Genuine parts for the Google Pixel 8 and 8 Pro are now available on iFixit's Pixel parts store. "The Pixel 8 is the first Google phone with seven years of major OS updates, and Google previously said these parts will be in stock for seven years to match, so the phone sounds like it will be a longevity champion," reports Ars Technica's Ron Amadeo. From the report: The most common replacement will probably be the screen, which costs $160 for the Pixel 8 and $230 for the Pixel 8 Pro. The product described as a "rear case" is the entire aluminum body of the phone, with the rear glass, camera bar, camera cover glass, side buttons, and charging coil. The Pixel 8 version of this will run you $143, while the 8 Pro version is $173. The batteries are both $43.

If your camera breaks, get ready for some serious sticker shock: The Pixel 8 Pro rear camera assembly is $200 for the bundled set of three cameras. Interestingly, the Pixel 8 also has $200 worth of camera parts despite having one less camera by skipping the complicated periscope zoom lens. The Pixel 8 parts come in separate pieces: $143 for the main camera and $63 for the ultra-wide. Along with the $43 front camera, a Pixel 8 is $700 and has $243 worth of camera parts!

Other than that, there are various small adhesive and thermal strips. There's no replacement motherboard available, which is a shame since that's probably the first thing that would break from water damage. (Phone motherboards contain your IMEI number used for things like billing and theft blocklisting, and the industry doesn't have a good solution for repairing these.) Since the USB port is part of the motherboard, there's no official repair method. The Google Pixel 8 Parts store is available here.

Security researchers say info-stealing malware can still access victims' compromised Google accounts even after passwords have been changed. From a report: A zero-day exploit of Google account security was first teased by a cybercriminal known as "PRISMA" in October 2023, boasting that the technique could be used to log back into a victim's account even after the password is changed. It can also be used to generate new session tokens to regain access to victims' emails, cloud storage, and more as necessary. Since then, developers of infostealer malware -- primarily targeting Windows, it seems -- have steadily implemented the exploit in their code. The total number of known malware families that abuse the vulnerability stands at six, including Lumma and Rhadamanthys, while Eternity Stealer is also working on an update to release in the near future.

Eggheads at CloudSEK say they found the root of the exploit to be in the undocumented Google OAuth endpoint "MultiLogin." The exploit revolves around stealing victims' session tokens. That is to say, malware first infects a person's PC -- typically via a malicious spam or a dodgy download, etc -- and then scours the machine for, among other things, web browser session cookies that can be used to log into accounts.

Mozilla closed out 2023 with a report that dodges its flatlining browser market share and Mozilla.social beta in favor of calls for a faster pace from its highly paid CEO. From a report: According to the company's filings, Mitchell Baker's compensation went from $5,591,406 in 2021 to $6,903,089 in 2022. It's quite the jump considering that revenues declined from $527,585,000 to $510,389,000 in the same period. Despite the executive payout, Firefox continues to trail Google and even Microsoft in desktop browser market share. While it has not suffered any catastrophic losses, neither has it made any significant gains.

Baker, however, would very much like to speed things up and says in the State of Mozilla report: "The pace is not enough, the impact is not enough." Unsurprisingly for a technology company, the report is heavy on AI going mainstream where Mozilla reckons it can make an impact in the technology, particularly with regard to open source developers and privacy. Mozilla's adventures in AI? The organization says it has 15 engineers working on open source large language models and is working on use cases in the healthcare space. Moez Draief, managing director of Mozilla.ai, said: "There's a lot of structured data work in that industry that will feed the language models; we don't have to invent it."

Apple faces mounting regulatory scrutiny that threatens over $85 billion in annual services revenue. An antitrust trial against Google in the U.S. revealed multi-billion dollar payments to Apple to be the iPhone's default search engine. A plaintiff victory may halt the payments, estimated at one-quarter of Apple's services income. Meanwhile, Apple's App Store dominance draws Biden administration and EU oversight, with the EU enforcing changes. The landmark Google case and actions across Apple's two biggest markets represent growing legal and regulatory headwinds challenging the company's services growth strategy. FT adds: In the EU, Apple is preparing to allow "sideloading," which enables iPhone users to bypass its store and download apps from elsewhere. This will breach, for the first time, the walled-off ecosystem that the company has protected since Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007. Apple has dragged its feet on this issue, since it maintains the practice will create security risks to its system.

