scbzzzzz

looks nice, but i am using firefox and website is broken, lost of text overlap. horizontal scroll not working etc

It is like blaming government for policy to make cigarette packaging unappealling.

Every company wants to spy on you using cookies and sell you data or target ads. cookies banners are warnings to protect your data from these greedy companies.

Make perfect sense, Thanks kind stranger. Hope it is the reason and not some corporate greed. It on me, lately my thoughts are defaulted towards corporates sabotaging consumers. I need to work on it.

The effects on custom os community is causing me worried ( I am still rocking my oneplus 7t with crdroid and oneplus used to most geek friendly) Now I am wondering if there are other ways they could achieved the same without blowing a fuse or be more transparent about this.

What do OnePlus gain from this? Can someone explain me what are the advantages of OnePlus doing all this? A failed update resulting in motherboard replacement? More money, more shareholders are happy?

I still sometimes ponder if oneplus green line fiasco is a failed hardware fuse type thing that got accidentally triggered during software update. (Insert I can't prove meme here).

I respectfully disagree my friend. When Investors , board, wall street is chasing second order and third order delta increase in a stock enshitification is bound to happen. If there is a board that wants return higher than previous year and when you can't optimize costs by improving tech, You find new avenues like showing 2 ads, showing 3 ads. Increasing subscription price or cheekly modifing terms of service and selling your data to 3rd party data brokers. it has nothing to do with subscription cost.

yes I agree, but we need to change with the age. in early 2000's it is hard to distribute apps/software, and 30% commission made sense.

now it is not, there are several people/companies who can make the app distribution better, efficient for all consumers. they can bring it down to a fraction (apple itself has by now bought it to a fraction of what it costs in 2000).only reason they are not passed down to consumer is because they made sure there is no competition (by force(google paying samsung to not develop its app store) or by design (Apple limiting 3rd party installs and discouraging webapps) - basically how a monopoly/duopoly behaves). it is bad for us consumers

if apple has developed all the tools libraries itself from scratch , put hardwork and sweat into it, i wont have a issue. we all know thats not the case and how much opensource tools helped.

Apple cerifies/recieves licensencing fee for every thunderbolt cable. Apple only did move to usb-c when backlash is so high and eu law will certainly pass.

It is good for their pr to advertise that they moved to usbc because they wanted to rather than forced to by a government.Apple still tries/atleast tried to control usbc cable usage for iphones. Cables need to get certified.

Apple supported usbc on mac because it is superior and the impact to their revenue is very low. It is also jump from usb-a to usb -c

Wow , you need lot of homework to do. You missed the whole timeline of events, backlash with apple and usbc and just looking at headlines.

Or either misrepresenting the facts because you are a fan boy of a trillion dollar company. Please dont if its latter.

> Apple is so successful is because they know how to create a great phone experience.

I disagree, may be they were at some time. Now they are successful because the walls of the well are so high. It is insanely difficult for us frogs to jump. Happy that governments are trying to bring those walls down

> I am happy to pay extra for a lot of your dot points. Good for you because you trust them. Problem is I am not. I dont trust apple/google to make that decision for me. But they dont give that choice. They are making you sacrificing freedom, choice by masking them self as secure. But underlying motive is profits and control.

I heard a story that apple asked meta for comission on ads , when meta rejected they introduced features to remove access to usage metrics to 3rd party apps. If meta agreed , you might never see the privacy features app introduced.

The security you are thinking is a believable mirage. There are several users who have lost thousands of dollars to scammy appstore in app purchases/subsciptions and apple is doing shit to stop this.

True. I would like to hijack this thread and wante d to discuss what we want for software that is not present. For me. All i can think of is ondevice , al/ml ( photo editing, video editing etc ) and not the ones the current companies are trying hard shove down our throats.

May be steve is true. We don't know what we want until some one shows it .

It is not just that. In my case , everyone around me are using iphone . I made the sacrifice to not easily connect with them and use android so that i have freedom ( to install, customise what ever). Once that freedom aspect is taken away. There is no reason for me to make that sacrifice.

Until EU's cross compatibility between messaging apps is passed, we are forced to be in vendor lockin.

With all the things google is doing for custom os last few years ( play protect, no major updates to asop and bundling updates to closed source google libraries etc). It is not speculation it is predicting with high certainty. Google wants custom os market to die and they are doing it brick by brick. We should Open our eyes and look at the timeline and realise it is not speculation and actual reality before it will be too late. Source: i am an owner of device with custom os and i know things i have to do to fix broken apps.

