#cheap microsoft software

[cdkeystations]

The Power of Price Comparison Software: Choose the Best Tool for Competitive Advantage

Price comparison software is a valuable tool for retailers implementing competitive pricing strategies. It allows businesses to track and analyze competitor prices for their product portfolio. By staying informed about competitors' pricing, retailers can proactively adjust their own prices, plan tactical steps, and develop strategies to attract new customers.

Features:

Speed:

The speed of a price comparison tool is crucial for timely data updates. An effective solution should deliver real-time information to help retailers make informed pricing decisions.

Data and Crawling Accuracy:

Accurate data is vital for reliable price comparison. The software should collect and analyze comprehensive information, including prices, EAN, UPC, images, titles, descriptions, and units of measurement. The data should undergo rigorous verification, confidentiality scoring, and manual quality assurance to ensure accuracy.

Functionality:

An excellent price comparison tool should work seamlessly across various platforms and websites such as Google Shopping or Amazon. It should be capable of handling diverse product data and provide flexibility for retailers to customize automatic or manual product matches.

Downloading Steps:

To start using a price comparison tool like Competera's Competitive Data solution, follow these steps:

Provide the necessary product data for monitoring.

Configure the comparison criteria, such as prices, EAN, UPC, images, etc.

Choose the preferred level of product matching (automatic, manual, or hybrid).

Verify and validate the received data.

Access the data and matches conveniently from your user dashboard or store them in your preferred cloud project or server.

Conclusion:

Choosing the right price comparison tool like CDkey Stations requires careful consideration of several factors. It's important to assess the accuracy and frequency of data updates, customizeability according to your needs, and the user-friendliness of the software. Additionally, profitability should be evaluated through trials or demos to ensure the tool aligns with your pricing strategy.

FAQs:

Q: How can price comparison software benefit e-commerce retailers? A: Price comparison software provides valuable market insights, helps retailers stay competitive, and enables monitoring of competitor prices, thus maximizing sales and profitability.

Q: Can price comparison tools handle unique products or only similar ones? A: Modern technology allows price comparison tools to match and compare even similar products, including variations in color or functionality, providing a comprehensive market overview.

Q: Is price accuracy important for effective price comparison software? A: Accurate pricing data is crucial for reliable price comparison. Inaccurate data can lead to incorrect price comparisons and hinder effective pricing strategies.

Q: How can user-friendliness impact the usefulness of price comparison software? A: User-friendly software saves time and enhances efficiency in implementing pricing strategies. Difficult-to-use platforms can be counterproductive and may not justify their cost.

Q: Is it necessary for offline businesses to use price comparison software? A: Offline businesses can explore other advanced pricing strategies that don't rely on competitive data. Price comparison software is particularly beneficial for online retailers.

[river-taxbird]

Have YOU got an old Windows PC Microsoft has told you can't run Windows 11? It's time to give it a new life!

How to install Windows 11 on unsupported PC Hardware using Rufus. You can also disable some other Windows 11 bullshit like data harvesting and needing a Microsoft account.

It has been in the news a lot lately that Windows 11 isn't allowed to be installed on PCs without certain requirements, including the TPM 2.0, a chip that was only included in PCs made in 2018 or later. This means that once Windows 10 stops receiving security updates, those PCs will not be able to (officially) run a safe, updated version of Windows anymore. This has led to an estimated 240 million PCs bound for the landfill. Thanks Microsoft! I get you don't want to be seen as the insecure one, but creating this much waste can't be the solution.

(I know nerds, Linux is a thing. I love you but we are not having that conversation. If you want to use Linux on an old PC you are already doing it and you don't need to tell me about it. People need Windows for all sorts of reasons that Linux won't cut.)

So lately I have been helping some under privileged teens get set up with PCs. Their school was giving away their old lab computers, and these kids would usually have no chance to afford even a basic computer. They had their hard drives pulled so I have been setting them up with SSDs, but the question was, what to do about the operating system? So I looked into it and I found out there IS actually a way to bypass Microsoft's system requirement and put Windows 11 on PCs as old as 2010.

You will need: Rufus: An open source ISO burning tool.

A Windows 11 ISO: Available from Microsoft.

A USB Flash Drive, at least 16GB.

A working PC to make the ISO, and a PC from 2018 or older you want to install Windows 11 on.

Here is the guide I used, but I will put it in my own words as well.

Download your Windows 11 ISO, and plug in your USB drive. It will be erased, so don't have anything valuable on it. Run Rufus, select your USB drive in the Device window, and select your Windows 11 ISO with the Select button. (There is supposed to be a feature in Rufus to download your ISO but I couldn't get it to work.?

Choose standard windows installation, and follow the screenshot for your settings. Once you are done that, press Start, and then the magic happens. Another window pops up allowing you to remove the system requirements, the need for a microsoft account, and turn off data collecting. Just click the options you want, and press ok to write your iso to a drive.

From there you just need to use the USB drive to install windows. I won't go into details here, but here are some resources if you don't know how to do it.

Boot your PC from a USB Drive

Install Windows 11 from USB Drive

If you had a licensed copy of Windows 10, Windows 11 will already be licensed. If you don't, then perhaps you can use some kind of... Activation Scripts for Microsoft software, that will allow you to activate them. Of course I cannot link such tools here. So there you go, now you can save a PC made from before 2018 from the landfill, and maybe give it to a deserving teen in the process. The more we can extend the lives of technology and keep it out of the trash, the better.

Additional note: This removes the requirement for having 4GB Minimum of RAM, but I think that requirement should honestly be higher. Windows 11 will be unusable slow on any system with below 8GB of RAM. 8GB is the minimum I think you should have before trying this but it still really not enough for modern use outside of light web and office work. I wouldn't recommend trying this on anything with 4GB or less. I am honestly shocked they are still selling brand new Windows 11 PCs with 4GB of ram. If you're not sure how much RAM you have, you can find out in the performance tab of Task Manager in Windows, if you click the More Details icon on the bottom right. If you don't have enough, RAM for old systems is super cheap and widely available so it would definitely be worth upgrading if you have a ram starved machine you'd like to give a new life.

