Until they change the name and voice and have a whole fleet of elderly AI chatbots.

TSMC hates this one easy trick!

Well…you’re not wrong.

It’s the specialized tools you’ll also need to do all of that that’ll get you, though.

Just build one, cheaper to boot.

Delete that, too. It was the last stranglehold Facebook had on me, but I decided to get rid of it, let friends/family know how they could contact me instead, and hell, most of them ended up following me to Signal (or just plain ol’ Discord) anyways.

Sure, not arguing that. But there’s no ideology that can completely preclude violence.

Quakers are just an extension of Christian ideology. Jainism I don’t know enough about, but any religious identity will eventually develop the concept of justified violence when faced with the existential threat of a larger opposing religion.

I don’t think any ideology has not had brutality committed in its name.

The popular argument I’ve heard is that they have a vertical integration model which has been deemed monopolistic within other industries in the past.

The common example that would have been used is the old Hollywood studio system, when studios not only owned their lots where the movies were made, but they handled all of the distribution, owned most of the theaters where the films would premiere, owned their own film formats, and locked their big-name stars into contracts which had strict non-compete agreements.

It wasn’t impossible to be an independent theater owner and have the ability to choose what films you wanted to show, but it was very hard and required accepting a number of conditions:

• You will pay more for movies than the studio-owned theaters effectively do, which means your tickets need to be more expensive to pay your costs.
• You are subjected to “block booking”, where you can’t show only popular movies, you are also forced to buy a studio’s less popular films as bundles and give them appropriate screen time or the studios won’t sell.
• You also need to buy a studio’s proprietary projection equipment, because it is made intentionally incompatible with the formats of other studios.

The studio system was eventually deemed monopolistic by the US Supreme Court in their ruling US v. Paramount, and that allowed independent theaters to thrive and for artists to switch to contract work without the strict non-compete agreements. But I have to say “the common example that would have been used,” because the conservative-stacked Supreme Court revisited their ruling in US v. Paramount that banned the vertical integration model in Hollywood and decided it was no longer needed, so studios are once again free to resume those old practices if they wish.

So in the case of Apple, the monopoly criticism applies to their vertical integration model which draws some parallels to the old Hollywood studio system that was once deemed monopolistic:

• Apple designs and produces their own devices.
• Apple produces their own operating systems, which are exclusive to those devices.
• Apple produces their own suite of core apps, which are given preferential treatment by their operating systems.
• Apple develops their own technology standards, which are not available to third parties without additional licensing fees (e.g. the Lightning connector, up until the EU forced them to start adopting USB-C).
• Apple hosts their own app store, which is the only app distribution method allowed on their mobile platforms.
• Apple requires third-party apps to agree to their store’s terms to be published on the platform, which prohibits any pricing model in which Apple does not get a cut.

For third-party app developers, it means that even if you have your own revenue model beyond Apple’s involvement, you are not allowed to extend that to your iOS app without giving Apple their cut, which is why you see so many apps now just declaring that they are “for subscribers” without allowing you to subscribe in the app or giving instructions for where to subscribe. And it’s not possible to publish an app on iOS without going through Apple’s store and agreeing to their business model because Apple does not allow third-party app stores and heavily restricts sideloading.

Because Apple also gives preferential treatment to their own apps, it is hard to be “as good” as their own offerings, and there will always be a risk of Apple deciding to make some new category of app for a use case that third-parties currently satisfy but may get shut out of.

I guess it could be said that Edge has an unfair…edge?

Glad I deleted PayPal ages ago.

I feel like we’ll be having the same conversation about YouTube Shorts in 10 years as we are having about YouTube Gaming today.

Which is to say none.

That being said, that 20-hour postmortem video on Skyrim feels right given how long I’d guess the playtime is on most people’s savegames.

Because Wikipedia doesn’t serve ads or pay Google, so Google doesn’t like to make them the top result for a lot of searches they should be.

Because every step of the way, they need a flock of MBAs to figure out the answer to the question “How do we make money off of this?”

Elon, probably:

“Our bot sometimes spreads misinformation? Unacceptable, we’ll fix it ASAP. The bot should always be spreading misinformation, ‘sometimes’ doesn’t cut it.”

They don’t need to satisfy the complainers, since they wouldn’t be paying for Windows anyways. They need to satisfy their corporate partners who will be paying Microsoft for Pro licenses and yearly Office 365 subscriptions.

It’s Microsoft, there’s always something to complain about.

I dunno, most steam power just involves passing an environmental burden down several generations, which seems like a scam to me.