I see this either changing to use the same methods as Apple, Google and Amazon
Google doesn't require using their store, either, for in-app purchases if the purchase is a digital good that can be used independently of the app through which it is purchased. You can't use "the same methods as Apple, Google, and Amazon", because those three don't use the same methods to start with.
Google is more liberal than Apple. I think Apple and Amazon might be comparable. Currently, Microsoft is apparently more liberal than Google in some respects (less requirement to use their in-app purchase system in apps sold through their store), but more in others (requirement to use their store for their platform) -- and, on balance, because Google is more liberal at the front door, Microsoft is already more restrictive than Google, not less.
Except with Android you have the option to install apps from other sources than the official Play store.
And, even with Play store apps, you aren't required to use Google's in-app purchase system for in-app purchases if they are physical goods or are digital goods that can be used outside of the app itself. You only have to use the Google Play in-app purchase system for digital content that is only usable with the app -- so that you can't use in-app purchase as an end-run around the 30% cut on the app sale price through the store. (So, you can't use the Play store for visibility, and then sell all the functionality outside of the store.)
Google prohibits using 3rd party payment processors for in-app purchases.
That article is, if not misleading at the time published, at a minimum outdated (as the reference to "Android Market" makes clear.) The current Google Play terms only require use of Google Play for in-app purchases for digital goods that are exclusively usable with the app:
In-app purchases: Developers offering additional content, services or functionality within an application downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play's payment system as the method of payment, except:
where payment is primarily for physical goods or services (e.g. buying movie tickets; e.g. buying a publication where the price also includes a hard copy subscription); or
where payment is for digital content or goods that may be consumed outside of the application itself (e.g. buying songs that can be played on other music players)
If the complaints are about Apple taking a 30% cut of in-app purchases how exactly is Android an alternative? Google takes a 30% cut for both app purchases and in-app purchases as well.
The difference is that Apple requires all purchases through App Store apps to be made using their in-app purchase system with their 30% cut, whereas Google allows in-app purchases and takes a 30% cut for those that use Google's in-app purchases system, but doesn't require in-app purchases to use Google's system except for goods that can only be used with the app itself. For physical goods or digital goods that can be used outside of the app (such as, say, an Office 365 subscription that could be used both within and outside of an an Android Office app), developers are free to use their own in-app purchase facilities, not go through Google, and not pay the 30% Google Play cut.
Also, Google doesn't require apps on their platform to come through their store at all (some carriers might, but then the issue is with the carrier). If you do choose to use their store to sell your app, you can't use a free-app-and-core-functionality-as-in-app-upgrade approach to bypass the 30% cut on the store. That's all the Google policy does, whereas the Apple policy demands a 30% cut of anything sold through an app, regardless of whether it is exclusively usable with the app.
No, Apple wants to be paid for any goods or infrastructure that happen to be sold through programs running on their devices. Stuff that they had absolutely no relation to, 'skydrive' server space in some MS datacenter, accessed through the user's ISP, Kindle ebooks licensed by Amazon and downloaded directly from them, that sort of thing.
Google requires a similar cut for in-app purchases made through Google's payment handling system, the difference is that Google doesn't require apps to use Google's payment system for in-app purchases when the good or service can be used outside of the app itself whereas Apple requires all in-app purchases to use their payment system and be subject to the 30% cut. Google's system prevents you from using in-app purchase to bypass the 30% cut on the store by making the app free and providing essential functionality through an in-app purchase, Apple's approach is considerably more intrusive.
Read again. He can go wherever he likes. Because HE plans to return to the U.S. he must feel he has nothing to fear with Belize presenting evidence of the murder of a U.S. Citizen.
Even if you assume all of that is true, that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Not all belief is rational. Of course, there are other problems with that argument...
Otherwise why would he WANT to return to the U.S. if he knew he would be charged with murder?
Who says he wants to return to the U.S.
Oh, yeah, he does. And its not like he could be lying about his intentions.
PL/SQL isn't the Oracle dialect of SQL, its the SQL-based procedural language supported by Oracle for triggers/procedures, etc.
An application talking SQL to Oracle doesn't need to use PL/SQL, but it does need to use the Oracle dialect of SQL.
For every iOS device sold, there are 3 Androids. Yet the traffic for Android devices is only 50% higher than iOS?
What are people doing with their android phones?
Maybe they are more frequently doing productive things, which tend to be less bandwidth intensive than, say, exchanging party videos and streaming movies.
