kevinschumacher

The comment chain you’re replying to is advocating for reigning in “our own” companies, regardless

Kicking out the hostile state solves the immediate threat from China. But what about threats from our own (current and/or future) government?

> "this page loads faster in the app."

And then a link to "Open in App" which just sends you to the App Store and not the actual content, in the app, which I've already got installed.

Isn’t this the root of what OP is getting at?

Why do you think you’ll be first? (How) can someone else get that confidence?

While I agree with your sentiment, at least the roof of the Kennedy center is open to the public day and night. Fantastic date spot. Great views!

Perhaps OP needs access to their 2fa accounts protected by sms?

(And yes, sms sucks for mfa but tell that to my bank)

For snowboarding, try Slopes.

Or, if you happen to have an Ikon pass, the official Ikon Pass app (May work at ikon pass resorts without the pass — not sure?)

Both know the difference between a run and a lift. Slopes doesn’t quite get pauses. Not sure about how ikon handles it. (I don’t get too obsessive about it). Nice thing about ikon app is that it tells you which runs you took. (Slopes is seemingly adding this but it’s not prime time yet)

This is a fair take. But in your analogy, we'd go after the thief, too, right? And the thief would get a harsher sentence?

Yet there's no lawsuit against the thief.

> Namely Google seems to have initially tried to sell this API to restaurants directly.

...which was a fools errand. It is impossible to expect individual restaurants (_maybe_ aside from large restaurant groups - ie, big chains) to integrate with this API.

To me it seems much more likely that Google pivoted to working directly with delivery operators for practical reasons to make the product functional.

I would also bet that contracts with the delivery operators include a bit about how they will enable this integration and what that means. Perhaps they do not make it explicit enough in the sales cycle (or, didn't in the case of Lime)

> Google takes a cut when those companies pay for ads on the platform.

> I can't tell you how many times I've tried to find a restaurant web site on google and it's buried under direct links to door dash and other order online services that add surcharges.

That's definitely true, but that's not what's being discussed.

It could be more of a strategic play to keep eyeballs on Google properties and further build the advertising profile. Also provides a foothold into entering the ordering/delivery/reservation businesses at a much later date if they so choose.

IIRC Google didn't take a cut on restaurant reservations, at least

I don't think you can blame Google for allowing a delivery operator to buy ads on a restaurant's name.

If it's the delivery operator's business model to buy ads to get a cut of an order, then, we should be upset with the delivery operator.

(edit: removed off topic and specific business)