A Facebook operating system. KublaCant'd rather run his balls on Windows 95

Wow, you should be careful, that could lead to the Blue Balls of Death and could seriously impair your uptime. ;-)

Were HTC *that* committed?

I have no idea how committed they were to this particular model, I didn't get the memo, but they sure as hell better commit to something which is going to work for them:

With HTC's monthly revenues for the first four months of 2013 at under two-thirds of that for the same period in 2012, and first-quarter operating profits down by 99%, the company is struggling to cope with the growing power of South Korean rival Samsung

Making a product which everyone has decided they don't want isn't how you succeed in the long run. That's the sign of a company in its death throws.

If people are leaving like rats on a sinking ship, you only get so many more chances to do something which works. I can only assume this is likely to turn into a costly mistake.

More importantly, what does the Facebook platform bring to the table beyond their existing app?

My perception of this was to basically ensure Facebook gets even more of your personal information, since the TOS likely grants them a perpetual license to your data.

Somehow, HTC decided to play along. Now they're the ones making a phone nobody seems interested in buying. This is kinda like Nokia pinning their company future on Windows phones -- if nobody bought them, it was Nokia left holding the bag.

Well, we can expand it to cover everyone if you prefer -- e-Q, Q 2.0, social-Q, cloud-Q ...

Ever notice that when you deliver something, they've managed to change the requirements?

Ever delivered something which met the formal requirements and had them say "well, that's not what we wanted"?

There is often an unbelievable disconnect between what users tell you they want versus what they actually really really wanted but had no idea until it was too late.

End users will often help you design unusable software which is exactly what they asked for.

That's eye-Q, not IQ. :-P

The good ones also have a checkbox that says "Don't ask this again".

Please, the presence of a checkbox which says don't ask me again doesn't signify anything useful.

Out of the box, IE more or less says "you are about to access the internet now, are you sure?" unless you check the damned box.

This is just like every time software asks you, "are you sure?" before deleting a file or record.

And why it's so easy for shitware like the ask.com toolbar to end up on systems.

People got used to thinking "oh, crap, I just need to keep clicking next until it finally installs". Now you need to check every page of the install to be sure that installing someone's toolbar or whatever isn't checked by default (which it always is).

People either start ignoring the warnings, or stop caring what they say and click next anyway.

Who is the target market for your product?

If it's for Joe Sixpack, and he might metaphorically poke out an eye with it, then maybe.

If it's for system admins and the like who neither need nor want training wheels, not so much.

You certainly can expose too much functionality to people who shouldn't have it. But you can also make something useless to the people who actually do need to do it.

I am glad this will not be affecting me as I will not be buying any more consoles for the remainder of my life. It is time for them to die and just use the PC or a smartphone in my opinion.

You seem to think they won't be applying the exact same things to your PC and smartphone games. I would argue, you'll get no better deal on those platforms.

We must all look forward to the future where we do not own any of our technology.

Awesome, I look forward to not having to pay for stuff I don't own. Oh, wait, you mean a future where I'm still expected to pay, don't have any rights, and don't own anything. What's in it for me again?

This largely wipes out your right of first sale, and it props up the business model for the buggy whip makers.

Why should a video game company get a cut of used sales? Oh, right, because it's software, you licensed it, and have no rights.

This pretty much cements the fact that XBox One is something I will definitely not be interested in.

Right now I can buy used games, take a game over to a friends place, and sell my games -- and it's none of Microsoft or the game publisher's business. This basically says we will need their permission to do anything, and entrenches their own revenue stream.

There's no way in hell this leads to companies charging less for games, they'll just take their cut on both ends and expand their profits.

Sorry Microsoft, but I'll pass thanks. There's nothing about this that's good for consumers.

It's always worth finding the other option, and it's the only way these giant monopolizing bastards will ever learn: when their customers start leaving in the thousands.

Sadly, these days it's out of the hands of one set of giant monopolizing bastards and straight into the hands of another.

Since the big players have been steadily buying the small players, sooner or later, it's all the same people who own them. And where it's still multiple large corporations, they usually get together to agree on how to screw us over anyway.

In many market segments, the notion of a 'free market' is a laughable joke, since it's all controlled by a few multinationals.

Not suggesting we're there yet, but we're moving there. Obviously we haven't reached some self-sustaining chain reaction yet.

Deliberate or not, this is having the effect of the debris from collisions causing more collisions. If it gets worse or we don't find a way to deal with it, we might end up there.

Doesn't fly if it's not on the contract you signed.

Except the contract you signed says they can change things, and if you keep using it you've agreed.

There are no contracts the court would uphold that just allow them to add provisions as they see fit, whenever they want, without even telling the customer.

I wish that were true, and I really hope it is ... but I'm pretty sure the courts have upheld EULAs in all their hideous glory, and have upheld the inclusion of waiving your right to join a class action suit.

And, as pointed out in the summary, this isn't a change to your contract, merely a surcharge, which somehow apparently magically sidesteps everything.

I fear the legal climate has changed to the point where AT&T holds all the cards here. So unless the FCC or someone gets involved, consumers likely have very little recourse.