i see you aren't able to parse that statement from t-mobile. let me try to dumb it down for you. they say that if you go above some consumption level under your "unlimited" data plan, they will throttle your throughput.
yes, i realize the pipe is only so big. so if there was a 1Mbps pipe and 2 people, they'd each get 0.5Mbps. but that's not what t-mo is saying. they are saying that one person will get 0.8Mbps, and the other heavy data consumer will get 0.2Mbps. that's throttling.
i didn't make any claim about whether this is good, bad, necessary, or otherwise. but the few folks here crowing about their unlimited t-mo plans should understand what it means.
Unless you're an egotistical dick who thinks you should have everything and everyone else can just live off your scraps
I'd say the person who ends up with your $50 by creating artificial barriers is smarter still.
i hope you are willing to have all of your monetary expenditures in life examined. i wonder if anyone, perhaps even myself, wouldn't approve of all of them?
When you go into a store, you don't pay to jump to the head of the checkout line
you sure that analogy works? i can pay to go to the head of the line in airport. i can pay to go to the head of the line at a ski resort. i can pay to skip the line at amusement parks.
It's how leaderboards work in some of these games -- pay money, and you're shown near the top; stop paying and suddenly you start falling
there are all sorts of competitive aspects of society where money can help you obtain success. one most obvious example is sports and access to the latest technology in training and nutrition (and possibly performance enhancing drugs).
really, if you aren't able to have fun in life because you perceive that playing field isn't 100% level, you are going to be a very unhappy person.
No you don't pay for Binge On, but I bet that T-Mobile gets a kickback from HBO, Netflix, Hulu for those better speeds.
um, what? HBO, Netflix et al. pay T-Mobile to have their content quality degraded?
it's pretty simple. video is by far the largest source of congestion on the internet. letting people stream longer at capped speeds is a net win. not only that, it's marketed as a feature. a feature that ends up de-congesting their networks.
If you want your service to only be viewable under your conditions don't join, if you're willing to let T-Mobile alter bitrates and such you can sign up and become part of the service.
except they throttle ALL video transmission, even that of non-Binge On(tm) providers. they throttle it, but it still counts against your cap. that's why Youtube is up in arms.
oh, and the throttling extends to providers whose service doesn't support downgraded video. so if the stream is 1080p and can't be downgraded, you'll get excessive buffering / stuttering in playback.
They advertise that. It costs $95/month and you get what you pay for.
not really.
Unlimited 4G LTE customers who use more than 23 GB of data in a bill cycle will have their data usage de-prioritized compared to other customers for that bill cycle at locations and times when competing network demands occur, resulting in relatively slower speeds. See t-mobile.com/OpenInternet for details.
Unlimited 4G LTE customers who use more than 23 GB of data in a bill cycle will have their data usage de-prioritized compared to other customers for that bill cycle at locations and times when competing network demands occur, resulting in relatively slower speeds. See t-mobile.com/OpenInternet for details.
You'd be screaming holy hell if prices jumped from $300/jump to $5,000 per jump
no he wouldn't. he'd find a new hobby. or more realistically, he'd have known the price was too rich for his blood before he got involved and avoided it all together.
WHO demanded fee-to-play (they certainly aren't free) games? Nobody I know fucking did, and most I know hate it.
one thing i know is true for a fact: game companies will do whatever makes them the most money. if they could make more profit from classic PTP, they'd be doing that.
Tell me, when did we ask for this shit?
by downloading FTP games and making in-app purchases?
Then off course, came the ability to "pay" for unlocks, so you had the ability to play 10,000h for a sniper scope or pay in order to compete with the fucking rich kids who bought them at $50
who do you think has the problem? the guy with $50 to spend or the guy with 10,000 hours to play? if i spend what amounts to about an hour's wages for something that takes 10k hours to unlock, it seems like a pretty smart move to me.
I mean if you can fleece someone for $500 on a game that no one would pay $60 for - good for you you've scammed someone but $5000+ is criminal (or rather should be).
consenting adults should be able to spend their money on whatever they want. just because you don't approve of the purchase doesn't mean it's a scam. if some saudi prince wants to spend $10k / day on clash of clans, you think we should stop him?
but that's not even what we're talking about here. we're talking about when non-consenting children authorize the purchases. there are plenty of controls in place to prevent that, but even if you screw up apple gives you one pass. this is a non-issue. this fellow had his money refunded and probably spent some time researching the security functions of his new ipad. crisis averted. move on.
