I explained why the walled garden was actually an advantage over the alternative in this case.
I explained why the walled garden was actually an advantage over the alternative in this case.
The fact is you're avoiding the point, the point is that to some people privacy invasion is a harm like verbal harassment is a harm
People are too butt hurt these days. You can't use the word retarded without a bunch of people getting their panties in a knot.
if you're a PC gamer then there is nothing on a par with windows for the number of games available
That is not true. Playstation and Nintendo make great products. The steambox is another alternative. The fact is that it can't bother users that much if they are willing to stick with MS. 350 Million installs is not all gamers.
I'm a little fuzzy on how allowing further tuning below the company level is a disadvantage, as opposed to the walled garden
The walled garden for the most part is a technical user pet peeve. For most a contained device that offers predictable performance, stability and continued OS support is far more important. That's been their bread and butter since the beginning.
1. I don't recall Microsoft ever detailing exactly what data is being collected.
MS revealed it a while back. Here's a link summarizing it.
2. It's encrypted, so we can't examine it for ourselves.
It should be encrypted. Why would you have it any other way.
3. Microsoft has been deceptive and even telling outright lies since the beginning [arstechnica.com] of the Windows 10 rollout.
Unclear, not deceptive. They said it would be free and didn't know what direction the licensing would head. That's perfectly fine as fine as most are concerned.
See 2, above. No one can look and see what data Microsoft is collecting from their Windows 10 PC, so how is one to know whether or not they've been harmed? Your argument is the same one NSA uses to claim they can't be sued over warrantless wiretapping. "No one can prove they specifically were wiretapped, so no one has any standing to sue." I say bullshit to that argument.
That's your paranoia kicking in. Do you think you matter that much that you will be harmed by your data? If the government wants to take you out stop trying to find an out because you're already cooked.
Prove to me you care about your privacy by ditching your mobile device(s). Do that and I'll believe you truly care that much about your privacy.
Says you. I, along with many others, very much want to protect it.
Says the 350 million users that accept to use it this way knowingly. I know many don't know but many do and still use it the same way you still use your cell phone regardless of the fact that you're location is tracked 24/7.
Perhaps so. There's an easy way to make all users happy: provide a way to turn off all telemetry. Why won't Microsoft do that?
Totally agree but they figured the flak was worth the data yielded. Considering how much press they got over it they would have backed off otherwise.
This is irrelevant. It's my data, and I should be able to choose who I share it with and who I won't. Whether or not that data is sensitive according to others shouldn't factor into it.
You can't fix this with MS or any of the other companies that does this. You need to fix this at the core (through laws like the ones in existence which MS happens to be abiding by). It's obviously not enough of an issue for users which is why nothing will change.
At the end of the day you don't have to use their products. The alternatives are many and all very good.
At this point, it's useless to argue that data collection harms the public. They don't care.
I can come up with plenty of examples where data collection has actually resulted in lives being saved. Not to confused with this data collection but I'm just saying you statement is horribly wrong.
We should be arguing that not all businesses or professionals can afford (or even qualify to buy) Windows Enterprise
Convince 10 people that have full time jobs to ditch all their mobiles devices and we can start making of case of how MS is evil and must be stopped.
You've clearly demonstrated what's wrong: way too many organizations collect way too much data, and there's little we can do about most of it short of withdrawing from society.
There are laws and MS like many other abide by them. MS however has an option for their support to collect more data but no different than LogMeIn, is intended to be turned on for specific cases and specific periods or time.
You also said no one has been particularly harmed by this. I can't argue this either way, but what is harmed is our right to have a private life. To some of us that still means something
It comes down to what most want and don't want. If people were that concerned with the data collected they would actually look into it. Fact is that most people don't care. I say this because I've had people approach me (being the IT reference at work) and ask what they collect after seeing headlines. I then ask them this: "Will you stop using your cell phone if I tell you they keep track of everywhere you've been for the last 6 years?". The answer is always: "No".
That's the reason why nothing changes and nothing will change.
So, you wouldn't mind if we put webcams in every room of your house and streamed live 24/7 because hey, it wouldn't harm you, would it.
The fact that you think MS's data collection practice compares with your statement tells me you're clueless about what MS actually does. Come back when you've actually read more than the headlines.
Your responses and links do not AT ALL present an argument towards the actual speculations. All I hear in you arguments is that you hate MS but your ok with everybody else screwing you. Actually, if anything the links you provided state that MS is compliant and reasonable (which I'd argue is only partially true).
If you truly care about any of the things you said then I must assume you do not own a mobile device otherwise your a hypocrite.
