Most cities in Europe absolutely do not have suburban zones where most people live. Non-center areas also have their own leisure, going out, shopping places (usually mixed with the residential areas).
The suburbs purely for residential space where you have to go somewhere else for activities do exist, but usually over time they grow their own infrastructure for shopping and hanging out without needing to go far.
Some models will still trickle down; hell, better/cheaper hardware should enable to run hefty models available today, and they seem to be already okay-ish with such queries.
I don't understand why would you opt in to share your data. Is it because you believe that it would help to improve the model and you would benefit from it? Or something altruistic?
I think it's just general lack of awareness of the effect, or in many instances having alternate economic incentives, like academics who want to commoditize their intellectual outputs to all available distribution channels. Tyler Cowen for example. The AI companies are in a race to the bottom.
I always assumed the folks who intentionally do this either work for the company, are associated with the company, or are in some way part of q/a pilot user group.
What do you think is better? The web is indeed questionable, but it is literally the best we have, it is still reasonably simple to deploy a web app.
Desktop app development gets increasingly hostile and OSes introduce more and more TCC modals, you pretty much need a certificate to codesign an app if you sideload (and app stores have a lot of hassle involved), mobile clients had it bad for a while (and just announced that Android will require a dev certificate for sideloading as well).
edit: also another comment is correct, the reason it is like that is because it has the most eyes on it. In the past it was on desktop apps, which made them worse
Microsoft mismanaged it but there was a potential parallel universe where they were successful at that plan and consumer versions of Windows would be locked to the Microsoft store.
They did a bunch of terrible inept rollouts with confusing technology for both users and developers and effectively shot themselves in the foot. But it did not have to go down that way.
> there was a potential parallel universe where they were successful at that plan and consumer versions of Windows would be locked to the Microsoft store.
Sounds like a nightmare universe.
I've got a hobby app in kotlin multiplatform with iOS/Android/Windows/WASM builds and while I have no issues with Apple's App Store or Google Play, I've had nothing but problems trying to support Windows Store.
The MSIX installer format is horrendous to deal with and the certification process for new releases on Windows Store is always far too long and in the cases they do find issues the reports of the issue that they log are entirely worthless.
I ended up just pulling the app off the Windows Store entirely and making it a downloadable *.msi installer. While the extra layer of presumed integrity of the app being on the Microsoft Store would be nice it wasn't remotely worth the effort for the tiny amount of people who were using the Windows version in the first place, especially given the app is free.
Yep. They fumbled the ball on step 1 of demand aggregation and we got lucky there was nothing of value for the 99% of users that will blindly take the easy path.
> Microsoft has way too much of legacy software people use, banning it all overnight will not go well at all.
A lot of legacy software was killed off with the move to 64-bit Windows. Consumers survived that and for businesses registering their software with MS isn't a problem. They're already handing Microsoft all of their company email, their documents, their spreadsheets, etc. and paying Microsoft for the privilege. MS doesn't care at all about consumers.
They can just require hash of legacy binaries sent to Microsoft and rubberstamped back. Eventually they'll have a near comprehensive list of legacy binaries in common use, and move to block unknown binaries in circulation as "malware".
This is how macOS works, without a signature they will tell you they can't guarantee it doesn't have malware and you need to go to settings and choose to run anyway (and most people don't even know about it).
Microsoft would love to do that too, but it just has too much of legacy software to introduce such a major hurdle.
> This is how macOS works, without a signature they will tell you they can't guarantee it doesn't have malware
Even with a signature they can't guarantee it doesn't have malware. The fact that signed malware exists should be enough to put an end to the argument that it's for our own good.
If you had to give away your privacy to use one and could only use helmets authorized by your motorcycle dealer you might have a point. We accept impositions on our freedom all the time when what we get in return is worth the sacrifice. If signed binaries actually delivered on their promise of keeping people safe there'd be a discussion that could be had on whether or not it'd be worthwhile, but since they don't actually protect people we'd be giving up our privacy for nothing.
"the argument that it's for our own good." is their instance that we should accept this loss of our freedom to run the software we want because it protects us. It doesn't actually protect us though, so it isn't worth it and we shouldn't accept it.
My original statement had nothing to do with motorcycle helmets, but if using them required us to give up enough of our freedoms they could also become unacceptable for the level or protection they provide (or fail to provide) us.
The existence of signed malware does not mean that it isn't in our own best interest to have signed software. It's the argument of antivaxxers. You are probably equally confused how that works as well.
"It doesn't actually protect us though, so it isn't worth it and we shouldn't accept it."
That is completely false and dangerous misinformation.
It's not just about that. I am sure if the court would force them to allow sideloading, they'll make sure to never promote your app if you decide to offer both options to the users.
