Ah, you must be Steve Jobs, or one of his buddies.
No. I am somebody who has had the product for a year and a half who has decided to share some details of that experience.
Why don't you list off a few products that you've used for a while that you really like. I'll pick the one that I haven't used before and write you a page-and-a-half essay on why you should hate it. Mainly I'll focus on what it doesn't do because, for some reason, that matters more than what it does do that is making you feel the purchase was worthwhile. Then, when you tell me why your experience with your reality didn't line up with what my theory said would happen, I'll just pretend I don't understand what a satisfied customer is and call you a fan-boy. How does that sound?
You make valid counter points, but people often adjust thier behavior to the capibilities of a device.
True. But they also sometimes find that reality doesn't live up to theory. I thought copy/paste would be a huge hindrance. I've had it for a while now and used it like... twice. Flash? Thought I wanted it yet don't miss it. There's adjustment and then there's it just not being the bfd that everybody thought it would be. I would think Linux users who are happily away from Windows would understand this.
I was simply telling them that it is not meaningless because when piracy happens people are using your work without paying/authorization/whatever. Am I wrong?
Short version: Yes, you are wrong. He explained that, too. Actually everything I have said in this thread supports that supposition, too. You wanted to hear about somebody who has copy protection 'protecting' their livelihood and I chimed in. All of piracy's 'meaning' is theoretical. It's fear that drives people to deal with it, not fact.
It's nice to see a calm response from you after you trolling so much.
It's sad that you see my point of view as trolling. I would have expected you to have more respect for somebody who actually has a lifestyle that depends on people paying for content. I am disappointed in you.
Seeds, cracks, it's all facts.
Not one of those contains a 'fact' that anybody that should have paid me hasn't.
You are making the assumption that nobody used it to pirate your software.
No. What I'm doing is not making the assumption that they are. There's a difference that, frankly, isn't very subtle. If I acted on your suggestion I would almost certainly nail an innocent person. That is not good for business, ask EA.
Boy would I hate to be your shareholder.
I agree, it wouldn't be a good partnership. I don't believe that reducing the value of software or calling my customers thieves will increase sales. I also don't think you and I would get along if I'm showing you a graph of steady income and you're saying "there's a crack on-line so we're missing eleventy million dollars!!!@!@!" I also don't think I could tolerate the brain-damaged point of view that extra effort should be put into restricting the software so it'd take more man-hours to develop, maintain, and support the customer on. It's amazing to think that a shareholder would want to cut profits in half just to be more comfortable with the perception that the software is 'protected'.
Lost sales aren't the only thing that matter to some people. Unauthorized use may matter whether or not sales have been lost. The facts are good enough indicators of unauthorized use.
Yeah, I've purchased software from idiots that fixate on that, and I've suffered as a result. I paid $400 for some specialized software to do a rather important job for a client. I used it, all was good, the project wrapped and I moved on. Six months later another potential project came up. I fired up the app and... it asked for an unlock code. For the life of me I couldn't figure out why it suddenly forgot it was registered. So I sent in a submission for a new unlock code. Upon peeking at the data going out I realized what had happened. I upgraded my ram during that 6 months and the dweeb that wrote the software to, I guess, prevent me from copying it to another machine. Three days later I got an unlock code. Three. Days. Turns out I didn't need the software on that project, and I was lucky for it. I would have lost that gig because this guy is punishing ME for something he thinks other people are doing.
Here's the best bit: This isn't a game, this is software that's part of a living you can make. If people pirated his software and mastered it, they would get work with companies who'd buy the software just to be legit. Actually that's happening anyway, at least according to his blog. That was a fun read while I was waiting for my unlock code. I am now on the market for a replacement for his software.
How would you like to be a shareholder for this guy? He's pissing off his existing customers to the point that they're looking for alternatives. He has made his software unreliable for mission critical needs. He has a business model that means that his profits will perpetually shrink while he's spending time unlocking people's software. He's actively cutting off the avenue that would increase his marketshare. He's only successful right now because his software is so much cheaper. Now I'm willing to pay double maybe even triple the price to go with a competitor, and it wouldn't be that difficult of a sell. I really do find it difficult to believe you find this appealing. It's utterly unnecessary.
If cracks, seeds, and other records aren't enough to prove that piracy has happened then I don't know what is.
Sales going down after the crack is released would prove it. If that's not happening, then all I'm doing is going on a witch hunt.
