Based in the heart of Berlin, we are building the next generation technology platform which connects giants of the travel industry with transport providers

Distribusion Technologies

In its latest Q4 earnings report for 2022, Unity Software – a prominent platform for creating and operating interactive, real-time 3D (RT3D) content for gaming and beyond – provided new insights into its business plans and projections for the upcoming fiscal year. Its long standing Create Solutions and newer, burgeoning Grow Solutions were major contributors to the company’s overall success this year, especially as fresh acquisitions began to prove worthy of their initial investment. During the earnings call, John Riccitiello, Chief Executive Officer of Unity Software, discussed a few of Unity’s most significant areas of growth this past year: “...Right now, what we're seeing is really strong consumer engagement in games, really strong pipeline outside of games and create, stabilization in the Ads business based on strong consumer engagement and slightly weaker eCPMs, which is typical of a recessionary period...” said Riccitiello. Unity’s Create Solutions includes its all-in-one gaming platform where clients have access to a diverse toolkit of resources to help envision, create and advertise their next big mobile, or independent, video game. The company’s Grow Solutions, on the other hand, provide analytics and other monetization tools via its Unity Ads service to ensure products designed on their platforms continue to thrive long after they’ve been published. As demand grows across the greater tech ecosystem, Unity’s primary business strategy for the year is centered around meeting that increased demand and creating more allies than competitors. This gives context to Unity’s in November to merge with industry rival ironSource, a software company that develops app monetization and distribution technologies, in the efforts to deliver a complete end-to-end user experience for customers on the Unity platform. Prospective mobile game developers had the most to gain in this merger, as the two companies’ combined forces are now able to equip devs with the tools necessary to take their projects from conception to commercialization, including every step in between. recent move In the company’s , Unity expressed confidence in its Create Solution's ability to thrive in an otherwise less stable economic ecosystem, pointing to the gaming industries’s healthy standing and consumer engagement as a positive sign for Create’s long term growth. Q4 Shareholder letter While interest in gaming remains high and revenues for Create are up across the board, data found in the letter suggests industries outside gaming are what helped the company reap the most profits this year: “Create Solutions 2022 revenue grew 41% year-on-year. Revenue growth was broad-based with games up 24% year-over-year and industries (beyond games) up 118% year-over-year. In the last quarter of the year, industries represented 30% of the total Create Solutions revenue (41% under the previous reporting structure, up from 40% six months ago).” Despite headwinds caused by instability within the in-game ads market in Q3, revenues for Grow Solutions also went up 12% compared to this time last year, signaling a major positive result of the ongoing business partnership established with ironSource in November.

