Because if you slip on a banana peel in public, twenty people get a chuckle and then it never gets brought up again. If it happens to get recorded and uploaded onto the internet, millions of people laugh at you, and it never ends.
Or if you're a girl, and a gust of wind blows your skirt up. Or an adolescent facing peer pressure and acceptance. Or you're mentally ill or have a handicap that can be embarrassing at times.
There are countless things you'd want to keep fleeting. Some you might, for very good reason, want to lie about, but that's by no means the sole reason. Some things you just don't want ever brought up again.
Truly. Just search Slashdot for "netbook" during 2009 and 2010.
Or Pixel Qi, Linux on the Desktop, the Phantom console, Android mini PCs, 9 out of any 10 stories during CES, or even today, Ouya...
Glass is really quite interesting, but it sure feels more like a dud (mixed geek excitement and consumer blasé), with something rarely seen in a product: outright hostility towards it.
They are "massively adopting" them as overpriced toys.
By what definition? Because you don't want one? Clearly then it must follow that the 19.5 million iPads sold last quarter were to frivolous idiots. I mean, it can't be because they actually want them or anything, right?!
The reasons for our derision have yet to be disproven.
Your reasons were disproven 19.5 million times last quarter alone. And you will be disproven many more tens of millions of times over the remainder of the year. You are just to arrogant to realize it.
It's understandable that you don't like iPads. Surely for any product there will be people who don't like them. No big deal, and it's entirely your prerogative. But to twist the facts to fit your own personal preferences is a bit narcissistic, don't you think? Why not just accept the fact that you were wrong in your assessment of the iPad as a successful product, accept that you don't like them, but millions upon millions of other do, and just move on?
Why would you want to live your life in denial of reality like that? Doesn't it get bothersome?
And how does that (basically, I think they're shit and I don't want one and anyone who does is a hipster twat) equate to *fear* of *change*?
Nah, it just makes you an overly self-important asshole. The thing you are missing here is that it's fine and dandy that you don't want one, don't like them, etc. But there's no good reason to put down people who do.
Back to the original statement about fear of change, the point was about people who decried the iPad from the beginning. All their "complaints" were about how the iPad wasn't just a touch MacBook. They wanted all the power and complexity of a notebook in a tablet. In other words, the same old same old.
Instead, we got true change. Those complaints were wrong and horribly misguided. Your current assholery is different. Now you just put people down for having different opinions.
Can an iPad make phone calls? Does an iPad fit in a jeans pocket?
There are countless products that don't make phone calls or fit into jeans pockets. Might as well ask, "can you park your car in your mailbox?", as it's a completely nonsensical complaint.
Does an iPad include developer tools to self-host development?
Again, same. It has developer tools. Oh, but they don't run on the iPad? BFD. Most people would never use these tools anyway. And not just "50%+1" most, but "99.9+%" most.
It's a niche
I don't think you know what that word means. Or more likely, you do and are just delusional.
and as someone with smartphone, laptop and desktop I have enough technology in my life.
Delusional, clearly, if you think your opinion dictates whether some product is a niche or not.
If game selling is such a minority why do they have to work so hard to cripple the games and prevent it?
Because even if only 10% of games bought new ever get sold, that's still a lot of "missed" sales to the bean counters.
The main problem here is that this will work. "Work at what? Stopping piracy? Preventing cheating?" Well, yes, to some extent, but that's not what it's for. It's for making more money, and at least in the short term, it will work. And the long term it's definitely possible.
Bean counters don't care if the games are good. They don't care if what works makes the games worse. They only care that what works brings in more money.
You've answered your own question: a collection of downloadable games.
I have a large collection on Steam (and a few other online sources, but mostly Steam). I wouldn't mind the ability to loan them out or give them away, but I've never felt the desire to be able to sell them. It's just not that important to me.
And besides that, not all games are downloads, and you've answered that question as well: DVDs (and Blu-rays).
It's like you knew the answers implied one thing, but since you have a different agenda, you pretend like they mean the opposite. WTF?