People are using your software without being authorized to.... I'm just saying what's obvious.
It is not obvious. It is an assumption you are making. I think you wear glasses, but if I'm right it's not because it's because I actually know.
I don't care if they are lost sales or not.
Facts are something you should care about, dude. Whether or not they are lost sales is of critical importance. That would be the only real indicator anybody would have of actual unauthorized usage. There are a ton of reasons somebody would have for downloading the software wouldn't end in me not getting money I should have. It would be really stupid of me to cry 'thief!' when nothing missing.
When you quote text and place your own after it you should try to respond directly to it. Otherwise it's just confusing. You don't make a good case for brevity either.
I did apologize for that. Although I have to admit I am regretting actually taking time to acknowledge that mistake given that you've clearly ignored my entire post.... again.
That's what I'm getting at. You're OK with people using your software and not paying. Others are not.
That is not at all what I'm saying or have said. I guess I'll have to repeat it... again. I have no actual proof any piracy has happened. I could find cracks. I could find seeds. I could probably even find cases of people downloading it and getting it running. But I can't actually find one case of anybody, at all, using it without paying for it. That is not 'okay with it'. That's "I need evidence, please."
Since my posts are obviously way too long for you to read, I'll give you a nice handy dandy summary:
"Q. Why isn't your copy protection heavy handed?" "A. I have no lost sales. Even if I did, it's stupid to lower the value of what the paying people get to try to get more sales."
Really? Well, that's my bad, I didn't quote your entire post. I apologize for my brevity making things unclear. You said you thought they were using DRM on principle. I was trying to show you why it's for greed.
Your software may happen to not get pirated enough to hurt your bottom line. There are probably many reasons that it isn't getting pirated very much.
I didn't say it wasn't getting pirated very much. I said it wasn't affecting our sales. I'm sure if I went and looked I could find seeds and other indicators that there might be people who have it that didn't pay for it. But the whole point is that piracy is costing me money, right? I can't prove that I lost one dime to piracy. I could see what sites have cracks. I could count seeds. I could do a lot of things and go "Yup, somebody probably stole mah software." But I cannot show a vacancy in my wallet. I'm not going to call anybody a thief if nothing is missing and I'm certainly not going to make my paying customers' lives harder because of some statistic that doesn't reflect reality.
Companies see those numbers and count how much cash they would have gotten if those were sales -- why wouldn't you expect them to try? It's stupid not to.
They're making up numbers, claiming that's what's missing, then increasing the value of pirated software by making the paying customers jump through more hoops to use it. What part of that is not stupid?
No one would have believed you if ten years ago you posted here that this site would end up becoming nothing more than an Apple fanblog/marketing site.
What do you expect when most of these stories generate between 200 and 900 posts?
Piracy is not meaningless. People are still using your product unlawfully. They simply don't have the right to play a game that they are not authorized to.
Throughout most of video game history you are/were not able to return a game you did not like. This is called the "Open Your Mouth and Close Your Eyes" business model.
I believe that game companies are implementing DRM not just to help their bottom line but also on principle.
The do it because they think you, personally, are a thief.
But you can't deny that SOME sales are lost due to piracy.
That was directed at the other guy, but I'd like to answer this: 'Some' just means 'greater than two'. The sheer existence of it does not justify DRM for the simple reason that the legit customers are paying for it. Their approach has lowered the value of the software, but they have not lowered the price. By doing so they have increased the value of the pirated software... which is what they claim they're trying to reduce. It's like being really really thirsty and then drinking whiskey. It makes no sense.
Why don't you try hinging your livelihood on writing a book and then have people photocopy it instead of buying it? We'll see how you feel about piracy then.
I have software on the market today. It has been for sale for years now and I'm still collecting a pretty steady amount of money from it. It doesn't use DRM, meaning it doesn't call home. It doesn't really use copy protection, either. It's a serial number and activation code. Not *one* of our customers has called in with an activation problem. Literally. 0. I have spent zero man-hours doing technical support or even bug-fixes on that part of the software. That's a good thing because it wouldn't take very long with a customer for our profit on that copy to dissolve into nothing. On the other hand, if we had gone stronger with the unlock scheme, we would have lost customers. We work in a market where people move from computer to computer. Software activation is a huge pain and it is the sort of thing that gives people a reason to not need our software.
