Overall, 54% of people surveyed said they still buy or rent video.
So basically, not a third but a half still buy or rent videos. Original source says the same:
Overall, 54% of people surveyed said they still buy or rent video. It’s not all DVDs and Blu-rays. Physical sales have plummeted compared to digital, data from the Digital Entertainment Group shows.
Trump/Putin supporters (trolls) strategy of late when confronting factual data: "find me a citation"...then proceed to troll someone else while affected person actually goes find a citation.
Trump/Putin supporters (trolls) strategy when data presents a citation, either a priori or afterwards: "fake news"
Trum/Putin supporters when asked for a citation: "Trump/Putin said it. He's the president. Everything else is fake news"
Did you just whatabout me? It kinda went through my mind like this:
"Whatabout no. Whatabout everyone whatabouting everywhere. Whatabout this totally unrelated example of Al Franken and democrats not whatabouting?
BTW, whatabout this campaign contribution promise from this comedian who fortunately can interchange irony with opinion freely, since he has an audience that gets it AND is mostly immune to things like whataboutism?"
I heard they eat babies daily in state college. You would expect that to make them a more expensive higher education, but apparently private college don't get the babies despite the hunderds of thou per year. I really wanted my kids to get the full college experience when I send them to Harvard...
I guess the state ends up paying for those babies. State college should just go away and stop being the money drain it is. And then we would have MORE labour out of all the babies saved.
Yeah. While they don't apply this to actual car purchases (read: not rentals), it still won't be a single market.
The fact cars are taxed differently when bought in different EU countries, yet are forced to pay many of taxes again when one person decides to move the car between countries in a more permanent fashion, especially when the move is closest to purchase date. Which is really awkward when you think that at the very least, emission taxes should be homogenous across the EU, which apparently they are NOT.
Currently, if you buy a car on another member of the EU, and you plan to bring that car to your country up to 6 months in of the purchase, you have to pay VAT over the car TWICE. Even if that car was purchased used. And when 6 months go by, you still have to pay a lot of taxes other than VAT for permanent legalization. Obviously due to these regulations (which are NOT very characteristic of a single market), things like same-model cars having upwards of 50% cost difference in across countries is pretty fucking common. It is actually one of the reasons why MANY in my country move to central Europe and work there for 2 to 10 years - specifically to amass salaries and expensive goods that are much more expensive in gross price but critically higher priced when local purchasing power is taken into account.
I actually have friends that have moved to a country for a year or two in order to purchase cars there, one for them, another for their parners, then proceeded to use special rules that ONLY apply to long-term migrants to bring the car with them on return "for free". They basically made 3 times their salary in the stay, and bought cars that cost 2 years of saving at half price which is pretty much another year of "proffit" when compared to being in the origin.
Well, but at least we can go back and forth freely and use cars in any country as we please without legal implications.
John Oliver just mentioned this style of argumentation on his last episode. He showed how Trump and his supporters abused "whataboutism", by using contrast whenever presented with a big issue that had no justification in itself, thus relying on shifting focus to something else by opponents or even the interviewers themselves. They also mentioned this kind of argumentation was, and apparently still is, very common in Russian-style propaganda, going back to the 40's and 50's.
As blindseeer pointed out, the accessory decision and the acknowledgement of the power delivery of that accessoy not being enough is one problem, but a solution to the problem remains a grey area. So...
Does the Surface 2's power input and/or battery support a stronger power supply? (and if it does) How many more nanoseconds before it becomes available as an option, or you provide the option for a free exchange for the current one?
Because the fact they are stating " the machine is intended for designers, developers and engineers, with the subtext that it's not exactly marketed as a gaming rig", to me, sounds just like a LAME excuse for one of 2 things: either not recalling the PSU and replacing it with a stronger one or...; NOT ADMITTING THERE WAS A DESIGN FLAW and not a market scope decision.
In either case, "positioning" the product for whatever is NEVER an excuse for something so EASY to accomplish as increasing electric power delivery. Microsoft is making it look like there is some technology limitation as if no 15'' laptop ever used above 100w... MS is starting to look a lot like the Apple reality distortion field with it's "can't disable updates" or "can't disable data collection", now pulling the "can't provide more of the electricity you have at home to the laptop" argument to the table.
About the not wanting it enough, that is, of course, my own speculation (hence the use of "might", and after that my reasoning). The hackintosh numbers increasing, among pros, I explain a bit more below, but it's also speculation.
In the end we'll just have to wait and see why the inclusion of the ARM cpu. There are many things this can bring to the table, from basic branding (like having some shinny, 60fps fully animated "bios" or "fastboot") to interoperability/recovery or even flat out low power. Hell, even using it for not having to replicate the "neural engine" and provide FaceID just like in the iPhone X.
