The Apple TV doesn't come with a controller and play games.
The Apple TV doesn't come with a controller and play games.
Given that a smartphone can run GTA, then it is at least on par with an XBox. And it is closer to the 360 in power than the original XBox.
1. Your cell phone doesn't have a 360-like controller.
2. Your cell phone likely won't play games on your TV.
3. Every game on the OUYA can be tried for free. You don't have to put a credit card in to start downloading apps from the store.
4. Your cell phone can't be a dedicated media center.
5. Mother-fucking-Towerfall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es-okjDMAbI
Consider that many people consider $99 media center appliances to be a good bargain. Now consider a device at the same price that includes a gaming controller and plays games. That somehow makes it less viable?
Google gets warrants to hand over data, just like everyone else. There are some differences however in how Google handles government requests.
1. Google tries to be very transparent about what requests they get from the government, and how much they are forced to hand over.
2. When George W. Bush asked for search data tied to IP addresses, all the major search provides just handed it over without a warrant and Google refused. Google's response was to go one step further and alter their policies to anonymize their logs even sooner to help protect their users.
3. Google has even considered moving data centers to the ocean to keep your private data away from government demands.
I am who I am. I've had the same handle since BBS days. If you take a few seconds Googling me, you can likely found out just about anything you want about me because I have nothing to hide.
You are correct that I'm pedantic. I focus on facts and I truly detest FUD. I do try to stamp it out. I thought Slashdot appreciated that.
I do always find it odd when an AC questions me when I have the courage to sign in and stand behind my statements.
Do SEC filings count as credible references? Or Microsoft's own statements?
Google made over 43 BILLION dollars in ad revenue last year.
Microsoft made 1.45 billion in ad revenue last year.
Microsoft themselves have admitted repeatedly to trying and largely failing in the contextual ads in your email business, and have publicly stated they've tried other tactics, such as these "deals" ads instead.
I just read technology news daily and pay attention. And again, EVERY one of your posts on your account (a fairly newer account) is defending Microsoft data-mining while blasting Google and Apple for the same thing. So I ask again if you're an astroturfer or just ignorant?
I've had the same online identity since BBS days. I praise Microsoft when they do well (such as their surprisingly good anti-virus products as of late) and I blast Google when they fuck up (logging the SSIDs of wireless networks). I call them as I see them.
Microsoft has a service like Google Analytics, it just happens that no one uses it:
Microsoft does keep track of email correspondence, see the link I posted earlier in the thread.
I know that Google data-mines me to provide me free services. But they're not giving my data to anyone else. I'll gladly deal with seeing ads to get free services that I like. If you don't like that arrangement, then no one forces you to use their services. But you won't find a web services provider that doesn't data-mine you.
Microsoft and Yahoo when contacted admitted to having this service that matched internet accounts to voting lists so that political parties could target you online.
Again, citation needed. Anonymous, empty anecdotes are not evidence.
Please check my first link. Even with their new service, they still mine the data in your email for ads. Microsoft openly admits it.
"Microsoft tells me that the data mined by the Outlook mail service won't go as deep as others, so while ads served will be contextual"
Historically, Microsoft tried mining the body of the email, but their contextual ads were less effective, which is why they couldn't make much ad revenue. Their newest service mines subject and sender, but not body. You are correct there, but this move doesn't seem to be motivated by Microsoft's concern for your privacy. They do this because they couldn't mine the body of your email effectively when they tried.
Microsoft's Scroogled ads suggest PEOPLE are actively reading your email, which is FUD. And Microsoft claiming they don't mine you for personal data for contextual ads is just a pure lie as well.
All of your posts are defending Microsoft mining data while blasting Google for the same. I hope you enjoy your paid position.
I'll focus on documented facts instead.
Microsoft and Google both track you to serve up contextual ads. However, the key differences are:
* Microsoft handed over search data to the US government without a warrant while Google refused.
* Microsoft SELLS YOUR PRIVATE DATA to third-parties without telling you. Google never gives your private data to someone else.
* The EFF ranks Microsoft as having a worse record for protecting your privacy.
The fact that Google makes more money from advertising doesn't make them evil or nefarious. It means consumers prefer them.
Search engine: Microsoft and Google
Desktop OS: All three
Mobile OS: All three
Music service: All three
Messaging service: All three
Email: All three
Maps: All three
Videos: Microsoft and Google
Cloud storage: All three
It isn't like Microsoft isn't in these other markets.
With Apple, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
With Microsoft, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
With Google, you get services for free, but are tracked and sold contextual ads.
You agree that Microsoft respects your privacy more than Google?
Astroturfer or ignorant?
Microsoft tracks you everywhere for contextual ads as well. And they value your privacy far less than Microsoft.
Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers, which is the worst offense.
And they have a patent specifically covering selling your personal private data to advertisers, allowing advertisers to bid on that data.
I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman