The previous commentator's point is horseshit. The idea of a formal review to prove or disprove that conjecture is - as we can see here - a good idea. It also seems to me that Apple is 'playing fair', but there's no reason not to validate that since the cost to consumers if they're not is potentially substantial.
No other payment service will host, validate, and serve up the Spotify app (with free updates) for the millions of users who want to download it and pay no money though. That's far from an inconsequential cost.
If you buy something from a retailer, they don't give all of that money back to the vendor.
In this case, you're free to buy the product (a Spotify subscription) directly from the vendor for less money if you want to. WIN! And yet people are still willing to pay more money to buy the product through a trusted retailer (Apple, Amazon, etc), for which that trusted retailer deserves to charge a premium. Win for them, too.
Spotify is basically arguing that a 3rd party retailer should accept the same cost model of a wholesaler, while also distributing any free promo items their customers want for no money, which in any other industry would be seen as ludicrous.
Apple are basically running servers on Spotify's behalf though, handing the downloads, refreshes, and everything else for their application which has vastly more "free" downloads (that Apple still has to support with their infrastructure) than paid ones. Additionally, most Spotify memberships are paying Apple out at the 15% rate for > 12 months, which also includes ~2% card fees right off the top.
And that fee covers everything from credit card processing to hosting and bandwidth, which for all of the free app downloads that Spotify enjoys is a non-negligible amount of money.
Its entirely possible that the adult audience was harder to sell ads to, or far more enthusiastic in their use of adblockers. Total traffic should not and does not imply monetized traffic.
They're the same people who don't understand that increasing the minimum wage of someone making 100 hamburgers an hour by $1 won't increase the cost of each hamburger by $1.
Same goes for coders that think they need mobile laptops when in reality they can either share an RDS session host or have their own VMs
Completely missing the OP's point. Back when my last company hired developers, we paid them between $500-1000 each and every day that they worked. If spending an extra $1000 on a laptop, or a really good monitor, got us an extra 10 minutes of work a day, it more than paid for itself. Hiring a replacement employee costs tens of thousands of dollars in lost productivity alone - if an extra $1000 on a laptop keeps them around for a few more months because you've created a nicer work environment it pays for itself again.
Being penny-wise and pound-foolish on the main interface between a developer and the company is common, but that doesn't make it sensible.
That's a weakness of the particular bluetooth setup that you have in your car though, and shouldn't be taken as a problem with Bluetooth as a whole. Especially in older vehicles, receivers would often negotiate terrible protocols. A modern bluetooth receiver and a modern bluetooth enabled device (phone etc) can easily sound every bit as good as an AUX-IN connection from a CD player.
But this is on a phone. Sure, by all means have a smashing system at home where space requirements are lax, but on a phone, where the vast majority of people are streaming music from Spotify (or similar) into their noisy car, bluetooth fidelity is perfectly acceptable.
Because it frequently indicates that some company has checked a box - maybe even legally - on a solution they're contractually able to provide that doesn't actually work in the real world.
As for a ban, maybe a ban on robots handling such things, at least until safety can be improved, is a good idea. We don't allow forklifts to carry certain things for the same reason.
.
Statistically, robots in these cases have less incidents per pallet moved than humans. I guarantee you too that in a modern warehouse nothing even remotely normal is getting unloaded from the truck put away to reserve by hand.
There's a big difference between having access to something and being able - or inclined - to use it. Its like the difference between a food desert (somewhere with no accessible grocery stores) and people not being able to afford to visit the supermarket next door.
The questions about why people who theoretically have access aren't using it will be interesting and hotly debated, but at the end of the day it won't change the fact that, today at least, they're not.
Even if you do do this, you can't easily get a new standalone SIM card for a few bucks in the US. You can buy a cheap shitty prepaid phone, and charge it with minutes, but you can't readily just get the SIM. I actually have an old Android phone picked up on my last trip to the UK (some stupid promo that came with 30 days unlimited data that was cheaper) that I was looking to re-sim back in the 'States and gave up.
Some pedant will point out that there are places where you can and I'm sure that's true, but even in major cities they're neither easy to find nor significant in volume. Its nothing like Europe in that way.
This is another case where the UK's watchdog agency has made things better for the average consumer. Always be cautious of people insisting that "freedom" is always better, when "freedom" often includes the freedom to lie to your customers - albeit with the bonus of being able to make some truly awesome ads that don't fly over there.
As for the ports, the nice thing about USB-C standardization is that we no longer need to guess which port anyone will need, only the general largest number of simultaneous accesses they'll want. Very few people have ever plugged more than 2-3 things into their laptop at the same time, especially in the WiFi era; many have never attached anything but power.
Yeah. On the one hand you have the sum total of our state-of-the-art security systems. On the other you have the raging hormones of a typical 14 year old. I know where I'm placing my bet in that fight...
In this case its even starker - Amazon offers hosted SQL databases that are inherently quite secure. If you choose to ignore that offering and instead install your own DB onto an exposed instance, that's your own damn fault and you're on your own.
Slashdot Mirror
Reports are now coming in that if you rotate them into landscape mode they will start failing top and bottom instead.
Samsung's already filed for 73 patents in this new and innovative market segment.
The previous commentator's point is horseshit. The idea of a formal review to prove or disprove that conjecture is - as we can see here - a good idea. It also seems to me that Apple is 'playing fair', but there's no reason not to validate that since the cost to consumers if they're not is potentially substantial.
