The exact same week Telstra and Optus were awarded massive contracts to migrate their customers across to the NBN, they also 'volunteered' to implement the filters Conroy couldn't pass into law. iiNet (the third largest, nerd friendly ISP) flat our refused to implement censorship, and were coincidentally told that they wouldn't get any contracts.
I substitute a different one that, if one were to be uncharitable in a particular direction, could appear on your list:
I don't trust freemium services like this with important things.
If I'm trusting my private data to a company to store, or anything else equally important, I have no problem paying for it, and I don't want to share the service with a trillion and one freeloaders on the Internet that are going to divert my subscription fees away from... well, making sure stuff like this doesn't make it into production. Something like Carbonite or Mobile Me (I know, put the pitchforks down) depends on its paying customers to stay and keep paying. Freemium depends on enticing its free customers into becoming paying customers. These are different priorities.
I do have to admit that I have a LastPass account, but I do pay for the premium subscription, and I only signed up after doing a bunch of research; I'm confident that they've done things right as much as possible. With LastPass, I'm the weakest point in the chain (social engineering, weak master passwords, and physical access to local machines are the easy targets over trying to brute force the encrypted blob LP's servers receive when my vault syncs).
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Carbonite, Apple, or LastPass, okay?
Okay, I like you.:D You have very valid points, and I must concede that I definitely see your point. (Unlike brother SuperKendall who seems to just want to troll.)
Some of the app developers like this one recognize the mess and have started explaining the perms.
Yeah, I've noticed that, and that was my inspiration behind my suggestion of making it a mandatory policy, because I appreciate it when app devs do that. Yeah, they could be lying, but I'd prefer to at least get the explanation that "full internet access" is required for the ads rather than it just be sitting there for no apparent reason on an app that is not exactly network-centric.
I stand corrected (by both you and SuperKendall, who might've had problems reading the rest of my post). However, leaving aside bricked phones for whatever reason, I stand by the rest of my point. I believe users should be given the choice between the two (and hide the 'jailbroken Wild West' option where only power users are going to find it if need be) instead of this cat-and-mouse game with every update.
Okay, so you responded to me twice correcting my statement regarding bricking. That's about the only logical thing you said. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't follow my thread of logic instead of assuming you just didn't even read my post properly or that you're some kind of idiot.
What GP wants is the ability to choose, and be left alone if he does jailbreak his iOS device.
brave the Wild West without interference from King Jobs
Unlike you 90% of the populace does not wish to be gunned down in the streets, which is the world you would have them live in against their will - because you are against the CHOICE by users to live in that walled area if they they find it safer and more pleasant.
Uhh... no, my entire point is that users should be given the choice of EITHER an Apple-like walled garden OR the life of a jailbreaker... but that Apple (or Manufacturer X, in a broader sense) should respect the choice of people to jailbreak and make it an option. It should be hidden from the casual user (like Firefox's about:config or Android's "allow non-market packages" option), but it should be there. Please re-read that sentence and notice the 'or' separating the two clauses describing the two worlds.
bootloader lockdowns by individual manufacturers notwithstanding
Such hypocrisy... astounding.
Again, you seem to have misunderstood. I was referring to Android devices that are locked down by their manufacturer. The Android OS itself is designed to allow people to run non-market apps (the 'Wild West') via sideloading, but some manufacturers have restricted this option (and sometimes rooting altogether). THAT is what I was referring to, and I was acknowledging it because these locked-down devices contradict my statement about Android allowing you to run the apps of your choice outside the walled garden.
Maybe Google could require an ESRB -style disclosure on what permissions are needed for what (I say ESRB because game developers are required to submit a listing of content that may be offensive/suggestive/etc. with their application for a rating), with real penalties for screwing around. The disclosure could go with the app in the market, putting it up front in a more obvious way that, hey, this Angry Birds level unlocker app requires the ability to make phone calls for ____ reason. Yes, the malware developer could make up reasons and, if they're in, say, China, probably get away without a lawsuit or anything, it should be a red flag to even the least-savvy user. It'd help if it had a timer that prevented you from just rubber-stamping the install buttons without looking in the way that Firefox/etc. have for extension installs.