Unity’s Create and Grow Solutions Show Promise as Recent M&As Start Paying Off

Before the widespread use of high-speed internet, distribution of software, music and movies was mostly anchored in physical media. Buyers of CDs and DVDs could sell the albums they no longer wanted or movies they had seen in secondary marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon or locally on Craigslist. Today, software is widely sold as a service (SaaS) and media is rented or licensed to users in a purely digital form. As this digital content is easily copied, distributors can embed software into media to limit and monitor its usage. Digital rights management (DRM) solutions restrict buyers to use the media inside of the environments provided by the seller – as is the case with Amazon’s media platform and Apple’s iTunes. The latter will further extend the permissions to as many as five devices. But like all DRM implementations, Apple and others do not enable buyers to resell their digital purchases. Such a resell function seemed technologically out of reach before a small team of developers introduced cartoon kittens virtually born on the public Ethereum blockchain in December 2017. Digital Collectibles CryptoKitties made mainstream headlines, including one (paywall), when some of the game’s digital collectibles were bought for over $100,000. , several prominent venture firms consequently invested a combined $12 million into the company that created these images of colorful felines. Around the same time, CNN that a group of 10 digital art collectors spent $1 million for the rights to the digital photo of a rose. New York Times article According to Crunchbase reported This willingness of buyers to pay high prices for what are essentially easily reproducible digital images has observers scratching their heads in amazement, if not disbelief. So, why do people treasure some virtual items while assigning little to no value to others, and can virtual items truly be owned? What makes CrypoKitties and other virtual items is a new blockchain-based function which assigns a single unique address on the public Ethereum blockchain to the item. Like most blockchains, Ethereum makes use of public-key cryptography. collectible As a result, all collectibles recorded on this blockchain are visible on the world wide web through a block explorer such as Etherscan. However, the ability to move the ownership of the entry (public key) to a new address is limited to the owner of the matching private key. A growing number of apps, such as the one offered by Coinbase Wallet or Enjin Wallet, support the transfer of these items directly from one user to another without the need to interact with another platform or middleman. Digital Birth A new generation-zero CryptoKitty is created every 15 minutes, . This “birth process” is algorithmically scripted inside of the game developers' smart contract system, and its result -- the new and unique -- is consequently recorded onto the public blockchain. according to TechCrunch The latter entry is presumed immutable, which means it cannot be altered without impacting the complete transaction history of all the blockchain’s transactions. It could be said the entry is the "birth certificate" of the digital art. As of today, the phenotype and genotype information that determine the outcome of a new breed of virtual cats are solely maintained by the game developer, but future standards may allow these trades to be recorded directly on public blockchains. Standards on public blockchains are achieved through a public proposal process and ultimately decided upon by a combination of developers and network participants. Prior to adding the standard that allowed the creation of the aforementioned cryptographic cat game, a general token standard had enabled the creation of thousands of new tokens on the Ethereum blockchain. The latter function -- the -- is largely accountable for the rise of initial coin offerings. non-fungible token ERC20 Token Standard Evolution Of Standards Building on the success of the non-fungible token standard introduced by CryptoKitties, newer proposals -- such as EIP 1155 -- can allow for the creation of specific quantities of blockchain-recorded items. While the items within a given batch are interchangeable, each is recorded individually to the public blockchain, creating "limited editions" of these particular assets that are individually transferable. I predict that the standard could allow artists to sell their creations to more than one collector; and, when applied to the real world, it could attest for the provenance of a production good. Fine wine and other collectibles could enter the marketplace at the time of inception and be bought and sold before entering a supply chain, which could potentially reduce distribution costs and fees from middlemen. Transfer Between Worlds Aside from software, movies and music, the business model of the computer game industry in particular is largely anchored in the distribution of digital products. According to a 2018 published by Clairfield International, the global video game market reached revenues of $78.6 billion in 2017. market report The report further postulates that in the future, “basically all the revenue will be generated through users’ in-game purchases.” I believe that advanced blockchain standards will empower game developers to create truly unique and limited in-game items that users will be able to trade outside of the confines of the game directly with other players or collectors using blockchain wallets. Moreover, the standards could allow users to transfer in-game items from one game to another. Conclusions The internet introduced new protocols for audio and video formatting that disrupted legacy media distribution technologies while simultaneously impacting ownership models that relied on physical products. Early blockchains - such as Bitcoin - enabled the creation of digital bearer instruments, which allow ownership rights to be reliably transferred from one person to another without the sender keeping a copy of the virtual asset. (The European Central Bank touched on this concept in a .) While these digital products are generally fungible - one bitcoin can be replaced by any other without impacting its value or function - newer blockchain-based standards can allow for the creation of non-fungible virtual items. 2017 paper While digitally native products --such as software -- are the obvious first use case for this new paradigm, creators and producers are likely to take advantage of the blockchain-based ownership modules to circumvent proprietary platforms, which charge a toll for their rights-management functions. Further reading: World Wide Blockchain

NFTs and the future of - not just digital - ownership

What Does It Take to Get a Medical Device to Market?