So what about piracy? Our software was in an interesting position. It wasn't widely known because it solves a niche problem. But for what it did, it was popular amongst the small population it was catered to. As a result a cracked copy didn't show up for it for months. And you know what? If you were to look at a graph of our sales over the course of four or five years you could NOT pinpoint when the crack came out. That's interesting considering the price of the software was not within impulse range. I am not convinced that piracy hurt us. I'm not convinced that copy protection/DRM/authentication etc would have done anything but lower our profits. My livelihood isn't in danger until I start pissing off the people handing me money.
Yeah, because past performance is indicative of future, right?
So... basically your prediction strategy is to say it and then hope it comes true.
Like I said, we'll see in 5 years. Things have changed, the future is not bright for Nintendo.
Nintendo takes chances and delivers something different. That's exactly what you need in a market where people want new things all the time. Sony and Microsoft stick well within the tried and true. They'll be playing catch-up while Nintendo has moved on to bigger and better things.
The future is very bright for Nintendo. They're smart enough to take risks and with this latest generation they've got enough banked to safely take even bigger risks. Maybe you'll get lucky and they'll bank on one that doesn't turn out so hot.
In fairness, though, places like NBC and SCifi have a shitty setup for watching TV shows online. I can't quite put my finger on it, but clunky and ill-thought are words I'd use to describe those services. Hulu, however, is getting a lot of good word of mouth and is proving to be profitable. I believe that's a case of providers needing to aim higher.
Let's go with the big one: music. You can even download, legally, for a small price, DRM free MP3s from iTunes, Amazon... etc...
Okay, I get you now. I see it from a different perspective, though. Music trading has been super easy for over 10 years. iTunes has been enormously successful and Amazon isn't doing too bad itself. iTunes even dumped its DRM and is still doing fine. I don't think the number of people 'illegally' downloading MP3s when they could get them otherwise is anything remarkable. For all we know, they're just downloading songs because it's easier to do that than to rip all their CDs sitting in the back of their closet.
I'm quite sure Apple is glad to see such free advertising! This is consumerism crap, not slashdot-worthy "stuff that matters" content...
I'm quite sure Slashdot is glad to see you post, increasing the amount of content they can serve ads on. Way to discourage them from posting more iPad stories!
I don't know if you've thought about it (clearly you haven't) but Nintendo is screwed now. What trick will they pull out of their hat now? Sony and Microsoft have the (gimmicky, as it was in the Wii) motion control. They have the developers. They have the hardware. Where do you think that leaves Nintendo in 5 years?
But I'm sure you disagree, Nintendo has its fans apparently. I guess the only way we'll know is in 5 years time. I'll come back here to gloat when Nintendo is the Palm of 2015 looking for someone to buy them.
Every 5 or so years somebody predicts Nintendo's death in 5 or so years.
No, it's not. I'll give you an example: I am a Nintendo fanboy. So if Nintendo announces a new a gimmick I'll be the first to tell you why it's great. If that same gimmick was added to a Sony system, I'd be the first to tell you why it's stupid and nobody'd want it. That's called 'biased opinon'. Whereas plain old 'opinion' would be a candid "here's what I think" and 'informed opinion' would be if you actually spent time with the products you're discussing and understand the ins and outs of each one.
Oh bull, you pay for Hotmail or Yahoo every time you use them. You also send out ads with your messages. (Unlike GMail, for example...) So not only are you paying for it, the people you're corresponding with are, too. Whereas Apple just made the default signature "sent from an iPhone", which btw, also lets the person you're emailing know you're not at your desk.
Troll? Really?? This is something plenty of other companies do. That means that the extra points spent on those comments are inspired by product bias. In that respect you're feeding fanboys and haters. But... hey, shut me up, that'll make it all better.
Slashdot Mirror
At what threshold does a word officially exist?
Ah, you must be Steve Jobs, or one of his buddies.
No. I am somebody who has had the product for a year and a half who has decided to share some details of that experience.
Why don't you list off a few products that you've used for a while that you really like. I'll pick the one that I haven't used before and write you a page-and-a-half essay on why you should hate it. Mainly I'll focus on what it doesn't do because, for some reason, that matters more than what it does do that is making you feel the purchase was worthwhile. Then, when you tell me why your experience with your reality didn't line up with what my theory said would happen, I'll just pretend I don't understand what a satisfied customer is and call you a fan-boy. How does that sound?