Sideloading could have an impact on the App Store, where Apple charges developers as much as a 30 per cent fee on digital purchases. Games account for more than half of that revenue. Google's Play Store, which charges a similar fee, is also in the spotlight after it lost a landmark trial against Epic Games in California in December. Apple draws between $6bn and $7bn in commission fees from the App Store globally each quarter, according to Sensor Tower estimates. Competitors are pushing to earn some of that share and launch rival app stores and payment methods on Apple devices. Microsoft is talking to partners about launching its own mobile store.

Every large smartphone maker except Apple is betting that "foldable" phones will help revive a lacklustre mobile market, despite the devices still largely failing to attract mainstream consumers. From a report: Foldables, which have a screen that opens like a book or compact mirror, barely exceed a 1 per cent market share of all smartphones sold globally almost five years after they were first introduced. But Samsung has doubled down on the product, investing heavily in marketing this year. In July, the Korean group released its 5G Galaxy Z series. The world's largest smartphone manufacturer points to estimates from Counterpoint Research that foldable devices may surpass a third of all smartphones costing more than $600 by 2027.

Other handset makers such as Motorola, China's Huawei and its spin-off Honor are also pinning their hopes on the product helping to revive a market that suffered its worst year for more than a decade. "This is the year people [in the industry] really dived in," said Ben Wood, an analyst at CCS Insight. "Everybody now is betting on this, except Apple." The iPhone-maker has yet to show any interest in the category, though patent filings suggest it may one day introduce an iPad that folds in half. Every other big smartphone maker has followed Samsung into the market, including Google's Pixel Fold and Chinese alternatives from Huawei, Oppo and Xiaomi.

Long-time tech entrepreneur Anil Dash predicts a big shift in the digital landscape in 2024. And "regular internet users — not just the world's tech tycoons — may be the ones who decide how it goes." The first thing to understand about this new era of the internet is that power is, undoubtedly, shifting. For example, regulators are now part of the story — an ironic shift for anyone who was around in the dot com days. In the E.U., tech giants like Apple are being forced to hold their noses and embrace mandated changes like opening up their devices to allow alternate app stores to provide apps to consumers. This could be good news, increasing consumer choice and possibly enabling different business models — how about mobile games that aren't constantly pestering gamers for in-app purchases? Back in the U.S., a shocking judgment in Epic Games' (that's the Fortnite folks') lawsuit against Google leaves us with the promise that Android phones might open up in a similar way.

That's not just good news for the billions of people who own smartphones. It's part of a sea change for the coders and designers who build the apps, sites, and games we all use. For an entire generation, the imagination of people making the web has been hemmed in by the control of a handful of giant companies that have had enormous control over things like search results, or app stores, or ad platforms, or payment systems. Going back to the more free-for-all nature of the Nineties internet could mean we see a proliferation of unexpected, strange new products and services. Back then, a lot of technology was created by local communities or people with a shared interest, and it was as likely that cool things would be invented by universities and non-profits and eccentric lone creators as they were to be made by giant corporations....

In that era, people could even make their own little social networks, so the conversations and content you found on an online forum or discussion were as likely to have been hosted by the efforts of one lone creator than to have come from some giant corporate conglomerate. It was a more democratized internet, and while the world can't return to that level of simplicity, we're seeing signs of a modern revisiting of some of those ideas.
Dash's article (published in Rolling Stone) ends with examples of "people who had been quietly keeping the spirit of the human, personal, creative internet alive...seeing a resurgence now that the web is up for grabs again. "

• Digital artist Everest Pipkin

• The School for Poetic Computation (which Dash describes as "an eccentric, deeply charming, self-organized school for people who want to combine art and technology and a social conscience.")

• Mask On Zone, "a collaboration with the artist and coder Ritu Ghiya, which gives demonstrators and protesters in-context guidance on how to avoid surveillance."

• There's projects and tools from makers like Stefan Bohacek, Darius Kazemi, and Elan Kiderman Ullendorff (including Youtune ("a stream of relatively unviewed original songs posted to YouTube.")

