Cross-posted to a Linux and a Win7 Newsgroup ... I don't have an iOS >newsgroup.
"US launches landmark lawsuit against Apple"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/us-launches-landmark-lawsuit-against-apple/103620506
Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story this >afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS has something >like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
However, on a Worldwide basis .....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/
Quote "Android maintained its position as the leading mobile operating >system worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2023 with a market share of 70.1 >percent. Android's closest rival, Apple's iOS, had a market share of 29.2 >percent during the same period." End Quote
Why is there such a drastic difference between 'With-in U.S. of A.' stats >and 'Worldwide' stats?? i.e. almost an inversion!
On 22/03/2024 in message <utjj91$2rf05$1@dont-email.me> Daniel65
wrote:
Cross-posted to a Linux and a Win7 Newsgroup ... I don't have an
iOS newsgroup.
"US launches landmark lawsuit against Apple"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/us-launches-landmark-lawsuit-against-apple/103620506
Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story
this afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS
has something like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
However, on a Worldwide basis .....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/
Quote "Android maintained its position as the leading mobile
operating system worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2023 with a
market share of 70.1 percent. Android's closest rival, Apple's iOS,
had a market share of 29.2 percent during the same period." End
Quote
Why is there such a drastic difference between 'With-in U.S. of A.'
stats and 'Worldwide' stats?? i.e. almost an inversion!
Americans are naively patriotic and many of them don't understand
there are other countries in the world.
There is a story that at the first lesson of trainee airline pilots
in the US about 14% (on average) of the trainees have to be taken to
a mental hospital to recover when they are told there are other
countries in the world they will need to fly to.
"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this storyIt may be true. But those stats are from statcounter. So it's really
this afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS has
something like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
a record of what cellphone is used by people who visit commercial
websites with statcounter tracking and don't block it.
Apple devotees are less likely to care about privacy, more likely to
be wealthy. That may account for part of the stats. (I've been
blocking statcounter in my HOSTS file for as long as I can remember.
Do extensions like ublock origin block it? I don't know.)
Apple's own disciple-run website says the US share is in the 30s and generally going down: https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/18/apples-us-smartphone-market-share-39-percent/
Where do they get their stats? I don't know. Maybe they're counting
sales, rather than cellphones visiting statcounter websites? I don't
see anyplace where they even explain their numbers! Then again,
AppleSeeds don't care. They just want to hear that their religion is
growing.
It's become common knowledge in the US that iPhone text messages show
as blue bubbles whereas if an Android sends a text to an iPhone it's
green. Ick! Gross ick factor!
Apple blocks efforts to change the bubble color because they want to
promote Apple as a status symbol. Similarly, they deliberately
interfere with anything that might mean an AppleSeed being able to
interact with non-Apple products.
On dating sites, a green bubble is often enough to disqualify someone
from consideration -- like a young man who picks up his date in a
rusted Ford Fiesta. Who wants to date an icky Android prole?
US culture tends to be very status-conscious. People spend big money
for iPhones, BMWs, etc. The more alienated people become, the more
the person is the logos. Many people walk around festooned with
logos, on their coats, shoes, shirts, handbags, glasses... Apple have
always pushed a "premium brand" image. People don't mind paying
through the nose. Just as with BMW, it's not so much the product per
se as it is the logo that they buy.
On the other hand, Apple does make solid products. Their products are
also relatively easy to use by people with little tech aptitude.
They're stable, dependable, beautifully built, and soprt iconss that
look like they were designed by a 12 year old girl who dots her i's
with hearts. Cute as a button and fancy as a BMW.
And as the US lawsuit indicates, Apple are vicious in their
competitive, monopolistic practices and their exploitation of both
customers and the virtual slave labor force that produces their
products. So their tech-illiterate customers are reasonable in
thinking that nothing but Mac works well. Because if it's not Mac
then it doesn't work well on a Mac.
Flaky GenZ moralists won't buy a brand if the CEO has said something critical of "trans" people, but they'll happily share the CEO
"cancel gossip" on their slave-built iPhone. That's a big part of the
Apple mystery. How do they manage to maintain an image as a cute
company, year after year, while arguably being one of the nastiest
companies to ever exist?
The other mystery is why it's taken over two decades for law
enforcement to look into Apple's practices. There's no secret there.
