That's the thing about trust. Once you lose it (as Google has), it takes a mountain of evidence and third-party corroboration to re-gain it. Google has chosen to be in the data mining and surveillance business, so yeah, big whoop if they don't mine this one data-point, when they're spying on you everywhere else. In reality, they would go out of business if they were actually pro-privacy... and for some people, thats not necessarily a bad thing to have happen :)

Do you want to work in a coal mine or an asbestos factory without safety gear or workmans comp? If nobody ever protested, things would devolve into exploiting labor as much as possible. We want to find that balance where we're not stifling businesses.

No, but Amazon might lose $150 billion in revenue if they banned third party sellers. It seems like they want to continue making money.

Amazon Marketplace was and is a significant contributing factor to the success of Amazon. I doubt they want to get rid of it. They'd lose like 60% of their revenue.

So Apple Ireland would exist without needing anything at all from Apple U.S? And produce the same goods and services? Ofcource not. So.. duh! Apple US should be tax on foreign earnings.

That's not all, they even dodge the US taxes, on US Revenue, completely, by showing the US subsidiary as a loss-making bungling idiot-of-a-company that just can't seem to get anything right. Apple US pays Apple Ireland for "use of patents" lol... Cmon dude. Nobody can seriously believe that these companies are anything but leeches ..

Exactly this. We have so much industrial and scientific software that is Windows only, and costs thousands and thousands of dollars. Windows fucking up compat, or making it so that updates ruin the working of our business would push us to linux or atleast windows vm on linux.

If what you say is true, then the users will stop using it. What are you worried about?

Its amazing to you, because you are accustomed to an OS and a Vendor that has no clue about preserving user's investment in software - both time and money. We're still using a piece of windows software (Empower Software) from 2002 for some scientific work, and it works flawlessly - as would be expected. No recompiling, no nothing.

The computer is not a toy that you need to fiddle with constantly to upgrade and update. Its a tool to actually do, actual work. Not a product which exists only to look good like a piece of art in the lobby. Sure, Macs are good to look at and OSX is decent as an OS, and I appreciate some of the UI improvements. But so many of their MB models were horribly engineered (weak hinges, weak frame design, terrible cooling, terrible keyboard design etc)...

Each phone would only take up a few city blocks. Communal phone?

Sorry, English is not my native language.. Its C.

Uber and Lyft skirt around laws made to protect consumers from price gouging by taxis, and openly flaunt it as a business strategy - surge pricing. It seems like if you can propose a business model that re-introduces risk back into the system, there is a ton of money to be made.

The next big thing is crowd-sourcing food. "Sorry, you got poisoned eating from Food. We want you to know that health and safety is our number one priority. Here's a $10 coupon to deal with that dysentery.. "

Very few people are actually buying retail software these days. All the retail software is getting Web-ified or Fuck-ified, or SaaS-ified... take your pick. Only specialized industries - movies, VFX, Audio, BioInformatics, Biotechnology, Manufacturing, etc are buying specialized software. Most of the time (except the amateurs) , they can afford to dedicate a specially configured machine just for that. I work in the biotech/automation industry and often times we get the hardware along with the software - which costs thousands and thousands of dollars. The vendor can pick whatever OS they need to get the software working.

How are they misguided? They are simply stating their opinion, as are you. What is the point of posting on a public forum if you don't want people to respond.

I'd wager that the people who want, and would benefit from, a unified experience, vastly outnumber the people who voice their discontent.

Its not only that, its also that the dependency a piece of software takes can get in the way and block other software from updating. The problem is that the repository maintainer has to maintain a NxM matrix of software and dependencies, both of which are constantly changing.

As a software developer, my release cycle might be one release in 6 months, but it may be that a faster rev-cycle of other piece of software causes my software to be incompatible with the current state of the repository.

Well, the bottom line is nobody wants to pay for QA.