[autolenaphilia]

The main reason to use Firefox and Linux and other free and open source software is that otherwise the big tech monopolies will fuck you as the customer over in search of profits. They will seek to control how you use their products and sell your data. When a company dominates the market, things can only get worse for ordinary people.

Like take Google Chrome for example, which together with its chromium reskins dominate the web browser market. Google makes a lot of money from ads, and consequently the company hates adblockers. They already are planning to move to manifest V3, which will nerf adblockers significantly. The manifest V3 compatible chrome version of Ublock Orgin is a "Lite" version for a reason. Ublock's Github page has an entire page explaining why the addon works best in Firefox.

And Google as we speak are trying to block adblockers from working on Youtube, If you want to continue blocking Youtube ads, and since Youtube ads make the site unuseable you ought to want that, it makes the most sense to not use a browser controlled by Google.

And there is no reason to think things won't get worse. There is for example nothing stopping Google from kicking adblockers off their add-on stores completely. They do regard it as basically piracy if the youtube pop-ups tell us anything, so updating the Chrome extensions terms of service to ban adblocking is a natural step. And so many people seem to think Chrome is the only browser that exists, so they are not going to switch to alternatives, or if they do, they will switch to another chrominum-based browser.

And again, they are fucking chromium itself for adblockers with Manifest V3, so only Firefox remains as a viable alternative. It's the only alternative to letting Google control the internet.

And Microsoft is the same thing. I posted before about their plans to move Windows increasingly into the cloud. This already exists for corporate customers, as Windows 365. And a version for ordinary users is probably not far off. It might not be the only version of Windows for awhile, the lack of solid internet access for a good part of the Earth's population will prevent it. But you'll probably see cheap very low-spec chromebookesque laptops running Windows for sale soon, that gets around Windows 11's obscene system requirements by their Windows being a cloud-based version.

And more and more of Windows will require Internet access or validation for DRM reasons if nothing else. Subscription fees instead of a one-time license are also likely. It will just be Windows moving in the direction Microsoft Office has already gone.

There is nothing preventing this, because again on the desktop/laptop market Windows is effectively a monopoly, or a duopoly with Apple. So there is no competition preventing Microsoft from exercising control over Windows users in the vein of Apple.

For example, Microsoft making Windows a walled garden by only permitting programs to be installed from the Microsoft Store probably isn't far off. This already exists for Win10 and 11, it's called S-mode. There seem to be more and more laptops being sold with Windows S-mode as the default.

Now it's not the only option, and you can turn it off with some tinkering, but there is really nothing stopping Microsoft from making it the only way of using Windows. And customers will probably accept it, because again the main competition is Apple where the walled garden has been the default for decades.

Customers have already accepted all sorts of bad things from Microsoft, because again Windows is a near-monopoly, and Apple and Google are even worse. That’s why there has been no major negative reaction to how Windows has increasingly spies on its users.

Another thing is how the system requirements for Windows seem to grow almost exponentially with each edition, making still perfectly useable computers unable to run the new edition. And Windows 11 is the worst yet. Like it's hard to get the numbers of how many computers running Win10 can't upgrade to Win11, but it's probably the majority of them, at least 55% or maybe even 75%. This has the effect of Windows users abandoning still perfectly useable hardware and buying new computers, creating more e-waste.

For Windows users, the alternative Windows gives them is to buy a new computer or get another operating system, and inertia pushes them towards buying another computer to keep using Windows. This is good for Windows and the hardware manufacturers selling computers with Windows 11 pre-installed, they get to profit off people buying Windows 11 keys and new computers, while the end-users have to pay, as does the environment. It’s planned obsolescence.

And it doesn’t have to be like that. Linux distros prove that you can have a modern operating system that has far lower hardware requirements. Even the most resource taxing Linux distros, like for example Ubuntu running the Gnome desktop, have far more modest system requirements than modern Windows. And you can always install lightweight Linux Distros that often have very low system requirements. One I have used is Antix. The ballooning Windows system requirements comes across as pure bloat on Microsoft’s part.

Now neither Linux or Firefox are perfect. Free and open source software don’t have a lot of the polish that comes with the proprietary products of major corporations. And being in competition with technology monopolies does have its drawbacks. The lacking website compatibility with Firefox and game compatibility with Linux are two obvious examples.

Yet Firefox and Linux have the capacity to grow, to become better. Being open source helps. Even if Firefox falls, developers can create a fork of it. If a Linux distro is not to your taste, there is usually another one. Whereas Windows and Chrome will only get worse as they will continue to abuse their monopolistic powers over the tech market.

[oqmemphis]

John Gabriel and Mathematical Ignorance

Have you ever watched a flat earth conspiracy video? If not, the usual format is pretty straightforward: the presenter rambles, unscripted and unedited, into a cheap microphone while using some shitty screen recording software to film themselves drawing lines on top of random jpegs in paint.net for five to ten minutes, before sitting back and proudly claiming that their unmatched genius has proven all human knowledge from the last several millennia to be hopelessly fraudulent.

John Gabriel is a flat earther for mathematics.

Mr. Gabriel writes and speaks at great length about an invention which he calls "the New Calculus", a theory most briefly described as an attempt to reformulate all of mathematics starting from (what he perceives to be) the base principles used by the Ancient Greeks. He believes that mathematics as a field of study has been practiced almost exclusively by idiots for approximately the last two thousand years, or nine hundred, or a hundred and fifty (the exact time at which things went to shit seems to vary a lot; he rejects much of Euler and Fermat, but also calls Cantor "the father of all cranks") and claims that only he can understand numbers "properly".

Whenever a popular maths YouTube channel makes a video about infinity (see Numberphile on -1/12 or Vsauce on transfinite ordinals), there are inevitably people in the comments arguing that the video's premise is misleading, wrong, unnecessary or incoherent, or that the concept of doing mathematics with infinite sets is fundamentally invalid. Mr. Gabriel takes this finitist view to its logical extreme.

