Re: EU to Google.
I think there was a typo somewhere; the EU plans to fine Google ten millions Euros a day, not ten thousand. I think that's enough to make even Google pay attention.
3465 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
In the end, it's the top of the google.com page which is valuable real estate. Google's price comparison engine does profit from being able to put ads there, but that's less space for Google to put text ads.
If the price comparison engine becomes a separate entity, or possibly a separate company, and Google runs an arm's-length auction to decide who gets to put their ads there, then it looks like a textbook solution to monopolies.
It's pretty much a given that FoundEm would complain, given that it's dead and buried, and the only money they can hope for is damage settlements; they have no interest in any solution. The big question is, will the EU accept it?
Apple will be fine as long as they have an important enough percentage that they can't be ignored by most app developers and accessories makers. The fact that their customers are generally rich helps make their percentage heavier.
But it's a tricky game, and if they ever lose that, it will be near impossible to turn it around. Unlike desktops, smartphones don't command significant staying power in the workplace, so that when consumers leave, it's over.
I for one welcome this. It's all nice to have competition to determine who has the best solution, but at some point it becomes really annoying when things don't follow a single standard.
I would argue that it's better to have a single standard even if it's not actually the best one. For example, Betamax might have been superior, but it was very convenient for ten years when VHS was dominant and people could expect their tapes to work with any device they were likely to encounter.
For small companies, the cost of having to declare income in multiple jurisdictions is a nightmare. For big ones, it's a rounding error. Why not declare that the single market rule of paying tax in a single country does not apply to global corporations controlling subsidiaries in most countries? Seems to me simpler than inventing a tax on turnover.
If it makes it more difficult for mega corporations to compete with local businesses: well, that's just icing on the cake.
How is it in the society's interest to pay for incarceration of a non-violent offender for a few years, and then make the person effectively unemployable for life due to the criminal record
Same as most punishments: deter others from following his footsteps. Unfortunately, what he did is both easy, and terribly costly to society. There is a high risk that many other "activists" would find it a very "funny" way to fight the system. A bit like swatting.
So it's very important to send a clear message that doing this will absolutely ruin your life.
But, uhm, first of all: how exactly is fining Google going to change anything?
Well, they're going to have to change the way they do their business at least. In fact, they already agreed to do that, appeal or no appeal. Which indicates that the goal of the appeal is more to reduce the fine or avoid further damage lawsuits than to reverse the decision.
Second: couldn't they have seen this coming for a long time already?
People have been complaining about this for about ten years already. What took so long is that the previous competition commissioner tried to solve this without a big fine, and that took about five years. Then they had to start over from the beginning.
I'm kind of wondering what are the "14 top commercial functions of the web"?
And which one is not owned by Google? Cloud computing, owned by Amazon? Online shopping, owned by Amazon? Online payments, owned by... credit card companies? Bitcoin?
Extortion, owned by Oracle?
ratfox ... Your "perfect" usage can easily be replaced with email.
No it can't. I don't know the complete list of all my old friends who live in LA, or who might happen to be in LA next week. And I'm not about to spam the mailbox of hundreds of people who might or might not live in LA.
Contrary to email, what you write in Facebook does not demand more than one second of attention of anybody who isn't interested. It does not guarantee either that people will happen to read it, and that's totally a feature.
There are people who genuinely use Facebook as an easy way to connect with people they don't see often. They say to all their contacts: "I'll be in LA next week, send me a message if you're there and want to meet". That feels to me the perfect usage, which is genuinely useful and cannot easily be replaced by another tool.
Apart from that, I mostly see: jokes, links to articles, family pics, pictures showing how cool the user is since he's on a beach/in a bar/on a mountain, pictures of vaguely interesting sceneries (like a cloud).
There are also people who treat is as a microblogging site, and post many times a day to give their opinion on some subject.
Artists tend to post pictures of whatever they're working on, at different stages. That can be interesting.
