I will say though that Binge on is the least offensive example, which is why I object to you citing it here. T-Mobile is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons...every other ISP that's violating Net Neutrality that I know of is (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, etc.) doing so as a naked grab for money and control
Cherry picking certain services is a naked grab for money and control. They're offering specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers. The only reason it's seemingly tolerable with T-Mobile is they don't provide services that would be a conflict of interest. Wait till AT&T tries it.
It's wrong either way. Sorry. If they really were being altruistic they'd just offer a 1mb unlimited plan and just ask the service providers to fit within that pipe, none of this "Fill out these forms and we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks" nonsense.
T-mobile is very open about their criteria and there hasn't been a single report of a video or audio service that wanted to be a part of Binge On and couldn't.
It doesn't matter. You still have to apply and they have to accept.
The issue is they get to pick and choose which services they allow a zero rating on. If that doesn't worry you a lot, then consider that the other major players offer television and phone service as well. It is so easy to imagine Comcast saying "oh, gee, Netflix isn't meeting our criteria. Sorry. But, hey, our streaming service is better anyway..."
Why does it matter? The PS3 ended up with less-functionality than what it had when it was purchased. Considering how connected our devices are getting and how dependent they are on software updates, you really should be taking a stand against this sort of behavior.
I wonder how many Slashdotters are prepared to fight to the death to keep their browsing History concealed from the FBI, but are more than willing have their 2nd Amendment Rights abrogated by using a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?
Today I learned that "not wanting people to find out about my furry porn fetish" is the polar opposite of "not wanting to be shot by a crazy person with a gun."
I give Apple credit for their impressive marketing. One little unverified rumor about removal of an old port and Slashdot headlines it 3 times within a day. It's like they're using bunched panties as a power source!
Quite possibly. But when you ask people, what they say they want isn't a thinner phone, it's more battery life, which you get by making the phone thicker.
They make cases that thicken your iPhone and give it more battery-life. They do not make cases that make your phone thinner.
It's also removing weight and volume (the space taken up internally is vast compared to almost everything else but the screen and battery), gets rid of the single largest ingress point for dirt and moisture (another cost issue, since it reduces reliability), and probably disenfranchises some barely-measurable fraction of the market (give me actual figures, not just "I use it so everyone else should have to as well"). Seems like a good move to me.
I think I'm the only one that isn't ready to burn down Cupertino over the headphone jack. Yes I'd sorta rather have it than not, but I really don't physically plug my phone into anything other than to charge it. I either use my suppplied earbuds or I use bluetooth.
I will concede, though, that if they remove it something interesting should be put in its place. I don't need a better speaker, which is what it sounds like they're doing. You've got me there, I'd be frustrated if they dumped the headphone jack for that. But if they used that space for more battery, or maybe somehow that extra space got it a better camera, I'd toss that jack away in a heart beat.
I've been a Rhapsody customer for quite a while now. I chose it because it has both a smartphone client and a desktop client. I thought both did a decent job of helping me find new stuff to listen to.
I recently started with Youtube Red. It's early for me to properly review but I do like the music-video angle of it. More importantly, no more ads on Youtube.
Think about what 'false ignorance' actually means.;) You were far better off pretending you were defending the post below it. Now you're stuck in front of a pedant with your foot in your mouth.
Oh and dont worry about your other post, we're covered here, too. No need to reply to both.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? The iTunes movie rental service is going strong after many years in service. It's not much different.
I'd rather T-Mobile just say "here's a 1 megabit unlimited plan, enjoy!"
Who benefits if T-mobile discontinues Binge-On?
The rest of the internet that's not on that list.
I will say though that Binge on is the least offensive example, which is why I object to you citing it here. T-Mobile is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons...every other ISP that's violating Net Neutrality that I know of is (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, etc.) doing so as a naked grab for money and control
Cherry picking certain services is a naked grab for money and control. They're offering specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers. The only reason it's seemingly tolerable with T-Mobile is they don't provide services that would be a conflict of interest. Wait till AT&T tries it.