No other payment service will host, validate, and serve up the Spotify app (with free updates) for the millions of users who want to download it and pay no money though. That's far from an inconsequential cost.
If you buy something from a retailer, they don't give all of that money back to the vendor.
In this case, you're free to buy the product (a Spotify subscription) directly from the vendor for less money if you want to. WIN! And yet people are still willing to pay more money to buy the product through a trusted retailer (Apple, Amazon, etc), for which that trusted retailer deserves to charge a premium. Win for them, too.
Spotify is basically arguing that a 3rd party retailer should accept the same cost model of a wholesaler, while also distributing any free promo items their customers want for no money, which in any other industry would be seen as ludicrous.
Apple are basically running servers on Spotify's behalf though, handing the downloads, refreshes, and everything else for their application which has vastly more "free" downloads (that Apple still has to support with their infrastructure) than paid ones. Additionally, most Spotify memberships are paying Apple out at the 15% rate for > 12 months, which also includes ~2% card fees right off the top.
And that fee covers everything from credit card processing to hosting and bandwidth, which for all of the free app downloads that Spotify enjoys is a non-negligible amount of money.
A lot of the more "normal" advertisers probably had a way to stop their ads from being served on NSFW pages in the first place.
Its entirely possible that the adult audience was harder to sell ads to, or far more enthusiastic in their use of adblockers. Total traffic should not and does not imply monetized traffic.
They're the same people who don't understand that increasing the minimum wage of someone making 100 hamburgers an hour by $1 won't increase the cost of each hamburger by $1.
Same goes for coders that think they need mobile laptops when in reality they can either share an RDS session host or have their own VMs
Completely missing the OP's point. Back when my last company hired developers, we paid them between $500-1000 each and every day that they worked. If spending an extra $1000 on a laptop, or a really good monitor, got us an extra 10 minutes of work a day, it more than paid for itself. Hiring a replacement employee costs tens of thousands of dollars in lost productivity alone - if an extra $1000 on a laptop keeps them around for a few more months because you've created a nicer work environment it pays for itself again.
Being penny-wise and pound-foolish on the main interface between a developer and the company is common, but that doesn't make it sensible.
That's a weakness of the particular bluetooth setup that you have in your car though, and shouldn't be taken as a problem with Bluetooth as a whole. Especially in older vehicles, receivers would often negotiate terrible protocols. A modern bluetooth receiver and a modern bluetooth enabled device (phone etc) can easily sound every bit as good as an AUX-IN connection from a CD player.
Surprisingly few, actually. The real issue is that the market for inexpensive wired headphones is small and growing smaller.
But this is on a phone. Sure, by all means have a smashing system at home where space requirements are lax, but on a phone, where the vast majority of people are streaming music from Spotify (or similar) into their noisy car, bluetooth fidelity is perfectly acceptable.
Because it frequently indicates that some company has checked a box - maybe even legally - on a solution they're contractually able to provide that doesn't actually work in the real world.
Once you've punctured the can (needed for sound, smell or mist), its far too late to do anything.
As for a ban, maybe a ban on robots handling such things, at least until safety can be improved, is a good idea. We don't allow forklifts to carry certain things for the same reason.
.
Statistically, robots in these cases have less incidents per pallet moved than humans. I guarantee you too that in a modern warehouse nothing even remotely normal is getting unloaded from the truck put away to reserve by hand.
There's a big difference between having access to something and being able - or inclined - to use it. Its like the difference between a food desert (somewhere with no accessible grocery stores) and people not being able to afford to visit the supermarket next door.
The questions about why people who theoretically have access aren't using it will be interesting and hotly debated, but at the end of the day it won't change the fact that, today at least, they're not.
Sure, because nothing says quality like annoying people when you think your phone is externally silent...
Even if you do do this, you can't easily get a new standalone SIM card for a few bucks in the US. You can buy a cheap shitty prepaid phone, and charge it with minutes, but you can't readily just get the SIM. I actually have an old Android phone picked up on my last trip to the UK (some stupid promo that came with 30 days unlimited data that was cheaper) that I was looking to re-sim back in the 'States and gave up.
Some pedant will point out that there are places where you can and I'm sure that's true, but even in major cities they're neither easy to find nor significant in volume. Its nothing like Europe in that way.
What does the app have that it requires the Avantgarde of software to run on?
If it required 9 I'd agree with you. 5, on the other hand, seems a little ... dated.
This is another case where the UK's watchdog agency has made things better for the average consumer. Always be cautious of people insisting that "freedom" is always better, when "freedom" often includes the freedom to lie to your customers - albeit with the bonus of being able to make some truly awesome ads that don't fly over there.
Well said.
As for the ports, the nice thing about USB-C standardization is that we no longer need to guess which port anyone will need, only the general largest number of simultaneous accesses they'll want. Very few people have ever plugged more than 2-3 things into their laptop at the same time, especially in the WiFi era; many have never attached anything but power.
This was a far more elegantly worded comment on the parent than mine was going to be - nice work, sir :)
Yeah. On the one hand you have the sum total of our state-of-the-art security systems. On the other you have the raging hormones of a typical 14 year old. I know where I'm placing my bet in that fight...
In this case its even starker - Amazon offers hosted SQL databases that are inherently quite secure. If you choose to ignore that offering and instead install your own DB onto an exposed instance, that's your own damn fault and you're on your own.