Remember that the first updates after the first jailbreaks would brick peoples' iPhones. Now, that's arguably a consequence of poorly-made jailbreaks, and I'll concede that, but some people did end up with shiny paperweights, and Apple (rightfully, according to their EULA) did not do much to help them. They also try and lock down any avenues that jailbreaks use to prevent simple re-jailbreaking after an update. Perhaps "actively hostile" was not the best term, but the point is, Apple certainly could facilitate jailbreaking with ease and with little additional drain on their own resources. Instead, they do everything they can (short of becoming a malicious actor and bricking devices when they detect jailbreaks, which would be a PR armageddon for them) to restrict and prevent it with no compromise offered.
I personally choose not to be a part of Apple's annual obsolescence cycle, but if Android didn't exist I'm afraid that I would have an iPhone.
I've noticed that from the beginning. All the apps offering (IP-infringing) ringtones and soundboards, pretty much from day one, never mind pirated ebooks and so on. I think Google's strategy is kind of the Youtube/safe harbour policy: Let people decide what they want to see, take things down on complaints.
I'm not saying this is the smartest idea, because I tend to be quite wary about any app that has permissions I can't immediately determine (why does a calculator need full network access? Okay, perhaps ads, but I don't know that), but that appears to be their strategy.
I think you misunderstand GP's point. Apple is actively hostile against jailbreaking (bricked device, anyone?). What GP wants is the ability to choose, and be left alone if he does jailbreak his iOS device.
Shelter in the safety of Apple's curated store, or brave the Wild West without interference from King Jobs. Android does the latter (bootloader lockdowns by individual manufacturers notwithstanding), but not the former. Amazon is starting to supply the former for Android. GP is saying that Apple should consider following their example.
Good God, you're stupid. I hope for your sake that you actually are a paid astroturfer, because then at least you'll be doing something that's useful to someone.
And you are right about MS, they would never do something like what Sony did. When MS want's to remove a feature they just discontinue the old model and create a new one, with no, or limited compatibility between. And they certainly wouldn't offer a free upgrade path, no matter how unpalatable the option is.
Oh! You mean like the PSP Go! Yeah, that does sound familiar.
Uh what? The PS3 Slim was a refresh of the PS3 with OtherOS and backwards compatibility removed out of the box, and this was stated up-front. What Sony did was remove advertised software functionality from products already lawfully purchased and in the possession of its customers. Well, okay, that's not true. It issued an ultimatum: Allow us to remove one feature (OtherOS), or we'll remove several features (online play, access to the PSN store, any games requiring updates after that update). The Playstation 3 is the only console I've ever seen to deliberately lose features on an ongoing basis in the middle of its normal lifecycle.
Yes, practically nobody developed for the original Xbox after the Xbox 360 came out, but the two are vastly different in terms of hardware capability. You trying to draw a comparison between two generations of Microsoft gaming hardware and the PS3/PS3 Slim change is disingenious, and if you can't see that you're too young or simple to be on the Internet. Let's compare the Xbox 360 to the new Xbox 360 Slim, if that's what you want to do. It is smaller, has a quieter fan, and has built-in wireless networking, which was not present without an accessory for the original 360. The two are fully compatible otherwise. No missing software, no limitations on playing new games, and as far as I know, it offers the same backwards compatibility title list as the original 360.
And if Microsoft had advertised installing your own OS, legally, on the 360, and then later removed that option unilaterally, I'd be pissed off at them, too. But they didn't, Sony did, and Sony is handling this with lawyers instead of brains.
Hold on. You're calling "the ability to play new PS3 titles" a new feature that was offered when they removed OtherOS? What the fuck marketing kool-aid did you drink? If I buy Brand X game console, I expect it to work with every Brand X console game (leaving special peripherals out of the picture). Microsoft has twice overhauled the Xbox 360 dashboard (a software feature of the console). If you wanted to continue to play online, you had to update to the new dashboard, I imagine for compatibility reasons with Live, but you wouldn't be incapable of playing newer store-bought game discs on it if you decided not to update.
