Readit NewsIs a picture of a face count as "biometric" information? I strongly doubt it and suspect this case will be thrown out.
What's being advertised as a feature is not SSO, but SSO through a private IdP. So this could just be a case of confusion created through marketing simplification.
Which, fair game! If you are big or technical enough to need a private IdP, you should probably be paying for an Enterprise plan. And from the perspective of these software companies, supporting your third-party IdP is kinda a luxury feature. Moreover, I can understand why Adobe wouldn't want to include these advanced features in their plans for college students.
And honestly, locking horsepower behind a paywall is more justifiable than some of the other features you have to unlock - like activating your own headlight features or climate control. They are literally installing the physical components into your car and charging you to activate them.
Can they capture more value by selling their big, expensive thing as a service rather than in one big sale?
In 2010, everyone complained that Adobe was ripping their users off charging them every month for software which basically doesn’t change (which was and is correct). But since that move, their valuation is up 10x.
I’d much prefer to drive a car that doesn’t know much about me…but then again, I still use Adobe products every day.
I don't know if this is strictly true. Photoshop between 2010 and 2025 has substantially changed.
Also, in 2010, the Master Collection was $2600 ($3800 in today's dollars). And an upgrade was something like $800. In the long run users may pay a bit more, but I think it's fair to say that making the costs really easier to ingest does create a lot of growth in the same way that financing increases car sales.
The reaper is coming for Impossible soon, but at least in the tiniest possible way, they at least kinda taste like meat.
Regardless, this whole industry is built on hype. It's never going to be cheaper, healthier, or tastier than just a simple black bean burger.
Could that also be explained perhaps by the fact that people are willing to live farther away from cities (where land / homes are cheaper and larger) because they only have to work 3 days a week from the office? Or because commuting is less painful with newer cars?
I do not believe this is accurate, at least not in the last ~10 years or so. The houses are purchased by hedge funds and other smaller investors.
The hedge fund thing is way overblown. Even if they buy up homes in hot markets, their incentive is still going to be to sell them if/when the market cools. Corporations do not enjoy the same tax incentives as homeowners in this country, and the risks/costs to rent out older homes just doesn't pen out for non-local investors. If PE wants to get into housing, it's such a better deal for them to just build apartments.
Currently less than a percent of homes are owned by private equity. And the majority of those are owned for the purpose of turning around and selling them, like Home Partners.
(Zillow also tried buying up homes for the purpose of arbitrage and it ended up blowing up in their face).
So even areas where population is stable, and housing supply increases, it can result in very few tangible gains at the margin.
Some examples: VOC, BBC, national airlines, etc.
List across countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government-owned_compa...
US specific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the...
Taking an ownership stake in broad daylight for political favors is very much unprecedented in the modern economy.