Skip to content

“No Apple tax means we will lower prices” - Proton announces lower prices for users by up to 30% after US ruling against Apple fees

Technology
55 32 0
  • Andy Yen went out of his way to criticize Democrats on antitrust, which is how you can tell it's actually a pro-Trump position unsupported by the actual facts.

    I like Gail Slater. She's possibly the best choice among people who Trump likes, to head DOJ's Antitrust Division. She has bipartisan bona fides.

    But to say that Democrats, after 4 years of Lina Khan leading the FTC, and a bunch of the reforms that the Biden FTC and DOJ made to merger standards and their willingness to sue/seek big penalties for antitrust violations, aren't more serious than Republicans about reining in big tech consolidation and about stronger enforcement of antitrust principles, completely flips around the history and is a bad faith argument.

    Andy Yen could've praised Gail Slater, and that would be that. Instead, he took a post by Trump that didn't even mention Democrats, and made it about how the Democrats are bad on taking on big tech. That's the problem everyone had with it.

    Andy praised Gail Slater publicly, and they even worked together.

  • He endorsed the republican party. He said we should clean house of democrats. Is that not declaring party loyalty? It was also a completely unnecessary comment, in response to nothing. It was shortly after Trump's election when every CEO went out of their way to kowtow to the new regime. Its transparently a loyalty pledge to the new boss

    He didn't endorse the republican party.

    The fact that you inflate the meaning of that tweet to make it more meaningful than it is, doesn't mean he did anything of the sort.
    The tweet happened after the election but before the government, and it was an endorsement of the antitrust appointee. He also expressed his opinion that republicans were more likely than democrats to fight big tech monopolies in the antitrust space. This is far from an endorsement.

    It was also a completely unnecessary comment, in response to nothing.

    It was in response to Trump's tweet about the antitrust appointee. I would say quite relevant context for a tweet about the antitrust appointee.

    It was unnecessary, true. Like every tweet. He expressed his unnecessary opinion, the same way we are doing now.

  • I can only speak for myself... But I had 2+ years at university before declaring a (STEM) major, allowing me to take courses in political science, history, etc.

    So, as someone with a STEM degree, in a field of specialists who have zero understanding of the real world outside of their field, the difference is instantly recognizable.

    The idea that a more well rounded education can ever be a bad thing is just straight up ignorant and it comes off as some sort of insecurity on your part.

    Nobody is kept from taking additional education if they want to, like you did. But the general education should be from school and school education needs to define the standard of what everyone should know or should at least have known at some point so he or she can refresh upon it.

    If you make it mandatory to make academic education contain every subject like school did, you will end up with programs taking 20 years instead of 5 years to graduate. If you want to discriminate against certain subjects you end up in the same trap of defining certain subjects as relevant and others as irrelevant, like the criticized "STEM-lords"

  • Maybe you should reconsider your threat model. You seem to be very light on information. If political views is an issue than you're the issue.

    Political views are 100% the issue, they drive all other business decisions. If you're fucked enough to support what's going on in the US government, I can't trust you to be a normal human, let alone run a business.

    Fuck off with your apologisim for nazis

  • This. It's amazing how naive people here can be just because they fanboyed some random CEO before they were revealed to be problematic.

    That's just as hominem to say people are fanboying the CEO. I never heard the name of the CEO until people started complaining about him. Then I read the statements he put out and that people are hysterical over and reading into as if he's some Trump fanboy. The guys not even an American. He doesn't live in the US. He just runs a service as an alternative to the big tech companies. Was he even in the US for anything but his university years and he's 40?

    Americans read more into him than his record and statements say. Not everyone's politics revolve around Americans. I'm waiting for American leftist to turn on Shawn Fain too for supporting Trump auto tariffs and be anti auto workers union because too many in the union are Trump supporters and even someone in opposition like Shawn Fain is supporting a Trump policy. That's even more direct and influential than a guy in Europe that runs a niche privacy centric internet service company

    Problematic, barely. It's a handful of statements months ago compared to his life of work. Magnifying glass to your whole life and people would likely find something problematic. If this guy is representative of what a problematic person is, the world would be pretty solid. Waste of energy to be so anti this guy and Proton when it's a service more conducive to privacy rights than anything I or probably any of us have done. Problematic has become such an empty insult with how easily it's thrown around with such passion. Waste of passion

  • He didn't endorse the republican party.

