And it's surely also the one that sold most units of the same SKU, unlike all iPhone variants mashed up in one big statistic. It is in every single market in the world, for every single pocket type, rich or poor, black, white, red or yellow (sorry if that sounded racial). Of course it might no longer be the most profitable, but wake me up when there's relevant numbers of daily purchases of the exact same phone by the same subject for his or her own personal use.
Well, the guy on the blog is in the business of using speculation for his own benefit (Google Ventures' General Partner), so I'm not surprised. Then again, all media is influenced by the environment and thus should be taken with a grain of salt... Unless you live in China where the only influence is government and everything is true (read: propaganda).
PPV isn't my invention. I said it crystal clear that is what Netflix needs AS A COMPANY. Companies are in the business of making money. Facebook intelligently didn't make money initially, then it started making money with things you don't like: ads and pay-to-win-type apps/games. It's sensible to add PPV to Netflix FOR THEIR OWN DIRECT BENEFIT, and I would pay occasionally. If you don't that's your problem, but you still had the subscription content to see. Cable companies have premium channels for a reason, and they have PPV for a reason - it's a solid way to "pricify" supply and demand - less people see it while it costs more to make, so guess what you have to pay more to see it. That's capitalism for you and if you don't like it FU because 'MURICA.
I actually believe PPV content would improve my own experience, as I could get to watch more stuff in the platform I prefer instead of time-shifting to a set top crap that I can't take anywhere, and I believe PPV pricing would be highly competitive in a platform like Netflix, so it would be a minor luxury compared to a major one.
That's just like Spotify, they don't really want you consuming the licensed stuff, so they'd rather bomb you with "similar" that are more "sponsored" than actually the same type of what you just saw. They dont want to improve the interface, search and recommendation for very specific reasons, but they are underrating the finantial benefits that a more pragmatic "discovery" interface would entail. A clear example is sorting by year: 90% of the people would consume a lot more recent stuff which is by obvious reasons more expensive, then they would have to pay a lot more of the expensive licensing.
As in all things personal, ymmv. I just didn't expect that kind of heat from anonymous coward... When I say personalization matters, its because it sux widely, not only to myself, but to many I have discussed it with, some in my family, some outside. You don't aggree that's your opinion, and I believe YOU ARE caring too much about your own opinion not to understand the problem I mention.
About licensing, thank you for the news, as if I didn't know they avoid popularizing licensed content because it costs them more. I have a (pulls the social approval card out) 5-starred comment proving how much I know about the subject. Just in case you thought you were smarter, because I think what's at stake in your dialogue and not exactly making a point about Netflix.
And PPV isn't my invention. I said it crystal clear that is what Netflix needs as a company. Companies make money. Facebook didn't make money, it started making money with things you don't like: ads and pay-to-win-type apps/games. It's sensible to add PPV do Netflix FOR THEM, and I would pay occasionally. If you don't that's your problem, but you still had the subscription content to see. Cable companies have premium channels for a reason, and they have PPV for a reason - it's a solid way to "pricify" supply and demand - less people see it while it costs more to make, so guess what you have to pay more to see it. That's capitalism for you and if you don't like it FU because 'MURICA.
...I believe what Netflix needs, or better, what I need to be able to recommend Netflix to anyone and not just people with lifestyles and tastes as mine, is a more mature personalization system. And this involves more content! The thing I find myself missing the most is I barely see any content suggested by Netflix to be appealing in the list at face value, but I sometimes say "f*ck it" and watch one thing or two they recommend. I've had about 50% luck liking what I decide to watch, and I already screen the suggested titles a lot before committing. That's just utter low for a platform that brags of having a great recommendation system!
As a company, Netflix probably needs to go back to its roots to start providing PPV content and the odd non-intrusive ad, but both of them sparsely as they hamper that which most people love of its environment right now - being the best time-shift there is. I believe a lot of companies with localized rights will have no problem collecting royalties from Netflix streaming their content - after all, this already happens a lot between competitor cable companies, they share each other's most popular channels keeping minor, niche exclusives. And did I mention more content helps the my first argument of more personalization? I wouldn't mind being "suggested" the odd 1-2 dollar add-on for watching Mr. Robot on the Netflix platform.
I believe it's pretty straight-forward: Facebook is probably acting under command of the Turkish government, or pre-empting its censoring action against the site. It has happened before. During the coup there have been reports of social blockade in the country, and I can confirm I had issues accessing the pages of two Turkish Facebook friends the day of the coup and several days after.
