foggenbooty @ foggenbooty @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

391

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's a good point. I've never participated in that so it didn't really factor into my opinion of them. In every way I've interacted with the company they have been excellent.

I like them because they make niche products that may not have mainstream appeal, but that their customers love (steam link, steam controller, valve index, steam deck). They have excellent customer support and always do more than they have to:

• My GF lost the power adapter to her steam link and asked how to buy a new one, they just sent her an entire replacement device since they were stopping production anyway
• One of my Index lighthouses died and I had bought it used from a guy since they didn't sell them in my country yet. No questions, they sent me a new one
• When they were releasing Half Life Alex they just checked if you'd ever had an index connected to your PC and if so they gave you a copy. No asking for proof of purchase or redeeming codes that expire.

I could go on, but yeah to me they are pushing Linux forward, making hardware that excites me, have reasonable prices, and great service. So I like them.

Yes I am aware of that and I addressed in my second comment. They are a relatively niche industry compared to consumption. I would love to see them expand.

You are technically correct, but Valve is a very "consumer first" company. This of course is no guarantee they'll always be "good", but Valve has earned and maintained my trust over the years and I trust them more than any other company I can think of. Far and away orders of magnitude more than Microsoft.

I think saying it doesn't stand up to reality is a bit harsh. I'm not claiming nothing is worth repairing, just that it's cost prohibitive in the majority of cases.

To take your cellphone repair store as an example, I bet they do the majority of their work on iPhones and higher end Samsungs because the upfront cost of those phones are so high. People aren't going to pay repair costs for a cheaper $300 Motorola.

Similarly there are vacuum and appliance repair shops as well, and when your Meile or Bosch breaks then they do their magic, but compared to most people going to Walmart and buying a replacement? I'd say estimate the number of repairs are low.

So yes, without any numbers, I feel pretty confident making the claim that the overwhelming majority of things are not repaired and I don't see this legislation changing that. Like I said before, it's still an improvement I support.

Exactly, the reason we don't repair things is two fold.

1. The reason everyone here is talking about: the products aren't designed for it.
2. The reason the products aren't designed for it: we can't afford it.

To dig deeper into #2, yes sometimes things are made harder to repair for the sake of thinness or some technological reason, but a main issue is that we cannot afford our own labour. Our wages have not kept up over the last half century and we can no longer afford to hire our neighbors in our local communities for their skills.

Because we have been outsourcing manufacturing for so long we feel like we have money, becYse we can buy a TV for every room. But if that TV was made in NA and not Asia? It would be a $2000 TV, not $400. It's cheaper to buy new because we cannot afford man hours to repair.

The consumer economy we have is built for waste and exploitation. While I 100% support right to repair and it's a step in the right direction, I feel most people will still buy new.

They did try to do that, but there wasn't enough interest from companies to split their development teams to support a third platform. In fact Microsoft realised this and was so invested in it that they had a program where they would use MS devs to convert/build from scratch your iOS/Android app to run on Windows for free. All you had to do was take it over and maintain it after; almost no one took them up on it.

You've become what you hate, IMO.

Well, someone with more middle east knowledge than me can tell me if I'm retarded, but here's my take:

There needs to be compromise instead of this all or nothing approach that both sides want. A lot of land needs to be given back to the Palestinians, probably close to half the country so it feels fair. Holy sites that both sides claim need to go to neither. Something like, a monument is erected on the holy site and it is seen as a DMZ that is cared for by volunteers from both sides, but is not open to civilians and can be admired from afar. Then both people can have a mosque or synagogue off to the side on their respective land.

There needs to be som kind of de-armament program where Israel gives up much of its military and both countries agree not to arm. We need something like a NATO where other countries are willing to back Israel and Palestine should the other break the terms of the agreement and become an agressor.

In short, Israel would have to give up a hell of a lot that it has absolutely no intention of ever doing. And then, only then, do you have a chance that in a few generations the Palestinians don't hate them anymore for what the put their parents through. I don't see it ever happening, not because it's impossible, but because large changes like this usually only ever happen after a devastating war, and right now the world supports Israel.

I'm not arguing that GamePass isn't good for you, it sounds like it's a good fit. I'm just saying you didn't beat any of these games, you got bored of them. You're the kind of gamer who likes a wide variety of games and dabbles from game to game with fleeting interest.