Of course the Mac community, especially the Pros, will likely not resort to piracy or Hackingtosh by default, but from a look at the amount youtube instructionals by very popular personalities, or the scale, detail and variety of hardware compatibility lists (going all the way up to high-end GPUs and CPUs) really goes to show who has been building Mac workstations recently, and these will resort to piracy if it makes things simpler. As I said before, they are already in the shit if caught.
First would be that Apple simply might have not wanted it enough in the past as it does now, since now the scale of hackintosh use is affecting their economies of scale. Back then it simply didn't matter.
Second, the only real thing a company can do is prepare (it's rarely enough) and proactively demotivate hacking. I like to look at the gaming consoles market* as a great example of how relevant OR not piracy protection can be to different companies, due to different markets - Sony and Microsoft have a solid, pretty much uncracable system to boot, and have a lot of insiders scouring the web and sending cease and desists preventing any hack to mess with their sales. On the other hand, Nintendo is known for being a passive honeypot, and when eventually always break, even with their propietary gimmicks and non-standard media formats. They will rely mostly on software updates to fix issues a-posteriori, and even be careless for online use of pirated games (!). The difference between Sony+MS and Nintendo's user base is that the former (teenagers and young adults, a more tech savvy and money-tight crowd) will pirate easily when given the chance, while the later's (mostly well-off, busy realtives/parents buying stuff for young kids) will not resort to piracy. The market that pirates Nintendo is likely a market that would not have "bought" Nintendo in the first place, so it makes no difference for them and they don't care.
And this is exactly what Apple has been doing, but they're wising up. iPhone jailbreaks started giving them a taste for the problem, and now it happening in the pro segment is also posing a problem. I personally think they saw similarities on both problems and even laugh at the fact they are literally solving the hackintosh issue with an mobile-related innovation against hacking.
*note: the PC market doesn't enter this equation because it is simply way off economically, while the user base is simillar to Sony+MS - they will pirate anything
Yeah it might have needed a bit of context - in recent years, pro artists, despite initially buying Mac Pros, eventually needed performance boost and upgradeability not available due to the stagnation of the hardware, as there was no new release or upgrade to the Pro for years.
Others, like buyers who were due for an upgrade at the mid-life point of the Mac Pro (assume they didn't buy Mac Pros at launch for a multitude of reasons), were left an easy choice for hackintosh use, since the Mac Pro proposition didn't look so interesting 2 years in, with the same price, and a hackintosh solution was already less expensive, more powerful, and easily manageable all at once due to heavy community support.
Another monetary point for Apple besides hardware, would be that people induced to "migrate" to hackintosh on the pro segment, became most likely to pirate software after the switch. Reasons range from simply easier validation of the software (there are cracks easier and more stable to use than valid software, especially those using physical dongles) to "well, I've already breached protocol, let's go the extra mile" kind of thought.
You see, I didn't directly want to equate "profitable" with "hackintosh user". I equated "profitable" with "pro artist", but the transition from "pro artist" to "hackintosh user" is really the point: profitable users became Hackintosh users because Apple forced their hand, and lost a lot of money in the process. Well maybe not that mucy as the math behind it must include money saved on R&D, and also the loyalists/conformists that bit the bullet with the Mac Pro and never switched.
Ultimately, a lot of people will now think twice before buying a Mac Pro, even a new one, and surely a lot of those that made the switch to hackintosh - they won't have that much a boost in performance now, and they're spoiled with the wonders of piracy, upgrades and whatnot. I'm not advocating for any of this, I'm just stating my view.
Seems to me all they want is to prevent another hackintosh-run by their most loyal and profitable customer base (read: the pro artist). I bet that if this happens to be the case, they won't launch another Mac Pro in at least another 5 years. And obviously price will stay mostly unchanged throughout as the good Nintendo Apple is on this subject.
THIS. If I hadn't comment in the topic already, I'd be modding this up.
I actually just said something simillar earlier - about software being a different beast. I actually think that beast is integration - the fact that minds will be minds, not one alike, thus code will rarely converge into one cohesive purpose (in part also because that purpose is never the same, even with the best req spec). But "the internet is vast and full of libraries" is just another take on the same conclusion - we are all on the spectrum regarding code, and that really slows down cooperation.
Well, that and the "continuous bug" obviously. That set of rules is nice and all, but with most hip culture now being around continuous [whatever it's called this week], you basically don't have the slightest chance to get ALL planned features in time, because you WILL have bugs haunting you, some of them simply too complex to even say they're edge cases. And since there really is nobody better than you to solve your bugs in the team, it never made sense to make room for dedicated maintenance on the team. Teams want accountability. And did I mention we are all autistic about code? Yeah.
Wow, that sounds a lot like someone who makes a living out of evangelizing management, especially when that management is female. And of course, no mention of real-life software development project management, which was kinda the point.
