Category Archives: Economics

Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are ‘as painful as possible’ for Firefox

Posted on by

Apple’s new rules in the European Union mean browsers like Firefox can finally use their own engines on iOS. Although this may seem like a welcome change, Mozilla spokesperson Damiano DeMonte tells The Verge it’s “extremely disappointed” with the way things turned out.

“We are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Apple’s proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-specific apps,” DeMonte says. “The effect of this would be to force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations — a burden Apple themselves will not have to bear.”

[…]

“Apple’s proposals fail to give consumers viable choices by making it as painful as possible for others to provide competitive alternatives to Safari,” DeMonte adds. “This is another example of Apple creating barriers to prevent true browser competition on iOS.”

Mozilla isn’t the only developer critical of Apple’s new rules, which also extend to game streaming apps, alternative app stores, and sideloading. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney called the new terms a “horror show,” while Spotify said the changes are a “farce.” Apple’s guidelines are still pending approval by the EU Commission.

Source: Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are ‘as painful as possible’ for Firefox – The Verge

Apple Isn’t Ready to Release Its Grip on the App Store

Posted on by

[…] For the first time, new EU rules have forced the company to entertain the idea that you can shop for apps outside of Apple’s own App Store, as well as allow browsers other than Apple’s own Safari to run on iOS with their full suite of features.

Yet critics say those changes, although drastic, do not go far enough to comply with new EU rules, and a new fee system for developers reveals how Apple is not yet ready to release its grip on the App Store.

“The new fees and restrictions simply reinforce Apple’s hold over its ecosystem,” Andy Yen, founder and CEO of Swiss encrypted email and VPN provider, Proton, said in response to the changes.

[…]

The European Union’s solution was a law called the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The idea wasn’t to break up Big Tech, former French digital minister Cédric O explained in a press conference in 2022. Instead the law was designed to break these platforms open.

On January 25, the EU seemed like it was finally starting to succeed in that mission, when Apple shared the first details of how the residents of the EU’s 27 member states will soon be able to download apps from alternative app stores onto their iPhones and iPads. Developers will also be able to use third-party payment providers inside apps offered by the Apple App Store for free, and will pay a reduced commission of up to 17 percent for in-app goods and services, the company said.

[…]

Apple made it clear the company will maintain an element of control over the apps and new app stores operating on its devices—arguing this was necessary to reduce “privacy and security risks.” Apple said it will use a new system to track alternative app stores and payment systems, while charging developers a €0.50 ($0.54) “core technology fee” for every download—made through Apple’s App Store or an alternative—once an app is downloaded more than one million times.

“Especially for the big app developers with loads of downloads, who are the ones that really Apple make all their money from, that will rack up to a very high cost very quickly,” says Max von Thun, Europe director at Open Markets, a group dedicated to campaigning against monopolies.

[…]

The caveats sparked outrage from developers that had been hoping to benefit from DMA-inspired changes. “Allowing alternative payments and marketplaces seems positive on the surface, but the strings attached to Apple’s new policies mean that in practice it will be impossible for developers to benefit from them,” Proton’s Yen said in a statement. “Apple will continue stifling competition and innovation, and taking a cut even when developers opt out of its walled garden.”

Tim Sweeney, founder and CEO of Epic Games, went further, accusing Apple on X of “twisting this process to undermine competition and continue imposing Apple taxes on transactions they’re not involved in.”

[…]

With just a matter of weeks until the EU’s March deadline, Apple and developers alike will soon find out whether the EU thinks those changes have gone far enough.

Source: Apple Isn’t Ready to Release Its Grip on the App Store | WIRED

EU forces Apple to open up to third-party app stores and payments. Details emerge what it will look like.

Posted on by

Apple is making major changes to the App Store and other core parts of iOS in Europe in response to new European Union laws. Beginning in March, Apple will allow users within the EU to download apps and make purchases from outside of its App Store. The company is already testing many of these changes in its iOS 17.4 beta, which is available now to developers.

Apple has long resisted many of these changes, arguing that it would leave users susceptible to scams, malware and other privacy and security issues. But under the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which goes into effect March 7, major tech companies like Apple are required to make significant changes to their businesses.

[…]

The most significant changes will be for developers, who will be able to take payments and distribute apps from outside of the App Store for the first time. Under the new rules, Apple will still enforce a review process for apps that don’t come through its store. Called “Notarization,” the review will use automation and human reviewers and will be “focused on platform integrity and protecting users” from things like malware. But the company notes it has “less ability to address other risks — including apps that contain scams, fraud, and abuse, or that expose users to illicit, objectionable, or harmful content.”

Apple is also changing its often-criticized commission structure so that developers will pay 17 percent on subscriptions and in-app purchases with the fee reducing to 10 percent for “most developers” after the first year.

At the same time, Apple is tacking on a new 3 percent “payment processing” fee for transactions that go through its store. And a new “core technology fee” will charge a flat €0.50 fee for all app downloads, regardless of whether they come from the App Store or a third-party website, after the first 1 million installations.

[…]

pple will offer new APIs that will allow app makers to access the iPhone’s NFC chip for wireless payments, enabling tap-to-pay transactions that don’t rely on Apple Pay.

It’s also making a tweak to its Safari web browser so that iOS users in Europe will be immediately prompted about whether they want to change their default browser the first time they launch the app after the iOS 17.4 update. Additionally, browser developer will be able to use an engine besides Apple’s own WebKit, which could lead to browsers like Chrome and Firefox releasing new versions using their own technology for rendering sites.

[…]

Source: Apple details how third-party app stores and payments will work in Europe

So… I wonder how many apps will easily find their way through the “Notarization” process? And how do they justify charging for downloads from stores they do not own? It can not possibly be in the spirit of the EU laws to allow this.

Ubisoft Says It Out Loud: We Want People To Get Used To Not Owning What They’ve Bought

Posted on by

if buying isnt owning then piracy isnt stealing

[…] the public too often doesn’t understand how it happens that products stop working the way they did after updates are performed remotely, or why movies purchased through an online store suddenly disappear with no refund, or why other media types purchased online likewise go poof. There is a severe misalignment, in other words, between what consumers think their money is being spent on and what is actually being purchased.

[…]

I suppose it’s at least a bit refreshing to see Ubisoft come out here and just say the quiet part out loud.

With the pre-release of Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown started, Ubisoft has chosen this week to rebrand its Ubisoft+ subscription services, and introduce a PC version of the “Classics” tier at a lower price. And a big part of this, says the publisher’s director of subscriptions, Philippe Tremblay, is getting players “comfortable” with not owning their games.

He claims the company’s subscription service had its biggest ever month October 2023, and that the service has had “millions” of subscribers, and “over half a billion hours” played. Of course, a lot of this could be a result of Ubisoft’s various moments of refusing to release games to Steam, forcing PC players to use its services, and likely opting for a month’s subscription rather than the full price of the game they were looking to buy. But still, clearly people are opting to use it.