I'm reminded of one of the first system updates for the PS3. It included the line Increased compatibility with PS3 titles. These are the geniuses we're dealing with, here.
It's my understanding that people had discovered how to circumvent the hypervisor's prohibition on using hardware graphics acceleration in OtherOS. Sony intentionally crippled 3D acceleration in OtherOS to prevent homebrew games competing with their library. Whether or not they were in the right to do this, someone decided this was stupid and worked out a way around it. Sony overreacted and pulled OtherOS. And pissed off people that were otherwise content with their hardware. And that started the war that exposed their hardware security model and revealed the root signing keys. It's DeCSS all over again, except that geohot happened to be in lawsuit range. Sony is trying to close the door after the horse, four cows, and drunken wayward hobo have left the barn.
No, you file a DMCA takedown notice, because that's how you start a copyright claim on the Internet, you idiot. That's coincidentally the entire reason the DMCA was created--because the old model of copyright infringement wasn't capable of keeping up with the speed (instant) of copying in digital formats. Take it to small claims like you suggest, see the judge smack you for wasting his time.
And I'm not even in the US, so I don't even have to deal with the DMCA, ever. Get it together, AC, and think before you open your mouth.
Besides, we make games out of anything. If there's a task that's a pain to get done, making it into a game makes it fun and seem to go by faster. Children can make games out of almost anything when inspired to (still haven't figured out how to make a game out of my little brother's chores around the house; he leaves it all for mom to do), and it seems to just be a part of our nature as humans. I think Dignan might be trying to make himself the next Malcolm Gladwell, but for business-related audiences.
Slashdot Mirror
These people aren't stupid, and they're on what amounts to be their own home turf.
Hell, the Russians failed to do what America is trying to do.
The exact same week Telstra and Optus were awarded massive contracts to migrate their customers across to the NBN, they also 'volunteered' to implement the filters Conroy couldn't pass into law. iiNet (the third largest, nerd friendly ISP) flat our refused to implement censorship, and were coincidentally told that they wouldn't get any contracts.
Quelle surprise.
Mod me flamebait or offtopic of you would like, mods, but I think it's worth the possible karma hit to say this:
APK, shut the fuck up and find a hobby that does not involve the Internet.
*ahem* There. That feels much better.
Have you ever considered that you're a rabid Apple fanboy, and also annoying?
Wait, I'm clearly an Apple Hater, so my opinion doesn't matter. Imma go cut myself now and cry on Steve Ballmer's shoes.
I substitute a different one that, if one were to be uncharitable in a particular direction, could appear on your list:
I don't trust freemium services like this with important things.
If I'm trusting my private data to a company to store, or anything else equally important, I have no problem paying for it, and I don't want to share the service with a trillion and one freeloaders on the Internet that are going to divert my subscription fees away from... well, making sure stuff like this doesn't make it into production. Something like Carbonite or Mobile Me (I know, put the pitchforks down) depends on its paying customers to stay and keep paying. Freemium depends on enticing its free customers into becoming paying customers. These are different priorities.
I do have to admit that I have a LastPass account, but I do pay for the premium subscription, and I only signed up after doing a bunch of research; I'm confident that they've done things right as much as possible. With LastPass, I'm the weakest point in the chain (social engineering, weak master passwords, and physical access to local machines are the easy targets over trying to brute force the encrypted blob LP's servers receive when my vault syncs).
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Carbonite, Apple, or LastPass, okay?
Okay, I like you. :D You have very valid points, and I must concede that I definitely see your point. (Unlike brother SuperKendall who seems to just want to troll.)
No more food for you, jackass.
Some of the app developers like this one recognize the mess and have started explaining the perms.
Yeah, I've noticed that, and that was my inspiration behind my suggestion of making it a mandatory policy, because I appreciate it when app devs do that. Yeah, they could be lying, but I'd prefer to at least get the explanation that "full internet access" is required for the ads rather than it just be sitting there for no apparent reason on an app that is not exactly network-centric.