I'm not gonna state Facebook are saints, but if I was in a position where I had to decide between connecting a populace in the most familiar internet communication app they have, during important societal changes such as a coup and its aftermath, OR keep them in total isolation, I would rather make the hard decision of censoring a bit in order to keep providing that app. It should be enough to take one censoring action like this to fool them - it's not like the Turkish authorities are that smart, just look at their president (and by that I mean only the government, not the entire population, there are very bright Turkish...). Like their own egos, Turkish authorities believe one solid statement shows a lot, and can't really see the bigger picture of Facebook being kept up.
As long as you don't connect it to the internet, Nintendo will likely never prompt to download anything. You migth still have to update firmware, but much like you had to for PS3's/PSPs - the game disc which needed a specific firmware brought it on-disc and it would be a 20min affair sans-data spending. And Nintendo still has the focus on family gaming in mind - this is the reason I bought one for my parent's and lil' 4yo sister's living room.
You can get PS4's for cheap. Loads of hardcore gamers are getting rid of their A and B-type chassis for the more silent and power efficient C models. The news about the slim version is also driving used and new prices down, even though it's all rumors. So why bring the PS4 into the XB1 topic? Because you can't recommend one without mentioning its main competitor, which is, to my own tastes and of most, a much better product with a far nicer environment and game library. Much like you should probably get a PC over any of the two if you're going for VR, most RTS/FPS games or if you have a solid steam library.
For someone who doesn't have ANY console, I would still say the PS4 is king, unless you really want to spend those bucks for a US company, which I wouldn't be surprised many would in this site. You will get loads of fun with any, but you wil surely get a lot more value, and lend or be lent a lot more games between most friends who likely have a PS4. Worth 100 dollars or even more if you ask me. My two cents.
Indeed. He still made a valid point for a dense demographic of this site. See the bigger picture instead of being in defense mode 24/7. Stationary, non-casual consoles aren't for everyone, no matter the price, and the genre focus of the XB1 is very, VERY obvious.
Another guy who knows his stuff. Google does need the browser actually - it uses the default settings shipped with those browsers for instantly "infecting" 99% of the user base with their warrant canaray-less "encrypted" transport, including hardcoded programmed keys, unsafe root CAs for authentication of https, and whatnot.
Exactly. Thank god someone who knows the least bit of contemporary distributed applications to know that all the defaults in the browsers mentioned are the problem. People will argue "but you can disable that" a lot, but they seem to forget the amount of non-tech savvy people that exist in the world. And what that lack of savvy entails to their privacy.
Let me give you a real example about why you might not care what Maxthon does but Chinese people might.
I'm gonna quote myself to explain you exactly why I stopped expecting much from what came after that line:
You should be worried if you're a China national, or if your're traveling to China and you happen to be using that browser for your hardcore anti-commie endeavors.
At least I didn't stop at "bucko". Or "prove it or shut up", or any other of your "flammy" ways to keep a dialogue. Muricanism is killing slashdot. Real Americans talk Sense&Reason, not Redneck-Texan-Nationalist-bull.
And for the sake of the conversation - I understand your ex-girl's problem completely. But this Maxthon issue has nothing to do with it or at least is not directly related enough to even apply. They collect data because everybody does it and there's monetization to be done from it, not because they are being commanded by their state to do so like it's happening in Russia. People in China unfortunately have to know better than to do any risky browsing without an overseas VPN (they shouldn't have to, but it's the way the world works now), because that's the only way they'll be safe from their own government. But not from others'.
I never said that. I say this particular dump is being blown out of proportion, like most China-bound american cyberwarfare claims. Influencing people's opinion is no longer an art, it's commonplace, and nobody seems to notice the writings on the wall.
Wait, isn't that exactly the same thing Google does with your data, sometimes even without proper consent? If not sell it, use it themselves for further enhancing their core business, you know, Ads... That thing everybody avoids like the plague and is the root of all browser-based malware infection (considering flash is pretty dead with the new paradigms on browsers disallowing them by default...). Yet you still don't see any major browser distribution shipping with adblock by default, do you?
That's one email server based on the news. Google's certificate keys, used for transport (and they hop around before they reach Ireland), are likely in the hands of the authorities for longer than we all think.
But those browsers trust on root CA's that are compromised... You're missing the whole point, because you're looking in the wrong place. If you go all orthodox and say "but it's not the browser directly doing this!", you're just hiding from the truth - those browsers use broken features most people deem secure by default. And as I said before, when you use sync and allow data sharing as soon as the browser starts asking around (and it will ask, those browsers are built around Google services, no matter how open they might sound), you will start sending anonymous data to be sniffed by authorities. You just trust them so much your bias flies when you hear the china-man is doing the same.
