dontnotice

17 ms·

1.
by dontnotice 8y ago
It's not a battle it's a legitimate point of view. It's also backed by evidence. Also I balance it with the variety in my submissions.
2.
by dontnotice 8y ago
> The intention of the fines is not to make money but to discourage illegal behavior. Of course fines are a revenue source, the EU operates on multiyear fixed budged which they supplement with fines and tariffs. The bulk of that wealth t
3.
by dontnotice 8y ago
You cannot remove system apps they're part of the OS, the other preinstalled apps come curtsy of OEMs and carriers. You can change defaults and sideload apps on android, which makes it much more permissible than the rest of maker i.e i
4.
by dontnotice 8y ago
Any company can use AOSP in their devices and laod them with anything they like, see the Chinese market, see Amazon Fire tablets.
5.
by dontnotice 8y ago
Are you suggestion that AOSP has nothing to do with Android!? And if we were to take the existence of AOSP into consideration then this fine seems even more ridicules and unwarranted.
6.
by dontnotice 8y ago
"Given Google’s dominance in search and browsers and the popularity of its many web services, Pichai’s warning looks more like a bluff to court popular opinion than a genuine threat that Android will no longer be free." I wish the
7.
by dontnotice 9y ago
You tell me. It certainly appears that the EU spares no resources at seeking and investigating US corporations and certainly they have no qualm in sticking them with record fines.
8.
by dontnotice 9y ago
By sucking profits from American companies?
9.
by dontnotice 9y ago
Also because the EU is deliberately targeting US companies, the US gov't doesn't have that incentive.
10.
by dontnotice 9y ago
I was responding more to the comments in this thread.
11.
by dontnotice 9y ago
It's always surprising how much comments and postings in these parts are vehemently in opposition to data being usefully incorporated into these apps and services, I remember a recent post about how Google's passive on device musi
12.
by dontnotice 9y ago
They are certainly entangled in this instance. It's funny how everyone's a legal scholar these days.
13.
by dontnotice 9y ago
They seem to suggest that Google's control over their own site's design/function is somehow an affront to their cause, not mention malicious. They certainly see it as a big enough grievance to include in a manifesto type docu
14.
by dontnotice 9y ago
Yup, that was in the the blog post announcing AMP, and subsequent press comments. I'm of the persuasion that they can rank and display the results however they please, it's their site after all, so it's a non issue either way
15.
by dontnotice 9y ago
It's funny how no one was up in arms when facebook (the leading source of publisher traffic) did their version of accelerated pages. AMP serves a purpose for the end user and it does so well, it loads instantly and doesn't consume
16.
by dontnotice 9y ago
I'm not totally okay with blackballing brilliant people for touching someone's thigh.
17.
by dontnotice 9y ago
Halfway down that piece: A study this year by Stone Temple, a prominent analyst of the industry, showed Google’s search engine answered 74.3% of 5,000 questions, and on those answers it had a 97.4% accuracy rate. Both percentages are highe
18.
by dontnotice 9y ago
They are a decent ancillary source. The EU has a fixed multi year budget, fines are one way they use to supplement it.
19.
by dontnotice 9y ago
The guy looks relatively young, if I had to guess I'd go with the cultural warrior angle, I bet this guy is fully aware of the Jim Damore saga.
20.
by dontnotice 9y ago
This is bizarre. It's also bizarre how the reporting on it doesn't mention how out of left field this is. Why Google? why Missouri? How come a republican is doing this? As for: The United States has lagged behind Europe in pursui
21.
by dontnotice 9y ago
"Network effects" are people's relationships with their products, which they justly earned. They ran atop the same network that everyone else had access to and achieved, the accurate analog to the railway example is the ISPs
22.
by dontnotice 9y ago
Difference being that the railway was the only practical mean of delivery back then and is an actual utility. Also one couldn't sideload newspapers to circumvent restrictions. Tagging everything as a "utility" and demanding t
23.
by dontnotice 9y ago
My more pressing (no pun intended) concern is with the press' coverage of these suits, when they don't lay bare the underlying machinations they are basically choosing sides.
24.
by dontnotice 9y ago
The media should practice more circumspection when reporting about lawyers seeking plaintiffs or suing for class action status or at least mention how it’s a money making endeavour for that lawyer/law firm. Many of these lawyers are v
25.
by dontnotice 9y ago
The omitted context here is that the lobbying against Google is much larger than Google's countermeasures.
26.
by dontnotice 9y ago
I don't know, in a perfect world there would be a debate where the learned would pitch in and enlightenment would ensue, that didn't happen.
27.
by dontnotice 9y ago
I think managerially this is the right move; the guy created chaos and had to go. I'm not sure that's the right move in any other respect, it certainly doesn't advance the conversation.
28.
Legacy News Providers Ask US for the Right to Collude Against Google and Facebook(techdirt.com)
1 points by dontnotice 9y ago|0 comments
29.
by dontnotice 9y ago
It's not about you and who you trust the most, it's about if this makes sense or not. The EU is not infallible, they are subject to political pressures and there have been enough of that in this case that they started asking the w
30.
by dontnotice 9y ago
The FCC isn't the right equivalent here, the FTC or the DoJ are, and they have to successfully sue in federal court for their fines to stick.

More ›