This case seems like a joke. Seems very "damn if you do and damn if you dont" across the board. DOJ states that Google trains to not use monopolistic language for the very same reason as to what they are trying to be held liable of doing. Seems like it would be a recipe for disaster to save the chats between employees and execs. Holding people accountable word for word that they have in the midst of conversation seems unjust to begin with. . People say things without thinking entirely through- its chat! And the huge bids to be the default browser on phone is the nature of business set forth by the likes of the phone manufactures to begin with. The idea of their being a default search to begin with is the problem. GOOGLE is just playing the game. It shoudl be required that the search engine should be picked at the time of the unboxing of the phone and this rule probably should have been made 15 years ago. The whole case seems like a huge waste of time to me and is another example of the government demonstrating their incompetence with regards to big tech.
This case seems like a joke. Seems very "damn if you do and damn if you dont" across the board. DOJ states that Google trains to not use monopolistic language for the very same reason as to what they are trying to be held liable of doing. Seems like it would be a recipe for disaster to save the chats between employees and execs. Holding people accountable word for word that they have in the midst of conversation seems unjust to begin with. . People say things without thinking entirely through- its chat!
And the huge bids to be the default browser on phone is the nature of business set forth by the likes of the phone manufactures to begin with. The idea of their being a default search to begin with is the problem. GOOGLE is just playing the game. It shoudl be required that the search engine should be picked at the time of the unboxing of the phone and this rule probably should have been made 15 years ago. The whole case seems like a huge waste of time to me and is another example of the government demonstrating their incompetence with regards to big tech.
not what i was saying whatsoever. saying they write the code, and then they collect monthly service fees for something they already did. The SAS model is way over done, and imo this is an example of reiterates that.
After a recent update, i know that my bluetooth started intermittenly disconnecting and reconnecting. Continuous connectivity problems. Not a coincidence.
The media cycle is a money grab anyway you slice.I couldnt careless about the misfortune of any news medium while things are in the current state. Everyone of them prioritize their news coverage based on clicks. 2020 has been the gold rush for all media big or small capitalizing on a nation that is falling apart.A complete overhaul of media is needed. Not this tid for tat. Put some energy in the places that matter.
Apple is obligated to maximize shareholders value. Google is a competitor as well. If apple did anything otherwise, it would cause shareholders losses. Its a publicly traded company. This is capitalism, not Apple.
There are alot of cities that have so many drivers uber and lyft wouldnt even be able to employ them all. If all of them were required to be employees, there are many drivers that may be out of a source of income. Personally, i think that its the contractor agreement that should be drawn into questiom. There are rules tgat are forced upon by uner and lyft that gives drivers no option but to agree to. Secondly, is this really even needed to be a talking point now? Not only are we in a pandemic with so much uncertainty relating to drivers not knowing even if they can go back to driving, bit alos just with autonomous cars likely to be here within 5 years.