4 ms·

Well, I don't agree with what Google is doing assuming it's intentional. But, 1)It's $35. I spend more than that on a week's worth of lunch. 2)I bet cyanogen

by smtddr 13y ago

Well, I don't agree with what Google is doing assuming it's intentional. But, 1)It's $35. I spend more than that on a week's worth of lunch. 2)I bet cyanogenmod will make an appearance. I'm just buying Chromecast for the hardware.

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
> 1)It's $35. I spend more than that on a week's worth of lunch. That's not a real argument though is it? The issue is that Google are intentionally trying to further a closed ecosystem and the people who don't want to be part of it/their system. It doesn't matter if the price is $0 or $500, if Google has an anti-freedom/choice ideology then there will be pushback on that. That pushback might be technological (e.g. CM mod) or political (EFF et al) but it will occur. The price point is just a distraction that I'd suggest people don't get drawn into. Google doesn't owe you anything, but you also don't owe Google anything, and are entitled to bitch if you're unhappy with the amount of choice you have.
jlgreco 13y ago
There is always going to be a cost comparison that can be used to belittle something. The classic is "less than x days of coffee." Next step up is apparently "less than x days of lunch." What is the next one, "less than your car insurance" perhaps? $50,000? That is less than some cars cost! $100,000,000? That is somewhere around ten shuttle launches! A several billion dollar shuttle program? Please, just check out these national debt numbers? These types of price comparisons between unrelated things are almost always worthless. You could make me feel ripped off over two dollars; I sure as hell can feel ripped off over $35.
- munificent 13y ago
  This is your friendly reminder that slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
  - aqme28 13y ago
    But "compare to completely unrelated thing" is also a logical fallacy.
  - abraininavat 13y ago
    This is your friendly reminder that jlgreco's is not a deductive argument and that most of the logic we base our everyday decisions on would be called logical fallacies. It's time for a Fallacy Fallacy, I think. This is also your friendly reminder that jlgreco wasn't even employing "slippery slope" logic. He wasn't arguing that employing a cost comparison will lead inevitably to employing further cost comparisons. He simply pointed out that one cherry-picks the level that best makes one's argument. This is your friendly reminder that your post makes no sense.
    - munificent 13y ago
      This is my friendly reminder to finish my coffee before commenting on the internet.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I am not making a slippery slope argument. Comparisons between the shuttle program and the national debt are real, not some absurd hypothetical I've dreamed up that I think exists down some sort of slope with poor traction. The point I am making is that price comparisons between unlike things are worthless. If you prefer, here is an entire HN discussion on the problem of price comparisons between unlike things: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4393817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4393817

by smtddr 13y ago

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago

> 1)It's $35. I spend more than that on a week's worth of lunch. That's not a real argument though is it? The issue is that Google are intentionally trying to further a closed ecosystem and the people who don't want to be part of it/their system. It doesn't matter if the price is $0 or $500, if Google has an anti-freedom/choice ideology then there will be pushback on that. That pushback might be technological (e.g. CM mod) or political (EFF et al) but it will occur. The price point is just a distraction that I'd suggest people don't get drawn into. Google doesn't owe you anything, but you also don't owe Google anything, and are entitled to bitch if you're unhappy with the amount of choice you have.

jlgreco 13y ago

There is always going to be a cost comparison that can be used to belittle something. The classic is "less than x days of coffee." Next step up is apparently "less than x days of lunch." What is the next one, "less than your car insurance" perhaps? $50,000? That is less than some cars cost! $100,000,000? That is somewhere around ten shuttle launches! A several billion dollar shuttle program? Please, just check out these national debt numbers? These types of price comparisons between unrelated things are almost always worthless. You could make me feel ripped off over two dollars; I sure as hell can feel ripped off over $35.

munificent 13y ago
This is your friendly reminder that slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
- aqme28 13y ago
  But "compare to completely unrelated thing" is also a logical fallacy.
- abraininavat 13y ago
  This is your friendly reminder that jlgreco's is not a deductive argument and that most of the logic we base our everyday decisions on would be called logical fallacies. It's time for a Fallacy Fallacy, I think. This is also your friendly reminder that jlgreco wasn't even employing "slippery slope" logic. He wasn't arguing that employing a cost comparison will lead inevitably to employing further cost comparisons. He simply pointed out that one cherry-picks the level that best makes one's argument. This is your friendly reminder that your post makes no sense.
  - munificent 13y ago
    This is my friendly reminder to finish my coffee before commenting on the internet.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I am not making a slippery slope argument. Comparisons between the shuttle program and the national debt are real, not some absurd hypothetical I've dreamed up that I think exists down some sort of slope with poor traction. The point I am making is that price comparisons between unlike things are worthless. If you prefer, here is an entire HN discussion on the problem of price comparisons between unlike things: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4393817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4393817