I think, like all "macro" managers, this specific person still neglects the intricacies of software, and the relatively novel art that is attempting to manage software development.
I for one see software project management as the management of minds steering in the same direction, as opposed to generic management which usually just has one manager's idea and steering the actions of the team in that direction. It is a LOT harder to get different minds providing for the same source-code behavior, than it is for, say, taking incremental, divide-and-conquer physical leverage, or mathematics, research etc leverage into simple constructs that are the sum of those parts. Software is the one thing that needs integration like no other. Well, maybe space missions have something simillar on the docking of ships: it is usually the thing that gets botched the most and thus needs the most care, and the most standardization. But even then it gets to be able to use a standard and go with it, but definitely not with software.
I obviously don't have backing stats for these, but at least the consesualized opinion around my geographical location (for context: the European start-up industry) is as follows:
Projects still have unrealistic complexity, scope, deadlines and resource needs, both from managerial and dev perspective, and that translates in a very VERY common 30-70% overbudget. Without being conservative, IT projects would never even start - they are expensive but no one will accept it
Despite overbudgets, software development is still money well spent for C-level, no matter if talking about software houses, on-location outsourcing or even in-house IT support - customized software is rarely the place top management takes for a moneysucker (except when they depend heavily on outsouce, which is usually the time they decide to make it in-house)
Now these 2 might seem contradictory - one for each sides of the argument - but reality is managers or not on the team, it doesn't matter finantially.
I know of exponentially growing companies that do not have appointed managers, but they will still use agile. I have also seen successful startups that took management very seriously from scratch, and projects only worked because of that solid management. I myself work in a company that, despite having well-defined management structure and using scrum, velocity - the real juice that scrum should be outputing to managers - is simply neglected. The reason we keep using scrum is a mixture of keeping peers on their toes between each other, and staying hip, and for what it's worth, it kinda works.
Worst of all is when you see big companies with super-duper complex process workflow diagrams for inter-corporate ladder behavior, and applying those to software teams just because some consultancy service needed the contract or because some official certification was necessary for a project, and then, over time, the entire bottom level workforce, which was certified, moves on and gets replaced with cheap, unexperienced labour. Do they expect managers and/or PDF documentation to keep standards? That is utterly unrealistic, and that is the biggest lie managers sell. Good management will not only value the process - it will value process-savvy developers, allow conditions for them to stay, or conduct process-aware hiring if it becomes impossible to keep the best of the certified crop. Some say there is a culture of job-hopping in IT, but I believe there is a culture of not knowing how to keep your IT.
Bottom-line is manager presence in a company is becoming a cultural decision: some companies have used them for so long they will never see them as harmfull, while others are either open to new ideas or simply fresh out the oven they take the plunge and go management-less, at least in the middle of the pyramid. Top level management will never disapear - there will always be someone steering the ship and profitting the big bucks. Or else we would be seeing exchanges flooded by cowork-based companies, and soon enough communism would take over:D
That's a fair point, but it seems to step aside from looks alone. Aerodynamic designs aren't necessarily pretty. Then again I doubt they would go for the "bullet train look" on a vehicle that first needs to win the market before it needs to innovate even more than it already does by trailing a completely new tech on semis.
I'm not really into the (tech) design choices made by Tesla, but it appears to me that for security reasons, just like in other Tesla's and most EVs, the battery array sits on the floor of (which extends way back), and that the top is there just for the essential sleeping space common on semis. It also appears there are two versions of the tesla semi - one taller and one lower - which makes sense if one is targetting multi-day stints on the road while the other is for, say, a workday, or even a fleet that always accomodates drivers in standing installations overnight.
Given this, there is no reason the vehicle needs to be any different from current semis in the front design: flat and solid (no air entry) is a given, as it needs no cooling, yet it also needs no more space occupied with batteries or sleeping space, and the only thing that could effectyvely be reduced and molded aerodynamically would be with a centered seat for the driver instead of keeping the norm of 2 or even 3-seater, but this, as should be obvious, presents another set of problems such as not being able to have shift drivers (I believe this is used in some markets) or to allow a passenger in a return trip, and the obvious fact that for security purposes, drivers should be on the side of the vehicle nearest to the center of the way. This latter one could surely be solved with technology (cameras and whatnot), but everybody knows that would increase costs and would need to be user-tweaked heavily, which are 2 more overheads I'm pretty sure the company didn't want right now.
Maybe they could make the sleeping space on the front and decrease the height, but the trailer is still gonna be taking a lot of air drag, so it's perfect on the top. Trailer shape is something that DEFINITELY nobody is thinking of changing fresh in the market.
Does it need to be pretty? Or better - does it need to be pretty for everyone? Because, in all honesty, it's not only a matter of taste (like the Model S and X were) and it's also completely OK by contrast (all semis are horrible IMHO), and I doubt drivers really care. After all, the part everyone sees the most on a semi is their trailer's back and sides...
