blastdoor

Well, maybe. 

There are things I do around the house that, in principle, an AI-enabled robot could learn and replicate, like filling and emptying the dishwasher, vacuuming, taking out the trash, etc. In some ways that would be easier than an autonomous vehicle because the stakes of mistakes are lower -- breaking a dish isn't as bad as running over a pedestrian. And with an aging/shrinking population more domestic help will be needed. 

But... humans are very well adapted to the context in which humans operate, and creating a robot that can add value in that context will be very hard -- even harder to do it cost effectively. With enough time and investment it could be done, I suppose, but I bet this is more than 10 years away. 

To my way of thinking the more promising context for developing robots is space exploration. Humans are not well adapted to space *at all*. Space is hard on everything, but robots might be better suited for it than humans, if for no other reason than they are expendable (the fact that they don't need to breathe is pretty nice, though). So I suspect SpaceX is better positioned to develop robots than Apple. Too bad SpaceX is owned by Elon Musk. 

tobian said:

DavidEsrati said:

Interesting. No worries about the fighting in Ukraine?
Or any other conflicts around the world?

Perhaps this is because of a different pace. At the end of the year, death toll in Ukraine was around 9.700 people after these years, while in Gaza it's over 30.000 since October. Civilians x soldiers ratio also differs. Hard to judge...

Maybe you have a different Ukraine in mind? Hundreds of thousands have died. 

tmay said:

Sadly, I spend too much time watching Youtube video's on economics.

While opinions vary, it is notable that the consensus is that Spain, Italy, and Greece, are already in a demographic crisis of an over-age population, and weak economies, and the remainders are, for the most part, in a very precarious position, excepting Norway, and the Baltic States. The UK, in its own right, is a basket caae.

While it's apparent that the EU believes that punishing the Big Tech "gatekeepers" to level the playing field is a great idea, the reality is that it is lack of investment in innovation has and is hampering the EU. The DMA isn't going to fix that, and it is only going to solidify the Big Tech's in the EU, albeit less profitably.

The US truly is a bright spot in a dark world, thanks to a combination of better policy responses to both the financial crisis and the pandemic as well as traditional Americanism. Electing Trump again could negate all of that, but if we can dodge that bullet, we could be on the cusp of a great American resurgence.

avon b7 said:

igorsky said:

avon b7 said:

That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.

The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.

What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works. 

Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue. 

The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist. 

So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist? 

That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves. 

Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault. 

foregoneconclusion said:

FYI: Merrick Garland is a centrist/moderate and so is Amy Klobucher who was the Senator spearheading the tech regulation legislation that never gained enough traction in 2021 and 2022.

Garland is a centrist for sure and I doubt this lawsuit is something he would have chosen, but overriding the zealots below him might have been hard. 

I don't know what Klobucher is.