    The fact that you inflate the meaning of that tweet to make it more meaningful than it is, doesn't mean he did anything of the sort.
    The tweet happened after the election but before the government, and it was an endorsement of the antitrust appointee. He also expressed his opinion that republicans were more likely than democrats to fight big tech monopolies in the antitrust space. This is far from an endorsement.

    It was also a completely unnecessary comment, in response to nothing.

    It was in response to Trump's tweet about the antitrust appointee. I would say quite relevant context for a tweet about the antitrust appointee.

    It was unnecessary, true. Like every tweet. He expressed his unnecessary opinion, the same way we are doing now.

    10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys, but today the tables have completely turned.

    Bro I mean come on, this is literally an endorsement of the republican party. I don't know how more explicit it can get. You're asking people to not believe their own eyes here

  • Well, it's worth leveraging your status to communicate to the politicians (i.e. this tweet). In this case, it cost him more than I think he was expecting.

    lol that is done with money, not social media posts. A CEO should know that.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Companies lowering prices is unheard of

  • lol that is done with money, not social media posts. A CEO should know that.

    why would he want to donate to trump? Public praise is more important in many instances, besides.

  • In a sufficiently competitive market, the maximum is related to costs.

    Proton is trying to get cheap marketing.

    It's not. It's just related to the competition AKA what people are willing to pay.

  • It's not. It's just related to the competition AKA what people are willing to pay.

    With enough competition, someone is going to compete on price to attract customers. They obviously can't sell for less than their costs (again, sufficiently competitive so you don't get monopolies starving their competition), so that's the floor for what they can sustainably charge.

    It doesn't matter what the service is, if there are enough viable alternatives, at least one of them will go for the value play. Customers aren't willing to pay more than they have to, so they'll be attracted to lower cost options.

  • With enough competition, someone is going to compete on price to attract customers. They obviously can't sell for less than their costs (again, sufficiently competitive so you don't get monopolies starving their competition), so that's the floor for what they can sustainably charge.

    It doesn't matter what the service is, if there are enough viable alternatives, at least one of them will go for the value play. Customers aren't willing to pay more than they have to, so they'll be attracted to lower cost options.

    What I'm saying is that competition is included in "what people are willing to pay". Cost of production is not.

  • Yeah, even of the companies don’t pocket the difference, he’s an idiot to suggest that this will cut inflation.

    This guy is just not very smart, I think.

    So, I initially wanted to just kneejerk respond yes, it is absurd to suggest this ruling against Apple... would have any kind of generally noticable effect on inflation.

    But I wanted to check the actual numbers.

    Ok, so, total US consumer spending in 2024 is about $64 Trillion.

    ... The Apple App Store generated $105 Billion in revenue in 2024.

    Ok, napkin math: 30% off of lets just say literally all App Store payments... , ok, we've cut costs by about $32 Billion... shave that off the $64 Trillion...

    And voila!

    A rough general price reduction of... 0.05%

    Call a median US yearly income $60K, and they've saved $30 bucks. Maybe the cost of either one or two DoorDash meals, depending on where you live.... probably much closer to just one.

    We're saved from inflation rofl!

  • What I'm saying is that competition is included in "what people are willing to pay". Cost of production is not.

    Sure. But if people aren't willing to pay more than the cost of production, games wouldn't be made. The cost of production is the floor, and the cost people are willing to pay is the ceiling, and competition finds a line somewhere in the middle. The more competition, the closer it is to the cost of production.

  • Companies lowering prices is unheard of

    They lowered the price of Pass. https://proton.me/blog/proton-pass-price-change

  • Political views are 100% the issue, they drive all other business decisions. If you're fucked enough to support what's going on in the US government, I can't trust you to be a normal human, let alone run a business.

    Fuck off with your apologisim for nazis

    I bet every company has at least one employee with right-wing political views. Choosing a product based on some random quotes by employees is stupid.