Which in turn means dev options must be on, for which the OnePlus must be unlocked (screenlock-dismissed) to do so if not already. I'm also assuming it will need to allow the adb-triggering device to be authorized for adb on first prompt, again only doable on an unlocked OnePlus unless the attacker also has the user's PC.
When a phone doesn't have security lockscreens in place, you can assume it's pretty much an open book - most installed apps such as gmail should have been "trusted" by now, and 2-factor authetications are rendered useless, well, because you have the phone. GG.
So basically, unless the owner has no pin/password/fingerprint protection put in place, or is being coerced to create this set of conditions, we can pretty much assume that "vulnerability" is only going to be taken advantage of by the owners themselves. And that, as probably many here already noticed, is the very definition of "it's not a bug, it's a feature".
Oh my god, you're dumber than I suspected, some might say "almost fanboy"... OnePlus are decent and all, but they're not the 2nd coming of GNU Jesus. They are a for-profit company backed by investors with investor interests, so take a fucking hint. Last time I checked they no longer provide source code on the OS their devices ship with.
I love the way I actually agreed with you, yet somehow you're so dumb, some might even say "almost retarded", to actually notice...
If it wasn't clear: I APPRECIATE THE FACT ONEPLUS DOES THIS, AND MORE COMPANIES SHOULD ALLOW ROOT JUST LIKE SONY DID BACK IN 2011 BY JUST CLICKING A LINK....All I wanted was to make a fucking point that while OnePlus allows third-party, every other OEM also has the means to do it. In fact, they pretty much do it by preloading self-updater apps on their hardware such as Facebook App Manager or Galaxy Apps, they just don't allow third-party root at user discretion because Google might notice and they frown upon it...
Now go find someone else to troll. I sense you still have some frustration left to vent. Just make sure you're not wasting it on someone who is just completing your fucking argument.
Actually, as I tried to explain in my comment, they are simply stating something for OnePlus hat actually also happens in any device. Any OEM can potentially covert one of its preloaded apps into a backdoor, or simply force installation of one signed with their keys, which grants them root.
I believe this is called cherry-picking - in this case picking one OEM that does one (supposedly bad) thing, but not actually admiting everyone else can do the exact same...
Every OEM app has root. Every OEM can turn your device into a bug (the cold-war, anti-privacy type, not the quality assurance, software-centric one) or even their IP Cam.
All you have is the trust you place on these manufacturers' closed source. And this is why China government avoids Cisco or Google, and US gov. avoids Kaspersky or ZTE. Simple.
I am triple posting just to make one thing very clear: Google, Samsung, and whatever OEM has an app that self-updates or that updates other apps unnatendedly, and most of all, without an opt-out setting, has a backdoor built-in. I'm gonna make it short and bold:
Any Android device with Google Play Services can potentially have a backdoor pushed at Google's discretion.
Same for Samsung's discretion, on any device with Galaxy Apps preinstalled (or whatever it's called this week), only by Samsung.
Same for Facebook's discretion, on any device with it preinstalled, specifically the package com.facebook.appmanager (I believe applies throughout OEMs, but cammy is also a usual suspect).
Any and all OEMs have the potential to push OTAs/ROMs with sudoer apps that eventually do the same, or even have backdoors baked in the image itself.
There is absolutely nothing you can do about this, other than having a full open source version of Android on your device (unlikely even with custom ROMs, as they usually depend on closed driver blobs). And even then you're putting faith that both the kernel, the hardware or the pre-boot aren't tampered.
Indeed. Maybe my comment read otherwise, but I completely with you. Unfortunately this is becoming standard, and Android is just one example. Windows Home and it's snooping, it's Administrative Templates who nobody really cares about (wasn't regedit enough of a hassle?), it's unblockablae, P2P-based updates that will work on caped networks as long as one PC in the network has the update; Amazon and it's Kindle Fires and their closed stores; Apple...oh Apple; And Cloud services and storage - that is the dream of any company for supreme 1-sided control. The list goes on and on but monetization is taking precedence over function, and there is nobody at all trying to stop this. Even the EU with it's browser-choice mandate and anti-monopoly endeavours are an absolute joke on policy for such control being taken away.
But geek as I am, I do see a mild point for making SOME things hard and for taking some things AWAY, and that point is support. Obviously companies want to monetize from apps and data, but they will always use this excuse, and this excuse is, nevertheless, valid - preventing user bad behavior is key to prevent bad behavior support, and a surefire way to excuse 90% liability for any product malfunction that can be linked to "abuse".
Where one sees progress, others see regression. But we can definitely aggree things are moving forward, unless you're not being honest to yourself. Progress isn't always things going our own way, it's accepting the market moves by itself, and that the market autonomy is part of democratic, capitalist and global society we find ourselves in. You demand regulation on every single thing, and you are not acting that differently than the companies trying to reap benefits from taking some control from users to themselves.
