Despegar

51 ms·

511.
by Despegar 7y ago
It makes plenty of sense. The goal is to not let the number of wireless carriers go from 4 to 3. If Sprint is not viable then they'll file for bankruptcy and then Charter or Comcast (or both of them together in a JV) will probably pick
512.
You Care More About Your Privacy Than You Think(nytimes.com)
2 points by Despegar 7y ago|0 comments
513.
by Despegar 7y ago
Facebook already made that change a long time ago to emphasize sharing of photos, status updates, etc over news. NYT, WaPo, WSJ have all done fine while other publications that were founded on the premise of social traffic have gone out of
514.
by Despegar 7y ago
That's certainly not true for the NYT. The NYT's stock has done very well in recent years and it's solely because their digital subscription business has taken off. It's one of the few publications that doesn't re
515.
by Despegar 7y ago
After the GFC, besieged bankers had a similar sentiment about the press. How to frame it in your mind is that you're now the bankers. Read all the threads on HN about the Boeing 737 MAX, many from the same publications writing about Bi
516.
by Despegar 7y ago
US defense priorities have firmly shifted towards fighting potentially Russia and China (maybe even at the same time).
517.
Would your business survive the elimination of the IDFA?(mobiledevmemo.com)
1 points by Despegar 7y ago|0 comments
518.
by Despegar 7y ago
The difference is Apple has been the same from the beginning. There was no bait and switch. People who bought Apple products knew what Apple was and will be and what the terms were. With Google there is a bait and switch (and it doesn'
519.
by Despegar 7y ago
The prompts are from iOS itself, not the apps.
520.
China Summons Tech Giants to Warn Against Cooperating with Trump Ban(nytimes.com)
4 points by Despegar 7y ago|0 comments
521.
by Despegar 7y ago
I think it's great, refreshing even.
522.
by Despegar 7y ago
If you think about it Apple is basically the corporate manifestation of GDPR. They can just decide whatever they want and everyone has to comply or get out. In the real world someone has to file a complaint with the DPC, it gets investigate
523.
by Despegar 7y ago
I updated the original comment. It's pretty clear. >Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, w
524.
by Despegar 7y ago
I'm amused by this because when I called Mozilla out a few days ago, I got a bunch of downvotes [1]. Plus one of the top comments was a subtweet of mine. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20055322
525.
by Despegar 7y ago
Edit: My above comment was originally mistakenly copied from the Federal Circuit, not the Supreme Court decision. >The Court held that in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market pow
526.
by Despegar 7y ago
>Except tying is one of the few antitrust things that is still per-se illegal, so it won't matter. Nope. Courts have been subjecting tying to rule of reason analyses for a while now. Illinois Tool Works: >Over the years, however,
527.
by Despegar 7y ago
>but its another example of the industry trying to police privacy itself. "Industry" policing itself would be Google and Facebook changing their business model of their own accord to the detriment of their current business. App
528.
by Despegar 7y ago
>I wonder if it would be possible to make a "meta-framework" that uses a single code-base to compile user written code into source code written in those 3 frameworks respectively. Just no. As an Apple user, just use whatever th
529.
by Despegar 7y ago
The shadow banking is fine. The taxpayer isn't responsible if a PE fund engaged in direct lending to the middle market loses all their money. But shadow banking can and should be scrutinized, and potentially regulated, if there are sys
530.
by Despegar 7y ago
This WSJ story has details about the FTC recommendation to sue Google (overruled by the commissioners at the time). They accidentally sent the WSJ every other page in a botched FOIA request. https://www.wsj.com/articles&#x2F
531.
Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google(wsj.com)
870 points by Despegar 7y ago|414 comments
532.
iPhone Privacy Is Broken and Apps Are to Blame(wsj.com)
4 points by Despegar 7y ago|1 comments
533.
by Despegar 7y ago
>there's no debate about that right? Sure there is. Mozilla depends heavily on revenue from Google whereas Apple doesn't. For Mozilla it's life or death and for Apple it's not (to be the default search engine). There
534.
by Despegar 7y ago
They're opening an office in San Diego to do just that. https://www.macrumors.com/2019/03/06/apple-san-diego-enginee...
535.
by Despegar 7y ago
The Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits of the case. The actual antitrust case is extremely weak against Apple. You'd need a nonsensical market definition to say Apple has monopoly power, and it wouldn't hold up in court.
536.
by Despegar 7y ago
Safari has been leading on the privacy front for more than a decade. They were first to block third-party cookies by default (which led to the FTC collecting a scalp from Google when they bypassed it), blocking trackers with ITP by default,
537.
by Despegar 7y ago
That's the stated reason but it's pretty weak to me. Safari hasn't had to make similar compromises.
538.
by Despegar 7y ago
As always when it comes to Firefox and privacy, the question is why isn't it on by default?
539.
by Despegar 7y ago
Yes but as far as I understand it doesn't actually use the native API. The Content Blocker API has benefits from a performance and privacy perspective.
540.
by Despegar 7y ago
This should be good news for Firefox and Safari. I'd be interested to hear from Gorhill on whether uBlock Origin works with the Content Blocker API for Safari and if not what needs to change to make it possible.

More ›