I know you're grasping for straws. You're angry that someone somewhere bought an Apple phone and is happy with it.
Google is horrible on privacy. How you constantly feel the need to defend Google by bashing Apple is, at least, entertaining. Especially since Apple is nowhere near as much of a privacy concern. So instead, what? You tell people how they should feel about spending their own money? Don't you think people know how much they spend, and when they spend it willingly, they find it to be a good value, and that your opinion on the matter doesn't amount to jack shit?
Google are suprisingly forthcoming about how and what they do with your data, which clashes sharply with Apple(pretend the don't) or Microsoft(who run hate campaigns)
It's notable that you left out the part where both Apple and MS have better actual policies, and instead focus on the way they talk about them.
If you don't have a cell phone, you can't use this
As of right now, "this" means the 2-factor authentication for a Microsoft account. Perhaps my paranoia comes from a fear that Microsoft might make 2-factor authentication mandatory.
But they haven't. Quit hanging people for things they *can* do, but *haven't* done.
Why live in fear of the infinite possible bad things that can happen? Very few of them ever actually come to pass. You're letting things that don't exist, and never will exist, limit your life. And what's worse, you constantly advocate against others using those things as well, asking them to make their lives worse too.
"Scroogled" is just silly marketing. I'm talking about actual privacy. Google tracks and *STORES* everything you do on the internet that touches a Google server. MS does not. That's because that's Google's business model.
And Google is caught, constantly, repeatedly, and without remorse, doing bad things with people's private data.
But, no, MS follows the laws of other countries? OMYGOD! Guess what: Google does as well. They have to. It's (duh) the law.
"The chief form of secondary authentication will be a short code sent to the user's mobile phone"
Some people don't have $400 per person per year for their own mobile phone. Instead, they share a house phone. Since when can land lines receive text messages?
So? If you don't have something, you can't use it. This is simple. You constantly seem to think that because something costs money, it's useless because there exists somewhere a person who can't afford it.
How does that make any sense? What product in the world lives up to that criticism?
Why constantly feel the need to knock things down that add value to the world? If you don't have a cell phone, you can't use this, but that it exists means that the billions of people that do have a cell phone can. The cell-less lose nothing, and those with cells gain. What is wrong with that?
Such negativity, how horribly unnecessary and pointless!
Microsoft is surprisingly good about privacy. I'm not sure if it's part of MS's culture, or a side-effect of their loss of market leadership. Either way, I find MS to be quite trustworthy with regards to privacy.
MS can be fairly competent when they aren't a monopoly and can't bully others around.
I will disagree with you. Hard work does not mean you deserve to get paid.
It does if people want your permission to use the fruits of your labor.
Lots of people work very hard and produce unpopular products that never make money.
Android is popular. MS doesn't deserve to make much money from Android if it's not doing well. They also don't deserve to make money from them if Android doesn't make use of MS's property.
Despite your negativity, you've found the mark. The gamble is that there are a lot of people who play Plants vs Zombies, Angry Birds, Mario* and other games that work just fine on a Tegra-3. $100 in, and $50 for 20 games, or $300 in and $50 per game. That cost point is absolutely killer.
But here's the rub: everyone already can play these games on their phones, iPads, and PCs. Not many of them are going to want to play them on their TVs as well, and for those that do, why not buy a $199 console that far outclasses the Ouya?
It's a tough sell, to be sure. It will have to carve out a niche between having a phone or tablet and no console and the cheapest real game consoles. That's a really narrow market, especially when the price difference between the two ends is only $199, and the Ouya is right in the middle of it. You can either spend $0 and keep playing on your iPad, or spend $199 and have so much more.
So, who has $99 for a shitty console, but not $199 for a high quality console?
Case and point: My Mom outspent me on gaming last year. She discovered Big Fish and spent $200 in $6 games. The market you mentioned exists.
It exists, and is already being well served. Does the Ouya serve it any better? Not in quality of the hardware. The only thing it truly brings is the TV experience. Will that be enough?
