Also: Liking having the latest thing.
For some people, having the "in" thing is important.
I agree that, functionally speaking, a 400$ smartphone isn't much different than a 1000$ one, it's mainly "human things" (what I already said) that makes it different.
Exactly! The mobile OSs are very crippled. I'd say intentionally so but I'm not so sure. Anyway, they don't even allow you to be administrator on your own system and at least Android kills processes in the background like there's no tomorrow. They aren't architected as a traditional OS and it shows.
It's a pity since they're plenty powerful for many tasks.
Are you kidding me? You surely must have seen the ads inside the freaking OS that promote Edge if you happen to use another browser. If they do that why would they allow you to remove it? Toghether with the other made-for-touch basic included apps Microsoft actively tries to get you to use them.
It's like Microsoft wants Windows to become Android but they're actually worse since, AFAIK, not even Android promotes its maker's apps with ads originating from the very OS.
Which models can you buy these days that still have a removable battery? I'm having trouble with my current phone and the only one I could find in the 200 - 300 € range is last year's lg g5
One of "top 15 startups to watch in 2017"? Why was this company chosen so? I guess because of Andy Rubin.
People put too much faith on famous names. Some people can consistently make a difference but most can't. Also success most of the time depends both on capacity and luck/being in the right place at the right time.
It's a small part if any that what you can blame on the Windows Store.
It's been a long time since the primary API for controllers on Windows is XInput.
...but I don't like the associated OS and business practices of Apple so it's a pass.
If that CPU was on a phone running Android it'd be a plus to select that phone, if it's only on an iPhone...
Totally agree. It goes like this:
- Propietary OS makes some UI change
- Open source desktop environments blindly copy it whether it's any good or not.
- Many people get annoyed.
Also teens call you luddite for not wanting to use a touchscreen UI with a keyboard and mouse. Maybe when they grow up they'll find out how much better the classic UI is for that use case.
At least in KDE you can always switch themes and tweak configs but the default theme/settings are going to be much more polished and of course they'll always be the UI abomination in vogue
I, and probably no one outside of Google, know the details of these cases but, can you really hope to succeed in making a class action suit with just three cases?
Also, they "were put in a career path that paid less than those of males?". Maybe they weren't good enough for the higher paying paths.
Nope, he's blaming Firefox for not letting the user, under their own responsability, to use the addon.
I'm tired of software treating the users as stupid and not letting them choose what's best for them.
One of the sins is putting hamburger menus on PCs. For christ sakes I've got a huge monitor in front of me, lay out the options in a toolbar, classic menu or even a ribbon menu but don't force me to push a small hamburger menu in a corner to get to the first level of menus. That's just an additional click I have to make and it also hinders discoverability (the other options have some or all the actions laid out in front of my eyes all the time).
In UI design one size does NOT fit all
Yep, If only Windows 10 had a setting to use the Win 7 interface...
But no, that would be giving the user too much control.
They could also copy something from the latest Firefox alphas: They have a setting for the space between UI elements. Thus you can make it "classic" or good for touch usage.
The security problems are rarely a problem for regular users unless they install apps from untrusted sources. It's not like Windows in the 90's/00's where would get viruses very easily.
I'd be nice if we'd all get the latest Android version on every smartphone but not having it doesn't usually represent a problem. Most major apps work on pretty old versions (Admitedly, that may be a problem for developers) and I haven't seen anyone that I know having a security problem
The minimum requeriments don't increase that much. The lack of updates is because it costs money (development, testing, certification) for the manufacturers and they don't think it's worth it. I'd personally pay more for a phone with guaranteed updates for say, 3 years, but most regular joes don't know or care which Android version they're running.
Also, SOC manufacturers have to support the new Android version on their hardware, else there's little the manufacturers can do.
I don't think the part is referring to carrier bloatware but to manufacturer one. For example, Samsung, on unbranded phones includes several apps that can't be deleted and that may or may not want.
Also, many Google apps are also undeletable and I don't have any use for most of these (Google kiosk, movies...).
I understand Google makes Android to promote their products on services on smartphones but I'd be nice if I could remove every non-essential app even if I had to pay some license or something for admin-enabled Android.
Cloud? Yeah, why would I have my data locally on a fast MicroSD card, usable where there's no network access for free when I could pay a cloud provider for the privilege of renting some storage and which if I used would kill my data cap in hours?
