5 ms·

Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook - we power their abuses with our money. Just stop buying their trash. Support open hardware, free and open source software.

jsilence 5y ago
Like the otter box for example: https://hackaday.com/2021/04/06/you-otter-be-able-to-stream-that-audio-open-hardware-eclipses-chromecast-audio/ https://hackaday.com/2021/04/06/you-otter-be-able-to-stream-...
cf100clunk 5y ago
People bought devices that did not show the ads. Now Google has forced those ads onto those devices. So, hindsight being 20/20, this is yet another abuse.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  You're not wrong, but what should be the narrative to any future devices like this is: "They change it after selling it to you for the worse, don't buy their products." When that becomes the reputation the problem will solve itself when they stop selling them from bad reputation.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    It's still vandalistic destruction of property Google doesn't own. Google and their hardware partners owe refunds to all these customers.
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are implicit expectations during a purchase that shouldn't ideally be violated. But I'm curious if you truly believe this, or if it's just hyperbole. In this "fully my property, not a service I'm using" framework, would an update that patches a security vulnerability be "altruism"? Would refusal on Google's part to patch vulnerabilities be a completely acceptable refusal to futz with someone's property? This is a serious question; my perspective is that "I thought I was buying unchanging property" is disingenuous unless you're similarly surprised by app updates and maintenance (let alone feature development). The expectation of these updates makes it pretty clear to me that this resembles a service more than a static product that Google has ability to "vandalize" (or responsibility to maintain).
      - fartcannon 5y ago
        They should be legally required to supply security patches and legally required not to reduce the functionality of the device. If they can't do that, then they need to stay out of the space.
  - johnchristopher 5y ago
    And how much billions is the marketing budget to get that narrative successful ? /s
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      mostly memes
- swebs 5y ago
  After a certain point, you have to start noticing patterns.
afavour 5y ago
Very difficult to do when it comes to entertainment. Almost all streaming services have locked down DRM that makes running open source software very difficult. (I know someone will say “just pirate it then!” but even putting moral obligations aside that’s still not realistic for the average viewer)
- wyager 5y ago
  I don’t believe there is any coherent moral argument against piracy in the face of such hostile tactics from media companies.
  - afavour 5y ago
    Of course there is. Pirating streaming media isn’t like stealing bread to feed your starving family, it’s entirely optional. If you don’t agree with the terms of service (i.e. DRM) then don’t use the service. Deciding on your own terms of service is just entitlement. I personally don’t care either way but you can’t say there is no argument against it.
    - wyager 5y ago
      Stealing bread actually deprives someone else of a scarce resource, but the marginal cost of making a digital copy of a TV show is ~zero. So you’re right - it is quite different. Stealing bread is much worse than copying a digital file.
      - sosborn 5y ago
        Stealing bread to feed your family when the alternative is starving is not the same as watching Game of Thrones.
        fwn 5y ago
        You both argue around the question: how does the unlicensed reproduction of media morally compare to stealing. Argument 1: Sufficiently severe benefits should mitigate the moral fault in theft. Argument 2: Sufficiently small damage should mitigate the moral fault in theft. You both seem to at least implicitly agree that both is theft, which would be a traditional point of disagreement in the debate. I commented because I think one and two might be structurally the same argument: It's a consequentialist idea of utility thresholds. A key disagreement would be whether there are thresholds that make the quantitative difference in utility a qualitative difference. Think hunger on one side and unquantifiable small loss in profits on the other side.
arnaudsm 5y ago
Kodi+Jellyfin is amazing, I'll never use closed source stuff on my TV again.
stiltzkin 5y ago
Talking specifically of TV experience the Shield has been the best streaming device on the market. Working out of the box and putting away the tinkering and manual config of the common HTPC. NVIDIA has brought updates and support to old Shield devices with the almost same support as Apple devices. It is disappointing NVIDIA does not own their own OS as Apple and Shield loyal users are affected of Google anti-consumer behaviour.

jsilence 5y ago

Like the otter box for example: https://hackaday.com/2021/04/06/you-otter-be-able-to-stream-that-audio-open-hardware-eclipses-chromecast-audio/ https://hackaday.com/2021/04/06/you-otter-be-able-to-stream-...

cf100clunk 5y ago

People bought devices that did not show the ads. Now Google has forced those ads onto those devices. So, hindsight being 20/20, this is yet another abuse.

LegitShady 5y ago
You're not wrong, but what should be the narrative to any future devices like this is: "They change it after selling it to you for the worse, don't buy their products." When that becomes the reputation the problem will solve itself when they stop selling them from bad reputation.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  It's still vandalistic destruction of property Google doesn't own. Google and their hardware partners owe refunds to all these customers.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are implicit expectations during a purchase that shouldn't ideally be violated. But I'm curious if you truly believe this, or if it's just hyperbole. In this "fully my property, not a service I'm using" framework, would an update that patches a security vulnerability be "altruism"? Would refusal on Google's part to patch vulnerabilities be a completely acceptable refusal to futz with someone's property? This is a serious question; my perspective is that "I thought I was buying unchanging property" is disingenuous unless you're similarly surprised by app updates and maintenance (let alone feature development). The expectation of these updates makes it pretty clear to me that this resembles a service more than a static product that Google has ability to "vandalize" (or responsibility to maintain).
    - fartcannon 5y ago
      They should be legally required to supply security patches and legally required not to reduce the functionality of the device. If they can't do that, then they need to stay out of the space.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  And how much billions is the marketing budget to get that narrative successful ? /s
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    mostly memes
swebs 5y ago
After a certain point, you have to start noticing patterns.

afavour 5y ago

Very difficult to do when it comes to entertainment. Almost all streaming services have locked down DRM that makes running open source software very difficult. (I know someone will say “just pirate it then!” but even putting moral obligations aside that’s still not realistic for the average viewer)

wyager 5y ago
I don’t believe there is any coherent moral argument against piracy in the face of such hostile tactics from media companies.
- afavour 5y ago
  Of course there is. Pirating streaming media isn’t like stealing bread to feed your starving family, it’s entirely optional. If you don’t agree with the terms of service (i.e. DRM) then don’t use the service. Deciding on your own terms of service is just entitlement. I personally don’t care either way but you can’t say there is no argument against it.
  - wyager 5y ago
    Stealing bread actually deprives someone else of a scarce resource, but the marginal cost of making a digital copy of a TV show is ~zero. So you’re right - it is quite different. Stealing bread is much worse than copying a digital file.
    - sosborn 5y ago
      Stealing bread to feed your family when the alternative is starving is not the same as watching Game of Thrones.
      - fwn 5y ago
        You both argue around the question: how does the unlicensed reproduction of media morally compare to stealing. Argument 1: Sufficiently severe benefits should mitigate the moral fault in theft. Argument 2: Sufficiently small damage should mitigate the moral fault in theft. You both seem to at least implicitly agree that both is theft, which would be a traditional point of disagreement in the debate. I commented because I think one and two might be structurally the same argument: It's a consequentialist idea of utility thresholds. A key disagreement would be whether there are thresholds that make the quantitative difference in utility a qualitative difference. Think hunger on one side and unquantifiable small loss in profits on the other side.

arnaudsm 5y ago

Kodi+Jellyfin is amazing, I'll never use closed source stuff on my TV again.

stiltzkin 5y ago

Talking specifically of TV experience the Shield has been the best streaming device on the market. Working out of the box and putting away the tinkering and manual config of the common HTPC. NVIDIA has brought updates and support to old Shield devices with the almost same support as Apple devices. It is disappointing NVIDIA does not own their own OS as Apple and Shield loyal users are affected of Google anti-consumer behaviour.