Yet suddenly everyone's worked up. Perhaps it's because no one cared
about consumer protection, but they do care if Epic Games, PayPal and
various other corporate entities that are suffering lost profits? And
why aren't they looking into Google's similar exploitive practices?
Why is it impossible to simply buy a cellphone that's not controlled
by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force me to watch CBS TV. My car
doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive to.
"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrotepercent/
| Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story
this | afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS has something | like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
|
It may be true. But those stats are from statcounter. So
it's really a record of what cellphone is used by people who visit
commercial websites with statcounter tracking and don't block it.
Apple devotees are less likely to care about privacy, more
likely to be wealthy. That may account for part of the stats.
(I've been blocking statcounter in my HOSTS file for as long as I can remember. Do extensions like ublock origin block it?
I don't know.)
Apple's own disciple-run website says the US share is in the
30s and generally going down: https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/18/apples-us-smartphone-market-share-39-
Where do they get their stats? I don't know. Maybe they're
counting sales, rather than cellphones visiting statcounter websites? I
don't see anyplace where they even explain their numbers! Then again, AppleSeeds don't care. They just want to hear that their religion is
growing.
It's become common knowledge in the US that iPhone text
messages show as blue bubbles whereas if an Android sends a text to an
iPhone it's green. Ick! Gross ick factor!
Apple blocks efforts to change the bubble color because they
want to promote Apple as a status symbol. Similarly, they deliberately interfere with anything that might mean an AppleSeed being able to
interact with non-Apple products.
On dating sites, a green bubble is often enough to disqualify
someone from consideration -- like a young man who picks up his date in
a rusted Ford Fiesta. Who wants to date an icky Android prole?
US culture tends to be very status-conscious. People spend
big money for iPhones, BMWs, etc. The more alienated people become, the
more the person is the logos. Many people walk around festooned with
logos, on their coats, shoes, shirts,
handbags, glasses... Apple have always pushed a "premium brand" image.
People don't mind paying through the nose. Just as with BMW, it's not so
much the product per se as it is the logo that they buy.
On the other hand, Apple does make solid products. Their products
are also relatively easy to use by people with little tech aptitude.
They're stable, dependable, beautifully built, and soprt iconss that
look like they were designed by a 12 year old girl who dots her i's with hearts. Cute as a button and fancy as a BMW.
And as the US lawsuit indicates, Apple are vicious in their
competitive,
monopolistic practices and their exploitation of both customers and the virtual slave labor force that produces their products. So their tech-illiterate customers are reasonable in thinking that nothing but
Mac works well. Because if it's not Mac then it doesn't work well on a
Mac.
Flaky GenZ moralists won't buy a brand if the CEO has said something critical of "trans" people, but they'll happily share the CEO "cancel
gossip"
on their slave-built iPhone. That's a big part of the Apple mystery.
How do they manage to maintain an image as a cute company,
year after year, while arguably being one of the nastiest companies to
ever exist?
The other mystery is why it's taken over two decades for law
enforcement to look into Apple's practices. There's no secret there. Yet suddenly everyone's worked up. Perhaps it's because no one cared about consumer protection, but they do care if Epic Games, PayPal and various
other corporate entities that are suffering lost profits? And why aren't
they looking into Google's similar exploitive practices? Why is it
impossible to simply buy a cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit
the supermarkets I can drive to.
Why is it impossible to simply buy a
cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't
force me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets
I can drive to.
Cross-posted to a Linux and a Win7 Newsgroup ... I don't have an iOS newsgroup.
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]
Why is it impossible to simply buy a
cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force
me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
to.
As said - also to you - before, it's perfectly possible to buy a 'cellphone' (read: mobile phone) where you - not the phone/'OS' supplier
- are in charge, but a *smart*phone indeed not so much.
Cross-posted to a Linux and a Win7 Newsgroup ... I don't have an iOS newsgroup.
"US launches landmark lawsuit against Apple"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/us-launches-landmark-lawsuit-against-apple/103620506
Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story this afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS has something like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
However, on a Worldwide basis .....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/
Quote "Android maintained its position as the leading mobile operating system worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2023 with a market share of
70.1 percent. Android's closest rival, Apple's iOS, had a market share
of 29.2 percent during the same period." End Quote
Why is there such a drastic difference between 'With-in U.S. of A.'
stats and 'Worldwide' stats?? i.e. almost an inversion!