I just can't understand how some people can't see how useful plentiful local storage is. You may not need it but MicroSds are useful for many people.
I'd really like to see a study on the reliability of different smartphone brands/models.
I've personally been pretty lucky with Samsung and by my friends know that if you buy cheap chinese phones they will often break in a few months.
I've heard bad stories about LGs.
Of course YMMV
I'd like to see Google's reasons for this. I don't believe they think a significant number of people would choose something else if they didn't pay. Or maybe most people are so lazy or care so little that they would leave whatever the default search engine was.
I'd mod you up but I've already commented.
Google has lots of reasons to want to control the web (and spy users) and thus Chrome was born. Also, they'd rather you use Android apps than websites
Microsoft also wants you to use their platform (Metro/Win32 Windows Store apps) rather than websites.
Apple likewise with iOS and OS X.
Mozilla are the only ones that they'd rather you use websites than their closed platforms.
I agree with most of your comment, particularly about how lack of classic extension support in v57 will be a huge problem for Firefox.
The worst thing about it is that at Mozilla they think they're going to win back a lot of users. Read this article to see what they think.
I think they're just delusional.
It's true that 57 will have some nice technical improvements but that won't likely attract many users back. Of the people who use Chrome or IE or Edge how many do because they're faster than Firefox? How many because it came with their OS (IE, Edge)/it was bundled with something else or publicited around all of Google's websites? (Chrome). Most of them, I'd guess.
How many non-geeks will even know or care that there's an improved version of Firefox? Not many I guess.
And one of the biggest reasons to use Firefox: Its unique extensions, will weaken significantly after 57 because many of them will stop working. And the reasons many won't be migrated to the new API is not only because of the huge work of rewriting them but because many aren't just possible with the new API.
They do have very good technical reasons for replacing the old API (too tied to the browser's internals, not compatible with multiprocess, etc) but when you have Fx's marketshare you just can't afford to do that.
I like what Firefox represents (a browser not controlled by a huge company, more independent) but their future looks very bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Also: Liking having the latest thing.
For some people, having the "in" thing is important.
I agree that, functionally speaking, a 400$ smartphone isn't much different than a 1000$ one, it's mainly "human things" (what I already said) that makes it different.
Exactly! The mobile OSs are very crippled. I'd say intentionally so but I'm not so sure. Anyway, they don't even allow you to be administrator on your own system and at least Android kills processes in the background like there's no tomorrow. They aren't architected as a traditional OS and it shows.
It's a pity since they're plenty powerful for many tasks.
Are you kidding me? You surely must have seen the ads inside the freaking OS that promote Edge if you happen to use another browser. If they do that why would they allow you to remove it? Toghether with the other made-for-touch basic included apps Microsoft actively tries to get you to use them.
It's like Microsoft wants Windows to become Android but they're actually worse since, AFAIK, not even Android promotes its maker's apps with ads originating from the very OS.
Haven't you gotten the memo? Programs nowadays must be made with as few features as possible as they confuse users.
Which models can you buy these days that still have a removable battery? I'm having trouble with my current phone and the only one I could find in the 200 - 300 € range is last year's lg g5
One of "top 15 startups to watch in 2017"? Why was this company chosen so? I guess because of Andy Rubin.
People put too much faith on famous names. Some people can consistently make a difference but most can't. Also success most of the time depends both on capacity and luck/being in the right place at the right time.
It's a small part if any that what you can blame on the Windows Store.
It's been a long time since the primary API for controllers on Windows is XInput.
But they've removed things! How could you not get this awesome update?
Totally agree. I'd pay at a heartbeat for a Windows 10 with 7's UI and without all the crap...but no, Microsoft aren't interested in selling that
...but I don't like the associated OS and business practices of Apple so it's a pass.
If that CPU was on a phone running Android it'd be a plus to select that phone, if it's only on an iPhone...
Totally agree. It goes like this:
- Propietary OS makes some UI change
- Open source desktop environments blindly copy it whether it's any good or not.
- Many people get annoyed.
Also teens call you luddite for not wanting to use a touchscreen UI with a keyboard and mouse. Maybe when they grow up they'll find out how much better the classic UI is for that use case.
At least in KDE you can always switch themes and tweak configs but the default theme/settings are going to be much more polished and of course they'll always be the UI abomination in vogue
I, and probably no one outside of Google, know the details of these cases but, can you really hope to succeed in making a class action suit with just three cases?