On the one hand, there are realms where it makes sense for a subscription based gaming service where you pay a monthly fee for access and essentially never buy a game. Xbox’s Game Pass, for instance, makes all the sense in the world for some people. If you’re a more casual gamer who doesn’t want to own a library of games, but rather merely wants to be able to play a broad swath of titles at a moment’s notice, a service like that is perfect.

But Game Pass is $10 a month and includes titles from all kinds of publishers. Ubisoft’s service is nearly double that rate and only includes Ubisoft titles. That’s a much tougher sell.

[…]

Given that most people, while being a part of the problem (hello), also think of this as a problem, it’s so weird to see it phrased as if some faulty thinking in the company’s audience.

“One of the things we saw is that gamers are used to, a little bit like DVD, having and owning their games. That’s the consumer shift that needs to happen. They got comfortable not owning their CD collection or DVD collection. That’s a transformation that’s been a bit slower to happen [in games]. As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don’t lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That’s not been deleted. You don’t lose what you’ve built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it’s about feeling comfortable with not owning your game.“

That last sentence’s thoughts are so misaligned as to be nearly in the realm of nonsense. If it’s my game, then I do own it. The point Ubisoft is trying to make is that the public should get over ownership entirely and accept that it’s not my game at all. It’s my subscription service.

And while I appreciate Ubisoft saying the quiet part out loud for once, I don’t believe for a moment that this will go over well with the general gaming public.

Source: Ubisoft Says It Out Loud: We Want People To Get Used To Not Owning What They’ve Bought | Techdirt

Hint: it hasn’t!

Supreme Court declines appeals from Apple and Epic Games in App Store case

Posted on by

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeals filed by both Apple and Epic Games following a judge’s ruling that Apple must allow developers to offer alternative methods to pay for apps and services other than through the App Store. It did not provide an explanation as to why it refused to review either appeal, but it means the permanent injunction giving developers a way to avoid the 30 percent cut Apple takes will remain in place.

Apple made the appeal to the high court back in September of last year, requesting it review the circuit court’s decision it deemed “unconstitutional.” The case brought forward by Epic Games is the first to challenge the business model of the App store, which helps Apple rake in billions. In May 2023, Apple said that developers generated about $1 trillion in total billings through the App Store in 2022. Gaming apps sold on the App Store generate an estimated $100 billion in revenue each year.

While the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Epic’s appeal that Apple has indeed broken California’s Unfair Competition law, it rejected Epic’s claim that the App store is a monopoly. In addition to declining to hear Apple’s appeal, SCOTUS also will not review Epic’s appeal that the district court had made “legal errors.”

Epic claimed that Apple violates federal antitrust laws through its business model, however, this is not an issue the high court will consider.

[…]

Source: Supreme Court declines appeals from Apple and Epic Games in App Store case

Hospitals owned by private equity are harming patients, reports find

Posted on by

Private equity firms are increasingly buying hospitals across the US, and when they do, patients suffer, according to two separate reports. Specifically, the equity firms cut corners, slash services, lay off staff, lower quality of care, take on substantial debt, and reduce charity care, leading to lower ratings and more medical errors, the reports collectively find.

Last week, the financial watchdog organization Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) released a report delving into the state of two of the nation’s largest hospital systems, Lifepoint and ScionHealth—both owned by private equity firm Apollo Global Management. Through those two systems, Apollo runs 220 hospitals in 36 states, employing around 75,000 people.

The report found that some of Apollo’s hospitals were among the worst in their respective states, based on a ranking by The Lown Institute Hospital Index. The index ranks hospitals and health systems based on health equity, value, and outcomes, PESP notes. The hospitals also have dismal readmission rates and government rankings. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ranks hospitals on a one- to five-star system, with the national average of 3.2 stars overall and about 30 percent of hospitals at two stars or below. Apollo’s overall average is 2.8 stars, with nearly 40 percent of hospitals at two stars or below.

Patterns

The other report, a study published in JAMA late last month, found that the rate of serious medical errors and health complications increases among patients in the first few years after private equity firms take over. The study examined Medicare claims from 51 private equity-run hospitals and 259 matched control hospitals.

Specifically, the study, led by researchers at Harvard University, found that patients admitted to private equity-owned hospitals had a 25 percent increase in developing hospital-acquired conditions compared with patients in the control hospitals. In private equity hospitals, patients experienced a 27 percent increase in falls, a 38 percent increase in central-line bloodstream infections (despite placing 16 percent fewer central lines than control hospitals), and surgical site infections doubled.

“These findings heighten concerns about the implications of private equity on health care delivery,” the authors concluded.

It also squares with PESP’s investigation, which collected various data and media reports that could help explain how those medical errors could happen. The report found a pattern of cost-cutting and staff layoffs after private equity acquisition. In 2020, for instance, Lifepoint cut its annual salary and benefit costs by $166 million over the previous year and cut its supply costs by $54 million. Staff that remained at Apollo’s hospitals were, in some cases, underpaid, and some hospitals cut services, including obstetric, pediatric, and psychiatric care.

Another pattern was that Apollo’s hospitals were highly indebted. According to Moody’s Investor Services, Apollo’s ScionHealth has 5.8 times more debt than income to pay that debt off. Lifepoint’s debt was 7.9 times its income. Private equity firms often take on excessive debt for leveraged buyouts, but this can lead cash to be diverted to interest payments instead of operational needs, PESP reported.

Apollo also made money off the hospitals in sale-leaseback transactions, in which it sold the land under the hospitals and then leased it back. In these cases, hospitals are left paying rent on land they used to own.

[…]

Source: Hospitals owned by private equity are harming patients, reports find | Ars Technica

HP CEO: You’re ‘bad investment’ if you don’t buy HP supplies

Posted on by

hp printers printing money over your dead body

HP CEO Enrique Lores admitted this week that the company’s long-term objective is “to make printing a subscription” when he was questioned about the company’s approach to third-party replacement ink suppliers.

The PC and print biz is currently facing a class-action lawsuit (from 2.42 in the video below) regarding allegations that the company deliberately prevented its hardware from accepting non-HP branded replacement cartridges via a firmware update.

When asked about the case in a CNBC interview, Lores said: “I think for us it is important for us to protect our IP. There is a lot of IP that we’ve built in the inks of the printers, in the printers themselves. And what we are doing is when we identify cartridges that are violating our IP, we stop the printers from work[ing].”

Later in the interview, he added: “Every time a customer buys a printer, it’s an investment for us. We are investing in that customer, and if that customer doesn’t print enough or doesn’t use our supplies, it’s a bad investment.”

[…]

HP has long banged the drum [PDF] about the potential for malware to be introduced via print cartridges, and in 2022, its bug bounty program confirmed that third-party cartridges with reprogrammable chips could deliver malware into printers.

