Perhaps Google should rethink its strategy of how they offer software and encourage some type of buy-in on updates for support in the hardware and software dev process
It's not Google's choice. Vendors want the ability to make customizations to the OS, to "add value". It's one of the reason why they accepted Android in the first place: the ability to control, customize, and bundle whatever they wanted.
Moreover, while getting a vanilla AOSP up on your device isn't hard, making it stable and performant is most certainly not.
You should have shorted it right after you installed the app and say it was garbage. It's a real stretch to even call it a game. The user base is already declining. https://www.surveymonkey.com/b...
They increase short term profitability, only because operating costs go down. And of course, if you reduce force, you are less poised to execute so it's *only* short term since next quarter your deliverables will again be scaled to your workforce.
Even if you look at it like the company trimming the fat, the fact they are structured to allow the fat to develop in the first place is a bad thing. How many companies come back from a "reduction in force" to become profitable? Some do, most don't. It's usually a sign they are circling the drain trying to make themselves more attractive for a buyout.
And since layoffs increase stock price, you should buy when you hear, to not be the last on the rising tide.
And unless you are dealing with insider information, you will be the last to hear. The individual investor is the last to know. The sharks have already feasted.
Curious if you bought Cyanongen, Inc (or whatever it's called)?
Second transaction = different contract. Entirely different thing to unilaterally changing the terms of an ongoing contract on DeVry.
Like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, so I bump this thread. The only contract these people have is month-month. That was honored. A renewal under the same terms was refused. Business transaction complete. The OP had it spot on. V isn't obligated to renew a contract under the same terms. Take a second to think about how that would work if it was reversed. Never mind, I've asked for too much here.
Not sure why I thought of a phoenix. Maybe it was something about your inability to read TFA in conjunction with the aptitude of the average UoP grad. Probably not though, never mind.
OMFG they are not. Can you read TFA? They no longer advertise or offer unlimited plans. These people had those plans back in the day. They are now on month-month plans under the same terms. Verizon allowed them to keep the same terms as a courtesy. They are no longer offering that. So seriously what's your argument here? If someone offers you a contract they are bound to re-offer or extend that same contact forever? Really? So in 2096 these people's children's children should still be paying $30 for unlimited data?
Do you understand how a contract works? For the same reason you as a consumer can choose not to renew a non-advantageous contract, so can Verizon. That's what they are doing. They didn't break any contract.
Currently in California, many "clean air" vehicles get to use the carpool lane ( which I find idiotic). now if the state suddenly started saying "Well, you can only use them between 9 pm and 4 AM", I'd be against that as well.
No one is trying to take away your right to be against something. You don't have to like what Verizon does. Heck, you can stop buying services from them even. You can even tell your friends. Post it on Facebook. Go nuts. But they didn't break a contract or the law here.
Absolutely. I'm now going to sue Verizon because my phone is capable of transferring data faster than they can serve it up. They are therefore limiting what's supposed to be an unlimited plan.
Nope, that's not how it works. That's how it worked when your old ass was in charge. The way things work now that you're irrelevant is that we will pressure V in to doing things the way WE want out we'll regulate or legislature their asses out of business. Do try to keep up, old man.
Hilarious. V has been sticking it to customers since time immemorial. What's changed. Where have you been? Why aren't you saving the day?
a) Most of these things fall under contract law. If I have to sign up a 2y contract, they shouldn't be able to just change it halfway through. That's what's happening here though, they have a contract which they're failing to abide by.
You are confused. That's not what's happening at all. Their 2-yr contracts are expired. They are month-month plans. V didn't even terminate mid-month. They just didn't offer the option to renew at the end of the month.
And I don't like being called a dick by others because I bought a plan as advertised and kept it for obvious reasons. That's called being smart.
And people that drive in carpool lanes with single drivers don't like being called a dicks either. What's the problem? They are getting to work faster and it doesn't make a bit of difference to you in the slow lane, right?