My ISP hasn't built their entire business on collecting as much information as possible and selling it to advertisers.
any company that has the ability to collect personal data is doing so. phone, TV, PC, or any other smart device that can phone home does phone home. whether they are utilizing it to the extent google does is another question, but every one of them aspires to grab a piece of google's pie.
more Google FUD. please link to the evidence that google has sold your personal data, or has lost it in a breach.
google doesn't sell your data. they collect it and use it to serve you ads. it's google that decides which ads to point at you, not the advertiser. and i don't need an auditor to prove that to me since it's common sense. data is google's most (only?) valuable asset. they aren't going to sell it off, and they will darn sure safeguard it for the same reason. they like money. they want to keep getting money. pretty simple.
Kickstarter pages are not product descriptions. They are ideas, or visions for what a product / service COULD be if they receive the funding. They are not guarantees of features or even a completed product of any sort. Kickstarter isn't store where people advertise their cool new products for sale. You weren't buying a product. You were funding a possibility.
You are upset because they had a concept for a feature (motion tracking, object avoidance) that didn't get implemented. It's perfectly reasonable to put out a video of what "could be" if the product was funded. It's not a guarantee of what will be done if the product is funded. Maybe do some investigation into what it takes to bring a hardware / software product to consumers. It's f****** HARD. Companies fail at it all the time.
Like I said, looking at their promo materials and progress it's pretty clear they made a reasonable go at it. It wasn't a scam, they just failed.
I'd suggest not involving yourself in Kickstarter. If you like an idea, wait for it to come to market. Follow independent reviews of the product to understand if it will meet your expectations. It's the course that most consumers follow.
Also, the video from the demo camera is jerky, with dropped frames. This is in ideal conditions - indoors. And as people who got units have pointed out, it's not HD. And the app doesn't work properly. All this and more by users.
absolutely, but creating a product that doesn't work well isn't the same as "scamming". folks here are claiming this was all a big smoke and mirrors campaign. i looked through a lot of their promotional videos and they clearly have prototypes working. i'm curious what people think? that they had this devious plan to poorly implement the product... over 3 years of their lives... and what? rathole some of the money by cutting corners?
as for the biker video, there's such a thing s concept videos. if the product was finished and perfect, what was the kickstarter for? sounds like you thought you were purchasing a completed product off of amazon or something. that's not how it works.
On that note, is kickstarter going to return the profit they made from this scam?
Just because it failed doesn't mean it's a scam. It was super ambitious and it failed. 3.5, USD is peanuts for a project that involves (flying) hardware, firmware, and smartphone controller apps across 2 platforms.
Their Linked profile says they have 11-50 employees. Half of the 3.5m would have gone to salaries. Ramen is fine for the founders but the engineers, designers, tech writers, marketing, QA, etc. won't work for nothing.
i guess anything could be faked, but this really doesn't look like it. the video doesn't show anything special for sure, but it seems like proof they at least tried to build a product.
3.5m USD is nothing when it comes to hardware. i don't know much about manufacturing, but i do know it's really, really hard. triple that when it comes to something with moving parts. it's completely plausible that they built a few semi-working prototypes, but taking it to a quality consumer product was just too far of a stretch.
i guess anything could be faked, but this really doesn't look like it. the video doesn't show anything special for sure, but it seems like proof they at least tried to build a product.
3.5m USD is nothing when it comes to hardware. i don't know much about manufacturing, but i do know it's really, really hard. triple that when it comes to something with moving parts.
duh, wha? you mean peoples don't all eat meet? me so dummy. ah yes, another vegan / vegetarian that is butt hurt when someone references eating meat. poor you. when will society learn not to speak of eating meat anywhere where you might read it!?!?
anyway, if the issue was that the president was eating meat period, you'd be talking about that, not how he's a dog eater.
Slashdot Mirror
Throttling means slowing transmission to a predetermined rate
you have to be kidding me. so it's not throttling, because they are reducing the speed at a dynamic rate? please.
i see you aren't able to parse that statement from t-mobile. let me try to dumb it down for you. they say that if you go above some consumption level under your "unlimited" data plan, they will throttle your throughput.
yes, i realize the pipe is only so big. so if there was a 1Mbps pipe and 2 people, they'd each get 0.5Mbps. but that's not what t-mo is saying. they are saying that one person will get 0.8Mbps, and the other heavy data consumer will get 0.2Mbps. that's throttling.
i didn't make any claim about whether this is good, bad, necessary, or otherwise. but the few folks here crowing about their unlimited t-mo plans should understand what it means.