Dash concludes that "We're seeing the biggest return to that human-run, personal-scale web that we've witnessed since the turn of the millennium, with enough momentum that it's likely that 2024 is the first year since then that many people have the experience of making a new connection or seeing something go viral on a platform that's being run by a regular person instead of a commercial entity.

"It's going to make a lot of new things possible..."

A big thank-you for submitting the article to long-time Slashdot reader, DrunkenTerror.

TechCrunch argues that in 2023, "established technologies relied on by millions hit a chaos curve, making people realize how beholden they are to a proprietary platform they have little control over." The OpenAI fiasco in November, where the ChatGPT hit-maker temporarily lost its co-founders, including CEO Sam Altman, created a whirlwind five days of chaos culminating in Altman returning to the OpenAI hotseat. But only after businesses that had built products atop OpenAI's GPT-X large language models (LLMs) started to question the prudence of going all-in on OpenAI, with "open" alternatives such as Meta's Llama-branded family of LLMs well-positioned to capitalize.

Even Google seemingly acknowledged that "open" might trump "proprietary" AI, with a leaked internal memo penned by a researcher that expressed fears that open source AI was on the front foot. "We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI," the memo noted.

Elsewhere, Adobe's $20 billion megabucks bid to buy rival Figma — a deal that eventually died due to regulatory headwinds — was a boon for open source Figma challenger Penpot, which saw signups surge amid a mad panic that Adobe might be about to unleash a corporate downpour on Figma's proverbial parade. And when cross-platform game engine Unity unveiled a controversial new fee structure, developers went berserk, calling the changes destructive and unfair. The fallout caused Unity to do a swift about turn, but only after a swathe of the developer community started checking out open source rival Godot, which also now has a commercial company driving core development.
Thanks to wiggles (Slashdot reader #30,088) for sharing the article.

Michael D. Cohen, the onetime fixer for former President Donald J. Trump, said in newly unsealed court papers that he had mistakenly given his lawyer bogus legal citations after the AI program Google Bard cooked them up for him. From a report: The fictitious citations were then used in a motion provided to a Manhattan federal judge. Mr. Cohen, who pleaded guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations and served time in prison, had asked for an early end to court supervision of his case now that he was out of prison and had complied with the conditions of his release. In a sworn declaration made public on Friday, Mr. Cohen explained that he had not kept up with "emerging trends (and related risks) in legal technology and did not realize that Google Bard was a generative text service that, like ChatGPT, could show citations and descriptions that looked real but actually were not."

He also said he did not realize that the lawyer filing the motion on his behalf, David M. Schwartz, "would drop the cases into his submission wholesale without even confirming that they existed." The revelation could have serious implications for the Manhattan criminal case against Mr. Trump, in which Mr. Cohen is expected to serve as the star witness. The former president's lawyers have long attacked Mr. Cohen as a serial fabulist; now, they will have a brand-new example.

Andy Maxwell reports via TorrentFreak: As the crew of Artemis 2 prepare to become the first humans to fly to the moon since 1972, the possibilities of space travel are once again igniting imaginations globally. More than 92% of internet users who want to learn more about this historic mission and the program in general are statistically likely to use Google search. Behind the scenes, however, the ability to find relevant content is under attack. Blundering DMCA takedown notices sent by a company calling itself DMCA Piracy Prevention Inc. claim to protect the rights of an OnlyFans/Instagram model working under the name 'Artemis'. Instead, keyword-based systems that fail to discriminate between copyright-infringing content and that referencing the word Artemis in any other context, are flooding towards Google. They contain demands to completely deindex non-infringing, unrelated content, produced by innocent third parties all over the world.

A recent deindexing demand dated December 13, 2022, lists DMCA Piracy Prevention Inc. of Canada as the sender. The name of the content owner is redacted but the notice itself states that the company represents a content creator performing under the name Artemis. The notice demands the removal of 3,617 URLs from Google search. If successful, those URLs would be completely unfindable by more than 92% of the world's population who use that search engine. [...] At least 9 of the first 20 URLs in the notice demand the removal of non-infringing articles and news reports referencing the Artemis space program. None have anything to do with the content the sender claims to protect. [...]

