Yes indeed. There era of entitlement is upon us - "unless CBS gives away all their free content without tracking and monetizing me, I'll illegally pirate their content - because in 2018 I'm entitled to CBS content without frills"
The problem is that there's no alternative to "free plus ads or tracking" for most services. If I could pay a reasonable fee for all the content and services I need, I'd do it. I can do it some places, but other things just aren't available.
For the record there is a level you can pay for CBS All Access that turns off the ads (at least on original content, which is I assume the only reason anyone would sign up for it anyway). It costs more than the ad-full version, but that's basically what you're asking for, right?
But like sibling said, they are presumably still tracking you. I don't think consumers have really become aware enough of tracking for "no ads, no tracking" to be a viable thing yet.
CBS, whose 'B' stands for 'Broadcasting', historically has used electromagnetic radiation ("radio waves") to transmit a variety of media, more-or-less continuously, for many decades. As a result, they have become known for publishing large amounts of content under a fairly permissive and flexible scheme.
Since CBS's content is already widely publicized, by the nature of broadcasting, CBS is effectively but one of many republishers of their already-broadcast media. While CBS is free to charge a premium for access to their archives, there's no good reason why other members of the public must charge or force users to jump through hoops.
I will grant you that the law gives CBS some ability to remove competitors from the market, but since CBS does not charge for access to their initial broadcasting, it does not follow that delayed rebroadcasts which do not charge are inherently violating the spirit of copyright. It seems particularly insulting to imagine that my entitlement to something broadcast decades ago might rest solely on whether or not I had remembered to program the VHS tape deck as a teenager.
What's this bull-shittery supposed to evoke? Sympathy for your lack of understand of copyright law, or your bull-shit entitlement to CBS' content, or just how disconnected you are from content economics?
Ever run a content business? I bet no. Ever run any business? I guess not - fundamental rules of economics relies on a quid-pro-quo transaction that you seem to not understand.
Or, since geniuses like you have cracked the media market - you should start your own channel - where content is free of copyright and there's zero need for return on investment. Apply to YC while you're at it
Since you've persisted in posting flamewar-style comments after we asked you several times to stop, we've banned this account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. That means posting civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Here's the thing: most users don't really care. The evidence is in the author's own disapproval of the slack app - about it just being a wrapper around a website disguised as an app. Guess what, slack desktop has a LOT of traction, and paying customers!
If an app is sufficiently good on Marzipan, then the users will steer it towards becoming better if they care.
What do you mean? Apple didn't really take a substantial market share from Microsoft. Apple was successful in a market that Microsoft chose to not compete in until it was too late.
I mean exactly what I said, Microsoft was complacent and it allowed Apple to cream off the most valuable segment of the market. Microsoft may still have the largest market share (in Desktop) but it was Apple that became the first Trillion dollar company.
Yes, but Apple didn't take away anything from Microsoft, so where's the connection? Their "users don't care" attitude on software worked out. Pretty much nobody in business is switching over to Mac OS (or iOS) and Numbers. Both companies are barely even competing in the same markets.
What do you think all the Mac users were using before they switched to the Mac. Apple had a huge switching campaign over many years. They might not be competing much now but MS didn't want to give up that segment. That's before we get on to what the iPhone did to Windows mobile.
Curious why the oldest application of the blockchain - money - isn't in your list. Actually, I find it mysterious that Revolut and PayPal are more popular when Bitcoin and ethereum are freely accessible
What?! Zuck dropped a cool $21B on the app - I believe he's entitled to expect a return on investment without being bullied, using a public business model everyone knew about. Facebook isn't a non profit, and zuck is actually accountable to investors
None come with $0/annum, spam filtering, deep search, state of the art 2FA, large amounts of storage, large collection of plugins, cross OS native clients, ....
I'm assuming here that the changes are GDPR compliant (given the large army of lawyers working for Google).
If they are, all this brouhaha is from the technophile echo chamber of opinions. The average joe gives a rat's ass for this, as evident from all the non-noise coming out of the regular world. Techonopiles have made an art of outrage - typing on their $3000 laptop or $1300 iPhones built by slave-grinded employees toiling 16 hour days in China - NO HN COMMENTING ALLOWED AT WORK FOR THEM, BTW
Please go use FF & pretend to have privacy online or be better humans. Mozilla - the world leader in disappearing money [1]. Does it really take $225M to build & maintain the quantum browser? And why $135M for 'marketing'?
Can ProPuboica/MarkUp investigate how Apple never comes under the scanner of anti trust regulators either in the US or EU, while Google, Microsoft get fingered for far less. For instance, Android, which is open source, has been fined by the EU, while EU app developers have consistently complained against Apple's app store authorization and related policies onto deaf ears.
The only technicality protecting Apple from massive anti trust regulations with regards to the store is that the iPhone actually isn't a monopoly in cell phone unit shipments.
However, many economists have noted that app revenues (not advertising) is highly skewed towards Apple's platform. When will a $100B app market stop being treated as a feature of physical phone unit shipments, worthy of its own independent regulation?