To rebrand or not to rebrand? When it comes to business, it’s an inevitable question. Regardless of how successful, effective, or renowned your brand is, the odds are that at some point you’re going to be asking yourself that very question. Even a nearly all-encompassing search engine like Google has had to change its logo and branding almost as many times as you have fingers, since its inception. Source Rebranding can be a very positive and rewarding experience for a lot of brands. It’s an opportunity for you to experience a “soft reboot” of sorts. When it's done right, it can help you connect with a new audience, stay current, and even increase your sales. Getting your branding on point can be . So, as much of an eventuality as rebranding is, it’s important to make sure you know when exactly is the right time to rebrand. an extensive process 6 Signs It's Time for a Rebrand Whether or not you rebrand can be a difficult decision for any organization to make. Knowing when to enact change can be as difficult as actualizing that change. To make things a bit easier for you, take a look at these six signs that your brand is due for a change. 1. Your Brand Doesn’t Align With Your Vision or Values Your brand vision is one of the most important aspects of your brand. It can act as an anchor and help define who you are and who you want to be as a brand. Source Small changes in your brand, values, ownership, audience, tone of voice, and personality occur naturally over time. This can mean you may find yourself needing to update your brand as a whole to ensure alignment. Everything changes over time. Societal values, what customers want from brands they use, corporate ambitions, financial goals, etc.  It’s perfectly fine to adjust your brand vision to get with the times or to match a shift in personality or ownership. To find out whether or not your brand and its vision match, try asking yourself some of the following questions: What do you think you should change about your brand? In 5 to 10 years, what do you want your brand to have achieved? Do you have plans to expand any time soon? Do you see your brand targeting a new audience? What new products are you developing? How do you want your brand to develop to achieve your goals? Your brand vision should combine your answers to these questions and paint a clear picture of what you want for your brand. This is incredibly helpful when it comes to helping you formulate what your brand's values are. Your brand's vision guide and values are vital to creating a successful business. Customers want to support brands whose values and goals align with theirs. These concepts should be actionable and a part of daily life for everyone in your company. Once you’ve decided to rebrand, it’s vital that you make sure you as effectively as possible. learn more about rebranding Brands that don’t practice what they preach are easily found out and torn to shreds in today's fast-paced, social media lead, digital world. That’s why it’s so important to get your rebranding right. 2. You’re Experiencing a Merger or Acquisition Mergers and acquisitions are one of the most popular reasons a brand chooses to rebrand. When it comes to an acquisition, it’s important to consider how the brand that’s been purchased fits into the structure of the brand doing the purchasing. It’s easy to assume the look and feel of each business will remain as is, but that’s not always the case. Working on this structure can save you a major headache in the future. Rebranding can affect every aspect of both brands. Take your newsletters for example. If you’re going to be attempting a full rebranding, using may make the whole process a lot easier. Flodesks favorite Mailchimp alternative Mergers can be equally complicated, if not more so. With a whole host of functionality concerns to look at (from redundancy in each brand, to how products will be presented), your new corporate identity, color scheme fonts, etc., should all play a role in your decision-making. If you are experiencing a merger or acquisition and benefiting from new technologies, apps, distribution, and marketing, remember your rebrand will affect every aspect of our business. Rebranding with a stringent focus on the technical details will make the whole process a lot smoother. It’s important to look at the process like pieces of a puzzle that need to come together to create a stunning, coherent, and functional project: your new brand. 