Theories as to who might own and/or operate DMCA Piracy Prevention Inc. aren't hard to find but the company does exist and is registered as a corporate entity in Canada. Registered at the same address is a company with remarkably similar details. BranditScan is a corporate entity operating in exactly the same market offering similar if not identical services. BranditScan has sent DMCA takedown notices to Google under three different notifier accounts.

Google has indicated that it is ready to settle a class-action lawsuit filed in 2020 over its Chrome browser's Incognito mode. From a report: Arising in the Northern District of California, the lawsuit accused Google of continuing to "track, collect, and identify [users'] browsing data in real time" even when they had opened a new Incognito window. The lawsuit, filed by Florida resident William Byatt and California residents Chasom Brown and Maria Nguyen, accused Google of violating wiretap laws.

It also alleged that sites using Google Analytics or Ad Manager collected information from browsers in Incognito mode, including web page content, device data, and IP address. The plaintiffs also accused Google of taking Chrome users' private browsing activity and then associating it with their already-existing user profiles. Google initially attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed by pointing to the message displayed when users turned on Chrome's incognito mode. That warning tells users that their activity "might still be visible to websites you visit."

Microsoft quietly launched a dedicated Copilot app on Android, giving users a way to access Copilot's AI features without the Bing mobile app. "Spotted by @technosarusrex on X, it is now available for download from the Google Play Store, and the app's listing suggests it arrived in the marketplace about a week ago," reports Neowin. From the report: The new Copilot app for Android is not entirely a new thing. At first sight, it looks similar to the Bing Chat app, which still lets you access the same chat features. In addition, you can use Copilot within the Microsoft Edge browser for Android, SwiftKey, Skype, and more. Copilot for Android supports plenty of features (you can also toggle between light and dark themes) that are already available on desktop. You can ask complex questions, generate images using DALL-E 3, draft documents or emails, or just have a casual conversation about anything. In addition, the app lets you turn off or on the recently added GPT-4.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: Bruce Perens, one of the founders of the Open Source movement, is ready for what comes next: the Post-Open Source movement. "I've written papers about it, and I've tried to put together a prototype license," Perens explains in an interview with The Register. "Obviously, I need help from a lawyer. And then the next step is to go for grant money." Perens says there are several pressing problems that the open source community needs to address. "First of all, our licenses aren't working anymore," he said. "We've had enough time that businesses have found all of the loopholes and thus we need to do something new. The GPL is not acting the way the GPL should have done when one-third of all paid-for Linux systems are sold with a GPL circumvention. That's RHEL." RHEL stands for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which in June, under IBM's ownership, stopped making its source code available as required under the GPL. Perens recently returned from a trip to China, where he was the keynote speaker at the Bench 2023 conference. In anticipation of his conversation with El Reg, he wrote up some thoughts on his visit and on the state of the open source software community. One of the matters that came to mind was Red Hat.

"They aren't really Red Hat any longer, they're IBM," Perens writes in the note he shared with The Register. "And of course they stopped distributing CentOS, and for a long time they've done something that I feel violates the GPL, and my defamation case was about another company doing the exact same thing: They tell you that if you are a RHEL customer, you can't disclose the GPL source for security patches that RHEL makes, because they won't allow you to be a customer any longer. IBM employees assert that they are still feeding patches to the upstream open source project, but of course they aren't required to do so. This has gone on for a long time, and only the fact that Red Hat made a public distribution of CentOS (essentially an unbranded version of RHEL) made it tolerable. Now IBM isn't doing that any longer. So I feel that IBM has gotten everything it wants from the open source developer community now, and we've received something of a middle finger from them. Obviously CentOS was important to companies as well, and they are running for the wings in adopting Rocky Linux. I could wish they went to a Debian derivative, but OK. But we have a number of straws on the Open Source camel's back. Will one break it?"

