71–80 of 663 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the overall well-being of a society is supposedly more important than a few shareholders' wealth?
Do you know of any societies in the world that have a high quality of life but don’t have wealthy shareholders?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you not see ChatGPT and Claude as viable alternatives to search? They've certainly replaced a fair chunk of my queries.
I do not. I prefer to read the primary sources, LLM summaries are, after all, probabilistic, and based on syntax. I'm often looking for semantics, and an LLM really really is not going to give me that.
When the stock pops 10% on the announcement you got your antitrust enforcement wrong.
> The company can make payments to preload products, but it cannot have exclusive contracts, the decision stated. How is this relevant? Apple is the one selling exclusive access to search on iPhone, not Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future. Chrome + Deals got to them to this point so that's what you unwind. If it causes Google to get weakened and AI finishes them off, that's just creative destruction at work and oh well.
The ease with which a total newcomer was able to steal share from Google is real-world evidence that there wasn't really a monopoly and that Google competitors (Bing, etc.) just sucked and didn't want to spend the money to be better.
Firefox can still get money, and maybe Apple too. The ruling says they can pay for preload, but not for exclusivity. Google also must share search data with competitors, but it's not totally clear what this is. The ruling mentions helping other engines with "long tail" queries. All in all this seems like a pretty mild ruling, and an appeal can generally only help Google from a not to bad ruling at this point.
This is an astonishing victory for Google, they must be very happy about it. They get basically everything they want (keeping it all in the tent), plus a negotiating position on search deals where they can refuse something because they can't do it now. Quite why the judge is so concerned about the rise of AI factoring in here is beyond me. It's fundamentally an anticompetitive decision.
The BBC is reporting the exact opposite of this headline. "It's also free to keep making payments to partners such as Apple, to secure placement of its browser - another closely watched and contentious part of the case." https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cg50dlj9gm4t Edit: Even the CNBC body text contradicts its own headline. The confusion seems to be what "exclusive" means. "The company can make payments to preload prod…
And the latter is going to be pretty bad for Mozilla.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you not see ChatGPT and Claude as viable alternatives to search? They've certainly replaced a fair chunk of my queries.
I do not. I prefer to read the primary sources, LLM summaries are, after all, probabilistic, and based on syntax. I'm often looking for semantics, and an LLM really really is not going to give me that.
I basically only use Google for "take me to this web page I already know exists" queries now, and maps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should shareholders have to suffer just because the Google engineers were good at their job?
Because the overall well-being of a society is supposedly more important than a few shareholders' wealth?
Not saying we should favor share price over all else, but far more than a few wealthy shareholders will be the benefactors of this.