|
yeah there's a whole antitrust suit ongoing about how they disincentivize competitors from lowering prices
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
shackleford posted:where can i learn more about this? well, that's just based on my own experiments with different encoders (x265, NVENC, quicksync, and videotoolbox). of course, actual savings depends heavily on which encoder you use — the GPU-based ones are not as efficient across the board, but you'll still see a significant difference in file size. it's still readily observable either way though an easy way to test this is with ffmpeg since it usually (there's like, two edge cases that probably aren't worth mentioning here) categorizes the same codec with different bit depth as a completely separate encoder, so you can just swap those out while keeping all other settings equal. the difference in file size is most pronounced at higher bitrates/resolution but the generalization should typically hold true regardless. allowing for an alpha channel will also give you some further savings in bitrate but not many devices can decode that (vs. a computer or smartphone) just googling around i found this (with h.264/AVC, but still finding a ~5% increase in efficiency), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269326380_Comparison_of_compression_performance_of_10-bit_vs_8-bit_depth_under_H264_Hi422_profile this paper from NCTA (the telecom lobby) compares HEVC coding efficiency via PSNR, which isn't a great way of doing it imo, https://www.nctatechnicalpapers.com/Paper/2014/2014-ultrahd-hevc-and-higher-fidelity-video-why-it-s-not-just-pixel-density-anymore/download but still finds a definite increase in efficiency along with bitrate and resolution here's one finding the same (different metrics, up to ~12%), https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...4a974a51f6072db but like i said though it's just one of those things that's pretty easy to test yourself. if you're using an 8-bit file as a source you don't even need to encode it twice e: oops put the italics on the wrong word there Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Dec 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
mystes posted:I think "they just scrape other vendors to set prices the same" is an understatement you can just say price fixing, every single big company is doing it right now
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
it's all the rage!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 03:15
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:you can just say price fixing, every single big company is doing it right now it started with bread and now look where we are!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
welp so a jury thinks the play store is a monopoly https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364325/gov.uscourts.cand.364325.606.0.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
shackleford posted:welp so a jury thinks the play store is a monopoly is the apple store not one as well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:is the apple store not one as well? epic lost a similar suit against apple it was ruled that apple is not a monopoly, but did abuse their not-monopoly anyway so yeah, as far as the justice system is concerned, google, which allows sideloading and alternate stores, is a monopoly, and apple, which doesn't, isn't
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
lets not let google off easy here, the trial was an endless cavalcade of backroom deals and kickbacks, there being sideloading that no one uses is hardly an excuse. like, sideloading is a (neat, i think) thing, but no one "normal" uses it (good, i think), so how the cuts work and are demanded is very relevant. apple almost certainly should go down as well in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
haveblue posted:epic lost a similar suit against apple iirc the judge ruled that epic didn't have enough evidence to show that apple had a monopoly, not that apple wasn't a monopoly
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
yeah, on a basic level i really don't see how the play store is a monopoly and the apple app store isn't. like, at a high level that doesn't make any sense although i suppose the evidence in epic v. google might've shown them abusing their market position in ways that apple does/did not? (or at least, not that they were able to prove) but at a lower level, it kinda does make sense. like, just from the verdict form it seems like allowing sideloading or alternate stores is actually what screwed them, and that's obviously not something apple allows i'm not familiar with the case at all (i haven't been following any of the google antitrust stuff either), but that verdict form mentions e.g. "agreements with competitors" and "Project Hug or Games Velocity Program" that make me think they entered into agreements to secure exclusives. or something. which obviously is not possible on ios/apple's app store since there is no other choice there either way those specific items being on the verdict form speaks to their importance
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:yeah, on a basic level i really don't see how the play store is a monopoly and the apple app store isn't. like, at a high level that doesn't make any sense Well that’s interesting since i recall epic dipping into its deep pockets to try and buy market share by striking exclusivity deals left and right
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
didn't realize epic had done bad things, as we all know apple being the largest company in the world they are permitted every sin of their lessers, only if they do something truly *original* bad shall we consider the possibility that even big corporations may be bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:yeah, on a basic level i really don't see how the play store is a monopoly and the apple app store isn't. like, at a high level that doesn't make any sense They knew that Epic was going to try to pull business away from them with their own store, so they paid developers not to use it and stay on Play. They planned it internally as a way to try to kill the Epic store before it could get a foothold in the market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
https://html-lang.org/
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Armitag3 posted:Well that’s interesting since i recall epic dipping into its deep pockets to try and buy market share by striking exclusivity deals left and right yeah, and them not being able to would be proof that google's monopoly on exclusivity (or distribution, or whatever) is anticompetitive i mean, that's basically them trying to establish a monopoly but being unable to because of a pre-existing one lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:They knew that Epic was going to try to pull business away from them with their own store, so they paid developers not to use it and stay on Play. They planned it internally as a way to try to kill the Epic store before it could get a foothold in the market. the surprising thing to me from this trial was google giving spotify a $0 deal
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:They knew that Epic was going to try to pull business away from them with their own store, so they paid developers not to use it and stay on Play. They planned it internally as a way to try to kill the Epic store before it could get a foothold in the market. well, iirc epic v. apple was more about them not being able to establish their own storefront independent of the app store architecture. so in that context google's behavior being deemed a monopoly makes sense again, though, it's difficult to categorize apple's market position as healthy for competition. personally i think epic v. apple was wrongly decided, but the 9th circuit and scrotus disagrees