On 22 Mar 2024 15:48:41 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]
Why is it impossible to simply buy a
cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force
me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
to.
As said - also to you - before, it's perfectly possible to buy a
'cellphone' (read: mobile phone) where you - not the phone/'OS' supplier
- are in charge, but a *smart*phone indeed not so much.
get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
andal <andal@andal.org> wrote at 18:21 this Friday (GMT):
On 22 Mar 2024 15:48:41 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]
Why is it impossible to simply buy a
cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force >>>> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
to.
As said - also to you - before, it's perfectly possible to buy a
'cellphone' (read: mobile phone) where you - not the phone/'OS' supplier >>> - are in charge, but a *smart*phone indeed not so much.
get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
Does that exist?Not a Linux phone, but a phone with several likable properties:
get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
Does that exist?
"andal" <andal@andal.org> wrote
| >> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
| >> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force | >> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
| >> to.
| get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
That might work for a small population of geeks. For me, it's
just not worth the trouble to work out the details. For the
average person it's not feasible at all. Personally I'd go further and
say that the culture of geek arrogance makes things worse,
as it becomes a mark of geek status to do things like run a
jailbroken cellphone. The issue is much bigger: Jailed cellphones
need to be illegal. Anyone should be able to buy a clean cellphone
and sign up with any service provider, with clearly delineated
fees.
Slashdot ran an interesting piece today, linking to the DOJ
lawsuit against Apple: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline The suit explains that sleazy licensing deals, limitations set
by phone services, and Apple's deliberate blocking of interactibility,
have left only Apple, Samsung and Google as serious cellphone
makers. Microsoft, Amazon, HTC and others had to drop out
because they couldn't get market share.
I actually have an LTC Tracfone that cost $40. I don't know
how they can afford to sell the screen for $40. Yet it's a very
slick, handheld computer that works for web browsing. I imagine
the camera doesn't match an iPhone or Samsung camera. I haven't
used it, so I don't know. But my Tracfone is still heavily infested
with Googlism. I've managed to block or remove most of it, though
every time I turn it on I get a flurry of messages telling me that
I simply must enable Google Play Store, or Google Services, or some
such. All of that should be prosecuted for monopoly control. Google
have no business running their spyware/crapware on my private
cellphone.
"andal" <andal@andal.org> wrote
| >> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
| >> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force >| >> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
| >> to.
| get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
|
That might work for a small population of geeks. For me, it's
just not worth the trouble to work out the details. For the
average person it's not feasible at all. Personally I'd go further and
say that the culture of geek arrogance makes things worse,
as it becomes a mark of geek status to do things like run a
jailbroken cellphone. The issue is much bigger: Jailed cellphones
need to be illegal. Anyone should be able to buy a clean cellphone
and sign up with any service provider, with clearly delineated
fees.
(At one point some years ago I went to 4 different stores:
ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile, and one other that used to exist. Each
one told me service started at $40. Not one of them would tell
me the reall price. Though one woman who was there to pay
her bill was nice enought to show me: she was paying about $80.)
Slashdot ran an interesting piece today, linking to the DOJ
lawsuit against Apple: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline >The suit explains that sleazy licensing deals, limitations set
by phone services, and Apple's deliberate blocking of interactibility,
have left only Apple, Samsung and Google as serious cellphone
makers. Microsoft, Amazon, HTC and others had to drop out
because they couldn't get market share. It's like the old days
before the Bell breakup, when people had no choice but to rent
landline phones and pay steep rates for service. Except that the
current scenario is more complicated and more difficult to
understand. So not only would it be nearly impossible for a Mac
user to use a Linux cellphone. It would likely be unrealistic for
them to even use an Android cellphone. And for a current iPhone
user to switch would be even harder.
I actually have an LTC Tracfone that cost $40. I don't know
how they can afford to sell the screen for $40. Yet it's a very
slick, handheld computer that works for web browsing. I imagine
the camera doesn't match an iPhone or Samsung camera. I haven't
used it, so I don't know. But my Tracfone is still heavily infested
with Googlism. I've managed to block or remove most of it, though
every time I turn it on I get a flurry of messages telling me that
I simply must enable Google Play Store, or Google Services, or some
such. All of that should be prosecuted for monopoly control. Google
have no business running their spyware/crapware on my private
cellphone.