I just want to add the fact that before Samsung, Google Play itself updates without user prompt as soon as you get internet. The very first app that was self-updatable, and such an update is unblockable, is Google Play and Google Play Services themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Overall, 54% of people surveyed said they still buy or rent video.
So basically, not a third but a half still buy or rent videos. Original source says the same:
Overall, 54% of people surveyed said they still buy or rent video. It’s not all DVDs and Blu-rays. Physical sales have plummeted compared to digital, data from the Digital Entertainment Group shows.
Or am I reading it wrong slashdot?
Trump/Putin supporters (trolls) strategy of late when confronting factual data: ...then proceed to troll someone else while affected person actually goes find a citation.
"find me a citation"
Trump/Putin supporters (trolls) strategy when data presents a citation, either a priori or afterwards:
"fake news"
Trum/Putin supporters when asked for a citation:
"Trump/Putin said it. He's the president. Everything else is fake news"
Oh boy, yes he is. He is so much better than most American comedians at present. It goes to show you needed to import some quality.
I dare say most of your decent comedians of late are first or second generation immigrants, just like your smart guys leading your tech companies.
Did you just whatabout me? It kinda went through my mind like this:
"Whatabout no. Whatabout everyone whatabouting everywhere. Whatabout this totally unrelated example of Al Franken and democrats not whatabouting?
BTW, whatabout this campaign contribution promise from this comedian who fortunately can interchange irony with opinion freely, since he has an audience that gets it AND is mostly immune to things like whataboutism?"
I heard they eat babies daily in state college. You would expect that to make them a more expensive higher education, but apparently private college don't get the babies despite the hunderds of thou per year. I really wanted my kids to get the full college experience when I send them to Harvard...
I guess the state ends up paying for those babies. State college should just go away and stop being the money drain it is. And then we would have MORE labour out of all the babies saved.
Yeah. While they don't apply this to actual car purchases (read: not rentals), it still won't be a single market.
The fact cars are taxed differently when bought in different EU countries, yet are forced to pay many of taxes again when one person decides to move the car between countries in a more permanent fashion, especially when the move is closest to purchase date. Which is really awkward when you think that at the very least, emission taxes should be homogenous across the EU, which apparently they are NOT.
Currently, if you buy a car on another member of the EU, and you plan to bring that car to your country up to 6 months in of the purchase, you have to pay VAT over the car TWICE. Even if that car was purchased used. And when 6 months go by, you still have to pay a lot of taxes other than VAT for permanent legalization. Obviously due to these regulations (which are NOT very characteristic of a single market), things like same-model cars having upwards of 50% cost difference in across countries is pretty fucking common. It is actually one of the reasons why MANY in my country move to central Europe and work there for 2 to 10 years - specifically to amass salaries and expensive goods that are much more expensive in gross price but critically higher priced when local purchasing power is taken into account.
I actually have friends that have moved to a country for a year or two in order to purchase cars there, one for them, another for their parners, then proceeded to use special rules that ONLY apply to long-term migrants to bring the car with them on return "for free". They basically made 3 times their salary in the stay, and bought cars that cost 2 years of saving at half price which is pretty much another year of "proffit" when compared to being in the origin.
Well, but at least we can go back and forth freely and use cars in any country as we please without legal implications.
John Oliver just mentioned this style of argumentation on his last episode. He showed how Trump and his supporters abused "whataboutism", by using contrast whenever presented with a big issue that had no justification in itself, thus relying on shifting focus to something else by opponents or even the interviewers themselves. They also mentioned this kind of argumentation was, and apparently still is, very common in Russian-style propaganda, going back to the 40's and 50's.
As blindseeer pointed out, the accessory decision and the acknowledgement of the power delivery of that accessoy not being enough is one problem, but a solution to the problem remains a grey area. So...
Does the Surface 2's power input and/or battery support a stronger power supply? (and if it does) How many more nanoseconds before it becomes available as an option, or you provide the option for a free exchange for the current one?
Because the fact they are stating " the machine is intended for designers, developers and engineers, with the subtext that it's not exactly marketed as a gaming rig", to me, sounds just like a LAME excuse for one of 2 things: either not recalling the PSU and replacing it with a stronger one or...; NOT ADMITTING THERE WAS A DESIGN FLAW and not a market scope decision.
In either case, "positioning" the product for whatever is NEVER an excuse for something so EASY to accomplish as increasing electric power delivery. Microsoft is making it look like there is some technology limitation as if no 15'' laptop ever used above 100w... MS is starting to look a lot like the Apple reality distortion field with it's "can't disable updates" or "can't disable data collection", now pulling the "can't provide more of the electricity you have at home to the laptop" argument to the table.
Very fair points there.
