71–80 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically he can't run again so he doesn't need any money for his own campaign. However, he might reward donations to his friends in the MAGA Cinematic Universe.
The past 8 years have been a nonstop stream of "he can't" and "that'll cause a civil war." I'm not sure why people are still expecting normalcy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most likely answer is that it will take the Linux model, with a foundation put together to fund Chrome's development. Then all of the parties interested in people having access to the Web, including Google, will have an incentive to fund this without requiring it to push their specific products.
Chrome currently has far more paid full time engineers than the linux kernel does. I struggle to see how they get paid - except again, by charging search engines to be the default browser or something.
This has already been discussed extensively in prior threads, but the biggest question is, how does a spun-off Chrome get funded? Chrome/Firefox/Safari all cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year to maintain. Currently, Safari and Firefox both make essentially all their revenue through default search agreements. Chrome, Edge, and now Brave are produced by companies that also own the search engines, so they're ess…
Chrome already has paid offerings - chrome enterprise and educational products. It's quite common for enterprise customers to subsidize free tiers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most likely answer is that it will take the Linux model, with a foundation put together to fund Chrome's development. Then all of the parties interested in people having access to the Web, including Google, will have an incentive to fund this without requiring it to push their specific products.
Chrome currently has far more paid full time engineers than the linux kernel does. I struggle to see how they get paid - except again, by charging search engines to be the default browser or something.
IMO more engineers = more bloat, rather than more engineers = a better product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome currently has far more paid full time engineers than the linux kernel does. I struggle to see how they get paid - except again, by charging search engines to be the default browser or something.
Chrome does a lot of things. I know there are downsides and many people don't agree, but I think overall the browser/internet experience would benefit from simpler browsers that don't move so fast.
The fact of the matter is that the web has been dying because people have moved to mobile devices, where they prefer native apps.
If you're advocating for slower development of browsers, you're also advocating for the death of the open web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome does a lot of things. I know there are downsides and many people don't agree, but I think overall the browser/internet experience would benefit from simpler browsers that don't move so fast.
IMO, Chrome does not move fast enough . The fact of the matter is that the web has been dying because people have moved to mobile devices, where they prefer native apps. If you're advocating for slower development of browsers, you're also advocating for the death of the open web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the best split would be: - All Google consumer devices and products (Pixel, Chrome, Android, Nest) - Search - Ads - YouTube Search, Ads and YouTube could all survive and prosper on their own and then the Google devices company can pursue a similar strategy to Apple, have devices pay for software.
How could search survive without ads? Charge users per search?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A company that operates a monopoly having massive advantages against competitors isn't the argument you think it is. Courts in every developed country on earth see your statement and say "That's precisely why we're breaking this company up." Every single time a monopoly forms, people say "It's not a monopoly. They're just better than the others and nobody wants the competition." They never realize that's the textbook…
So what advantages does Google have over Bing apart from simply being a better product? Microsoft is worth almost double what Google/Alphabet is, has larger desktop operating market share than Chrome has browser market share, forces Edge and Bing down their users throats leveraging their operating system yet has far less traction. Surely MS should be able to outspend and outcompete because they're bigger and a monopo…
For both search and ads, user data is what improves the quality and revenue earned. Microsoft, with its small percentage of search queries overall, doesn't have that data and could never get as good as Google in those markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure the constitution will be changed to allow Trump to remain President, one way or the other way.
The US constitution would allow him to "run" ( usually it's coast ) as Vice President to the next POTUS .. and that would also allow him one day less than two years as POTUS should the VP be required to take over for the sitting President. Realistically Trump most likely lacks any interest once his various and sundry pending felony and other charges have been quashed or voided by immunity grants, etc.
Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6QLO7wXLKk
This has already been discussed extensively in prior threads, but the biggest question is, how does a spun-off Chrome get funded? Chrome/Firefox/Safari all cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year to maintain. Currently, Safari and Firefox both make essentially all their revenue through default search agreements. Chrome, Edge, and now Brave are produced by companies that also own the search engines, so they're ess…