This is a pretty dumb take, honestly. Intel for basically forever operated using their own fab exclusively. After failures to maintain good yield rates at their 10nm node, they had the option of continuing to delay new product lines and be eaten by the competition in AMD, or give in to TSMC temporarily while they worked on fixing their fab in parallel. In fact, they were criticized greatly for not switching to TSMC much earlier.
Split AWS and Amazon retail.
A major issue for the US is that when the president changes, the DOJ can simply elect to stop processing the suit. It’s hard to get 8 years of uninterrupted movement on an action like this.
You need to read The Amazon Anti-Trust Paradox by current FTC head Lina Khan. She argues that the consumer price oriented monopoly definition is old and outdated in the modern setting. Price is not a sufficient proxy for market competitiveness, and in fact, price is often used to kill competitiveness by undercutting new and innovative products.
Google will take a hard right turn and SCOTUS will welcome them with immunity as long as they stay in line.
What a coincidence, a strong liberal fundraising account getting banned just as Musk promises to donate $45mil/month to the Trump campaign and complains about the “woke mind virus.” I’m sure you can point to similar conservative accounts getting banned and staying banned for several hours right?
Great, lmk when there’s a regular train from Boston to my office in Boxborough, which currently requires it’s residents to drop off their own trash at the facility. I’m sure that’ll be frequent and efficient right?
You’re the type of person who would call universal healthcare “socialism”, and it really shows.
What point? That you’re a corporate bootlicker?
They would rightly be raked over the coals. But they won’t make such a dumb fucking move because it’s a dumb fucking move.
What a wild thing to assert without any reasoning.
By charging 3% instead of 30%? Do you really think their servers cost $8.5b? Does the work to distribute a game and process payment equal 30% of the labor required to make a game?
A more advanced answer would be a cost plus profit model, so if it costs Valve $1 to transfer 1TB of data transfer (in terms of server costs), then charge $1.10 for 1TB. That’s obviously very difficult to calculate though I bet Valve has some internal metric of costs.
Valve today does the exact thing Unity was trying to do, charging a percent of revenue for providing infrastructure. Unity got raked over the coals for it.
Me: “Rent seeking is an illegitimate practice, landlords steal money from laborers by extorting them for a necessary good!”
You: “Oh yeah? Why don’t you just buy your own land and build your own apartment building?”
You’re a dumbass.
This is a thread about how Valve makes over 8 billion dollars despite basically all their revenue coming from an in-game store that sells other people’s content. Of course its too much.
Because they don’t pay any of their actual workforce: the game devs they steal 30% from for every game sold.
No, it’s shocking that the destroyed evidence after being explicitly instructed not to.
It is for us plebs, look up adverse inference
How long do you think fabs take to build and upgrade? Intel was working on fixing 10nm for years, this isn’t a software situation where turnaround times are measured in days or weeks. Going from tapeout to silicon for a single line is a 6 month process after the technology process is solidified, forget if you’re doing it while trying to figure out yield problems.