- xvokcarts parentHow does it work?
- Well, yeah, or else they'll release software with memory leaks, which could become a dependency of some big project and bring down some important things and have real effects on some other people.
Or, yeah, because if my child can access streaming without a child lock, they may not recover from what they see.
Looks like we should protect each other as much as we can, using UI!
- One could argue that the potential number of complications in any smartwatch is practically limitless, and also that the sophistication and craftsmanship required to make it, including the hardware part, is the ultimate testimony of refinement and engineering.
If you took an Apple Watch and this Vacheron 2000 years in the past, which one would the people of the time find more impressive (until the juice runs out, that is)? In other words - which one looks more like magic?
We're just used to microprocessors we can't see tick and maybe don't always appreciate the complexity.
- There's very high taxation of high income individuals (60%) as well as companies, supported by a big majority of population, which is then used as propaganda by the gvmnt that high taxes benefit everyone because the government knows best what we need. My feeling is that fellow citizens actually support this idea. Those that don't agree find other ways, which is so easy in EU it almost looks like it's by design.
Such an environment is not as business friendly as it seems. Most politicians in this environment see a solution to every problem in new taxes. Hard to talk about freedom, when you're not allowed to vote on taxes.
There's a also a push for truthspeak - younger generations are no longer sure freedom of speech should be sacred, because it wasn't explained as important enough, so they themselves get ideas about what should be censored and why. Again, the gvnmt is quick to agree with them by offering a way to compile a list of truths.
Also, public healthcare in EU is only for the poor - if you can afford to pay private, you're not even thinking about going public. It just doesn't work like some people here thinks it does.
So, no, Europe is not a dreamland compared to USA, it just has a different set of problems.
- The UK folks don't seem to feel so free to say stuff either: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/704467
- The headline is wrong.
Big tech is striking deals for electricity to get electricity.
The entities they're dealing with are accepting deals by which the public will subsidize big tech's electricity.
That big tech is negotiating the way it is, is expected.
That such deals should be available to them is probably not.
- No, what I said is that were I to be interested in buying a Volvo, I would've gone to the dealership to see it, and upon finding out that some functionality is available only if I login with my Google account, would tell the dealer that that's a dealbreaker and walk out.
If the car market is such that all car manufacturers are in a way colluding with Google to require such login, that's different and should already be regulated (if not, regulate). But if another manufacturer will sell me what I want, I fail to see the issue for me as a consumer.
But, I'm not against regulation per se (as you've accused me of), so I'm not ready to die on this hill :) You may be right after all.
- > Translation: no one should demand sensible things from companies ever. Because it's either too late, or too far.
Are you trying to make a career of misunderstanding my replies? Or am I just really that bad at writing?
_People_, potential buyers, are _supposed_ to demand sensible things from companies. By voting with their money. Does that not work anymore?
- > How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone?
It's not and I never said it was. I was replying to your "do unto others" quote which I find is not applicable in this case: I think in regulatory cases you shouldn't assume you know what's best for others (let them vote instead). So, if you say "we're a group of experts, we know you don't need product X, so we're pushing for additional taxation of it" it's a threat. Sorry if I was not clear enough the first time.
But on another note, if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point? If people have a choice to buy something else, who am I hurting here and how?
> "I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony.
I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher either publish on every platform or on none in order not to discriminate users is needed or positive.
> Word of the day: duopoly.
First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly. Tell me, when there are 3 dominating companies, will there be a "triopoly"?
> This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc.
This makes sense in a lot of cases, but less so when people have choices.
- > And what exactly will people not buy because of activists?
I think that was my reply to a post about Apple exiting the EU market (completely unlikely IMO, since that would reduce profits), which may cause those unable to buy what they want to question the sensibility of specific regulation.
> "companies are so good for customers why do activists try to ruin a good thing"
I don't think anyone said that. But enacting regulation forcing Volvo to give you a full experience without Google Account login is just acting a step too late if you already bought it, or taking a step too far if you'd like to buy it but don't like it enough, and are now demanding they change it.
- > Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that.
I think that means to treat others as you’d like to be treated when you interact, not actively do to people what you’d like others to do to you. “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say, and that was my point about regulation enacted by expert groups without public vote.
> An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out.
When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android and hasn’t looked back since. No additional regulation was necessary and nobody was left behind.
> Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that.
Only when monopoly was involved.
I’m not against interoperability, but I think it’s wierd to force anyone into it, be it a company, or a consumer, since nobody is in a monopolistic position, and everyone has a choice. When people have a choice they can make it as they wish, and they do, that’s why Apple is not in a dominant position - because people can make a choice.
The thing that’s funny to me is that regulation now caters to people that want a specific device type with specific functionality dictated by government allegedly on behalf of the average consumer.
- > My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place.
Exactly. A few people want interoperability and everyone accepts it because they don't care since it doesn't affect their lives. I'm not a policy expert, but this seems a bit like riding the high horse. The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise.
We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big, in the name of enabling competition, which will again, due to the real reasons for EU tech decline, come from the USA.
- >EU buyer here, I am extremely hype for forced interop and think it almost justifies the existence of the EU on its own.
That was my point. There is no "we".
>That's the case for every regulation - policy is made by activists.
Maybe, but when regulation made by activists starts touching the lives of people that don't care about the thing activists want, they may not like the idea of activists deciding for them. So far all the companies regulated by EU have accepted the regulation - we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants.
- > "Develop stuff the way we want, or lose sales"
I think the wants (of the EU buyers) are far less homogeneous than the group of open integration activists make it look like, so there's no "we". We hear the opinions of the vocal ones and based on those voices regulation is enacted, but nothing changes for the silent majority. However, a lot of people in the EU may start caring if they can no longer buy what they want just because of the vocal few, and they may stop being silent about it when it touches them.
- I think it speeds up because we settle in a routine, and when every day is mostly the same the brain just compresses the experience. The younger you are, the more new everything is around you, and you may not know yet what is worth trying or not, hence more things happen, and that makes it appear to last longer.