Some people try to master a game and will sink hundreds to thousands of hours into the ones you just mentioned. For them GamePass would not be a good deal.

You beat Forza and MS Flight Sim in a week... yeah we're different people.

Totally different price class.

What exactly are you trying to say? Why do you think this isn't news?

The reason your ads are of terrible quality is because it doesn't know who you are. You're not logged in and it doesn't have any cookies to go off. If I open an incognito window at work and watch a YouTube video it is HORRIBLE. Get rich quick schemes, cheap Chinese scam products, etc. There are a tonne of employees behind this IP and it's a blank slate browser, so they give untargeted ads.

Think of it this way: Tech companies want to know everything about you, why? Because it helps them sell you for targeted advertising. If Dove wants to show their shampoo commercial to women age 14-30 then Google will gladly offer that for a price. Untargeted ads are literally bottom of the barrel ads and can be considered the "junk mail" of advertising. That's what you get when you use YouTube without an account. It's honestly despicable what Google will allow to be sent out in this category and it's clear they don't do any human reviews before approving the ads for distribution.

What's your point?

The same reason they removed the SD card, to get you using Google Drive, and the headphone jack, to get you to buy pixel buds.

I wish there were other options but most smartphone makers have dropped out of the game, cost a fortune, or have terrible updates.

It's ridiculous that Google has disabled this feature. Even if we assumr it's in preparation for desktop mode, that's still unacceptable. Mirroring is a perfectly valid feature in its own right and it shouldn't be held back by Google's "plans".

It's crazy that my old Android phones from a decade ago could do this and the latest pixel cannot. We have been bleeding hardware features for years.

I don't know what you're talking about. Signal does not use RCS and it is open source.

I don't share your optimism on this. I see what you're saying where some of these features can seem gimmicky, however there is quite a list of flagship features that they have excluded that are not gimmicky and in fact quite mainstream.

Qi2 (magnetic alignment wireless charging) is not gimmicky at all and is incredibly useful ever for the average person. Apple users love this and there are lots of accessories for it.

Ultrasonic fingerprint sensors are in most high end phones and solve the problem some people have with the optical ones Google continues to use. It also doesn't flah you in the face at night.

IR cameras for more accurate face unlock allow the feature to work in low light instead of the algorithms google is using on a regular camera.

They opted not to use the new GN2 camera sensors, instead sticking with the older model.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Google is releasing a midrange phone with midrange specs at a flagship price, hoping their software will make up the difference. For some it will, for others it won't.

I'll be waiting to see how the 8a turns out because I am willing to accept these corner cuts at a midrange price.

I think that's giving them a bit too much credit. Also, when I say design I don't mean they have to ditch the visor, which honestly is the only unique thing they have. I'm saying do something different with the camera punch hole like Samsung did when they put a screen in front of it, or add repairability features, or mag charging, etc.

You're right that we're in an era of every phone being a flat slab so you want some visual differentiator, and I honestly think the visor (back when it was all black like the pixel 6) looks better than the exposed grouping of cameras the iPhone has. They can keep that overall look for all I care, just... try. Try to do something interesting or novel, or don't ask flagship prices.

Honestly? Really disappointed. Once again Google has done a decent job on the software and AI side and totally phoned it in on the hardware.

There is nothing interesting at all happening on the hardware side. Identical design, no increase in storage or ram, no maglock Qi2 charging, STILL no DP-Alt for display out so no Dex like feature, I could go on. To do such a minimal refresh then have the gall to charge $150 CAD more than last year while locking extra features behind the Pro model?

I struggle to see how this could be considered a good launch. They are trying to command premium prices based on software improvements alone, but with mediocre hardware that will never work. Pixel phones do not hold their value for this reason, and the price will fall with the 8a comes out and has all the identical software features at a fraction of the price.

I will give koodos on the one big thing though, and that's the 7 years of OS updates. That really makes it hard to consider buying a 7 or 7a when the 8 comes with support like that. It will be very interesting to see if the 8a has the same guarantee (same chip so it should) or if they gatekeep that artificially to sell the higher tier.

I also would have liked to see something novel here for repairability. If they had come out with a new design where the battery was easily accessible that would have gone a long way to prove sustainability and comply with the upcoming EU legislation. As it stands I'm not sure 7 years of OS updates are really that important because the phone will not last that long due to already middle of the road hardware and poor repairability.

TL:DR Google has yet again released a mediocre phone with a high price tag.