3 ms·

Ehh... I think I prefer it when apps and tools like this stay in the "black market"/"under the table" and you have to jump through a bunch of technical hoops to

by vinhboy 14y ago

Ehh... I think I prefer it when apps and tools like this stay in the "black market"/"under the table" and you have to jump through a bunch of technical hoops to get it working. I like the idea of it being a reward for paying attention and being informed. (example: rooting your phone to get wifi tethering) I don't expect for-profit companies to support things that has no value (to them) other than harming their revenue stream. If lets say they start prosecuting people for building these tools for personal use, etc... Then I would be concerned.

guard-of-terra 14y ago
Your example is especially misguided. The only reason you haven't got tethering is that you're using a very wrong carrier in a very wrong place. Everyone else in the world get their tethering as an inherent consequence of having internet on their phpne. You can't get internet without tethering the same way you can't get internet without facebook. So it's very like a chinese resident saying "I'm happy that facebook and youtube access require VPN, I like being rewarded for paying attention". Which would be a major WTF.
jakubp 14y ago
"I don't expect for-profit companies to support things that has no value (to them) other than harming their revenue stream." If users can't block ads they hate through AdBlock on Chrome, they may switch to a different browser or OS. That's not good for browser/OS creator... In addition, people who use AdBlock probably click on ads mostly by mistake (as do I and lots of my tech-aware frinds). Hence there is almost no revenue in showing those ads anyway. I agree with you that if an organization sees something they control as working against them they will usually try to kill it. I disagree that AdBlock is actually working against their revenue stream... at least I don't see any evidence in this whole thread, mostly speculation. What worries me more is hypocrisy on the part of Google. They frequently claim that users come first, when in fact Google's profits come first. Why all the drama about users then? :)
GhotiFish 14y ago
As a technical person. I agree that good things should only be for technical people. GhotiFish 2016.

by vinhboy 14y ago

guard-of-terra 14y ago

Your example is especially misguided. The only reason you haven't got tethering is that you're using a very wrong carrier in a very wrong place. Everyone else in the world get their tethering as an inherent consequence of having internet on their phpne. You can't get internet without tethering the same way you can't get internet without facebook. So it's very like a chinese resident saying "I'm happy that facebook and youtube access require VPN, I like being rewarded for paying attention". Which would be a major WTF.

jakubp 14y ago

"I don't expect for-profit companies to support things that has no value (to them) other than harming their revenue stream." If users can't block ads they hate through AdBlock on Chrome, they may switch to a different browser or OS. That's not good for browser/OS creator... In addition, people who use AdBlock probably click on ads mostly by mistake (as do I and lots of my tech-aware frinds). Hence there is almost no revenue in showing those ads anyway. I agree with you that if an organization sees something they control as working against them they will usually try to kill it. I disagree that AdBlock is actually working against their revenue stream... at least I don't see any evidence in this whole thread, mostly speculation. What worries me more is hypocrisy on the part of Google. They frequently claim that users come first, when in fact Google's profits come first. Why all the drama about users then? :)

GhotiFish 14y ago

As a technical person. I agree that good things should only be for technical people. GhotiFish 2016.