Kind old HP is, therefore, only concerned about the welfare of customers.

Sadly, Lores’s protestations were somewhat undermined by the admission that the company’s business model depends – at least in part – on customers selecting HP supplies for their devices.

“Our objective is to make printing as easy as possible, and our long-term objective is to make printing a subscription.”

This echoes comments by former CFO Marie Myers, who said in December:

“We absolutely see when you move a customer from that pure transactional model … whether it’s Instant Ink, plus adding on that paper, we sort of see a 20 percent uplift on the value of that customer because you’re locking that person, committing to a longer-term relationship.”

Source: HP CEO: You’re ‘bad investment’ if you don’t buy HP supplies • The Register

I can have app store? Apple: yes but NO! Give €1,000,000 + lock in to Apple ecosystem. This is how to “comply” with EU anti competition law

Posted on by
a rotting apple core with a closed padlock running through it

Apple is keeping a firm grip on people with alternative marketplaces, fleecing them for money but also for other control. Here are some of the terms Apple requires you to conform to in order to start up your own app store (which they call alternative marketplace):

If you’re interested in becoming a marketplace developer in the EU, the Account Holder of your Apple Developer Program membership will first need to agree to the Alternative Terms Addendum for Apps in the EU. Once they’ve agreed, they can submit a request for the entitlement.

To qualify for the entitlement, you must:

  • Be enrolled in the Apple Developer Program as an organization incorporated, domiciled, and or registered in the EU (or have a subsidiary legal entity incorporated, domiciled, and or registered in the EU that’s listed in App Store Connect). The location associated with your legal entity is listed in your Apple Developer account.
  • Agree to build an app whose primary purpose is discovery and distribution of apps, including apps from other developers.
  • Agree to provide and publish terms, including those pertaining to content and business model, for apps you will distribute, and accept apps that meet those terms.
  • […]

But what rankles most is the amount of money Apple not only fleeces from marketplaces for every installation – especially considering that Apple is not doing anything for the download – but that the barrier to entry is set at ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Understanding payments, fees, and taxes

Stand-by letter of credit

In order to establish adequate financial means to guarantee support for developers and customers, marketplace developers must provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 prior to receiving the entitlement. It will need to be auto-renewed on a yearly basis.

Core Technology Fee

The DMA requires Apple to support distribution and payment processing alternatives that are facilitated outside the App Store. To reflect the value Apple provides marketplace developers with ongoing investments in developer tools, technologies, and program services, Apple has introduced a Core Technology Fee.

  • Marketplace developers will need to pay €0.50 for each first annual install of their marketplace app. First annual installs included in your Apple Developer Program membership can’t be used for marketplace apps.
Source: Getting started as an alternative app marketplace in the European Union

Of course, Apple is the one deciding if you are allowed to create an app store. What is the likelihood of that happening? Should you be one of the happy few (uhm, wait – didn’t the EU have this ruling as part of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), an anti competitive set of laws, aimed at allowing EVERYONE access?), then you still have to build an Apple App – ie you have to pay Apple to have your app in the app store and they will review your app in their app store. In the words of Apple:

An alternative app marketplace is an iOS app from which someone can install other third-party apps. To create a marketplace, fill out a webform that outlines the qualifications. If approved, Apple enables a code-signing entitlement on your account to distribute your marketplace app on the web. Apple also provides you with a framework that facilitates the secure installation of apps that your marketplace hosts.

To set up a marketplace, upload a public key, or marketplace key, to App Store Connect that regularly verifies the agreement, or relationship, you make with other developers that distribute their app on your marketplace.

The architecture of an app marketplace includes an iOS app, a webpage, from which people download your app, and a webserver that stores app data it regularly receives from App Store Connect.

Source: Creating an alternative app marketplace

So the value Apple describes above is basically that they force you to set up your App store from inside their App store. Apple then tells you how to run it and wants to know exactly what is going on inside it, so they can grab their €0.50 per year per app downloaded from it.

So really, the way in which Apple is conforming to the EU DMA is by offering a massive finger to the EU and it’s developers.

HP sued (again) for blocking third-party ink from printers via security updates

Posted on by

HP has used its “Dynamic Security” firmware updates to “create a monopoly” of replacement printer ink cartridges, a lawsuit filed against the company on January 5 claims. The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action certification, represents yet another form of litigation against HP for bricking printers when they try to use ink that doesn’t bear an HP logo.

The lawsuit (PDF), which was filed in US District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, names 11 plaintiffs and seeks an injunction against HP requiring the company to disable its printer firmware updates from preventing the use of non-HP branded ink. The lawsuit also seeks monetary damages greater than $5,000,000 and a trial by jury.

The lawsuit focuses on HP printer firmware updates issued in late 2022 and early 2023 that left users seeing this message on their printers when they tried to print with non-HP ink:

The lawsuit cites this pop-up message users saw.
Enlarge / The lawsuit cites this pop-up message users saw.
grhhull/Reddit

HP was wrong to issue a firmware update affecting printer functionality, and users were not notified that accepting firmware updates “could damage any features of the printer,” the lawsuit says. The lawsuit also questions HP’s practice of encouraging people to register their printers and then quietly releasing updates that change the printers’ functionality. Additionally, the lawsuit highlights the fact that the use of non-HP ink cartridges doesn’t break HP’s printer warranty.

The filing reads:

… it is not practical or economically rational to purchase a new printer in order to avoid purchasing HP replacement ink cartridges. Therefore, once consumers purchase their printers, the Dynamic Security firmware updates lock them into purchasing HP-branded ink.

HP is proud of its strategy of locking in printer customers. Last month, HP CFO Marie Myers praised the company’s movement from transactional models to forcing customers into continuous buys through offerings like Instant Ink, HP’s monthly ink subscription program.

“We absolutely see when you move a customer from that pure transactional model … whether it’s [to] Instant Ink, plus adding on that paper, we sort of see a 20 percent uplift on the value of that customer because you’re locking that person, committing to a longer-term relationship,” Myers said, as quoted by The Register.

[…]

The lawsuit accuses HP of raising prices on its ink “in the same time period” that it issued its late 2022 and early 2023 firmware updates, which “create[d] a monopoly in the aftermarket for replacement cartridges, permitting [HP] to raise prices without fear of being undercut by competitors.

[…]

HP’s decision to use firmware updates to brick printers using non-HP ink has landed it in litigation numerous times since Dynamic Security debuted in 2016. While the recently filed case is still in its early stages, it’s another example of how disgruntled users have become with HP seizing control over the type of ink that customers insert into hardware they own.

For example, HP agreed to pay $1.5 million in 2019 to settle a class-action case in California about Dynamic Security.

Overseas, HP paid European customers $1.35 million for Dynamic Security. It also paid a 10,000,000-euro fine to the Italian Antitrust Authority in 2020 over the practice and agreed to pay approximately AUD$50 each to Australian customers in 2018.

