When what they give me for free is not as good as somebody else gives me for free, I might consider a change. But every year I keep this email address cements me more, as it is the way more people know me over time, so a better service would have to be considerably better after all these years of good service.
Yes that's my point, I've been using it so long that it's now difficult to switch, so whilst they've now saved (and will make even more) money by taking away EAS support they know they probably won't even lose that many customers despite pissing a lot of them off. In fact that's also the whole reason Windows is still prevalent in the desktop market, even with the monumental failure that was Vista it still didn't bolster the alternatives.
Even if it's easy for you to remember what you were working on when it has disappeared completely from the screen in favor of a flashy launcher, it would be even easier if it did not disappear.
Even if? You mean you actually have this problem where you open an application and simply because it opened fullscreen you forget the reason you opened it? Really?
Phone applications run in the full screen because a phone's display isn't physically big enough to show much information in a window.
So all of a sudden your problem disappears simply because the phone's display isn't physically big enough? Or is that statement irrelevant?
Besides, phones aren't typically used for the sort of focused activity that would require the use of two applications for one task.
Of course they are! In fact on a phone or tablet it's even more common to be moving between fullscreen applications because of the lack of screen real-estate (which you yourself already pointed out). The most common workflows almost always switch through various fullscreen media pickers at the very least, do you have the problem you specified in that situation too?
I have over two letter-sized pages worth of space on a 23" monitor connected to a desktop PC; why should a launcher require all of this space?
I never said it should and I'm not arguing it does so I don't see why you're trying to derail the topic.
I'm with the_B0fh here. Your sense of entitlement is remarkable. It isn't enough that Google provide you a free 15GB Email box with web and mail client access.
And your apologist stance is remarkable, how many features can they remove before you would deem it unacceptable? If they cut back from 15GB to 5GB would you be ok with that? What about if they limited the amount of emails you could send? Or limited you to only the web client? Are you just happy to get anything for 'free'?
You're entitled to this for why? What have you done for them?
Oh you know, used the service to make them money! That's why they provide it, it's not just out of the goodness of their hearts, even if you'd rather believe it is.
The problem is that it covers the whole screen, including the task you were working on when you wanted to start an additional application for the task. Rapid switching in and out of a full screen application lead to forgetting what you were doing
So you're doing a task which requires another application, you switch to that application and you've suddenly forgotten what you're doing? Once I dug through that link maze I found what you're referring to and the first paragraph explains it quite clearly:
You're sitting at your desk in your office at home. Digging for something under a stack of papers, you find a dirty coffee mug that’s been there so long it’s eligible for carbon dating. Better wash it. You pick up the mug, walk out the door of your office, and head toward the kitchen. By the time you get to the kitchen, though, you've forgotten why you stood up in the first place, and you wander back to your office, feeling a little confused—until you look down and see the cup.
So you're doing something, then get distracted and move onto a second trivial task but then are still fixated on the first task so your mind isn't concentrating on the second trivial task. This is not the same as what you suggest in your post, in fact if what you suggest is true then merely starting a fullscreen application would cause this and nobody would use fullscreen applications, this would be happening all the time on phones and tablets with people starting applications and then wondering what they started them for.
Google provide you a free service. They pay for that service by learning what you do. You were costing them too much money; so they decided to reduce the value-side arrangement for you.
Oh how thoughtful of them...I suppose in your corporate shill world I should be thanking them for that. As a user of the services of these companies that sort of crap is not something I should need to concern myself with.
That sort of shit is the responsibility of the companies providing the services and products, not for the end user to worry that such corporations might just start removing features and do nothing to support their users. Microsoft need to sort their shit with Google wrt YouTube support, not rant to customers about it and Google need to do the same with MS about AES support. But there are plenty of fanboys who love these companies and feel these sorts of things are a victory for the company and that is better than getting a good service/product.
Somewhere between you and the mailserver is a patent holder, and a desire to exploit their intellectual property.