I stand corrected (by both you and SuperKendall, who might've had problems reading the rest of my post). However, leaving aside bricked phones for whatever reason, I stand by the rest of my point. I believe users should be given the choice between the two (and hide the 'jailbroken Wild West' option where only power users are going to find it if need be) instead of this cat-and-mouse game with every update.
What GP wants is the ability to choose, and be left alone if he does jailbreak his iOS device.
brave the Wild West without interference from King Jobs
Unlike you 90% of the populace does not wish to be gunned down in the streets, which is the world you would have them live in against their will - because you are against the CHOICE by users to live in that walled area if they they find it safer and more pleasant.
Uhh... no, my entire point is that users should be given the choice of EITHER an Apple-like walled garden OR the life of a jailbreaker... but that Apple (or Manufacturer X, in a broader sense) should respect the choice of people to jailbreak and make it an option. It should be hidden from the casual user (like Firefox's about:config or Android's "allow non-market packages" option), but it should be there. Please re-read that sentence and notice the 'or' separating the two clauses describing the two worlds.
bootloader lockdowns by individual manufacturers notwithstanding
Such hypocrisy... astounding.
Again, you seem to have misunderstood. I was referring to Android devices that are locked down by their manufacturer. The Android OS itself is designed to allow people to run non-market apps (the 'Wild West') via sideloading, but some manufacturers have restricted this option (and sometimes rooting altogether). THAT is what I was referring to, and I was acknowledging it because these locked-down devices contradict my statement about Android allowing you to run the apps of your choice outside the walled garden.
Not that a closed store stops crap from happening, mind you. Lessens, perhaps, but not stops.
Maybe Google could require an ESRB -style disclosure on what permissions are needed for what (I say ESRB because game developers are required to submit a listing of content that may be offensive/suggestive/etc. with their application for a rating), with real penalties for screwing around. The disclosure could go with the app in the market, putting it up front in a more obvious way that, hey, this Angry Birds level unlocker app requires the ability to make phone calls for ____ reason. Yes, the malware developer could make up reasons and, if they're in, say, China, probably get away without a lawsuit or anything, it should be a red flag to even the least-savvy user. It'd help if it had a timer that prevented you from just rubber-stamping the install buttons without looking in the way that Firefox/etc. have for extension installs.
Remember that the first updates after the first jailbreaks would brick peoples' iPhones. Now, that's arguably a consequence of poorly-made jailbreaks, and I'll concede that, but some people did end up with shiny paperweights, and Apple (rightfully, according to their EULA) did not do much to help them. They also try and lock down any avenues that jailbreaks use to prevent simple re-jailbreaking after an update. Perhaps "actively hostile" was not the best term, but the point is, Apple certainly could facilitate jailbreaking with ease and with little additional drain on their own resources. Instead, they do everything they can (short of becoming a malicious actor and bricking devices when they detect jailbreaks, which would be a PR armageddon for them) to restrict and prevent it with no compromise offered.
I personally choose not to be a part of Apple's annual obsolescence cycle, but if Android didn't exist I'm afraid that I would have an iPhone.
I've noticed that from the beginning. All the apps offering (IP-infringing) ringtones and soundboards, pretty much from day one, never mind pirated ebooks and so on. I think Google's strategy is kind of the Youtube/safe harbour policy: Let people decide what they want to see, take things down on complaints.
I'm not saying this is the smartest idea, because I tend to be quite wary about any app that has permissions I can't immediately determine (why does a calculator need full network access? Okay, perhaps ads, but I don't know that), but that appears to be their strategy.
I think you misunderstand GP's point. Apple is actively hostile against jailbreaking (bricked device, anyone?). What GP wants is the ability to choose, and be left alone if he does jailbreak his iOS device. Shelter in the safety of Apple's curated store, or brave the Wild West without interference from King Jobs. Android does the latter (bootloader lockdowns by individual manufacturers notwithstanding), but not the former. Amazon is starting to supply the former for Android. GP is saying that Apple should consider following their example.
