Emendo

This sounds like an use case for blockchain.

At this point, the only browser that could ignore FLoC without being blocked by website is Safari. If Safari chooses not to implement FLoC, it might be sufficient to prevent web developers from blocking other non-FLoC browsers.

All of this rest on Apple standing up for privacy through.. so watch for any announcements from Apple.

It's a pretty disingenuous way to blame Microsoft. Afterall, there are two ways that Windows 10 on Mac M1 could have occurred: Microsoft could relax the licensing so that end users could buy/install Windows 10 onto the Mac M1, or Apple could approach Microsoft like any other OEMs and license/preinstall Windows 10.

We know the latter isn't going happen.

Google created a popular free RSS reader, stopped innovating it, and then declared to the whole world that usage of Reader (and by extension, RSS) had decreased so much that it isn't worth it for Google to keep on life support.

It didn't have to happen like that. I argue that Google unintentionally did an embrace and extinguish on RSS. That's what people were unhappy about.

> A software product could even "seek permission" from the vendor -- via the Internet or your modem -- each time it ran, so that the vendor would know whenever you started the program.

Now it is the norm.

Each travelling ship leaves behind a tail that's much longer than what I would expect if it was meant to represent the wake. Does anyone know the significance of the tail?

In reality, there is no impediment to designating Google as a public utility other than the elected representatives making it so.

Right. Perhaps Google wants to renegotiate their contract with the OEMs and buying out Neverware weakens the bargaining position of the OEMs?

My guess is that the existance of Neverware Chrome OS prevents Google from making certain changes to Chrome OS, and that buying out Neverware eliminates that obstacle.

It wasn't my intention to imply that we need preemptive government intervention.

Rather, I just want point out that, for smartphones, we are well into maturity stage of the industry life cycle, which means it is hard for new companies to enter the market, and where existing companies are focused on generating profit (meaning companies will no longer be playing nice).

It would naive to believe that companies would continue to play nice after they are done building their marketshare.

The current state of having alternative options in a market could not be counted on.

Think back about a decade ago when there were a number Smartphone platforms. They were backed by (back then) industry heavy weights such as Palm, RIM, and Microsoft. If one didn't like Apple or Google Android, there were plenty of options out there. As the market matures through, consolidation happens, and now we are left with two platforms.

What happens if, tomorrow, both those platforms decided to not play nice? Are the Chinese Android phones with no Google Play Service or the Pinephone really viable and reasonable alternatives?

For computer hackers, we have clear laws citing unlawful access to computer systems. Plus, computer hackers don't tend to consult with lawyers before doing their thing.

For traders, we don't have all-encompassing laws covering tax avoidance. Plus, traders have money for hiring professional for finding loopholes.

That's the difference.

Awesome! This looks pretty on a slide deck and is an absolute nightmire to use.