This sounds like an use case for blockchain.

Nah

Or... just keep a database with an API you can look up.

There is no need for it to be trustless and distributed.

At this point, the only browser that could ignore FLoC without being blocked by website is Safari. If Safari chooses not to implement FLoC, it might be sufficient to prevent web developers from blocking other non-FLoC browsers.

All of this rest on Apple standing up for privacy through.. so watch for any announcements from Apple.

Why wouldn't sites that rely on FLoC block Safari if the browser doesn't implement it?

iOS is too lucrative of a market to ignore. It is like not selling cars in California. Every car manufacturer conforms to California emissions standards because California is too lucrative to ignore.

Websites need Apple. Apple doesn't need them.

Because of Market Share.

Which is just another reason – maybe even a responsibility of every web dev - to stop using chrome.

Privacy has been Apple's thing the last few years though, very unlike that they implement FLoC.

iOS ads use a system very similar for FLoC though. It's unlikely they'll implement it, but not because of privacy reasons.

they'll say it's because of privacy though, because it makes Apple fans feel better about it.

It's a pretty disingenuous way to blame Microsoft. Afterall, there are two ways that Windows 10 on Mac M1 could have occurred: Microsoft could relax the licensing so that end users could buy/install Windows 10 onto the Mac M1, or Apple could approach Microsoft like any other OEMs and license/preinstall Windows 10.

We know the latter isn't going happen.

I don’t see what’s disingenuous about it? Apple are basically saying that they haven’t put in any technical barriers to stop Microsoft from porting Windows to the M1, and that Microsoft are free to do so if they want.

Google created a popular free RSS reader, stopped innovating it, and then declared to the whole world that usage of Reader (and by extension, RSS) had decreased so much that it isn't worth it for Google to keep on life support.

It didn't have to happen like that. I argue that Google unintentionally did an embrace and extinguish on RSS. That's what people were unhappy about.

> A software product could even "seek permission" from the vendor -- via the Internet or your modem -- each time it ran, so that the vendor would know whenever you started the program.

Now it is the norm.

And better yet, whenever you complain about how invasive it is, someone will appear to take up page space to call you names for wanting things to be better.

"everybody does it so who cares!" as if the fact that everyone is exploiting you somehow makes it acceptable.

Not just to check for license but also to upload all your activity for their AI to comb through :)

Each travelling ship leaves behind a tail that's much longer than what I would expect if it was meant to represent the wake. Does anyone know the significance of the tail?

In reality, there is no impediment to designating Google as a public utility other than the elected representatives making it so.

How so? It's not like Google had any contractual obligations; if they made a change that was incompatible with neverwhere, then neverwhere would just be stuck, wouldn't they? Unless you mean that Google intends to do something user-hostile, but then there's nothing stopping another Chromium OS derivative from coming along.

Right. Perhaps Google wants to renegotiate their contract with the OEMs and buying out Neverware weakens the bargaining position of the OEMs?

The current state of having alternative options in a market could not be counted on.

Think back about a decade ago when there were a number Smartphone platforms. They were backed by (back then) industry heavy weights such as Palm, RIM, and Microsoft. If one didn't like Apple or Google Android, there were plenty of options out there. As the market matures through, consolidation happens, and now we are left with two platforms.

What happens if, tomorrow, both those platforms decided to not play nice? Are the Chinese Android phones with no Google Play Service or the Pinephone really viable and reasonable alternatives?

I'm not sure if you are implying this, but surely we don't want the government to start acting upon imagined, hypothetical future harms that do not currently exist?

If the market becomes less competitive, can't we deal with that issue then?

It wasn't my intention to imply that we need preemptive government intervention.

Rather, I just want point out that, for smartphones, we are well into maturity stage of the industry life cycle, which means it is hard for new companies to enter the market, and where existing companies are focused on generating profit (meaning companies will no longer be playing nice).

It would naive to believe that companies would continue to play nice after they are done building their marketshare.

I think Linux phones like the Phinephone are the way forward. They probably won't gain huge marketshare, but everyone that uses Linux on the desktop (probably half of HN) would enjoy them. The only complaint I have with my Pinephone is that its slow. Maybe the Librem 5's beefy processor would be better.

For computer hackers, we have clear laws citing unlawful access to computer systems. Plus, computer hackers don't tend to consult with lawyers before doing their thing.

For traders, we don't have all-encompassing laws covering tax avoidance. Plus, traders have money for hiring professional for finding loopholes.

That's the difference.