Well, we do know that the best intentions around the browsers technology have paved the way to hell.
Some of the other issues that crop up are:
* Sites "adding" increased security mentions to their customers by profiling their connected bluetooth devices
* Is the browser only able to see connected devices and not the master list of devices?
* Bluetooth devices come in such a wide array of formats that I wouldn't want to ever offer the browser access to these tech (it's clunky enough through the OS most of the time) Last time I let this site access my devices and now it's watching me
* All those other options you listed below in another reply, are all high susceptible to a man in the middle attack, and all the sudden your headphones have been turned into a weapon, all because you clicked a link.
* Getting your laptop's battery drained even more because of some nefarious website preventing your devices from sleeping
I feel like we need to build a pretty big moat around USB devices and Bluetooth devices, as they're often the easiest points of entry that can lead to further system compromise.
I think this mitigates these security concerns and improves security around Bluetooth devices generally.
Today if I want to do use the advanced configuration features of for my headphones I need to download a local application and install it. A local app from has way more unwanted permissions and tracking ability than a website. In the future it could be as simple as visiting their website and clicking allow when the site requests bluetooth access.
I wonder how long before Apple offers a One-Google like offering they really embrace the recurring revenue model. Imagine if Apple could get people to pay $20 a month for Photo storage, iCloud storage, some TV offering, and possibly some Apple Music.
I hate that we're in this in-between land that requires 3 or 4 different subscriptions to the same company whereas these things in my mind would just be bundled together.
I agree with you. People seem to be mistaking their kickstarter as a pre-order and are sad when that it doesn't work like this.
I'm thrilled at this new way transparent way to see this game coming together, and it's a real look behind the cloak of game development. Imagine seeing GTAV or RDR2 development within a few months of development, it would probably be a shit show of bugs, ideas or features.
Another question, have we ever seen behind the cloak of a AAA game in super early development, and getting to watch all the pivots, bumps and warts so transparently? I can't think of a single instance.
Usually by the time the hype train starts on a game, the game's usually %75-%90 done.
What I do love, is that they're building a foundation of a game engine that they won't abandon next year for the annual or bi-yearly refresh. Imagine if there was only a single version of Battlefield/CoD that they continually added features to (like WoW). I would expect the level of code polish would be higher as the devs would be invested in creating good solutions verses throwing it away and starting over again.
I'm not sure why more games don't follow other Sass software models, or a WoW model, where the game lives on perpetuity, and the developers continue to enhance it over time as technology and resources change. As a developer, the choices you make about your code really impact when you know that you're going to have to deal with your choices years later, versus starting the project brand new again.
This story was a wash. A guy put a shit ton of money into a kickerstarter product and was expecting a fully fledged polished product. It's not a pre-order, buddy.
If Kickstarter is a license to take millions of dollars then deliver something different four years late, why does anyone ever contribute to Kickstarter projects?
Is it hard in this day in age to understand the difference of being part of bringing a product to life versus pre-ordering a product? Apple has set the bar so high that people turn off their brains.
I agree, but for context, remember that the other car companies have been fine-tuning their supply chain processes for the last 100 years. Telsa is by no means a GM or Ford in and as far as supply chain refinements. I imagine GM or Ford wish they had the popularity and customer desire that Telsa has, and we've been witnessing the start of their forte into the mass production and no matter how many experts you throw at a difficult problem, you still need to refine and mature your processes.
I feel like this is the new "wellness" science that sounds good in practice, but lacks evidenced based studies.