You make valid counter points, but people often adjust thier behavior to the capibilities of a device.
True. But they also sometimes find that reality doesn't live up to theory. I thought copy/paste would be a huge hindrance. I've had it for a while now and used it like... twice. Flash? Thought I wanted it yet don't miss it. There's adjustment and then there's it just not being the bfd that everybody thought it would be. I would think Linux users who are happily away from Windows would understand this.
Or somebody that found your post funny.
You're right, I got off topic, I apologize.
I was simply telling them that it is not meaningless because when piracy happens people are using your work without paying/authorization/whatever. Am I wrong?
Short version: Yes, you are wrong. He explained that, too. Actually everything I have said in this thread supports that supposition, too. You wanted to hear about somebody who has copy protection 'protecting' their livelihood and I chimed in. All of piracy's 'meaning' is theoretical. It's fear that drives people to deal with it, not fact.
It's nice to see a calm response from you after you trolling so much.
It's sad that you see my point of view as trolling. I would have expected you to have more respect for somebody who actually has a lifestyle that depends on people paying for content. I am disappointed in you.
Seeds, cracks, it's all facts.
Not one of those contains a 'fact' that anybody that should have paid me hasn't.
You are making the assumption that nobody used it to pirate your software.
No. What I'm doing is not making the assumption that they are. There's a difference that, frankly, isn't very subtle. If I acted on your suggestion I would almost certainly nail an innocent person. That is not good for business, ask EA.
Boy would I hate to be your shareholder.
I agree, it wouldn't be a good partnership. I don't believe that reducing the value of software or calling my customers thieves will increase sales. I also don't think you and I would get along if I'm showing you a graph of steady income and you're saying "there's a crack on-line so we're missing eleventy million dollars!!!@!@!" I also don't think I could tolerate the brain-damaged point of view that extra effort should be put into restricting the software so it'd take more man-hours to develop, maintain, and support the customer on. It's amazing to think that a shareholder would want to cut profits in half just to be more comfortable with the perception that the software is 'protected'.
Lost sales aren't the only thing that matter to some people. Unauthorized use may matter whether or not sales have been lost. The facts are good enough indicators of unauthorized use.
Yeah, I've purchased software from idiots that fixate on that, and I've suffered as a result. I paid $400 for some specialized software to do a rather important job for a client. I used it, all was good, the project wrapped and I moved on. Six months later another potential project came up. I fired up the app and... it asked for an unlock code. For the life of me I couldn't figure out why it suddenly forgot it was registered. So I sent in a submission for a new unlock code. Upon peeking at the data going out I realized what had happened. I upgraded my ram during that 6 months and the dweeb that wrote the software to, I guess, prevent me from copying it to another machine. Three days later I got an unlock code. Three. Days. Turns out I didn't need the software on that project, and I was lucky for it. I would have lost that gig because this guy is punishing ME for something he thinks other people are doing.
Here's the best bit: This isn't a game, this is software that's part of a living you can make. If people pirated his software and mastered it, they would get work with companies who'd buy the software just to be legit. Actually that's happening anyway, at least according to his blog. That was a fun read while I was waiting for my unlock code. I am now on the market for a replacement for his software.
How would you like to be a shareholder for this guy? He's pissing off his existing customers to the point that they're looking for alternatives. He has made his software unreliable for mission critical needs. He has a business model that means that his profits will perpetually shrink while he's spending time unlocking people's software. He's actively cutting off the avenue that would increase his marketshare. He's only successful right now because his software is so much cheaper. Now I'm willing to pay double maybe even triple the price to go with a competitor, and it wouldn't be that difficult of a sell. I really do find it difficult to believe you find this appealing. It's utterly unnecessary.
Unauthorized use. Yeesh.
If cracks, seeds, and other records aren't enough to prove that piracy has happened then I don't know what is.
Sales going down after the crack is released would prove it. If that's not happening, then all I'm doing is going on a witch hunt.
People are using your software without being authorized to. ... I'm just saying what's obvious.
It is not obvious. It is an assumption you are making. I think you wear glasses, but if I'm right it's not because it's because I actually know.
I don't care if they are lost sales or not.
Facts are something you should care about, dude. Whether or not they are lost sales is of critical importance. That would be the only real indicator anybody would have of actual unauthorized usage. There are a ton of reasons somebody would have for downloading the software wouldn't end in me not getting money I should have. It would be really stupid of me to cry 'thief!' when nothing missing.