In his 152-page tirade against modern academia, he argues that any "infinite process" is outright unmathematical and should not be allowed; his definition of "infinite process" includes convergent limits, such as the unending decimal expansion required to express irrational numbers. A significant basis of his work is that irrationals like π and √2 are not numbers, but rather "constants" or "incommensurable magnitudes". Why this is a useful distinction, given that these "constants" behave like numbers in nearly every regard, is never explained. He additionally claims that 0 is not only not a number, but is "not even required at all in mathematics". He spends the entire first half of the book re-deriving all of arithmetic and algebra based entirely on principles of Euclidean geometry, while repeating, mantra-like, that only integer ratios are numbers and that anyone who claims otherwise is an ignorant buffoon. I wonder if he writes RPF of himself throwing Hippasus into the sea.

He has then taken this idiosyncratic worldview as a starting point from which to reinvent calculus.

He is straightforwardly wrong.

Mr. Gabriel frequently complains that his critics mindlessly hurl insults at him without seriously engaging with his work, so as a show of absurdly generous good faith I will engage with it now. Any fellow masochists reading this are invited to take a look at Mr. Gabriel's manuscript - specifically his demonstration of how to take a derivative without the use of limits - and try and figure out where the problem is.

Ignoring Mr. Gabriel's apparent inability to find the subscript button in Microsoft Word, he has taken an nth-degree polynomial (which could contain many terms), and transformed it into a single term of degree n-1. This, you will be astounded to learn, is not the correct result when taking the derivative of anything more complicated than f(x) = x^p. Notably, he never attempts to do this.

In fairness, the above demonstration is not actually the New Calculus. Mr. Gabriel explains that he has helpfully preceded his earth-shattering revelations with a less rigorous, more geometrically-derived formulation. I'm sure we'll get some real mathematics in a minute.

What we get is him complaining that the Encyclopaedia Britannica does not provide sufficient intuition for the work of Newton and Leibniz, before claiming that his New Calculus is "the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history". He uses this exact phrasing (or nearly) at least four other times in his PDF; if he is unhappy with the Britannica, I might politely advise him to try reading Roget's Thesaurus instead.

Finally, on page 120 of 152, we are given an explanation of the epiphany to which the entire monograph has been building.

"Left as an exercise for the reader" is a phrase used by cowards (and to his credit, John Gabriel is not a coward), so I will point out the slight issue here: it is not possible to calculate values for m and n unless you already know the tangent slope. In his example of how to compute the derivative of sin(x), he expresses the function in its Taylor series form (so much for shunning infinite summations), and then simply replaces said series with the one for cos(x) without comment; he then manages to successfully determine his secant intersection values, and then calculates the value of the derivative function he just shoved into his pile of equations a few lines further up. Thus, his bafflingly circular logic is enabled almost invisibly.

This is it. This is all that this book is. John Gabriel's magnum opus, the thing he has been building up to for 119 pages amid paragraphs of bluster about the idiocy of irrationals and his own vaunted genius, is the ability to compute the derivative of a function as long as you know the derivative of the function. And as long as that derivative is not a zero found at one of the function's inflection points, because apparently that doesn't count as drawing a tangent line (for reasons that I'm sure are unrelated to the fact that Mr. Gabriel's secant method fails for such points).

I don't want to go deep into personal insults here - that's John Gabriel's job - but this is not useful mathematics. The logic is circular, the motivation is worthless, and it enables no new insights not already achievable with the current mainstream understanding of calculus. No statement is proven that has not already been shown to be true within the framework of Newton and Leibniz; there are only restatements of existing theorems based on the shaky-at-best logic of these new principles. So what is it for?

This is a question I kept coming back to while reading Mr. Gabriel's PDF. What is this for? What is gained by stubbornly insisting that π and e are not numbers, but rather "constants of incommensurate magnitude"? How does rejecting the usual definition of division as a multiplicative inverse in favour of some guff about "measuring in equal parts of an abstract unit" expand the horizons of mathematical knowledge? Of course, it doesn't.

John Gabriel, ultimately, is not important. There are thousands of other flat-earthers and similar grifters just as laughable as him, and to my knowledge there is roughly nobody who takes him seriously. (And if anyone does, the chance of some random guy on Tumblr convincing them otherwise is vanishingly small.) But I find his writing fascinating precisely because of the way in which he is wrong. He seems firmly rooted in the idea that mathematics is all discovery and no invention; that we can derive mathematical truths out of absolutely nothing. He rejects the notion of logical axioms as a starting point for derivation, instead seeking answers grounded in reality (by proxy, via "pure geometry"), and he is incensed when people ignore his demands.

But mathematics is not physics. Mathematical objects don't exist independent of their definitions, but they do exist independent of the real world. The rules of mathematics are defined by mathematicians only; if we want π to be a number, all we have to do is say "let π qualify as a number"; if we want to define an infinite sum as being equal to its limit, we can. If the rules disallow something, nobody can stop us picking different rules, reality be damned. John Gabriel has in fact done this too, even if he doesn't realise it - it's just that his starting axiom around which the rest of his theory is based is "I am the greatest mathematician in the world, and everyone who has come before me is a moron". I do not exaggerate when I say this; a pinned comment under one of his recent videos reads:

I, the GREAT JOHN GABRIEL explained why calculus works and I defined NUMBER correctly for the FIRST TIME in human history. For this, I am called a crank by your ignorant, incompetent and incorrigibly stupid mainstream math professors and teachers. I shall keep reminding students of your venom and your hatefulness towards me. You are vile, disgusting excuses for human beings. The longer you deny me as the greatest mathematician, the more shit will accumulate in your diapers.

If Mr. Gabriel objects to logical premises that are rooted in fiction, I have some suggestions for ideas he might want to discard.

[watchmorecinema]

The story of Microsoft's meteoric rise and IBM's fall has been on my mind lately. Not really related to any film, but I do think we're overdue for an updated Pirates of Silicon Valley biopic. I really think that the 80's and 90's had some wild stories in computing.

If you ask the average person what operating system your computer could have they'd say that if it's a PC it has Windows, and if it's a Mac it has macOS. All home computers are Macs or PCs, but how did it get this way?

In the 70's everyone was making home computers. Tandy was a leather supply goods company established in 1919, but they made computers. Montgomery Ward was a retail chain that decided to make their own store brand computers. Commodore, Atari, NEC, Philips, Bally and a million other assorted companies were selling computers. They generally couldn't talk to each other (if you had software for your Tandy it wouldn't work on your Commodore) and there was no clear market winner. The big three though were Tandy (yeah the leather company made some great computers in 78), Commodore and Apple.

