A warning is what we've had for several years now, and it's proven to be inadequate.
I understand this. What I was saying is that there should be a way to disable the new behavior (perhaps a setting in the Developer Options, where ordinary users would never see it) for those who don't need such a muscular approach. But I'm just talking theoreticals now. If the new method really doesn't get in the way, all this is moot.
Google encourages OEMs to make bootloaders unlockable. Most don't, though, so be careful what you buy. Nexus devices have unlockable bootloaders.
Yes, that's been an issue for a long time, and I'm guessing most of us who care already select devices based on that criteria. At least I do. I won't buy a device that I can't do that with. I even once mistakenly bought a Galaxy from AT&T that was so new that no crack to unlock the bootloader existed yet, and brought it back to the AT&T store and exchanged it for an older Galaxy and told them why. The salesperson indicated that I wasn't the first to do that.
If that's what he meant, then why is he criticizing Apple? Apple has always provided customer information they had available when presented with a warrant. What they refused to do was to hack one of the devices that they manufactured.
Automatically preventing the device from booting is incredibly intrusive. I find that objectionable out of the gate -- a warning would be much preferable.
However, if Google is really allowing us to use unlocked devices and modify it without getting in our way, then my objection is removed.
This not true. I've been using an unlocked and rooted phone with AT&T for years. They even sell special "developer phones" that don't lock the bootloader in the first place. They want a premium for those, though, so I just break the lock instead.
Because it assumes two things: that its malware identification never makes a mistake, and that the phone is allowed to talk to Google's servers. The former is obviously untrue, and the latter is not always true.
This is an incredibly intrusive move on Google's part. They should provide a means to disable it.
So Google released Marshmallow, which in my opinion was an overall step backwards for Android, now they're going to do this? It's almost like Google wants everyone to stop using Android.
If my understanding of the payroll laws here is correct, the employer cannot involuntarily take the money from the paycheck.
But. Often, the clerk will make it up out of her pocket to avoid looking like a thief herself.
It's been a very, very long time since I worked a cash register, but this was the way it was back in the day. You couldn't be docked for it, but you could be fired or accused of theft.
I remember putting my own money in the till a few times in order to avoid the suspicion and risk that comes along with having the till come up short.
It is the same as saying that ads are something that most Netflix customers object to, though.
As such, they aren't really very useful at all.
Then what are you basing your assertion that ads aren't important on? Without some sort of evidence, you're just making a guess that is more likely to be biased by your own opinion than any halfway competent survey is biased by the pollsters.
"Without ads" was really important to their audience.
Yes, this. Being without ads is the single most important thing about Netflix. It's more important to me than price. It's even more important (to an extent) than selection.
Even though I'm an Amazon Prime customer and (until recently) a heavy Netflix user, I've never watched any of the Amazon video offerings. I wouldn't be surprised if I were in the minority, but I'd be surprised if I was alone.
Are they just assuming people canceled because of increased price? Because that assumption might not be entirely right.
I recently canceled my Netflix account, but price did not factor into my reasons. In terms of the service you get for the dollar, Netflix could have doubled their price and it would still be a very good value.
Slashdot Mirror
Capacitive touch (the metal ring around the iPhone's home button) only works if you are alive.
This is not true. It only works for materials that are suitably capacitive. There are lots of alternatives that work aside from living flesh.
Fingerprint authentication has never been, and will never be, adequately secure.
It'll be like those DVDs you BUY but won't let you skip over the ads at the front of the movie.
Lots of people rip the DVDs they own specifically to remove the unskippable stuff.
Knox is a plague.
Governments and their contractors.
And crappy encryption is worse than no encryption.
A warning is what we've had for several years now, and it's proven to be inadequate.
I understand this. What I was saying is that there should be a way to disable the new behavior (perhaps a setting in the Developer Options, where ordinary users would never see it) for those who don't need such a muscular approach. But I'm just talking theoreticals now. If the new method really doesn't get in the way, all this is moot.