It's wrong either way. Sorry. If they really were being altruistic they'd just offer a 1mb unlimited plan and just ask the service providers to fit within that pipe, none of this "Fill out these forms and we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks" nonsense.
T-mobile is very open about their criteria and there hasn't been a single report of a video or audio service that wanted to be a part of Binge On and couldn't.
It doesn't matter. You still have to apply and they have to accept.
The issue is they get to pick and choose which services they allow a zero rating on. If that doesn't worry you a lot, then consider that the other major players offer television and phone service as well. It is so easy to imagine Comcast saying "oh, gee, Netflix isn't meeting our criteria. Sorry. But, hey, our streaming service is better anyway..."
For all of the hate we dish at Apple we sure do like talking about them 'round here.
They didn't block 'ordinary banner ads', they blocked pop-ups. Your troll-fu is weak.
Why does it matter? The PS3 ended up with less-functionality than what it had when it was purchased. Considering how connected our devices are getting and how dependent they are on software updates, you really should be taking a stand against this sort of behavior.
I wonder how many Slashdotters are prepared to fight to the death to keep their browsing History concealed from the FBI, but are more than willing have their 2nd Amendment Rights abrogated by using a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?
Today I learned that "not wanting people to find out about my furry porn fetish" is the polar opposite of "not wanting to be shot by a crazy person with a gun."
Maybe, but the original point still stands: You're still unwise if you value privacy and prefer an Android phone.
Google is an advertising company.
Okay, nice story and all, but can we go back to talking about Apple's headphones? Clearly that's a rumor everybody wants to babble about.
I give Apple credit for their impressive marketing. One little unverified rumor about removal of an old port and Slashdot headlines it 3 times within a day. It's like they're using bunched panties as a power source!
Quite possibly. But when you ask people, what they say they want isn't a thinner phone, it's more battery life, which you get by making the phone thicker.
They make cases that thicken your iPhone and give it more battery-life. They do not make cases that make your phone thinner.
It's also removing weight and volume (the space taken up internally is vast compared to almost everything else but the screen and battery), gets rid of the single largest ingress point for dirt and moisture (another cost issue, since it reduces reliability), and probably disenfranchises some barely-measurable fraction of the market (give me actual figures, not just "I use it so everyone else should have to as well"). Seems like a good move to me.
I don't understand why this is 'troll'.
I think I'm the only one that isn't ready to burn down Cupertino over the headphone jack. Yes I'd sorta rather have it than not, but I really don't physically plug my phone into anything other than to charge it. I either use my suppplied earbuds or I use bluetooth.
I will concede, though, that if they remove it something interesting should be put in its place. I don't need a better speaker, which is what it sounds like they're doing. You've got me there, I'd be frustrated if they dumped the headphone jack for that. But if they used that space for more battery, or maybe somehow that extra space got it a better camera, I'd toss that jack away in a heart beat.
So if your car is ever stolen the car thief will be armed. Great, thanks for creating that opportunity for us all to enjoy.
Sightation needed.
I don't run Slashdot.
I've been a Rhapsody customer for quite a while now. I chose it because it has both a smartphone client and a desktop client. I thought both did a decent job of helping me find new stuff to listen to.
I recently started with Youtube Red. It's early for me to properly review but I do like the music-video angle of it. More importantly, no more ads on Youtube.
When I read your post I could hear your voice in my head, and it had a southern accent.
I'm sorry for your loss, man.
Think about what 'false ignorance' actually means. ;) You were far better off pretending you were defending the post below it. Now you're stuck in front of a pedant with your foot in your mouth.
Oh and dont worry about your other post, we're covered here, too. No need to reply to both.
Heh. Actually you quoted the specific bit that proves my point. Oopsie.
So he's not choosing to utilize Linux, correct?