In addition to the lawsuit filed earlier this month, HP is facing a lawsuit filed in California in 2020 over an alleged failure to disclose information about Dynamic Security. As noted by Reuters, in December, a Northern District of California judge ruled (PDF) that the lawsuit may not result in monetary rewards, but plaintiffs may seek an injunction against the practice.

HP has also been fighting a lawsuit complaining about some of its printers refusing to scan and/or fax without HP ink loaded into the device, even though ink isn’t required to scan or fax a document. (This is something other printer companies are guilty of, too).

Despite already enduring payouts regarding Dynamic Security and calls for HP printers to be ousted from the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) registry, HP seems committed to using firmware updates to try to control how people use their own printers.

[…]

Source: HP sued (again) for blocking third-party ink from printers, accused of monopoly | Ars Technica

Amazon Gives Giant Middle Finger To Prime Video Customers, Will Charge $3 Extra A Month To Avoid Ads Starting In January

Posted on by

dollar bills going up in flame[…]

Amazon customers already pay $15 per month, or $139 annually for Amazon Prime, which includes a subscription to Amazon’s streaming TV service. In a bid to make Wall Street happy, Amazon recently announced it would start hitting those users with entirely new streaming TV ads, something you can only avoid if you’re willing to shell out an additional $3 a month.

There was ample backlash to Amazon’s plan, but it apparently accomplished nothing. Amazon says it’s moving full steam ahead with the plan, which will begin on January 29th:

“We aim to have meaningfully fewer ads than linear TV and other streaming TV providers. No action is required from you, and there is no change to the current price of your Prime membership,” the company wrote. Customers have the option of paying an additional $2.99 per month to keep avoiding advertisements.”

If you recall, it took the cable TV, film, music, and broadcast sectors the better part of two decades before they were willing to give users affordable, online access to their content as part of a broader bid to combat piracy. There was just an endless amount of teeth gnashing by industry executives as they were pulled kicking and screaming into the future.

Despite having just gone through that experience, streaming executives refuse to learn anything from it, and are dead set on nickel and diming their users. This will inevitably drive a non-insignificant amount of those users back to piracy, at which point executives will blame the shift on absolutely everything and anything other than themselves.

[…]

Source: Amazon Gives Giant Middle Finger To Prime Video Customers, Will Charge $3 Extra A Month To Avoid Ads Starting In January | Techdirt

Mt. Gox Victims Report ‘Double Repayments’ From 2014 Bitcoin Hack

Posted on by

[…]

In 2014, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, Mt. Gox, suffered a notorious hack that stole 850,000 Bitcoins from the platform. Victims are finally starting to get their money back on Tuesday, nearly 10 years later. However, some are reporting Mt. Gox accidentally sent “double payments” and the trustees are asking for some of it back.

“Due to a system issue, the transfer of money to you was inadvertently made twice,” said Mt. Gox in an email numerous creditors posted on Reddit. “Please note that you are not authorized to receive the second transfer and are legally obligated to return the above amount to the Rehabilitation Trustee.”

The hack caused Mt. Gox to file for bankruptcy in 2014. At the end of that year, 850,000 Bitcoin was roughly worth $272 million, but Bitcoin prices have since skyrocketed, and it’s now worth over $35 billion. For the last 10 years, creditors have been waiting for Mt. Gox trustees to recoup stolen funds. Trustees recovered roughly 20% of the hack

[…]

Source: Mt. Gox Victims Report ‘Double Repayments’ From 2014 Bitcoin Hack

Google to pay $700 million and make tiny app store changes to settle with 50 states

Posted on by

On December 11th, a jury decided that Google has an illegal monopoly with its Google Play app store, handing Epic Games a win. But Epic wasn’t the only one fighting an antitrust case. All 50 state attorneys general settled a similar lawsuit in September, and we’ve just now learned what Google agreed to give up as a result: $700 million and a handful of minor concessions in the way that Google runs its store in the United States.

The biggest change: Google will need to let developers steer consumers away from the Google Play Store for several years, if this settlement is approved.

You can read the full 68-page settlement for yourself at the bottom of this story, but here’s the TL;DR about what it includes:

  • $700,000,000 from Google in total (roughly 21 days of Google’s operating profit from the app store alone)
  • $629,000,000 of which will go to consumers who may have overpaid for apps or in-app purchases via Google Play after taxes, lawyers’ fees, and so on
  • $70,000,000 of which will go to states to be used as the state AGs see fit
  • $1,000,000 of which is for settlement administration
  • For 7 years, Google will “continue to technically enable Android to allow the installation of third-party apps on Mobile Devices through means other than Google Play”
  • For 5 years, Google will let developers offer an alternative in-app billing system next to Google Play (aka “User Choice Billing”)
  • For 5 years, Google won’t make developers offer their best prices to customers who pick Google Play and Google Play Billing
  • For 4 years, Google won’t make developers ship titles on Google Play at the same time as other stores and with feature parity
  • For 5 years, Google won’t make companies exclusively put Google Play on a phone or its homescreen
  • For 4 years, Google won’t stop OEMs from granting installer rights to preloaded apps
  • For 5 years, Google won’t require its “consent” before an OEM preloads a third-party app store
  • For 4 years, Google will let third-party app stores update apps without requiring user approval
  • For 4 years, Google will let sideloaded app stores use its APIs and “feature splits” to help install apps
  • For 5 years, Google will turn its two sideloading “scare screens” into a single user prompt which will read the equivalent of this agreed-upon language: “Your phone currently isn’t configured to install apps from this source. Granting this source permission to install apps could place your phone and data at risk.”
  • For 5 years, Google will let User Choice Billing participating developers let their users know about better pricing elsewhere and “complete transactions using the developer’s existing web-based billing solution in an embedded webview within its app.”
  • For 6 years, Google will “continue to allow developers to use contact information obtained outside the app or in-app (with User consent) to communicate with Users out-of-app”
  • For 6 years, Google will let consumption only apps (e.g. Netflix, which doesn’t let you pay on device) tell users about better prices elsewhere, without linking to an outside website — example: “Available on our website for $9.99”
  • For 6 years, Google “shall not prohibit developers from disclosing to Users any service or other fees associated with the Google Play or Google Play’s billing system.”

Does that sound like a lot? If you add it all up, it does make for a slightly different Google app store landscape than we’ve experienced over the past decade and change. But not only does every one of these concessions have an expiration date, many of them are arguably not real concessions.

Google argued during the Epic v. Google trial that users were already perfectly able to install third-party apps on their devices through any number of means, and it claimed many of its agreements with developers, OEMs, and carriers did not require them to, for instance, exclusively put Google Play on a phone or its homescreen.

More importantly, several of the most significant sounding changes here are tied to Google’s User Choice Billing program — which is mostly a fake choice, the Epic v. Google trial proved.