IBM was the biggest computer company of all, in fact just the biggest company period. In 1980 they had a market cap of 128 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation). None of these other companies came close, but IBM's success was built off of mainframes. 70% of all computers sold worldwide were IBM computers, but 0% of it was from the home market.

IBM wanted to get into this growing and lucrative business, and came up with a unique plan. A cheap computer made with commodity parts (i.e. not cutting edge) that had open architecture. The plan was that you could buy an IBM Personal Computer (TM) and then upgrade it as you please. They even published documentation to make it easy to build add ons.

The hope was that people would be attracted to the low prices, the options for upgrades would work for power users, and a secondary market of add ons would be created. If some 3rd party company creates the best graphics card of all time, well you'd still need to buy an IBM PC to install it on.

IBM was not in the home software business, so they went to Microsoft. Microsoft produced MS-DOS (based on 86-DOS, which they licensed) but did not enforce exclusivity. That meant that Microsoft could sell MS-DOS for any of their competitors too. This was fine because of how fractured the market was. Remember, there were a lot of competitors, no one system dominated and none of the competitors could share software. Porting MS-DOS to every computer would have taken years, and by that point it would be outdated anyways.

IBM saw two paths forward. If the IBM PC did well they would make a ton of money. Third party devs like Microsoft would also make a lot of money, but not as much as IBM. If it failed, well then no one was making money. Either way the balance of power wouldn't change. IBM would still be at the top.

IBM however did not enjoy massive profits. It turns out that having cheap components and an open architecture where you could replace anything would... let you replace anything. A company like Compaq could just buy their own RAM, motherboards, cases, hard drives, etc. and make their own knockoff. It was easy, it was popular, and it was completely legal! Some people could order parts and build their own computer from scratch. If you've ever wondered why you can build your own computer but not your own tv or toaster, this is why. IBM had accidentally created a de facto standard that they had no control over.

In 1981 IBM's PC was worth 2.5% of the marketshare. By 1995 IBM PC compatibles were 95% of the marketshare, selling over 45 million units and IBM had to share the profits with every competitor. Apple is the only survivor of this time because the Macintosh was such an incredible piece of technology, but that's a different story for a different time.

And Microsoft? Well building an OS is much harder than putting together a few hardware components, so everyone just bought MS-DOS. With no exclusivity agreement this was also legal. That huge marketshare was now the basis for Microsoft's dominance.

IBM created a computer standard and gave the blueprints to every competitor and created a monopoly for Microsoft to boot. And that's why every computer you buy either is made by Apple with Apple software, or made by anyone else with Microsoft software. IBM is back where they started, having left the home computer business in 2005.

It's easily the biggest blunder in computer history. Other blunders have killed companies but none were quite as impactful as this one.

This story, and many others I know of, I first read in "In Search of Stupidity", a book authored by a former programmer and product manager that was able to see a lot of this first hand. I make no money advertising this book, I just had a great time reading it.

[kde-plasma-official]

whats the status of like. using linux on a phone. it feels like there are two parallel universes, one that kde lives in where people use linux on phones, and one where if you google linux phones you discover theyre almost usable but they can barely make phone calls or send texts and they only run on like 4 models of phone

don't have much experience with linux on phone so anyone please correct me if i'm wrong but

one of the problems with phones is that every vendor and manufacturer adds their own proprietary driver blob to it and these have to be extracted and integrated into the kernel in order for the hardware to function.

as companies don't like to share their magic of "how does plastic slab make light", reverse engineering all your hardware is quite a difficult task. Sometimes there just isn't a driver for the camera of a phone model yet because no one was able to make it work.

So naturally, this takes a lot of time and tech is evolving fast so by the time a phone is completely compatible, next generations are already out and your new model obsolete.

Also important to note: most of this work is made by volunteers, people with a love for programming who put a lot of their own time into these things, most of them after their daytime jobs as a hobby.

Of course, there are companies and associations out there who build linux phones for a living. But the consumer hardware providers, like Pinephone, Fairphone and others out there aren't as big and don't have this much of a lobby behind them so they can't get their prices cheap. Also the manufacturers are actively working against our right to repair so we need more activism.

To make the phones still affordable (and because of said above driver issues) they have to use older hardware, sometimes even used phones from other manufacturers that they have to fix up, so you can't really expect a modern experience. At least you can revive some older phones. As everything Linux.

Then there's the software providers who many of are non-profits. KDE has Plasma Mobile, Canonical works on Ubuntu Touch, Debian has the Mobian Project and among some others there's also the Arch Linux ARM Project.

That's right baby, ARM. We're not talking about your fancy PC or ThinkPad with their sometimes even up to 64-bit processors. No no no, this is the future, fucking chrome jellyfishes and everything.

This is the stuff Apple just started building their fancy line of over-priced and over-engineered Fisher-Price laptop-desktops on and Microsoft started (Windows 10X), discontinued and beat into the smush of ChatGPT Nano Bing Open AI chips in all your new surface hp dell asus laptops.

What I was trying to say is, that program support even for the market dominating monopoles out there is still limited and.... (from my own experience from the workplace) buggy. Which, in these times of enshittification is a bad news. And the good projects you gotta emulate afterwards anyways so yay extra steps!

Speaking of extra steps: In order to turn their phone into a true freedom phone, users need to free themselves off their phones warranty, lose their shackles of not gaining root access, installing a custom recovery onto their phone (like TWRP for example), and also have more technical know-how as the typical user, which doesn't quite sounds commercial-ready to me.

So is there no hope at all?

Fret not, my friend!

If we can't put the Linux into the phone, why don't we put the phone around the Linux? You know... Like a container?

Thanks to EU regulations-

(US consumers, please buy the European versions of your phones! They are sometimes a bit more expensive, but used models of the same generation or one below usually still have warranty, are around the same price as over there in Freedom Valley, and (another side tangent incoming - because of better European consumer protection laws) sometimes have other advantages, such as faster charging and data transfer (USB-C vs lightning ports) or less bloated systems)

- it is made easier now to virtualize Linux on your phone.

You can download a terminal emulator, create a headless Linux VM and get A VNC client running. This comes with a performance limit though, as a app with standard user permissions is containerized inside of Android itself so it can't use the whole hardware.