Or maybe Android -- and apps that are popular on Android -- makes more efficient use of bandwidth; the way that Google's voice search does more on the device whereas Siri relies on backend servers for the same functionality. Or maybe -- as was especially confirmed to be a particularly bad problem in the initial release of iOS 6.0, but has been mitigated in subsequent updates -- iOS makes repeated and spurious extra requests for remote resources.
Firefox bookmarks sync is much better than Chrome bookmarks sync.
Chrome doesn't have bookmark sync, it has a fairly deep browser state sync which happens to also include bookmarks.
Firefox stored your bookmarks locally and updated them periodically from the cloud.
Which, if all you want is bookmark sync, is a fairly great way to do it. That's not the focus of Chrome's browser sync, so its not surprising that Chrome's sync isn't optimized for that use case.
It's not a philosophy at all to Google. It's a business model.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
And, actually, its not a business model; it may be either a philosophy, or the core principal of a business model, or both, but its not, in and of itself, a business model, any more than "collect underpants", by itself, is.
Ookay, this sounds like corporate speak. Translation: This is costing us more money than we are earning through ad-based revenue so we have to transition to a non-free model.
Since even the free tier of Google Apps wasn't an advertising-supported product, that's not hard to do.
It was designed as a non-time-limited starter option for business users, but it attracted a lot of consumer users who would then complain on the support forums -- not just the Google Apps support forums but those for each new consumer-oriented Google Accounts offering -- that consumer-oriented Google Accounts offerings weren't available on Google Apps accounts. At the same time, Google apparently doesn't think that it was particularly a good long-term options for business users.
Which is probably why Google has been experimenting with getting rid of it for a while (there were articles earlier this year about how they changed the sign-up flow so that the free tier no longer had sign-up link, but could be accessed by signing up from the free trial of the paid tier.) It doesn't do a good job of what it is intended for, and it attracts a lot of use that it isn't intended for and which ends up being a less-positive experience than users would have with normal Google Accounts.
'We're not serving them well,' he said of the free users.
Well, now they won't be able to serve them at all.
If you read the blog post, rather than the WSJ article, they go into more depth. They explain both how they feel individuals are generally poorly served by the free tier (which delays their access to consumer-oriented offerings, as Google Apps only gets things when Google thinks they are ready for business customers) and are better served by individual accounts, and why they feel business users are poorly served by it and are better served by the existing paid tier.
Essentially, they are saying the people drawn in by the price of the free tier are usually disappointed by it and would generally be served by a different one of Google's existing offerings.
You can disagree with this, but its not a ridiculous argument.
All I want is for Google to not treat people who own and want to use their own domain for their email address as a business and charge them business rates.
Google doesn't treat those people as businesses, they just doesn't see value in selling to those people unless they want to buy the full range of features that Google offers to business and accept the fact that consumer-oriented services that aren't ready for business users aren't going to be available to them.
Just because an interest exists doesn't mean that it is worthwhile to Google to devote resources to serving it.
I have a feeling people number of people using it for free are greatly reducing the availability of support people to help those who are actually paying for it.
Free tier individual users who use it just to have consumer-Google-account-with-Gmail-and-a-custom-domain are definitely clogging up forums for every new consumer feature attached to Google Accounts with complaints that the consumer grade feature isn't available to Google Apps users. Limiting the growth of this problem by shutting off new free Google Apps accounts and intensifying the focus of Google Apps as business offering is probably a good thing for all Google products going forward.
I just don't understand why they have to blatantly lie like that.
Why do you think its a lie?
Weasel speak was utterly unnecessary in this case and makes me wonder if some people are just so accustomed to lying that they can't avoid it.
There official blog posts lays out the reasons why they think that the free tier was a bad fit both for most individuals and for most businesses. You may disagree with those reasons, but for them to be a "lie" means that Google doesn't believe them, and you've provided no reason to think that that's the case.
More accurately would be "To better serve you, we aren't accept new users that are a net cost of resources."
The people that this is to serve better are current users, and the change affects new users (who will no longer be able to sign up for the free tier.)
Different incentives are needed for different people. Just as you wouldn't be very motivated to invest if you didn't get to defer the taxes and instead had to pay income tax on the money now, plus capital gains on the appreciation when you cash out, others might not be motivated by deferring income tax on current investments only to have to pay full income tax on it (and appreciation) when they sell -- and even if they would like the 401K-style deal, it probably doesn't make sense to give it to them.
