601–610 of 761 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Because they can collect more data with a native app. A native app is far better from their perspective, but not from the user's, unless it is something computationally bound that can't handle overhead (mostly games?). The last exception is banking apps. They do a lot of weird stuff to fingerprint your phone too, but in this case the user definitely wants them to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to support competition instead. You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. However, virtually every other piece of regulation does the opposite. Regulation usually gets trotted out after the downside of doing [new innovation] is experienced. This always happens…
"before we've even had a chance to experience both the upside and downside, so the innovation never happens at all." ---- Let me laugh out loud. Those, who govern these companies know 10 years ahead how and what will happen. Bigdiks higher up has 10-20 year plans. And people talk about "before we had a chance to experience the upsides and the downsides". Get a grip on reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play devils advocate - it costs money to integrate with all the competing map providers and to display them properly on the site. You could think of a plug in approach where map providers integrate themselves, still someone needs to maintain that plug in infra. Nothing is free. And it’s the same story for any kind of service that’s subject to DMA.
Google does a million things that cost money, every day. But this particular thing costing money is a problem. How about no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting limitations on technology is really stupid from a defense point of view.
In Europe we don't have anough capacity for ammo production. Lack of AI chips is the least of our security problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See, this is the problem with just deciding to invent your own facts. There is a famous study on this topic, usually presented in much the way you describe. But usually people are more careful not to lie about the results. The rate of women being hired went down , not up. The "success" for women was contained to advancement through particular audition rounds. https://archive.is/xmvp2 The original paper is not exactly…
Are you citing a weird racist blogger on medium that disagrees with the stated conclusion of the paper? Is that how science works now? Abstract from the original paper: > A change in the audition procedures of symphony orchestras--adoption of "blind" auditions with a "screen" to conceal the candidate's identity from the jury--provides a test for sex-biased hiring. Using data from actual auditions, in an individual fi…
The whole point is that the paper doesn't actually support any of the claims, which it's fairly open about -- that's those "large standard errors".
They did not in fact find that the screen increases the probability of a woman being hired. They found that it increased the probability of a woman passing the final round of auditions. There's more than one round.
It's up to you, I guess, whether you want to follow the original authors to their conclusion that the semifinal round is fundamentally unlike the final and quarterfinal audition rounds. I wouldn't.
The paper is meritless, but even it's actual worthless findings aren't in the direction that people like to claim. Here's Andrew Gelman: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/05/11/did-blind-...
> First, some equivocal results:
> This is not very impressive at all. Some fine words but the punchline seems to be that the data are too noisy to form any strong conclusions.
> Huh? Nothing’s statistically significant but the estimates “show that the existence of any blind round makes a difference”? I might well be missing something here. In any case, you shouldn’t be running around making a big deal about point estimates when the standard errors are so large. I don’t hold it against the authors—this was 2000, after all, the stone age in our understanding of statistical errors. But from a modern perspective we can see the problem.
> Anyway, where’s the damn “50 percent” and the “increases by severalfold”? I can’t find it. It’s gotta be somewhere in that paper, I just can’t figure out where.
> Pallesen’s objections are strongly stated but they’re not new. Indeed, the authors of the original paper were pretty clear about its limitations. The evidence was all in plain sight.
> For example, here’s a careful take posted by BS King in 2017:
>> Okay, so first up, the most often reported findings: blind auditions appear to account for about 25% of the increase in women in major orchestras. . . . [But] One of the more interesting findings of the study that I have not often seen reported: overall, women did worse in the blinded auditions. . . .
If you read the paper, you'd notice the problems.
But you might not want to run the risk of, um, "racism" that seems to be inherent in reading a paper on the impact of blind auditions on women.
Then I started thinking of this through the lens of B2B SaaS software I use in small business every day. The outside of the box makes promises. Sales reps make promises. Demos abound. Contracts are signed. Setup fees are paid. Setup manhours are invested. And then you start using these services and products. Support issues go unresolved--not supported at this time--and go on the 'wish list' void. What you thought of as a solution to your business needs turns to questions of sunk cost. Total frustration resulting from the obviously profit seeking economizing decisions not described on the box--devil is in the details. Who is the more naive? Businesses for having purchased these products or the companies who develop and market them as industry solutions (vs. just another product with hidden cost-benefit determinations)?
Now think of the B2C environment the article is talking about where there are known deceptive practices working to profit on user's personal privacy. I have to laugh. Seems fitting to read about naive regulation against the decisions of manufacturers and developers making abhorrent conditions in the consumer market. I see the same frustrated naive decisions of business owners trying to get out of contracts for bad products and services they have chosen.
The EU is free to pass laws preventing gatekeepers and insisting on interoperability requirements and Apple is free to refuse to do that and not offer their non-competitive gatekeeping products in the EU. There's zero reason to think that this will mean the EU won't have a tech market. It just won't have one that includes Apple products which refuse to follow the law. Seems like a massive win for the EU, and because…
> The EU is free to pass laws preventing gatekeepers and insisting on interoperability requirements and Apple is free to refuse to do that and not offer their non-competitive gatekeeping products in the EU. Apple is also free to lobby the US government and people to take action against the EU. Especially if Trump gets elected, Apple complaining about Europe taking advantage of American companies would resonate with a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The EU is free to pass laws preventing gatekeepers and insisting on interoperability requirements and Apple is free to refuse to do that and not offer their non-competitive gatekeeping products in the EU. Apple is also free to lobby the US government and people to take action against the EU. Especially if Trump gets elected, Apple complaining about Europe taking advantage of American companies would resonate with a…
Eu has lots of leverage too against US. Lobbying for actions against eu may have absolutely bad consequences and it's totally bonkers to think/prise that an us company has this much power proving once again that maybe it's a good think eu doesn't have such big corpos
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The price looks reasonable to me after looking at the average revenue per user. https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-average...
I don't think reasonable prices are based on what the potential maximum profit per user is. Normally it's based on the expense per user plus a percentage for profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought my comment was clear, I will attempt to be more explicit: I am of the opinion that Apple’s profits are excessive, regardless of the consumer value delivered. I respect that others may have opposing views that profits should have no limits as long as value is delivered.
Well if EU politicians think Apple's profits are excessive what about introducing laws to foster some competition? You can complain about other countries running circles around you all you want but at the end of the day if you can't make a phone, piece of software or a CPU you will be at the mercy of those who can. The way to reduce "excessive profits" is to make it easier to start businesses which could provide the…
It is easy to forget that the economic system of fiat and capital is a shared delusion, agreed upon rules that can change when needed. The intent is to encourage outcomes, not to be the primary function.