pythonmegapixel

A lot of phones are ditched because the battery no longer holds enough charge. (Admittedly not in the first year, but I wasn't talking specifically about that). And what about if you break the screen? That could happen at any point during the lifetime of the device.
 
It's generally assumed, at least in the western developed world, that people should be free to do anything that is not expressly forbidden. Can you think of a compelling reason why replacing the battery in one's own phone should be forbidden?

Closer to reality than you may think unfortunately, with Monsanto using patents to stop people from distributing seeds. There's quite a good (albeit old) article about this in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents if anyone wants a starting point for further reading, but I won't go into loads of detail here as it's quite far off-topic

Closer to reality than you may think unfortunately, with Monsanto using patents to stop people from distributing seeds. There's quite a good (albeit old) article about this in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents if anyone wants a starting point for further reading, but I won't go into loads of detail here as it's quite far off-topic

Getting a new phone every year should not be financially encouraged because it's environmentally an awful decision, and almost nobody has a good reason to do it beyond "I want the newest one". 
 
Also, if I own the device, there is a pretty clear argument that I should be able to modify it how I like, perform hardware repairs myself or through my choice of provider, and have it run any software I like, including my own. Those arguments disappear if Apple owns the device.

Getting a new phone every year should not be financially encouraged because it's environmentally an awful decision, and almost nobody has a good reason to do it beyond "I want the newest one". 
 
Also, if I own the device, there is a pretty clear argument that I should be able to modify it how I like, perform hardware repairs myself or through my choice of provider, and have it run any software I like, including my own. Those arguments disappear if Apple owns the device.

I never said it was poor value- it's just not cheap in raw terms, so it doesn't really fit in the "budget" segment. (Which isn't necessarily a problem- no issues with having a company that caters to a specific price range).
 
FWIW you absolutely can use a cheaper phone for 3-5 years. Though it'll feel dated more quickly than an iPhone, it should still be adequate for everyday tasks.

I'm starting to get this now.
 
When Microsoft said Windows 10 was the last version of Windows, they didn't mean it was the last version they were going to produce. They meant it was the last version that anyone in their right mind would want to use. It just gets worse and worse.

I'm starting to get this now.
 
When Microsoft said Windows 10 was the last version of Windows, they didn't mean it was the last version they were going to produce. They meant it was the last version that anyone in their right mind would want to use. It just gets worse and worse.

I'm starting to get this now.
 
When Microsoft said Windows 10 was the last version of Windows, they didn't mean it was the last version they were going to produce. They meant it was the last version that anyone in their right mind would want to use. It just gets worse and worse.

That's a terrible argument but nevermind

I don't think he is any worse for offering it to you than you are for buying it to be honest.

I don't think he is any worse for offering it to you than you are for buying it to be honest.

I don't think he is any worse for offering it to you than you are for buying it to be honest.

Banned because you're banned - how can you ban me when you're already banned?

OK, let me provide you with a non-exhaustive list.
Its desktop client uses Electron, which means it takes large amounts of system resources- it is essentially running an extra Chrome browser on your system for no particular reason Yes, the team/channel model is nice, but Teams is too attached to it. With Zoom, for example, it's easy to quickly set up a meeting with anyone you like - with Teams, you have to go through the rigmarole of setting up a team and a channel and adding everyone to it, even if this is a one-off thing. Or you can use the hacky workaround that it guest access Compared to the competition, the in-call experience is poor and it does a worse job of optimising for poor network connections It also does a worse job of arranging multiple meeting participants on the screen Keyboard shortcuts for basic functionality are missing. For example, when I was using Teams for an online class a while ago, I found that there is no keyboard shortcut equivalent to the raise hand button. Poor layout. With Zoom, various elements can be broken out into different windows and that means they can be spread across different monitors if desired. Teams forces you to have everything on one window, meaning you can't arrange it how you want. The file storage functionality of Teams integrates poorly with meetings. If I want to access a file during a meeting, the meeting ends up in the top left of the screen. Now, a lot of useful functionality is missing from the meeting window, and the only way to get it back is to open the meeting fully again, and then it's unclear how you get back to the point you were before in the file storage again. This is a classic example of "jack of all trades and master of none" - why is Teams even trying to be a file storage system anyway? Some animations in the UI can't be disabled, and some colour coding can't be adjusted to suit colourblind users. This is extremely poor for accessibility and a company as big as Microsoft should be ashamed of themselves for such an omission.

Teams has horrible flaws when compared to its competitors. It might nominally have more features, but that's useless when you consider Zoom etc. gets the actual basic functionality of a videoconferencing software right, while Microsoft fails miserably, despite Skype having had a multiple year head-start.
 
Anyway, all of this is beside the point, because this isn't a Sony acquisition of Discord. It's Sony acquiring a minority stake in Discord. Discord is still an independent company.