If you have root access on your phone, you can assign more RAM and CPU to your VM.

Also things like SDL just released a new version so emulation is getting better.

And didn't you hear the news? You can run other things inside a VM on an iPhone now! Yup, and I got Debian with Xfce running on my Xiaomi phone. Didn't do much with it tho. Also Windows XP and playing Sims 1 on mobile. Was fun, but battery draining. Maybe something more for tablets for now.

Things will get interesting now that Google officially is a monopoly. It funds a lot of that stuff.

I really want a Steam Deck.

Steam phones would be cool.

[andmaybegayer]

Hello it's me with another very naive computer question!

One of the really common complaints you see about modern software (from Adobe, Microsoft, etc.) is the move from the single-purchase model to a subscription-based model. While I understand that people are upset about paying more money over time, this also feels like the only viable option for shipping products that work with modern OSes, especially Windows (I don't have any experience with MacOS). Windows pretty regularly updates, and if you want your product to continue to work, you have to continue paying your engineers to maintain compatibility through time.

Obviously I understand that there are lots of FOSS options out there, but for the companies that are built on making money from these sorts of software products, I don't see another way. Am I way off the mark here?

This is a really good question. I don't have a great answer, but the model I have in my head is that "traditional software distribution" is partially an artifact of an era where companies were starting to use computers but internet use was still spotty so providing support for software was just a very different ballgame. A lot of what I'm saying here is not like. Fact as much as it is my understanding of The Software Business from the side of someone who is a little involved in that but mostly not in that.

(This is mostly about "business software", that is to say, accounting packages, creative suites, design packages, modelling tools, etc. This model does not explain like. Spotify. But that's much easier to explain.)

You're not wrong that the subscription model really make sense given modern software development, where patches come out continuously and you get upgraded to the latest version every time something changes, but there has been a significant change in how software is developed and sold that makes it noticeably different. I think that the cause of this is mostly because it's finally practical to do contract-style deals with hundreds of thousands of customers instead of doing one-off sales like we used to do.

In the Traditional model you charge a pretty sizeable upfront cost for a specific version of the software, you buy Windows XP or Jasc Paint Shop 7 or whatever and then you get That Version until we release The Next Version, plus a couple years of security and support. When the next version hits, we stop adding any new features to your version, and when that hits end of life, you maybe get offered a discount to buy licensing for the latest version, or you drop out of support.

Traditional software with robust support typically costs an awful lot, Photoshop CS2 was $600 new in 2005, or $150 to upgrade from CS, because you're paying for support and engineering time in advance. A current subscription for just Photoshop is $20/mo, and that's after twenty years of inflation. Photoshop is also cheap, a seat for something like SolidWorks 2003 could probably have run you $3000-4000 easy. I can't even give you a better guess there because SolidWorks still doesn't sell single commercial licenses online, you have to talk to their salespeople.

The interesting thing to me about Traditional pricing was that I think it was typically offered to medium to small businesses or individuals, because it's an easy way to sell to smaller customers, especially if it's the 90's and you're maybe selling your software through an intermediary reseller who works with local businesses or just a store shelf.

Independent software resellers were a big business back in the day, they served as a go-between for the software company and smaller businesses, they sold prepared packages in a few sizes and handled the personal relationship of phoning you up and saying "Hey there's a patch for your accounting software so that it doesn't crash when someone's surname is Zero, we'll send you a floppy disk in the mail with some instructions on how to install it." Versioned standard releases are a thing you can put in a box and give to resellers along with a spec sheet and sales talking points. This business still exists but it's much smaller than it once was, it's largely gone upmarket.

If you were bigger, say, if you were a publishing house that needed fifty seats of editing software you'd probably call the sales department of Jasc or whoever and get a volume deal along with a support contract.

Nowadays why would you bother going through resellers and making this whole complicated pricing model when you could just sell subscriptions with well-established e-commerce tools. You can make contract support deals with individuals at scale, all online, without hiring thousands of salespeople. You can even provide varying support levels at multiple cost brackets directly, so you don't need to cultivate a direct business relationship with all your customers in order to meet their needs. Your salespeople handle the really big megacorp and government deals and you let everyone else administer themselves.

It also makes development easier. You can also deploy patches over the net, you just do it in software. You can obsolete older versions faster, since you can make sure most people are using the latest version, and significantly cut down on engineering time spent backporting fixes to older versions. I think a lot of this is straightforwardly desirable on most software.

Now, there are still packages sold by the version, and there are even companies selling eternal licenses.

Fruity Loops Studio is still a "Buy once forever" type deal.

MatLab can be purchased as a subscription or as a perpetual one-version license.

Windows is still sold like this, but also direct to customer sales of Windows are minimal, Windows is primarily sold to OEM's who preinstall it on everything.

But it's a dying breed, your bigger customers are going to want current support and while there are industries where people want to hang around on older versions, for a lot of software your customer wants the latest thing with all the features and patches, and they'd rather hold on to their money until later using a subscription rather than spend it all upfront. Businesses love subscriptions, they make accounts books balance well, they're the opposite of debt.

Personal/private users who might just want the features of Photoshop CS2 and that's fine forever don't matter to you. They're not your major customers. This kind of person is not a person who your business cares to service, so you don't really care if you annoy them.

Even in the Open Source business world, subscriptions are how the money is made, just on support rather than for the software itself. You can jump through relatively few hoops to run Ubuntu Enterprise or SUSE Enterprise Linux on your own systems for free, but really there's not much benefit to that unless you pay for the dedicated support subscription.

In many ways I think a lot of things have changed in this way, I have a whole thing about the way medium-scale industrial manufacturing has changed in the past thirty years somewhere around here.

While there are valid reasons you might want to buy a single snapshot of some software and run that forever, the reality is that that's a pretty rare desire, or at least that desire is rarely backed by money. If you want to do that you either need access to the source code so that you can maintain it yourself, or you need to strike a deal with someone who will, or it needs to be software so limited that it (and the system it runs on!) never need updates. Very few useful programs are this simple. As a result subscription models make sense, but until recently you couldn't really sell a subscription to small businesses and individuals. Changes in e-commerce and banking have enabled such contracts to be made, and hey presto, it's subscription world.