And you know what? I don't really care, if I were a Windows Phone customer deprived of YouTube support I wouldn't care that Microsoft is throwing a hissy fit at Google either, it's Microsoft's platform, their product, and they are responsible for delivering to the customer and working out problems with other companies, not just throwing their arms up in the air and blaming Google, just like it's not ok for Google to just blame Microsoft for removing EAS support.
Yeah they always did and - just like every other cost associated with providing the webmail service - Google always used to pay it, now they've just decided to stop.
I don't care about the bickerings of corporations and them playing the blame game, like Google blaming Microsoft for removing EAS support and Microsoft blaming Google for removing YouTube support...I'll leave that crap to corporate apologists and fanboys, I'm just one of the end users that is losing out on features because these childish companies can't get their shit worked out.
Before, Microsoft was not charging you for using their patent. Now they are.
Google always licensed ActiveSync and they could because of the large amount of money they make from people using Gmail. And no, Microsoft isn't charging me for use of their patent, I'm not using their patent, Google is - and they always were and continue to.
Because by using a patented protocol, you cost more to service than other customers who are using standard protocols like imap (or their own proprietary protocols). Google have to recoup the cost difference somehow, so they charge you.
They never used to, they make money off my use of the service already.
The alternative (and previous situation) was that those customers who don't use proprietary patented protocols are subsiding those that do, hardly a fair situation at all.
Nobody was paying anything regardless of whether they used it or not and Google was data-mining to cover the cost of the service.
What the fuck has that got to do with the fact that I am suddenly now required to pay a monthly fee - or use their crippled mail app - to get push gmail on my iPhone?
Well i certainly got screwed by Google, well more precisely they pulled a bait-and-switch: "hey use GMail, you can synchronize all your stuff and get push email through ActiveSync" and then "oh we're taking away ActiveSync unless you make a monthly payment for it".
Actually the definition is pretty clear, you even used it yourself in exactly the context I used it to illustrate your own point: "Emancipation of the slaves restricted what owners of the means of production could do."
So if my usage of it was wrong then so is yours and your point is thus invalid.
or only ever apply it to whether YOU YOURSELF are restricted, hang anyone else.
Yes, I am restricted, because some doucher decided to mark kernel symbols such that they could only be used by other GPL code and therefore I can't use those features because nVidia only supplies closed source binaries which cannot be linked with those kernel symbols. I don't give a shit whether the software I'm using is open or closed but when the supposedly 'open' software restricts my use of 'closed' software then yes I am opposed to it, 'open' should not impose restrictions on me.
But I won't have you restricting what I can do with MY code. A stance you CANNOT disagree with because it's your very own mantra.
How could I possibly restrict what you can do with YOUR code? What license allows me to restrict what you can do with your code? Do you even understand even the most basic concepts of open source licensing? Your assertions suggest you have no idea.
So, the administration's excuse is both plausible and fortuitous.
So they can't aggregate a person's out of pocket costs...perhaps they should employ the services of their NSA, they seem pretty damn good at aggregating data, wouldn't want to prioritize the health care of citizens though.
Yes, they did in fact. They quite vocally said words to the effect of it had to be that way, was going to be that way, and it was far too late to change and we should just suck it up and deal with it.
They? You mean one guy said something to that effect which created an enormous backlash and he isn't even with the company anymore.
Now developers are going to have to acknowledge that it is optional and that a substantial portion of the population won't use it.
They'll use it if they want to play a game that requires it.
Furthermore, people are going to ask, if it's optional, why are you forcing me to buy it?
If all you want to play is kinect games then a controller is optional but you still have to buy that, same deal with an optical drive.
For every one of these u-turns they make (after touting the features that these things apparently relied on), they just seem more and more boxed in.
Seems more like they're listening to complaints and reacting to them. Would you prefer it if companies just took a hardline stance and ignore all complaints?
Is tacking on the GPL(or equivalent) to your source code really that problematic?
A permissive license that is compatible with restrictive licenses like the GPL is probably a better choice. Unless of course your intention from the outset is to restrict usage of that code but given that most people aren't bothering with a license at all it seems restrictive licenses are probably not the ideal choice.