Why do we need tax incentives to get people to make investments that return profits, aren't profits the incentive?
To the extent that the specially-favorable treatment of long-term capital gains is justifiable, its justificable not as an incentive but because some kind of special tax treatment of long-term capital gains makes sense in an income tax system that is based on progressive taxation because otherwise you'd treat the non-repeatable income from the increased value of an asset accrued over a multiyear period as if it were "earned" in the year in which the asset was sold, which doesn't reflect that the income was really "earned" over the whole life of the asset, and if assessed for tax purposes as it was "earned" would have resulted in much lower taxes than taxing it when the asset was sold.
AFAIK, most countries with antitrust laws permit private actions by injured parties to recover damages.
Because the harms are often diffuse harms that make such private actions not worth the cost of pursuing them, they also generally permit public action to restrain the prohibited conduct and to recover fines which, in theory, serve both as deterrent and indirect compensation for the diffuse public harm, as they are then spent on public priorities which either would not be funded without them, or which would be funded at public expense by way of either immediate taxes or deferred taxes by way of government borrowing.
Like my government needs more of my money, they already proved they are war junkies.
It sounds like you have a problem to address with your government that has nothing to do with antitrust policy.
like say google news. aggregating news and making money from the ad revenue instead of the news organization.
Well, except that Google News doesn't have ads, and doesn't present the news, just headlines and minimal teaser excerpts with link to the story hosted by the source, who receives the clicks from anyone who wants to read the story -- and all the ad revenue.
Now, Google Search has ads, and news results are also included in Search results, so the engine behind news still contributes to Google Search ad revenue, but even Search still presents the same headline-and-minimal-excerpt as Google News, and still makes people go to the source for the story. The real problem some news organizations have with Google News is that it serves as a portal from which people might go to other news organizations stories, and some news organizations want people to use the news organization's own portal which presents only that news organizations stories. Of course, its trivial for site owners to opt-out of inclusion in Google News via, among other mechanisms, appropriate robots.txt entries; most don't, because Google News doesn't steal ad revenue from news sites, it drives revenue to them by providing a mechanism by which users discover content of interest.
Because tech has been just as important over the whole period over which IT wages were observed to be flat, and because wages across the economy have been flat in the time period studied. So, the results are pretty much what you'd expect.
How does this actually help someone who's bought a TV or monitor during this time?
Directly, it doesn't. Government litigation -- which this is -- isn't generally aimed at direct compensation of individual victims for harms (that's what direct litigation by victims is for), its to deal with diffuse harms by creating a disincentive to commit them by taking away ill-gotten gains (and, at the same time, to do some indirect compensation for those harmed that are represented by the government, since the fines collected are then used for public purposes, directly supplanting either present taxes or present borrowing that would be paid by future taxes.)
Politicians don't have better things to worry about?
Governments are set up to do more than one thing at a time.
And, yes, people still use CRT TVs and monitors, and, more importantly, they still did between 1996 and 2005, the time period of the actions which are the subject of these sanctions. Major prosecutions take time.
Oh? Say that again in another billion years, when the Sun heats up enough to evaporate all the liquid water on the Earth, probably turning it into another Venus.
The comparison wasn't to Earth of the future, but, if it was a comparison to Earth "when the Sun heats up enough to evaporate all the liquid water on Earth", then saying that planets in the systems studied would be "warmer than Earth [...] which would make them [...] more likely to retain enough liquid water to support life" would still be impossible, just for a different reason.
Considering these laptops are for the most part manufactured in China anyway, how does bringing them back there in anyway give China access to any "controlled technology" they don't already have?
Controlled technology includes software as well as hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Google doesn't require using their store, either, for in-app purchases if the purchase is a digital good that can be used independently of the app through which it is purchased. You can't use "the same methods as Apple, Google, and Amazon", because those three don't use the same methods to start with. Google is more liberal than Apple. I think Apple and Amazon might be comparable. Currently, Microsoft is apparently more liberal than Google in some respects (less requirement to use their in-app purchase system in apps sold through their store), but more in others (requirement to use their store for their platform) -- and, on balance, because Google is more liberal at the front door, Microsoft is already more restrictive than Google, not less.