We confirmed with Google spokesperson Dan Jackson this evening that User Choice Billing participants are given a discounted rate of just 4 percent off of Google’s fee when users choose their own payment system, and that it won’t change as a result of the settlement. Not only did Google internally find that developers would lose money when users choose the 4 percent rate, but Google also gives companies like Spotify a free ride while apparently charging everyone else.

Perhaps most importantly, Google is reserving the right not to let developers like Netflix link to their own websites to give their users a discounted rate. “Google is not required to allow developers to include links that take a User outside an app distributed through Google Play to make a purchase,” the settlement agreement reads. We are still waiting to find out whether Apple will allow links and/or buttons to alternative payment systems, based on the ruling in Epic v. Apple. But the Google / state AGs settlement suggests that regardless, Google will not be required to allow links.

[…]

Source: Google to pay $700 million and make tiny app store changes to settle with 50 states – The Verge

It’s still baffling that Google lost this case and Apple won it on almost exactly the same grounds, where in Google’s case you can actually sideload apps “legally” (if in an obtuse manner which makes you think you are doing something wrong) and in Apple’s you can’t.

EU’s top court rules in favour of Amazon and Luxembourg in €250m tax dispute – Have a mailbox in Lux and a massive corp tax haven!

Posted on by

The Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled on Thursday against the appeal of the EU Commission. The Commission challenged a 2021 decision of the General Court of the European Union, which annulled the Commission’s illegal state aid charges against Amazon.

[…]

In a statement from October 2017, the EU Commission concluded that Luxembourg granted undue tax benefits to the online sales giant by allowing it to shift profits to a tax-exempt company, Amazon Europe Holding Technologies.

[…]

Back in 2003, the Grand Duchy accepted Amazon’s proposal on the tax treatment of two of its Luxembourg-based subsidiaries, allowing Amazon to shift profits from Amazon EU, which is subject to tax, to a tax-exempt company, Amazon Europe Holding Technologies.

After a three-year investigation launched in October 2014, the European Commission concluded in 2017 that the online sales giant received illegal tax benefits from Luxembourg.

[…]

The General Court ruled in 2021 that “Luxembourg had not granted a selective advantage in favour of that subsidiary”, annulling the EU Commission’s decision.

The Commission then submitted its appeal against the ruling of the EU’s lower court, which was now rejected by the Court of Justice, the EU’s top court. The verdict is another blow at the approach of Margrethe Vestager, who for a decade held the post of EU competition chief, also losing a landmark case contesting Apple’s tax regime in Ireland.

[…]

According to Matthias Kullas, Centre for European Policy expert on digital economy and fiscal policy, the ruling makes it more difficult for the Commission to take action against the aggressive tax planning of large digital companies.

“Aggressive tax planning means that taxes are no longer paid where economic value is generated. Instead, companies are established where taxes are low,” Kullas told Euractiv.

Companies with aggressive tax planning reduce their participation in financing public goods in the market. Yet, proportionate participation would only be fair, as these companies likewise benefit from public goods, including education and the administration of justice, Kullas explained.

“Against this backdrop, the minimum taxation that will apply in the EU from 2024 is a step in the right direction but does not solve the problem,” Kullas added.

For Chiara Putaturo, Oxfam EU tax expert, the EU tax rules do not work for the people but benefit the “super-rich and profit-hungry multinationals”.

[…]

“Profit-driven multinationals cannot continue to sidestep their tax bills by having a mailbox in countries like Luxembourg or Cyprus,” she added.

In November, the EU, US, and UK voted against the UN tax convention to fight tax evasion and illicit financial flows, arguing that the Convention would be a duplication of the OECD’s work on tax transparency.

Source: EU’s top court rules in favour of Amazon in €250m tax dispute – EURACTIV.com

MEPs exclude audiovisual sector in geo-blocking regulation reassessment – Sabine Verheyen shows who’s pocket she is in.

Posted on by

In 2018, the European Parliament voted to ban geo-blocking, meaning blocking access to a network based on someone’s location. Geo-blocking systems block or authorise access to content based on where the user is located.

On Wednesday, following a 2020 evaluation by the Commission on the regulation, MEPs advocated for reassessing geo-blocking, taking into account increased demand for online shopping in recent years.

Polish MEP Beata Mazurek from the Conservative group, who was the rapporteur for the file, said ahead of the vote in her speech that “the geo-blocking regulation will remove unjustified barriers for consumers and companies working within the single market”.

“We need to do something when it comes to online payments and stop discrimination on what your nationality happens to be or where you happen to live. When internet purchases are being made, barriers need to be removed. We need to have a complete right to access a better selection of goods and services through Europe,” she said.

While the original text of the regulation banned geo-blocking, due to discrimination, for example, as Mazurek pointed out, a new amendment goes against this, saying this would result in revenue loss and higher prices for consumers.

The new legislation approved by European Parliament requires websites to sell their goods throughout the EU regardless of the country the buyer resides in. It could apply to online cultural content like music streaming and ebooks within two years. EURACTIV.fr report

Audiovisual content

According to Mazurek, fighting price discrimination entails making deliveries easier across borders and making movies, series, and sporting events accessible in one’s native language.

“The Commission should carefully assess the options for updating the current rules and provide the support the audio-visual sector’s needs,” she added.

However, in a last-minute amendment adopted during the plenary vote, MEP Sabine Verheyen, an influential member of the Parliament’s culture committee, completely flipped the wording that applies to the audiovisual sector, such as the streaming of platforms’ films.

According to Verheyen’s amendment, removing geo-blocking in this area “would result in a significant loss of revenue, putting investment in new content at risk, while eroding contractual freedom and reducing cultural diversity in content production, distribution, promotion and exhibition”.

It also emphasises that the inclusion would result “in fewer distribution channels”, and so, ultimately, consumers would have to pay more.

Mazurek said before the vote that while the report deals with audiovisual material, they “would like to see this done in a step-by-step way, bearing in mind the particular circumstances pertaining to the creative sector”.

“We want to look at the position of the interested parties without threatening the way cultural projects are financed. That might be regarded as a revolutionary approach, but we need to look at technological progress and the consumer needs which have changed over the last few years,” the MEP explained.

Yet, Wednesday’s vote on this specific amendment means the opposite as it did in the original regulation, with lawmakers now being against ending geo-blocking for audiovisual material.

Grégoire Polad, Director General of the Association of Commercial Television and Video on Demand Services in Europe (ACT), stressed that the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers “have now made it abundantly clear that there is no political support for any present or future inclusion of the audiovisual sector in the scope of the Geo-blocking regulation.”

The European Parliament adopted a report on Tuesday (9 May), on the implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), including criticism of the belated transposition from certain EU countries.

However, the European Consumer Organisation threw its weight against the carve-out for the audiovisual and creative sectors in the regulation, calling on policymakers to make audiovisual content available across borders.

