texfla

About

Username
texfla
Joined
Visits
10
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
55
Badges
0
Posts
13

Reactions

40Like0Dislike3Informative

  • US lawmaker asks Apple if it requires apps like TikTok to disclose foreign affiliation

    texflatexfla
    I suspect the the US wants the data and back doors into everything.  Got to watch them closely, otherwise “democracy” will be fiction, and China and the US will be the same.
    No need to suspect. The government is very open about wanting back doors into everything.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/ag-barr-will-reportedly-ask-facebook-to-postpone-encrypted-messaging-plans.html
    https://www.macrumors.com/2019/12/10/apple-facebook-senators-encryption-regulation/
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/30/five-eyes-backdoor-access-whatsapp-encryption
    watto_cobrahydrogenEsquireCatsGeorgeBMacviclauyycdesignrcy_starkmanmuthuk_vanalingam

  • DirecTV to become standalone company after AT&T, TPG Capital ink deal

    texflatexfla
    Forcing AT&T ads to show whenever my shows are paused is a frustrating change to the UI that has directly let to me reducing my channel package and switching to streaming on Appletv instead for everything except live sports. It's gross and invasive and unacceptable. Only themselves to blame for the subscriber losses.
    n2itivguydarkvader

  • DOJ keeps 80-year-old music licensing rules affecting Apple Music intact

    texflatexfla
    They also left several-hundred-year-old rules against murder and theft intact...as well as the constitution. The article appears to imply that the age of the rules is an inherent negative. There are lots of old laws that are good and new laws that are crummy that have been put in place by both parties.

    Licensing rules and laws shouldn't be judged as good or bad based on their age or by which party is in power when they're implemented.

    They're good or bad based on their effectiveness in creating a fair balance between the rights of content creators and the interests of the consumers that they're willing to sell to. The middle men are unimportant except in the context how the rules impact their ability to add value to creators and consumers.

    So...ignoring the age of the laws and the particular administration making the decision...what are the actual merits of keeping the existing rules vs scrapping them?
    larryjwmattinozradarthekatmike1muthuk_vanalingambeowulfschmidtcornchipwatto_cobra

  • Epic Games brings 'Fortnite' fight with Apple to Australia's courts

    texflatexfla
    If you try in enough places, eventually some court might cave to these arguments.

    So the issue is now about Fortnight wanting to seek fair access and competition...does that apply to in-app purchases within their games? Will they be allowing other people unaffiliated with Epic to sell add ons/expansions/etc directly within their game environment? You know...so they don't "foreclose" competition within their games?

    The problems with arguing on principle is that, by definition, principles apply universally (or should, I'd think).
    anomeBeatssvanstromjahbladeh2p

  • Satechi releases pair of Bluetooth remotes for Mac & iPad

    texflatexfla
    Now if only they'd make one for the AppleTV. With real buttons for fast forward and reverse. Ya know...like a useable one...made for human sized hands...

    gregoriusmITGUYINSDralphieelijahg

  • Apple shuts down Epic Games developer account

    texflatexfla
    gatorguy said 
    So many people, and you may be one, really don't understand Google does not sell your information. They don't. What they are is an intermediary between consumers and advertisers. A company like Apple chooses the audience they want to market to, and Google matches an anonymized basket of Advertising ID's to place those ads in front of.  The data never leaves Google, nor are your name or address or any other private information ever exposed to the advertiser.

    If Google did as you thought they did I too would have a serious issue with it. That's why I refuse to update credit information for a card provider O already deal with because credit bureaus sell information to companies that aren't even offering you credit. I also don't use rewards cards because that transaction data is sold to assorted data aggregators.

    I do what I can to make sure any personal information I decide to share remains with the entity I chose to share it with, not passed on to another party. I trust Google not to sell my data on to others. I don't have the same trust in credit providers and credit bureaus, banks, insurers, stores, or pharmacies.

    This is a well stated point and I bet you are right that many don't realize that the data itself isn't typically being sold.

    Unfortunately, those people who do realize it may still have a problem with Google because the value of the data is often what it implies about a person...interests, ideologies, persuasions, etc. and Google is more than happy to sell that without permission or authentic transparency.

    Some of us would prefer to use Google's many excellent products and pay for the privilege directly in subscriptions or fees to avoid being used as the product. Being tracked, analyzed, and targeted constantly with ads is ok with a lot of people, but some people would prefer to have their privacy. I'm willing to take my chances that I can successfully figure out what to spend my money on without help from Google and it's advertisers. Unfortunately, Google and others like them don't seem willing to allow the direct pay business model to emerge which makes some of us look elsewhere for solutions whenever possible.


    Rayz2016Detnator

  • Satechi releases pair of Bluetooth remotes for Mac & iPad

    texflatexfla
    linkman said:
    texfla said:
    Now if only they'd make one for the AppleTV. With real buttons for fast forward and reverse. Ya know...like a useable one...made for human sized hands...

    You can use a different remote with it as long it's a reasonably recent model (something like gen 2 or later). Pick nearly any IR remote of your liking and have the Apple TV learn it. I understand the hate some of the ATV remotes get but I don't understand why people don't opt for a different remote if they don't like it.
    Your point is completely valid for many users but the problem is that the IR remotes aren't as functional when line of sight is blocked. Mounting behind a TV or in a media closet is easier with bluetooth or RF remotes. There are solutions for IR routing over cat 6 and other methods but they add expense, complexity, and often underperform. I use a harmony remote with a IR repeater in a main TV area, for example, but the controller is expensive, oversized, and overcomplicated for other rooms.

    Additionally, there is a potential functionality upside to using a remote made by the same company as the AppleTV...if they would only make a version that incorporated more of the feedback from so many disgruntled users. The general ask seems pretty straightforward...a little larger with explicit skip and FF/Rewind buttons. 

    To be clear...I think your point is perfectly valid for some users, just not all of us.
    elijahg