All of that should be prosecuted
for monopoly control. Google have no business running their
spyware/crapware on my private cellphone.
andal <andal@andal.org> wrote at 18:21 this Friday (GMT):
On 22 Mar 2024 15:48:41 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]
Why is it impossible to simply buy a
cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't
force me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can
drive to.
As said - also to you - before, it's perfectly possible to buy a
'cellphone' (read: mobile phone) where you - not the phone/'OS'
supplier - are in charge, but a *smart*phone indeed not so much.
get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
Does that exist?
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:10:05 -0400, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
Does that exist?
https://itsfoss.com/linux-phones/
Regards, Dave Hodgins
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
| Ah. Well, you're conflicting two things there - the OS, and the service
| provider.
I'm talking about 3 things: hardware maker, OS maker and service.
For example, Samsung, Google, and Verizon, or Apple, Apple and Verizon. Google doesn't provide phone service but they do greatly control
and spy on Android cellphones. Apple does the same with iPhones.
What I'm saying is that Apple and Google should have no access to
the phones except for voluntary OS updates, or perhaps for
voluntarily loaded apps. If they want to have a "store" then let
them, but it shouldn't be forced and other stores shouldn't be
restricted. That's partly what the US lawsuit is about.
None of it is from the Tracfone service. It's all Google crap
pre-installed on Android. I go to a non-Google app provider, have
no Google account and use no Google apps or services, but
Google infests the whole OS. There are dozens of pre-installed
Google processes, many of which can't be uninstalled.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:10:05 -0400, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
Does that exist?
https://itsfoss.com/linux-phones/
Regards, Dave Hodgins
https://itsfoss.com/linux-phones/
Awesome, I might look at getting one.
candycanearter07 wrote:
https://itsfoss.com/linux-phones/
Awesome, I might look at getting one.
Read the comments under the article, mostly negative, for a reason.
-jw-
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
"andal" <andal@andal.org> wrote
| >> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
| >> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force >> | >> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive >> | >> to.
| get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
That might work for a small population of geeks. For me, it's
just not worth the trouble to work out the details. For the
average person it's not feasible at all. Personally I'd go further and
say that the culture of geek arrogance makes things worse,
as it becomes a mark of geek status to do things like run a
jailbroken cellphone. The issue is much bigger: Jailed cellphones
need to be illegal. Anyone should be able to buy a clean cellphone
and sign up with any service provider, with clearly delineated
fees.
It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
[...]
The suit explains that sleazy licensing deals, limitations set
by phone services, and Apple's deliberate blocking of interactibility,
have left only Apple, Samsung and Google as serious cellphone
makers. Microsoft, Amazon, HTC and others had to drop out
because they couldn't get market share.
Probably another US-ism. In other countries, there are many, many
other brands. In our country - The Netherlands - Google phones weren't
even sold until not too long ago.
"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wroteofficial-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for- privacy/
| > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
| > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have |
unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.|
| There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
|
| 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
| from any number of retailers.
| 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24 | installments as part of the phone bill.
|
| If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that |
carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon |
request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
| the phone).
|
I think there's a confusion here with hardware vs carrier vs OS.
For any but extreme geeks, the OS is locked spyware. That's what I'm primarily talking about as "jailed". I can't eliminate all of the Google processes on my Android computer phone. Yet I never chose to deal with Google. I bought a phone and get service from Tracfone.
The typical use of "jailbroken" that I've heard is with computer phones locked into Apple's app source.
From what I can see, both Apple and Google are locking people
into their spyware services and app stores. That's largely what the
recent US lawsuit against Apple is about:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Apple are more forceful than Google, but the average person is
going through their services, regardless of which phone they buy.
Deals with carriers, incompatibilities with SIM cards, hidden junk
fees,
and so on are an additional complication. All of that is a big problem,
but it's not part of the basic lock-in by the OS from either Google or
Apple.
This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license. Increasingly we have what's effectively rental of kiosk devices that
control what can be done and spy on every action. Even cars are headed
in that direction, as well as, of course, doorbells. By saying the
device incorporates coyrighted software, the companies can call on the
DMCA to justify lockdown, spyware and rental. How long before we
effectively have to rent all devices and have only kiosk-style access to their functionality?
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-
One side aspect of that is what Tim Berners-Lee has described as
"silos" -- functionalty extending across domains by single entities.
