5 ms·

Of course it's not on purpose. Companies usually don't do this on purpose nowadays. They just ignore concerns from QA (for example, regarding competitors). Goo

by pedro2 4y ago

Of course it's not on purpose. Companies usually don't do this on purpose nowadays. They just ignore concerns from QA (for example, regarding competitors). Google does this. Microsoft does this. The days of active malfeasance are gone with Windows 3.1 and its DR-DOS fake glitches (on Win 3.1 beta, toggled off on final).

omega3 4y ago
I think the opposite is true in fact, Windows 11 is really anti consumer by design (anti choice, anti privacy etc).
- MonkeyClub 4y ago
  I agree on the point that Win 11 is anti-consumer, but I think that's part of the overall trend to turn the computer into an appliance, i.e. not a device that you have to administer, but a handy tool as easy as your fridge or washing machine. Now if that takes away a bit of freedom and privacy, well, you can still opt out on any device that could run Windows 11, and use another OS instead. I'm wondering whether this won't be possible later down the line, though, given the trend.
  - spookie 4y ago
    If a trend is morally questionable, no honorable entity would follow it. Furthermore, since Windows is so prevalent, you're gonna have an hard time using something else. Given you're neither tech savvy, or rich, which most people aren't. So no, there are no excuses for a company this large to have such malpractices, we're talking about a private company with more power than many small nations.
    - MonkeyClub 4y ago
      Yep, I agree. The issue would be to discern between honourable and dishonourable (or shameless) entities, but there starts the domain of concessions to convenience, and PR.
snarfy 4y ago
Instead of listening to QA, they add a bunch of telemetry, look at some fancy charts at the end of the month going downward, then make a poorly educated guess on what to do.
cycomanic 4y ago
Your explanation would be more believable if it wasn't for the fact that YouTube and Google sheets/docs... seem to always work better on chrome with every change they make. Then Firefox catches up and with the next change chrome works better again. Now they might not make changes to specifically make things worse on Firefox, but they just don't test on Firefox. However that is very much on purpose, so it really comes down to the same thing. Also let's not forget the shenanigans that Google pulls with ad words auctions etc.. If a person would have a history of doing things like that we'd call them dodgy or criminal, but when a company does it we somehow are to believe it's all accidents?
- pedro2 4y ago
  I think in the end you kinda agreed with me? QA won't test on another browser or if it does its results are ignored? So they don't make it work badly on purpose, just by negligence. Regarding to believe it's all accidents, I don't affirm it's on purpose as to not attract shills, paid or otherwise.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    I can’t see the difference with intentional ignorance/negligence and bad intentions. You might be negligent and don’t water your plants when needed, but they will die at the end. However it’s not your fault because you didn’t intend on killing them, right?
    - pedro2 4y ago
      In the first case (negligence) you were saving water. On the second case you were trying to kill the plants.
      - bayindirh 4y ago
        Oh, so I can neglect the things as I wish in the name of saving proverbial water, and be free of all consequences at the end? That's great. Maybe we should try that.

by pedro2 4y ago

omega3 4y ago

I think the opposite is true in fact, Windows 11 is really anti consumer by design (anti choice, anti privacy etc).

MonkeyClub 4y ago
I agree on the point that Win 11 is anti-consumer, but I think that's part of the overall trend to turn the computer into an appliance, i.e. not a device that you have to administer, but a handy tool as easy as your fridge or washing machine. Now if that takes away a bit of freedom and privacy, well, you can still opt out on any device that could run Windows 11, and use another OS instead. I'm wondering whether this won't be possible later down the line, though, given the trend.
- spookie 4y ago
  If a trend is morally questionable, no honorable entity would follow it. Furthermore, since Windows is so prevalent, you're gonna have an hard time using something else. Given you're neither tech savvy, or rich, which most people aren't. So no, there are no excuses for a company this large to have such malpractices, we're talking about a private company with more power than many small nations.
  - MonkeyClub 4y ago
    Yep, I agree. The issue would be to discern between honourable and dishonourable (or shameless) entities, but there starts the domain of concessions to convenience, and PR.

snarfy 4y ago

Instead of listening to QA, they add a bunch of telemetry, look at some fancy charts at the end of the month going downward, then make a poorly educated guess on what to do.

cycomanic 4y ago

Your explanation would be more believable if it wasn't for the fact that YouTube and Google sheets/docs... seem to always work better on chrome with every change they make. Then Firefox catches up and with the next change chrome works better again. Now they might not make changes to specifically make things worse on Firefox, but they just don't test on Firefox. However that is very much on purpose, so it really comes down to the same thing. Also let's not forget the shenanigans that Google pulls with ad words auctions etc.. If a person would have a history of doing things like that we'd call them dodgy or criminal, but when a company does it we somehow are to believe it's all accidents?

pedro2 4y ago
I think in the end you kinda agreed with me? QA won't test on another browser or if it does its results are ignored? So they don't make it work badly on purpose, just by negligence. Regarding to believe it's all accidents, I don't affirm it's on purpose as to not attract shills, paid or otherwise.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  I can’t see the difference with intentional ignorance/negligence and bad intentions. You might be negligent and don’t water your plants when needed, but they will die at the end. However it’s not your fault because you didn’t intend on killing them, right?
  - pedro2 4y ago
    In the first case (negligence) you were saving water. On the second case you were trying to kill the plants.
    - bayindirh 4y ago
      Oh, so I can neglect the things as I wish in the name of saving proverbial water, and be free of all consequences at the end? That's great. Maybe we should try that.