Wow. So you view corporate employees like serfs bound to the land, not allowed to seek better opportunities for themselves? That’s kind of… dark.
353 karma · joined December 18, 2023
To a USAian, “European Brand” means something from Germany or Scandinavia. If you mean a Ferrari or Lamborghini, you say that name.
And yet he did not sue Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft. Each of whom represent a much larger share Epic's revenue than Apple or Google.
And he admitted in court that he was willing to throw all other developers under the bus if Apple had given him the discount he wanted for Epic.
On the contrary, Apple does pay the money... to the artists. Which is something that Spotify doesn't do as much.
https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a...
Strangely, despite this rather obvious market power (monopsony) that Spotify has in negotiating below-market rates with their suppliers, the EC has not seen fit to label them as a "gatekeeper".
I'm sure it has nothing whatever to do with having their headquarters in Sweden.
Because they haven't sued them in the US nor lobbied the EC to label game console manufacturers as "gatekeepers".
TANSTAAFL. User experience costs money. Privacy costs money. Not serving ads is an opportunity cost for more money.
Take away the app store royalties, and the obvious path forward for Apple is to compromise on the other legs of the stool.
Linux will never have the UX of macOS simply because a lot of what makes macOS great is boring and tedious work, and nobody does that for free.
That’s a lie, and you know it.
Spotify is not a “gatekeeper” according to the DMA. Why? Because there is a specific carve out for streaming businesses. German newspapers do not have to comply with the GDPR. Why? Again, because there is a specific carve out for newspapers.
These laws are specifically written so that they only apply to businesses that by an unbelievably amazing series of coincidences just happen to be those not based in the EU.
Also known as a shakedown.
There are some nuances and I'm not a lawyer, but the gist of it is that three ways to trigger the IP to attach to your employer:
1. You do it on-prem or during work hours (but work hours are flexible for salaried employees)
2. You do it using company equipment (say, company laptop at home)
3. It's reasonably related to what you or other people do at your day job
If none of those apply, then you own it. That's relevant to the discussion at hand because, at least in California, you could work from home for two companies with unrelated businesses and not break any rules.
$15k would buy you a base-trim 2005 Corolla with an automatic or one level up with a manual.
In 2025, you can buy the LE or SE trim Corolla for under $25k, either of which are vastly better cars than the 2005 in any dimension you wish to measure. Safety, technology, comfort, performance. All improved.
Isn't bot/DDoS protection a very obvious reason for Cloudfare to do it?
Any normal user agent will make a DNS request shortly before requesting a page from that domain. A normal user agent will also request the page from the IP returned by the DNS server.
Attempting to connect to a server IP hosted by Cloudfare from a client IP that has not recently received that server IP in a DNS response seems like an obvious signal for their bot/DDoS mitigation system.
When was the last time you heard Sweeney admit they target dark patterns at children?
Happy to help! It's because some of us are Apple's customers, not Apple's suppliers, contractors or "vendor partners".
We customers like that Apple plays hardball with the people who would otherwise try to fuck us over. Remember that dev a few weeks ago who was giving examples of the "ways that Apple's IAP sucks"? Most of the things he wanted to do were dark patterns that are bad for customers.
If devs have to raise their prices by 15%, so be it. I would much rather that one company has my PII than fifty, anyway.
So the easy solution is just to pay a lot and threaten to fire (and possibly blacklist) anyone who no-shows. Since the pay is much higher than they can get elsewhere, the people are much more likely to show up.
The high pay probably also helped find people who would tolerate the extremely intrusive practices of Ford's "morality police" (my term), who would inspect worker's homes to ensure they were living "the right way".
It's a bit more nuanced than that. The court held that company directors have to be acting for the benefit of shareholders. They still have wide latitude about how to do that.
The reason Ford lost is because his legal position was essentially "I am king, therefore I can do whatever I want". But you can't do whatever you want. You can't lock the workers in the factory and burn it down with them inside, for example. You need to have some kind of colorable argument that what you are doing is somehow in the interest of shareholders (either long or short term).
The problem for Ford was that he couldn't articulate any reason for how his actions were beneficial to shareholders (probably because the real reason, killing the Dodge Brothers Company, would have been illegal under the antitrust laws of the time).
The Dodge brothers were major investors in Ford Motor Company, and thus entitled to a large share of dividends. Henry Ford tried to bankrupt the Dodge Motor Company by avoiding to pay FoMoCo dividends and thus starve his competitor of cash. The fact that the mechanism Ford used to make his own company unprofitable (and thus avoid paying dividends) also benefited the workers is just coincidence.
In fact the reason we have the modern precedent "companies must operate for the benefit of shareholders" is precisely because Henry Ford's defense in Dodge v. Ford was "I can do this because I want to and I am king". If he had argued "paying workers more makes them happier and thus makes Ford more profitable in the long term", Ford probably would have won that lawsuit. He didn't make that argument because it just wasn't on his radar: His goal was screwing Dodge.
Waiwaiwait. Hold the phone.
That’s GOOGLE’s decision, not Apple’s. This whole thread is a circle jerk about how Apple doesn’t let developers do what they want. It’s a general purpose computer and all that. This is an example of what happens when Apple doesn’t prevent developers from doing something anti-consumer.
I am not shedding any tears over developers not being able to nag me about why I’m cancelling, for example.
Same goes for all the shenanigans mentioned about variable pricing for different users.
I think a lot of devs are out of touch with what customers want: transparent pricing, easy cancellation, not worrying about the store running off with my credit card. How the costs are split up between Apple and the devs is jury not something anyone cares about.
But you realize this will make cold-weather range suck and on-the-road charging suck, right?
Preheating the battery and cabin on "shore power" is something EV buyers just expect at this point because that can consume 2-3kWh of energy (equivalent to 6-10 miles or 10-16 km). That's almost 10% of Slate's range (see below).
Preheating the battery about 10-15 minutes before you arrive at a supercharger is another expected feature. It can increase charge acceptance rate by over 50% (reduce charge time by 1/3).
The 150 mile range is extremely optimistic given the size of the battery and shape of the truck. With just 5% top and bottom buffers, you'd need to achieve over 3.1 miles/kWh... which is the consumption expected of a small aerodynamic sedan. I would bet real money that highway range (at 75 mph) for the small battery is less than 120 miles from 100% to 0.
Harris ran a very left-of-center campaign in the 2020 primary election, and soundbites from that were played on repeat in 2024 (some of which didn't age well and some of which were always unpopular in certain circles). That that would happen was an easily foreseeable consequence of making her the candidate. The incumbent party could have chosen a different candidate if they had made an earlier decision to not try to re-elect the president.
You can't cure the disease if you get the diagnosis wrong.
Of course, Kennedy (who is in Trump's cabinet, and seems broadly aligned with the MAGA agenda) got another 0.49%... and Oliver (the MAGA-adjacent Libertarian candidate) got another 0.42%. Hardly the ringing endorsement of "American's didn't really pick the guy" that Canadians want to hear.
[1] https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024pres...
Not if the EU has anything to say about it. Apple is already in trouble for requiring prompts for 3rd party vendors, and you know that already.
Same for entitlements.
How do you image that working? Google is already banned from paying Apple to be the default search engine, so why would they be allowed to pay Chrome?
And what is the point of the breakup if everyone (including consumers/users) is worse off? Is the point of government to make people better off, or just to maximize the number of paperclips produced?