After nearly two decades of complaining loudly about deteriorating quality of Google search results and Ad injection, Google puts in AI summaries and provides 1-shot answers to >50% of queries, annihilating the advertising business in the process and TFA is complaining about that?
This is a win! I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts...
I guarantee that the minute enough people wake up and cut their advertising spend with Google, then they'll change tack again.
I wouldn't want to be hanging my career on "SEO marketing" right now..
If French trademark law is even remotely close to US trademark law, it can't be applied to videoconferencing because you can't apply a trademark that is just the term for the category of product that is covered.
So for example, I can't trademark "Apple" for my apple orchard. But I can trademark it for my computer company. Similarly, MS likely has chart visualization tools covered by "Visio" in France, but not telecommunications software.
Trademarks aren't granted to a company for unrestricted use. They're granted for specific use. Like I can't found a computer company, get Apple trademarked, and then buy an orchard, use Apple for the orchard, and then sue every apple orchard for saying "XYZ Apples" in their name. It remains restricted to a specific use that was included in the initial application for TM.
This! I have the 14-core M4 Macbook Pro with 48GB of RAM, and Word for Mac (Version 16 at this time) runs like absolute molasses on large documents, and pegs a single core between 70 and 90% for most of the time, even when I'm not typing.
I am now starting to wonder how much of it has to do with network access to Sharepoint and telemetry data that most likely didn't exist in the Office 97 dial-up era.
Features-wise - I doubt there is a single feature I use (deliberately) today in Excel or Word that wasn't available in Office 97.
It's an optional install. You can just click Custom, untick "Office Assistant" and other horrid bits of bloat like "Find Fast" and "Word Mail in Outlook" and get rid of that stuff.
It is 100% about FOMO. The greatest pushback you'll get from anyone when you suggest voluntarily cutting off their social media accounts is that it's their way of keeping in touch/track of friends who they probably never interact with outside of watching their feeds.
Did you interact (like you know, two-way communication) with these people at any time in the last month? In the last year? In the last decade?
_Disabling_ your account, and deleting the app won't stop you from being able to log back in one day in the future if you want to look someone up, but in the mean time, you'll be living a blissful life without an ad-fuelled torment nexus simulating meaningful relationships.
I think this hits the nail on the head and is actually the approach I've taken. Everything is deactivated but I log in from time to time. Maybe it's the best possible approach.
There is also the lingering pressure to share but maybe, at the end of the day, these cheap shares are just a trivial blip in other people's days. If we can't actually talk to someone due to social dynamics or energy constraints then they're effectively no longer a part of our life and social media is a bit of an illusion.
Ah man, I miss the late 90s/early 00s theme of one-off mystery sites, green on black aesthetics and excessive anchor tags :)
Back in 2006 (god I feel old) there was an excellent mini-series on the SyFy channel called The Lost Room[0], which this seems to be drawing some inspiration from.
I'm by no means defending the percentage they take, but I would suggest that it's a percentage because it's simple:
Pick 3 imaginary games for sale priced at $1, $10 and $100. Any one of those games could be a million download a month success, and any one of them could be a complete dud.
What flat rate would you suggest to:
* Pay the developer for their work (ongoing per sale)
* Review each game and ensure it meets store guidelines (once per update)
* Host said game regardless of how popular it is (ongoing)
* Process transactions for the game (ongoing)
The alternative would be pricing based on revenue tiers (similar to what Unreal Engine does now), which aren't known in advance and don't take global variance into account (USD$200 in Eastern Europe might be a month's salary).
Percentage is just simpler. It also means that they'd be taking a loss on every free app or in the case of Free-to-Download In-App purchase apps - until users start transacting.
> If everything goes offline for one hour per year at the same time, then a person is blocked and unproductive for an hour per year.
> On the other hand, if each service experiences the same hour per year of downtime but at different times, then the person is likely to be blocked for closer to 100 hours per year.
Putting Cloudflare in front of a site doesn't mean that site's backend suddenly never goes down. Availability will now be worse - you'll have Cloudflare outages* affecting all the sites they proxy for, along with individual site back-end failures which will of course still happen.
After nearly two decades of complaining loudly about deteriorating quality of Google search results and Ad injection, Google puts in AI summaries and provides 1-shot answers to >50% of queries, annihilating the advertising business in the process and TFA is complaining about that?
This is a win! I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts...
I guarantee that the minute enough people wake up and cut their advertising spend with Google, then they'll change tack again.
I wouldn't want to be hanging my career on "SEO marketing" right now..
reply