And for your information, you can answer any of these hard question by doing the following: ask yourself what society would be like if everyone acted the same way as you. What if everyone drive in the carpool lane? Then it would be pointless to have a carpool lane, fewer people would carpool resulting in more overall cars on the road. There's your answer.
In your case, if everyone used 100GB / month, yes that'd bring the entire network to it's knees for everyone. Again, there's your answer.
No such thing as 'common sense'. Besides, in the viewpoint of most of those users, they didn't do anything even remotely unreasonable.
Just because you don't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So tell me. Is the rule that as long I don't think I did something unreasonable, it's A-ok? Like, I don't think it's unreasonable to go 50MPH through a school zone. All good?
Obviously not. Need proof? Read TFA. You can try to make up whatever definition you want but unless you get the execs at Verizon to agree it doesn't do much good does it?
What Verizon is doing is trying to get people to pay more by using an artificial (virtual) limit of how much data you can transfer from point a to point b on a monthly basis.
Then use another carrier. That's how it works. You don't like a service, you use a different one. Verizon doesn't operate on your laws of Goodness and Honesty. They do whatever they want to maximize profits. That includes not renewing unlimited data contracts for heavy users. There's nothing even slightly illegal about not renewing a contract.
its pretty rich to think that these "very few" customers have any material effect on what you pay or even the quality of your service.
What's rich is to think V is going our their way and dealing with the bad publicity for no reason at all. If it really didn't matter at all, why would they do it? Because they are evil? Let me know your theory about why they don't just offer everyone unlimited data? Do tell, Mr. Wizard.
Note to you: you don't understand TFA. These people do not have unlimited plans, and Verizon doesn't offer any new user an unlimited plan. Some users *had* unlimited plans, which are now expired, null, and void. Verizon allowed them to keep the same terms month, month, but is no longer allowing that.
There's no fraud. They were not cut off mid contract. They consumed their 100GB. Contract period ended. Business transactions complete.
They *are* two-way. They are, de-facto, in material breach of contract.
Wow, material breach of contract. Sounds serious.
All V did was decide not to renew a contract. If they turned off their service in the middle of their cycle, that would be breach of contract. That's not what happened. They used their 100GB. Contract is over. Business transaction complete. They are welcome to sign up for a new V contract / plan under the same terms offered to any other user.
Yes-- according to Verizon, "unlimited" has its limits.
"Unlimited" comes with a caveat: common sense.
Personally I'd rather have that caveat than pay extra to support the 0.01% of the people that consume 1000x more resources than everyone else.
I really do hope somebody hits them hard for false advertising [cornell.edu]
Nope. If you are a subscriber, you do have unlimited data. These people are no longer subscribers. Verizon isn't offering them a service any longer, and they aren't paying for it. Business transaction complete.
I think the same of AR. I can point my phone at the Eiffel Tower and see... what? The Eiffel tower behind lots of shit that I may or may not want, that I could still read if I just pressed the button and held the phone facing down like a normal person reading stuff.
You didn't have to search for "eiffel tower". If there are geograhically relevant markers, they are contextual to your orientation to the object. Think about a typical indoor map. Instead of finding the "you are here" marker and trying to figure out which way you are looking, AR can project an arrow pointing you to where you want to go.
What does AR give you over anything else? So far the biggest usage is imprinting "hidden" cartoon characters over your high-res image of the thing ACTUALLY IN FRONT OF YOU.
Yes, sort of like if you were looking at a sign in front of the Eiffel tower, it would imprint a high res sign over the Eiffel tower. The idea isn't to stare into your AR goggles 24x7. Think of it like a map where you you reference it to get meta information about your location that isn't otherwise accessible.
then they would most assuredly wind up in court and likely losing or settling
Sort of like how Nintendo put a special chip in their SNES cartridges making it impossible for software devs to purchase the blank carts from any other source? Oh wait. They did do that and it was perfectly legal.
