You can, but that doesn't mean your opinion is as valid as those who study the subject. Otherwise we might as well follow the sovereign citizen believers.
I wouldn’t say it is obvious. Apple does not have the monopoly of ARM based PCs. Labeling it as a monopoly of M chips is not fair or accurate when comparing to MS on Intel. It’s also probably relevant that MS was not selling PCs or their own hardware. They had a monopoly on a market where you effectively had to use their software to use the hardware you bought from a different company. Because Apple is selling their own hardware and software as a single product, the consumer is not forced into restricting the hardware they bought by a second company’s policies.
> Labeling it as a monopoly of M chips is not fair or accurate when comparing to MS on Intel.
The relevant thing here isn't the chips, it's tying things to the chips, because those would otherwise be separate markets. If you could feasibly buy an iPhone and install Android or Lineage OS on it or use Google Play or F-Droid on iOS then no one would be saying that Apple has a monopoly on operating systems or app stores for iOS since there would actually be alternatives to theirs.
The fake alternative is that you could use a different store by buying a different phone, but this is like saying that if Toyota is the only one who can change the brake pads on a Toyota and Ford is the only one who can change the brake pads on a Ford then there is competition for "brake pads" because when your Toyota needs new brake pads you can just buy a Ford vehicle. It's obvious why this is different than anyone being able to buy third party brake pads for your Toyota from Autozone, right?
> It’s also probably relevant that MS was not selling PCs or their own hardware.
This is the thing that unambiguously should never be relevant. It can't be a real thing that you can avoid being a monopoly by owning more of the supply chain. It's like saying that Microsoft could have avoided being a monopoly by buying Intel and AMD, or buying one of them and then exterminating the other by refusing to put Windows on it. That's a preposterous perverse incentive.
> It can't be a real thing that you can avoid being a monopoly by owning more of the supply chain.
Move the most important aspects of your software to hardware. Hard for MacOS but for a Chromebook style thing you could write the browser into its own pice of wafer.
> Move the most important aspects of your software to hardware.
So now you have a piece of silicon with a two year old version of Chrome with seventeen CVEs hard-coded into it, and still have all the same antitrust problems because the device still also has an ordinary general purpose CPU that you're still anti-competitively impeding people from using to run Firefox or Ladybird.
Well “had to use” is a strong phrase here. Linux was already around and you could have used it too with your hardware. I think you can always bend an argument to fit your point.
Didn’t knew that, but only if they also sold windows pc? Like, if a company would only sold blank PCs without any offering associated to MS they wouldn’t need to pay MS anything.
That was the what the trial about. If you wanted to contract with MS you had to pay for a license on every box shipped. Dell, Compaq, Gateway, HP, IBM, Acer, and others had to sign the contract or ship only alternate OS’s
If one sold a computer with OS/2 they also paid for a windows license.
This style/format is really easy to follow along with, great blog writing. Separately I’ve been messing with some filesystem stuff so it’s interesting to me.
Often but not always. Sometimes you’re just working with proxies directly, audio mixing and the like. VFX workflows, finishing will be online full res often.
But even so everybody is often making their own proxies all the time. There’s a lot of passing around of ProRes Proxy or another intermediate quality format and you still make even lighter proxies locally so NLEs and workstation apps will still benefit from this
Forced to take on the extra revenue? There’s been political attacks on USPS but don’t blame junk mail on that. I don’t think USPS even has a choice on the junk mail, as long as it’s legal I don’t think they can refuse the service
They could start with charging junk mail the standard first class (or postcard) price. Then they could add a feature to the Informed Delivery service that let you return pieces to sender before they're even delivered.
This isn't meant as some bare indictment to contribute to the persistent political attacks against them. Rather it shows what could be done with a growth mindset and some resources, if they were perhaps lauded as a public service and directly funded, rather than constantly under attack by societal arsonists.
Why should it be law? I am a developer in California, and a long time Linux nerd. If I were to release a hobby on my GitHub for fun, without age verification, am I now subject to fines? Imprisonment? Why should their be a legal requirement?
As with any law like this, it should apply to systems made for normal end-users with over some minimum number of users. If your hobby Linux distro picks up a million home users then yeah, you're responsible for making it suitable for purpose for as long as you're distributing it. It's the same with accessibility requirements, safety requirements, labor laws, etc.
If California starts knocking on the door of random distros and hobby OSes designed for power users or servers with 2000 average monthly downloads then I'll go to bat defending them.
Though to re-iterate, I'm pretty sure the requirements here are for asking a user to set an age, not to do age verification, so if you did want to comply it would mean adding a Date field to your setup flow and then wiring that up to applications that ask for it.
This was a major influence for me, both getting into single speed and fixed gear biking before the craze, and building geo cities sites with my friends in high school
I was pretty early to Gmail, I paid $5 for an invite to the beta, and secured my first(.)last@gmail.com. But now I pay for my own domain and my own hosted email just to avoid any collisions
>What we just saw at Davos with Greenland reveals the actual pattern: the theatrics are the tool, not the objective. The erratic behavior generates uncertainty, which then gets converted into bargaining leverage.
He said this in his book The Art of the Deal, released in 1987. It’s been his playbook for all political campaigning and both terms of his presidency. It’s a meme to point this out in certain right leaning circles.
I was frustrated by the lack of awareness about this for awhile. I still am but I understand now that the media is also playing their part and doing their role. It’s absolutely justified - these ridiculous claims and arguments generate clicks, attention, revenue.
It’s something that should be kept in mind by the average voter though, and in social media discussion. Everyone wants you to be emotionally invested. Trump wants you to commit so he can pump fake tou, and the media gets solid quarterly numbers
Anecdotal but I was talking to a recruiter about a role in Apple last week, and then was told they are doing a total hiring freeze until at least the new year.
There was also a bit of a shakeup in one of their teams for video content production a few months back which surprised me. Not anyone that would get a tech journal article written about them, but someone who was very experienced, knowledgeable, and loved his role.
Nothing newsworthy just sounds more rocky than usual for Apple
reply