So what you're saying is "drop the world's biggest economic area and force them to develop your competitors".
If you were a CEO of any of such a big company, you'd be ousted in a day. If said ousting failed, you'd slip in a shower and land on some bullets. When billions are at stake, people are very serious about stupidity such as one you espouse.
To quote one of the major local business owners, "if you can't make your business profitable after paying all relevant taxes and fees, you need to look at your business idea. You're doing something wrong".
I dismissed nothing. I merely provided a counter claim based in long standing reality. The core principle of peer review as a concept, and scientific view in general is that people are actually allowed to provide counter points without being attacked on personal level for it.
Notably, the fact that you noted that citing counter point based in long standing reality is "a dismissal" tell us a lot of how you view your own claim.
The rest of your tirade is a marvellous projection. More power to you I say.
You're factually wrong on "totally" part. They fail partially every time. And so, the the temperature of the kettle in which frog sits is raised only a little each time.
Imagine a scenario where win10 limitations would have been suggested in early winXP era. The reason you don't see it that way is that you are the frog sitting the kettle being boiled slowly over decades.
Your argument is essentially "if they cut off their nose to spite the face". You're still missing the core of my message, which is "you boil the frog slowly".
Of course, I would agree. That is the point of democracy, and why it's generally a very stable form of governance - it enables demos, "the people" to air their grievances in a way that doesn't cause a massive systemic upheaval in the country and yet in a way that country's arestos, "the elite" cannot easily ignore. So there are populist parties that only address certain things that do indeed burn up after they succeed or fail in addressing their issues. Example: UK's UKIP.
Or you get the parties that show that their issues are relevant and they are capable of addressing them, becoming a long term fixture of political structure of their state. Example: Austria's FPÖ.
On your last point, you're missing the forest for the trees in my message. I'm not talking about parties that have no meaningful access to power (i.e. representation in national or supernational parliaments). I'm talking about parties that are in fact elected to power on national or supernational level and as such have access to the benefits that democratic election system grants those that succeed in it.
Wait, you actually think that google didn't try to make play store central to android? The intentional effort by google to shift the OS toward it was one of the major objections that android customization crowd had with google for years. Them shifting OS items from AOSP to Play package is infamous.
MS's "preferred paradigm" of "OS over DOS" has been dead since Vista. Arguably, since XP. Both cut a lot of backwards compatibility as meaningless and irrelevant. Win10 has continued on the same path, now adding breakage with unpreventable updates that come for the OS.
They're entirely unrelated. Example: In my country, the current government consists of three parties. This is supposed to be the "populist" government. Previous government consisted of SIX parties. That's double the current party amount in government. That was the government that didn't include the populist party in it.
The amount of parties in parliament depends on how state's political sphere has developed. In most cases, you get quite a few parties that represent certain sections of populace, none of whom can reach 50% support to form government alone. So they have to negotiate with other parties and reach a consensus on government platform.
And this is how political pluralism is traditionally achieved in representative democracy. In case of states like US, where there are only two parties, plurality is present, but more tied into the party structure itself. As in a single party represents specific voting blocks that fight within the party for influence. The process is more rigid than the alternative by definition, because when you vote for a certain party, you also effectively vote for other interest groups represented by that party. So the larger the party is and the more interest groups it represents, the less influence your vote has.
Point being that you don't have to "force" as in "locks on every wall" ios style model. You can do the forcing through the coercion instead. Which is what google does, and what microsoft is mimicking as well as they can.
At which point the tiny exceptions reinforce the rule. They will be used as examples of "freedom", while rapidly suffocated of any ability to naturally grow through various methods designed to capture attention of general public, and divert it from other things.
At which point there are two scenarios. Either I fail for any number of reasons, or I succeed and either follow suit with the business model because it's more profitable, or I get bought out because someone who bought it can make it more profitable.
Reminder: we're talking about the high level principles here.
If you are seriously expecting me to invest time in writing a peer-review grade thesis because someone on internet forums asked for it, you must think very highly of yourself.
In real world on the other hand, I will simply stick to my previous argument, which you still fail to address in any meaningful way.
Could you please tell me more about those "apps that most people download outside google play"? Because unless you're behind the Great Firewall of China, they don't exist. Play store is the central depository for overwhelming majority of users, who never venture outside it. That's why essentially every popular software has to have presence in play store, even though they have to pay significant portion of their income that goes through their app to be there.
My guess? MS saw that their store isn't taking off, and the risk of getting gamers thoroughly alienated from win10 at the get go was too high. So they gave valve some breathing room for now.
Boiling the frog. It has to be slow enough. Remind yourself of all the anti-consumer mobile-style changes in win10 that were not rolled back. And of the new ones that keep coming in large updates, forced on the users. One small victory among the string of defeats is rather meaningless when you look at the whole.
Quite an interesting hypothesis considering that as I pointed above, most western liberal democracies do not operate in a two party system. Which means that they by nature have far more fragmented political party base than US.
My understanding that even manual didn't work in that particular case. It was used as example of IoT related security challenges in a lecture I attended recently. It was just one of the many instances of really strange behaviour in IoT appliances during Amazon cloud being down for a few hours.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is "drop the world's biggest economic area and force them to develop your competitors".
If you were a CEO of any of such a big company, you'd be ousted in a day. If said ousting failed, you'd slip in a shower and land on some bullets. When billions are at stake, people are very serious about stupidity such as one you espouse.
To quote one of the major local business owners, "if you can't make your business profitable after paying all relevant taxes and fees, you need to look at your business idea. You're doing something wrong".
Do you suffer from dyslexia? Because the idea you projected on me is asinine.
Are you dyslexic? Because that's a very strange way to read my writings so far.