But you can't emulate Google's back-end, and you can't inspect the certificate authorities those browsers allow by default. You are missing the point. And even on Chromium, there is a reason why you can ad sync features and avoid them when compiling: sync features are Google's proprietary code. Just like Google Play Services in Android.
Um... it's called gag orders. Do you know why Google doesn't have a Warrant Canary? EXACTLY: they got gagged before the idea even surfaced. They have inferred they have been gagged multiple times, they are even making lawsuits against the state for disclosing this, together with Microsoft. You won't believe proof provided by the companies themselves and former employees of your top security agency, so why would I bother trying to prove anything to you.
So are you telling me Chrome/Chromium, Firefox, Safari, IE/Edge, Opera and Vivaldi won't send sensitive data to the UK or the USA? Aren't those 2 countries also know to perform indiscriminate, bulk data collections for law enforcement use, even if there's no warrant?
I doubt a Chinese citizen is gonna be using my sensitive data any different than any other countries'. You should be worried if you're a China national, or if your're traveling to China and you happen to be using that browser for your hardcore anti-commie endeavors. JUST LIKE IF TRAVELING TO THE US AND DOING STUFF THEY DON'T LIKE ON ANY BROWSER.
There is a limit to hypocrisy and bias. Stop being biased. I hate what is being done to Chinese people's liberties as much as the next guy, but who the fck cares about a detail that also happens to be true in all other instances.
Now, of course, Russia would be a whole 'nother story. They happen to be mining data like rabbits procreate. I would be worried about that. Am I also being biased now?
While they're at it, why not sue the inventors of all forms of communication for ww1, 2 and whatever crime comes to mind: I mean you could sue Tim Berners-Lee for this, all cyber heists ever made, all online-mandated murders. He definitely knew people would do good and bad with such a powerful technology. Let's sue God/the Big Bang/Darwin for knowingly envisioning the antics of a being so powerful with his free will for the unethical. Now seriously, grow up and stop blaming society for society - we're all to blame for what makes us rational and justice is no means for correcting something that cannot be controlled without losing something more important.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's surely also the one that sold most units of the same SKU, unlike all iPhone variants mashed up in one big statistic. It is in every single market in the world, for every single pocket type, rich or poor, black, white, red or yellow (sorry if that sounded racial). Of course it might no longer be the most profitable, but wake me up when there's relevant numbers of daily purchases of the exact same phone by the same subject for his or her own personal use.
Well, the guy on the blog is in the business of using speculation for his own benefit (Google Ventures' General Partner), so I'm not surprised. Then again, all media is influenced by the environment and thus should be taken with a grain of salt... Unless you live in China where the only influence is government and everything is true (read: propaganda).
PPV isn't my invention. I said it crystal clear that is what Netflix needs AS A COMPANY. Companies are in the business of making money. Facebook intelligently didn't make money initially, then it started making money with things you don't like: ads and pay-to-win-type apps/games. It's sensible to add PPV to Netflix FOR THEIR OWN DIRECT BENEFIT, and I would pay occasionally. If you don't that's your problem, but you still had the subscription content to see. Cable companies have premium channels for a reason, and they have PPV for a reason - it's a solid way to "pricify" supply and demand - less people see it while it costs more to make, so guess what you have to pay more to see it. That's capitalism for you and if you don't like it FU because 'MURICA.
I actually believe PPV content would improve my own experience, as I could get to watch more stuff in the platform I prefer instead of time-shifting to a set top crap that I can't take anywhere, and I believe PPV pricing would be highly competitive in a platform like Netflix, so it would be a minor luxury compared to a major one.
That's just like Spotify, they don't really want you consuming the licensed stuff, so they'd rather bomb you with "similar" that are more "sponsored" than actually the same type of what you just saw. They dont want to improve the interface, search and recommendation for very specific reasons, but they are underrating the finantial benefits that a more pragmatic "discovery" interface would entail. A clear example is sorting by year: 90% of the people would consume a lot more recent stuff which is by obvious reasons more expensive, then they would have to pay a lot more of the expensive licensing.
As in all things personal, ymmv. I just didn't expect that kind of heat from anonymous coward... When I say personalization matters, its because it sux widely, not only to myself, but to many I have discussed it with, some in my family, some outside. You don't aggree that's your opinion, and I believe YOU ARE caring too much about your own opinion not to understand the problem I mention.
About licensing, thank you for the news, as if I didn't know they avoid popularizing licensed content because it costs them more. I have a (pulls the social approval card out) 5-starred comment proving how much I know about the subject. Just in case you thought you were smarter, because I think what's at stake in your dialogue and not exactly making a point about Netflix.