A Commission spokesperson told Euractiv that they are aware of the “ongoing debate” and “will carefully analyse its content, including proposals related to the audiovisual content”, once it is adopted.

“The Commission engaged in a dialogue with the audiovisual sector aimed at identifying industry-led solutions to improve the availability and cross-border access to audiovisual content across the EU,” the spokesperson explained.

This stakeholder dialogue ended in December 2022, and the Commission will consider its conclusions in the upcoming stocktaking exercise on the Geo-blocking Regulation.

Source: MEPs exclude audiovisual sector in geo-blocking regulation reassessment – EURACTIV.com

Strangely enough this is the one sector that is wholly digital and where geoblocking makes the least sense, as digital goods are moved globally for exactly the same cost, whereas physical goods need different logistics chains, where the last step to the consumer is only a tiny part of that chain. The logistical steps before they get sent from the website mean that geography actually can have a measurable effect on cost.

The movie / TV / digital rights bozo’s definitely have a big lobby on this one, and shows the corruption – or outright stupidity – in the EP. Yes, Sabine Verheyen, you must be one or the other.

European Commission agrees to new rules that will protect gig workers rights – hopefully in ~2 years they will get the rights they need

Posted on by

Gig workers in the EU will soon get new benefits and protections, making it easier for them to receive employment status. Right now, over 500 digital labor platforms are actively operating in the EU, employing roughly 28 million platform workers. The new rules follow agreements made between the European Parliament and the EU Member States, after policies were first proposed by the European Commission in 2021.

The new rules highlight employment status as a key issue for gig workers, meaning an employed individual can reap the labor and social rights associated with an official worker title. This can include things like a legal minimum wage, the option to engage in collective bargaining, health protections at work, options for paid leave and sick days. Through a recognition of a worker status from the EU, gig workers can also qualify for unemployment benefits.

Given that most gig workers are employed by digital apps, like Uber or Deliveroo, the new directive will require “human oversight of the automated systems” to make sure labor rights and proper working conditions are guaranteed. The workers also have the right to contest any automated decisions by digital employers — such as a termination.

The new rulings will also require employers to inform and consult workers’ when there are “algorithmic decisions” that affect them. Employers will be required to report where their gig workers are fulfilling labor-related tasks to ensure the traceability of employees, especially when there are cross-border situations to consider in the EU.

Before the new gig worker protections can formally roll out, there needs to be a final approval of the agreement by the European Parliament and the Council. The stakeholders will have two years to implement the new protections into law. Similar protections for gig workers in the UK were introduced in 2021. Meanwhile, in the US, select cities have rolled out minimum wage rulings and benefits — despite Uber and Lyft’s pushback against such requirements.

Source: European Commission agrees to new rules that will protect gig workers rights

The EU works good stuff but at a snails pace.

Jury finds Google’s Play store is illegal monopoly – now… Apple?

Posted on by

The case was heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. As The Register has reported, the matter tested Epic’s allegations that Google stifles competition by requiring developers to pay it commissions even if they use third-party payment services, and paid some developers to secure their exclusive presence on the Play store.

The case commenced in early November and on Monday a nine-member jury found in Epic’s favor.

As it was a jury case, the reasoning was not revealed.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney thanked the jurors anyway in a post that declared “Today’s verdict is a win for all app developers and consumers around the world.”

Sweeney wrote that the verdict “proves that Google’s app store practices are illegal and they abuse their monopoly to extract exorbitant fees, stifle competition and reduce innovation.”

In Sweeney’s telling, the jurors heard “evidence that Google was willing to pay billions of dollars to stifle alternative app stores by paying developers to abandon their own store efforts and direct distribution plans, and offering highly lucrative agreements with device manufacturers in exchange for excluding competing app stores.”

Google denies such skulduggery and in statement reported by Axios vowed to appeal on grounds that the search and ads giant faces strong competition from Apple and rival app stores for Android.

[…]

The Apple case produced some small wins for Epic. But the Google decision is … erm … Epic, as it appears to be a full-throated declaration that the Play store is a monopoly.

The case will return to court in early 2024, when the presiding judge will consider remedies – which could include forcing Google to offload the Play store.

But this is far from the end of the matter – both for Epic Games and for the wider issue of tech monopolies.

[…]

legislators are increasingly taking action to erode Big Tech’s power, with the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill, and the EU’s Digital Markets Act his exemplars of such activity. ®

Source: Jury finds Google’s Play store is illegal monopoly • The Register

Greedflation: corporate profiteering ‘significantly’ boosted global prices, study shows

Posted on by

Profiteering has played a significant role in boosting inflation during 2022, according to a report that calls for a global corporation tax to curb excess profits.

Analysis of the financial accounts of many of the UK’s biggest businesses found that profits far outpaced increases in costs, helping to push up inflation last year to levels not seen since the early 1980s.

The report from the IPPR and Common Wealth thinktanks found that business profits rose by 30% among UK-listed firms, driven by just 11% of firms that made super-profits based on their ability to push through stellar price increases – often dubbed greedflation.

Excessive profits were even larger in the US, where many important sections of the economy are dominated by a few powerful companies.

This surge in profits happened as wage increases largely failed to keep pace with inflation, and workers suffered their largest fall in disposable incomes since the second world war.

Researchers said the energy companies ExxonMobil and Shell, mining firms Glencore and Rio Tinto, and food and commodities businesses Kraft Heinz, Archer-Daniels-Midland and Bunge all saw their profits far outpace inflation in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Because energy and food prices feed so significantly into costs across all sectors of the wider economy, this exacerbated the initial price shock – contributing to inflation peaking higher and lasting longer than had there been less market power,” the report said.

After the analysis of 1,350 companies listed on the stock markets in the UK, US, Germany, Brazil and South Africa, the report said firms in the technology sector, telecommunications and the banking industry also pushed through significant price increases that raised their profit margins.

[…]

The report echoes research by the Unite union, which last year revealed how the biggest price increases affecting the UK consumer prices index (CPI) were driven by firms that either maintained or improved their profit margins.

[…]

Four food companies – the listed suppliers Archer-Daniels-Midland and Bunge, plus the privately owned Cargill and Dreyfus – control an estimated 70%–90% of the world grain market.

“This has caused significant harm to the economy as a whole,” the report said. “Global GDP could be 8% higher than it is now had market power not risen.

[…]

Last year, Isabel Schnabel, a member of the executive board of the European Central Bank, said that “on average, profits have recently been a key contributor to total domestic inflation, above their historical contribution”.

Jung and the Common Wealth economist Chris Hayes said a tax on the estimated $4tn of excess global profits was needed alongside moves to break up monopolistic practices that allowed firms to exploit their market power.

Jung said the Bank of England had fallen behind in the debate and needed to “catch up”.