About the not wanting it enough, that is, of course, my own speculation (hence the use of "might", and after that my reasoning). The hackintosh numbers increasing, among pros, I explain a bit more below, but it's also speculation.
In the end we'll just have to wait and see why the inclusion of the ARM cpu. There are many things this can bring to the table, from basic branding (like having some shinny, 60fps fully animated "bios" or "fastboot") to interoperability/recovery or even flat out low power. Hell, even using it for not having to replicate the "neural engine" and provide FaceID just like in the iPhone X.
Of course the Mac community, especially the Pros, will likely not resort to piracy or Hackingtosh by default, but from a look at the amount youtube instructionals by very popular personalities, or the scale, detail and variety of hardware compatibility lists (going all the way up to high-end GPUs and CPUs) really goes to show who has been building Mac workstations recently, and these will resort to piracy if it makes things simpler. As I said before, they are already in the shit if caught.
I personally disagree for a multitude of reasons.
First would be that Apple simply might have not wanted it enough in the past as it does now, since now the scale of hackintosh use is affecting their economies of scale. Back then it simply didn't matter.
Second, the only real thing a company can do is prepare (it's rarely enough) and proactively demotivate hacking. I like to look at the gaming consoles market* as a great example of how relevant OR not piracy protection can be to different companies, due to different markets - Sony and Microsoft have a solid, pretty much uncracable system to boot, and have a lot of insiders scouring the web and sending cease and desists preventing any hack to mess with their sales. On the other hand, Nintendo is known for being a passive honeypot, and when eventually always break, even with their propietary gimmicks and non-standard media formats. They will rely mostly on software updates to fix issues a-posteriori, and even be careless for online use of pirated games (!). The difference between Sony+MS and Nintendo's user base is that the former (teenagers and young adults, a more tech savvy and money-tight crowd) will pirate easily when given the chance, while the later's (mostly well-off, busy realtives/parents buying stuff for young kids) will not resort to piracy. The market that pirates Nintendo is likely a market that would not have "bought" Nintendo in the first place, so it makes no difference for them and they don't care.
And this is exactly what Apple has been doing, but they're wising up. iPhone jailbreaks started giving them a taste for the problem, and now it happening in the pro segment is also posing a problem. I personally think they saw similarities on both problems and even laugh at the fact they are literally solving the hackintosh issue with an mobile-related innovation against hacking.
*note: the PC market doesn't enter this equation because it is simply way off economically, while the user base is simillar to Sony+MS - they will pirate anything
Yeah it might have needed a bit of context - in recent years, pro artists, despite initially buying Mac Pros, eventually needed performance boost and upgradeability not available due to the stagnation of the hardware, as there was no new release or upgrade to the Pro for years.
Others, like buyers who were due for an upgrade at the mid-life point of the Mac Pro (assume they didn't buy Mac Pros at launch for a multitude of reasons), were left an easy choice for hackintosh use, since the Mac Pro proposition didn't look so interesting 2 years in, with the same price, and a hackintosh solution was already less expensive, more powerful, and easily manageable all at once due to heavy community support.
Another monetary point for Apple besides hardware, would be that people induced to "migrate" to hackintosh on the pro segment, became most likely to pirate software after the switch. Reasons range from simply easier validation of the software (there are cracks easier and more stable to use than valid software, especially those using physical dongles) to "well, I've already breached protocol, let's go the extra mile" kind of thought.
You see, I didn't directly want to equate "profitable" with "hackintosh user". I equated "profitable" with "pro artist", but the transition from "pro artist" to "hackintosh user" is really the point: profitable users became Hackintosh users because Apple forced their hand, and lost a lot of money in the process. Well maybe not that mucy as the math behind it must include money saved on R&D, and also the loyalists/conformists that bit the bullet with the Mac Pro and never switched.
Ultimately, a lot of people will now think twice before buying a Mac Pro, even a new one, and surely a lot of those that made the switch to hackintosh - they won't have that much a boost in performance now, and they're spoiled with the wonders of piracy, upgrades and whatnot. I'm not advocating for any of this, I'm just stating my view.
Seems to me all they want is to prevent another hackintosh-run by their most loyal and profitable customer base (read: the pro artist). I bet that if this happens to be the case, they won't launch another Mac Pro in at least another 5 years. And obviously price will stay mostly unchanged throughout as the good Nintendo Apple is on this subject.
THIS. If I hadn't comment in the topic already, I'd be modding this up.
I actually just said something simillar earlier - about software being a different beast. I actually think that beast is integration - the fact that minds will be minds, not one alike, thus code will rarely converge into one cohesive purpose (in part also because that purpose is never the same, even with the best req spec). But "the internet is vast and full of libraries" is just another take on the same conclusion - we are all on the spectrum regarding code, and that really slows down cooperation.
