I own an Xbox 360. I do not own an Xbox One. For the past few years, MS has been giving me Xbox 360 and Xbox One games every month as part of my Xbox Live Gold membership. I already own close to 100 Xbox One games that don't require an optical drive to play. This new Xbox One S All Digital is a perfect way for me to get into the Xbox One hardware generation. I don't need an optical drive to play 100 games I already own. I don't need or want a BluRay player. Why pay more for something I don't need? I'm also certain that MS knows how many people like me are out there, so perhaps they plan on marketing it to us. If you don't care about this optical-drive-less option, why complain about it?
How about we make advertising worthless by not clicking on the bloody ads?!? Then we wouldn't have these massive advertising giants controlling what we consume. Charging for content would be the norm again. People would evaluate and choose their preferred aggregator, and journalism could thrive again via pay-per-view revenue - just like the old days. Information is free; good information is not.
The only way consoles can be sold for their current (loss leader) prices is to have consumers make up the difference buying games. The manufacturers need to be able to predict that X consoles + Y games per console = profit. If you remove Y, then X consoles = loss. That's why they don't want you using your console for anything but licensed games.
So how about we keep that system, which works well for millions of consumers, and add a system where you can purchase a legitimate hardware unlock for Z. It would be trivial for manufacturers to work out Z, since it's essentially the same as their cut of the Y games per console. Then you could purchase a console, and if you wanted to unlock it, you could do so without any negative consequences. It would just cost you more, since you bought the console for a subsidized price to begin with.
The US is likely more concerned with accessing _US citizens'_ data stored on foreign servers. I doubt that would have anything to do with EU citizens' rights and privacy laws. It's entirely plausible that US citizens' hotmail data is stored in Ireland, and it's currently hard for the US government to subpoena. I'm not certain, but doesn't Germany have data laws that prevent its citizens' data from being stored outside the country? That's one way around it!
Also, how does the OpenID provider prove that I'm who I claim to be? Anyone can fake up a Google or Facebook account. How does the enterprise ensure that I'm using credentials that are tied to me?
Also, how would the LEOs know they were remotely accessing the desired device? Without physical access (and no other things attached), how can you be sure you haven't found 'virtually planted' evidence?
I dunno, timed messages seem to be working well for Snapchat. Turns out the plebs prioritize fun features and iBaubles over security and privacy. Who knew!
Yep, I get a block of sponsored retailers with Canadian websites and $CAD. So I agree - that is a rare form of good advertising. Except it isn't really advertising, since I specifically searched for exactly what the sponsored retailers are selling. It's more of a live inventory search of paticipating retailers - which is much more useful than advertising to me.
I don't know of any ad-supported websites that haven't completely burned their goodwill at this point. How can we trust a site like WIRED to be completely ad-free after we start paying? With ad-blockers - that's how.
Alternatively, they can start trying to build back some of their goodwill with us by changing how they weave advertising into their content. That might require some tough decisions, and it will definitely take a while, but who's fault is that?
I'm not mad at WIRED for trying to get revenue from ads, but We The People have decided that we don't like ads, so they need to find a new revenue stream.
Kicking the can down the road is exactly what consumers need to do. Give notice to the remaining content provdiers that they better start cleaning up their act now if they expect anyone to convert to paying down the road. I don't give a rats about the editors/writers/whatevers at WIRED. If they're any good, they'll find work with the next content provider that springs up. And that new provider can roll the dice with ad-supported content, or roll the dice with paywalls. Any new venture has its risks, c'est la vie.
Nonsense - reputable ad providers can put an appliance/service behind the content provider's domain between the content and users that analyses the content and injects appropriate ad URLs/code/whatever. Sounds like a business opportunity to me!
Slashdot Mirror
I own an Xbox 360. I do not own an Xbox One. For the past few years, MS has been giving me Xbox 360 and Xbox One games every month as part of my Xbox Live Gold membership. I already own close to 100 Xbox One games that don't require an optical drive to play. This new Xbox One S All Digital is a perfect way for me to get into the Xbox One hardware generation. I don't need an optical drive to play 100 games I already own. I don't need or want a BluRay player. Why pay more for something I don't need? I'm also certain that MS knows how many people like me are out there, so perhaps they plan on marketing it to us. If you don't care about this optical-drive-less option, why complain about it?
How about we make advertising worthless by not clicking on the bloody ads?!? Then we wouldn't have these massive advertising giants controlling what we consume. Charging for content would be the norm again. People would evaluate and choose their preferred aggregator, and journalism could thrive again via pay-per-view revenue - just like the old days. Information is free; good information is not.
The only way consoles can be sold for their current (loss leader) prices is to have consumers make up the difference buying games. The manufacturers need to be able to predict that X consoles + Y games per console = profit. If you remove Y, then X consoles = loss. That's why they don't want you using your console for anything but licensed games.
So how about we keep that system, which works well for millions of consumers, and add a system where you can purchase a legitimate hardware unlock for Z. It would be trivial for manufacturers to work out Z, since it's essentially the same as their cut of the Y games per console. Then you could purchase a console, and if you wanted to unlock it, you could do so without any negative consequences. It would just cost you more, since you bought the console for a subsidized price to begin with.
Do you think that the rest of Google's vast data apparatus _hasn't_ been used for military purposes before this? Puuhleeeaze :)
Damn right, and 80 column code too!
The US is likely more concerned with accessing _US citizens'_ data stored on foreign servers. I doubt that would have anything to do with EU citizens' rights and privacy laws. It's entirely plausible that US citizens' hotmail data is stored in Ireland, and it's currently hard for the US government to subpoena. I'm not certain, but doesn't Germany have data laws that prevent its citizens' data from being stored outside the country? That's one way around it!
Also, how does the OpenID provider prove that I'm who I claim to be? Anyone can fake up a Google or Facebook account. How does the enterprise ensure that I'm using credentials that are tied to me?
I'd go straight for paisley or argyle, or perhaps Nova Scotia Tartan.
Also, how would the LEOs know they were remotely accessing the desired device? Without physical access (and no other things attached), how can you be sure you haven't found 'virtually planted' evidence?
I dunno, timed messages seem to be working well for Snapchat. Turns out the plebs prioritize fun features and iBaubles over security and privacy. Who knew!
Yep, I get a block of sponsored retailers with Canadian websites and $CAD. So I agree - that is a rare form of good advertising. Except it isn't really advertising, since I specifically searched for exactly what the sponsored retailers are selling. It's more of a live inventory search of paticipating retailers - which is much more useful than advertising to me.
I don't know of any ad-supported websites that haven't completely burned their goodwill at this point. How can we trust a site like WIRED to be completely ad-free after we start paying? With ad-blockers - that's how. Alternatively, they can start trying to build back some of their goodwill with us by changing how they weave advertising into their content. That might require some tough decisions, and it will definitely take a while, but who's fault is that? I'm not mad at WIRED for trying to get revenue from ads, but We The People have decided that we don't like ads, so they need to find a new revenue stream. Kicking the can down the road is exactly what consumers need to do. Give notice to the remaining content provdiers that they better start cleaning up their act now if they expect anyone to convert to paying down the road. I don't give a rats about the editors/writers/whatevers at WIRED. If they're any good, they'll find work with the next content provider that springs up. And that new provider can roll the dice with ad-supported content, or roll the dice with paywalls. Any new venture has its risks, c'est la vie.
Nonsense - reputable ad providers can put an appliance/service behind the content provider's domain between the content and users that analyses the content and injects appropriate ad URLs/code/whatever. Sounds like a business opportunity to me!