Apple charges a fee to processors to use their service. Do a Google search.
Credit card companies charge merchants a fee to use their cards. Do a Google search.
The product hasn't been released yet and won't be until the 2nd quarter of 2015. They have plenty of time to get their ducks in a row. The information on the website isn't up-to-date.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe...
When the product is released, they won't require you provide SSN, drivers license number or heath data. That is just nonsensical FUD. Again, they aren't stupid... they want you to use the service... not give people excuses not to use it.
Regarding, why would you use it in the first place... the answer to that is discounts and promotions. That will be the carrot they use to gain adoption.
CurrentC will support all the major credit cards and you'll be able to choose which one you want to use... just like Google Wallet does now. The Merchants of course would love for you to use a debit card or their own store card, but they aren't stupid. They'll also support credit cards just to gain adoption. They won't be out any additional $$$ over what they would have to pay if people just used a credit card in the first place and they'll avoid the additional fee that Apple Pay requires.
I also predict that if it catches on, Google Wallet will also support it. Google doesn't care one way or another. They just want people to use their app.
Apple on the other hand won't like it because they won't be getting their F-U fee.
This has irked me for years. As the ruling states when you boot the machine for the first time you are asked to accept the terms of the software license. Clearly, if you don't you are being forced to pay for something you aren't using. As other comments have noted, in other countries you are made to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops to get your money back. This should also be illegal. Clearly the end result of this is simply to enrich Microsoft and allow them to provide Windows at a lower cost by making everyone pay for it, whether they use it or not. It's an unfair monopolistic practice.
Hope springs eternal that they will reverse this decision, but considering the strange lack of attention that Google seems to be giving to Linux it's not surprising. Another example is lack of Google Drive support. Dropbox, Copy, and Mega have clients. There is also support for Drive via third party developer Insync. If these companies can do it, Google obviously could. Another reason to give Firefox some love. I'm waiting for Google to drop Chrome for Linux.
So you're saying for you the difference is you find Google services more valuable than Facebook and how dare they try to encourage anyone to try a new service. There are many sites now that REQUIRE you to have a facebook account. Some businesses REQUIRE a Facebook account to enter contests. Again no one gets rabid about that. It's just silly.
No one seems to be foaming at the mouth about the ubiquitous "sign on with Facebook" feature many sites have which FORCE you to have a Facebook account in order to use their service.
That would be because people can live without the ability to comment on those sites. It's harder (not impossible, but harder) to live without the ability to comment on Google-owned sites.
A bunch of sites are requiring you to have a Facebook account to take advantage of their services. You dismiss it by saying those sites aren't important anyway? Regarding commenting on Google sites, they use a unified comment engine tied to your Google Account. None of those comments have to be pushed to G+...it's voluntary. You aren't forced to do it - whereas, you are being FORCED to signup with Facebook. Again, pure and simple this is just FUD.
You know, I really don't understand the hate out there about #GooglePlus. It reminds me of all the right wing attacks (which are still going on btw) about the ACA. You were never forced to use #G +. No one seems to be foaming at the mouth about the ubiquitous "sign on with Facebook" feature many sites have which FORCE you to have a Facebook account in order to use their service. I believe it is all "feigned" outrage generated by the marketing teams of #Facebook , Apple and Microsoft and their associated media outlets to just spread #FUD . I'm somewhat surprised that people bought it hook, line and sinker.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple charges a fee to processors to use their service. Do a Google search. Credit card companies charge merchants a fee to use their cards. Do a Google search.
The product hasn't been released yet and won't be until the 2nd quarter of 2015. They have plenty of time to get their ducks in a row. The information on the website isn't up-to-date. http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe...
When the product is released, they won't require you provide SSN, drivers license number or heath data. That is just nonsensical FUD. Again, they aren't stupid... they want you to use the service... not give people excuses not to use it. Regarding, why would you use it in the first place... the answer to that is discounts and promotions. That will be the carrot they use to gain adoption.
CurrentC will support all the major credit cards and you'll be able to choose which one you want to use... just like Google Wallet does now. The Merchants of course would love for you to use a debit card or their own store card, but they aren't stupid. They'll also support credit cards just to gain adoption. They won't be out any additional $$$ over what they would have to pay if people just used a credit card in the first place and they'll avoid the additional fee that Apple Pay requires. I also predict that if it catches on, Google Wallet will also support it. Google doesn't care one way or another. They just want people to use their app. Apple on the other hand won't like it because they won't be getting their F-U fee.
This has irked me for years. As the ruling states when you boot the machine for the first time you are asked to accept the terms of the software license. Clearly, if you don't you are being forced to pay for something you aren't using. As other comments have noted, in other countries you are made to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops to get your money back. This should also be illegal. Clearly the end result of this is simply to enrich Microsoft and allow them to provide Windows at a lower cost by making everyone pay for it, whether they use it or not. It's an unfair monopolistic practice.
Hope springs eternal that they will reverse this decision, but considering the strange lack of attention that Google seems to be giving to Linux it's not surprising. Another example is lack of Google Drive support. Dropbox, Copy, and Mega have clients. There is also support for Drive via third party developer Insync. If these companies can do it, Google obviously could. Another reason to give Firefox some love. I'm waiting for Google to drop Chrome for Linux.
So you're saying for you the difference is you find Google services more valuable than Facebook and how dare they try to encourage anyone to try a new service. There are many sites now that REQUIRE you to have a facebook account. Some businesses REQUIRE a Facebook account to enter contests. Again no one gets rabid about that. It's just silly.
No one seems to be foaming at the mouth about the ubiquitous "sign on with Facebook" feature many sites have which FORCE you to have a Facebook account in order to use their service.
That would be because people can live without the ability to comment on those sites. It's harder (not impossible, but harder) to live without the ability to comment on Google-owned sites.
A bunch of sites are requiring you to have a Facebook account to take advantage of their services. You dismiss it by saying those sites aren't important anyway? Regarding commenting on Google sites, they use a unified comment engine tied to your Google Account. None of those comments have to be pushed to G+...it's voluntary. You aren't forced to do it - whereas, you are being FORCED to signup with Facebook. Again, pure and simple this is just FUD.
You know, I really don't understand the hate out there about #GooglePlus. It reminds me of all the right wing attacks (which are still going on btw) about the ACA. You were never forced to use #G +. No one seems to be foaming at the mouth about the ubiquitous "sign on with Facebook" feature many sites have which FORCE you to have a Facebook account in order to use their service. I believe it is all "feigned" outrage generated by the marketing teams of #Facebook , Apple and Microsoft and their associated media outlets to just spread #FUD . I'm somewhat surprised that people bought it hook, line and sinker.