And PPV isn't my invention. I said it crystal clear that is what Netflix needs as a company. Companies make money. Facebook didn't make money, it started making money with things you don't like: ads and pay-to-win-type apps/games. It's sensible to add PPV do Netflix FOR THEM, and I would pay occasionally. If you don't that's your problem, but you still had the subscription content to see. Cable companies have premium channels for a reason, and they have PPV for a reason - it's a solid way to "pricify" supply and demand - less people see it while it costs more to make, so guess what you have to pay more to see it. That's capitalism for you and if you don't like it FU because 'MURICA.
...I believe what Netflix needs, or better, what I need to be able to recommend Netflix to anyone and not just people with lifestyles and tastes as mine, is a more mature personalization system. And this involves more content! The thing I find myself missing the most is I barely see any content suggested by Netflix to be appealing in the list at face value, but I sometimes say "f*ck it" and watch one thing or two they recommend. I've had about 50% luck liking what I decide to watch, and I already screen the suggested titles a lot before committing. That's just utter low for a platform that brags of having a great recommendation system!
As a company, Netflix probably needs to go back to its roots to start providing PPV content and the odd non-intrusive ad, but both of them sparsely as they hamper that which most people love of its environment right now - being the best time-shift there is. I believe a lot of companies with localized rights will have no problem collecting royalties from Netflix streaming their content - after all, this already happens a lot between competitor cable companies, they share each other's most popular channels keeping minor, niche exclusives. And did I mention more content helps the my first argument of more personalization? I wouldn't mind being "suggested" the odd 1-2 dollar add-on for watching Mr. Robot on the Netflix platform.
Here :D: http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...
I believe it's pretty straight-forward: Facebook is probably acting under command of the Turkish government, or pre-empting its censoring action against the site. It has happened before. During the coup there have been reports of social blockade in the country, and I can confirm I had issues accessing the pages of two Turkish Facebook friends the day of the coup and several days after.
I'm not gonna state Facebook are saints, but if I was in a position where I had to decide between connecting a populace in the most familiar internet communication app they have, during important societal changes such as a coup and its aftermath, OR keep them in total isolation, I would rather make the hard decision of censoring a bit in order to keep providing that app. It should be enough to take one censoring action like this to fool them - it's not like the Turkish authorities are that smart, just look at their president (and by that I mean only the government, not the entire population, there are very bright Turkish...). Like their own egos, Turkish authorities believe one solid statement shows a lot, and can't really see the bigger picture of Facebook being kept up.
As long as you don't connect it to the internet, Nintendo will likely never prompt to download anything. You migth still have to update firmware, but much like you had to for PS3's/PSPs - the game disc which needed a specific firmware brought it on-disc and it would be a 20min affair sans-data spending. And Nintendo still has the focus on family gaming in mind - this is the reason I bought one for my parent's and lil' 4yo sister's living room.
You can get PS4's for cheap. Loads of hardcore gamers are getting rid of their A and B-type chassis for the more silent and power efficient C models. The news about the slim version is also driving used and new prices down, even though it's all rumors. So why bring the PS4 into the XB1 topic? Because you can't recommend one without mentioning its main competitor, which is, to my own tastes and of most, a much better product with a far nicer environment and game library. Much like you should probably get a PC over any of the two if you're going for VR, most RTS/FPS games or if you have a solid steam library.
For someone who doesn't have ANY console, I would still say the PS4 is king, unless you really want to spend those bucks for a US company, which I wouldn't be surprised many would in this site. You will get loads of fun with any, but you wil surely get a lot more value, and lend or be lent a lot more games between most friends who likely have a PS4. Worth 100 dollars or even more if you ask me. My two cents.
And the question is definitely in the second person: "would you buy..."
Indeed. He still made a valid point for a dense demographic of this site. See the bigger picture instead of being in defense mode 24/7. Stationary, non-casual consoles aren't for everyone, no matter the price, and the genre focus of the XB1 is very, VERY obvious.
Another guy who knows his stuff. Google does need the browser actually - it uses the default settings shipped with those browsers for instantly "infecting" 99% of the user base with their warrant canaray-less "encrypted" transport, including hardcoded programmed keys, unsafe root CAs for authentication of https, and whatnot.
Exactly. Thank god someone who knows the least bit of contemporary distributed applications to know that all the defaults in the browsers mentioned are the problem. People will argue "but you can disable that" a lot, but they seem to forget the amount of non-tech savvy people that exist in the world. And what that lack of savvy entails to their privacy.
Let me give you a real example about why you might not care what Maxthon does but Chinese people might.
I'm gonna quote myself to explain you exactly why I stopped expecting much from what came after that line:
You should be worried if you're a China national, or if your're traveling to China and you happen to be using that browser for your hardcore anti-commie endeavors.
