Most of them are stagnant. That's why breaking up incumbents under antitrust laws is a great idea. GenAI and some sectors of the entertainment industry are pretty robust, but otherwise it's not great out there broadly speaking.
One may amend that most mature industries tend to move to an apparent stagnant state as the Capex for r&d increases over time, sometimes due to regulation and/ or due to increased technical complexity. There is also a point at which you can't optimize certain aspects further and have to figure out where to pivot innovation, e.g. end of dennard scaling/Moores law.
big breakups don’t make sense in a globalized economy because it empowers foreign companies. i don’t think MS, Apple, amazon, fb would be the only benefactors. i think we entered the age of “too big to fail” about 10 years ago. breaking up very big companies like google is now a national security risk
If you truly believe that tech monopolists are critical to national security then the only safe option would be to nationalize them. Incidentally, that would also remove the profit motive for bad behavior, solving one of the largest problems with allowing a monopoly to exist. But apparently that would be anti-free. Because nothing says Free Country like letting a handful of the most rich and powerful people on the planet hamstring your democratic government.
> If you truly believe that tech monopolists are critical to national security then the only safe option would be to nationalize them.
They are critical to national security because of their ability to perform. Nationalizing them would complete distort their incentives and destroy the company so thoroughly we might as well have just broken them up.
What are their incentives currently causing them to do? Lobby the government, spy on private citizens, sell influence, make products increasingly user-hostile... why do we pretend that a profit motive results in good behavior even in the face of evidence that it does not, at least in this one case we're talking about taking action on?
And for the people who think nationalizing businesses leads to socialist/communist hell, at the very least, if you've decided that a business is critical to national security, it should be funded at least in part by the government (with the government having a real, if not controlling, stake in it), and heavily, heavily regulated.
I don't believe in nationalizing anything and there just needs to be competition.
Even if we do want to nationalize anything for security reasons, defense contractors should be at the top on the list but they have already bought the US government so DOJ is after those who haven't paid their dues
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.
That I agree with in general, though they have different enough business practices that the remedy re:antitrust action could look much different. Perhaps for apple it's allowing multiple storefronts or payment vendors, similar (I know not identical) to MS being required to allow other browsers with parity of access to the OS. For Google maybe some sort of splitup. I'm just throwing these out there though I don't claim to know the best option.
Google chose a jury trial, rather than a bench trial. The judge maid their ruling based on evidence presented, and largely ruled in Apple’s favour based on evidence provided by both Epic and Apple. No two cases are ever the same, there are always nuances. Throw a jury in to that mix, it’s even more of a crap-shoot.
No. That is indication that it is working as designed. The key word that you used is nearly. So, not the same. They were heard differently too. The truth is that you’re upset because it’s Google and not Apple.
Don't mistake the limited-purpose US Government for your state government. Colorado does quite a bit, from healthcare to environment to policing. And so does the US, for those subjects it has jurisdiction, and has been doing so for hundreds of years.
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. Newstainment that profits from attention does not help.
There was a study on it that made a big splash a while back. The interpreted version is that policy is made for the wealthy and special interest groups. If it happens to coincide with was the public wants, it's merely coincidence.
Cases aren’t decided purely by the law. They’re also decided on the facts, and the facts are what are entered into the court record.
It is also a fact observable to anyone outside any court of law that while Google sells phones, their main relationship with Android is as a vendor-neutral OS developer that licenses the OS out and takes responsibility for its maintenance and a services provider that required favoring their own software and services over that of their competitors as part of their agreement with phone makers.
Apple makes and sells phones, including the OS, and services for those phones including the App Store. They’re not telling Samsung they must favor Apple services in order to receive an iOS license because they don’t license iOS to Samsung for Samsung’s phones.
Google and Apple both chose their own business plans here, which is their right, but it also put them on different legal footing when Epic came calling in Court because in theory, Android was supposed to be an open ecosystem that third party app markets could thrive on and it just wasn’t that, in particular because Google was putting their thumb on the scale.
What do you think litigators do? Their whole job is figuring out how to elicit, marshal, introduce and connect the facts that will prove their case. That’s just what being a trial lawyer is.
The facts are not just out there and whoever happens to have the better facts on their side wins. Litigators have to be able to identify and interrogate relevant facts, prepare witnesses and documents to introduce them, then shape them in a convincing enough way that they can argue the facts and law are on their side.
Hell, even appellate lawyering is really all about the facts in the end. We have legal doctrines and lines of authority for this or that legal proposition, but the letter of the law only receives its full shape in light of the various fact patterns they’ve been tested by. (This, by the way, is where the modern Supreme Court tends to show its cracks. Arguments before the Supreme Court are almost inevitably a step or two removed from the facts of the actual case that the Court is supposed to be adjudicating. Yes, appellate courts and the Supreme Court have to take into account that whatever they rule is going to have precedential effect and other courts will look to their decisions to guide their own work. But it’s striking how often like 7/9 Supremes deflect argument away from the particular facts of the case they agreed to review and focus on hypotheticals and “first principles” (which they don’t even agree on amongst themselves) and so on. Yet they always trumpet that Article III jurisdiction requires there to be a live case or controversy. Which they promptly themselves ignore. Can’t let, you know, actual judging get in the way of one’s shaping of the law!)
You start off strong but for the first two and a third paragraphs maybe about two and half paragraphs in total, you wrote we’re not actually in any disagreement. So… yes.
I’m not really co-signing the rest but I’m also not in any mood to argue about the off-topic jabs against SCOTUS at the moment.
I had just read the transcripts from yesterday’s oral arguments and was feeling annoyed at a longstanding complaint I have about SCOTUS (pre-dating the Roberts Court as well). Mea culpa.
> Quite a few of the wallpapers are simple gradients, and one is just the color orange. So they don't quite feel "curated"
Pardon my language but then don't fckng use the app!
What if you put your car for sale for $20K and then someone else says: nah that piece of junk is not worth that much and then steal it from you and give it to someone else for free. That seems to be what's happening here.
Well, I'm not using the app, so... But that doesn't absolve someone of public ridicule or commentary.
MKBHD, who has been a huge proponent of privacy, asking for my LOCATION for a wallpaper app? You and I both know its for ad targeting, and happens whether you're paying a subscription or not.
Also, where in my original comment did I say anything about stealing the artwork?
These analyses don't make any sense. The people born in China right now are much more influenced by a combination of contemporary Western and Chinese media/tech than anything having to do with ancient Chinese dynasties.
Cultural influence isn't just popular media. The language (Latin based), the government (democracy/senate), architecture (the white house), etc. They are the sum of a nation identity, how it appears, act, interact with others.
You can see Rome's traces in almost everything in the West, from entertainment to moral norms. Same thing in Asia, except they are Chinese, like the language (Japan, Korea, Singapore), architecture (Vietnam, Japan), entertainment (see that new Wukong game), etc.
The culture of a nation morphs and changes on the surface but deep down, it is based on a rather stable foundation. In the West, it is Greek-Roman, in the East, it is Chinese-Indian.
complain all you want but without Google web would've been an obsolete platform. You had to write things in iOS, or Facebook OS or potentialy Azure Intelligent Cloud API.
