On 19 Feb 2023 at 19:51:48 GMT, "David Kennedy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Apple are always either too monopolistic or not monopolistic enough, it seems.
I'm not sure this is a story. We knew Google paid for Google being
default in Safari; why is it so weird that they pay to have Google used
in Chrome as well?
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Jaimie Vandenbergh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2023 at 19:51:48 GMT, "David Kennedy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Apple are always either too monopolistic or not monopolistic enough, it
seems.
I'm not sure this is a story. We knew Google paid for Google being
default in Safari; why is it so weird that they pay to have Google used
in Chrome as well?
Surely Chrome is Google's app and so they can do whatever they want inside it? It is somewhat surprising that they paid Apple for the privilege of setting something inside their own app.
Of course on iOS 'Chrome' isn't Chrome, it's just another WebKit skin - like every other browser on iOS. Although I would be further surprised if Brave had to pay Apple to allow 'Brave Search' be the default in Brave browser.
Either way, it sounds very anti-trusty.
Theo
Jaimie Vandenbergh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2023 at 19:51:48 GMT, "David Kennedy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Apple are always either too monopolistic or not monopolistic enough, it
seems.
I'm not sure this is a story. We knew Google paid for Google being
default in Safari; why is it so weird that they pay to have Google used
in Chrome as well?
Surely Chrome is Google's app and so they can do whatever they want inside it? It is somewhat surprising that they paid Apple for the privilege of setting something inside their own app.
Of course on iOS 'Chrome' isn't Chrome, it's just another WebKit skin - like every other browser
On 19 Feb 2023 at 19:51:48 GMT, "David Kennedy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Apple are always either too monopolistic or not monopolistic enough, it seems.
I'm not sure this is a story. We knew Google paid for Google being
default in Safari; why is it so weird that they pay to have Google used
in Chrome as well?
Cheers - Jaimie
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics, could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we know which posts to skip/kill?
Thanks.
MST
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics, could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we know which posts to skip/kill?
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics, could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we know which posts to skip/kill?
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics, could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we know which posts to skip/kill?
Thanks.
Am 20.02.23 um 09:50 schrieb Martin S Taylor:
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics,
could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we know which posts to >> skip/kill?
Learn how to change the subject correctly.
Especially when you are planning to lecture and play netcop.
On 20/02/2023 08:50, Martin S Taylor wrote:
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics, could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we know which posts to
skip/kill?
Thanks.
MSTI could give it a try, but as with Christmas, it spoils things if the wrapping
paper is clear...
Martin S Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics,
could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we know which posts to >> skip/kill?
Perhaps we, and I include myself, should stop responding to their posts, particularly the crossposted ones. I know it’s incredibly tempting to respond to the crud but doing so seems to act as a major encouragement. Of course it still won’t stop the problem in its tracks but it will, I hope, frustrate the originators and maybe, just maybe, see some sense.
In which case shouldn�t developers be allowed to set a default search
engine of their own choice without financial implications?
On 20/02/2023 10:11, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Am 20.02.23 um 09:50 schrieb Martin S Taylor:
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/ >>
topics, could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we
know which posts to skip/kill?
Learn how to change the subject correctly.
Especially when you are planning to lecture and play netcop.
Ooops?
On 20/02/2023 09:26, Alan B wrote:
Martin S Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics, >>> could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we know which posts to
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/ >>>
skip/kill?
Perhaps we, and I include myself, should stop responding to their posts,
particularly the crossposted ones. I know it’s incredibly tempting to
respond to the crud but doing so seems to act as a major encouragement. Of >> course it still won’t stop the problem in its tracks but it will, I hope, >> frustrate the originators and maybe, just maybe, see some sense.
By all means keep replying - just take u.c.s.m out of the cross post
list and leave the rest. :-)
Martin S Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics,
could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we know which posts to >> skip/kill?
Perhaps we, and I include myself, should stop responding to their posts, particularly the crossposted ones. I know it’s incredibly tempting to respond to the crud but doing so seems to act as a major encouragement. Of course it still won’t stop the problem in its tracks but it will, I hope, frustrate the originators and maybe, just maybe, see some sense.
David Kennedy<[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/02/2023 10:11, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Am 20.02.23 um 09:50 schrieb Martin S Taylor:
On 19 Feb 2023, David Kennedy wrote
(in article <tstukk$g04d$[email protected]>):
Interesting little piece in the Reg the other day -
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/google_apple_chrome_ios_revenue/
Small request, but with so many trolls posting here on irrelevant topics, could you make the Subject a bit more informative, so we
know which posts to skip/kill?
Learn how to change the subject correctly.
Especially when you are planning to lecture and play netcop.
Ooops?
Quick enough to admonish, it's a shame that the
previous poster offered no guidance. Here's a free clue:-
When you change a Subject: header, put this:
[new subject] (Was: [old subject])
- this will tell a competent Newsreader to automatically delete
the (Was: [old subject]) part when following up.
I've changed this post's Subject: as an example.
Pardon me if I'm teaching Granny to suck eggs.
When you change a Subject: header, put this:
[new subject] (Was: [old subject])
- this will tell competent Newsreaders to automatically delete
the (Was: [old subject]) part when following up.
I've changed this post's Subject: as an example.
Pardon me if I'm teaching Granny to suck eggs.
Thank you - I had no clue about this protocol.
MST
You'll notice that your Hogwasher hasn't
stripped the old Subject: but my ancient MacSOUP has.
On 21 Feb 2023, Sn!pe wrote
(in article<1q6i4ms.1uep3a1zlz9kiN%[email protected]>):
You'll notice that your Hogwasher hasn't
stripped the old Subject: but my ancient MacSOUP has.
Yes - it didn't add the bit about (Was:...) either. I would have expected it to do that automatically.
MST
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 144:42:12 |
| Calls: | 12,089 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,491 |