For instance, Android computer phone, Google search, gmail, Google
Wallet, "sync" services, etc. Many people can't afford to even consider leaving Google. Apple is the same. Which likely accounts partially for
the growing popularity of iPhones: People switched to Macs to avoid
malware. Once they do that, an iPhone makes sense.
Incompatibility and lock-in make silo living an obvious choice. The particular genius of Google and Apple is to herd their customers into
the abattoir by making it a frictionless choice. Any other option
requires climbing the fence to get out of the abattoir chute.
"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
| > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
| > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
| > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
|
| There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
|
| 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
| from any number of retailers.
| 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
| installments as part of the phone bill.
|So it isn't "free" really. I presume from your description that they
| If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
| carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
| request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
| the phone).
|
I think there's a confusion here with hardware vs carrier vs OS.
For any but extreme geeks, the OS is locked spyware. That's what
I'm primarily talking about as "jailed". I can't eliminate all of the
Google processes on my Android computer phone. Yet I never chose
to deal with Google. I bought a phone and get service from Tracfone.
The typical use of "jailbroken" that I've heard is with computer
phones locked into Apple's app source.
From what I can see, both Apple and Google are locking people
into their spyware services and app stores. That's largely what the
recent US lawsuit against Apple is about:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Apple are more forceful than Google, but the average person is
going through their services, regardless of which phone
they buy.
Deals with carriers, incompatibilities with SIM cards, hidden junk fees,
and so on are an additional complication. All of that is a big problem,
but it's not part of the basic lock-in by the OS from either Google or
Apple.
This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license.
Increasingly we have what's effectively rental of kiosk devices that
control what can be done and spy on every action. Even cars are headed
in that direction, as well as, of course, doorbells. By saying the device >incorporates coyrighted software, the companies can call on the DMCA
to justify lockdown, spyware and rental. How long before we effectively
have to rent all devices and have only kiosk-style access to their >functionality?
particular genius of Google and Apple is to herd their customers into
the abattoir by making it a frictionless choice. Any other option
requires climbing the fence to get out of the abattoir chute.
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote[]
| licence, but I meant right to use it indefinitely, not any sort of
| agreement that had to be renewed (sometimes it was tied to the hardware,
| which was fair enough as long as that was clear). These days "licence"
| often means for a limited period.
|
Yes. That's the rental trend. Software is sold as copyrighted
material. So it's like a book. You have a right to do as you like
with your copy, so long as you don't distribute copies. Although
companies like Microsoft have exploited the situation to link
Windows to hardware, while others have exploited the situation
to copy software to multiple computers. No easy solution that's
entirely fair.
There's been an issue with US libraries where publishers want them
to have to buy new e-books every x number of checkouts. They make
a good point that e-books don't wear out like books do. On the other
hand, there's a great deal of money saved by not having to print
e-books, yet they typically charge about 50% of book price. Again,
neither side is really willing to find a fair compromise.
I think the software rental idea really came about because software
was getting mature. For many years people would buy new computers
and software regularly. It made sense. 300 MHz was much slower than
400 MHz, ans Photoshop 4 was primitive compared to PS5. But gradually
the technology matured and people just didn't need to upgrade so often.
Where we used to pay for image viewers and WinZip, now it's mostly
free. So companies had to do something. Companies like Adobe and
Microsoft (MS Office) were facing losses. Customers were no longer
anxxious to see the next version of their product.
So rental is the answer. MS are clearly trying to do the same with
Windows, but it's not really working. So they're taking a different
approach of trying to show ads and sell "premium content". Their
new crap trinket, Copilot, is typical. They're forcing it on people and
then advertising that a more functional version is available for $20/month. >If they could just get one hit with a product like that they'd have a
whole new industry....
Interestingly, I just read that MS are planning
to offer real MS Office software again. Though I haven't seen anything
about pricing, or whether it might just be a UWP/Metro trinket. I don't
know what their thinking is. Is O365 failing? Are businesses unwilling
to rent?
| Not long, I fear. If I buy a new car, I'd want to find and disconnect
| (except when _I_ want to use it) the cellular connection, but I'm not
| sure if they've managed to make doing that illegal.
That's a good question. The technology and politics are
moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
companies are jacking up rates based on spying. So where
will that go? Historically it's mostly a case of exploitation through >obscurity. If people have to be experts to avoid spying then the
rare outliers don't matter. Most people will be exploitable. I have
seen details about some cars online, but so far it's hard to find
clear facts. So how many people will tear apart their dhasboard
or back seat to remove a transmitter? And what if that makes the
lights stop working?
