Oh no, I understood the watermarking concern. This sort of thing is famous with with Oscar screeners and electronic books. I was asking about OP's suggestion that the font might be effectively withdrawn by a third party
Please excuse my lack of knowledge here. Am I under to understand from your post that software that you have purchased from another supplier will check from files that you have bought from this supplier and refuse to use them based on their attestation?
Hmv are basically a vanity project for record labels at this point. They've gone bust twice since 2013. Their peers e.g. tower records and virgin megastore are long gone.
Realistically you will always need to be able to read documentation for:
Your language
Your compiler
Your platform
The APIs you're calling
All of this will be in English even if your project is in another human language. Yes there will be translation for some of it available but it will be partial, incomplete, dated, etc. you'll be using English so much anyway and have people from other countries working on the code regardless that you're adding a needless barrier using a different national language.
with ActiveDirectory ad group policies you can centrally configure the entire windows installation to the point that it isn't possible for a local user, even with admin to leave the domain. User groups in Linux don't really cover the use cases for installing and uninstalling applications and configuring options within all of those applications. Yes you can do some similar stuff with, e.g. FreeIPA or even binding to AD but fundamentally you have a local system with remote admin added on.
From the UK, actually born in Essex. Yes, 20-30 years ago people laughed at these, me included. These days you wouldn't tell them in public, if at all. Same as for 'Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman' jokes.
Anytime you're picking on someone for a characteristic that:
They didn't choose
They can't change
That's a bad look. These days if you tell a joke like this at work you're likely to get bad looks and your sudden employment will look bad.
So OP has posted this everywhere, even getting it flagged on Hacker News. Article is weak sauce:
I would agree with author that there are many problems with Spotify but concentrating on the artist revenue per stream and then publishing your top hits of the year as YouTube links? Really? Go and find out what the artist share per stream is on YouTube (regular YouTube video) for soundtracks. I'll wait. Hint: there's a reason that soundtracks using unauthorised copyrighted work get muted or taken down rather than revenue being redistributed.
Recommending a paid desktop MacOS music app for local content? There are hundreds of local music players but OK... but none of the criticisms of Spotify were about the client! Foobar2000 (mentioned for mobile playback) supports Spotify streaming...
Article seems to boil down to 'I got tired of Spotify recommendations and I am an aspiring musician at an early stage in my professional career so I am recommending Bandcamp and soap boxing about artist revenue share' . There's a reason that people, some with local music libraries in the TeraByte range listen to Spotify. There's also all the competing services - Apple Music; YouTube; Deezer; Tidal; Amazon; etc...
Recommendation to OP: If you are trying to persuade people on something, then decide what point you want to concentrate on, consider the pro's and cons for your position, and make your point based/reinforced on that. Don't meander around a bunch of inchoate personal gripes and affections that don't really relate to one another or any particular point.
I'm in the UK. Spotify family subscription is £17.99/month (US$ 22.84). Same price as Netflix premium, although I have Netflix standard at £10.99 (US$ 13.96). Now, I know that they give a high percentage to the record companies, source says 70% but really? What are they doing over there? They seem to have some fundamental problems. With Netflix, my history, watchlist, search results, etc. are consistent across sessions and devices. Spotify can't manage this. Netflix of course produce a significant quantity of original content. Spotify do a few live music sessions. I don't think that the user experience with Spotify has changed significantly in the last 6 years that I have been a customer.
So they're not making money. They're not improving the user experience or meeting the market standard for it. They're not producing original content and they seem unable to comply with local laws. Why have they not been disrupted by one of their competitors?
Microsoft were hardly early to the game with Windows phones, compare BlackBerry or Symbian. They had some early successes, for instance against Palm. The big failure was to keep deprecating the existing version of Windows phone, in some cases many months before the ongoing version was available, and deprecating the existing hardware along with it. Look at the whole mango/tango Windows phone 7 /Windows phone 8 debacle
Oh no, I understood the watermarking concern. This sort of thing is famous with with Oscar screeners and electronic books. I was asking about OP's suggestion that the font might be effectively withdrawn by a third party