What you are talking about is only an issue if a company uses it's monopoly in one industry to quell competition in another industry. If BMW was the only maker of cars, then they decided to also make tires and require all of their cars to use their BMW branded tires, yes, that'd be an issue.
But that's not what is going on here. Apple isn't a monopoly, or even a majority player in the device space OR the app space. If you don't like their practices, go pick up an Android device. The laws prefer to let the market it work it out, if it's possible. If you choose to keep buying Apple considering this, then please, quietly go away and lie down in the bed you've made for yourself.
Also, theres no such thing as BMW branded tires. Great analogy though it really hit home.
BMW can do anything they want. They can force you to use proprietary tires and wheels on their cars. Theres no law that would prevent that. You would buy another car though right? Anyone getting and ideas on how to handle the Apl!e {} Spotify issue? Hint: its not keep buying more App!e shit.
and in other news, Kentucky Fried Chicken has a monopoly on the Kentucky Fried Chicked ecosystem. BMW has a monopoly of the BMW ecosystem as well. You see the point? The monopoly has to apply to the industry, and they don't have a monopoly in the industry. They aren't even a majority.
That's the danger of tying your business closely to someone else's business. They can pull the rug out from underneath you. It's really a case of nothing gained, nothing lost however. If Apple hadn't built their business, at Apple's expense and risk, Spotify wouldn't have a market there anyway.
It feels like there's a struggle for a few strips of bacon, and two lions are going to dual to the death for those two strips of bacon.
The difference is for Apple, a music service can be a loss leader that fulfills the goal of building out the Apple "ecosystem". They don't have to make money from it for it to be a winner. That's why they will win in the end. They'll strike disadvantageous copyright deals just to drive the little guys out of town.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps Google should rethink its strategy of how they offer software and encourage some type of buy-in on updates for support in the hardware and software dev process
It's not Google's choice. Vendors want the ability to make customizations to the OS, to "add value". It's one of the reason why they accepted Android in the first place: the ability to control, customize, and bundle whatever they wanted.
Moreover, while getting a vanilla AOSP up on your device isn't hard, making it stable and performant is most certainly not.
You should have shorted it right after you installed the app and say it was garbage. It's a real stretch to even call it a game. The user base is already declining.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/b...
Layoffs increase profitability.
They increase short term profitability, only because operating costs go down. And of course, if you reduce force, you are less poised to execute so it's *only* short term since next quarter your deliverables will again be scaled to your workforce.
Even if you look at it like the company trimming the fat, the fact they are structured to allow the fat to develop in the first place is a bad thing. How many companies come back from a "reduction in force" to become profitable? Some do, most don't. It's usually a sign they are circling the drain trying to make themselves more attractive for a buyout.
And since layoffs increase stock price, you should buy when you hear, to not be the last on the rising tide.
And unless you are dealing with insider information, you will be the last to hear. The individual investor is the last to know. The sharks have already feasted.
Curious if you bought Cyanongen, Inc (or whatever it's called)?
Second transaction = different contract. Entirely different thing to unilaterally changing the terms of an ongoing contract on DeVry.
Like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, so I bump this thread. The only contract these people have is month-month. That was honored. A renewal under the same terms was refused. Business transaction complete. The OP had it spot on. V isn't obligated to renew a contract under the same terms. Take a second to think about how that would work if it was reversed. Never mind, I've asked for too much here.
Not sure why I thought of a phoenix. Maybe it was something about your inability to read TFA in conjunction with the aptitude of the average UoP grad. Probably not though, never mind.
And they're advertising falsely.
OMFG they are not. Can you read TFA? They no longer advertise or offer unlimited plans. These people had those plans back in the day. They are now on month-month plans under the same terms. Verizon allowed them to keep the same terms as a courtesy. They are no longer offering that. So seriously what's your argument here? If someone offers you a contract they are bound to re-offer or extend that same contact forever? Really? So in 2096 these people's children's children should still be paying $30 for unlimited data?
Do you understand how a contract works? For the same reason you as a consumer can choose not to renew a non-advantageous contract, so can Verizon. That's what they are doing. They didn't break any contract.