I dismissed nothing. I merely provided a counter claim based in long standing reality. The core principle of peer review as a concept, and scientific view in general is that people are actually allowed to provide counter points without being attacked on personal level for it.
Notably, the fact that you noted that citing counter point based in long standing reality is "a dismissal" tell us a lot of how you view your own claim.
The rest of your tirade is a marvellous projection. More power to you I say.
That I deny your religious views and cite long standing reality as a counterpoint?
It's a problem for you. Not me.
You just described one of methodology of boiling the frog slowly. Provide excuses as why you're adding the heat.
You're factually wrong on "totally" part. They fail partially every time. And so, the the temperature of the kettle in which frog sits is raised only a little each time.
Imagine a scenario where win10 limitations would have been suggested in early winXP era. The reason you don't see it that way is that you are the frog sitting the kettle being boiled slowly over decades.
Your argument is essentially "if they cut off their nose to spite the face". You're still missing the core of my message, which is "you boil the frog slowly".
Of course, I would agree. That is the point of democracy, and why it's generally a very stable form of governance - it enables demos, "the people" to air their grievances in a way that doesn't cause a massive systemic upheaval in the country and yet in a way that country's arestos, "the elite" cannot easily ignore. So there are populist parties that only address certain things that do indeed burn up after they succeed or fail in addressing their issues. Example: UK's UKIP.
Or you get the parties that show that their issues are relevant and they are capable of addressing them, becoming a long term fixture of political structure of their state. Example: Austria's FPÖ.
On your last point, you're missing the forest for the trees in my message. I'm not talking about parties that have no meaningful access to power (i.e. representation in national or supernational parliaments). I'm talking about parties that are in fact elected to power on national or supernational level and as such have access to the benefits that democratic election system grants those that succeed in it.
Evidence has in fact been provided to you. Structure of clear majority of Western liberal democracies.
The fact that you're so keen on just dismissing the majority of Western liberal democracies as "evidence or reason" is weird.
Wait, you actually think that google didn't try to make play store central to android? The intentional effort by google to shift the OS toward it was one of the major objections that android customization crowd had with google for years. Them shifting OS items from AOSP to Play package is infamous.
MS's "preferred paradigm" of "OS over DOS" has been dead since Vista. Arguably, since XP. Both cut a lot of backwards compatibility as meaningless and irrelevant. Win10 has continued on the same path, now adding breakage with unpreventable updates that come for the OS.
They're entirely unrelated. Example: In my country, the current government consists of three parties. This is supposed to be the "populist" government. Previous government consisted of SIX parties. That's double the current party amount in government. That was the government that didn't include the populist party in it.
The amount of parties in parliament depends on how state's political sphere has developed. In most cases, you get quite a few parties that represent certain sections of populace, none of whom can reach 50% support to form government alone. So they have to negotiate with other parties and reach a consensus on government platform.
And this is how political pluralism is traditionally achieved in representative democracy. In case of states like US, where there are only two parties, plurality is present, but more tied into the party structure itself. As in a single party represents specific voting blocks that fight within the party for influence. The process is more rigid than the alternative by definition, because when you vote for a certain party, you also effectively vote for other interest groups represented by that party. So the larger the party is and the more interest groups it represents, the less influence your vote has.
Point being that you don't have to "force" as in "locks on every wall" ios style model. You can do the forcing through the coercion instead. Which is what google does, and what microsoft is mimicking as well as they can.
At which point the tiny exceptions reinforce the rule. They will be used as examples of "freedom", while rapidly suffocated of any ability to naturally grow through various methods designed to capture attention of general public, and divert it from other things.
At which point there are two scenarios. Either I fail for any number of reasons, or I succeed and either follow suit with the business model because it's more profitable, or I get bought out because someone who bought it can make it more profitable.
Reminder: we're talking about the high level principles here.
If you are seriously expecting me to invest time in writing a peer-review grade thesis because someone on internet forums asked for it, you must think very highly of yourself.
In real world on the other hand, I will simply stick to my previous argument, which you still fail to address in any meaningful way.
Could you please tell me more about those "apps that most people download outside google play"? Because unless you're behind the Great Firewall of China, they don't exist. Play store is the central depository for overwhelming majority of users, who never venture outside it. That's why essentially every popular software has to have presence in play store, even though they have to pay significant portion of their income that goes through their app to be there.
Because roaches are survivors. It was meant as a compliment. It's one of the more stable store fronts.
Overwhelming majority of liberal democracies across the world, their party structure and the way they handle governance.
I have no idea how you missed this particular part of my argument, it being central to it and all.
My guess? MS saw that their store isn't taking off, and the risk of getting gamers thoroughly alienated from win10 at the get go was too high. So they gave valve some breathing room for now.
Boiling the frog. It has to be slow enough. Remind yourself of all the anti-consumer mobile-style changes in win10 that were not rolled back. And of the new ones that keep coming in large updates, forced on the users. One small victory among the string of defeats is rather meaningless when you look at the whole.
That is a one graceful way of conceding.
Quite an interesting hypothesis considering that as I pointed above, most western liberal democracies do not operate in a two party system. Which means that they by nature have far more fragmented political party base than US.
And yet, they are governed just fine.
My understanding that even manual didn't work in that particular case. It was used as example of IoT related security challenges in a lecture I attended recently. It was just one of the many instances of really strange behaviour in IoT appliances during Amazon cloud being down for a few hours.
Juggernaught of steam vs the tiny roach that is gog.
Is it really so hard to fathom the difference by the numbers?
I didn't ask if people care. I asked if more than a tiny minority of people care.
Your attempt to strawman this suggests that you know that you know well enough that it's only a tiny minority that cares.
Tiny minorities are rarely interesting for large commercial entities, unless they're large corporations willing to pay very large sums of money each.