[justforbooks]

Source Code: My Beginnings by Bill Gates

In contrast to the current crop of swaggering tech bros, the Microsoft founder comes across as wry and self-deprecating in this memoir of starting out

Bill Gates is the John McEnroe of the tech world: once a snotty brat whom everyone loved to hate, now grown up into a beloved elder statesman. Former rivals, most notably Apple’s Steve Jobs, have since departed this dimension, while the Gates Foundation, focusing on unsexy but important technologies such as malaria nets, was doing “effective altruism” long before that became a fashionable term among philosophically minded tech bros. Time, then, to look back. In the first of what the author threatens will be a trilogy of memoirs, Gates recounts the first two decades of his life, from his birth in 1955 to the founding of Microsoft and its agreement to supply a version of the Basic programming language to Apple Computer in 1977.

He grows up in a pleasant suburb of Seattle with a lawyer father and a schoolteacher mother. His intellectual development is keyed to an origin scene in which he is fascinated by his grandmother’s skill at card games around the family dining table. The eight-year-old Gates realises that gin rummy and sevens are systems of dynamic data that the player can learn to manipulate.

As he tells it, Gates was a rather disruptive schoolchild, always playing the smart alec and not wanting to try too hard, until he first learned to use a computer terminal under the guidance of an influential maths teacher named Bill Dougall. (I wanted to learn more about this man than Gates supplies in a still extraordinary thumbnail sketch: “He had been a World War II Navy pilot and worked as an aeronautical engineer at Boeing. Somewhere along the way he earned a degree in French Literature from the Sorbonne in Paris on top of graduate degrees in engineering and education.”) Ah, the computer terminal. It is 1968, so the school terminal communicates with a mainframe elsewhere. Soon enough, the 13-year-old Gates has taught it to play noughts and crosses. He is hooked. He befriends another pupil, Paul Allen – who will later introduce him to alcohol and LSD – and together they pore over programming manuals deep into the night. Gates plans a vast simulation war game, but he and his friends get their first taste of writing actually useful software when they are asked to automate class scheduling after their school merges with another. Success with this leads the children, now calling themselves the Lakeside Programming Group, to write a payroll program for local businesses, and later to create software for traffic engineers.

There follows a smooth transition to Harvard, where in the ferment of anti-war campus protests our hero is more interested in the arrival, one day in 1969, of a PDP-10 computer. Gates takes classes in maths but also chemistry and the Greek classics. Realising he doesn’t have it in him to become a pure mathematician, he goes all-in on computers once a new home machine, the Altair, is announced. He and Paul Allen will write its Basic, having decided to call themselves “Micro-Soft”.

The early home computer scene, Gates notes, was a countercultural, hippy thing: cheap computers “represented a triumph of the masses against the monolithic corporations and establishment forces that controlled access to computing”, and so software was widely “shared”, or copied among people for free. It was Gates himself who, notoriously, pushed back against this culture when he found out most users of his Basic weren’t paying for it. By “stealing software”, he wrote in an open letter in 1976, “you prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?” This rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way and still does, at least in the more militant parts of the “open-source” world. But he had a point. And that, readers, is why your Office 365 account just renewed for another year. Fans of Word and Excel, though, will have to wait for subsequent volumes of Gates’s recollections, as will those who want more about his later battles with Apple, though Steve Jobs does get an amusing walk-on part. (Micro-Soft’s general manager keeps a notebook of sales calls, on one page of which we read: “11.15 Steve Jobs calls. Was very rude.”). This volume, still, is more than just a geek’s inventory of early achievements. There is a genuine gratitude for influential mentors, and a wry mood of self-deprecation throughout. Gates gleefully records his first preschool report: “He seemed determined to impress us with his complete lack of concern for any phase of school life.” Later, he explains how he acquired a sudden interest in theatre classes. “Admittedly the main draw for me was the higher percentage of girls in drama. And since the main activity in the class was to read lines to each other, the odds were very good that I’d actually talk to one.” Strikingly, unlike most ��self-made” billionaires, Gates emphasises the “unearned privilege” of his upbringing and the peculiar circumstances – “mostly out of my control” – that enabled his career. Adorably, he even admits to still having panic dreams about his university exams. The book’s most touching pages recount how one of his closest friends and colleagues in the programming group, Kent Evans, died in a mountaineering accident when he was 17. “Throughout my life, I have tended to deal with loss by avoiding it,” Gates writes. He says later that if he were growing up today, he would probably be identified as “on the autism spectrum”, and now regrets some of his early behaviour, though “I wouldn’t change the brain I was given for anything”. There is a sense of the writer, older and wiser, trying to redeem the past through understanding it better, a thing that no one has yet seen Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg attempt in public. That alone makes Bill Gates a more human tech titan than most of his rivals, past and present.

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[commodorez]

Hi! I'm so sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm completely clueless on computers, but I want to learn about them. Any places you'd recommend starting for bare bones beginners? I'm also interested in early-mid 90's tech particularly too. I'm guessing I have to figure out the basics before I can move onto specific tech though, right?

You're really knowledgeable and nice so I figured I'd just ask. Any help at all would be appreciated. Thank you! :]

That's an excellent question, I don't think I've been asked it before in such a general sense. I was raised with the benefit of being immersed in computers regularly, so providing a solid answer may be a bit difficult since for the basics, I never had to think about it.

I had computer classes of various types throughout my school years. We learned how to use a mouse, typing, word processing, programming -- and that was all before middle school. We got proper typing, html, and general purpose computer science courses in middle and high school, and you can bet I took those too. I also have the benefit of a bachelors of science in computer science, so you'll forgive me if my answer sounds incredibly skewed with 30+ years of bias.

The biggest suggestion I can give you is simply to find a device and play with it. Whatever you can get your hands on, even if its not that old, as long as it's considered past its prime, and nobody will get upset of you accidentally break something (physically or in software). Learning about things with computers in general tends to have some degree of trial and error, be it programming, administrating, or whatever -- try, learn, and start over if things don't work out as expected the first time. Professionals do it all the time (I know I do, and nobody's fired me for it yet).

