All they have to do is prove that the jailbreak could have caused the issue, even if the phone mostly works normally.
And BTW, if you jailbreak and then need warranty service, they'd make you put back -their- version of the OS before they'd fix it. That would mean un-rooting it and updating to the latest version, which probably has more jailbreak-fixes.
Even if they had to provide warranty, it wouldn't do a jailbreaker any good.
Don't buy things if they aren't worth the price. That will show them.
I actually think books are sold rather cheap. I get a lot more out of them than I do from a movie at 2x-10x the price. (10x being a new, not-yet-discounted Bluray, of course.)
I've begun to think that we need to have a way to tell the author, "I didn't buy your product because it cost too much!" That way, when we vote with our wallets, they'll know for sure.
$35 is the parts cost, not the cost for the consumer. You need to compare like to like, and we don't have a consumer cost for this, and we don't have parts cost for the others.
Every phone I've ever had (except my G1) has had bloatware on it, if it could run custom apps. My razor had some demo games. My Sony had some demo games. And no, you couldn't delete them.
The G1 is an exception only because Android was so new at the time is my assumption.
The news here isn't that Android phones have bloatware... It's that they were previously unlike the other phones in this respect, and now they aren't. Not a real Big surprise. It's not like it even takes up phone memory... They're in the firmware, like all the other built-in apps.
Don't confuse the present with the past. They have finally implemented it. It was at least 2 years after the first complaints, which means that a new version of the device was released while they continued to ignore it.
As the post below notes, the Google offering requires internet access. PCPro recommended the dedicated system for 'rural' use, which may have issues with internet availability.
Having said that, Google's offering is fine because almost everywhere I go, I can get access at some point, and once it has mapped the route, the access isn't really required. (At least, I think it isn't. I've never had an instance where I was on the route and then it couldn't continue, but I've had issues with getting it to get the route in the first place.)
I'll agree that 'eating your own dogfood' is good for the phone's development team, but do you really think everyone else has any real input into it? Real customers don't even get real input unless there's an antenna-gate or something.
I've been wondering for a while why companies seem to be so inept at listening to their customers. I understand the concept of 'vocal minority' and all that, but certain things should just be obvious when someone complains about them. Like lack of 'cut and paste' functionality on a 'smart phone'. I'm sure someone at Apple said 'What about cut and paste?' and someone shrugged it off. I'll even admit that I don't see why it was a big deal. But it -was-. And even after thousands of people started mocking the iPhone for not having it, Apple continued to ignore the complaints. That's the part I find so hard to believe.
Dang. I was with you until you decided to dump the loner. You're making a mistake that you yourself are saying you don't make: Forgetting to be flexible.
For some jobs, loners are the best workers. And some loners have skills that you just won't find in a team player. You can't judge a person just on one facet of their personality.
This is about the billionth time I've heard that Google failed at this, and not one of them has a quote from Google about it.
They are assuming that Google's intention was to revolutionize phone sales. Perhaps they had other goals, instead? Perhaps they were successful and no longer need to sell them directly. Perhaps they failed and are stopping.
"I'm also willing to take part in green policies *JUST IN CASE* we're the cause of the problem."
Policies? Perhaps. But actually spend money on it? It's ridiculous. If it's not happening, money is being WASTED that really COULD clean up the environment.
I'm an odd duck. I actually -want- to accept AGW as fact... But the refusal to release the data means I can't. And then 'climategate' (which was cleared by funding from the same people who caused it) showed me that the 'scientists' involved have a complete disregard for the scientific process, even going so far as to destroy data so that other scientists can't replicate their work.
I just read grist.org's answer to the fact that CO2 follows temperature, and not the other way around... The answer amazed me. They said that most of the time they are in lock-step. Only some of the time does temperature lead a change in CO2. Notice how CO2 never leads? That's like Car A being followed by Car B and then B accusing A of following it. "But the only time you lead was when we turned a corner!"... Seriously.
You can't really call it 'launched' when only select people have it. You can't DL it yet (it's still the pre-release available for DL) and if you already have it, you have to wait for them to allow you to upgrade.
This reads like 'Don't even bother trying to make games that are awesome.' They are actually trying to say, 'Don't overspend and try to make a blockbuster game just by spending money.'
It's perfectly possible to make and amazing hit game without the budget that Bioware and Square Enix put into games. Do games care about graphics and cutscenes? Yes. Do they care more about gameplay and controls? Absolutely. It's just a LOT harder to come up with good gameplay and refine the controls, so they throw money at the pretty pictures instead. It's never been a good idea, but they do it anyhow.