Another straw burdening the Open Source camel, Perens writes, "is that Open Source has completely failed to serve the common person. For the most part, if they use us at all they do so through a proprietary software company's systems, like Apple iOS or Google Android, both of which use Open Source for infrastructure but the apps are mostly proprietary. The common person doesn't know about Open Source, they don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest. Indeed, Open Source is used today to surveil and even oppress them." Free Software, Perens explains, is now 50 years old and the first announcement of Open Source occurred 30 years ago. "Isn't it time for us to take a look at what we've been doing, and see if we can do better? Well, yes, but we need to preserve Open Source at the same time. Open Source will continue to exist and provide the same rules and paradigm, and the thing that comes after Open Source should be called something else and should never try to pass itself off as Open Source. So far, I call it Post-Open." Post-Open, as he describes it, is a bit more involved than Open Source. It would define the corporate relationship with developers to ensure companies paid a fair amount for the benefits they receive. It would remain free for individuals and non-profit, and would entail just one license. He imagines a simple yearly compliance process that gets companies all the rights they need to use Post-Open software. And they'd fund developers who would be encouraged to write software that's usable by the common person, as opposed to technical experts.

Pointing to popular applications from Apple, Google, and Microsoft, Perens says: "A lot of the software is oriented toward the customer being the product -- they're certainly surveilled a great deal, and in some cases are actually abused. So it's a good time for open source to actually do stuff for normal people." The reason that doesn't often happen today, says Perens, is that open source developers tend to write code for themselves and those who are similarly adept with technology. The way to avoid that, he argues, is to pay developers, so they have support to take the time to make user-friendly applications. Companies, he suggests, would foot the bill, which could be apportioned to contributing developers using the sort of software that instruments GitHub and shows who contributes what to which products. Merico, he says, is a company that provides such software. Perens acknowledges that a lot of stumbling blocks need to be overcome, like finding an acceptable entity to handle the measurements and distribution of funds. What's more, the financial arrangements have to appeal to enough developers. "And all of this has to be transparent and adjustable enough that it doesn't fork 100 different ways," he muses. "So, you know, that's one of my big questions. Can this really happen?" Perens believes that the General Public License (GPL) is insufficient for today's needs and advocates for enforceable contract terms. He also criticizes non-Open Source licenses, particularly the Commons Clause, for misrepresenting and abusing the open-source brand.

As for AI, Perens views it as inherently plagiaristic and raises ethical concerns about compensating original content creators. He also weighs in on U.S.-China relations, calling for a more civil and cooperative approach to sharing technology.

You can read the full, wide-ranging interview here.

Big tech companies have vastly outspent venture capital groups with investments in generative AI start ups this year, as established giants use their financial muscle to dominate the much-hyped sector. From a report: Microsoft, Google and Amazon last year struck a series of blockbuster deals, amounting to two-thirds of the $27bn raised by fledgling AI companies in 2023, according to new data from private market researchers PitchBook. The huge outlay, which exploded after the launch of OpenAI's ChatGPT in November 2022, highlights how the biggest Silicon Valley groups are crowding out traditional tech investors for the biggest deals in the industry.

The rise of generative AI -- systems capable of producing humanlike video, text, image and audio in seconds -- have also attracted top Silicon Valley investors. But VCs have been outmatched, having been forced to slow down their spending as they adjust to higher interest rates and falling valuations for their portfolio companies.

Japan is preparing regulations that would require tech giants like Apple and Google to allow outside app stores and payments on their mobile operating systems, in a bid to curb abuse of their dominant position in the Japanese market. From a report: Legislation slated to be sent to the parliament in 2024 would restrict moves by platform operators to keep users in the operators' own ecosystems and shut out rivals, focusing mainly on four areas: app stores and payments, search, browsers, and operating systems. The plan is to allow the Japan Fair Trade Commission to impose fines for violations. If this is modeled on existing antitrust law, the penalties would generally amount to around 6% of revenue earned from the problematic activities. The details will be worked out this spring.

The government will determine which companies the legislation applies to, based on criteria such as sales and user numbers. It is expected to affect mainly multinational giants, with no Japanese companies likely to be caught in the net. Apple does not allow apps to be downloaded onto iPhones through channels other than its own App Store. In-app payments also must go through Apple's system, which takes a cut of up to 30%. And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still requires apps to use its billing system. These effective monopolies on in-app payments can lead to users paying more for the same content or services on mobile devices than on personal computers.

theodp writes: Back in May 2021, tech-backed nonprofit Code.org touted the signing of a licensing agreement with WhiteHat Jr., allowing the edtech company with a controversial past (Whitehat Jr. was bought for $300M in 2020 by Byju's, an edtech firm that received a $50M investment from Mark Zuckerberg's venture firm) to integrate Code.org's free-to-educators-and-organizations content and tools into their online tutoring service. Code.org did not reveal what it was charging Byju's to use its "free curriculum and open source technology" for commercial purposes, but Code.org's 2021 IRS 990 filing reported $1M in royalties from an unspecified source after earlier years reported $0. Coincidentally, Whitehat Jr. is represented by Aaron Kornblum, who once worked at Microsoft for now-President Brad Smith, who left Code.org's Board just before the lawsuit was filed.

