761–770 of 888 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, the government should absolutely consider how much app devs would lose out on before they decide on how to carve up google.
We would gain a lot from an independent Chrome and app store that needs and respect devs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s revenue not profits. Majority goes to app devs. Profits are all that matter
This is a naive take. Companies want their book-profit to be as close to zero, because they make their income tax to the IRS close to 0. Most companies intentionally waste money on expenses to help drive future growth, or atleast avoid taxes. This is why you hear constantly Amazon pays almost no taxes compared to their revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capital markets don't perfectly account for all positive and negative externalities in the world, not even close. For example think of a company that invents a miracle drug that only costs $1 to produce. The net benefit to humanity would be to open up production and sell it to everyone who needs it for a few bucks, but of course the company will do everything it can to maintain a monopoly and sell the drug for $X0000…
> sell the drug for $X0000/dose, even if relatively few people can obtain it A rational company would lower the price if that broadened the market and netted more profit by volume. Drugs aren't Veblen goods. The impetus for jacking up drug prices is that the market is captive, and those who need the drug will obtain it. That and insurance/government is often the payor.
It's the same reason SAAS took off so much. If you sell the product and consumers are (relatively) happy, now what? They might come back and buy another version in 5-10 years, but how do you generate enough cash flow between now and then to stay afloat?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A) Do you pay them? - No: then yes it is free And here we see the ostrich. When faced with the horrors of reality, sticks its head in the sand. It’s simpler in there.
If I build a movie theater and give away the tickets knowing that I can make money on ads before a movie that does not mean that 5 minutes of your eyesight is now worth something
It literally means exactly that, because you're deriving some real value (money) from 5 minutes of your eyesight. So therefore it has value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After having been a paid subscriber for a number of months, I have to say that it still wasn't cutting it. I still ended up falling back to google all the time. Plus, https://d-shoot.net/kagi.html
I can understand your point. The links points however are a bit ridiculous, they're entitled to their opinion but may be surprised to find people, at the businesses they use, have opinions that differ to theirs, and these businesses aren't always well-oiled machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>The US government has been working solely for their donors for the last 40+ years. Any benefit the voters get from lawmaking is coincidental. >That thought may be comforting, but no. Why would that be comforting?
Not sure. The US Government has accrued a couple hundred years of unbroken political agitprop directed at it. From my observations, many people are comforted when anything tends to validate it, and otherwise ambivalent or oblivious to anything else. Underlying that is legal information that is inaccessible for most; the only books you can't check out of a library, a multitude of websites that never quite work. Newsta…
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...
Sorry for the Vox link, that's what came up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Google the company is an advertising company, regardless of what they use to spread those adverts. Weird to say it's not.
It's very clear GP was talking about Google the search engine (as in, google.com) in their post. > I get why 90% of people use google. I'm no google fan, but it still baffles me how bad the alternatives still are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A) Do you pay them? - No: then yes it is free And here we see the ostrich. When faced with the horrors of reality, sticks its head in the sand. It’s simpler in there.
If I build a movie theater and give away the tickets knowing that I can make money on ads before a movie that does not mean that 5 minutes of your eyesight is now worth something
You, the theater owner, are selling the time people are sitting in your theater in view of a large screen to advertisers. That time is literally worth something.
If there were no people in the theater, the advertisers wouldn’t pay for the time.
You just really don’t understand how advertising works.
You’re effectively saying something like “just because people would pay for something, doesn’t mean it has any value”
I have to believe that you’re an extremely skilled troll, because otherwise idk what’s going on in your head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people think it's common sense, but plenty of them disagree on what that common sense approach actually is.
I think it should be common sense that both Google and Apple should be treated equally on this issue, regardless of what you think about the actual issue. Instead, we have two virtually identical cases, and they were decided in completely opposite fashions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'd love to see is regulation forcing companies to provide reasonably priced ad-free options. There should be a right to opt out of ads.
Competition should solve this. The government’s role is to cultivate competitive markets, not to get bogged down in implementation details.
Of course, consumers cannot possibly estimate the cost of ads. They can't tell how much of the stuff they buy is because they're influenced, or how many years of life they throw away by watching ads in the long run. Ads could be costing them 1 dollar a year, or maybe 1,000. But they don't know, and they sure as hell won't be paying 5 bucks for a product if there's a "free" ad version.