They should have a separate tab for the two of them like YouTube has, I like being able to move quickly between the algorithmic recommended feed and the “subscribed to” one.
The $77B didn't vanish, it went back to shareholders. Indeed Apple could have used it to fund fusion research, but this seems like a complete stretch of their expertise and capacity to execute on a project like that, the money could just have ended up being wasted on projects that went nowhere. Shareholders can cash out, the government tax the capital gains, and both entities can use the cash in the investments that seems worthy to them
This doesn't work in practice, companies that aren't allowed to pay those ransoms usually use proxies (some other company that doesn't have to follow those restrictions) that will pay the hackers
I really enjoy "Le Monde Diplomatique", it's a french monthly newspaper, mostly about foreign politics. It's translated in more than 25 languages and it started as a newspaper made for diplomatic circles.
What I think he meant is that, most of the news website became slow and bad user experiences on mobile, pushing users to download wall-gardened native mobile news apps by established News Corporations to experience something fast and kind of pleasant.
This is a problem for Google and for "freedom of speech", because you're not googling for news anymore, you go straight to your established news native application, preventing you to see other competing results (like blogs or smaller news websites for instance)
Pushing them to have cleaner and faster websites makes the user stay on the web. It is a clear benefit for Google, but to his point, to the user too. (At least that was the goal)
I'm curious to know why and how you would enforce a patent like that if competition was using the same technique. Am I missing the point entirely? Is it just a mean to say "I got the idea first!"?