Isn't the very definition of a think tank that it is a lobbying organisation paid to promote the views of its backers? What's so surprising that you would be fired for saying the wrong thing?
I mean, there's a reason these people are not working for universities, or calling themselves journalists, right?
Writing a messaging app is easy, they're dime-a-dozen. Popularity is recursively the best predictor of success. App makers generally copy me-too features while trying to differentiate themselves any way they can. But what are really the features that would push you to use one rather than the other for your business? Apart from reliability?
I think they're trying to sell the robots. Couldn't figure out where to put the ads, maybe.
On topic, I'm thinking Google suspend enough accounts for wrong reasons, and there are enough people criticizing them, for it to be a coincidence. That it took almost three months to reinstate the account is just an example of Google's great customer service.
That puzzled me too. I can buy that it's more efficient or has more features, but I don't see how it can be easier to use...?
EDIT: I was making the assumption that normal people just set their favorite temperature and never ever change it. I now remember that American houses typically have crap insulation, which means that heat is perpetually bleeding out of your house, and people save money by not heating whenever they're not at home.
It's very unfortunate that interoperability is often neglected, and sometimes actively sabotaged, in the hope of keeping users in walled gardens.
A typical example was Apple deliberately stopping Palm devices from accessing iTunes. After so many years, the hardware was finally compatible, so they fixed the glitch.
Nowadays, everybody's trying to be the single point of contact for everything you do, from cloud storage to music streaming. Sometimes I wonder if megacorporations will be the religions of the future, with people of the Apple church, the Alpha church, the WeChat church discouraged from socializing with each other, to prevent them from contacting unfortunate dalliances.
Yeah... The issue is that a CV sent by a black woman gets less answers than the same exact CV sent by a white male. People's judgement is tainted by the race and gender of applicants. Which is unfair, right?
That's why recruiters get unconscious bias training, and receive special instructions to check more carefully CVs sent by women and minorities. That's unequal treatment, but arguably, more fair.
Are gambling apps allowed on iPhones? I'm not sure it would make such a big difference in market share, but maybe I underestimate how many people want to gamble with real money on their phone.
Interesting that they specify not to use Google's payments platform. Looks like they are scared of legal issues. Or maybe they worry about morals. (Seriously! Google doesn't allow ads for guns either)
I think it's fine to have a few work questions during my breaks, the same way I think it's fine to answer a call from my wife while I'm working. If I really want a complete break, I'd probably hide myself in a corner or leave the building.
Ideally, your work should be judged by its output, and not by the amount of hours you spend at your desk. But if it's the latter, then doing something else at your desk enters a grey area, because it's not clear if you're working or not... Unless you are also marking down your hours in a timesheet (bleargh).
Regarding this particular case, I think the employer is allowed to say that while at work, at your desk, you shouldn't work for other companies. But using keylogging to catch trespassers goes too far, and that seems indeed what the court said was the problem.
"Leap of net neutrality from 'carriers shall not charge some content more' to 'poor people shall not get free partial Internet' = astounding".
I'm not sure it's astounding; in the very minimum, it's technically correct... I mean, the point of net neutrality rules is that you shouldn't offer a data service where your own content is privileged over other people's content, because it's an unfair competition between the two types of content, right?
That said, I think there are plenty of places that offer you free wifi, but only to look at the company's website. Does that infringe on net neutrality?
Note that the counterfeiting is illegal globally, not just in Canada.
Maybe, but France is also asking Google to remove results globally, and that's to respect the European right to be forgotten, which does not exist in the rest of the world.
Google is probably terrified of having such requests escalate to completely trivial things like lèse-majesté laws in Thailand, and that's why they're fighting every lawsuit.
Is it even necessary to be on Facebook to earn them money? I think that like Google, they have adverts on third-party sites, with profiles built by tracking your IP on third-party sites. No Facebook account needed.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the reason of Facebook's success was the data it gathers from third-party websites, rather than what they find on their own site. People might well display more honestly their tastes while surfing the web than with their curated image on a social network.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019