What if you speak to someone on android, then it’ll most likely go through googles servers. Most carriers are using googles servers to service rcs. When you texting iPhone users you’ll be using iMessage so most of the time your going through googles servers.

It would be inappropriate to not make it clear what messaging protocol is being used.

Most RCS chats will be going through googles servers. A user might want to know that.

It really should be fraud. It is deception used for personal gain. While I think it should be fraud, it will probably need new legislation to make it so.

They could attempt to quantify how gamed the result is and reduce its ranking. Also punishing domains with lower ranking the more they return SEO optimised pages. They could also increase the ranking of older pages.

This doesn’t really help google, it only really improves their search results. Google wants these hyper SEO optimised results with lots of advertising. Additionally, the less relevant the result is the more searches a person does. Each search is an additional set of ad impressions.

Google search is better than ever. Because it generates more advertising opportunities for google. Google isn’t in the business of returning good search results, they are in the business of displaying ads.

It lets you build one motherboard with all possible ram options.

The smallest one has all it ram soldered on. Therefore less time is required in assembling the laptops. All other patients just need the extra ram placed in the dimm slot.

You need port forwarding to connect on torrents. Your able to torrent because everyone you torrent from has port forwarding enabled. If you want to access more seeders, and more commonly leechers you need port forwarding. This is useful for people using private trackers that want to maintain a ratio.

Yes, I understood that. There are specific OS for Kodi like libreElec, that make it easy to have support for lots of codecs etc. I don’t know if any for specific to Jellyfin, but the Jellyfin App has a better UX than Kodi.

Kodi is a great Linux client. But that’s not what OP wants, the jellyfin app is a nicer UX experience.

There are plenty of other options in the market, including ones with port forwarding. It’s a very saturated market.

That’s what mullvlad say. It’s not necessarily the reason why they don’t offer port forwarding.

It was always possible for them to continue allowing port forwarding. They could use separate servers for those that want port forwarding, stopping any impact port forwarding had on those customers.

Port forwarding means torrents. People using a VPN to torrent likely have much more traffic, especially those that seed (which is why they want port forwarding). Not enabling port forwarding means mullvlad can operate at a higher profit to cost ratio, and less risk.

Not necessarily disloyal. But different loyalties.

Microsoft makes software used by governments all over the world. Any government that want to gather intelligence or blackmail another government could do it through inserted exploits in Microsoft’s code. The US could go straight to Microsoft to this in an official capacity. Other nations would influence the individuals working on the project to do it covertly. If your country asked you to do this, they are likely able to convince you it’s in the national interest and you would be harming your country if you didn’t.

It’s not that they wouldn’t be loyal, it’s who they would be loyal to.

They are charging a development fee. Then a per user deployment fee for each copy of the software distributed. This is a normal structure for many commercial software.

You can still develop an iOS app and deploy it on a third party iOS store. It just can use any software that apple charges for.

The EU would need further legislation to stop apple from doing this. It would also have to be targeted very particularly at apple, else software licensing wouldn’t work.

To tell apple they couldn’t do this would require invalidating copyright licensing for all software generated by an OS provider that can be used on a application.

In all the examples you’ve suggested the software was given freely from the OS providers to apple. They didn’t ask for any money. Largely because they wanted people to make software for their systems. Video game consoles do exactly what apple is doing. Further they even have means to restrict the content that you can publish at all.

They do incur the cost of the tools and APIs. They would argue they eat the loss to support their market place.

I would argue apple making their APIs and tools open for everyone is in their best interests. It’s easier to control security issues if everyone uses the same tools and apis. But apple won’t care as much.

If a third party app store provides a tool or service to improve their app store, should apple expect to be able to use that for free? Negating any benefit that third party would get for developing such an improvement.

The legislation would probably be from start of sale rather than end. Otherwise it would have businesses binning old hardware that isn’t selling well to avoid the increased support time.

Android replaced most of the OS that people would consider Linux normally. They only kept the kernal. The kerbal is Linux, but when people talk about Linux OS they usually mean Linux/GNU.

Businesses would avoid this by making their apps certain device only or using different companies to publish their apps on each platform to stop them from needing to allow cross platform ownership.

I think this would need new legislation that would push software regulations further than they’ve been before.

Apple can allow apps to be installed outside their app store. The fee they are charging is likely related to accessing their APIs and tools for developing iOS apps. Apple would have to be forced to make these free.

Currently you could considerably make an iOS app without apple’s tools and APIs. But it would require significant effort to develope/reverse engineer these tools to make the app. Effort that is outside of the scope of most modern app development.

To force apple to make the APIs and tools open would likely require additional legislation. Saying not only must the device allow third party distribution of apps, but apple must support these activities for free. This is significantly different from making apple allow third party apps. It puts on them a real cost (not potential loss like allowing third party app stores).

This isn’t a problem for other systems because they actively invite people to develop and distribute their software for their system. But it would have implications for game consoles. Sony, MS and Nintendo would have to allow any potential developer access to their tools for free with little obligation.

It is kodi

It’s an admission that running the business isn’t the point of tiktok. It’s an intelligence asset, if the intelligence asset is no longer viable there is no point operating the business.