Not until alternative stores become competitive. Realistically they have such a monopoly thar you end up in a chiclen and egg situation. Their monopoly is so large that noone wants to distribute via small alt stores, meaning alt stores never get large.
A chicken and egg problem is highly unlikely. Here's a few probable situations:
1) A fdroid equivalent pops up, which them becomes a collection of fantastic open source apps, and soon develops a strong user base.
2) Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users.
3) Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp. This becomes the fastest growing store in a matter of a week.
One may personally not like this world - but imo it's a better world than the one we have - personally for (1) to exist.
> 3) Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp. This becomes the fastest growing store in a matter of a week.
Why? They don't do this on Android.
At then end of the day the number of active users would fall if they do this. That's unavoidable. So what incentives do they have to not distribute on the App Store? It's not like (unlike in Epic's case) Apple is requiring Facebook to hand over 30% of its revenue.
fdroid is of course great. Extremely niche and not that significant, though.
> Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users.
Amazon tried that on Android. Of course I would expect Google to do much better but that doesn't mean a lot.
On #3, Meta could have done it for Android and I don't think they did. Actually if Android is a god estimation of how it looks like with 3rd party stores, it won't be super disruptive.
Unless the iOS market is so lucrative it will garner far more interest.
This will rightly push Apple in the right direction - to bring the right OS controls at the operating system level / store API level, and not leave things up to apps. This is a better world, despite short term issues with metaStore.
> bring the right OS controls at the operating system level / store API level, and not leave things up to apps
This will almost certainly be litigated. We also haven’t broached national laws mandating a government-controlled App Store. (Would expect this to emerge in right-wing Europe or India first.)
As long as they clearly give the option, at the time of first setup - or an upgrade, to select which app store becomes default; and make it very easy to change default app store later, just like default browser, default search engine et cetera. But they must not be allowed to disallow for the reason that "you are on another app store, we don't like you, go away!".
Yup, it's then fair and they can keep the banner in their App Store that screams at font size 38 "This Journal App Is Da Best", "No Other Note App Has Been Made Greater Than This One".
"Allow access" is pretty orthogonal, I don't know how it all works in mobile OSes, but I assume everything is virtualized there, so you can't just access whatever you want without user granting a permission (e.g. through a file picker system component).
You can also ship sandboxed apps on Desktop without the store (although I am not sure on how hard it is to auto-update them, usually stores handle that part), at least on Windows and macOS.
Stores handle storing the apps themselves and distributing updates, that part of the cost is real, plus they do manually review submissions (to some degree), but 30% is insane for that.
Well, some of the permissions include things like “allow the app to track the user for advertising purposes”. There isn’t a technical way to enforce that with virtualization and sandboxing.
You can enforce it by booting misbehaving apps from the app store... but that only works if there’s one app store.
I _believe_ on macOS, if they revoke your certificate (the one you used to sign the app), the app moves into the "We can't verify that this app is free of malware" category, so in theory they can still do that.
But it is a nuclear option, and it would be a big deal if they did so for something "minor".
For Steam, I believe the price parity requirement for Steam only applies to Steam Keys. Publishers can sell at a lower prices on other store front as long as it doesn't involve Steam infrastructure.
I'll just reproduce FatalLogic's last comment here:
"""
In the class action case[0], which was allowed to go forward by the court last year, it is claimed that Valve told someone:
"This includes communications from Valve that “‘the price on Steam [must be] competitive with where it’s being sold elsewhere’” and that Valve “‘wouldn’t be OK with selling games on Steam if they are available at better prices on other stores, even if they didn’t use Steam keys.’” Dkt. No. 343 ¶ 158, 160 (quoting emails produced at VALVE_ANT_0598921, 0605087). "
(This is a new case, not the 2021 suit, which was rejected by the court, then amended and refiled, later with an additional plaintiff added)
Very few people here are going to have a PACER account. Here's a link to the filing itself. [1] It'll be interesting to see where this goes and if it's deemed accurate, because it runs directly contrary to what Steam's stated policy is. This [2] appears to be part of the testimony from the case. It really doesn't look good for Valve as they effectively acknowledge pursuing price parity and implicitly doing something that sounds like a soft shadowban of games where the publishers don't agree.
Their lawyers sure frame it such a friendly and elegant way though: 'We want to make sure our customers are getting the best deal, and we wouldn't want to mislead them into making a poor decision [by promoting the game] if that's not the case.' Undoubtedly the best legal money can buy. I have immense respect for Gabe and I hope he steps in at some point because this sounds like the bean counters are starting to run amuck. Or course it's possible he's complicit to this, but I think he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt, for now.