Source: Greedflation: corporate profiteering ‘significantly’ boosted global prices, study shows | Inflation | The Guardian

Sam Altman May Have Found a Loophole to Cash in at OpenAI – buying his products from another company

Posted on by

Sam Altman reportedly has no equity in OpenAI, a strange move for a tech founder, but new reporting from Wired this weekend shows the CEO would profit from an OpenAI deal to buy AI chips. OpenAI signed a previously unknown deal back in 2019 to spend $51 million on advanced chips from a startup Sam Altman is reportedly personally invested in. Altman’s web of private business interests seems to have played some role in his recent firing according to the report.

OpenAI’s board fired Sam Altman last month, calling him inconsistently candid and hindering its ability to safely develop artificial general intelligence, but not providing a real reason. Everyone’s looking for the smoking gun, and Altman’s business dealings affecting his responsibilities as OpenAI’s CEO could be what’s behind the board’s decision. However, it’s unclear, and Altman is back at the helm while the board that fired him is gone.

The startup, Rain AI, is building computer chips that replicate the human brain, which promises to be the next phase for building AI. Neuromorphic processing units, or NPUs, claim to be 100 times more powerful than Nvidia’s GPUs, which OpenAI and Microsoft are currently beholden to. While NPUs are not on the market yet, OpenAI has a deal to get first dibs.

Altman personally invested more than $1 million in Rain in 2018, according to The Information, and he’s listed on Rain’s website as a backer. OpenAI’s CEO is invested in dozens of startups, however. He previously led the startup incubator, Y Combinator, and became one of the most prominent dealmakers in Silicon Valley.

The AI chip company Rain has had no shortage of drama in the last week. The Biden administration forced a Saudi venture capital firm to sell its $25 million stake in Rain AI, just last week. Gordon Wilson, the founder and CEO of Rain, stepped down last week as well, without providing a reason. Wilson posted his resignation on LinkedIn about the same time that Sam Altman was reinstated at OpenAI.

The blurry lines between Sam Altman’s private investments and OpenAI business could have been a key reason for his firing, but we still don’t have a clear explanation from the board. A former board member who fired Sam Altman, Helen Toner, gave us her best hint yet as she stepped down last week. Toner said the firing was not about slowing down OpenAI’s progress towards AGI in a Nov. 29 tweet. Toner says the firing was about “the board’s ability to effectively supervise the company,” which sounds like it has more to do with business disclosures than breakthroughs around AGI.

Source: Sam Altman May Have Found a Loophole to Cash in at OpenAI

HP’s CFO tells world: we are locking in customers for more profit

Posted on by

[…] Tech vendors – software, hardware, and cloud services – generally avoid terms that suggest they’re perhaps in some way pinning down customers in a strategic sales hold.

But as Marie Myers, chief financial officer at HP, was this week talking to the UBS Global Technology conference, in front of investors, the thrust of the message was geared toward the audience.

“We absolutely see when you move a customer from that pure transactional model … whether it’s Instant Ink, plus adding on that paper, we sort of see a 20 percent uplift on the value of that customer because you’re locking that person, committing to a longer-term relationship.”

Instant Ink is a subscription in which ink or toner cartridges are dispatched when needed, with customers paying for plans that start at $0.99 and run to $25.99 per month. As of May last year, HP had more than 11 million subscribers to the service. Since then it has banked double-digit percentage figures on the revenues front.

By pre-pandemic 2019, HP had grown weary of third-party cartridge makers stealing its supplies business. It pledged to charge more upfront for certain printer hardware (“rebalance the system profitability, capturing more profit upfront”).

HP also set in motion new subscriptions, and launched Smart Tank hardware filled with a pre-defined amount of ink/toner. These now account for 60 percent of total shipments.

Myers told the UBS Conference she was “really proud” that HP could “raise the range on our print margins” based on “bold moves and shifting models.”

[…]

An old industry factoid from 2003 was that HP ink cost seven times more than a bottle of 1985 Dom Perignon. HP isn’t alone in these sorts of comparisons – Epson was called out by Which? a couple years back.

[…]

Source: Vendor lock-in is a good thing? HP’s CFO thinks so

Roundcube Open-Source Webmail Software Merges With Nextcloud

Posted on by

The open-source Roundcube webmail software project has “merged” with Nextcloud, the prominent open-source personal cloud software.

In boosting Nextcloud’s webmail software capabilities, Roundcube is joining Nextcloud as what’s been described as a merger. In 2024 Nextcloud is to invest into Roundcube to accelerate the development of this widely-used webmail open-source software. Today’s press release says Roundcube will not replace Nextcloud Mail with at least no plans for merging the two in the short-term.

Today’s press release says that there are no immediate changes for Roundcube and Nextcloud users besides looking forward to improved integration and accelerated development beginning in the short term.

RoundCube

More details on today’s announcement via the Nextcloud blog.

Perhaps with this increased investment into Roundcube, some of the original plans laid out years ago with the crowdfunded Roundcube-Next will finally be realized. RoundCube-Next raised more than $100k in funding a number of years ago only to fail in delivering their revamped software.

Source: Roundcube Open-Source Webmail Software Merges With Nextcloud – Phoronix

Considering Roundcube is used by hundreds of millions of users and is basically programmed by just one guy, the $100k was absolute peanuts in terms of how much was raised, especially considering the ambition. Open Source hardliners take note: this shows exactly how unfair the system is – the guy who wrote this should have been a millionaire many times over. Instead, the companies profiting off his work for free have become worth millions, and so have their CEOs.

Google reportedly struck a special with Spotify that let it skip Play Store fees revealed in Epic vs Google lawsuit

Posted on by

Spotify struck a special deal with Google that lets it pay no commission to Google when people sign up for subscriptions using the music streaming service’s own payment system on Android, according to new testimony in the ongoing Epic v. Google trial first reported by The Verge. As part of the same deal, Spotify paid Google just four percent commission if users signed up for the service through Google, far less than most other apps which typically pay 15 percent for subscriptions through the Google Play Store.

“Listening to music is one of [the phone’s] core purposes… if we don’t have Spotify working properly across Play services and core services, people will not buy Android phones”, Google’s partnerships head Don Harrison reportedly said in court. Both Google and Spotify also agreed to put $50 million each in a “success fund” as part of the deal.

The remarks were made as part of a lawsuit first filed against Google by Epic Games, the maker of the wildly popular Fortnite, in 2020. Epic claimed that Google’s Play Store on Android was an illegal monopoly that forced app makers to part with huge sums of cash in exchange for offering users in-app purchases through the Play Store. Epic filed a similar lawsuit against Apple in 2021, which it lost.

“A small number of developers that invest more directly in Android and Play may have different service fees as part of a broader partnership that includes substantial financial investments and product integrations across different form factors,” Dan Jackson, a Google spokesperson, wrote to Engadget in a statement. “These key investment partnerships allow us to bring more users to Android and Play by continuously improving the experience for all users and create new opportunities for all developers.”

