According the The Guardian they do that much already. However, it's being said to not be enough in the face of the rest of the conversation.

The study is linked in the summary, and does explain their method. I know it's normal not to read the summary, let alone the article, but c'mon.

I think maybe you don't actually know what they're saying they did. They tested eye fixation of subjects on pictures of people. They used that to extrapolate what portions of the photos were actually looked at. They ran the viewed portions through facial recognition software to score how reliably the software can match based upon what the subjects looked at. The extrapolated images, without the scoring from the software, paints enough of a picture for the general audience. Super-recognizers just do a better job at looking at the relevant parts of the face.

I mean, everyone is going to have their own opinion. I'm not a fan of the song, or really the genre, but it doesn't seem better/worse than the majority of the newer music being put out. It does sound artificial, but even that isn't unheard of with real artists these days.

Steam does not fit the dictionary definition of monopoly, or the US legal definition, at this time. Feel free to consider them a monopoly, but by definition they're not.

I fail to see what definition, under Webster's, that you refer to. The closest would be the first definition, but that is basically the definition used by US courts as I described.

There are literal monopolies, and there are companies with monopoly power. Either condition would qualify for them to be called a monopoly. Steam(Valve) would only qualify, if at all, as having monopoly power. I make this distinction to make sure we're on the same page.

The courts have no specific percentage of market power required to hold monopoly power. The only guideline is that it usually doesn't happen below holding 50% of the market. However, the requirement can be much higher. The key here is that it's at the courts discretion. So while it may not technically be correct when I said they need to abuse dominance, it does need to go before the courts which would mean there would likely be an accusation of it.

On top of market percentage, their leading position needs to be sustainable over time. If competitors could keep them in check, or if a new entry to the market could, then they're usually not found to have lasting market power. This would, again, have to be decided by the courts. It also doesn't mean it would necessarily have to be easy for a competitor to do it.

Both of these conditions need to be met to be classified as a monopoly power. Following that, I think it should be safe to say that they're not currently a monopoly due to the second requirement. While no competing game store truly competes, they are capable of doing so. For example, Epic's "failure" as a game store is more to do with an intentional, or unintentional, failure to provide a quality product from a consumer standpoint. So while I was technically inaccurate with what I originally wrote, as I was generalizing, this is what I meant by saying it.

Steam isn't a monopoly. They have a massive dominant position, but it doesn't qualify them as a monopoly under US law at this time. In short, they have to be found to be abusing their market dominance. This lawsuit could potentially change that, however.

You could say that of literally any installer. Whether it's well placed or not, you have to put some level of trust in the download source for most software you want to install. I'm not trying to endorse using this, but I fail to see how this is worse than the status quo. At least in this case you can probably trust Microsoft to not be malicious themselves, above and beyond anyone's general opinion. For them, this would be likely be about metrics or convenience lock-in.

I think what you might be overlooking, at least from the point of why they would require it, is that there are just a lot less people in Canada. Their population is around 15% that of the USA. Even if a large portion of their population was interested, it would be harder to drive the numbers needed.

It's not non-compliance if a stay has been issued during the appeal process. This is how the courts work, for better or worse. The injunction also allows for Google, or Epic, to request modification for good cause. Further, there is nothing say that a more permanent injunction couldn't/wouldn't be applied later. I don't think a temporary injunction was meant to permanently resolve things in the first place.

And?

This is a civil case. There are rules around whether an order is stayed during the appeal process. I would assume this happened within those rules.

2024 to 2027 looks like three years to me. It can suck sometimes, but the appeal process does exist for good reason.

Others have noted that the fee to the customer and the fee to the restaurant are separate. However, what I don't see mentioned is that many/most restaurants raise the price of the food on the delivery apps. As far as I understand it, the pricing on the apps is controlled by the restaurant. An easy to look up example is McDonald's. Their food is about 15-20% more in app. I wouldn't be surprised if they negotiated lower fees, but even if they didn't the customer is still paying around half of that 30%.

This might differ for non-partner restaurants, but I know the delivery fees to the customer are higher in those cases.