Re: Comparison
You always grow fast when you start from zero :)
1150 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Sep 2019
You get one (good) set of results if Google knows it's you but you get another (garbage) set of results if you try to use it anonymously.
Sounds like letting them gorge on your data does make the results better... Which, as it happens, they claim to be the reason they're doing it!
Oh come on, don't say it's creepy! Remember, the computer is your friend!
I wonder what Alphabet's yearly net income is, divided by the number of their users? A quick DDG tells me $34B
Note that net income is what they make after paying for salaries, electricity, data centres, tax, etc. Their total revenue (what they make for selling ads and a bit of cloud computing, before paying for all the stuff above) is $160B, and that's what you would need to replace with a yearly payment.
That said, no matter how much Google uses their power to keep users in, they can only be successful if they have a good product (and they had plenty of failed products like Google+, no matter how hard they tried to push it). It's much better to keep that incentive to keep the product good.
According to StatCounter, Bing has only 1% market share in the US on phones. But on desktops, Bing has 12% market share. And on tablets, Bing apparently has an astonishing 18% market share. So yeah, that's probably people who receive a Windows device and never bother to change the default search engine. No wonder that Google is paying Apple billions for being the default on iOS. On the other, there's far more than 12% of desktops that are on Windows, so a majority of people do change search engines, and that mostly means Google.
Note that Mozilla switched the default to Yahoo in 2014. Then they switched back to Google in 2017, amid lawsuits between Mozilla and Yahoo reported on this excellent website. One particular detail is interesting:
Also of interest is a section explaining that when Mozilla went to market for a search partner in 2014, it considered Yahoo! a very risky proposition and sought special protections in its contract.
This seems to imply that Mozilla does not only use Google because it's paying well, but also because they consider it more reliable.
I never heard that there was anything kept in the browser except cookies and cache. What's even the point of having data that is not stored as a cookie? Isn't it functionally the same? Is information that you are logged in to a website part of "site data", or is it a cookie (which is what I assumed)?
I think the most obvious purpose is to attract people to the Google assistant: "Watch this! Alexa and Siri can't do this!", yadda yadda. The big companies are trying super hard to put every feature from the useful to the ridiculous in their assistants, because they're becoming a major entry point for user queries, and if people use theirs rather than another one, it means they can charge more for ads. It's like the whole Android thing, which technically is not making Google any money — it's free. It's only useful to bring more people to Google services.
Apart from that, I don't think humming recognition serves any useful purpose to Google. The commercially-important part was recognizing copyrighted performances, and that was done long ago.
Google is not known for doing things without a reason
Huh? You mean the Google that did an 8-bit version of Google Maps? Or the Google that has ten different messaging apps? Or the Google that bought Boston Dynamics, never did anything with it and sold it a few years later? Or the Google that named its paying YouTube service YouTube Red?
Quoth the article: “In regard to photogrammetry, we often talked about number of cities or places that have it on Bing vs. Google. However, when I was examining the same area on both platforms, to my surprise (or not), the quality of photogrammetry on Bing is a lot worse, both in texture quality and polygon counts.”
Printing is on the way down, so nobody wants to be the one maintaining the required systems. I was delighted when I realized I could print directly from my phone out of the box thanks to Google cloud print. Alas, I've heard it is going away, because Google can't even bother to just... maintain... it.
If you only count desktop searches in the US, the market share for Bing is around 13%. If you only count mobile searches, it is just above 1%... There's your answer. A lot of people just use the default search engine without changing it; and on Desktop, which more often than not means Windows, that default is Bing.
There's a reason Google is paying billions to Apple to be the default search engine on iPhones.
My understanding is that Tesla makes nice cars and the controls are very cool, but they don't have the same experience as BMW to make an interior really well done. Customers who are used to buy cars around $80'000 expect polished design and high comfort, and they feel Teslas are cheaply made in comparison. High-end Teslas are priced like luxury cars, but they are not luxury cars.
I can only assume that TikTok hopes that Oracle being completely absent from the social media sector, it will give them a free rein to keep doing whatever it is that they want to do. Oracle, on the other side, I have no idea why they would want that; but I'm pretty sure TikTok won't like it when they know.
Never reuse your passwords: Because if you use a password to log in at shitty-security.com and they get hacked, or dodgy-site.com and they sell it, or even att.com and they tell it to whoever on the phone claims to be you, then people can use your password to log into your bank account. When you reuse passwords, all your accounts are only as secure as the least secure of them all.
If you use an identity provider, then any website you use that is hacked, dodgy or incompetent can at most reveal: "This guy's email address is xxx@gmail.com", and that doesn't let anybody log into your bank account. This of course assumes that the identity provider itself, whether facebook, apple or google, in not hacked, dodgy or incompetent.
The trade-off is that either you choose vendor-specific solutions with additional features which lock you in with that vendor, or you choose vendor-agnostic solutions which lock you out from vendor-specific features. Vendor-agnostic solutions may gain additional features, but more slowly because most vendors need to implement them.
I think the main question is, how sure are you what you want? If you are very sure, and you have the expertise, go for the exact solution you want. If you don't, go for vendor-agnostic. Wait until you understand the trade-offs before committing to a vendor, because going in is much easier than going out.
And no matter what you do, don't choose Oracle.
They get a second lawsuit, which augments their chances to have a legal decision in their favour — if there are two opposite rulings, chances are that nothing will change. And they get to implicitly threaten any other developer thinking of doing the same: If you try your luck, we'll sue you.
That said, I hope very much EPIC stick to their guns, don't come back on the App Store, and only use third-party app stores for Android. If they can make it work, other successful developers might join them, and Apple seeing the App store depleted of the most successful apps may eventually change their policies, to avoid users switching to Android.
Apparently, people who already have Fortnite on their iPhone can keep using it to play, so EPIC isn't even losing a lot of users yet.