Apple Drops Suit Against Ex-Chip Exec Williams Who Started Nuvia(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Apple Drops Suit Against Ex-Chip Exec Williams Who Started Nuvia
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-29/apple-drops-suit-against-ex-chip-exec-williams-who-started-nuvia
26 comments
Yeah it's annoying. Onus should be on the OP to provide a readable alternative, most don't and it gets left to helpful people like in the sibling comment here.
I think sometimes the OP doesn't realise or has forgotten it can't be seen by others, but in many cases it's maybe laziness.
The guidelines don't help in saying criticism is off limits either, it's too regular an issue.
I think sometimes the OP doesn't realise or has forgotten it can't be seen by others, but in many cases it's maybe laziness.
The guidelines don't help in saying criticism is off limits either, it's too regular an issue.
We either all complain about click-bait journalism and privacy invading ads, or we pay money for good content.
Take your pick of what world you want to live in.
Take your pick of what world you want to live in.
I want to have a pile of money I put money into and then, for every news article I consider reading, I want to have that website extract a little bit of the money from that pile.
I don't want to spend $20 / mo for NYT or WSJ or any newspaper.
I don't want to spend $20 / mo for NYT or WSJ or any newspaper.
> for every news article I consider reading, I want to have that website extract a little bit of the money from that pile
I'd like that, too. A simple implementation that automatically deducts a payment on access might be promoting the same type of low-value content that's growing everywhere now, and which the GP called out: clickbait and stuff that enrages people pays well.
I don't know if a more complicated distribution scheme would help. People don't like dealing with complexity, and automatic metrics can be easily gamed, so I feel like such a system will tend to regress to the same behavior as a simple one, with more overhead.
There was an effort to introduce a micropayment system for content creators before, in Germany - maybe other elsewhere, too. In the early 2000s, when the web seemed to be full of interesting blogs, bloggers often had a "flattr" button, which would give them some money out of a monthly sum you could set. At the end of the month, everbody you "flattered" would get a share of your pile/allowance. I think there was a way to weigh how much they should get, compared to others.
Anyway, the system was made to reward creators with small amounts of money while keeping the transaction costs low.
It didn't really go anywhere for whatever reason. It seemed to disappear quietly after a year or two. Maybe it still exists, but I don't see the buttons anymore. I guess the economics didn't work out in the end.
Maybe it was too early? We have Patreon now, and it seems like people are adopting their approach. Interestingly, though, most of the time, it takes the form of subscriptions over payments for individual piece of content. (That payment model used to exist, but I haven't seen it in a while.)
So modern subscription models using Patreon seem to work well in supporting creators of interesting content, while there still isn't a micropayment pool for one-off access that I'm aware of. That makes me wonder what economic factors are at work here that can explain this, and shed some light on why a system like you're suggesting hasn't become mainstream yet.
I'd like that, too. A simple implementation that automatically deducts a payment on access might be promoting the same type of low-value content that's growing everywhere now, and which the GP called out: clickbait and stuff that enrages people pays well.
I don't know if a more complicated distribution scheme would help. People don't like dealing with complexity, and automatic metrics can be easily gamed, so I feel like such a system will tend to regress to the same behavior as a simple one, with more overhead.
There was an effort to introduce a micropayment system for content creators before, in Germany - maybe other elsewhere, too. In the early 2000s, when the web seemed to be full of interesting blogs, bloggers often had a "flattr" button, which would give them some money out of a monthly sum you could set. At the end of the month, everbody you "flattered" would get a share of your pile/allowance. I think there was a way to weigh how much they should get, compared to others.
Anyway, the system was made to reward creators with small amounts of money while keeping the transaction costs low.
It didn't really go anywhere for whatever reason. It seemed to disappear quietly after a year or two. Maybe it still exists, but I don't see the buttons anymore. I guess the economics didn't work out in the end.
Maybe it was too early? We have Patreon now, and it seems like people are adopting their approach. Interestingly, though, most of the time, it takes the form of subscriptions over payments for individual piece of content. (That payment model used to exist, but I haven't seen it in a while.)
So modern subscription models using Patreon seem to work well in supporting creators of interesting content, while there still isn't a micropayment pool for one-off access that I'm aware of. That makes me wonder what economic factors are at work here that can explain this, and shed some light on why a system like you're suggesting hasn't become mainstream yet.
Imo the reason this doesn't exist is the Visa/Mastercard duopoly, which enforces a per-transaction fee of $0.30 or so, which prevents micropayments from taking off. Solana (or specific other cryptocurrencies with tiny transaction fees) would actually work for this but well then you're using cryptocurrency, with all that implies. But a JavaScript library that charges $0.001 cent for each "read more" link clicked would be such a system. But how do you get blogs to add this library? Still, it is an actual use of cryptocurrency.
Just don't say mention Web3 and we'll be good.
Just don't say mention Web3 and we'll be good.
How about instead of money (which is complicated to do small amounts with unless you use crypto, and that's an whole can of worms) we trade a section of the page with a corporation that accepts money in exchange for the right to put something in those pixels? And then other companies could pay that. first company to put their pixels into pages where their pixels are relevant. Not sure how well that might work, but I suspect it's been tried already.
Though, a cryptocurrency and the right JavaScript libraries would bypass Visa/Mastercard duopoly and allow for instantaneous micropayments (as opposed to Patreon, which has to batch charges which materially improves their margin, but theres just so much noise every time cryptocurrency comes up that it doesn't seem worth it to say "hey, here's one actual use for crypto currency".
No one wants to make micropayment decisions every time they visit a web page. Micropayments have been technically possible for decades and have never taken off for good reasons.
So what flattr was?
sounds good, but as a reader you would want to pay after reading, otherwise it just incentivizes clickbait
Yes, yes, please, someone, do this! Cryptocurrency based micropayments for web pages, or something like this.
Crazy day in dropping huge lawsuits, what with RED & counter-suer Nikon dropping their lawsuits as well.
None of these have any resolution. The legal system just gets to keep ignoring the need to say anything about gobsmackingly massive situations.
None of these have any resolution. The legal system just gets to keep ignoring the need to say anything about gobsmackingly massive situations.
This is bad news. Red has been using garbage patents (obfuscated Jpeg2000) to hold back compressed raw for years now :/ Nikon was on their way to invalidating those garbage patents. Not on the grounds of it being obvious technology using off the shelf third party algorithms, but on technicality - RED showed the tech and took preorders before applying for patents https://www.dpreview.com/news/9301564383/nikon-denies-red-s-...
Keeping up with the FAANG execs, a subscriber exclusive show by Bloomberg.
Who am I kidding, there's enough audience for it I guess.
Who am I kidding, there's enough audience for it I guess.
The incumbent seem to be nervous about RISC-V and new companies disrupting the market.
Interesting. I am wondering if that is something Qualcomm has contributed to.
Williams was a key player in the rise of Apple Silicon and Apple’s been struggling since his departure:
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/inside-apples-war-fo...
(Sorry for the paywall, but it’s a very good article).
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/inside-apples-war-fo...
(Sorry for the paywall, but it’s a very good article).
That said, I’m personally all for subscriptions but don’t see a way forward for something like HN sharing of essentially private content.