- Joined: Jan 5, 2017
- Last Login: Jan 20, 2022, 10:22am EST
- Comments: 786
Share this profile
Comment 2 recs
They absolutely like to make money, but they have an endgame in mind where by giving up some initially, they can make wayyy more down the line. I think it’s pretty obvious at this point that Microsoft wants Game Pass to be the Netflix of gaming, or the be-all and end-all place where you go for games. But to get there they need two things: studios (games) and lock-in. They’re brute-forcing the studios aspect by just buying them all up, and if they make those games exclusive to Game Pass, well…now they have lock-in. They’ll lose money initially by not going multi-platform, but once everyone is pretty much forced to subscribe to Game Pass? They’ll be rolling in it.
I think that’d be a pretty bad situation for Sony, actually. Consoles are sold at a loss. At most, they breakeven or make a tiny profit, but the point is that the hardware is not where the money is made. Sony’s gaming revenue comes from the 30% cut they take on every game sold for PlayStation. If they allow Microsoft’s store on their console, all they have is a piece of hardware that doesn’t really make any money.
Comment 2 recs
Was about to say, bait-and-switch is when you buy something up front and you get a different product than you were promised. If anyone ever feels as though Netflix isn’t delivering, they take their money and go home at any time. I agree that Netflix’s content isn’t worth the cost anymore, so I’ll just leave. And that’s that. No big deal.
Apparently the show Yellowstone is a big hit with boomers right now, and Paramount+ is the only place to watch it. They’re also getting the Halo TV show which, if its good (one can hope), should be a pretty big deal for the service as well. I’ll be subscribing the month it comes out, anyway.
Comment 4 recs
Because Disney doesn’t have it in them to base a whole series around a character who’s a "bad guy." They need him to be "good," or at least have an upright moral code. I’m guessing the whole interaction he has with the Tuscans is meant to be the backstory on how he want through that change. Not the most convincing thing in the world, in my opinion. But oh well.
Comment 1 reply, 4 recs
With Sony, I can see how continuing to make PS4s makes sense, since there isn’t a "lower end" variant of the PS5. But with Microsoft, the 1080p-focused Series S is so close in price to the Xbox One S anyway, might as well just steer people toward that console. Other than a lack of a disc drive, it’s superior in every way and still quite affordable.
Comment 2 recs
It isn’t the suburban Republican party of the 1980s anymore – I think they finally looked around and realized that their increasingly working class base would eventually leave if they didn’t stop being the party of big business. Not that they’re doing a great job at it, but they have to try. On another note, I wish Rubio wasn’t the only one speaking up about this. We’re considering giving Intel a huge wad of taxpayer cash, and they just apologized to an authoritarian regime for having to boycott literal slave labor. I mean, WTF…
Comment 4 recs
If your issue is with capitalism as a whole, and it sort of sounds like it is, then that’s an entirely separate subject – as well as infinitely more complex and politically charged. I’m not going down that rabbit hole. We have the system that we have. The consensus on this site in particular, from both commenters and writers alike, is that competition is a good thing within a capitalistic system. Apple is competing. iMessage was not designed with the express purpose of being a point of bullying. Kids bully each other over anything and everything. If it isn’t over what color bubble your message is, it’s over something else. Bullying in schools is not suddenly going to get any better because Apple changes the color of their SMS bubbles, and quite frankly I think that argument is laughable.
Comment 1 reply, 4 recs
The SMS bubble was always green, right from the beginning – years before iMessage was ever a thing.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
Teens who’s parents buy them all their stuff never had a choice, that’s not somehow unique to the iPhone. And if kids are bullying someone over what phone their parents gave them, I’d chalk that up to shitty, immature behavior. And I 100% sympathize with anyone on the receiving end of that. But this sounds more like a class problem, certainly not the fault of a company that designed a superior product, which, I have to stress is what good companies should do. Design good products that a better than the competition.
Comment 2 replies, 2 recs
I think the key difference between your two examples is that one has to do with market differentiation (iMessage), and the other has to do with how a service is designed and what outcomes that design is meant to create (Instagram). Instagram’s issues are all self-contained, and fixing them don’t involve giving their product away to a competitor. When iMessage was first introduced, SMS was the dominant form of messaging, at least in the US. It was designed to be an improvement over the current system, with the goal of making the iPhone a better experience than the competition. That’s what a good business does – they compete, they try to make their product better than everyone else’s. And, again, this is just my opinion, but I think the real underlying reason for all this angst around iMessage is that Google essentially failed to compete on this ground – they failed to come up with a compelling alternative to iMessage and for wayyy too long their OS continued to heavily rely on SMS. So now we’re in a situation where one OS has the clearly better app that everyone wants. Is that really, truly Apple’s fault? For designing a good app to differentiate themselves from the competition? And they’re somehow obligated to just give it away? It’s not that I don’t understand the other side’s argument, its just that I can’t seem to get there.
Comment 5 recs
Of course, since it falls back to SMS otherwise. That’s why it having high marketshare if pretty important, because you really lose that as a benefit if it wasn’t the case. Pretty much any given person who I happen to exchange numbers with just so happens to use iMessage, so in the US it actually works itself out. But yes, in other places I’d probably look for an alternative. I just think that for here specifically, it’s the best option. Others obviously disagree with me.
Comment 1 reply, 6 recs
I was aware of that article and read it before seeing this one. I understand the sentiment and it’s obviously unfortunate, but people bully other people over dumb shit all the time. I mentioned consoles because that’s another thing that kids give each other a hard time for. Also…you seem irrationally hostile over a simple disagreement. Is anyone who disagrees with you in a comment section just "mouthing off"? LOL – okay.
Comment 11 recs
I’m happy to criticize Apple when I think they’re wrong and I welcome hearing your full side the argument, sincerely. So I ask again, with the context I already pointed to, why is it not okay?
Comment 5 replies, 20 recs
Why is it not okay? That’s the free market. People make decisions about which product they want to buy based on certain features all the time. That’s like saying video game consoles shouldn’t be allowed to have exclusive games because someone might get bullied for having the "wrong" one, and will therefore be excluded from playing [insert random game here]. Apple developed iMessage as a better alternative to SMS for their devices, it’s one of their selling points. Are they not supposed to differentiate themselves from competitors? It’s up to the market to decide which app they want to use. Signal and WhatsApp are both available on iPhone, there’s nothing stopping people from switching if they so choose.
Comment 2 replies, 23 recs
I’m actually glad that iMessage is dominant in the US, since I consider it to be a pretty great messaging app that’s end-to-end encrypted and isn’t owned by Facebook- sorry, Meta. Signal is good too, but it’s never going to have the user base that iMessage does, so I think it’s a fine place to be.
Comment 1 reply
I don’t think they’re always doomed to fail, but I am of the mind that they are more likely than not to fail because good adaptations are just incredibly difficult to get right. Scott Pilgrim really seems to be an exception rather than the rule.
Comment 2 replies, 7 recs
I do feel for you – dealerships suck and having to miss a family Christmas gathering because of them must have been beyond irritating. That said, there is simply no feasible way to be in and out of those places in under 3-4 hours. You can try to take all the shortcuts you want, it won’t matter. It’s an archaic, and quite frankly predatory system in desperate need of reform. I wish there was more political will to do something about it.
Right – the networks are the ones dragging their feet on this. Streaming services and cable providers already have the bandwidth and technology in place to support it. Some networks are still running on the 720p equipment they installed in the mid-2000s, which is just ridiculous.