At least I didn't stop at "bucko". Or "prove it or shut up", or any other of your "flammy" ways to keep a dialogue. Muricanism is killing slashdot. Real Americans talk Sense&Reason, not Redneck-Texan-Nationalist-bull. And for the sake of the conversation - I understand your ex-girl's problem completely. But this Maxthon issue has nothing to do with it or at least is not directly related enough to even apply. They collect data because everybody does it and there's monetization to be done from it, not because they are being commanded by their state to do so like it's happening in Russia. People in China unfortunately have to know better than to do any risky browsing without an overseas VPN (they shouldn't have to, but it's the way the world works now), because that's the only way they'll be safe from their own government. But not from others'.
I never said that. I say this particular dump is being blown out of proportion, like most China-bound american cyberwarfare claims. Influencing people's opinion is no longer an art, it's commonplace, and nobody seems to notice the writings on the wall.
Wait, isn't that exactly the same thing Google does with your data, sometimes even without proper consent? If not sell it, use it themselves for further enhancing their core business, you know, Ads... That thing everybody avoids like the plague and is the root of all browser-based malware infection (considering flash is pretty dead with the new paradigms on browsers disallowing them by default...). Yet you still don't see any major browser distribution shipping with adblock by default, do you?
That's one email server based on the news. Google's certificate keys, used for transport (and they hop around before they reach Ireland), are likely in the hands of the authorities for longer than we all think.
But those browsers trust on root CA's that are compromised... You're missing the whole point, because you're looking in the wrong place. If you go all orthodox and say "but it's not the browser directly doing this!", you're just hiding from the truth - those browsers use broken features most people deem secure by default. And as I said before, when you use sync and allow data sharing as soon as the browser starts asking around (and it will ask, those browsers are built around Google services, no matter how open they might sound), you will start sending anonymous data to be sniffed by authorities. You just trust them so much your bias flies when you hear the china-man is doing the same.
But you can't emulate Google's back-end, and you can't inspect the certificate authorities those browsers allow by default. You are missing the point. And even on Chromium, there is a reason why you can ad sync features and avoid them when compiling: sync features are Google's proprietary code. Just like Google Play Services in Android.
Um... it's called gag orders. Do you know why Google doesn't have a Warrant Canary? EXACTLY: they got gagged before the idea even surfaced. They have inferred they have been gagged multiple times, they are even making lawsuits against the state for disclosing this, together with Microsoft. You won't believe proof provided by the companies themselves and former employees of your top security agency, so why would I bother trying to prove anything to you.
So are you telling me Chrome/Chromium, Firefox, Safari, IE/Edge, Opera and Vivaldi won't send sensitive data to the UK or the USA? Aren't those 2 countries also know to perform indiscriminate, bulk data collections for law enforcement use, even if there's no warrant?
I doubt a Chinese citizen is gonna be using my sensitive data any different than any other countries'. You should be worried if you're a China national, or if your're traveling to China and you happen to be using that browser for your hardcore anti-commie endeavors. JUST LIKE IF TRAVELING TO THE US AND DOING STUFF THEY DON'T LIKE ON ANY BROWSER.
There is a limit to hypocrisy and bias. Stop being biased. I hate what is being done to Chinese people's liberties as much as the next guy, but who the fck cares about a detail that also happens to be true in all other instances.
Now, of course, Russia would be a whole 'nother story. They happen to be mining data like rabbits procreate. I would be worried about that. Am I also being biased now?
While they're at it, why not sue the inventors of all forms of communication for ww1, 2 and whatever crime comes to mind: I mean you could sue Tim Berners-Lee for this, all cyber heists ever made, all online-mandated murders. He definitely knew people would do good and bad with such a powerful technology. Let's sue God/the Big Bang/Darwin for knowingly envisioning the antics of a being so powerful with his free will for the unethical. Now seriously, grow up and stop blaming society for society - we're all to blame for what makes us rational and justice is no means for correcting something that cannot be controlled without losing something more important.
apparently happening on all cityam.com articles. Must be some new fancy paywall but I can't see any reference to a subscription. Weird
After 2 paragraphs, the source material starts going gibberish with stuff like:
"plpeAveor aelhlt vdanlau e, hocfr atMh ef ow odrnled 'esh tt oopt 1r0a0e yf itrsmasp feahltl irnegv of oeuurl apve rt eckernatm -n it hneb 1m2o1s$t gsniigsnoilf iectainpts edde c,rCewaPs ey bs idneclei ptmhoec f,ignnainkcniaarl echrti sfios ,p owti tehh ta tcaa snho ivtailsuoep osft i$ 6d6l8ebhn."