The #1 killer for videos games (for me) is bad controls. If controlling the character doesn't feel like an extension of myself, if the character doesn't always do what I think it'll do when I hit buttons, if the character is slow to react or I have to wait on its actions, it's absolutely killer for me. It's the reason I now rent games instead of buying.
Some of the better games, like Fallout and Resident Evil, I've never played because I felt like I was fighting the controls instead of fighting enemies. It's just not fun.
A coworker was just saying the other day that Sonic on the iPhone sucks because the controls are so bad, even though it was one of his favorite games. And that Street Fighter is amazing because the controls are perfect. Not a word about graphics or gameplay, just controls. (2 separate conversations, too, so it's not like he was comparing them.)
Not many want to, no... But all those that want to do so illegally have really, really bad plans in store. It's enough to offset the relatively small number and need a good lock.
I don't know that they DO have them, but they should.
Exactly where in the 'article' is the information about Comcast charging? It's not.
Last time I used cable, the box came free with the service. If you wanted a better box, you paid more. ($10 more for HD, or DVR, or HD-DVR. Yeah, they were all the same.)
They can. But when this has been done in the past, no matter the time limit given, Microsoft has publicly chastised them for it. The result is this news article.
I agree that pricing the theatre tickets at the actual point where supply and demand meet would also help fix the problem. There would still be a few people willing to pay WAY more than other people, and scalpers could make money from them... But scalpers would have a much harder time making money.
However, where art is concerned, that's a really hard point to figure out.
Sadly, yes. That is exactly how the 'free market' works.
And if people would just stop buying from scalpers, they wouldn't be such a problem. Just like spam wouldn't be a problem if people would stop buying from spammers.
Slashdot Mirror
They've both pulled out of someone's ass. Google doesn't release those stats.
All they have to do is prove that the jailbreak could have caused the issue, even if the phone mostly works normally.
And BTW, if you jailbreak and then need warranty service, they'd make you put back -their- version of the OS before they'd fix it. That would mean un-rooting it and updating to the latest version, which probably has more jailbreak-fixes.
Even if they had to provide warranty, it wouldn't do a jailbreaker any good.
Don't buy things if they aren't worth the price. That will show them.
I actually think books are sold rather cheap. I get a lot more out of them than I do from a movie at 2x-10x the price. (10x being a new, not-yet-discounted Bluray, of course.)
I've begun to think that we need to have a way to tell the author, "I didn't buy your product because it cost too much!" That way, when we vote with our wallets, they'll know for sure.
$35 is the parts cost, not the cost for the consumer. You need to compare like to like, and we don't have a consumer cost for this, and we don't have parts cost for the others.
It's his project, no matter the contributions of others. Anyone is free to fork it. They are not free to take the actual project from him.
He is free to run it as a dictatorship or a democracy. It's his project.
Every phone I've ever had (except my G1) has had bloatware on it, if it could run custom apps. My razor had some demo games. My Sony had some demo games. And no, you couldn't delete them.
The G1 is an exception only because Android was so new at the time is my assumption.
The news here isn't that Android phones have bloatware... It's that they were previously unlike the other phones in this respect, and now they aren't. Not a real Big surprise. It's not like it even takes up phone memory... They're in the firmware, like all the other built-in apps.
Not a 'rural user'. 'Rural use'. That could be anything from rural users to urban users who are currently driving through rural areas.
Don't confuse the present with the past. They have finally implemented it. It was at least 2 years after the first complaints, which means that a new version of the device was released while they continued to ignore it.
As the post below notes, the Google offering requires internet access. PCPro recommended the dedicated system for 'rural' use, which may have issues with internet availability.
Having said that, Google's offering is fine because almost everywhere I go, I can get access at some point, and once it has mapped the route, the access isn't really required. (At least, I think it isn't. I've never had an instance where I was on the route and then it couldn't continue, but I've had issues with getting it to get the route in the first place.)
It didn't exist when I bought my G1. Now I have it. I'd call that 'free'.
Granted, I updated the firmware manually on my G1 and stock G1's may not have it.
I'll agree that 'eating your own dogfood' is good for the phone's development team, but do you really think everyone else has any real input into it? Real customers don't even get real input unless there's an antenna-gate or something.
I've been wondering for a while why companies seem to be so inept at listening to their customers. I understand the concept of 'vocal minority' and all that, but certain things should just be obvious when someone complains about them. Like lack of 'cut and paste' functionality on a 'smart phone'. I'm sure someone at Apple said 'What about cut and paste?' and someone shrugged it off. I'll even admit that I don't see why it was a big deal. But it -was-. And even after thousands of people started mocking the iPhone for not having it, Apple continued to ignore the complaints. That's the part I find so hard to believe.