Currently in California, many "clean air" vehicles get to use the carpool lane ( which I find idiotic). now if the state suddenly started saying "Well, you can only use them between 9 pm and 4 AM", I'd be against that as well.
No one is trying to take away your right to be against something. You don't have to like what Verizon does. Heck, you can stop buying services from them even. You can even tell your friends. Post it on Facebook. Go nuts. But they didn't break a contract or the law here.
Absolutely. I'm now going to sue Verizon because my phone is capable of transferring data faster than they can serve it up. They are therefore limiting what's supposed to be an unlimited plan.
Nope, that's not how it works. That's how it worked when your old ass was in charge. The way things work now that you're irrelevant is that we will pressure V in to doing things the way WE want out we'll regulate or legislature their asses out of business. Do try to keep up, old man.
Hilarious. V has been sticking it to customers since time immemorial. What's changed. Where have you been? Why aren't you saving the day?
a) Most of these things fall under contract law. If I have to sign up a 2y contract, they shouldn't be able to just change it halfway through. That's what's happening here though, they have a contract which they're failing to abide by.
You are confused. That's not what's happening at all. Their 2-yr contracts are expired. They are month-month plans. V didn't even terminate mid-month. They just didn't offer the option to renew at the end of the month.
And I don't like being called a dick by others because I bought a plan as advertised and kept it for obvious reasons. That's called being smart.
And people that drive in carpool lanes with single drivers don't like being called a dicks either. What's the problem? They are getting to work faster and it doesn't make a bit of difference to you in the slow lane, right?
And for your information, you can answer any of these hard question by doing the following: ask yourself what society would be like if everyone acted the same way as you. What if everyone drive in the carpool lane? Then it would be pointless to have a carpool lane, fewer people would carpool resulting in more overall cars on the road. There's your answer.
In your case, if everyone used 100GB / month, yes that'd bring the entire network to it's knees for everyone. Again, there's your answer.
No such thing as 'common sense'. Besides, in the viewpoint of most of those users, they didn't do anything even remotely unreasonable.
Just because you don't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So tell me. Is the rule that as long I don't think I did something unreasonable, it's A-ok? Like, I don't think it's unreasonable to go 50MPH through a school zone. All good?
What is a "cycle"? Are they under contract or not? The OP I'm responding to is talking about phones under contract.
Well then you are misinformed. All V did was fail to renew their contract. During their contract, they received unlimited data as specified.
No, unlimited means just that: unlimited.
Obviously not. Need proof? Read TFA. You can try to make up whatever definition you want but unless you get the execs at Verizon to agree it doesn't do much good does it?
What Verizon is doing is trying to get people to pay more by using an artificial (virtual) limit of how much data you can transfer from point a to point b on a monthly basis.
Then use another carrier. That's how it works. You don't like a service, you use a different one. Verizon doesn't operate on your laws of Goodness and Honesty. They do whatever they want to maximize profits. That includes not renewing unlimited data contracts for heavy users. There's nothing even slightly illegal about not renewing a contract.
its pretty rich to think that these "very few" customers have any material effect on what you pay or even the quality of your service.
What's rich is to think V is going our their way and dealing with the bad publicity for no reason at all. If it really didn't matter at all, why would they do it? Because they are evil? Let me know your theory about why they don't just offer everyone unlimited data? Do tell, Mr. Wizard.
You are right. They do have monthly contracts w/ unlimited data.
Note to you: you don't understand TFA. These people do not have unlimited plans, and Verizon doesn't offer any new user an unlimited plan. Some users *had* unlimited plans, which are now expired, null, and void. Verizon allowed them to keep the same terms month, month, but is no longer allowing that.
There's no fraud. They were not cut off mid contract. They consumed their 100GB. Contract period ended. Business transactions complete.
Are you a lawyer or do you just play one on TV?
They *are* two-way. They are, de-facto, in material breach of contract.