If they can expl[oit]ore it they'll win. I like my Ouya so far, the controllers feel good in the hand, and the ported games that I've tried were kind of fun, and if I can trade my Big Mac and Frys for Top Ramen tonight, I'll get to try another. Xbox players, have to do Ramen for a week and a half to do the same.
Actually, most people don't have to choose between food and video games. It's silly to go after a market that doesn't even have any money. And they already do this on their iPhones, iPads, and Galaxies.
However, for sake of argument, let's just pretend that potential games somehow become real games (by magic, we must assume). Then what? Will people want to run them on a slow console? Why? Because it's $99?
Of course!:-)
Or you expect me to waste 600USD on a state of the art console to play these cheap games?;-)
No, $200-$400. You know, the price they actually cost and not some imaginary price you pulled out of your ass.
But, yes (to the real price). That is, if you like games. If you just want "casual" games (and that's absolutely fine, btw), then of course not. This is a gaming system for casual gamers that has a bunch of core gamers excited for no good reason.
OUYA will not steal high end console's market. OUYA will succeed only if a latent low profile gaming market is out there, waiting to be discovered and exploited, I mean, explored.:-)
Exactly. But this is what people are claiming, that the Ouya will destroy Sony, MS, and Nintendo (or force them to react by releasing cheap consoles themselves). It can't, by design. It's designed to be cheap. That has forced it to be shitty. Why buy a shitty system for $99, when you can buy a high quality item for $199? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Coming from you, that's a great compliment. Thanks!
With this post, side-stepping reality.
Because if you slip on a banana peel in public, twenty people get a chuckle and then it never gets brought up again. If it happens to get recorded and uploaded onto the internet, millions of people laugh at you, and it never ends.
Or if you're a girl, and a gust of wind blows your skirt up. Or an adolescent facing peer pressure and acceptance. Or you're mentally ill or have a handicap that can be embarrassing at times.
There are countless things you'd want to keep fleeting. Some you might, for very good reason, want to lie about, but that's by no means the sole reason. Some things you just don't want ever brought up again.
Truly. Just search Slashdot for "netbook" during 2009 and 2010.
Or Pixel Qi, Linux on the Desktop, the Phantom console, Android mini PCs, 9 out of any 10 stories during CES, or even today, Ouya...
Glass is really quite interesting, but it sure feels more like a dud (mixed geek excitement and consumer blasé), with something rarely seen in a product: outright hostility towards it.
They are "massively adopting" them as overpriced toys.
By what definition? Because you don't want one? Clearly then it must follow that the 19.5 million iPads sold last quarter were to frivolous idiots. I mean, it can't be because they actually want them or anything, right?!
The reasons for our derision have yet to be disproven.
Your reasons were disproven 19.5 million times last quarter alone. And you will be disproven many more tens of millions of times over the remainder of the year. You are just to arrogant to realize it.
It's understandable that you don't like iPads. Surely for any product there will be people who don't like them. No big deal, and it's entirely your prerogative. But to twist the facts to fit your own personal preferences is a bit narcissistic, don't you think? Why not just accept the fact that you were wrong in your assessment of the iPad as a successful product, accept that you don't like them, but millions upon millions of other do, and just move on?
Why would you want to live your life in denial of reality like that? Doesn't it get bothersome?
And how does that (basically, I think they're shit and I don't want one and anyone who does is a hipster twat) equate to *fear* of *change*?
Nah, it just makes you an overly self-important asshole. The thing you are missing here is that it's fine and dandy that you don't want one, don't like them, etc. But there's no good reason to put down people who do.
Back to the original statement about fear of change, the point was about people who decried the iPad from the beginning. All their "complaints" were about how the iPad wasn't just a touch MacBook. They wanted all the power and complexity of a notebook in a tablet. In other words, the same old same old.
Instead, we got true change. Those complaints were wrong and horribly misguided. Your current assholery is different. Now you just put people down for having different opinions.
Can an iPad make phone calls? Does an iPad fit in a jeans pocket?
