Shame that it’s closed source and by Samsung. :/

I stand corrected.

That’s what Samsung tried with Dex. You could even run an honest to god (emulated) Linux on it. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out and no one knows about it today.

I think Canonical pitched this about 10 years ago.

I sawa video on MessageEase and thought it was neat. Also, I hate legacy problems like QWERTY… And things like qwerty on phone screens.

You sonuvabich beat me by 2 minutes! ಥ_ಥ

Should’ve thought. 😅

You might be interested in Obtainium

It’s impossible to not be condescending in that situation

Skill issue, asshole.

Why are you mad that I call your stuff about “competition” and “inefficiencies” a “liberal narrative”? That’s what the liberal market economids are supposed to be. How did you interpret it exactly?

Not enough of the money goes to the artist, but money does go to the artists. If you’re not sure, ask literally any artist who has their content featured on netflix, or any of the other platforms.

Really depends on the industry. E.g for games: The devs were already payed their salary and usually don’t get residuals. Here the money goes to the publisher/studio. As I already said: I pay for the indie games I play singe I want these studios to be able to exist/pay their devs. But the money I’d spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders.

Money also goes to the marketing team, and software developers, and internationalization teams, and all the other people in the chain who actually do have a purpose and make that artist’s content more available to the world than it otherwise would be.

Those people don’t get residuals, but wages. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere. But the animators of a Netflix show I’m watching where already payed. Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but let’s not forget that most of the money I’d pay will go to shareholders.

But they’re always going to take more than they should, that’s just called inefficiency, and is where competition can happen. But if it’s not generating enough income, the content simply won’t happen.

I don’t really care for this liberal narrative.

Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.

So, people who make that “garbage” don’t deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.

that you should pay what you can afford.

I don’t think people should be ripped off though. Which is what I think is happening with the big platforms.

Don’t get me wrong: I pay for my indie games and don’t have the time for the so-called “triple-AAA” crap.

But the money I’d pay to Netflix or Spotify won’t actually go to the artists who worked on the stuff. That’s just not how this works.

Most imortantly: I don’t want to shame anyone for pay/not paying, as I usually don’t know their financial situtation.

And yet: Netflix prevents me from recording any of their shows and sharing the recording with my friends and family.

Great! Let’s do that for any type of media!

When I steal a shoe, the shoe can’t besold anymore, because I have it. If I pirate a game, is there one less copy that steam can sell?

Piracy is categorically something else than stealing. Have you even read the original post?

Edit: If you really follow your logic strand, you would have to reach the conclusion that Sony stole content from their users.

Edit2:

No, I never said anything of the sort.

This u?

The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.

We’re literally talking about piracy, so yes lmao

So, according to you, piracy is stealing, because it has to be stolen at some point. And the reason that it must be stolen is because it is connected to piracy.

Don’t act surprised if you’re downvoted, if you present your circular logic this plainly.

When you’re paying, you’re not buying the fuel nor are the salaries directly affected by one person is paying for riding a train.

What you’re describing is called “marginal cost” and reducing this is the reason why the economics of any large scale business is actually working. You could argue with these marginal costs, but you’d be entering a completely different model/domain of economics. And no one uses this model which is abstract/non-abstract in any aspect that happens to make your point valid.

So you just dmit that you assume everything is stolen. That’s motivated reasoning, buddy.

Counter question: Do you think that running libraries is theft?

Only if the rides are a scarce resource. Which they aren’t. Nothing that some customer could have bought is removed by jumping a turnstyle.