3. Your Target Audience Has Changed Your brand, its products, tone of voice, and marketing should all be directed to as specific a target audience as possible. When it comes to marketing, it’s important to hit the mark wherever you can. Source As your brand grows and your audience changes or grows over time, you may find yourself needing to appeal to the latest iteration of that audience. If it turns out your brand is appealing to an entirely different audience from the one you’ve intended, that can be a major indicator that you need a rebrand. When you started building your brand and orienting your products, you probably had a target market in mind, hopefully for very good, data-backed reasons. If you’re not reaching them, rebrand. Be careful, though. If you’re trying to broaden your scope, it’s important not to alienate your existing base audience. The last thing you want to do is do a complete overhaul only for your current customers to pull back or turn to a more recognized competitor. Bearing that in mind,  it’s important to remember that on the whole, humans aren't all that fond of change. This means that even if you pull off a seamless, beautifully structured rebrand, you may still see some negative reactions. Making sure you've fully researched why it is your rebranding and planned for any scenario is essential. It can be tough to stick to your guns when you start seeing negative pushback. Knowing why you’re rebranding and who you hope to appeal to is crucial. 4. You Want to Change Perceptions About Your Brand A bad enough scandal can shake an organization to its core. The adage of any publicity being good publicity doesn't quite hold true these days. In an age of viral videos, social media, and increased consumer awareness, bad publicity can be irrevocably damaging.  While some brands can shrug off bad publicity and wait for the news cycle to move on, some brands aren't so lucky. Taking measured steps to rectify the problem can help you salvage some credibility,  but this is not always the case. Take “The Lance Armstrong Foundation” as an example. After its founder was involved in a much-publicized , the brand was rebranded as “Livestrong”. doping scandal Before Source After Source While the organization did experience an expected knock as a result of the bad publicity, it managed to survive. A new logo, web design, and public statements allowed the brand to thrive and continue carrying out its mission. 5. You're Not Attracting the Talent You Want A slightly less considered effect of good branding is its ability to attract quality talent that can help you grow and develop your business. Source As the employee recruit pool becomes more competitive, relying on HR and various recruitment companies or sites alone is no longer feasible. Your company as a brand and website needs to be capable of attracting candidates as well. The best candidates out there choose companies and brands with good reputations that stand out. You either need to come across as an established force or an innovative up-and-comer (in addition to offering competitive salaries, benefits, and workplace culture). Finding out what candidates think about your brand is essential if you want to keep attracting the best of the best. Data-backed brand research, surveys, and polls during interviews can help you get a true sense of what the people who potentially are going to help you grow your business think of it. 6. You Want to Stand Out From Your Competitors The last thing any brand wants to do is blend in. Differentiation is one of the most important things when it comes to . Authentic, personality-driven branding can make a real difference when it comes to standing out. building a successful brand You may be in the same industry, but that’s no excuse to look the same. It’s one thing to try and keep up with the evolution in consumer trends and preferences, and another thing entirely to churn out a by-the-numbers branding and rebranding. Source Remember, just because competitors are adopting sleeker, more minimalistic logos and designs, does not mean you have to. Reactionary rebrands that try to keep with the times, just to keep with the times can often come across as just that. Unauthentic and unoriginal. Two words you definitely don’t want to be associated with your brand. Final Thoughts Frivolous rebranding can have a catastrophic effect on your brand and the way your customers view it. Not only can it make you come across as dated and irrelevant, but that perception can also eventually harm your company's bottom line. Ensuring that you’re rebranding for the right reasons can be one of the most positive experiences your brand can have since it started. It’s only natural for a brand to evolve with its customers, employees, and leaders. Being versatile enough to handle the change is a major asset for any business. Especially for one’s looking to thrive in today's fiercely competitive, fast-paced world. Keeping an eagle eye on these six signs will ensure your brand reaches the heights envisioned when it was created. Photo by on MK +2 Unsplash

