Consoles aren't generally seen by people as general-purpose computers, neither are they marketed as such by their manufacturers. They're seen by most people as appliances for playing video games.
I don't see cellphones as general purpose computers either. For exactly the same reason why I don't see game consoles as general purpose computers: neither one will run arbitrary programs. They only run programs that are blessed by their manufacturer. Both are appliances.
I'm really failing to see the distinction here.
Big tech will simply declare that phones aren't "general purpose computers". There is no reasonable endgame here in which: (a) this is enforced against cellphones and (b) this is not enforced against game consoles and (c) the EU doesn't end up looking completely ridiculous and arbitrary.
I'm betting that they cave on (b). It's the least painful option. The EU is going to have to enforce this against game consoles in order to be taken seriously.
I need to have an app on my phone to manage my health care payment.
I don't need a console for anything in particular.
It's hardly the same thing. Some services are not even available on a traditional computer
FinTech started as mobile apps and they added website support later.
It's stupid but that's how things are, the majority has chosen...
I don't think they've sold enough units in Europe to automatically qualify. Also wouldn't be surprised if games consoles have a dedicated carveout for the foreseeable future.
I'd expect the online stores on those consoles, and the resale of digital content, to be impacted well before running other OSs on consoles that didn't ship with that feature.
No, it doesn't. It was designed to work on more general purpose devices. And even then the EC is not investigating MS Sony or Nintendo as gatekeepers of their respective consoles.
Norwegian here. I assume you mean "Utdanningsetaten", which literally translates to "The Education Agency". Apparently sweden does not use the same name, as their word for education is slightly different (utbildning instead of utdanning). Not sure why the translator got it so wrong.
Microsoft had won the browser war, but at the same time the dotcom crash and antitrust action over the tight integration between IE and Windows caused Microsoft to stop investing in it.
I don't agree IE6 was trash at that time. It was much better than the competition. IE was much faster and less resource intensive than Netscape, which was a big deal when RAM was measured in megabytes. It's not fair to compare it to browsers which came out years later.
Did they ever invest much into it? As far as I understand they got the core components from Spyglass Inc. and avoided paying licensing fees by giving it away for free.
> Feels like when Microsoft licensed Mosaic from Spyglass to become Internet Explorer, and a chunk of the compensation was tied to a fraction of revenue from Internet Explorer. Of course Microsoft gave IE away as part of Windows so IE never had any revenue associated directly with it.
Eventually MS did settle a lawsuit brought by Spyglass for $8 million to make the issue go away
Thanks for the feedback, I originally tried to import all domains ~1b, but that took a week, so I'll always be a week behind unless I do some serious optimisation there!
Currently using godaddy API, which has FAST or ACCURATE options. Given the generator requests are already 10s long (most of which is gpt4) I opted for the FAST, but I can trial it with the ACCURATE and see how it goes.
Thanks again!