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
same guy that wrote the "grug brain" manifesto, fwiw
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:well, iirc epic v. apple was more about them not being able to establish their own storefront independent of the app store architecture. so in that context google's behavior being deemed a monopoly makes sense What I understand from my mandatory corporate anti-monopoly training is that its the coordination, planning, and conspiracy that make it against the law. Setting a low price to drive other businesses out of the market is seen as good for consumers, so that's okay, but if you write a letter to another company and you both agree to lower prices for the purpose of driving a competitor out of the market that's against the law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:yeah, on a basic level i really don't see how the play store is a monopoly and the apple app store isn't. like, at a high level that doesn't make any sense my understanding is that apple did not take advantage of the monopoly while google did - goog had some backdoor deals with people who would give them cuts of profit in exchange for boosting numbers and getting specical treatment and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
pass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Apple doesn't have to collude with anybody or strong-arm anybody to maintain their monopoly position, the hardware and the software is a single product under their complete control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:What I understand from my mandatory corporate anti-monopoly training is that its the coordination, planning, and conspiracy that make it against the law. Setting a low price to drive other businesses out of the market is seen as good for consumers, so that's okay, but if you write a letter to another company and you both agree to lower prices for the purpose of driving a competitor out of the market that's against the law. yeah the government's position that "low consumer prices means there can't be abuse of position" is idiotic and basically handed all of us retail to amazon and walmart but they at least apply it consistently
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
rotor posted:pass. what you too good for javascript but with an even worse syntax?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
javascript feels like a language where you can get profoundly hosed up on datura and code something and it might still work
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:is the apple store not one as well? it is under this decision. the old ruling is in direct conflict with this one as the judge in the apple case decided it was about monopolies across all devices, not monopolies on apple devices. if goog can have a monopoly via the play store where alternative stores are allowed but discouraged, then apple absolutely has the same for ios where alternatives are not possible at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:javascript feels like a language where you can get profoundly hosed up on datura and code something and it might still work i wrote most of my start-up's original nodejs code stoned out of my mind in a basement with a friend and it worked surprisingly well, as long as you put the npm start command in an endless loop to make sure it would restart whenever it crashed i remember being super efficient after the first few puffs, then thinking i needed to refactor something, spending 3 hours confused as gently caress and eventually getting lost and forgetting how i got there in the first place. yet it still somehow worked one time my buddy and i both got scabies after he returned from dominican republic, and the town dermatologist really would not believe us when we told him we did not have sex.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
rotor posted:my understanding is that apple did not take advantage of the monopoly while google did - goog had some backdoor deals with people who would give them cuts of profit in exchange for boosting numbers and getting specical treatment and so forth. apple absolutely takes advantage of their monopoly of the ios app store, but the judge ruled that monopoly wasnt relevant. when goog appeals its possible they use the apple ruling to overturn this decision in which case google is totally fine. when the epic appeal of the apple case goes thru, its possible they use this goog ruling in which case apple is just as if not more hosed than goog since their monopoly is via technical means. theres no chance of them arguing alternatives were possible like goog tried (and failed) to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
I regret reading as much of that as I did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
https://news.vmware.com/company/vmware-by-broadcom-business-transformationquote:VMware by Broadcom Dramatically Simplifies Offer Lineup and Licensing Model ah, yes. the adobe model
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
if apple is hosed for their vertical integration control over the iOS ecosystem it seems that precisely the same ruling should apply to every game console in existence
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
Internet Janitor posted:if apple is hosed for their vertical integration control over the iOS ecosystem it seems that precisely the same ruling should apply to every game console in existence yes, this is why all the console makers were on apple's side in that lawsuit
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
go play outside Skyler posted:
interesting and relevant addition to the story scabies is trending where I live and anecdotally it seems like the most common treatment is just failing like it never used to, and I checked online and this has been noticed by many people treatment resistance scabies — gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
scabie baby scabie baby scabie baby
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:also thanks a loving lot, google. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
Internet Janitor posted:if apple is hosed for their vertical integration control over the iOS ecosystem it seems that precisely the same ruling should apply to every game console in existence also every smart TV and any other post-PC platform you can think of
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
i assume this is already the intended subtexts of those posts, but to be clear: that's great, lets go! also apple is larger than all these other troublemakers combined, so entirely correct to start there. we can work our way down to me having a monopoly on my armchair eventually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
i mean your mom has a monopoly on my dick at least for this financial quarter
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:Apple doesn't have to collude with anybody or strong-arm anybody to maintain their monopoly position, the hardware and the software is a single product under their complete control. But that's also a key problem that competition regulators have complained about in the past--there are huge structural problems with the various interrelated markets that form up the Apple ecosystem and Apple's use of its advantage in those markets to the detriment (and exclusion) of participants and consumers. I just don't think they really have the resources to take on Apple and attempt to address it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:19
|
|
