3 ms·
> Yes, I'm OK with world having the ability to buy a smartphone for 50$ But you apparently aren't okay with getting $50 worth of smartphone, since you're deman
by FussyZeus 7y ago
> Yes, I'm OK with world having the ability to buy a smartphone for 50$
But you apparently aren't okay with getting $50 worth of smartphone, since you're demanding a ton of companies you erroneously claim to be in California expend thousands of dollars in labor to support a framework they never agreed to support, have little to no say in how it's developed, in the name of a supposedly "open" web, so that you can have a good experience consuming content more than likely for free. That, to me at least, reeks of the worst kind of entitlement.
This is, in my mind, like buying a Tata Nano, which is a perfectly acceptable if limited car, and subsequently demanding all the road ways be limited to 65 mph, so that you don't feel slow. If you want to drive with the pace of traffic, the absolute cheapest car you can possibly buy brand new [1] is probably not what you want.
[1] That I'm aware of.
- VRay 7y agoYou guys are both way off the rails here Developers don't need to put in more work to support cheap phones You just have to install an ad-blocker, and you can surf the web lightning-fast on even an old, slow piece of crap phone
- BlueTemplar 7y agoYeah, this is ridiculous. I used to browse the Web (not the Wap!) 13 years ago on my Nokia N70 (Symbian OS, 220 Mhz, 32MB) smartphone, on a Internet plan that cost 1€/MB (I have a plan that costs 100 000 times less today), and while it was a bit rough, it was already pretty serviceable! Most of the content (in time spent on it) is still text (remember what HTTP stands for?), and text takes hardly any processing power!