Games are silly and inessential. And there are a dozen markets to choose from. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Steam, GOG, Epic, Ubisoft, Humble, Itch, direct download, retro games, ...
Phones are essential. You can't get a job without one. It's impossible to stay connected or navigate without one. You can't even order food in a restaurant these days without your smartphone. Yet two companies control and tax the entirety of mobile computing.
Scratch that. Mobile computing *IS* computing for most people. It's the only computer or internet portal they know.
And two companies own it all. The passport to the modern world is owned and taxed by two trillion dollar companies.
2000's-era DOJ-litigated antitrust abuser Microsoft dreams that they had this much of a monopoly.
The Halloween papers sounded evil. Mobile computing monopolization is evil.
Here's what needs to be done:
1. Web installs. Both companies need to allow web native installs without scare walls or buried settings flags that need to be enabled. First class apps from the web, with no scaring users about it. We have all the technology to make this work safely: permissions, app scanning, signature blacklisting, etc.
2. Defaults. Both companies need to be prevented from pushing their apps as defaults. No more default browsers, default wallets, default app stores, default photo galleries, default search engine, etc.
3. Taxation and control. Apps cannot be taxed on any transactions. Users must not be forced to "sign in" with the monopoly provider's identity system. Apps must not be forced to use the monopoly payment rails. Apps must not be forced to be human reviewed or update to the latest UI changes / SDK on a whim.
Mobile apps and platforms must work like desktop software.
We need this freedom and flexibility for consumers, and we need competition to oxygenate the tech sector and reward innovation. Capitalism shouldn't be easy - it should be hard to keep your spot at the top. Resting on the laurels of easily defended moats for twenty years while reaping some of the most outsized benefits in the industry has created lethargy and held us back.
We could have had other competitors, but nobody wanted them.
Windows phones had a very enthusiastic but too-tiny following. Blackberry lost the plot with terrible hardware and software for the app era (developing an app for the Storm was enough to convince me to never get one of their phones). Symbian's S60 was too little too late in the US. Ubuntu, Mozilla, and others all tried various flavors of Linux and web based phones to no success.
I don't think you can really blame Google or Apple for any of these failures in the same way Microsoft could be blamed in the 90's for their abuses.
With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, Google was forced to change how they handle third party app stores. iPhones will likely never be big enough for Apple to be forced to allow other stores in the US.
> We could have had other competitors, but nobody wanted them.
Don't blame individual consumers. Bad things happen at a societal level all the time. Carbon emissions, etc. We're powerless to stop it without governmental intervention.
Your average consumer isn't educated on marketplace behaviors and doesn't understand how a lack of consumer choice leads to increased prices, inflexibility, taxation of smaller marketplace participants, less innovation, less freedom, etc. They simply can't understand the complexities of the case as deep familiarity isn't a part of their daily lives.
The large players that set these rules are squarely to blame.
> I don't think you can really blame Google or Apple for any of these failures in the same way Microsoft could be blamed in the 90's for their abuses.
You can install whatever you want on a Microsoft PC.
> We could have had other competitors, but nobody wanted them
People didn't even get a choice. Google bullied Windows Phone out of the market.
People won't switch to a platform without apps. Microsoft tried to fix that, made an HTML5 youtube app. Google threw a fit and blocked it, twice. MS even followed what Google told them to do, and still blocked the app.
Google saw great hardware, and an OS that was gaining media attention (Windows phone at the time had a lot of positive reviews, and the Nokia Lumnia phones were great, and better cameras than any Android at the time) and used their market power to kill it.
> Mobile computing IS computing for most people. It's the only computer or internet portal they know.
And two companies own it all. The passport to the modern world is owned and taxed by two trillion dollar companies.
Top smartphone brand global market share: Samsung (20%), Apple (17%), Xiaomi (14%), vivo (9%), OPPO (8%).
I bet there are quite a few people out there who actually have a phone with a faster single thread perf than their laptop i.e. latest iPhone + a crappy windows laptop
> Is it allowed to charge more in storefronts which take these cuts? Why nobody does that?
What? There are plenty of apps charging more when you buy currency/subscription on iOS compared to when you buy from their website, or in some cases Android app. Patreon is an example that made the loudest noise recently, but it’s been a widespread practice for years. That said Apple doesn’t (didn’t?) allow you to tell users that a cheaper option exists elsewhere.
I think about the same. Right now we are at the normalizing the ID verification stage and banning specific content in certain countries/states, once we are desensitized, VPNs will come next, and then some government solution to track everything you do online.
They can go after hostings as well and everybody can take down a lot of things out of fear.
The suburbs purely for residential space where you have to go somewhere else for activities do exist, but usually over time they grow their own infrastructure for shopping and hanging out without needing to go far.
reply