And, even with Play store apps, you aren't required to use Google's in-app purchase system for in-app purchases if they are physical goods or are digital goods that can be used outside of the app itself. You only have to use the Google Play in-app purchase system for digital content that is only usable with the app -- so that you can't use in-app purchase as an end-run around the 30% cut on the app sale price through the store. (So, you can't use the Play store for visibility, and then sell all the functionality outside of the store.)
That article is, if not misleading at the time published, at a minimum outdated (as the reference to "Android Market" makes clear.) The current Google Play terms only require use of Google Play for in-app purchases for digital goods that are exclusively usable with the app:
The difference is that Apple requires all purchases through App Store apps to be made using their in-app purchase system with their 30% cut, whereas Google allows in-app purchases and takes a 30% cut for those that use Google's in-app purchases system, but doesn't require in-app purchases to use Google's system except for goods that can only be used with the app itself. For physical goods or digital goods that can be used outside of the app (such as, say, an Office 365 subscription that could be used both within and outside of an an Android Office app), developers are free to use their own in-app purchase facilities, not go through Google, and not pay the 30% Google Play cut.
Also, Google doesn't require apps on their platform to come through their store at all (some carriers might, but then the issue is with the carrier). If you do choose to use their store to sell your app, you can't use a free-app-and-core-functionality-as-in-app-upgrade approach to bypass the 30% cut on the store. That's all the Google policy does, whereas the Apple policy demands a 30% cut of anything sold through an app, regardless of whether it is exclusively usable with the app.
Google requires a similar cut for in-app purchases made through Google's payment handling system, the difference is that Google doesn't require apps to use Google's payment system for in-app purchases when the good or service can be used outside of the app itself whereas Apple requires all in-app purchases to use their payment system and be subject to the 30% cut. Google's system prevents you from using in-app purchase to bypass the 30% cut on the store by making the app free and providing essential functionality through an in-app purchase, Apple's approach is considerably more intrusive.
Even if you assume all of that is true, that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Not all belief is rational. Of course, there are other problems with that argument...
Who says he wants to return to the U.S. Oh, yeah, he does. And its not like he could be lying about his intentions.
PL/SQL isn't the Oracle dialect of SQL, its the SQL-based procedural language supported by Oracle for triggers/procedures, etc. An application talking SQL to Oracle doesn't need to use PL/SQL, but it does need to use the Oracle dialect of SQL.
Maybe they are more frequently doing productive things, which tend to be less bandwidth intensive than, say, exchanging party videos and streaming movies. Or maybe Android -- and apps that are popular on Android -- makes more efficient use of bandwidth; the way that Google's voice search does more on the device whereas Siri relies on backend servers for the same functionality. Or maybe -- as was especially confirmed to be a particularly bad problem in the initial release of iOS 6.0, but has been mitigated in subsequent updates -- iOS makes repeated and spurious extra requests for remote resources.
Chrome doesn't have bookmark sync, it has a fairly deep browser state sync which happens to also include bookmarks.
Which, if all you want is bookmark sync, is a fairly great way to do it. That's not the focus of Chrome's browser sync, so its not surprising that Chrome's sync isn't optimized for that use case.
The two are not mutually exclusive. And, actually, its not a business model; it may be either a philosophy, or the core principal of a business model, or both, but its not, in and of itself, a business model, any more than "collect underpants", by itself, is.
Since even the free tier of Google Apps wasn't an advertising-supported product, that's not hard to do.
It was designed as a non-time-limited starter option for business users, but it attracted a lot of consumer users who would then complain on the support forums -- not just the Google Apps support forums but those for each new consumer-oriented Google Accounts offering -- that consumer-oriented Google Accounts offerings weren't available on Google Apps accounts. At the same time, Google apparently doesn't think that it was particularly a good long-term options for business users.
Which is probably why Google has been experimenting with getting rid of it for a while (there were articles earlier this year about how they changed the sign-up flow so that the free tier no longer had sign-up link, but could be accessed by signing up from the free trial of the paid tier.) It doesn't do a good job of what it is intended for, and it attracts a lot of use that it isn't intended for and which ends up being a less-positive experience than users would have with normal Google Accounts.
If you read the blog post, rather than the WSJ article, they go into more depth. They explain both how they feel individuals are generally poorly served by the free tier (which delays their access to consumer-oriented offerings, as Google Apps only gets things when Google thinks they are ready for business customers) and are better served by individual accounts, and why they feel business users are poorly served by it and are better served by the existing paid tier. Essentially, they are saying the people drawn in by the price of the free tier are usually disappointed by it and would generally be served by a different one of Google's existing offerings. You can disagree with this, but its not a ridiculous argument.