Many businesses would have, yes. In the case of chain retailers, restaurants an so forth it would be quite a simple feat to match up your personal data with the MAC address of your device.
Why would that be necessary?
Because I rarely use my credit card, in fact much of the time I use cash or debit card, not to mention i usually have wifi off to preserve battery.
it would be enough to match credit card X with Device Y on just 10 different occasions to with quite a high degree of certainty determine who device Y belong to.
So if you've visited the same restaurant (or chain) on 10 different occasions using the same payment method carrying the same device with wifi turned on...you don't see how noisy that dataset becomes?
If a second credit (or debit) card with the same owner likewise can be correlated with device Y then the degree of certainty would of whom the device belong to would increase, not decrease as you suggest?
That's if it's even the same owner's name on it and not cash or debit card.
Really?
Yes, really, just look at how limited and specific you've had to define the case for doing this.
But even if the average turnover of devices is 2 years as you write it would have little effect as once your credit card usage cease to correlate with the MAC address it is just a matter of doing a rinse and repeat of Steps 1 and 2.
So you're suggesting that a restaurant that you already do significant business with (well you're visiting 10+ times paying with the same payment method and visiting the bathroom and have wifi turned on on your device) is continually doing this to...what? You already do significant business with them and you think they would then continually on-sell tracking data and not lose customers over that?
Because; Marketing, PRISM, XKeyscore, NSA, GCHQ, FSM take your pick.
Most of that is already in place thanks to co-operation of telecommunications and credit card companies with the government, so again it's useless.
Slashdot Mirror
When what they give me for free is not as good as somebody else gives me for free, I might consider a change. But every year I keep this email address cements me more, as it is the way more people know me over time, so a better service would have to be considerably better after all these years of good service.
Yes that's my point, I've been using it so long that it's now difficult to switch, so whilst they've now saved (and will make even more) money by taking away EAS support they know they probably won't even lose that many customers despite pissing a lot of them off. In fact that's also the whole reason Windows is still prevalent in the desktop market, even with the monumental failure that was Vista it still didn't bolster the alternatives.
Even if it's easy for you to remember what you were working on when it has disappeared completely from the screen in favor of a flashy launcher, it would be even easier if it did not disappear.
Even if? You mean you actually have this problem where you open an application and simply because it opened fullscreen you forget the reason you opened it? Really?
Phone applications run in the full screen because a phone's display isn't physically big enough to show much information in a window.
So all of a sudden your problem disappears simply because the phone's display isn't physically big enough? Or is that statement irrelevant?
Besides, phones aren't typically used for the sort of focused activity that would require the use of two applications for one task.
Of course they are! In fact on a phone or tablet it's even more common to be moving between fullscreen applications because of the lack of screen real-estate (which you yourself already pointed out). The most common workflows almost always switch through various fullscreen media pickers at the very least, do you have the problem you specified in that situation too?
I have over two letter-sized pages worth of space on a 23" monitor connected to a desktop PC; why should a launcher require all of this space?
I never said it should and I'm not arguing it does so I don't see why you're trying to derail the topic.
I'm with the_B0fh here. Your sense of entitlement is remarkable. It isn't enough that Google provide you a free 15GB Email box with web and mail client access.
And your apologist stance is remarkable, how many features can they remove before you would deem it unacceptable? If they cut back from 15GB to 5GB would you be ok with that? What about if they limited the amount of emails you could send? Or limited you to only the web client? Are you just happy to get anything for 'free'?
You're entitled to this for why? What have you done for them?
Oh you know, used the service to make them money! That's why they provide it, it's not just out of the goodness of their hearts, even if you'd rather believe it is.
The problem is that it covers the whole screen, including the task you were working on when you wanted to start an additional application for the task. Rapid switching in and out of a full screen application lead to forgetting what you were doing
So you're doing a task which requires another application, you switch to that application and you've suddenly forgotten what you're doing? Once I dug through that link maze I found what you're referring to and the first paragraph explains it quite clearly:
You're sitting at your desk in your office at home. Digging for something under a stack of papers, you find a dirty coffee mug that’s been there so long it’s eligible for carbon dating. Better wash it. You pick up the mug, walk out the door of your office, and head toward the kitchen. By the time you get to the kitchen, though, you've forgotten why you stood up in the first place, and you wander back to your office, feeling a little confused—until you look down and see the cup.