The people I am most annoyed with now are OEMs and software companies who refuse to support Linux. The number of people in this thread who are saying they want to ditch Windows but are hamstrung by the lack of proper alternatives is astounding.

Huh? Looks OK to me...

 

 
I understand being a bit confused by package managers but I think it's a matter of familiarity.  Whenever I have to set up a Windows machine I find it quite  an annoying and overwhelming task to have to go and search for all the software I want in the browser and download their individual installers, and then they all have slightly different UIs.

OK, let me provide you with a non-exhaustive list.
Its desktop client uses Electron, which means it takes large amounts of system resources- it is essentially running an extra Chrome browser on your system for no particular reason Yes, the team/channel model is nice, but Teams is too attached to it. With Zoom, for example, it's easy to quickly set up a meeting with anyone you like - with Teams, you have to go through the rigmarole of setting up a team and a channel and adding everyone to it, even if this is a one-off thing. Or you can use the hacky workaround that it guest access Compared to the competition, the in-call experience is poor and it does a worse job of optimising for poor network connections It also does a worse job of arranging multiple meeting participants on the screen Keyboard shortcuts for basic functionality are missing. For example, when I was using Teams for an online class a while ago, I found that there is no keyboard shortcut equivalent to the raise hand button. Poor layout. With Zoom, various elements can be broken out into different windows and that means they can be spread across different monitors if desired. Teams forces you to have everything on one window, meaning you can't arrange it how you want. The file storage functionality of Teams integrates poorly with meetings. If I want to access a file during a meeting, the meeting ends up in the top left of the screen. Now, a lot of useful functionality is missing from the meeting window, and the only way to get it back is to open the meeting fully again, and then it's unclear how you get back to the point you were before in the file storage again. This is a classic example of "jack of all trades and master of none" - why is Teams even trying to be a file storage system anyway? Some animations in the UI can't be disabled, and some colour coding can't be adjusted to suit colourblind users. This is extremely poor for accessibility and a company as big as Microsoft should be ashamed of themselves for such an omission.

What you mean is that it's never been a solution for certain functionality on the desktop, and that functionality is a minority of use cases.
 
Well, why couldn't you? It's not exactly like the average grandma is trying to play Cyberpunk or edit high-resolution video, is it.

OK, let me provide you with a non-exhaustive list.
Its desktop client uses Electron, which means it takes large amounts of system resources- it is essentially running an extra Chrome browser on your system for no particular reason Yes, the team/channel model is nice, but Teams is too attached to it. With Zoom, for example, it's easy to quickly set up a meeting with anyone you like - with Teams, you have to go through the rigmarole of setting up a team and a channel and adding everyone to it, even if this is a one-off thing. Or you can use the hacky workaround that it guest access Compared to the competition, the in-call experience is poor and it does a worse job of optimising for poor network connections It also does a worse job of arranging multiple meeting participants on the screen Keyboard shortcuts for basic functionality are missing. For example, when I was using Teams for an online class a while ago, I found that there is no keyboard shortcut equivalent to the raise hand button. Poor layout. With Zoom, various elements can be broken out into different windows and that means they can be spread across different monitors if desired. Teams forces you to have everything on one window, meaning you can't arrange it how you want. The file storage functionality of Teams integrates poorly with meetings. If I want to access a file during a meeting, the meeting ends up in the top left of the screen. Now, a lot of useful functionality is missing from the meeting window, and the only way to get it back is to open the meeting fully again, and then it's unclear how you get back to the point you were before in the file storage again. This is a classic example of "jack of all trades and master of none" - why is Teams even trying to be a file storage system anyway? Some animations in the UI can't be disabled, and some colour coding can't be adjusted to suit colourblind users. This is extremely poor for accessibility and a company as big as Microsoft should be ashamed of themselves for such an omission.

The people I am most annoyed with now are OEMs and software companies who refuse to support Linux. The number of people in this thread who are saying they want to ditch Windows but are hamstrung by the lack of proper alternatives is astounding.

That is a very misleading statement. The vast majority of Linux systems do not make you link an online account. In Linux Mint, that popup doesn't appear automatically  - to get it at all you have to find it manually or launch a Gnome application such as Evolution which actually uses that functionality before it will appear in the first place. And even in this screenshot you have an unambiguous Skip button which makes it go away and not come back.

That is a very misleading statement. The vast majority of Linux systems do not make you link an online account. In Linux Mint, that popup doesn't appear automatically  - to get it at all you have to find it manually or launch a Gnome application such as Evolution which actually uses that functionality before it will appear in the first place. And even in this screenshot you have an unambiguous Skip button which makes it go away and not come back.

That is a very misleading statement. The vast majority of Linux systems do not make you link an online account. In Linux Mint, that popup doesn't appear automatically  - to get it at all you have to find it manually or launch a Gnome application such as Evolution which actually uses that functionality before it will appear in the first place. And even in this screenshot you have an unambiguous Skip button which makes it go away and not come back.