Is It Time for a Rebrand? 6 Signs You Should Take Action

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 25 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here X. Request for Relief 232. To remedy these illegal acts, Plaintiffs request that the Court: Adjudge and decree that Apple has acted unlawfully to monopolize, or, in the alternative, attempt to monopolize, the smartphone market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; Adjudge and decree that Apple has acted unlawfully to monopolize, or, in the alternative, attempt to monopolize, the performance smartphone market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-1 to -19, Wisconsin’s Antitrust Act, Wis. Stat. Ch. § 133.03 et seq.; Enter relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm; Enjoin Apple from continuing to engage in the anticompetitive practices described herein and from engaging in any other practices with same purpose or effect as the challenged practices, including but not limited to: a. preventing Apple from using its control of app distribution to undermine cross-platform technologies such as super apps and cloud streaming apps, among others; b. preventing Apple from using private APIs to undermine cross platform technologies like messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among others; and c. preventing Apple from using the terms and conditions of its contracts with developers, accessory makers, consumers, or others to obtain, maintain, extend, or entrench a monopoly. 5. Enter any other preliminary or permanent relief necessary and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by Apple’s unlawful conduct; 6. Enter any additional relief the Court finds just and proper; and 7. Award each Plaintiff, as applicable, an amount equal to its costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in bringing this action. Dated: March 21, 2024 Respectfully, FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF NEW JERSEY: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF ARIZONA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF CALIFORNIA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF MAINE: FOR PLAINTIFF PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN: FOR PLAINTIFF OF STATE OF MINNESOTA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF NEW YORK: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF OKLAHOMA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF OREGON: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF TENNESSEE: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF WISCONSIN: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF VERMONT: About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 21, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Plaintiffs Call for Remedies Against Apple's Unlawful Monopolization in Smartphone Market

2024 is touted as the “The Ultimate Election Year” by Time magazine and rightfully so as more than 50 countries prepare for national elections, roughly more than half the population of the planet. Some of the largest democracies up for elections from the stated list are India, the US, Mexico, Indonesia, and more, making 2024 a turning point in the geopolitical landscape for democracy. Media is the fourth pillar of with the responsibility of upholding the truth to the public, but a closer look at the current scenario would show you a different perspective. There is no one sinister plot at play, it is a series of unfortunate events catalyzed by well intentioned citizens misplacing their enthusiasm to further the misinformation chaos. democracy Systematic erosion of democracy may now be a field day with the advent of AI, specifically massification of it through Generative AI Systematic erosion of democracy may now be a field day with the advent of AI, specifically massification of it through . For instance, , an organization that tracks misinformation, just since May 2023, websites hosting AI-created false articles have increased by more than 1,000%, ballooning from 49 sites to more than 600. Propaganda operations that were usually menial tasks performed by underpaid cyber armies are now easily enabled by AI that is strikingly similar to official news. The lines of real and fake are easily blurred, even for the well informed and well read consumers and this freefall of misinformation may lead us soon to question the nature of news altogether. Generative AI according to NewsGuard In Here, Lies the Opportunity If AI is the poison that contaminates the well of information, it is also the said antidote, or at least a key ingredient. The technology can also be deployed to detect misinformation and text generated by AI and also launching counter to contain the spread of misinformation. campaigns Even tech companies are huddling to create proactive solutions to mitigate the risks. Industry leaders, including OpenAI, Microsoft, TikTok, X, Meta, Amazon, and Google, disclosed a new agreement, ‘ ’, that aims to minimize the risk of AI interfering in the 2024 US elections. They have pledged a series of commitments that include developing new technologies to mitigate risks, detecting distribution on their platforms, more transparency and launching public awareness campaigns on media literacy. Tech Accord to Combat Deceptive Use of AI in 2024 Elections However, this is mostly focused on the US elections, and as important as they may be, media literacy is a much bigger issue in the developing countries. An independent alternative powered by the honchos of the media industry could be a viable solution. It is an opportunity in disguise where the whole industry can unite to fight this deviant and also create a wholesome database of accurate news links. This also creates an easy access for the user to consume news of their preferred news networks while comparing the headlines. If not through an industry initiative, but with help of veteran experts this is an achievable task. An unimpeachable mecca of news, the ultimate utopia or rather resetting to the original DD news in India or PBS in US days, no nonsense shows, just news. In fact, the silent period rule in large scale democracies like ours, could be even extended from 48 hours to 6 months as public perception is moulded constantly with accessibility of news on their phones and these laws predate the notification technology. When it comes to AI, this is still a manageable expectation, for instance Midjourney’s CEO, David Holz was considering banning creation of political (in context of the US elections) images for 2024. If there are guardrails installed on the creation process by AI companies, it is a beast that can be possibly tamed. This article was originally published by on Sanjay Sehgal The Tech Panda.

