281–290 of 348 posts
Basically, all the major players in the tech space are going to make major transformations to their internal services over the next 5 years. YouTube as you know it today is not going to be here 5 years from now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the rest of us don't.
"ought to be enough for anybody" If things stay the same as ever, this life will have been boring. I'm not cut out for another twenty years of smartphone incrementalism. Fuck the status quo. I don't live for "same". Everything in the world as it exists isn't enough. The future could be the most exciting thing if we dream and build it.
You're imagining inventing a car and feeling the wind in your hair on the open road, others are imagining being stuck in traffic and cities becoming more and more dominated by parking lots. You're criticizing them for a lack of vision, but that's not correct; they're peering into the same future, and seeing something different.
That doesn't make them "antiprogress," they're critics with concerns that would be worth engaging with instead of dismissing. If you care about this project and you want to make the best version of it - ask them why they think that way instead of responding to the version of their concerns which is in your head, and then give some thought to how you could address it.
(I'm ambivalent leaning towards skeptical, so not much much of a dog in the race, trying to bridge a miscommunication.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to keep ignoring, though, that Microsoft lost :/. Like: Microsoft was charged, the case was heard, and Microsoft lost. The judge even ruled that Microsoft be broke into two companies! So, no: you are just wasting everyone's time here by insisting something that is 100% absolutely incorrect. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/m... FWIW, the reason you might be a bit confused--though I…
And this still has no bearings on the original thing claimed that Microsoft was found to be anti competitive for bundling IE . Not bundling IE was never part of the consent decree. No one ever said there was going to have to be a separate “IE company Inc”. Job first came back to prominence with the iMac, then really took off because of the iPod. Microsoft didn’t fail in the music player market for lack of trying, the…
Aka the use of private Windows API’s by IE was explicitly banned in the decent decree.
The initial case which MS lost would have resulted in splitting the company, on appeal and by the time of the new trial (which they also lost) the government changed its mind into no longer seeking to break up the company. But that was on the government not a legal victory by Microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this still has no bearings on the original thing claimed that Microsoft was found to be anti competitive for bundling IE . Not bundling IE was never part of the consent decree. No one ever said there was going to have to be a separate “IE company Inc”. Job first came back to prominence with the iMac, then really took off because of the iPod. Microsoft didn’t fail in the music player market for lack of trying, the…
The degree of bundling was part of the decent degree, including IE with windows was not. Aka the use of private Windows API’s by IE was explicitly banned in the decent decree. The initial case which MS lost would have resulted in splitting the company, on appeal and by the time of the new trial (which they also lost) the government changed its mind into no longer seeking to break up the company. But that was on the g…
> However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor did it prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And so the creators don't get paid when you watch their content. I pay for YouTube Premium. Creators get paid and I don't watch ads. We have a family plan so this applies to the whole family. We spend way more time watching YouTube than Netflix but pay for both.
> And so the creators don't get paid when you watch their content. Let's be honest here -- creators aren't really getting paid any meaningful amount of money from those ads anymore. Those days are long gone. That's why all YouTubers who care about revenue do their own ads as part of their own content, and/or use things like Patreon. There's only one reason why YouTubers even bother to allow YouTube to "monetize" them…
I respect the Economist’s business columnist (Schumpeter) and tech columnist (Babbage) but this seems to be a case of Schumpeter writing about tech. Leaving aside HN loving the idea of Big Tech being weakened by becoming Relatively Small Tech, I don’t see how this is in Alphabet’s or YouTube’s interest. The article assumes that such a divorce would be simple and it would allow YouTube to focus on taking on TikTok. It…
Shumpeter and Babbage are the last names of famous people in fields related to the columns topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nearly all of them shill some product in there video. They get paid.
Do you want to encourage this behaviour versus those who merely rely on what YouTube pays them?
I don't really know why. But if I turn off ad blocking, YouTube's own ads are way more obnoxious and intrusive. Maybe it's because every advertiser has figured out they need to cram as much shit into a 5-second segment? Or maybe it is because seeing an ad at the very beginning is much more psychologically disruptive (or if the YT ad is in the middle, it is usually inserted without any regard to the video, even breaking up sentences).