Exactly. Users have to manually download Chrome yet it has a 70% market share. Changing the search engine on mobile is already easy enough, far easier than installing a browser. Google will get a majority of its share back, while Apple will get nothing.
> Google will get a majority of its share back, while Apple will get nothing.
Then you would have to ask, if people would only switch back to Google anyway, why is Google paying them currently? Depriving Apple of the incentive to develop a competing search engine good enough for people to willingly use.
Google has a strong position in search, and pushes Chrome every time you hit their top level page. Also Chrome is the default on Android, yeah? I don't think you can extrapolate from that market share to determine how likely people are to change browsers.
The parent's market share claim is for desktop OSes, where Android is irrelevant.
It's still far easier to not install chrome than it is to install it: downloading a thing, running the downloaded thing, click through all the dialogs, ignore all of Windows's nags to stick with Edge (which is probably a greater abuse of platform control than advertising on the search page), ...
I think a lot of companies switched to pushing Chrome via device management during the later IE days and never switched back. Presumably that's a decent chunk of market
Because Chrome isn't a thing on iPhone. It's Safari webview with a very thin layer of Chrome branding around it. Users have very little incentive to switch. And considering Google search is the default on both, Google doesn't have much of an incentive to push users either.
Does it matter? A few years ago I had the same concern, but it's been easy for a while now to create photorealistic fakes of anything you'd like, and in practice it doesn't seem to have been more convincing than any other form of lying. There are of course a couple specific areas where the mere existence of a picture matters even if people know it's fake (see e.g. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/students-are-sharing-sexua...).
We're splitting hairs here.
Open up the ChatGPT window and have it do something nefarious without you touching the keyboard. Then these AG actions would make sense.
According to this, you can fit it on a CPU-only setup (no GPUs) with 2 x AMD EPYC CPUs and 24 x 32GB DDR5-RDIMM RAM. About $6000 MSRP for the rig. Doubt you are going to get very many tokens/sec out of it though (6-8, according to the author).
Yeah that they do it globally but not in the US (other than a kind of meagre payment transfer on FB that used to exist) makes me wonder if they were bullied, federally, into not doing so.
A simpler explanation is that US doesn't have the banking infrastructure to support these kinds of micropayments. ACH transfers take 3-5 days and require you to link a checking account. Debit & credit card transactions have high fees. Chargebacks/fraud are a constant problem. So no payment processor wants to take on this complexity and liability.
The article is (I'm assuming knowingly) written to give the impression that this was the work of some elite state-sponsored hackers exploiting vulnerabilities in Microsoft/OpenAI's software. In reality they entered their credit card info and typed some commands, same as everyone else.
reply