You need to look at history. In early 90s why did Microsoft invest in apple when it is its competitors. Investment doesn't mean they are medling into mozilla business. For companies like google (present) or Microsoft in 90's. It is better to have a crippled competitor than no competitor. No competitor attracts government agencies for monopoly which is worse.

Early pixel models comes with unlimited google photos feature etc. I think maintaining is more of a lost revenue to google than patching cost. If customos devs can do it on donation so can google. Probably a reason for google to obselete them and a reason for us to keep alive and running it as long as possible.

I still see few custom roms spoofing as early pixel models to enable unlimited google photos.

The problem is not with the ads but all the bad things that come along with it. Collecting unnecessary personal data, targetting, disregard for others privacy and list goes on.

These small bloggers/websites are letting the huge ad corporations take up the butcher job and cry when people use adblock.

Google provides a way to turn off ad personalization and when i turn it off you know what i see. Scam/adult/gambling ads and these small websites/bloggers are ok with showing scams to earn 0.01cents. then where they broke the social contract.

Google/meta with all the policing of billion youtube/fb videos/posts dont have same policing for ads quality. Thats where they broke the social contract.

Yes they need to make money, one alternative, I am ok with companies using my compute to run crypto mining( or scientific worlloadw ) when i use their website instead of ads. Small companies should look out of box for money rather than employing a butcher to make money.

My major problem with ads is the disrespect of my privacy. People deserve to get paid for the hard work they put. I have immense respect for creators .

But at the same time, these yt creators are relying on google ads . Which are intrusive, doesn't acknowledge and care about privacy. If you turn on ad privacy, you see gambling, scams ,crypto ads. How is that responsible? You as a creator is ok with getting money and ok with indirectly making people addicted, fall for scams? That's not right.

I am ok with sponser ads and am against sponsorblock. They are not tracking me, violating my privacy and telling me about new products .

youtube subscription doesn't stop youtube for collecting you data and use it for ads during other google service .

My two cents, tipping should be optional and only reserved for exceptional service.

It is problem with business taking advantage of low income groups and business should be guilt into doing the right thing. Not people for not tipping.

If a company can't exist/ will be bankrupt ( or whatever the greedy business owners complain) if they can't provide livable( not minimum wage that was set 10 years ago and never account for inflation) wage to workers they should not exist in first place.

Tipping just enables this exploitation and at the same time paying billion of dollars to shareholders . I have read news about companies, owners taking share of the tip.

delivery drivers should protest and make sure government to pass bills to stop this exploitation.

these business are taking advantage of situation of vulnerable people who either have to sleep hungry and not exploited or be exploited but have a meal. No idea how we can as a society make it better.

The commenter says about most apps. The use case you mentioned requires computing resources. You can do the whole thing on browser too but it is not efficient way . But in the case of delivery apps, finance apps, you don't need much compute as can work exclusively with APIs .

Thanks for Pythagorean cup analogy, interesting read. I didn't know such thing exists.

oftopic but. yes, I agree. Software development costs a lot.

but I think you missed something important. The thing is, we are collectively paying for internet-infra through broadband charges/taxes.(we collectively own it). we don't have to subsidize greedy companies making bad decisions with our time/money/privacy.

the business models/decision of the companies is at fault, they made it monetarily free, and when they find they can't make money, rather than fixing the problem with their model, they try to own/charge internet which is not theirs. (drm etc)

I argue otherwise regd economic downturn, if it is not for selfless opensource developers the internet/business we see , will not exist. even many of these so called businesses use their work and make unimaginable pool of profits of their work, with zero concern for society.

Yes ad-revenue offsets , I want to point out, premise it self is wrong. their business model itself is not sustainable (as per my understanding)with present free +ads/paid model. you are just subsidizing their bad decisions forgoing your privacy/time/money.

even with ads, hosting free video content is not sustainable. just look at the trajectory, internet users are stagnating, time of a day is limited. which means all users watch-time is constant. it is profitable now, but not forever(if above premise is true)

but youtube has to host all the data since its inception, and new content is added everyday. (maintenance cost increases day by day + but income is stagnated)

only way out is to charge/limit content creators. or else it will be (never ending increase of number of ads/price increase).

true, but they bundle with youtube music and other services that i don't use. I don't see value paying for everything. there is no option to buy just youtube - ads(atleast where I live). it is a manipulative tactic. you are gaslighted for not seeing ads on internet (public space) and when you want to buy the service, they bundle it with other services.

