I'm not saying there aren't VERY valid reasons for that. But I also think we're not representative of the market as a whole and to try to extrapolate totals based on conversations on here isn't the best approach. I would like to think that people at these companies have done their research...

While I would personally LOVE for games to change to be less obnoxious, I think you're right. .5% is WAY to high of a number if you're looking at people who actually refuse to purchase a game they could otherwise play because it wants them to be online.

I can hit Ctrl-L with my left hand. I've got a Ctrl key on the right side of the keyboard as well the left, on both my laptop and external keyboard. And actually, not that I usually use either, but Ctrl-D is easier in this case because I can use my thumb and any finger from a more natural position without bending it under my finders or changing the angle.

Or how many new people can be brought into the market. I never used iTunes because I didn't to have anything to do with Apple. But I'd give those others a look.

Because I hate Sony and don't want to have to worry about connecting my movie player to the Internet to make sure discs will play? I don't want another device in my life that I have to troubleshoot randomly late at night.

Plus, I'm just using discs less in general. I'm much more likely to browse around on Netflix streaming for something to watch than I am to go get a DVD. It's more convenient and I've already got more in my queue than I have time to watch.

That's missing the point. What they're saying is that people they're trying to invite now only use Facebook. And don't necessarily respond to other options. I'm sure you could call every single person (if you even have their number since some people don't bother sharing that as much these days) but even then the people aren't getting Facebook reminders so they might not remember it.

Sample size also has a lot to do with why baseball is such a game of numbers. Even with 600 at bats and thousands of pitches per player it can still take a couple years to collect enough reliable data to make predictions for the future. I don't follow a lot of other sports but I have noticed that in many the quantifiable actions take place less often per person per year.

Chrome was created to push a better web environment that will help Google make money in other ways, not to make money in itself. Now, that doesn't mean you should forget that Google exists to make money. But it does put Chrome itself in a slightly different light.

Verizon at least already has a system in place for free texts. They send them occasionally for account/billing information and they don't get counted against your usage. I'm assuming it's the same thing.

But having them blocked is an interesting one... Obviously if they're free that solves the problem if that's why the person blocked them. But if they have other reasons and you send them anyways that might be an invasion of privacy. Though really, you don't sign up for them to do it on TV and they do. It's for emergency purposes only...

While that's cool I find the "alarm" function on my phone a bit easier...

Better yet, Google Earth and Google Sky...

That makes sense. Thanks. Obviously a labor shortage is a big issue though automation could deal with a lot of it. I'd still be concerned about the money side of things but I guess that depends on how they're doing it and would still be an issue with a private system.

With negative population growth they're having to pay for more people with less taxes. Or individuals are having to pay more taxes... Unless the current older population was all paying sufficient funds while they were younger and they've got enough saved to pay for them... Though I feel like people often don't plan that far in advance anywhere. They just continue to expect population growth forever.