred million working class Americans' lives if it were applied to other sections of the US Code...