The Influence of AI on Voter Decision-Making: A Global Democracy’s Crossroads

United States Of America. v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing by Thomas Penfield Jackson, November 5, 1999 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 34 of 58. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here E. Giving Internet Explorer Away and Rewarding Firms that Helped Build Its Usage Share In addition to improving the quality of Internet Explorer, Microsoft sought to increase the product’s share of browser usage by giving it away for free. In many cases, Microsoft also gave other firms things of value (at substantial cost to Microsoft) in exchange for their commitment to distribute and promote Internet Explorer, sometimes explicitly at Navigator’s expense. While Microsoft might have bundled Internet Explorer with Windows at no additional charge even absent its determination to preserve the applications barrier to entry, that determination was the main force driving its decision to price the product at zero. Furthermore, Microsoft would not have given Internet Explorer away to IAPs, ISVs, and Apple, nor would it have taken on the high cost of enlisting firms in its campaign to maximize Internet Explorer’s usage share and limit Navigator’s, had it not been focused on protecting the applications barrier. In early 1995, personnel developing Internet Explorer at Microsoft contemplated charging OEMs and others for the product when it was released. Internet Explorer would have been included in a bundle of software that would have been sold as an add-on, or “frosting,” to Windows 95. Indeed, Microsoft knew by the middle of 1995, if not earlier, that Netscape charged customers to license Navigator, and that Netscape derived a significant portion of its revenue from selling browser licenses. Despite the opportunity to make a substantial amount of revenue from the sale of Internet Explorer, and with the knowledge that the dominant browser product on the market, Navigator, was being licensed at a price, senior executives at Microsoft decided that Microsoft needed to give its browser away in furtherance of the larger strategic goal of accelerating Internet Explorer’s acquisition of browser usage share. Consequently, Microsoft decided not to charge an increment in price when it included Internet Explorer in Windows for the first time, and it has continued this policy ever since. In addition, Microsoft has never charged for an Internet Explorer license when it is distributed separately from Windows. Over the months and years that followed the release of Internet Explorer 1.0 in July 1995, senior executives at Microsoft remained engrossed with maximizing Internet Explorer’s share of browser usage. Whenever competing priorities threatened to intervene, decision-makers at Microsoft reminded those reporting to them that browser usage share remained, as Microsoft senior vice president Paul Maritz put it, “job #1.” For example, in the summer of 1997, some mid-level employees began to urge that Microsoft charge a price for at least some of the components of Internet Explorer 4.0. This would have shifted some anticipatory demand to Windows 98 (which was due to be released somewhat later than Internet Explorer 4.0), since Windows 98 would include all of the browser at no extra charge. Senior executives at Microsoft rejected the proposal, because while the move might have increased demand for Windows 98 and generated substantial revenue, it would have done so at the unacceptable cost of retarding the dissemination of Internet Explorer 4.0. Maritz reminded those who had advocated the proposal that “getting browser share up to 50% (or more) is still the major goal.” The transcendent importance of browser usage share to Microsoft is evident in what the firm expended, as well as in what it relinquished, in order to maximize usage share for Internet Explorer and to diminish it for Navigator. Not only was Microsoft willing to forego an opportunity to attract substantial revenue while enhancing (albeit temporarily) consumer demand for Windows 98, but the company also paid huge sums of money, and sacrificed many millions more in lost revenue every year, in order to induce firms to take actions that would help increase Internet Explorer’s share of browser usage at Navigator’s expense. First, even though Microsoft could have charged IAPs, ISVs, and Apple for licenses to distribute Internet Explorer separately from Windows, Microsoft priced those licenses, along with related technology and technical support, at zero in order to induce those companies to distribute and promote Internet Explorer over Navigator. Second, although Microsoft could have charged IAPs and ICPs substantial sums of money in exchange for promoting their services and content within Windows, Microsoft instead bartered Windows’ valuable desktop “real estate” for a commitment from those firms to promote and