Ha ha no
Employee activism might be a thing at Google and Facebook, but Amazon (or say Apple) are not that kind of companies.
3461 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
According to reports, Google pays nine billion dollars to Apple, every year, just to be the default search engine on iPhones. If that is true, then a one-time fine for half that amount for whatever they did wrong with Android seems like something they would take in stride.
I suspect that it would be very easy for regulators to do nothing. There's a billion Android phones in China that don't have Google, and it wouldn't take that much time to build replacements. Of course, users would complain and companies would lose money, but they would all blame Google. And then Google would lose the market.
Google apps are good; they're often the best. But the competition does exist, and is ready to take over if they stumble.
All these "TNC" trips would still be happening if the TNCs didn't exist. Except now, they would be in private cars or taxis.
Not quite... These trips are arguably easier to do now, and more attractive than in a taxi. Logic of supply and demand implies that people do more trips than before.
And I don't agree with the idea that mass transportation in San Francisco is that bad.
Depends what you compare it to, but it's getting worse. The whole region should be trying to solve the traffic problem, but by and large nothing is happening.
The problem is that this kind of modularity goes directly against consumers' luxury wishes for sleeker designs/no bezels/watertight. It's like asking Ferrari cars to have a trailer hook.
That said, there's a lot of Android models with expandable storage.
This would be madness, as it's highly likely to exclude all other road users (motorcycles, bikes, horses, pedestrians, non-self driving cars, etc)
A lot of those are already forbidden on highways, so I'm not sure that's a great argument.
So aircraft regularly fly within a few feet of each other going in opposite directions do they or are in situations where literally being a few inches out could cause a crash?
You have to take into account the fact that aircrafts go ten times faster and can be fifty times larger.
If only it was easy to know what's legal and what's not legal. It looks like they specifically tried to make the law immune to lawsuits from the federal government, but I suppose the Department of Justice wouldn't start such a lawsuit if they thought they have no way to win.
I find terribly annoying that it takes months if not years of legal posturing and appeals to get answers.
Equality is primarily about opportunity.
Yes... But I'm going to follow attentively the case, because I think it's a bit tricky.
The law probably says that you cannot discriminate by gender at hiring, but I'm not sure this extends to how to spend ad dollars.
It's a fact that for multiple reasons, from social pressure to harassment, there are far fewer women looking for IT jobs than men. It doesn't need to be so, and it may well change in the future, but at this moment, it is so. Which means that advertising to women has a smaller ROI (and marketing is all about optimizing the ROI).
To make a comparison, it's probably illegal to discriminate by origin when hiring. That doesn't mean that when putting an ad for a job in the local newspaper, you need to also place an ad in every local newspaper in the country, even the most remote, just in case there's someone there who would want to move.
being a member of the EU does not stop the UK permitting immigration from the Commonwealth, or anywhere else, on whatever terms the UK wants.
They might be thinking of Schengen, which UK has never been part of, but which does have the feature that employers should prefer any Schengen resident to any non-Schengen resident.
I don't know what common agreements currently exist between the UK and Schengen, but maybe they do contain such a clause.
IBM, meanwhile, denies the charges it is discriminating against older employees. Rather, it claims the moves are the result of shifting its focus from legacy tech to emerging fields.
I guess the problem when you want to hire emerging fields is that you have to fire a few legacy technologies first.
Amazon should be able to do this easily, since they famously already consider every branch of the company as a different independent business decoupled from the rest.
I'm not sure that it would help Amazon on the competition side, though, considering the online store business is generating by itself all the regulatory interest. Maybe the advantage is that it would isolate AWS from the regulations affecting the online store?
From the point of view of Elon Musk, the survival of humanity and its eventual escape from the solar system is more important than the ecological system of a planet which will anyway be burnt to a crisp sooner or later when it is engulfed by the sun.
It's a very long-term thing, but when you think of it, it's absolutely factual and there's nothing theoretical about it.
So what exactly is the alleged effect/benefit of the delisting?
It's not always the person you think that requested the story to be delisted for their name. Sometimes, it has been people who just commented on the article.
That said, it could be that people were not thorough when they did their request; if I understand correctly, they need to list every single url that they want removed, so they might have forgotten a few or dismissed them as not worth the trouble.
Actually, it's easy. The influence countries can exert on Google depends on their ability to fine Google. If Google makes a ton of money in a country, and has offices there, the country has leverage. A country might also be able, to some extent, to prevent Google from making money there even if they have no office, by blocking ads or taxing to death contracts with foreign ad services. Vatican has no office, and Google makes hardly any money there, so no problem.
As long as the countries where Google does most of its money agree on what search results are acceptable or not, Google will just do whatever they all want. If these countries start to disagree, it might well be that at some point, Google will decide by themselves to separate into multiple smaller companies by countries of influence, so that each company can follow the local rules without being sued by other countries. If I remember correctly, Yahoo Japan is already powered by Google, so they could build on that model to avoid issues with inconsistent laws across countries.
What makes Sheryl Sandberg qualified to be President? She's COO of Facebook?
To reiterate the point above, the current President has made it abundantly clear that no qualifications are required to be President.
That said, it seems various executives have run for President recently without having ever held office. They generally fail: The last one who actually managed it was Eisenhower, and before that, Hoover. Except, again, the current one.
Larry Page is really not a great talker. Didn't he already show up in front of Congress, and could hardly answer any question? Zuck was about the same, and in fact he didn't come this time either – Not sure why the Senators were fine with that.
It all gives me the feeling that the politicians are more interested in ordering around people more famous than them than in having any meaningful discussion.
I don't think the article is particularly taking sides for either Facebook or Blackberry.
That said, I generally oppose software patents. If you want to know why, I believe the entire point of the patent system was to foster innovation; and that rewarding inventors was only ever a means to that end. These days, I feel that innovation is plentiful and cutthroat, and that software patents are generally hurting that innovation rather than fostering it. Therefore, I would suggest we get rid of them.
I think you are mistaken about this being Google's "fault". This is less about being Google's fault, than forcing Google to do something they don't want to do.
This is like you wanting your neighbour to cut down his tree that is encroaching on your garden. First, you ask the neighbour directly (like ABC probably asked Google through a RTBF request), and when they say no, you call your lawyer, get in front of the court, and try to force them to cut down the tree.
Your neighbour did not break the law, and neither did Google; but both can still be targeted by a lawsuit.
They used to take 30% everywhere, but they have recently reduced it to 15% or 5%... Except for games: Announcement here.
This probably reflects how desperate Microsoft is to attract developers. As to why the article did not mention it, I can only assume they thought it was irrelevant.
Seeing as Google is blocked out, there should be a lot more competition between app stores. How many are there? What percentage do they take?
I heard there's more malware in China, which might be a reason for the rise of super-apps like WeChat: the app becomes the app store.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019