Over the last 47 years I've owned a number of American cars and a number of Japanese ones. The Japanese ones were not superior. I currently drive a 2004 Chevy. Nothing has ever gone wrong with it.
> Sure, it was a hybrid, but still . . . was deprecation a concern with > buyers?
Is it a concern for iPod buyers? Until now the EV/hybrid market has consisted of EV fans and yuppies showing off how "green" they are. As EVs move into the mainstream (as they will) many things will change.
> Why listen to some guy who's just "good" at the guitar when you can listen > to Jimmy Hendrix?
For the same reason that in college I watched my friends play intramural hockey but never bothered to attend a varsity game: the intramural players were people I knew and liked who were playing because they enjoyed it while the varsity players were arrogant jerks and assholes in it for fame and fortune.
Presumably there is another galaxy "nearby" that this one is having a shootout with. In a few hundred million years we'll see the poor gas cloud light up again as it gets nailed from the other side.
On the other hand, maybe all the excitement will cause it to start forming stars.
> If this wasn't Google doing this everyone would be up in arms and screaming > bloody murder.
Wrong.
> Imagine if Apple did this.
Ok. So what? Their contract also says they can do it, so if they did do it they'd also be doing something you agreed they could do. Of course, if you'd purchased your toy from them you'd have no other easy way to get software, but that's also part of the deal.
> People are defending this, saying read the ToS? Ridiculous.
Yes. Read a contract before agreeing to it? How ridiculous! Who ever heard of such a silly idea!
Did you read the contract? The user explicitly agreed to this.
> Google yanked the apps after they had been installed.
Google yanked an app installed through their app store: something the user agreed they could do before he installed the app. There are other sources of apps. If you don't like Google's terms don't use their service.
> Apple restricts things on the front end, Google on the back end.
> Obviously they can disapprove an application after it has been installed. > Same result, whether you prevent it's installation or yank it later.
So Google prevents installation of unapproved applications? There is no way to install any applications other than downloading them from their "ap store" after agreeing to the contract? Or do you mean that they can delete applications from your phone that you installed outside their system?
> How about a linux distro doing this then using their package management > software?
If it was specified in a contract you entered into with them, so what? I would not install such a distribution, but if you did and then complained about a removal I would have no sympathy.
It's in the contract. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Didn't read it? Fool.
That the average Slashdotter evidently regularly agrees to contracts without reading them and then becomes enraged and indignant when the other party does what they clearly said they would do.
> Your erroneous perceptions of a company do not constitute a legally binding > agreement.
To these people wishful thinking is a legally binding agreement (but only binding on the other party).
Slashdot Mirror
Over the last 47 years I've owned a number of American cars and a number of Japanese ones. The Japanese ones were not superior. I currently drive a 2004 Chevy. Nothing has ever gone wrong with it.
> Sure, it was a hybrid, but still . . . was deprecation a concern with
> buyers?
Is it a concern for iPod buyers? Until now the EV/hybrid market has consisted of EV fans and yuppies showing off how "green" they are. As EVs move into the mainstream (as they will) many things will change.
> I mean if you buy something you pay up front and get it cheaper. If you
> lease it you basically rent over time and end up paying more.
But you know in advance how much it is going to cost you. This is a worthwhile tradeoff for many people.
> Toyota RAV4 EV's sell for more than their original MSRP 10 years ago right
> now on eBay.
They are also a rare novelty item. Not predictive of what will happen when EV's become commonplace.
> Residual value is a matter of supply and demand, this 'analyst' sounds like > he wants to mess with the demand part.
He's just being realistic.
...when Slashdot raises a stink about them removing it.
"Oops. Sorry. Here's your keylogger back."
> People with government contracts must really milk it for all it's worth.
In the USA complying with procurement regulations can be insanely expensive.
> ...THEY don't want to pay to litigate.
"THEY" (the lawyers who run ASCAP) get paid to litigate.
ASCAP "represents" composers, authors, and publishers, not performers.
How do you know it's the best?
> Why listen to some guy who's just "good" at the guitar when you can listen
> to Jimmy Hendrix?
For the same reason that in college I watched my friends play intramural hockey but never bothered to attend a varsity game: the intramural players were people I knew and liked who were playing because they enjoyed it while the varsity players were arrogant jerks and assholes in it for fame and fortune.
> ...all they need is a MySQL database!
Wrong. PostgreSQL.
> take photo of all the graves with their details
How do you know that the markings on the stone are correct?
> for $5 million...
You'll have just about enough money to hire all the specialized lawyers and accountants you'll need to comply with Federal procurement regulations.
It is quite possible (and was once quite routine) to maintain offsite backups of paper records.
Presumably there is another galaxy "nearby" that this one is having a shootout with. In a few hundred million years we'll see the poor gas cloud light up again as it gets nailed from the other side.
On the other hand, maybe all the excitement will cause it to start forming stars.
Cold baryonic matter was the first thing the astronomers thought of. Unfortunately, it does not fit the observations.
> If this wasn't Google doing this everyone would be up in arms and screaming
> bloody murder.
Wrong.
> Imagine if Apple did this.
Ok. So what? Their contract also says they can do it, so if they did do it they'd also be doing something you agreed they could do. Of course, if you'd purchased your toy from them you'd have no other easy way to get software, but that's also part of the deal.
> People are defending this, saying read the ToS? Ridiculous.
Yes. Read a contract before agreeing to it? How ridiculous! Who ever heard of such a silly idea!
> Did you read the article?
Did you read the contract? The user explicitly agreed to this.
> Google yanked the apps after they had been installed.
Google yanked an app installed through their app store: something the user agreed they could do before he installed the app. There are other sources of apps. If you don't like Google's terms don't use their service.
> Apple restricts things on the front end, Google on the back end.
So what?
> I was trying to say this sort of thing should not be in the "contract" to
> begin with.
So don't enter into such contracts.
> People accepting the terms is the problem.
People have the right to accept whatever terms they wish.
> Obviously they can disapprove an application after it has been installed.
> Same result, whether you prevent it's installation or yank it later.
So Google prevents installation of unapproved applications? There is no way to install any applications other than downloading them from their "ap store" after agreeing to the contract? Or do you mean that they can delete applications from your phone that you installed outside their system?
> The future is stringently managed devices and no unapproved applications.
So Android does not permit unapproved applications? That's news.
> How about a linux distro doing this then using their package management
> software?
If it was specified in a contract you entered into with them, so what? I would not install such a distribution, but if you did and then complained about a removal I would have no sympathy.
It's in the contract. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Didn't read it? Fool.
> What else is there to say, really?
That the average Slashdotter evidently regularly agrees to contracts without reading them and then becomes enraged and indignant when the other party does what they clearly said they would do.
> Your erroneous perceptions of a company do not constitute a legally binding
> agreement.
To these people wishful thinking is a legally binding agreement (but only binding on the other party).
In order to do that Google would have to install something on your phone "without your permission" (which they reportedly actually had via the TOS).
You can either not use the "app store" (there are reportedly other sources) or hack your phone to disable the removal.
> AT&T asked for my 1st born and 10 years indentured servitude in their TOS.
How do you know that if you didn't read it?
> It was 900 pages so I didn't read it.
And yet you agreed to it. Fool.
> Oh well, I guess that makes it right and okay then.
Unconscionable terms are unenforceable. You're still a fool for agreeing to unread terms, though.