Google doesn't treat those people as businesses, they just doesn't see value in selling to those people unless they want to buy the full range of features that Google offers to business and accept the fact that consumer-oriented services that aren't ready for business users aren't going to be available to them. Just because an interest exists doesn't mean that it is worthwhile to Google to devote resources to serving it.
Free tier individual users who use it just to have consumer-Google-account-with-Gmail-and-a-custom-domain are definitely clogging up forums for every new consumer feature attached to Google Accounts with complaints that the consumer grade feature isn't available to Google Apps users. Limiting the growth of this problem by shutting off new free Google Apps accounts and intensifying the focus of Google Apps as business offering is probably a good thing for all Google products going forward.
The quote you are calling newspeak does not appear (much less, appear as a characterization by Google) in any of the sources cited in TFA.
Why do you think its a lie?
There official blog posts lays out the reasons why they think that the free tier was a bad fit both for most individuals and for most businesses. You may disagree with those reasons, but for them to be a "lie" means that Google doesn't believe them, and you've provided no reason to think that that's the case.
More accurately would be "To better serve you, we aren't accept new users that are a net cost of resources." The people that this is to serve better are current users, and the change affects new users (who will no longer be able to sign up for the free tier.)
Why do we need tax incentives to get people to make investments that return profits, aren't profits the incentive?
To the extent that the specially-favorable treatment of long-term capital gains is justifiable, its justificable not as an incentive but because some kind of special tax treatment of long-term capital gains makes sense in an income tax system that is based on progressive taxation because otherwise you'd treat the non-repeatable income from the increased value of an asset accrued over a multiyear period as if it were "earned" in the year in which the asset was sold, which doesn't reflect that the income was really "earned" over the whole life of the asset, and if assessed for tax purposes as it was "earned" would have resulted in much lower taxes than taxing it when the asset was sold.
AFAIK, most countries with antitrust laws permit private actions by injured parties to recover damages. Because the harms are often diffuse harms that make such private actions not worth the cost of pursuing them, they also generally permit public action to restrain the prohibited conduct and to recover fines which, in theory, serve both as deterrent and indirect compensation for the diffuse public harm, as they are then spent on public priorities which either would not be funded without them, or which would be funded at public expense by way of either immediate taxes or deferred taxes by way of government borrowing.
It sounds like you have a problem to address with your government that has nothing to do with antitrust policy.
Well, except that Google News doesn't have ads, and doesn't present the news, just headlines and minimal teaser excerpts with link to the story hosted by the source, who receives the clicks from anyone who wants to read the story -- and all the ad revenue.
Now, Google Search has ads, and news results are also included in Search results, so the engine behind news still contributes to Google Search ad revenue, but even Search still presents the same headline-and-minimal-excerpt as Google News, and still makes people go to the source for the story. The real problem some news organizations have with Google News is that it serves as a portal from which people might go to other news organizations stories, and some news organizations want people to use the news organization's own portal which presents only that news organizations stories. Of course, its trivial for site owners to opt-out of inclusion in Google News via, among other mechanisms, appropriate robots.txt entries; most don't, because Google News doesn't steal ad revenue from news sites, it drives revenue to them by providing a mechanism by which users discover content of interest.
Because tech has been just as important over the whole period over which IT wages were observed to be flat, and because wages across the economy have been flat in the time period studied. So, the results are pretty much what you'd expect.
Directly, it doesn't. Government litigation -- which this is -- isn't generally aimed at direct compensation of individual victims for harms (that's what direct litigation by victims is for), its to deal with diffuse harms by creating a disincentive to commit them by taking away ill-gotten gains (and, at the same time, to do some indirect compensation for those harmed that are represented by the government, since the fines collected are then used for public purposes, directly supplanting either present taxes or present borrowing that would be paid by future taxes.)
Governments are set up to do more than one thing at a time. And, yes, people still use CRT TVs and monitors, and, more importantly, they still did between 1996 and 2005, the time period of the actions which are the subject of these sanctions. Major prosecutions take time.
The comparison wasn't to Earth of the future, but, if it was a comparison to Earth "when the Sun heats up enough to evaporate all the liquid water on Earth", then saying that planets in the systems studied would be "warmer than Earth [...] which would make them [...] more likely to retain enough liquid water to support life" would still be impossible, just for a different reason.
Controlled technology includes software as well as hardware.