True (i am not ok with those ads(I am taking about youtube ads above), I forgot about the irritating ads/pop-ups/redirects . I have firefox+ublock on all my devices/even on incognito.I recommend the same for all, no allow acceptable ads nonsense etc.

true I agress, I hate facebook/google a lot for developing tools to track users and target ads based on their personal data. yes, it optimized advertisers money but at the cost of our privacy. I know, If it is not fb/google someone else will develop the tools. I wish world governments will establish some doctrine on targeted ads and ads in general.

I am ok with seeing scam ads on shady small website, but for a company of google/FB scale . No. they should be more responsible. they have tools/money to be more responsible and yet they are not. the only reason I think is they are forcing people to turn off ad-personalisation this way.

by responsible I mean, we should have ability to report scam-ads even if we didn't sign-in/opt out of ad-personalisation.

every time , i try to report a scam-ad on youtube, it asks me to turn off ad-personalisation to proceed.

2 instances I would like to share from my personal experience.

when I am in freshman year, I wanted to host a website and started looking online for best service, I was bombarded with google cloud ads across all websites. I thought google cloud is the best service.(I was never shown results of AWS/IBM watson, when they are far better than Google Cloud at that time). you always use web for exploring options and these ads can manipulate to pivot to one service, when it is not always the best.

after that I tried an experiment with my friends from my collage dorm. we have a proxy for our university. so only tracking I assume is done through respective google accounts.one of them has an Iphone (buys a lot on amazon), others use android. we searched for "best watches to buy", the recommendations/ads(top results) for iphone user is ~1k$(premium brands) and we were shown results of watches around 100$ etc.

I would say above results are manipulative because they will pivot our further searches, the search is not showing best watches/blogs about it. but showing results that the AI think will have higher rate of ads - buy conversion.

The above results definitely will have an impact on further searches, The iphone user will pivot his search to the top results he see which might not always be best.

I see there is lot of dilemma in comments here regarding blocking ads. blocking ads is not piracy, blocking ads should be norm. I am ok with seeing ads, until they don't track my behavior, they don't try to manipulate my decisions based on age,region,sex,location, earning status. I am "ok" with ads shown in TV channels, because they show the same for all above mentioned categories.

let me make a simple analogy, how do you feel if a circus publicizes as free, has a billboard to show ads, and in background they hires a detective to follow your every move 24/7 , note down your interests/dislikes so they can show you personalised ads based on the interests. creepy right, That how i feel these companies do.

just because someone/company spent money and posted a billboard on public space, doesn't mean you have to read through it. It is the risk they assumed, just like youtube/creators made the decision to host videos for free on a public space. it is a bad decision from their part and they have to live with it and not gaslight people.

I hate to see youtube die, It is a wonderful archive for society. if you want you can buy premium/see ads so that society wont lose some thing valuable. but not because of creators/YT losing revenue.(that's the risk they assumed when they started the business).

and then there are people who say, you can turn off ad personalization, I did since last 5 years and you know what I see. Some Scam apps/NSFW ads content. and there is no way to report the ads unless I turn on ad personalization.

I would like to repeat statement from louis rossmann , don't accept the premise of the corporates when the premise itself is shaky.

yeah, that might be true, with all that's going on the news,my first thought was that the commenter is linking planned obsolescence with technology progress (sarcastically). Thanks for the perspective. There are days when I felt the urge to forgo the computing and go back 5 years when world is hopeful and not overwhelmed with computing

I am really heartbroken by your response, I always feel the world/society should fight planned obsolescence. people/planet over profits. and then I see a person responding with a joke (I hope you don't mean it) when we(society) have means to make products last but some corporation chose profits against it and then greenwash with 5min mother earth videos. I know you are aware/heard of planned obsolescence. some people complain, these corporations have to maintain and it costs them, but those people don't realise We are gifted with wonderful opensource community like (pixelexperience os maintainers). These corporation can design it to make it easy for opensource community to maintain it after EOL.

Since you are here in HN, there is high probability you are one of the geeks in industry. I hope you fight for "planet/people over profits".