You just made me realize that I must never have seriously tried to play Nethack.
Dang. I was with you until you decided to dump the loner. You're making a mistake that you yourself are saying you don't make: Forgetting to be flexible.
For some jobs, loners are the best workers. And some loners have skills that you just won't find in a team player. You can't judge a person just on one facet of their personality.
This is about the billionth time I've heard that Google failed at this, and not one of them has a quote from Google about it.
They are assuming that Google's intention was to revolutionize phone sales. Perhaps they had other goals, instead? Perhaps they were successful and no longer need to sell them directly. Perhaps they failed and are stopping.
We Don't Know.
"I'm also willing to take part in green policies *JUST IN CASE* we're the cause of the problem."
Policies? Perhaps. But actually spend money on it? It's ridiculous. If it's not happening, money is being WASTED that really COULD clean up the environment.
I'm an odd duck. I actually -want- to accept AGW as fact... But the refusal to release the data means I can't. And then 'climategate' (which was cleared by funding from the same people who caused it) showed me that the 'scientists' involved have a complete disregard for the scientific process, even going so far as to destroy data so that other scientists can't replicate their work.
I just read grist.org's answer to the fact that CO2 follows temperature, and not the other way around... The answer amazed me. They said that most of the time they are in lock-step. Only some of the time does temperature lead a change in CO2. Notice how CO2 never leads? That's like Car A being followed by Car B and then B accusing A of following it. "But the only time you lead was when we turned a corner!" ... Seriously.
You can't really call it 'launched' when only select people have it. You can't DL it yet (it's still the pre-release available for DL) and if you already have it, you have to wait for them to allow you to upgrade.
It's not launched. It's in preview.
90% of the time, I play games for the story. Assuming the controls don't suck, if a game has a good story with good pacing, I'll play it through.
But the other 10% of the time, I just want fun game mechanics. That's anything from Bejeweled to Prototype to Flower.
So he's right that people do get excited about fun game mechanics... And he's using that as best he can.
This reads like 'Don't even bother trying to make games that are awesome.' They are actually trying to say, 'Don't overspend and try to make a blockbuster game just by spending money.'
It's perfectly possible to make and amazing hit game without the budget that Bioware and Square Enix put into games. Do games care about graphics and cutscenes? Yes. Do they care more about gameplay and controls? Absolutely. It's just a LOT harder to come up with good gameplay and refine the controls, so they throw money at the pretty pictures instead. It's never been a good idea, but they do it anyhow.
The #1 killer for videos games (for me) is bad controls. If controlling the character doesn't feel like an extension of myself, if the character doesn't always do what I think it'll do when I hit buttons, if the character is slow to react or I have to wait on its actions, it's absolutely killer for me. It's the reason I now rent games instead of buying.
Some of the better games, like Fallout and Resident Evil, I've never played because I felt like I was fighting the controls instead of fighting enemies. It's just not fun.
A coworker was just saying the other day that Sonic on the iPhone sucks because the controls are so bad, even though it was one of his favorite games. And that Street Fighter is amazing because the controls are perfect. Not a word about graphics or gameplay, just controls. (2 separate conversations, too, so it's not like he was comparing them.)
Not many want to, no... But all those that want to do so illegally have really, really bad plans in store. It's enough to offset the relatively small number and need a good lock.
I don't know that they DO have them, but they should.
Check the link. In the picture in the background behind Jobs there's a logo for: iAd.
Exactly where in the 'article' is the information about Comcast charging? It's not.
Last time I used cable, the box came free with the service. If you wanted a better box, you paid more. ($10 more for HD, or DVR, or HD-DVR. Yeah, they were all the same.)
They can. But when this has been done in the past, no matter the time limit given, Microsoft has publicly chastised them for it. The result is this news article.
I agree that pricing the theatre tickets at the actual point where supply and demand meet would also help fix the problem. There would still be a few people willing to pay WAY more than other people, and scalpers could make money from them... But scalpers would have a much harder time making money.
However, where art is concerned, that's a really hard point to figure out.
Sadly, yes. That is exactly how the 'free market' works.
And if people would just stop buying from scalpers, they wouldn't be such a problem. Just like spam wouldn't be a problem if people would stop buying from spammers.
Actually, I read that differently.
Since they wouldn't commit to fighting this threat, and instead said they would work on their biggest threats...
WHAT THE HELL ARE THEIR BIGGEST THREATS!?
I'd be very, very scared of a bank that acknowledges that it has bigger threats than causing their customers to lose their money.