distribute Internet Explorer, to inhibit promotion and distribution of Navigator, and to employ technologies that would inspire developers to write Web sites that relied on Microsoft’s Internet technologies rather than those provided by Navigator. Microsoft was willing to offer such prominent placement even to AOL, which was the principal competitor to Microsoft’s MSN service. If an IAP was already under contract to pay Netscape a certain amount for browser licenses, Microsoft offered to compensate the IAP the amount it owed Netscape. Third, Microsoft also reduced the referral fees that IAPs paid when users signed up for their services using the Internet Referral Server in Windows in exchange for the IAPs’ efforts to convert their installed bases of subscribers from Navigator to Internet Explorer. For example, Microsoft entered a contract with AOL whereby Microsoft actually paid AOL a bounty for every subscriber that it converted to access software that included Internet Explorer instead of Navigator. Finally, with respect to OEMs, Microsoft extended co-marketing funds and reductions in the Windows royalty price to those agreeing to promote Internet Explorer and, in some cases, to abstain from promoting Navigator. Even absent the strategic imperative to maximize its browser usage share at Netscape’s expense, Microsoft might still have set the price of an Internet Explorer consumer license at zero. It might also have spent something approaching the $100 million it has devoted each year to developing Internet Explorer and some part of the $30 million it has spent annually marketing it. After all, consumers in 1995 were already demanding software that enabled them to use the Web with ease, and IBM had announced in September 1994 its plan to include browsing capability in OS/2 Warp at no extra charge. Microsoft had reason to believe that other operating-system vendors would do the same. Still, had Microsoft not viewed browser usage share as the key to preserving the applications barrier to entry, the company would not have taken its efforts beyond developing a competitive browser product, including it with Windows at no additional cost to consumers, and promoting it with advertising. Microsoft would not have absorbed the considerable additional costs associated with enlisting other firms in its campaign to increase Internet Explorer’s usage share at Navigator’s expense. This investment was only profitable to the extent that it protected the applications barrier to entry. Neither the desire to bolster demand for Windows, nor the prospect of ancillary revenues, explains the lengths to which Microsoft has gone. For one thing, loading Navigator makes Windows just as Internet-ready as including Internet Explorer does. Therefore, Microsoft’s costly efforts to limit the use of Navigator on Windows could not have stemmed from a desire to bolster consumer demand for Windows. Furthermore, there is no conceivable way that Microsoft’s costly efforts to induce Apple to pre-install Internet Explorer on Apple’s own PC systems could have increased consumer demand for Windows. In pursuing its goal of maximizing Internet Explorer’s usage share, Microsoft actually has limited rather severely the number of profit centers from which it could otherwise derive income via Internet Explorer. For example, Microsoft allows the developers of browser shells built on Internet Explorer to collect ancillary revenues such as advertising fees; for another, Microsoft permits its browser licensees to change the browser’s start page, thus limiting the fees that advertisers are willing to pay for placement on that page by Microsoft. Even if Microsoft maximized its ancillary revenue, the amount of revenue realized would not come close to recouping the cost of its campaign to maximize Internet Explorer’s usage share at Navigator’s expense. The countless communications that Microsoft’s executives dispatched to each other about the company’s need to capture browser usage share indicate that the purpose of the effort had little to do with attracting ancillary revenues and everything to do with protecting the applications barrier from the threat posed by Netscape’s Navigator and Sun’s implementation of Java. For example, Microsoft vice president Brad Chase told the company’s assembled sales and marketing executives in April 1996 that they should “worry about your browser share[] as much as BillG” even though Internet Explorer was “a no revenue product,” because “we will lose [sic] the Internet platform battle if we do not have a significant user installed base.” He told them that “if you let your customers deploy Netscape Navigator, you will loose [sic] leadership on the desktop.” Continue reading . here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) retrieved on 2-07-2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Microsoft Gave Internet Explorer Away and Rewarded Firms That Helped Build Its Usage Share