So you're doing something, then get distracted and move onto a second trivial task but then are still fixated on the first task so your mind isn't concentrating on the second trivial task. This is not the same as what you suggest in your post, in fact if what you suggest is true then merely starting a fullscreen application would cause this and nobody would use fullscreen applications, this would be happening all the time on phones and tablets with people starting applications and then wondering what they started them for.
If most customers were indeed using it then you'd make a killing with a start menu replacement utility for Windows 8.
If you only use three or four apps, sure...
Why? It's the same thing I do with the OSX dock, there's no 'three or four app' limit.
So Microsoft will get a 30% cut from what used to be Netscape. How much farther will Mozilla grovel?
How much to you pay for Firefox now? $0. 30% of that is hardly likely to have much of an impact now is it?
Google provide you a free service. They pay for that service by learning what you do. You were costing them too much money; so they decided to reduce the value-side arrangement for you.
Oh how thoughtful of them...I suppose in your corporate shill world I should be thanking them for that. As a user of the services of these companies that sort of crap is not something I should need to concern myself with.
That sort of shit is the responsibility of the companies providing the services and products, not for the end user to worry that such corporations might just start removing features and do nothing to support their users. Microsoft need to sort their shit with Google wrt YouTube support, not rant to customers about it and Google need to do the same with MS about AES support. But there are plenty of fanboys who love these companies and feel these sorts of things are a victory for the company and that is better than getting a good service/product.
Somewhere between you and the mailserver is a patent holder, and a desire to exploit their intellectual property.
And you know what? I don't really care, if I were a Windows Phone customer deprived of YouTube support I wouldn't care that Microsoft is throwing a hissy fit at Google either, it's Microsoft's platform, their product, and they are responsible for delivering to the customer and working out problems with other companies, not just throwing their arms up in the air and blaming Google, just like it's not ok for Google to just blame Microsoft for removing EAS support.
Yeah they always did and - just like every other cost associated with providing the webmail service - Google always used to pay it, now they've just decided to stop.
I don't care about the bickerings of corporations and them playing the blame game, like Google blaming Microsoft for removing EAS support and Microsoft blaming Google for removing YouTube support...I'll leave that crap to corporate apologists and fanboys, I'm just one of the end users that is losing out on features because these childish companies can't get their shit worked out.
Before, Microsoft was not charging you for using their patent. Now they are.
Google always licensed ActiveSync and they could because of the large amount of money they make from people using Gmail. And no, Microsoft isn't charging me for use of their patent, I'm not using their patent, Google is - and they always were and continue to.
Because by using a patented protocol, you cost more to service than other customers who are using standard protocols like imap (or their own proprietary protocols). Google have to recoup the cost difference somehow, so they charge you.
They never used to, they make money off my use of the service already.
The alternative (and previous situation) was that those customers who don't use proprietary patented protocols are subsiding those that do, hardly a fair situation at all.
Nobody was paying anything regardless of whether they used it or not and Google was data-mining to cover the cost of the service.
What the fuck has that got to do with the fact that I am suddenly now required to pay a monthly fee - or use their crippled mail app - to get push gmail on my iPhone?
Well i certainly got screwed by Google, well more precisely they pulled a bait-and-switch: "hey use GMail, you can synchronize all your stuff and get push email through ActiveSync" and then "oh we're taking away ActiveSync unless you make a monthly payment for it".
yeah, why not? it's a completely different scenario.
after all, if it's worth my time, i should be easily able to outcompete him in providing that service.
Well if it's worth your time you should also be able to upload your code to an app store and make money off it too then.
Apparently you don't know what restriction means
Actually the definition is pretty clear, you even used it yourself in exactly the context I used it to illustrate your own point:
"Emancipation of the slaves restricted what owners of the means of production could do."