With this so-called "World Wide Web", you can create your own web page, showing exactly the information you wish to reveal about yourself.
The value of Facebook isn't that you can publish your own information. It's that all these people are already there and easy to find.
It's a shame that all those people spent a mod point on your post without realizing that people used to do exactly what you said.
When you quote text and place your own after it you should try to respond directly to it. Otherwise it's just confusing. You don't make a good case for brevity either.
I did apologize for that. Although I have to admit I am regretting actually taking time to acknowledge that mistake given that you've clearly ignored my entire post.... again.
That's what I'm getting at. You're OK with people using your software and not paying. Others are not.
That is not at all what I'm saying or have said. I guess I'll have to repeat it... again. I have no actual proof any piracy has happened. I could find cracks. I could find seeds. I could probably even find cases of people downloading it and getting it running. But I can't actually find one case of anybody, at all, using it without paying for it. That is not 'okay with it'. That's "I need evidence, please."
Since my posts are obviously way too long for you to read, I'll give you a nice handy dandy summary:
"Q. Why isn't your copy protection heavy handed?" "A. I have no lost sales. Even if I did, it's stupid to lower the value of what the paying people get to try to get more sales."
I don't see how this applies to what I said....
Really? Well, that's my bad, I didn't quote your entire post. I apologize for my brevity making things unclear. You said you thought they were using DRM on principle. I was trying to show you why it's for greed.
Your software may happen to not get pirated enough to hurt your bottom line. There are probably many reasons that it isn't getting pirated very much.
I didn't say it wasn't getting pirated very much. I said it wasn't affecting our sales. I'm sure if I went and looked I could find seeds and other indicators that there might be people who have it that didn't pay for it. But the whole point is that piracy is costing me money, right? I can't prove that I lost one dime to piracy. I could see what sites have cracks. I could count seeds. I could do a lot of things and go "Yup, somebody probably stole mah software." But I cannot show a vacancy in my wallet. I'm not going to call anybody a thief if nothing is missing and I'm certainly not going to make my paying customers' lives harder because of some statistic that doesn't reflect reality.
Companies see those numbers and count how much cash they would have gotten if those were sales -- why wouldn't you expect them to try? It's stupid not to.
They're making up numbers, claiming that's what's missing, then increasing the value of pirated software by making the paying customers jump through more hoops to use it. What part of that is not stupid?
No one would have believed you if ten years ago you posted here that this site would end up becoming nothing more than an Apple fanblog/marketing site.
What do you expect when most of these stories generate between 200 and 900 posts?
Piracy is not meaningless. People are still using your product unlawfully. They simply don't have the right to play a game that they are not authorized to.
Throughout most of video game history you are/were not able to return a game you did not like. This is called the "Open Your Mouth and Close Your Eyes" business model.
I believe that game companies are implementing DRM not just to help their bottom line but also on principle.
The do it because they think you, personally, are a thief.
But you can't deny that SOME sales are lost due to piracy.
That was directed at the other guy, but I'd like to answer this: 'Some' just means 'greater than two'. The sheer existence of it does not justify DRM for the simple reason that the legit customers are paying for it. Their approach has lowered the value of the software, but they have not lowered the price. By doing so they have increased the value of the pirated software... which is what they claim they're trying to reduce. It's like being really really thirsty and then drinking whiskey. It makes no sense.
Why don't you try hinging your livelihood on writing a book and then have people photocopy it instead of buying it? We'll see how you feel about piracy then.
I have software on the market today. It has been for sale for years now and I'm still collecting a pretty steady amount of money from it. It doesn't use DRM, meaning it doesn't call home. It doesn't really use copy protection, either. It's a serial number and activation code. Not *one* of our customers has called in with an activation problem. Literally. 0. I have spent zero man-hours doing technical support or even bug-fixes on that part of the software. That's a good thing because it wouldn't take very long with a customer for our profit on that copy to dissolve into nothing. On the other hand, if we had gone stronger with the unlock scheme, we would have lost customers. We work in a market where people move from computer to computer. Software activation is a huge pain and it is the sort of thing that gives people a reason to not need our software.