Unless you're an egotistical dick who thinks you should have everything and everyone else can just live off your scraps
who told you? damn.
I'd say the person who ends up with your $50 by creating artificial barriers is smarter still.
i hope you are willing to have all of your monetary expenditures in life examined. i wonder if anyone, perhaps even myself, wouldn't approve of all of them?
When you go into a store, you don't pay to jump to the head of the checkout line
you sure that analogy works? i can pay to go to the head of the line in airport. i can pay to go to the head of the line at a ski resort. i can pay to skip the line at amusement parks.
It's how leaderboards work in some of these games -- pay money, and you're shown near the top; stop paying and suddenly you start falling
there are all sorts of competitive aspects of society where money can help you obtain success. one most obvious example is sports and access to the latest technology in training and nutrition (and possibly performance enhancing drugs).
really, if you aren't able to have fun in life because you perceive that playing field isn't 100% level, you are going to be a very unhappy person.
No you don't pay for Binge On, but I bet that T-Mobile gets a kickback from HBO, Netflix, Hulu for those better speeds.
um, what? HBO, Netflix et al. pay T-Mobile to have their content quality degraded?
it's pretty simple. video is by far the largest source of congestion on the internet. letting people stream longer at capped speeds is a net win. not only that, it's marketed as a feature. a feature that ends up de-congesting their networks.
If you want your service to only be viewable under your conditions don't join, if you're willing to let T-Mobile alter bitrates and such you can sign up and become part of the service.
except they throttle ALL video transmission, even that of non-Binge On(tm) providers. they throttle it, but it still counts against your cap. that's why Youtube is up in arms.
oh, and the throttling extends to providers whose service doesn't support downgraded video. so if the stream is 1080p and can't be downgraded, you'll get excessive buffering / stuttering in playback.
They advertise that. It costs $95/month and you get what you pay for.
not really.
Unlimited 4G LTE customers who use more than 23 GB of data in a bill cycle will have their data usage de-prioritized compared to other customers for that bill cycle at locations and times when competing network demands occur, resulting in relatively slower speeds. See t-mobile.com/OpenInternet for details.
Unlimited 4G LTE customers who use more than 23 GB of data in a bill cycle will have their data usage de-prioritized compared to other customers for that bill cycle at locations and times when competing network demands occur, resulting in relatively slower speeds. See t-mobile.com/OpenInternet for details.
oops.
You'd be screaming holy hell if prices jumped from $300/jump to $5,000 per jump
no he wouldn't. he'd find a new hobby. or more realistically, he'd have known the price was too rich for his blood before he got involved and avoided it all together.
As a society, the rest of us just laugh at their stupidity; even when they are living paycheque to paycheque or worse.
speak for yourself jerkoff.
you are describing the economic basis of our entire society. seriously.
WHO demanded fee-to-play (they certainly aren't free) games? Nobody I know fucking did, and most I know hate it.
one thing i know is true for a fact: game companies will do whatever makes them the most money. if they could make more profit from classic PTP, they'd be doing that.
Tell me, when did we ask for this shit?
by downloading FTP games and making in-app purchases?
Then off course, came the ability to "pay" for unlocks, so you had the ability to play 10,000h for a sniper scope or pay in order to compete with the fucking rich kids who bought them at $50
who do you think has the problem? the guy with $50 to spend or the guy with 10,000 hours to play? if i spend what amounts to about an hour's wages for something that takes 10k hours to unlock, it seems like a pretty smart move to me.
A cap of say $1,000/game would mean that you'd be generating $649,250 - a very respectable amount that is easy to make a business case for.
yes, because if as a parent, my child only manages to authorize $1000 i'm not going to have a problem ... oh wait. that doesn't solve anything.
I mean if you can fleece someone for $500 on a game that no one would pay $60 for - good for you you've scammed someone but $5000+ is criminal (or rather should be).
consenting adults should be able to spend their money on whatever they want. just because you don't approve of the purchase doesn't mean it's a scam. if some saudi prince wants to spend $10k / day on clash of clans, you think we should stop him?
but that's not even what we're talking about here. we're talking about when non-consenting children authorize the purchases. there are plenty of controls in place to prevent that, but even if you screw up apple gives you one pass. this is a non-issue. this fellow had his money refunded and probably spent some time researching the security functions of his new ipad. crisis averted. move on.