Google encourages OEMs to make bootloaders unlockable. Most don't, though, so be careful what you buy. Nexus devices have unlockable bootloaders.
Yes, that's been an issue for a long time, and I'm guessing most of us who care already select devices based on that criteria. At least I do. I won't buy a device that I can't do that with. I even once mistakenly bought a Galaxy from AT&T that was so new that no crack to unlock the bootloader existed yet, and brought it back to the AT&T store and exchanged it for an older Galaxy and told them why. The salesperson indicated that I wasn't the first to do that.
If that's what he meant, then why is he criticizing Apple? Apple has always provided customer information they had available when presented with a warrant. What they refused to do was to hack one of the devices that they manufactured.
I am disturbed by Blackberry's hard line stance, and consider it harmful to society.
Automatically preventing the device from booting is incredibly intrusive. I find that objectionable out of the gate -- a warning would be much preferable.
However, if Google is really allowing us to use unlocked devices and modify it without getting in our way, then my objection is removed.
Primarily because the UI changes make tons of things a lot harder to use, and the UI gets in my way now where it didn't before.
This is a matter of taste, of course, but I've been using Marshmallow since its release, and I still find it painful and difficult.
That's good to hear. Thanks!
This not true. I've been using an unlocked and rooted phone with AT&T for years. They even sell special "developer phones" that don't lock the bootloader in the first place. They want a premium for those, though, so I just break the lock instead.
Because it assumes two things: that its malware identification never makes a mistake, and that the phone is allowed to talk to Google's servers. The former is obviously untrue, and the latter is not always true.
This is an incredibly intrusive move on Google's part. They should provide a means to disable it.
Hmmm...
So Google released Marshmallow, which in my opinion was an overall step backwards for Android, now they're going to do this? It's almost like Google wants everyone to stop using Android.
Ah, I see. I believe that your logic is flawed. That some people may tolerate or even welcome ads does not indicate that they aren't important.
Particularly for Netflix, which for years now has been a refuge for those who do not even tolerate ads.
If my understanding of the payroll laws here is correct, the employer cannot involuntarily take the money from the paycheck.
But. Often, the clerk will make it up out of her pocket to avoid looking like a thief herself.
It's been a very, very long time since I worked a cash register, but this was the way it was back in the day. You couldn't be docked for it, but you could be fired or accused of theft.
I remember putting my own money in the till a few times in order to avoid the suspicion and risk that comes along with having the till come up short.
not before I finish watching the rest of the legacy X-Files series. I'm only up to Season 4.
In my opinion, you'd be just fine if you stopped after Season 4. It kinda started to suck in Season 5.
It is the same as saying that ads are something that most Netflix customers object to, though.
As such, they aren't really very useful at all.
Then what are you basing your assertion that ads aren't important on? Without some sort of evidence, you're just making a guess that is more likely to be biased by your own opinion than any halfway competent survey is biased by the pollsters.
However, that is not the choice being presented.
Netflix offers that choice.
Ads are a great time to take a pee, get a new beer or soda, and chat with the SO.
That's what the "pause" button is for, and it comes with the bonus that you get to choose when you want to take a break from the show.
"Without ads" was really important to their audience.
Yes, this. Being without ads is the single most important thing about Netflix. It's more important to me than price. It's even more important (to an extent) than selection.
Their selection looks pretty bad to me. Worse than Netflix.
Pay-per-view offerings don't count.
Even though I'm an Amazon Prime customer and (until recently) a heavy Netflix user, I've never watched any of the Amazon video offerings. I wouldn't be surprised if I were in the minority, but I'd be surprised if I was alone.
Are they just assuming people canceled because of increased price? Because that assumption might not be entirely right.
I recently canceled my Netflix account, but price did not factor into my reasons. In terms of the service you get for the dollar, Netflix could have doubled their price and it would still be a very good value.