There are countless products that don't make phone calls or fit into jeans pockets. Might as well ask, "can you park your car in your mailbox?", as it's a completely nonsensical complaint.
Does an iPad include developer tools to self-host development?
Again, same. It has developer tools. Oh, but they don't run on the iPad? BFD. Most people would never use these tools anyway. And not just "50%+1" most, but "99.9+%" most.
It's a niche
I don't think you know what that word means. Or more likely, you do and are just delusional.
and as someone with smartphone, laptop and desktop I have enough technology in my life.
Delusional, clearly, if you think your opinion dictates whether some product is a niche or not.
What's cynical about people becoming less prude?
If game selling is such a minority why do they have to work so hard to cripple the games and prevent it?
Because even if only 10% of games bought new ever get sold, that's still a lot of "missed" sales to the bean counters.
The main problem here is that this will work. "Work at what? Stopping piracy? Preventing cheating?" Well, yes, to some extent, but that's not what it's for. It's for making more money, and at least in the short term, it will work. And the long term it's definitely possible.
Bean counters don't care if the games are good. They don't care if what works makes the games worse. They only care that what works brings in more money.
You've answered your own question: a collection of downloadable games.
I have a large collection on Steam (and a few other online sources, but mostly Steam). I wouldn't mind the ability to loan them out or give them away, but I've never felt the desire to be able to sell them. It's just not that important to me.
And besides that, not all games are downloads, and you've answered that question as well: DVDs (and Blu-rays).
It's like you knew the answers implied one thing, but since you have a different agenda, you pretend like they mean the opposite. WTF?
In other words, it's just entirely made up. Thanks for the clarification.
He's a troll. He's already had this lie laid bare before, but he still spews it (and it's not even relevant to the story!) anyway.
But since it's negative about Apple, +1 Insightful!
I am getting tired of Apples continuing Privacy abused, first they sell their customers to the highest bidder now this.
Bullshit. You've been past "getting tired of Apple" for ages. This is just the "reason du jour" for you to spew your hatred.
I know you're grasping for straws. You're angry that someone somewhere bought an Apple phone and is happy with it.
Google is horrible on privacy. How you constantly feel the need to defend Google by bashing Apple is, at least, entertaining. Especially since Apple is nowhere near as much of a privacy concern. So instead, what? You tell people how they should feel about spending their own money? Don't you think people know how much they spend, and when they spend it willingly, they find it to be a good value, and that your opinion on the matter doesn't amount to jack shit?
Google are suprisingly forthcoming about how and what they do with your data, which clashes sharply with Apple(pretend the don't) or Microsoft(who run hate campaigns)
It's notable that you left out the part where both Apple and MS have better actual policies, and instead focus on the way they talk about them.
If you don't have a cell phone, you can't use this
As of right now, "this" means the 2-factor authentication for a Microsoft account. Perhaps my paranoia comes from a fear that Microsoft might make 2-factor authentication mandatory.
But they haven't. Quit hanging people for things they *can* do, but *haven't* done.
Why live in fear of the infinite possible bad things that can happen? Very few of them ever actually come to pass. You're letting things that don't exist, and never will exist, limit your life. And what's worse, you constantly advocate against others using those things as well, asking them to make their lives worse too.
For what? The non-existent? How dreadful!
Because Google gives out geek toys and speaks nerd.
Which would be wonderfully fantastic, if it wasn't a trojan horse.
"Scroogled" is just silly marketing. I'm talking about actual privacy. Google tracks and *STORES* everything you do on the internet that touches a Google server. MS does not. That's because that's Google's business model.
And Google is caught, constantly, repeatedly, and without remorse, doing bad things with people's private data.
But, no, MS follows the laws of other countries? OMYGOD! Guess what: Google does as well. They have to. It's (duh) the law.
"The chief form of secondary authentication will be a short code sent to the user's mobile phone"
Some people don't have $400 per person per year for their own mobile phone. Instead, they share a house phone. Since when can land lines receive text messages?