So what about piracy? Our software was in an interesting position. It wasn't widely known because it solves a niche problem. But for what it did, it was popular amongst the small population it was catered to. As a result a cracked copy didn't show up for it for months. And you know what? If you were to look at a graph of our sales over the course of four or five years you could NOT pinpoint when the crack came out. That's interesting considering the price of the software was not within impulse range. I am not convinced that piracy hurt us. I'm not convinced that copy protection/DRM/authentication etc would have done anything but lower our profits. My livelihood isn't in danger until I start pissing off the people handing me money.
If we do find life, do we quarantine Mars so that we don't contaminate the native life there?
Well... that depends on if we've invented the Prime Directive by then.
Yeah, because past performance is indicative of future, right?
So... basically your prediction strategy is to say it and then hope it comes true.
Like I said, we'll see in 5 years. Things have changed, the future is not bright for Nintendo.
Nintendo takes chances and delivers something different. That's exactly what you need in a market where people want new things all the time. Sony and Microsoft stick well within the tried and true. They'll be playing catch-up while Nintendo has moved on to bigger and better things.
The future is very bright for Nintendo. They're smart enough to take risks and with this latest generation they've got enough banked to safely take even bigger risks. Maybe you'll get lucky and they'll bank on one that doesn't turn out so hot.
If you just shrugged it off then only your coworkers would know you have a small dick. Now the whole world knows.
True. But you gotta admit, there's really no reason the beaten co-worker would have a surprised look on his face.
I'll buy that.
In fairness, though, places like NBC and SCifi have a shitty setup for watching TV shows online. I can't quite put my finger on it, but clunky and ill-thought are words I'd use to describe those services. Hulu, however, is getting a lot of good word of mouth and is proving to be profitable. I believe that's a case of providers needing to aim higher.
Let's go with the big one: music. You can even download, legally, for a small price, DRM free MP3s from iTunes, Amazon... etc...
Okay, I get you now. I see it from a different perspective, though. Music trading has been super easy for over 10 years. iTunes has been enormously successful and Amazon isn't doing too bad itself. iTunes even dumped its DRM and is still doing fine. I don't think the number of people 'illegally' downloading MP3s when they could get them otherwise is anything remarkable. For all we know, they're just downloading songs because it's easier to do that than to rip all their CDs sitting in the back of their closet.
That's why people illegally download things that they CAN legally download.
Like what?
I'm quite sure Apple is glad to see such free advertising! This is consumerism crap, not slashdot-worthy "stuff that matters" content...
I'm quite sure Slashdot is glad to see you post, increasing the amount of content they can serve ads on. Way to discourage them from posting more iPad stories!
I don't know if you've thought about it (clearly you haven't) but Nintendo is screwed now. What trick will they pull out of their hat now? Sony and Microsoft have the (gimmicky, as it was in the Wii) motion control. They have the developers. They have the hardware. Where do you think that leaves Nintendo in 5 years?
But I'm sure you disagree, Nintendo has its fans apparently. I guess the only way we'll know is in 5 years time. I'll come back here to gloat when Nintendo is the Palm of 2015 looking for someone to buy them.
Every 5 or so years somebody predicts Nintendo's death in 5 or so years.
"biased opinion" is redundant
No, it's not. I'll give you an example: I am a Nintendo fanboy. So if Nintendo announces a new a gimmick I'll be the first to tell you why it's great. If that same gimmick was added to a Sony system, I'd be the first to tell you why it's stupid and nobody'd want it. That's called 'biased opinon'. Whereas plain old 'opinion' would be a candid "here's what I think" and 'informed opinion' would be if you actually spent time with the products you're discussing and understand the ins and outs of each one.
That's just as well. I should have said (9 * $Months) anyway. I shoulda asked yo mama how the old programming syntax worked before she fell asleep. :D
>What's a phone booth?
That's where I first met yo mama ($YourAge + 9 months) ago.
Oh bull, you pay for Hotmail or Yahoo every time you use them. You also send out ads with your messages. (Unlike GMail, for example...) So not only are you paying for it, the people you're corresponding with are, too. Whereas Apple just made the default signature "sent from an iPhone", which btw, also lets the person you're emailing know you're not at your desk.
It's not a legitimate rant. Sorry.
Troll? Really?? This is something plenty of other companies do. That means that the extra points spent on those comments are inspired by product bias. In that respect you're feeding fanboys and haters. But... hey, shut me up, that'll make it all better.