Well, that and the "continuous bug" obviously. That set of rules is nice and all, but with most hip culture now being around continuous [whatever it's called this week], you basically don't have the slightest chance to get ALL planned features in time, because you WILL have bugs haunting you, some of them simply too complex to even say they're edge cases. And since there really is nobody better than you to solve your bugs in the team, it never made sense to make room for dedicated maintenance on the team. Teams want accountability. And did I mention we are all autistic about code? Yeah.
Wow, that sounds a lot like someone who makes a living out of evangelizing management, especially when that management is female. And of course, no mention of real-life software development project management, which was kinda the point.
I think, like all "macro" managers, this specific person still neglects the intricacies of software, and the relatively novel art that is attempting to manage software development.
I for one see software project management as the management of minds steering in the same direction, as opposed to generic management which usually just has one manager's idea and steering the actions of the team in that direction. It is a LOT harder to get different minds providing for the same source-code behavior, than it is for, say, taking incremental, divide-and-conquer physical leverage, or mathematics, research etc leverage into simple constructs that are the sum of those parts. Software is the one thing that needs integration like no other. Well, maybe space missions have something simillar on the docking of ships: it is usually the thing that gets botched the most and thus needs the most care, and the most standardization. But even then it gets to be able to use a standard and go with it, but definitely not with software.
I obviously don't have backing stats for these, but at least the consesualized opinion around my geographical location (for context: the European start-up industry) is as follows:
Now these 2 might seem contradictory - one for each sides of the argument - but reality is managers or not on the team, it doesn't matter finantially.
I know of exponentially growing companies that do not have appointed managers, but they will still use agile. I have also seen successful startups that took management very seriously from scratch, and projects only worked because of that solid management. I myself work in a company that, despite having well-defined management structure and using scrum, velocity - the real juice that scrum should be outputing to managers - is simply neglected. The reason we keep using scrum is a mixture of keeping peers on their toes between each other, and staying hip, and for what it's worth, it kinda works.
Worst of all is when you see big companies with super-duper complex process workflow diagrams for inter-corporate ladder behavior, and applying those to software teams just because some consultancy service needed the contract or because some official certification was necessary for a project, and then, over time, the entire bottom level workforce, which was certified, moves on and gets replaced with cheap, unexperienced labour. Do they expect managers and/or PDF documentation to keep standards? That is utterly unrealistic, and that is the biggest lie managers sell. Good management will not only value the process - it will value process-savvy developers, allow conditions for them to stay, or conduct process-aware hiring if it becomes impossible to keep the best of the certified crop. Some say there is a culture of job-hopping in IT, but I believe there is a culture of not knowing how to keep your IT.
Bottom-line is manager presence in a company is becoming a cultural decision: some companies have used them for so long they will never see them as harmfull, while others are either open to new ideas or simply fresh out the oven they take the plunge and go management-less, at least in the middle of the pyramid. Top level management will never disapear - there will always be someone steering the ship and profitting the big bucks. Or else we would be seeing exchanges flooded by cowork-based companies, and soon enough communism would take over :D
That's a fair point, but it seems to step aside from looks alone. Aerodynamic designs aren't necessarily pretty. Then again I doubt they would go for the "bullet train look" on a vehicle that first needs to win the market before it needs to innovate even more than it already does by trailing a completely new tech on semis.
I'm not really into the (tech) design choices made by Tesla, but it appears to me that for security reasons, just like in other Tesla's and most EVs, the battery array sits on the floor of (which extends way back), and that the top is there just for the essential sleeping space common on semis. It also appears there are two versions of the tesla semi - one taller and one lower - which makes sense if one is targetting multi-day stints on the road while the other is for, say, a workday, or even a fleet that always accomodates drivers in standing installations overnight.
Given this, there is no reason the vehicle needs to be any different from current semis in the front design: flat and solid (no air entry) is a given, as it needs no cooling, yet it also needs no more space occupied with batteries or sleeping space, and the only thing that could effectyvely be reduced and molded aerodynamically would be with a centered seat for the driver instead of keeping the norm of 2 or even 3-seater, but this, as should be obvious, presents another set of problems such as not being able to have shift drivers (I believe this is used in some markets) or to allow a passenger in a return trip, and the obvious fact that for security purposes, drivers should be on the side of the vehicle nearest to the center of the way. This latter one could surely be solved with technology (cameras and whatnot), but everybody knows that would increase costs and would need to be user-tweaked heavily, which are 2 more overheads I'm pretty sure the company didn't want right now.
Maybe they could make the sleeping space on the front and decrease the height, but the trailer is still gonna be taking a lot of air drag, so it's perfect on the top. Trailer shape is something that DEFINITELY nobody is thinking of changing fresh in the market.