Also, they "were put in a career path that paid less than those of males?". Maybe they weren't good enough for the higher paying paths.
Nope, he's blaming Firefox for not letting the user, under their own responsability, to use the addon.
I'm tired of software treating the users as stupid and not letting them choose what's best for them.
One of the sins is putting hamburger menus on PCs. For christ sakes I've got a huge monitor in front of me, lay out the options in a toolbar, classic menu or even a ribbon menu but don't force me to push a small hamburger menu in a corner to get to the first level of menus. That's just an additional click I have to make and it also hinders discoverability (the other options have some or all the actions laid out in front of my eyes all the time).
In UI design one size does NOT fit all
Yep, If only Windows 10 had a setting to use the Win 7 interface...
But no, that would be giving the user too much control.
They could also copy something from the latest Firefox alphas: They have a setting for the space between UI elements. Thus you can make it "classic" or good for touch usage.
Wait, people still use usenet to upload porn?
The security problems are rarely a problem for regular users unless they install apps from untrusted sources. It's not like Windows in the 90's/00's where would get viruses very easily.
I'd be nice if we'd all get the latest Android version on every smartphone but not having it doesn't usually represent a problem. Most major apps work on pretty old versions (Admitedly, that may be a problem for developers) and I haven't seen anyone that I know having a security problem
The minimum requeriments don't increase that much. The lack of updates is because it costs money (development, testing, certification) for the manufacturers and they don't think it's worth it. I'd personally pay more for a phone with guaranteed updates for say, 3 years, but most regular joes don't know or care which Android version they're running.
Also, SOC manufacturers have to support the new Android version on their hardware, else there's little the manufacturers can do.
I don't think the part is referring to carrier bloatware but to manufacturer one. For example, Samsung, on unbranded phones includes several apps that can't be deleted and that may or may not want. ...).
Also, many Google apps are also undeletable and I don't have any use for most of these (Google kiosk, movies
I understand Google makes Android to promote their products on services on smartphones but I'd be nice if I could remove every non-essential app even if I had to pay some license or something for admin-enabled Android.
Cloud? Yeah, why would I have my data locally on a fast MicroSD card, usable where there's no network access for free when I could pay a cloud provider for the privilege of renting some storage and which if I used would kill my data cap in hours?
I just can't understand how some people can't see how useful plentiful local storage is. You may not need it but MicroSds are useful for many people.
I'd really like to see a study on the reliability of different smartphone brands/models.
I've personally been pretty lucky with Samsung and by my friends know that if you buy cheap chinese phones they will often break in a few months.
I've heard bad stories about LGs.
Of course YMMV
I'd like to see Google's reasons for this. I don't believe they think a significant number of people would choose something else if they didn't pay. Or maybe most people are so lazy or care so little that they would leave whatever the default search engine was.
I'd mod you up but I've already commented.
Google has lots of reasons to want to control the web (and spy users) and thus Chrome was born. Also, they'd rather you use Android apps than websites
Microsoft also wants you to use their platform (Metro/Win32 Windows Store apps) rather than websites.
Apple likewise with iOS and OS X.
Mozilla are the only ones that they'd rather you use websites than their closed platforms.
I agree with most of your comment, particularly about how lack of classic extension support in v57 will be a huge problem for Firefox.
The worst thing about it is that at Mozilla they think they're going to win back a lot of users. Read this article to see what they think.
I think they're just delusional.
It's true that 57 will have some nice technical improvements but that won't likely attract many users back. Of the people who use Chrome or IE or Edge how many do because they're faster than Firefox? How many because it came with their OS (IE, Edge)/it was bundled with something else or publicited around all of Google's websites? (Chrome). Most of them, I'd guess.
How many non-geeks will even know or care that there's an improved version of Firefox? Not many I guess.
And one of the biggest reasons to use Firefox: Its unique extensions, will weaken significantly after 57 because many of them will stop working. And the reasons many won't be migrated to the new API is not only because of the huge work of rewriting them but because many aren't just possible with the new API.
They do have very good technical reasons for replacing the old API (too tied to the browser's internals, not compatible with multiprocess, etc) but when you have Fx's marketshare you just can't afford to do that.
I like what Firefox represents (a browser not controlled by a huge company, more independent) but their future looks very bad.