Spotify initially supported Epic in its fight against Google and Apple. But in 2022, the company started using a Google program called User Choice Billing that let Android apps use their own payment systems in exchange for giving a reduced cut to Google. The special deal revealed in court showed that Google was willing to carve out even more exceptions for popular apps like Spotify.

Source: Google reportedly struck a special with Spotify that let it skip Play Store fees

So it’s not a very level playing field in the app store at all then?

The EU DMA will finally free Windows users from Bing (but not Edge) and allow 3rd parties into the widgets

Posted on by

Microsoft will soon let Windows 11 users in the European Economic Area (EEA) disable its Bing web search, remove Microsoft Edge, and even add custom web search providers — including Google if it’s willing to build one — into its Windows Search interface.

All of these Windows 11 changes are part of key tweaks that Microsoft has to make to its operating system to comply with the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act, which comes into effect in March 2024. Microsoft will be required to meet a slew of interoperability and competition rules, including allowing users “to easily un-install pre-installed apps or change default settings on operating systems, virtual assistants, or web browsers that steer them to the products and services of the gatekeeper and provide choice screens for key services.”

Alongside clearly marking which apps are system components in Windows 11, Microsoft is also responding by adding the ability to uninstall the following apps:

  • Camera
  • Cortana
  • Web Search from Microsoft Bing, in the EEA
  • Microsoft Edge, in the EEA
  • Photos

Only Windows 11 users in the EEA will be able to fully remove Microsoft Edge and the Bing-powered web search from Windows Search. Microsoft could easily extend this to all Windows 11 users, but it’s limiting this extra functionality to EEA markets to comply with the rules. “Windows uses the region chosen by the customer during device setup to identify if the PC is in the EEA,” explains Microsoft in a blog post. “Once chosen in device setup, the region used for DMA compliance can only be changed by resetting the PC.”

In EEA markets — which includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway — Windows 11 users will also get access to new interoperability features for feeds in the Windows Widgets board and web search in Windows Search. This will allow search providers like Google to extend the main Windows Search interface with their own custom web searches.

[…]

We had hoped Microsoft would finally stop forcing Windows 11 users in Europe into Edge if they clicked a link from the Windows Widgets panel or from search results, but Microsoft appears to have changed exactly how it’s implementing this. The software maker previously said it would start testing a change to Windows 11 that would see “Windows system components use the default browser to open links” in EEA markets, but that change never appeared in Windows Insider builds.

“In the EEA, Windows will always use the customers’ configured app default settings for link and file types, including industry standard browser link types (http, https),” says Microsoft. “Apps choose how to open content on Windows, and some Microsoft apps will choose to open web content in Microsoft Edge.”

[…]

Source: The EU will finally free Windows users from Bing – The Verge

The Oura Ring Is a $300 Sleep Tracker Suddenly needs a Subscription

Posted on by

[…] Now in its third iteration, the Oura Ring tracks and analyzes a host of metrics, including your heart-rate variability (HRV), blood oxygen rate, body temperature, and sleep duration. It uses this data to give you three daily scores, tallying the quality of your sleep, activity, and “readiness.” It can also determine your chronotype (your body’s natural preferences for sleep or wakefulness), give insight into hormonal factors that can affect your sleep, and (theoretically) alert you when you’re getting sick.

I wore the Oura Ring for six months; it gave me tons of data about myself and helped me pinpoint areas in my sleep and health that I could improve. It’s also more comfortable and discreet to wear than most wristband wearable trackers.

However, the ring costs about $300 or more, depending on the style and finish, and Oura’s app now requires a roughly $72 yearly subscription to access most of the data and reports.

(Oura recently announced that the cost of the ring is eligible for reimbursement through a flexible spending account [FSA] or health spending account [HSA]. The subscription is not.)

If you just want to track your sleep cycles and get tips, a free (or modestly priced) sleep-tracking app may do the trick.

[…]

Source: The Oura Ring Is a $300 Sleep Tracker That Provides Tons of Data. But Is It Worth It? | Reviews by Wirecutter

So what do you get with the membership?

  • In-depth sleep analysis, every morning
  • Personalized health insights, 24/7
  • Live & accurate heart rate monitoring
  • Body temperature readings for early illness detection and period prediction (in beta)
  • Workout Heart Rate Tracking
  • Sp02 Monitoring
  • Rest Mode
  • Bedtime Guidance
  • Track More Movement
  • Restorative Time
  • Trends Over Time
  • Tags
  • Insights from Audio Sessions

And what if you want to continue for free?

Non-paying members have access to 3 simple daily scores: Sleep, Readiness, and Activity, as well as our interactive and educational Explore content.

Source: More power to you with Oura Membership.

This is a pretty stunning turn of events:

one because it was supposed to be the privacy friendly option, so what data are they sending to central servers and why (that’s the only way they can justify a subscription) and

two why is data that doesn’t need to be sent to the servers not being shown in the free version of the app?!

For the price of the ring this is a pretty shameless money grab.

The Netherlands wants EU measures against misleading “discounts” on altered prices

Posted on by

From January 1, 2023, a seller may no longer increase the price of a product for a short period of time, then reduce the price and then present this ‘before’ price as an offer or a significant discount.

Despite this tightening, consumers are still faced with misleading discounts, especially in the run-up to the holidays. Unfortunately, according to the regulator ACM, the new rules are not being sufficiently complied with. In addition, sellers often refer to a suggested retail price when offering offers instead of the original retail price of the product.

That is why Minister Adriaansens is calling for a new EU rule. This should no longer allow companies to mention the suggested retail prices suggested by manufacturers in discount promotions if sellers do not actually use them. The use of completely invented recommended prices is already legally prohibited.

The Netherlands also wants the EU to make it possible for a Member State to ban door sales and/or telemarketing.

[…]

Source: Nederland wil maatregelen tegen misleiding bij kortingen door adviesprijzen – Emerce

Google Witness Spills on Apple’s Cut From Safari Search Revenue

Posted on by

Google pays Apple 36% of its search advertising revenue from Safari, according to new details brought to light in Google’s search antitrust trial on Monday as reported by Bloomberg. The mere utterance of the number, which Google and Apple have tried to keep sealed, caused Google’s main litigator John Schmidtlein to visibly cringe.

“Like the revenue share percentage itself, they are a commercially sensitive part of the financial terms of an agreement currently in effect,” said Google in a filing last week, hoping to keep the true number sealed from the public’s eye.

[…]

It’s well known that Google and Apple share revenue, but not in this much detail. In Pichai’s testimony, he said the search engine has tried to give users a “seamless and easy” experience, even if that meant paying exorbitant fees to do so. Court documents revealed this month show the 20 queries Google makes the most revenue on, including “iPhone,” “Auto insurance,” “Hulu,” and “AARP.”

Source: Google Witness Spills on Apple’s Cut From Safari Search Revenue