Some cast-off 90s or early 00's surplus office desktop computer running Windows would be a good start, just explore it and its settings. Start digging into folders, see what's installed, see what works and more importantly what doesn't work right. Try to find comparable software, and install it. Even the basics like old copies of Microsoft Office, or whatever.

I recommend looking through the available software on winworld as it's an excellent treasure trove of operating systems, applications, games, and other useful software of the time period. I'd link it directly, but tumblr hates links to external sites and will bury this post if I do. If you're a mac fan, and you can find an old G3 or Performa, there is the Macintosh Garden's repository of software, but I'm not the right person to ask about that.

Some of you might be like "oh, oh! Raspberry Pi! say Raspberry Pi!" but I can't really recommend those as a starting point, even if they are cheap for an older model. Those require a bit of setup, and even the most common linux can be obtuse as hell for newcomers if you don't have someone to guide you.

If you don't have real hardware to muck about with, emulation is also your friend. DOSBox was my weapon of choice for a long time, but I think other things like 86Box have supplanted it. I have the luxury of the real hardware in most cases, so I haven't emulated much in the past decade. Tech Tangents on youtube has a new video explaining the subject well, I highly recommend it. There are plenty of other methods too, but most are far more sophisticated to get started with, if you ask me.

For getting a glimpse into the world of the 90s tech, if you haven't already discovered LGR on youtube, I've been watching his content for well over a decade now. He covers both the common and esoteric, both hardware and software, and is pretty honest about the whole thing, rather than caricaturish in his presentation style. It might be a good jumping off point to find proverbial rabbits to chase.

I guess the trick is to a find a specific thing you're really interested in, and then start following that thread, researching on wikipedia and finding old enthusiast websites to read through. I'm sure there are a few good books on more general history of 90s computing and the coming internet, but I'm not an avid reader of the genre. Flipping through tech magazines of the era (PC Magazine comes to mind, check archive dot org for that) can provide a good historical perspective. Watching old episodes of the Computer Chronicles (youtube or archive dot org) can provide this too, but it also had demonstrations and explanations of the emerging technologies as they happened.

There are so many approaches here, I'm sure I've missed some good suggestions though. I also realized I waffle a bit between the modern and vintage, but I find many computing troubleshooting skillsets transcend eras. What works now can apply to 10, 20, 30, or sometimes even 40+ years ago, because it's all about mindset of "this computer/program is dumb, and only follows the instructions its given" . Sometimes those instructions are poorly thought out on the part of the folks who designed them. And those failures are not necessarily your fault, so you gotta push through until you figure out how to do the thing you're trying to do. Reading the documentation you can find will only take you so far, sometimes things are just dumb, and experimentation (and failures) will teach you so much more about the hard and fast rules of computers than anything else. I'm rambling at this point...

So, let's throw the question to the crowd, and ask a few other folks in the Retrotech Crew.

@ms-dos5 @virescent-phosphor @teckheck @jhavard @techav @regretsretrotech @airconditionedcomputingnightmare @aperture-in-the-multiverse -- anything big I missed?

[blazehedgehog]

What would happen if Nintendo became bankrupt or closed their doors forever? how would that effect the gaming industry?

I am of the opinion that if Nintendo goes bankrupt then they are the last ones left in the game industry and them closing up shop is the end of the market entirely.

Sony and Microsoft are the types to burn the candle at both ends. Always have been. I dunno if it's always been true, but at least as of the Xbox 360, the Xbox brand has never been profitable. Not even once. The strategy was always to sell hardware at a loss and make up for that in software. They do that because they charge developers to print discs.

But now the physical market is going away. And guys like Sony and Microsoft are trying to pivot to a subscription model where as long as you give them the total cost of one or two games a year, then that's good enough for them. But that is incredibly toxic to the market, and we're already seeing that with Microsoft's shift in perspective where they just aren't putting out a lot of big, exciting, great games. Game Pass is our "Netflix for Games", including all of the parts that make Netflix suck.

Nintendo has always been budget-conscious and frugal to a fault. They are here to make a lot out of a little. Their hardware is noticeably less powerful so they can generate profit from console sales alone. And I've said it before, but Aonuma once claimed Wind Waker HD cost more money than the original Wind Waker did, even though it was mainly just a couple of graphical filters and some minor gameplay tweaks. Which says to me the budget for Wind Waker must have been very, very, very tiny.

And Nintendo games are priced very aggressively. There's no such thing as a "cheap Nintendo game" and they rarely do deep discounts. And if you look, multiple Nintendo games crack the best selling games of all time. If anyone is making any meaningful profit in the games space, it is Nintendo.

So if Nintendo is turning out the lights, that's the end of the industry. Period. Maybe it still keeps going on the PC, since PC being an open platform seems to give it some immunity, but console gaming will be well and fully dead at that point.

[dailyanarchistposts]

The Technological Components of Colonialism

Many comrades cannot grasp the technological components of colonialism (or rather they ignore them deliberately), remaining perplexed at a perspective based on the urgency of utterly annihilating techno-domination and the tech industry. If you talk to them about the connection of technologies to power, they respond with the supposed neutrality of these technologies and that they can be decoupled from the very logic of power which developed and produced them.

Such a perspective ignores that the entire framework of fundamental technologies which have today entered into all fields of social life stem from military research, and that colonialism, historically and presently, has a strong technological component. It is in fact a cornerstone. The process of colonization developed over centuries, always adding new technologies as soon as they developed. These technologies are based not only on the exploitation of people in the Global South and their lands, but were and have always been unleashed against the “enemy” or tested in the colonies, until they finally make their way into the empire itself.

With the aid of the British colonies, undersea cables enabled telegraphic communication in service of the British Empire. New developments in record-keeping, archiving, and organization of information were first utilized by the US military intelligence service during the conquest of the Philippines. Governments today work together with tech-giants to enable widespread surveillance and control of their own people. This is first tested in the global south. Microsoft offers a solution for police vehicles with facial-recognition cameras that was launched in Cape Town and Durban, South Africa. The “Command-and-Control Surveillance Platform” named “Microsoft Aware” is utilized in Brazil and Singapore. Microsoft is also heavily engaged in the prison industry. They offer a variety of software solutions for the penal system, covering the whole process. In Africa they have gotten together with a firm named Netopia offering a “Prison Management Software Platform,” including “escape management” and prisoner analysis. Countries in the global south also offer an abundance of cheap laborers for technological processes and tech giants. These includes data annotators for artificial intelligence, call center workers, and content moderators for social media giants like Facebook. They clean disruptive content from social media feeds and are often left psychologically damaged.