My ISP hasn't built their entire business on collecting as much information as possible and selling it to advertisers.
any company that has the ability to collect personal data is doing so. phone, TV, PC, or any other smart device that can phone home does phone home. whether they are utilizing it to the extent google does is another question, but every one of them aspires to grab a piece of google's pie.
don't mistake business incompetence for altruism.
more Google FUD. please link to the evidence that google has sold your personal data, or has lost it in a breach.
google doesn't sell your data. they collect it and use it to serve you ads. it's google that decides which ads to point at you, not the advertiser. and i don't need an auditor to prove that to me since it's common sense. data is google's most (only?) valuable asset. they aren't going to sell it off, and they will darn sure safeguard it for the same reason. they like money. they want to keep getting money. pretty simple.
Kickstarter pages are not product descriptions. They are ideas, or visions for what a product / service COULD be if they receive the funding. They are not guarantees of features or even a completed product of any sort. Kickstarter isn't store where people advertise their cool new products for sale. You weren't buying a product. You were funding a possibility.
You are upset because they had a concept for a feature (motion tracking, object avoidance) that didn't get implemented. It's perfectly reasonable to put out a video of what "could be" if the product was funded. It's not a guarantee of what will be done if the product is funded. Maybe do some investigation into what it takes to bring a hardware / software product to consumers. It's f****** HARD. Companies fail at it all the time.
Like I said, looking at their promo materials and progress it's pretty clear they made a reasonable go at it. It wasn't a scam, they just failed.
I'd suggest not involving yourself in Kickstarter. If you like an idea, wait for it to come to market. Follow independent reviews of the product to understand if it will meet your expectations. It's the course that most consumers follow.
Also, the video from the demo camera is jerky, with dropped frames. This is in ideal conditions - indoors. And as people who got units have pointed out, it's not HD. And the app doesn't work properly. All this and more by users.
absolutely, but creating a product that doesn't work well isn't the same as "scamming". folks here are claiming this was all a big smoke and mirrors campaign. i looked through a lot of their promotional videos and they clearly have prototypes working. i'm curious what people think? that they had this devious plan to poorly implement the product ... over 3 years of their lives ... and what? rathole some of the money by cutting corners?
as for the biker video, there's such a thing s concept videos. if the product was finished and perfect, what was the kickstarter for? sounds like you thought you were purchasing a completed product off of amazon or something. that's not how it works.
On that note, is kickstarter going to return the profit they made from this scam?
Just because it failed doesn't mean it's a scam. It was super ambitious and it failed. 3.5, USD is peanuts for a project that involves (flying) hardware, firmware, and smartphone controller apps across 2 platforms.
Their Linked profile says they have 11-50 employees. Half of the 3.5m would have gone to salaries. Ramen is fine for the founders but the engineers, designers, tech writers, marketing, QA, etc. won't work for nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
i guess anything could be faked, but this really doesn't look like it. the video doesn't show anything special for sure, but it seems like proof they at least tried to build a product.
3.5m USD is nothing when it comes to hardware. i don't know much about manufacturing, but i do know it's really, really hard. triple that when it comes to something with moving parts. it's completely plausible that they built a few semi-working prototypes, but taking it to a quality consumer product was just too far of a stretch.
they built flyable drones and built the smartphone app to control it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
i guess anything could be faked, but this really doesn't look like it. the video doesn't show anything special for sure, but it seems like proof they at least tried to build a product.
3.5m USD is nothing when it comes to hardware. i don't know much about manufacturing, but i do know it's really, really hard. triple that when it comes to something with moving parts.
Not when there's fraudulent misrepresentation involved. The promo video they showed everyone was totally fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
doesn't look faked to me.
But more importantly, the victim is the person in genuine need who I can no longer help since I have a maximum amount of charity that I can give
So after wresting with your consciousness, you decided to buy a neato app controlled drone with an HD camera instead of donating to charity?
That's not what I use Linux for.
that's nice, but the point is that there's a company that *is* trying to us linux for that, and it's failing (in comparison).
duh, wha? you mean peoples don't all eat meet? me so dummy. ah yes, another vegan / vegetarian that is butt hurt when someone references eating meat. poor you. when will society learn not to speak of eating meat anywhere where you might read it!?!?
anyway, if the issue was that the president was eating meat period, you'd be talking about that, not how he's a dog eater.