Fast forward to 2023 and the bloom is off the rose, as Court records show that Code.org earlier this month sued Whitehat Education Technology, LLC (Exhibits A and B) in what is called "a civil action for breach of contract arising from Whitehat's failure to pay Code.org the agreed-upon charges for its use of Code.org's platform and licensed content and its ongoing, unauthorized use of that platform and content." According to the filing, "Whitehat agreed [in April 2022] to pay to Code.org licensing fees totaling $4,000,000 pursuant to a four-year schedule" and "made its first four scheduled payments, totaling $1,000,000," but "about a year after the Agreement was signed, Whitehat informed Code.org that it would be unable to make the remaining scheduled license payments." While the original agreement was amended to backload Whitehat's license fee payment obligations, "Whitehat has not paid anything at all beyond the $1,000,000 that it paid pursuant to the 2022 invoices before the Agreement was amended" and "has continued to access Code.org's platform and content."

That Byju's Whitehat Jr. stiffed Code.org is hardly shocking. In June 2023, Reuters reported that Byju's auditor Deloitte cut ties with the troubled Indian Edtech startup that was once an investor darling and valued at $22 billion, adding that a Byju's Board member representing the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative had resigned with two other Board members. The BBC reported in July that Byju's was guilty of overexpanding during the pandemic (not unlike Zuck's Facebook). Ironically, the lawsuit Exhibits include screenshots showing Mark Zuckerberg teaching Code.org lessons. Zuckerberg and Facebook were once among the biggest backers of Code.org, although it's unclear whether that relationship soured after court documents were released that revealed Code.org's co-founders talking smack about Zuck and Facebook's business practices to lawyers for Six4Three, which was suing Facebook.

Code.org's curriculum is also used by the Amazon Future Engineer (AFE) initiative, but it is unclear what royalties -- if any -- Amazon pays to Code.org for the use of Code.org curriculum. While the AFE site boldly says, "we provide free computer science curriculum," the AFE fine print further explains that "our partners at Code.org and ProjectSTEM offer a wide array of introductory and advance curriculum options and teacher training." It's unclear what kind of organization Amazon's AFE ("Computer Science Learning Childhood to Career") exactly is -- an IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search failed to find any hits for "Amazon Future Engineer" -- making it hard to guess whether Code.org might consider AFE's use of Code.org software 'commercial use.' Would providing a California school district with free K-12 CS curriculum that Amazon boasts of cultivating into its "vocal champion" count as "commercial use"? How about providing free K-12 CS curriculum to children who live where Amazon is seeking incentives? Or if Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos testifies Amazon "funds computer science coursework" for schools as he attempts to counter a Congressional antitrust inquiry? These seem to be some of the kinds of distinctions Richard Stallman anticipated more than a decade ago as he argued against a restriction against commercial use of otherwise free software.

Major streaming services test releasing children's content on YouTube and cut back on fare for kids. From a report: Netflix's share of U.S. streaming viewership by 2- to 11-year-olds fell to 21% in September from 25% two years earlier, according to Nielsen. Meanwhile, YouTube's share jumped to 33% from 29.4% over the same period. That reality is changing major streaming services' approach to children's entertainment, from what shows and movies they make to where they release them. Many are pulling back on investments in children's content, and some streamers have started content for young viewers on such platforms as Google-owned YouTube and Roblox.

[...] Netflix has also slimmed down its slate of animated children's originals, opting instead to rely more on third parties such as Skydance Animation, with which it just signed a multiyear deal to do animated films. Now, Netflix is focusing its youth programming resources on bigger swings, such as the animated film "Leo," starring Adam Sandler, its biggest animated debut ever in terms of views. The eight largest U.S. streamers, including Netflix, Warner's Max and Amazon Prime Video, added 53 originals catering to children and families in the first half of the year, down from 135 for the first half of 2022, according to Ampere. That represents a decrease of 61%, compared with a 31% decrease in overall originals across these streamers for the same period.