Let me guess, you're an Apple zealot?
I would've said "Republican," but to each their prejudices, I suppose.
And you are right about MS, they would never do something like what Sony did. When MS want's to remove a feature they just discontinue the old model and create a new one, with no, or limited compatibility between. And they certainly wouldn't offer a free upgrade path, no matter how unpalatable the option is.
Oh! You mean like the PSP Go! Yeah, that does sound familiar.
Uh what? The PS3 Slim was a refresh of the PS3 with OtherOS and backwards compatibility removed out of the box, and this was stated up-front. What Sony did was remove advertised software functionality from products already lawfully purchased and in the possession of its customers. Well, okay, that's not true. It issued an ultimatum: Allow us to remove one feature (OtherOS), or we'll remove several features (online play, access to the PSN store, any games requiring updates after that update). The Playstation 3 is the only console I've ever seen to deliberately lose features on an ongoing basis in the middle of its normal lifecycle.
Yes, practically nobody developed for the original Xbox after the Xbox 360 came out, but the two are vastly different in terms of hardware capability. You trying to draw a comparison between two generations of Microsoft gaming hardware and the PS3/PS3 Slim change is disingenious, and if you can't see that you're too young or simple to be on the Internet. Let's compare the Xbox 360 to the new Xbox 360 Slim, if that's what you want to do. It is smaller, has a quieter fan, and has built-in wireless networking, which was not present without an accessory for the original 360. The two are fully compatible otherwise. No missing software, no limitations on playing new games, and as far as I know, it offers the same backwards compatibility title list as the original 360.
And if Microsoft had advertised installing your own OS, legally, on the 360, and then later removed that option unilaterally, I'd be pissed off at them, too. But they didn't, Sony did, and Sony is handling this with lawyers instead of brains.
Hold on. You're calling "the ability to play new PS3 titles" a new feature that was offered when they removed OtherOS? What the fuck marketing kool-aid did you drink? If I buy Brand X game console, I expect it to work with every Brand X console game (leaving special peripherals out of the picture). Microsoft has twice overhauled the Xbox 360 dashboard (a software feature of the console). If you wanted to continue to play online, you had to update to the new dashboard, I imagine for compatibility reasons with Live, but you wouldn't be incapable of playing newer store-bought game discs on it if you decided not to update.
I'm reminded of one of the first system updates for the PS3. It included the line Increased compatibility with PS3 titles. These are the geniuses we're dealing with, here.
It's my understanding that people had discovered how to circumvent the hypervisor's prohibition on using hardware graphics acceleration in OtherOS. Sony intentionally crippled 3D acceleration in OtherOS to prevent homebrew games competing with their library. Whether or not they were in the right to do this, someone decided this was stupid and worked out a way around it. Sony overreacted and pulled OtherOS. And pissed off people that were otherwise content with their hardware. And that started the war that exposed their hardware security model and revealed the root signing keys. It's DeCSS all over again, except that geohot happened to be in lawsuit range. Sony is trying to close the door after the horse, four cows, and drunken wayward hobo have left the barn.
No, you file a DMCA takedown notice, because that's how you start a copyright claim on the Internet, you idiot. That's coincidentally the entire reason the DMCA was created--because the old model of copyright infringement wasn't capable of keeping up with the speed (instant) of copying in digital formats. Take it to small claims like you suggest, see the judge smack you for wasting his time.
And I'm not even in the US, so I don't even have to deal with the DMCA, ever. Get it together, AC, and think before you open your mouth.
Friendship is magic.
Press [A|B|X|Y] to Jason
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
WINNING!
So it's an unusual verbed form of "Game theory," then? I guess "gamification" is better than "game theorified."
Besides, we make games out of anything. If there's a task that's a pain to get done, making it into a game makes it fun and seem to go by faster. Children can make games out of almost anything when inspired to (still haven't figured out how to make a game out of my little brother's chores around the house; he leaves it all for mom to do), and it seems to just be a part of our nature as humans. I think Dignan might be trying to make himself the next Malcolm Gladwell, but for business-related audiences.