They couldn’t just make YouTube suddenly stop working.

ffmpeg is published under the LGPL license, meaning that all of the published versions are free for anyone to use in anything, as long as they don’t modify the ffmpeg library.

The only leverage they have over YouTube is that they could stop allowing YouTube to use future versions. That could create headaches for YouTube if it turns out there’s major security issues, since then YouTube will need to either solve them with a wrapper / sandbox around the library, or write their own library, but any existing versions in use will always be usable by YouTube.

You think this even shows up on the radar of company execs?

There’s no reason not to publish messy code. Most code ends up being messy.

It could be malware, OP is not sharing the source code.

It could be malware, OP is not sharing the source code.

Share the source code or this is DOA.

Again, no, because that’s not a resolution, that’s a pixel density at a set distance.

While I get your point, this is an article, not a whitepaper.

If someone says something that is obviously not a thing, like ‘the perfect resolution of an analog painting’, then it means the author probably didn’t actually understand what they read and so you shouldn’t trust their interpretation of the underlying news.

That’s not a resolution, that’s a pixel density at a set distance. It’s also arbitrary on Apple’s end, not actually a meaningful universal measurement.

To demonstrate the efficacy of the tiny screen, the researchers reproduced The Kiss, a famous artwork painted by Gustav Klimt. The image was shown in perfect resolution on the screen, which at approximately 1.4 x 1.9 mm was 1/4000th that of a standard smartphone.

This makes me doubt the author of the article’s credibility. What exactly is the “perfect resolution” of a hand painted piece of art?

The underlying paper is published in Nature which adds more credibility to its significance but an article that presents none of the limitations, drawbacks, or broader industry context that might hold something like this back isn’t adding much. What was the colour depth? Refresh rate? Is it thrown if the external light shifts and changes? How many children have to be sacrificed to the machine gods to produce it? Etc. etc.

Apple is such a piece of shit company.

Learn how to compete without behaving anti competitively or quit your fucking jobs. It’s not complicated.

Why?

1. Lack of Feature Parity

2. Stickiness of library transfer

3. Stickiness of social network effects

4. It’s still better ethically than Apple Music or YouTube Music, which behave anti-competitively

1: I’ve tried out Quobuz, it’s pretty good, but it does not have the Jam / Group Session feature which me and my friends use constantly while gaming remotely. It also does not have an Xbox app which I use while playing games. I find Spotify’s recommendations somewhat underwhelming, but Quobuz has a noticeably worse recommendation engine, at least for my genres and tastes. Those are the features that lack parity that matter to me, but for some others, it’s things like amplifiers having built-in Spotify, or there being a Roku or Playstation app or something.

2: Quobuz uses a third party service to automatically transfer your library, which worked pretty well, but did require jumping through a bunch of hoops and subscribing to a trial subscription that I then had to cancel. It also did not find matches for some songs. Could I make it work if I had enough reason to switch? Yeah, probably, but the lack of feature parity (/roadmap that includes them) is enough to dissuade me from really trying.

3: In addition to friends on Spotify all using Jams, there’s also an inherent niceness to just being able to text people Spotify links, especially since there’s no cross platform linking service that would otherwise make sharing music easy.

4: Supporting Spotify may not be great, but its still better than supporting trillion dollar anti-competitive corporations like Apple and Google.

I misread the comment hierarchy, I thought this was a part of a different chain.

No one should be able to do it is the right reaction, but ‘Nintendo deserves no blame or shame for choosing to do it’ is the wrong reaction. Nintendo could have used all the money it spends on IP lawyers to instead lobby the government to change the patent system, but they chose not to.

Classic American response: “companies aren’t responsible for the shitty choices they make, they can make as many shitty choices that harm people for profit as possible at all times and it’s just business”.

Once again, showing why Nintendo is a POS company.

Compete by making better games and stories, not by patenting basic role playing game mechanics and suing your competition.

Honestly, pretty motivating if you think about it.

I mean, whenever you’re sitting there at work, thinking that your job is stupid and pointless, just remember that there are people out there trying to use the American court system to get fair and sensible rulings. Your job will never be remotely as pointless as theirs.

Yeah, it would not surprise me if the Supreme Court blocked it for being too reasonable.

This judge actually fully understand how companies abuse two sided marketplaces and is thus forcing Google to open up both sides of the marketplace to competition. Both forcing Google to host new app stores inside the Play store so that they’re visible to consumers, and forcing Google to allow those app stores to distribute the Google Play apps so that the app stores aren’t crippled by a lack of developers.

This is a way way way bigger win than I could ever have hoped for.

PC Gamers think Epic is the devil incarnate because they paid for exclusive games for the EGS, meanwhile they have spent the majority of their fortune on massive legal fees making a bigger impact in the world of digital anti-trust than virtually anyone else on the planet.

Allowing companies to conglomerate is the single worst thing that prevents capitalism from functioning even a little bit, and tech companies are the worst at falsely claiming that every product needs to be tied to every other product, because they can use software and continuous updates to break any third party compatibility that is created.