Actually no, it's worse. Ad companies take everything they can from you using any method they can including monitoring everything you browse or watch on TV or say near your phone or TV or in your car or what you look at in every shop or what you buy or who you chat to, compile massive secret databases and sell 'you' to anyone willing to pay, regardless of what the information is used for.
I mean, every other business I am aware of forces you to pay for something too?
I don't see what is confusing here. Consumers love the ad-model because they can get things "free". If the real cost of ad-supported products is too much for you, then its too expensive for you to use.
Like someone found the backdoor to the movie theater, and people just go in that way rather than pay for a ticket, and then these same people go on rants about how movie tickets are a rip-off and they make you watch 30 mins of ads before the movie, and candy is 5x overpriced, and proudly declaring "I will never pay for a movie ticket again!", as if they are some righteous moral champion standing against the greed of people wanting to get paid for their work.
Straighten out your head, then come back and make an argument.
Not paying for a movie ticket is a crime. Blocking ads is not. They're not equivalent.
Also, if the industry actually did something, anything to address the grievances of ad block users (a lot of whom I'm willing to bet aren't inherently against advertising and fully understand it funds the content they consume and enjoy), it might be less of, if not a complete non-issue. But no, ads are still distracting, still heavily affect page load speed, still track every little thing visitors do, and still infect millions of peoples' systems with malware every year, and the industry just collectively shrugs and ploughs on towards maximum profit at any cost.
You may or my not recall, but the OG ad-blocker, ad-block plus, struck a deal with the advertising industry where they would let through vetted ads that were deemed non-invasive. Basically a truce where users would get "lite" ads and advertisers would get more impressions.
There was a user revolt, people flocked to U-block, and ad-block plus died.
Advertisers are greedy, but don't be a fool and think users are not equally (if not eve more) so.
I completely agree. These discussions are so frustrating because the "ads are evil!" people never acknowledge that they're consuming ad-supported content. "If you don't like ads, stop watching YouTube, or pay for the ad-free version" just gets met with "well they show ads even on the paid version", totally sidestepping the point with BS.
Not disagreeing with you but I think people underestimate how many users would not watch Youtube if there were no Adblockers, I only say this because many in the content space and sometimes in the SAS/Webapp space are severely overestimating there products value and would not even with bother with Youtube specifically because of the unknown factor when they deliver adds. I think something like Tubi does it better and feels more like they actually respect the viewer while Youtube, like all Google, respect nothing which makes the breakup so so funny but I digress.
Nonsense. Adobe had a flash to ios system ready to go to allow all flash apps to run, and Jobs deliberately blocked it from working, leading to the eventual death of flash.
Jobs was one of the main bastards behind screwing over engineer's pay.
Under Jobs we had soldered ram and ridiculous upgrade prices, changing magsafe port sizes just because, dropping OS support for official Apple modems when the majority of the world still had dialup, flaking cases and dodgy screens and phones that have to be held the right way, water sensors that react to humidity and void warranty, locking down ios upgrades to prevent downgrading, ebook price fixing...
It's not a safety check bypass. Boeing wants to make pilots responsible for turning off the deicer within 5 min of ice disappearing to prevent the flawed engines breaking apart in flight.
(This is not an argument for or against.) I was curious, so I checked. The death penalty is legal at the federal level and only 27 states. 23 states have abolished the death penalty. And many of the states where it is legal have effectively stopped executing people, so the majority of states do not execute people. It isn't much of a surprise which states still do, and there's only 11 states that do.
On Teslas? That’s fairly uncommon especially on newer models. There’s plenty of 10+ year old Teslas that have done hundreds of thousands of miles on the original battery pack and still going strong.
Reliability has only improved since then, especially with the recent shift (in some models) towards LFP chemistry, which is much less susceptible to degradation over time than nickel-based chemistry.
Besides, the Model 3 and Y are very popular vehicles today, selling in the millions globally. So not only will the resale market be strong in coming years, there will be a good supply of low-cost parts (including battery packs) from salvage vehicles. You won't have to go to Tesla for a replacement battery back even if you needed one.
It's that really even that bad of a thing for Apple? The appeal will go to federal court, which means at the end of the day it's just going to get sorted out by the court system more quickly.
There is a grey area though when a company becomes the defacto monopoly over a service. Google and Microsoft email both have history of blocking email from other providers and have created a landscape where trying to run your own email server is a nightmare. But should they be able to refuse service to you if you block ads?
I can send the same mms from Android to Android and Apple recipients and they receive the same media. Yet sending from Apple to both the Apple users get good quality and Android Apple deliberately sends pixelated rubbish.
Because Apple deliberately screws with messages to non Apple users. Every video my family sends to me is low res heavily pixelated trash, to the point that you can't even recognise faces.
How is this not an abuse of market power where the Google controlled app store allows other browsers to be banned for reasons that their own browser would never be automatically banned for?
If Windows automatically started blocking access to Chrome for up to 2 weeks at time while Google appealed false take downs everyone would be flipping their shit, including governments and justice departments
Actually no, it's worse. Ad companies take everything they can from you using any method they can including monitoring everything you browse or watch on TV or say near your phone or TV or in your car or what you look at in every shop or what you buy or who you chat to, compile massive secret databases and sell 'you' to anyone willing to pay, regardless of what the information is used for.