There's been an issue with US libraries where publishers want them
to have sinfect!to buy new e-books every x number of checkouts. They make
a good point that e-books don't wear out like books do. On the other
hand, there's a great deal of money saved by not having to print
e-books, yet they typically charge about 50% of book price. Again,
neither side is really willing to find a fair compromise.
So rental is the answer. MS are clearly trying to do the same with
Windows, but it's not really working. So they're taking a different
approach of trying to show ads and sell "premium content". Their
new crap trinket, Copilot, is typical.
That's a good question. The technology and politics are
moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
companies are jacking up rates based on spying.
In message <utrubi$1426l$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:31:21, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
| > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
| > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
| > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
|
| There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
|
| 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
| from any number of retailers.
| 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
| installments as part of the phone bill.
Presumably you _could_ do route #1 and get credit from someone other
than the carrier or OS provider (bank loan, credit card, ...).
|So it isn't "free" really. I presume from your description that they
| If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
| carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
| request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o >>| the phone).
|
conceal what part of the monthly payment is paying off the 'phone, and
what part is for the service provision. (I _think_ our [UK and EU] legislators clamped down on that.)
That's a good question. The technology and politics are
moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
companies are jacking up rates based on spying. So where
will that go? Historically it's mostly a case of exploitation through obscurity. If people have to be experts to avoid spying then the
rare outliers don't matter. Most people will be exploitable. I have
seen details about some cars online, but so far it's hard to find
clear facts. So how many people will tear apart their dhasboard
or back seat to remove a transmitter? And what if that makes the
lights stop working?
candycanearter07 wrote:
https://itsfoss.com/linux-phones/
Awesome, I might look at getting one.
Read the comments under the article, mostly negative, for a reason.
-jw-
"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
| | And how long before 'removing the transmitter' VOIDS your
Vehicle's | Warranty??
Indeed. That's one of the issues that needs to be clarified. Are
there such warranty issues with cars? A lot of electrical appliances
say the warranty is void if you open the case. Cars are different.
Removing a camera to spy on car occupants has nothing to do with a transmission failing early. I've done the brakes and oil changes on
my current car. I'm sure I wouldn't be refused warranty service on
that score. But it's possible that companies will try to use such
tricks.
In the past it's usually been passive control. Companies don't want
court cases. I remember reading a great example of the premise some
years ago: Companies could put special sensors in wheel rims that
check something like an RFID tag in tires. If Toyota, say, can't
confirm that you have their special overpriced tires then they could
disable some functionality, claiming it's not safe without the
official tires. They wouldn't even have to claim DMCA infringement.
They could just give technical reasons why they can't be sure of
safety issues without confirming tire specs.
Printer companies are already doing just that and so far theyDaniel
haven't been stopped.
--
Newyana2 wrote on 26/03/2024 11:41 pm:
"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
| | And how long before 'removing the transmitter' VOIDS your
Vehicle's | Warranty??
Indeed. That's one of the issues that needs to be clarified. Are
there such warranty issues with cars? A lot of electrical appliances
say the warranty is void if you open the case. Cars are different.
Removing a camera to spy on car occupants has nothing to do with a
transmission failing early. I've done the brakes and oil changes on
my current car. I'm sure I wouldn't be refused warranty service on
that score. But it's possible that companies will try to use such
tricks.
In the past it's usually been passive control. Companies don't want
court cases. I remember reading a great example of the premise some
years ago: Companies could put special sensors in wheel rims that
check something like an RFID tag in tires. If Toyota, say, can't
confirm that you have their special overpriced tires then they could
disable some functionality, claiming it's not safe without the
official tires. They wouldn't even have to claim DMCA infringement.
They could just give technical reasons why they can't be sure of
safety issues without confirming tire specs.
Maybe after 750,000 revolutions, the tyre KNOWS it's due for a
'Rotation' (Front to Back, Left to Right) so the car lets you know ....
and lets you know ..... and lets you ................!!
Printer companies are already doing just that and so far theyDaniel
haven't been stopped.
--
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 915 |
| Nodes: | 10 (2 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 36:04:49 |
| Calls: | 12,170 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,521 |
| Messages: | 2,234,373 |