  • Bill Gates to give away 99% of his wealth in the next 20 years

    Technology technology
    12
    142 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    G
    Me, bottom 10%, making coffee for a paycheck and scavenging my new pair of pants from a dumpster: Yeah, man, you said it.
  • 870 Stimmen
    72 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    J
    I think you're mistaken -- there are a large number of people who vehemently dislike it, why is probably why you think that.
  • 512 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    E
    My cousin partially set his bedroom on fire doing something very similar with the foil from chewing gum. This was in the 1980s though so no one really cared, I'm pretty sure he just got shouted at.
  • The Enshitification of Youtube’s Full Album Playlists

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    108 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    dual_sport_dork@lemmy.worldD
    Especially when the poster does not disclose that it's AI. The perpetual Youtube rabbit hole occasionally lands on one of these for me when I leave it unsupervised, and usually you can tell from the "cover" art. But only if you're looking at it. Because if you just leave it going in the background eventually you start to realize, "Wow, this guy really tripped over the fine line between a groove and rut." Then you click on it and look: Curses! Foiled again. And golly gee, I'm sure glad Youtube took away the option to oughtright block channels. I'm sure that's a total coincidence. W/e. I'm a have-it-on-my-hard-drive kind of bird. Yt-dlp is your friend. Just use it to nab whatever it is you actually want and let your own media player decide how to shuffle and present it. This works great for big name commercial music as well, whereupon the record labels are inevitably dumb enough to post songs and albums in their entirety right there you Youtube. Who even needs piracy sites at that rate? Yoink!
  • CrowdStrike Announces Layoffs Affecting 500 Employees

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    243 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    S
    This is where the magic of near meaningless corpo-babble comes in. The layoffs are part of a plan to aspirationally acheive the goal of $10b revenue by EoY 2025. What they are actually doing is a significant restructuring of the company, refocusing by outside hiring some amount of new people to lead or be a part of departments or positions that haven't existed before, or are being refocused to other priorities... ... But this process also involves laying off 500 of the 'least productive' or 'least mission critical' employees. So, technically, they can, and are, arguing that their new organizational paradigm will be so succesful that it actually will result in increased revenue, not just lower expenses. Generally corpos call this something like 'right-sizing' or 'refocusing' or something like that. ... But of course... anyone with any actual experience with working at a place that does this... will tell you roughly this is what happens: Turns out all those 'grunts' you let go of, well they actually do a lot more work in a bunch of weird, esoteric, bandaid solutions to keep everything going, than upper management was aware of... because middle management doesn't acknowledge or often even understand that that work was being done, because they are generally self-aggrandizing narcissist petty tyrants who spend more time in meetings fluffing themselves up than actually doing any useful management. Then, also, you are now bringing on new, outside people who look great on paper, to lead new or modified apartments... but they of course also do not have any institutional knowledge, as they are new. So now, you have a whole bunch of undocumented work that was being done, processes which were being followed... which is no longer being done, which is not documented.... and the new guys, even if they have the best intentions, now have to spend a quarter or two or three figuring out just exactly how much pre-existing middle management has been bullshitting about, figuring out just how much things do not actually function as they ssid it did... So now your efficiency improving restructuring is actually a chaotic mess. ... Now, this 'right sizing' is not always apocalyptically extremely bad, but it is also essentially never totally free from hiccups... and it increases stress, workload, and tensions between basically everyone at the company, to some extent. Here's Forbes explanation of this phenomenon, if you prefer an explanation of right sizing in corpospeak: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/rightsizing/
  • 551 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    S
    100% agreed. Here's a relevant Louis Rossmann video where a US Senator (Ron Wyden) officially asked the FTC to look into issues like this. I sincerely hope something comes out of this.
  • 360 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    F
    If only they didn’t fake it to get their desired result, then maybe it could have been useful. I agree that LiDAR and other technologies should be used in conjunction with regular cameras. I don’t know why anyone would be against that unless they have vested interests. For various reasons though I understand that it isn’t always possible - price being a big one.
  • Reddit will tighten verification to keep out human-like AI bots

    Technology technology
    21
    1
    83 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    R
    Started banning everyone who says mean things about Tesla and musk. Banned whole subreddits for him. Edit: oh it’s fucking you, of course it fucking is. How much they paying you?