Does it need to be pretty? Or better - does it need to be pretty for everyone? Because, in all honesty, it's not only a matter of taste (like the Model S and X were) and it's also completely OK by contrast (all semis are horrible IMHO), and I doubt drivers really care. After all, the part everyone sees the most on a semi is their trailer's back and sides...
Which in turn means dev options must be on, for which the OnePlus must be unlocked (screenlock-dismissed) to do so if not already. I'm also assuming it will need to allow the adb-triggering device to be authorized for adb on first prompt, again only doable on an unlocked OnePlus unless the attacker also has the user's PC.
When a phone doesn't have security lockscreens in place, you can assume it's pretty much an open book - most installed apps such as gmail should have been "trusted" by now, and 2-factor authetications are rendered useless, well, because you have the phone. GG.
So basically, unless the owner has no pin/password/fingerprint protection put in place, or is being coerced to create this set of conditions, we can pretty much assume that "vulnerability" is only going to be taken advantage of by the owners themselves. And that, as probably many here already noticed, is the very definition of "it's not a bug, it's a feature".
Except if you're the president of the United States. You can trust anything that dude says...
Oh my god, you're dumber than I suspected, some might say "almost fanboy"... OnePlus are decent and all, but they're not the 2nd coming of GNU Jesus. They are a for-profit company backed by investors with investor interests, so take a fucking hint. Last time I checked they no longer provide source code on the OS their devices ship with.
I love the way I actually agreed with you, yet somehow you're so dumb, some might even say "almost retarded", to actually notice...
If it wasn't clear: I APPRECIATE THE FACT ONEPLUS DOES THIS, AND MORE COMPANIES SHOULD ALLOW ROOT JUST LIKE SONY DID BACK IN 2011 BY JUST CLICKING A LINK. ...All I wanted was to make a fucking point that while OnePlus allows third-party, every other OEM also has the means to do it. In fact, they pretty much do it by preloading self-updater apps on their hardware such as Facebook App Manager or Galaxy Apps, they just don't allow third-party root at user discretion because Google might notice and they frown upon it...
Now go find someone else to troll. I sense you still have some frustration left to vent. Just make sure you're not wasting it on someone who is just completing your fucking argument.
Actually, as I tried to explain in my comment, they are simply stating something for OnePlus hat actually also happens in any device. Any OEM can potentially covert one of its preloaded apps into a backdoor, or simply force installation of one signed with their keys, which grants them root.
I believe this is called cherry-picking - in this case picking one OEM that does one (supposedly bad) thing, but not actually admiting everyone else can do the exact same...
Every OEM app has root. Every OEM can turn your device into a bug (the cold-war, anti-privacy type, not the quality assurance, software-centric one) or even their IP Cam.
All you have is the trust you place on these manufacturers' closed source. And this is why China government avoids Cisco or Google, and US gov. avoids Kaspersky or ZTE. Simple.
I am triple posting just to make one thing very clear: Google, Samsung, and whatever OEM has an app that self-updates or that updates other apps unnatendedly, and most of all, without an opt-out setting, has a backdoor built-in. I'm gonna make it short and bold:
There is absolutely nothing you can do about this, other than having a full open source version of Android on your device (unlikely even with custom ROMs, as they usually depend on closed driver blobs). And even then you're putting faith that both the kernel, the hardware or the pre-boot aren't tampered.
Indeed. Maybe my comment read otherwise, but I completely with you. Unfortunately this is becoming standard, and Android is just one example. Windows Home and it's snooping, it's Administrative Templates who nobody really cares about (wasn't regedit enough of a hassle?), it's unblockablae, P2P-based updates that will work on caped networks as long as one PC in the network has the update; Amazon and it's Kindle Fires and their closed stores; Apple...oh Apple; And Cloud services and storage - that is the dream of any company for supreme 1-sided control. The list goes on and on but monetization is taking precedence over function, and there is nobody at all trying to stop this. Even the EU with it's browser-choice mandate and anti-monopoly endeavours are an absolute joke on policy for such control being taken away.
But geek as I am, I do see a mild point for making SOME things hard and for taking some things AWAY, and that point is support. Obviously companies want to monetize from apps and data, but they will always use this excuse, and this excuse is, nevertheless, valid - preventing user bad behavior is key to prevent bad behavior support, and a surefire way to excuse 90% liability for any product malfunction that can be linked to "abuse".
Where one sees progress, others see regression. But we can definitely aggree things are moving forward, unless you're not being honest to yourself. Progress isn't always things going our own way, it's accepting the market moves by itself, and that the market autonomy is part of democratic, capitalist and global society we find ourselves in. You demand regulation on every single thing, and you are not acting that differently than the companies trying to reap benefits from taking some control from users to themselves.
I just want to add the fact that before Samsung, Google Play itself updates without user prompt as soon as you get internet. The very first app that was self-updatable, and such an update is unblockable, is Google Play and Google Play Services themselves.