So? If you don't have something, you can't use it. This is simple. You constantly seem to think that because something costs money, it's useless because there exists somewhere a person who can't afford it.
How does that make any sense? What product in the world lives up to that criticism?
Why constantly feel the need to knock things down that add value to the world? If you don't have a cell phone, you can't use this, but that it exists means that the billions of people that do have a cell phone can. The cell-less lose nothing, and those with cells gain. What is wrong with that?
Such negativity, how horribly unnecessary and pointless!
I don't think you understand the question. He means, why would anyone want to use a product that he doesn't use?
He doesn't use those things, ergo no one else should either. It's the Slashdot way.
Time to upgrade to a real control scheme then.
Or, you know, not limit yourself out of silly fanboyism.
You're thinking of Google.
Microsoft is surprisingly good about privacy. I'm not sure if it's part of MS's culture, or a side-effect of their loss of market leadership. Either way, I find MS to be quite trustworthy with regards to privacy.
MS can be fairly competent when they aren't a monopoly and can't bully others around.
I will disagree with you. Hard work does not mean you deserve to get paid.
It does if people want your permission to use the fruits of your labor.
Lots of people work very hard and produce unpopular products that never make money.
Android is popular. MS doesn't deserve to make much money from Android if it's not doing well. They also don't deserve to make money from them if Android doesn't make use of MS's property.
But it is popular, and it does use MS's property.
This is simply rent seeking.
Exactly correct. What's wrong with that?
Despite your negativity, you've found the mark. The gamble is that there are a lot of people who play Plants vs Zombies, Angry Birds, Mario* and other games that work just fine on a Tegra-3. $100 in, and $50 for 20 games, or $300 in and $50 per game. That cost point is absolutely killer.
But here's the rub: everyone already can play these games on their phones, iPads, and PCs. Not many of them are going to want to play them on their TVs as well, and for those that do, why not buy a $199 console that far outclasses the Ouya?
It's a tough sell, to be sure. It will have to carve out a niche between having a phone or tablet and no console and the cheapest real game consoles. That's a really narrow market, especially when the price difference between the two ends is only $199, and the Ouya is right in the middle of it. You can either spend $0 and keep playing on your iPad, or spend $199 and have so much more.
So, who has $99 for a shitty console, but not $199 for a high quality console?
Case and point: My Mom outspent me on gaming last year. She discovered Big Fish and spent $200 in $6 games. The market you mentioned exists.
It exists, and is already being well served. Does the Ouya serve it any better? Not in quality of the hardware. The only thing it truly brings is the TV experience. Will that be enough?
If they can expl[oit]ore it they'll win. I like my Ouya so far, the controllers feel good in the hand, and the ported games that I've tried were kind of fun, and if I can trade my Big Mac and Frys for Top Ramen tonight, I'll get to try another. Xbox players, have to do Ramen for a week and a half to do the same.
Actually, most people don't have to choose between food and video games. It's silly to go after a market that doesn't even have any money. And they already do this on their iPhones, iPads, and Galaxies.
However, for sake of argument, let's just pretend that potential games somehow become real games (by magic, we must assume). Then what? Will people want to run them on a slow console? Why? Because it's $99?
Of course! :-)
Or you expect me to waste 600USD on a state of the art console to play these cheap games? ;-)
No, $200-$400. You know, the price they actually cost and not some imaginary price you pulled out of your ass.
But, yes (to the real price). That is, if you like games. If you just want "casual" games (and that's absolutely fine, btw), then of course not. This is a gaming system for casual gamers that has a bunch of core gamers excited for no good reason.
OUYA will not steal high end console's market. OUYA will succeed only if a latent low profile gaming market is out there, waiting to be discovered and exploited, I mean, explored. :-)
Exactly. But this is what people are claiming, that the Ouya will destroy Sony, MS, and Nintendo (or force them to react by releasing cheap consoles themselves). It can't, by design. It's designed to be cheap. That has forced it to be shitty. Why buy a shitty system for $99, when you can buy a high quality item for $199? It makes no sense whatsoever.