You read it wrong. You have to read this part:
As the European Commission observed, Microsoft's January 2016 Privacy Statement states that the company adheres to the principles of the Safe Harbor Framework. Microsoft has in fact continued to live up to all of its commitments under the Safe Harbor Framework, even as the European and U.S. representatives worked toward the new Privacy Shield
This is not just a problem for MS but MS tends to make the headlines even when it's a non issue.
Even Microsoft themselves aren't denying Windows 10 is a spy machine.
The definition of personal data is broad and should be carefully reviewed in this case. Them knowing what you clicked and the failure attached to the series of action is hardly personal data that anybody truly cares to protect. Same goes for hardware specs. If anything, most users would be happy to hand over that data to help their favored platform become more stable.
All of you who said that the privacy concerns were just FUD or that it's simple to turn off the surveillance, time to eat your crow.
The situation is still the same. What is the collected data? last time MS responded, the data collected was no more than what you search engine collects. It was definitively less harmful than the data your GPS or cell phone carrier collects. Christ, your credit card, your bank and your air miles card have far more important data and they use it in whatever way they see fit (within the confine of the law).
I have yet to hear a case where this collection of data was detrimental to an individual. And please, don't bring up the bandwidth usage because that's a drop in the bucket compared to what ads run on most websites.
GP is right, All the vendors market to the guys wearing stars
GP can only be partially right.
Are you actually surprised that the Apple product out performed the Android device? I know I'm not. The devices simply aren't competing on the same level. IOS is for Apple's device only. It's fine tuned for its hardware and vice versa. Android is tailored for devices and fine tuned by the manufacturer. This is a clear disadvantage for the platform.
My 2 cents!
In my experience decisions like this are typically made because somebody high up likes their iPhone and doesn't want to have to learn how to use an Android phone.
Your experience is most probably limited to small MOM & POP shops because big companies look at the bottom line. This means looking at the marketing impact, the cost of manufacturing/implementing and the cost to R&D (Not in that specific order).
The thing about DARPA is that they have a ridiculous amount of R&D money to waste and will dig into the weeds until they know for sure. To me, it means the Android device was truly problematic enough to justify the higher purchase price of Apple's device.
Honestly, when I read this article I wasn't surprised. Apple's OS is only stronger because they control the hardware. Android's fallout is the same as Microsoft's. They depend on the H/W manufacturers to care enough. For that reason IOS will always appear to be a better OS.
100% onboard. This should be part of regulations imposed on telcos. Essential services are never tapped out. If they are they MUST be upgraded within a window specified by the regulators. This is why you don't run out of gas, electricity or water in your home.
Sounds about right to me. We have had gigabit switches available to consumers for over a decade and everything faster than that is still considered business grade. All the while the price has not dropped in any significant manner on gigabit switches or anything faster than that
That is 100% INCORRECT. Gigabit switches are much cheaper than they were 10 years ago. In 2004, a managed layer 2, 24 port gig switch with no POE was upwards of $1500. Today I can buy a 48 port HP Proliant switch with POE+, expansion slots for 10Gbs and layer 2/3 management for less than $1000. As for faster tech such as 10Gbs, its not that expensive to manufacture but it is difficult to implement on non ventilated systems. The processing units required for 10Gbs requires proper cooling and the link is far more sensitive to EMI and cabling defects (such as a kinks). Want proof? Do this test. Take a 50ft wire, crimp the ends without crossing 4,5 between 3 and 6 as specified in 568B (Basically go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 on both sides). Then go and connect your computer to a Gig switch. You'll get a link but won't be able to pass data. Now go into your setting and set the speed to 10Mbs Half Duplex. Boom, you're connected. Try 100Mbs. You'll probably get connectivity but it will be slow (20Mbs transfer speed roughly). Now, shrink that cable to 10ft. Try Gig again. It will work but won't give you the full yield. Now you understand why a pair of wires can't get you the speeds you want them to deliver to your house.
But all this is aside the point. There's no need for end users at the moment to have gig connection to WAN. They need gig for LAN and that's about it. Getting 100Mbs to their home requires fiber or multiple pairs to be used. Multiple pairs means you need to upgrade all COs and the end equipment is about $600 per house. That alone makes it impractical an costly for the typical user. Getting fiber from the CO to our business (less than 1000ft away) was going to cost $5000. This is the cost of trenching + installing the wire + bringing it at the demarcation point. Now image how much it would cost for you to get your house wired that way with possibly being 5000 ft away.
All this being said, I know how telcos think and they aren't innocent. This is why I think regulations on internet services and cost are necessary to force them to evolve and innovate. Normally competition would force change but because the infrastructure is owned by said entities it will change slowly.
Can't open /usr/fortunes. Lid stuck on cookie jar.