Wow, material breach of contract. Sounds serious.
All V did was decide not to renew a contract. If they turned off their service in the middle of their cycle, that would be breach of contract. That's not what happened. They used their 100GB. Contract is over. Business transaction complete. They are welcome to sign up for a new V contract / plan under the same terms offered to any other user.
Verizon has lots of obligations, including some to society in general
Thanks for that, I needed a laugh.
Ponder that for a moment.
I just pondered using Skype continuously 24 hours a day for 30 days. Conclusion: you're a troll.
Yes-- according to Verizon, "unlimited" has its limits.
"Unlimited" comes with a caveat: common sense.
Personally I'd rather have that caveat than pay extra to support the 0.01% of the people that consume 1000x more resources than everyone else.
I really do hope somebody hits them hard for false advertising [cornell.edu]
Nope. If you are a subscriber, you do have unlimited data. These people are no longer subscribers. Verizon isn't offering them a service any longer, and they aren't paying for it. Business transaction complete.
Nokia has (had?) a pretty slick translation application where you could point your phone at some text and it would translate it on the fly
Google Translate does this now.
I think the same of AR. I can point my phone at the Eiffel Tower and see... what? The Eiffel tower behind lots of shit that I may or may not want, that I could still read if I just pressed the button and held the phone facing down like a normal person reading stuff.
You didn't have to search for "eiffel tower". If there are geograhically relevant markers, they are contextual to your orientation to the object. Think about a typical indoor map. Instead of finding the "you are here" marker and trying to figure out which way you are looking, AR can project an arrow pointing you to where you want to go.
What does AR give you over anything else? So far the biggest usage is imprinting "hidden" cartoon characters over your high-res image of the thing ACTUALLY IN FRONT OF YOU.
Yes, sort of like if you were looking at a sign in front of the Eiffel tower, it would imprint a high res sign over the Eiffel tower. The idea isn't to stare into your AR goggles 24x7. Think of it like a map where you you reference it to get meta information about your location that isn't otherwise accessible.
then they would most assuredly wind up in court and likely losing or settling
Sort of like how Nintendo put a special chip in their SNES cartridges making it impossible for software devs to purchase the blank carts from any other source? Oh wait. They did do that and it was perfectly legal.
What you are talking about is only an issue if a company uses it's monopoly in one industry to quell competition in another industry. If BMW was the only maker of cars, then they decided to also make tires and require all of their cars to use their BMW branded tires, yes, that'd be an issue.
But that's not what is going on here. Apple isn't a monopoly, or even a majority player in the device space OR the app space. If you don't like their practices, go pick up an Android device. The laws prefer to let the market it work it out, if it's possible. If you choose to keep buying Apple considering this, then please, quietly go away and lie down in the bed you've made for yourself.
Also, theres no such thing as BMW branded tires. Great analogy though it really hit home.
BMW can do anything they want. They can force you to use proprietary tires and wheels on their cars. Theres no law that would prevent that. You would buy another car though right? Anyone getting and ideas on how to handle the Apl!e {} Spotify issue? Hint: its not keep buying more App!e shit.
they have a monopoly over the eco system
and in other news, Kentucky Fried Chicken has a monopoly on the Kentucky Fried Chicked ecosystem. BMW has a monopoly of the BMW ecosystem as well. You see the point? The monopoly has to apply to the industry, and they don't have a monopoly in the industry. They aren't even a majority.
That's the danger of tying your business closely to someone else's business. They can pull the rug out from underneath you. It's really a case of nothing gained, nothing lost however. If Apple hadn't built their business, at Apple's expense and risk, Spotify wouldn't have a market there anyway.
It feels like there's a struggle for a few strips of bacon, and two lions are going to dual to the death for those two strips of bacon.
The difference is for Apple, a music service can be a loss leader that fulfills the goal of building out the Apple "ecosystem". They don't have to make money from it for it to be a winner. That's why they will win in the end. They'll strike disadvantageous copyright deals just to drive the little guys out of town.