It is 2017. Society has been active long enough to trivially make political discussions without plopping into the Liberal/Conservative dichotomy, especially without leaning towards childish insults.
A quick remembering of the public political discourse over the past several years provides ample empirical evidence that this is not a true statement.
If Google wasn't paid, it just noticed you buy midnight showing tickets to every Disney Princess movie, does that make this an ad or an assistant?
It would still be an ad, it would just be a solicited one rather than unsolicited.
That may very well be what happened here, but I have my doubts because the person reporting it seemed to consider it surprising (which he wouldn't do if it was clearly the result of past behavior), and because Google didn't raise that as a defense.
Yes, this. I quit an otherwise excellent position because they changed to an open office layout. It was so destructive to my ability to produce quality work in good time that I no longer felt that the company was getting its money's worth out of me.
Open offices are hell. We often forget that cubicles were invented, to the cheers of office workers everywhere, because they made it possible to eliminate many of the worst aspects of the open office layout that was standard before their invention.
I see the point you're making, I'm just not seeing its importance to my point. Microsoft is changing Windows into an ad vehicle not because people were unwilling to pay for Windows. They're changing it into an ad vehicle because they didn't like how people paid for Windows: as part of the purchase price of new computers. In other words, it's not that people aren't willing to pay, it's that people aren't willing to buy as often as Microsoft would like.
Translation: "I'm either self-employed, retired, or independently wealthy, so I don't have to use Microsoft products. Bwahahaha."
I am none of those things, and I don't have to use Microsoft products on my own machines. I do have to use Windows at work, but that's on my employer's machines, not mine. Plus, I get to continue to do my development on Win 7, and only need to use 10 for testing.
If your point is that native applications aren't very portable, then I agree -- that is the major downside. However, native applications are superior in every other respect. Personally, I find the difference so stark that the lack of portability is a price I'm willing to pay.
Which is rather the point. By including DRM in the standard, you allow everyone to implement the exact same thing, and make it universally available on all devices.
But the DRM system that is described in the standard does not even come close to accomplishing this. The DRM plugins are still proprietary and platform-specific. All the standard does is describe the plugin mechanism itself.
Me neither, but I do know that when they did that, it was the first time I got the feeling from Firefox that I get from IE and Chrome: that the browser has become actively hostile to me.
The downside of a duress code which actively destroys data, is that if LEOs find any proof that it is there, that's a destruction of evidence charge.
Only if what you're destroying is evidence, and they can prove it. In my case, I am not engaging in any illegal behavior, so there's nothing on my phone that is "evidence". I have a kill code simply to keep my private papers private.
Slashdot Mirror
It is 2017. Society has been active long enough to trivially make political discussions without plopping into the Liberal/Conservative dichotomy, especially without leaning towards childish insults.
A quick remembering of the public political discourse over the past several years provides ample empirical evidence that this is not a true statement.
Or maybe there's an opportunity to fix what is clearly a huge problem with the legislation?
Probably, but then that makes it the very worst sort of ad: the targeted ad.
If Google wasn't paid, it just noticed you buy midnight showing tickets to every Disney Princess movie, does that make this an ad or an assistant?
It would still be an ad, it would just be a solicited one rather than unsolicited.
That may very well be what happened here, but I have my doubts because the person reporting it seemed to consider it surprising (which he wouldn't do if it was clearly the result of past behavior), and because Google didn't raise that as a defense.
It doesn't matter if Google got paid for it. It's an ad either way.
At least have enough respect for people to be honest. Don't lie straight to our faces with that "it's not an ad" bullshit.
Sounds great
Nothing about that sounds great.
Yes, this. I quit an otherwise excellent position because they changed to an open office layout. It was so destructive to my ability to produce quality work in good time that I no longer felt that the company was getting its money's worth out of me.
Open offices are hell. We often forget that cubicles were invented, to the cheers of office workers everywhere, because they made it possible to eliminate many of the worst aspects of the open office layout that was standard before their invention.
I see the point you're making, I'm just not seeing its importance to my point. Microsoft is changing Windows into an ad vehicle not because people were unwilling to pay for Windows. They're changing it into an ad vehicle because they didn't like how people paid for Windows: as part of the purchase price of new computers. In other words, it's not that people aren't willing to pay, it's that people aren't willing to buy as often as Microsoft would like.
I'm not seeing how that article offers a rebuttal to my comment. It's essentially a marketing piece about addressing the piracy issue in China.
Users wanted Windows, but didn't want to keep having to pay for it.
Huh? I must have missed the huge outcry from users over having to pay for earlier versions of Windows.
pay $20 for a movie and enjoy 15 minutes of ads for future movies, cars etc. Buy the dvd for $40 and get the same treatment.
Both of which are big parts of the reasons why I stopped going to movie theaters and using DVDs.
Translation: "I'm either self-employed, retired, or independently wealthy, so I don't have to use Microsoft products. Bwahahaha."
I am none of those things, and I don't have to use Microsoft products on my own machines. I do have to use Windows at work, but that's on my employer's machines, not mine. Plus, I get to continue to do my development on Win 7, and only need to use 10 for testing.
Why is that an important question?
If your point is that native applications aren't very portable, then I agree -- that is the major downside. However, native applications are superior in every other respect. Personally, I find the difference so stark that the lack of portability is a price I'm willing to pay.
Yes
Javascript can't die soon enough for my taste.
this is better than nothing.
I don't think a good case for this statement has been made.
Which is rather the point. By including DRM in the standard, you allow everyone to implement the exact same thing, and make it universally available on all devices.
But the DRM system that is described in the standard does not even come close to accomplishing this. The DRM plugins are still proprietary and platform-specific. All the standard does is describe the plugin mechanism itself.
Advertising scum just keep ramping the scumminess up, don't they?
I don't know how well that went
Me neither, but I do know that when they did that, it was the first time I got the feeling from Firefox that I get from IE and Chrome: that the browser has become actively hostile to me.
The downside of a duress code which actively destroys data, is that if LEOs find any proof that it is there, that's a destruction of evidence charge.
Only if what you're destroying is evidence, and they can prove it. In my case, I am not engaging in any illegal behavior, so there's nothing on my phone that is "evidence". I have a kill code simply to keep my private papers private.
I already do.
I agree with you, but I'm not terribly upset by this move on Google's part. I don't have to use any of the PWAs, and have no intention of starting.
Or use a browser that isn't as memory hungry.