In their App Store they absolutely have pricing power. They take a high tax, which is higher than most actual taxes, on nearly every single application installed despite doing basically nothing. Things like denying a application the ability to even mention services can be bought elsewhere are the worst offender of their misconduct and other offenses would be forcing apps to use their payment system, again with an extremely high fee, even on recurring subscription charges. Normally a payment processor takes 2 to 3 percent, not 30 %.
Sony (PlayStation store), Microsoft (Xbox store), and Valve (steam) all take 30%. No one can speak on what Nintendo takes due to NDA. Why are they never brought up?
Those stores can be abusing their monopoly position as well. Apple has the greatest sales of all of those stores though so it should rightly be targeted first. They flew under the radar for far too long. People are literally going back to using websites rather than apps because of their decision, but Apple even tried to kill progressive web apps recently - which are basically just shortcuts to websites on the Home Screen.
If you are comparing insurance rates then you are already comparing a similar area. If insurance companies would give you a discount if your car had self driving enabled that seems like a pretty sure fire guarantee that self driving is better.
I am not saying anything about the relative safety of driving in cherry-picked environments like SF. The data can talk about that and in this case is supports autonomous cars as being safer in SF.
I am saying that you can't extrapolate that data and say that autonomous vehicles will be safer than human drivers in, say, NYC or Minneapolis. They won't be. The environmental challenges that exist in most roads in the USA do not exist in the SF test environment. That's part of the reason why tests are always done in SF or Arizona, etc. They have much easier and unchanging road conditions and visibility.
So the takeaways from this article only really apply and make sense as responses to the current local SF politics. They do not show autonomous cars are better drivers in general.
Except humans drive all the time and AVs are usually turned off during extreme weather. Additionally, heavy rain days can cause a lot of people to dump Amazon delivery and do Uber for the day because rideshare demand spikes. Even if the AVs are left on, the relative population of the human drivers increases substantially (and the humans are also now also driving in less safe conditions).
I’m pretty sure this has to do with phone theft. When you get your phone stolen, the thieves disassembling your phone is China will send you hundreds of texts asking you to disable find my iPhone. I’m hoping it’s because you can’t even used the pieces for parts if that was enabled.
It’s not even an allegation, it’s a news story. It’s pretty crazy that they would do this because of a story, not even criminal charges being brought. Apparently you don’t even have to get formally accused anymore. People say “it’s bad for advertising” but these acts of extreme abuse of moderation on YouTube have hugely contributed to other websites springing up. I have no doubt their market share overall is slipping despite their revenue growing, it will only be a matter of time before advertisers realize they can get more eyes more cheaply elsewhere. We’re long beyond the days where people believe a random advertisement on the same page as some random guy they don’t like matters. Somehow companies are stuck in the idea of the days of television where you sponsored a specific show. Now everyone knows if your advertising on google it doesn’t mean the advertisement agrees with every action of every person who appears in a search result.
Your post was already outdated. Abuse charges have to be reported to the police, and the police is investigating, as is his employer at the time the BBC.
Your spinning this as “just a story” is disingenuous. This “story” was investigated by top journalists for over a year, and published in a prestige news journal. Both the journalists working on the story and the paper that published it have their journalistic integrity at stake here. They wouldn’t publish this story unless they had some very credible sources to back them up.
So to correct you, this isn’t just an allegation. These are a series of very credible allegation which are under investigation by several authorities.
Of course it is up to you if you believe those allegations, I just hope you realize how credible these allegations are before you do so, and if you chose to not believe the victims, I hope you understand that you might have some unfortunate biases which makes you favor the accused.
The Sunday Times, the same prestigious news paper which consistently rejected HIV’s role in AIDS and partook in Phone Hacking - including (as alleged by him) the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. [0] Not to mention The Times generally being a Tory sycophantic outlet, just behind the Telegraph.
Gosh, imagine if this story tarnished their pristine reputation and that of the paper’s owner, Rupert Murdoch.
Of all the things that actually need a subscription, video chat and cloud storage of data seems like the one because it uses bandwidth on Microsoft’s end. Charging a subscription for all of the other Office apps has always been a cash grab.
Call quality was not the factor. It was that zoom was easy for people to use, no download required, just click a link and enter your name and you’re connected. No logins or downloads so old people could actually work with it.
I never used the zoom web version, but for the client: it simply worked. Getting videocalls with WebEx always was a pain, where it was noisy, video hat issues ... switching to Zoom was day and night. Suddenly doing a video call was a click and it worked.
