jbdragon

About

Username
jbdragon
Joined
Visits
158
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,445
Badges
1
Posts
2,315
  • Pay up or get out: Apple's options for South Korea's App Store law

    tylersdad said:
    loopless said:
    Only people who have never developed an app for sale want this to happen. Apple takes care of everything for you, money just appears in your bank account. It's worth every penny.
    Somehow I'm able to get my apps out to Windows users without the use of Microsoft's app store. Just like I've been doing since 1995. 

    So how is that working out for you on the X-box???  By the way, even though you don't use Microsoft's app store on Windows, look at all the security issues and viruses on that platform from people just downloading whatever from anywhere. An issue you don't see on the Xbox CLOSED Platform!!!  You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

    How about we look at the old days.  You know the days before the Internet.  You know where you had to get your Game or App massed produced onto floppy's or discs.  You don't want to have so many made and lose money.  Then there was Box Art, and instruction manuals.  All put together and sealed.  That is all costing YOU money.  Then you had the distributors get your software out to all the stores. They took a cut.  Then the Stores sold that software and they once again took their own cut.  

    You really have it EASY these days.  A simple 30% cut and Ap[ple or Google handles everything.  All you have to do is upload it into their store.

    If people don't like it.  They are FREE to create their own OS and Phones and have a completely open platform.  There is not a single person stopping anyone from doing that.  Create a better platform and people will flee to it.
    mike1viclauyycmwhiteradarthekatjahbladewatto_cobraurahara
  • Google fined $592 million for non-compliance by French antitrust regulators

    Why is Google playing this game?  Just take off ALL the news and have zero news links and all is good instead of being fined all this money for this garbage.
    watto_cobra
  • Newspaper firm launches class action suit versus Google, Facebook over ad revenue

    Xed said:
    gatorguy said:
    Meanwhile Australian media are taking the same approach but from the opposite end -- saying that Google owes them for publishing their information on Google searches.
    Not just Google but any search provider (Bing, DDG, etc) who surfaces news snippets as a search result. 
    Right. There is a long history of not being able to recreate and use another's IP without consent, but all search engines do that constantly and to an excessive degree. At least when you upload your content to FB and Instagram you have to first agree to terms that include giving up rights to what you submit, but I see none of that with search engines grabbing every single piece of information they can from my web servers for their personal gain.
    Google's News clips bring a lot of traffic to these news sites.  Which is why they still complain when Google stops showing any new clips.  By the way, any site can add a simple ROBOT.TXT file and 100% stop Google or anyone else going to their site and grabbing anything.  ZERO, NADA, Nothing!!!  Why don't they do it?  Because they want Google to grab those clips and also for Google to pay for them.  So they want Google to pay for it and drive customers to their own site.  They want it both ways.

    https://backlinko.com/hub/seo/robots-txt

    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobragatorguy
  • 'Greyhound' viewer numbers equal summer box office smash, report says

    I just finished the movie and liked it.  I wish I saw it in the theater.  
    watto_cobra
  • Home automation company Wink under fire for surprise subscription mandate [u]

    flydog said:

    elijahg said:
    There is no way this is legal
    Wrong. It may rub people the wrong way and result in losing customers, but there is nothing illegal about raising prices.

    Even if there was a contract that guaranteed the service would be free for life (there isn't), that would be breach of contract, not a crime. 

    Get a grip on reality. 

    They didn't RAISE prices.  They sold devices that worked for FREE, and now they are sticking on a $4.99 monthly FEE to use a device you already paid for and was using for FREE as it was sold that way.   I'd be pissed myself and pull any of their devices I had.

    elijahglolliverronn