The rapid progression of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) is prompting a widespread discourse on their potential impacts on the global job market. While catastrophic job losses may be a sensationalist perspective, the indisputable truth remains that AI and automation will inevitably cause disruption in the labor force. As productivity and profits burgeon for corporations, the looming question is: How can society ensure an equitable distribution of these technological dividends? An audacious proposition that has been put forward is tying a . universal basic income (UBI) to GDP per capita Democratizing Wealth in the Age of Automation As AI and automation escalate productivity and operational efficiency, an increase in GDP per capita is anticipated. However, the benefits from these productivity enhancements typically skew towards affluent income earners and those owning capital. Implementing a UBI tied to GDP per capita could ensure a more evenly spread of dividends. For instance, if automation results in a $5,000 per capita increase in GDP, this extra income could be redistributed through a UBI. This approach has the potential to put money directly into the populace's pockets, effectively counteracting the job losses and growing income disparity aggravated by automation. Furthermore, it would initiate a virtuous cycle where heightened consumer spending boosts demand, thus stimulating further economic growth. Another intriguing player on the scene is , a project introduced by Sam Altman and his team with the ambitious goal of creating a new, universally accessible financial and identification network. Worldcoin combines a privacy-preserving digital identity (World ID) with a digital currency (WLD), gifted to users simply for being human, in regions where laws allow. With Worldcoin, Altman envisions a future where economic opportunity is significantly expanded, a reliable and privacy-preserving distinction between humans and AI is established, and global democratic processes are enabled. This revolutionary project could even pave the way towards an AI-funded UBI, reflecting the increasingly intertwined futures of automation, AI, and global economic systems. Worldcoin As succinctly put by economist Robert Reich, "The robots are baking more economic pies. We just need to distribute those pies to more ovens." Rather than each worker laboriously baking their individual pie from scratch, automation allows for an explosion of mass-produced pies. A UBI ensures that every oven gets a pie, not merely the owners of the robotic pie factories. https://www.ubiworks.ca/groweconomy?utm_source=ai-automation-life-daily.beehiiv.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=think-how-a-ubi-tied-to-gdp-could-distribute-automation-s-bounty&embedable=true Venturing Into Alternate Solutions While UBI provides one possible solution, we should also consider other targeted social safety nets that offer assistance to those most at risk from the advent of automation. Such support could take the form of reskilling initiatives, job placement aids, and investments in education and training. By focusing on those most susceptible to job displacement, we can alleviate the adverse effects of automation without resorting to a blanket income guarantee. https://ai-automation-life-daily.beehiiv.com/p/ai-automation-to-replace-half-of-human-jobs-by-2045?embedable=true A further alternative is the concept of "shared ownership" of automated technologies. This approach encourages a wider distribution of , rather than relying solely on income redistribution. Mechanisms such as employee ownership, cooperatives, or community-based investment funds could be employed to give more individuals a stake in the profits generated by automation, fostering a more inclusive and equitable society. AI and automation ownership Although the specifics are critical, broadening the distribution of state-of-the-art LLMs and GPUs to the public can facilitate our transition to a better future. After all, we’re all stakeholders in this automated future, and sharing its bounty might just be the key to unlocking a more prosperous and equitable world. Also published . here

DISTRIBUSION TECHNOLOGIES

distribusion.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

DISTRIBUSION TECHNOLOGIES

EVERGREEN INDEX #674

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Distribusion Technologies WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

DISTRIBUSION TECHNOLOGIES

distribusion.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

DISTRIBUSION TECHNOLOGIES

EVERGREEN INDEX #674

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT DISTRIBUSION TECHNOLOGIES

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Distribusion Technologies WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!