Alphabet's Google considered changing its app store pricing model to circumvent a regulatory crackdown, but abandoned a proposal to charge a set fee per app after it became clear that could cost the company billions of dollars, according to documents released late week. From a report: Google created Project Everest in 2021 to reconsider the Play Store billing model, according to the documents, which were released as part of an antitrust suit by Epic Games. Google last week lost the suit brought by the maker of Fortnite when a federal jury found the tech giant abused its monopoly power over the app store. Sparked by mounting pressure from regulators and developers over Google Play's hefty 30% commission, the presentation showed the search giant was concerned about staving off what it saw as potential regulatory overreach.

"We can defend the status quo for a few months," Google said in the presentation. "Making proposed changes sooner may help support reasonable legislation, position Google as a leader, and prevent more draconian legislation." Project Everest explored charging developers piecemeal service fees for putting their apps or games in the Play Store, with additional fees for user downloads, updates and referrals. But the company estimated that model created "potential for significant loss" from $1 billion to $2 billion for apps and $6 billion to $9 billion for games.

"What would you like OpenAI to build/fix in 2024?" the company's CEO asked on X this weekend.

But "Amid all the hysteria about ChatGPT and co, one thing is being missed," argues the Observer — "how energy-intensive the technology is." The current moral panic also means that a really important question is missing from public discourse: what would a world suffused with this technology do to the planet? Which is worrying because its environmental impact will, at best, be significant and, at worst, could be really problematic.

How come? Basically, because AI requires staggering amounts of computing power. And since computers require electricity, and the necessary GPUs (graphics processing units) run very hot (and therefore need cooling), the technology consumes electricity at a colossal rate. Which, in turn, means CO2 emissions on a large scale — about which the industry is extraordinarily coy, while simultaneously boasting about using offsets and other wheezes to mime carbon neutrality.

The implication is stark: the realisation of the industry's dream of "AI everywhere" (as Google's boss once put it) would bring about a world dependent on a technology that is not only flaky but also has a formidable — and growing — environmental footprint. Shouldn't we be paying more attention to this?
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader mspohr for sharing the article.

"10 years later, the demise of Google Reader still stings," writes PC Magazine. But "Time marches on and corporate priorities shift. Here are the products and services that took a final bow in 2023..."

Some of the highlights? 'Clubhouse' Clones
In the early days of the pandemic, when Zoom happy hours and sourdough starters proliferated, Clubhouse burst onto the scene with an app that facilitated audio-only chats between groups large and small. Tech giants quickly churned out their own Clubhouse clones, but these party-line throwbacks were not long for this world. Facebook was the first to go, ditching its Live Audio Rooms in December 2022, but 2023 also saw the end of Reddit Talk, Spotify Live, and Amazon's live radio DJ Amp app. [X Spaces is still around]

Amazon Smile
Launched in 2013, AmazonSmile saw Amazon donate 0.5% of the price of eligible purchases made through smile.amazon.com to charity, with consumers able to choose from over a million charitable organizations to support. On Feb. 20, however, the program shut down because it "has not grown to create the impact that we had originally hoped," Amazon said at the time.

NFTs on Facebook and Instagram
Remember non-fungible tokens (NFTs)? Somehow, crypto bros convinced people to spend big bucks on what are essentially JPEGs. (Don't try to convince me otherwise.) Meta got in on the action in 2022, allowing Instagram users to create NFTs and Facebook users to share them. It didn't exactly set either social network on fire and Meta said in March it would be "winding down digital collectibles."

Cortana on Windows
In June, AI claimed its latest victim by coming after Microsoft's Cortana. The voice assistant never really made a splash compared to Amazon's Alexa or Apple's Siri, and with the launch of Bing Chat (now Copilot), Microsoft removed Cortana as a built-in app on Windows.
Also on the list are Blizzard's Overwatch League, third-party Reddit clients, and Venmo as a payment option on Amazon (effective this January 10).

Looking further into the future, Gmail's Basic HTML View disappears in 2024, while Wordpad will eventually be removed in an unspecified future release of Windows.