So if my usage of it was wrong then so is yours and your point is thus invalid.
or only ever apply it to whether YOU YOURSELF are restricted, hang anyone else.
Yes, I am restricted, because some doucher decided to mark kernel symbols such that they could only be used by other GPL code and therefore I can't use those features because nVidia only supplies closed source binaries which cannot be linked with those kernel symbols. I don't give a shit whether the software I'm using is open or closed but when the supposedly 'open' software restricts my use of 'closed' software then yes I am opposed to it, 'open' should not impose restrictions on me.
But I won't have you restricting what I can do with MY code. A stance you CANNOT disagree with because it's your very own mantra.
How could I possibly restrict what you can do with YOUR code? What license allows me to restrict what you can do with your code? Do you even understand even the most basic concepts of open source licensing? Your assertions suggest you have no idea.
So, the administration's excuse is both plausible and fortuitous.
So they can't aggregate a person's out of pocket costs...perhaps they should employ the services of their NSA, they seem pretty damn good at aggregating data, wouldn't want to prioritize the health care of citizens though.
Yes, they did in fact. They quite vocally said words to the effect of it had to be that way, was going to be that way, and it was far too late to change and we should just suck it up and deal with it.
They? You mean one guy said something to that effect which created an enormous backlash and he isn't even with the company anymore.
Until someone pastes all of your Github into their complier, makes some edits and uploads to an app repo to make $10k/year on a .99 app you wrote.
But if they make $10k/year selling support for the code you wrote that's ok?
PC gaming is still where it's at
Yeah because PC games don't have DRM...
Why should I pay to be thrown into a PRSIM?
huh?
So yes, Sony did do something before Nintendo did.
Because as a gamer and customer that is really important to me.
Now developers are going to have to acknowledge that it is optional and that a substantial portion of the population won't use it.
They'll use it if they want to play a game that requires it.
Furthermore, people are going to ask, if it's optional, why are you forcing me to buy it?
If all you want to play is kinect games then a controller is optional but you still have to buy that, same deal with an optical drive.
For every one of these u-turns they make (after touting the features that these things apparently relied on), they just seem more and more boxed in.
Seems more like they're listening to complaints and reacting to them. Would you prefer it if companies just took a hardline stance and ignore all complaints?
Is tacking on the GPL(or equivalent) to your source code really that problematic?
A permissive license that is compatible with restrictive licenses like the GPL is probably a better choice. Unless of course your intention from the outset is to restrict usage of that code but given that most people aren't bothering with a license at all it seems restrictive licenses are probably not the ideal choice.
Many businesses would have, yes. In the case of chain retailers, restaurants an so forth it would be quite a simple feat to match up your personal data with the MAC address of your device.
Why would that be necessary?
Because I rarely use my credit card, in fact much of the time I use cash or debit card, not to mention i usually have wifi off to preserve battery.
it would be enough to match credit card X with Device Y on just 10 different occasions to with quite a high degree of certainty determine who device Y belong to.
So if you've visited the same restaurant (or chain) on 10 different occasions using the same payment method carrying the same device with wifi turned on...you don't see how noisy that dataset becomes?
If a second credit (or debit) card with the same owner likewise can be correlated with device Y then the degree of certainty would of whom the device belong to would increase, not decrease as you suggest?
That's if it's even the same owner's name on it and not cash or debit card.
Really?
Yes, really, just look at how limited and specific you've had to define the case for doing this.
But even if the average turnover of devices is 2 years as you write it would have little effect as once your credit card usage cease to correlate with the MAC address it is just a matter of doing a rinse and repeat of Steps 1 and 2.
So you're suggesting that a restaurant that you already do significant business with (well you're visiting 10+ times paying with the same payment method and visiting the bathroom and have wifi turned on on your device) is continually doing this to...what? You already do significant business with them and you think they would then continually on-sell tracking data and not lose customers over that?
Because; Marketing, PRISM, XKeyscore, NSA, GCHQ, FSM take your pick.
Most of that is already in place thanks to co-operation of telecommunications and credit card companies with the government, so again it's useless.