Over centuries, imperial powers have tested technologies for the surveillance and control of their own populations on foreign populations; from Sir Francis Galtons pioneering work on fingerprinting, which occurred in India and South Africa, all the way to America’s combination of biometrics and innovations in the management of statistics and data, which constructed the first modern surveillance apparatus to pacify the Philippines. The wide collection of surveillance technologies used in the Philippines offered a testing site for a model that was finally brought back to the United States to set against the dissidents in its own country. High tech surveillance projects by Microsoft and their partners suggest that Africa will continue to be serve as a lab for carceral experiments.

The technological component of colonialism also reveals itself in the ways and means by which people in the Global South are exploited for menial and dangerous work as their lands are destroyed, just to provide supposedly necessary technology. Thus Congo supplies more than 70% of worldwide Cobalt, a vital raw material for the batteries used in cars, computers, and smartphones. As for Lithium, the biggest reserves are found in Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and Australia. Out of these, Australia is less attractive because the workers there earn dramatically higher wages. The actual process of mining the raw materials often has negative consequences to the health of the workers and their surroundings.

To eradicate colonialism, its causes, main actors, and processes must be clearly and plainly illustrated and linked. There must be no illusions: an anti-colonial struggle must inevitably align itself against the tech industry if decolonization is to live up to its name.

[redhoodinternaldialectical]

What do you use to write your stories on? Sorey if you already answered this at sme point, i just stumbled across your blog when the update about chpt 22 of your chained fic came on my dash and from the little bit of the software i saw, it seemed helpful

Yeah, no problem, I use LibraOffice!

It's free to download and a damn good word processor :3 it'll give you basically everything you'd have in Microsoft Word and it also lets you customize your color settings, for instance you can make the 'paper' black and the text red, which is the main selling point for me

I am Biologically Goth (I have pretty bad light sensitivity issues) and need to be able to customize my background colors to make everything dark or else I cease to be capable of brain function after about thirty minutes of screen time lol

I would highly recommend it overall! It's pretty straightforward to use, has a ton of functionality, and isn't trying to steal your shit or scrape your data or anything like that which is sadly not the norm any more! And again, it's literally cheap as free

Really my only two complaints are that the spelling dictionary is slightly limited (easily gotten around by the add to dictionary function) and it seems to chug a bit after the document gets any longer than about 20,000 words. Still perfectly usable passed that! Just takes a while to save and trying to effect the entire text at once can be a lil finicky

So yeah, again, I very much recommend using this, especially with programs like Google Docs and Word going to shit

[ovenstavern]

Alts to google docs

google data scraping docs and EVERYTHING is my 13th reason (they even got gmail too :((()

anyhoo. here’s alts to google docs bc ill be damned if richy rich people with ai take writers ideas and use it as their own

- OfficeSuite is pretty cool. Its what im currently using and you dont have to pay for anything unless you want some add-on. It’s basically microsoft word but you dont have to pay anything

- Word docs is... ok, in my experience. I used it in my ye olde days when I began writing fanfiction. However, you gotta pay to download and I’m too cheap to spend a dime to write two dudes kissing :/

- Scriviner: I never used this software, and it’s not free. However, I heard a bunch of positive reviews and their format looks nice so do with that information as you will

- Reedsy: accessible everywhere, free, and can export to paperback. I use it to quadruple and quintuple backup my works :)))

- LibreOffice: free and basically like microsoft word. Never used it before, but the reviews sound good

remember yall. eat the rich and add seasoning. good day <3

[douchebagbrainwaves]

OUR FATHERS WEREN'T THAT STUPID

You can thus gradually work your way into their confidence, and maybe charge for premium features. What do they have to go pretty far down the list, and indeed, no one is sure where the end is. From what we've seen, being good seems to help startups in three ways: it improves their morale, it makes other people want to help them, and IBM could easily have gotten an operating system elsewhere. If you feel you're really helping people, you'll keep working even when it seems like your startup is cheap to run, you become a member of an institution. And yet all those people have to be even faster, and more efficient. But when you ask adults what they got wrong at that age, nearly all say they cared too much what other kids thought of them. If you plan to get rich, and this essay is about how to make money by inventing new technology. But maybe not. It's a smart move, but we didn't do it because we want their software to be good. Maybe it's not a coincidence.

When I was running a startup, there are probably two things keeping you from doing it. Thanks to Ken Anderson, Trevor Blackwell, Daniel Giffin, Sarah Harlin, Shiro Kawai, Jessica Livingston, Matz, Jackie McDonough, Robert Morris, Eric Raymond, Guido van Rossum, David Weinberger, and Steven Wolfram for reading drafts of this essay. Structurally, the list of n things is in that respect the Cold War teaches the same lesson as World War II and, for that matter, how much is outside of our control. Or rather, any client, and if you try to make it as a portrait by an unknown fifteenth century artist, most would walk by without giving it a second look. But why should people who program computers be so concerned about copyrights, of all things? And no one can stop you. It's not for the people who make things. It was written by just three people. Ultimately you always have to guess. It's not something you face and read to an audience that's easily fooled, whether it's someone making shiny stuff to impress would-be startup founders but to students in general, because we'd be a long way toward explaining the mystery of the so-called real world. Otherwise their desire to lead you on will combine with your own desire to be led on to produce completely inaccurate impressions.

What are people doing now, using inadequate tools, that shows they need what you're making? Visiting Sand Hill Road. A startup is like a giant galley driven by a thousand rowers. That is a liberating prospect, a lot like a charity in the beginning. It does help too to feel that you're late. Facebook. But in fact if you narrow the definition of beauty to something that works is by trying things that don't. Mainly because it's easier than satisfying them. SLAC goes right under 280 a little bit south of Sand Hill Road precisely because they're so boringly uniform.

And there is a natural fit between smallness and solving hard problems. Anyone can adopt Don't be evil. Naturally wealth had a bad reputation. My Y Combinator co-founder Jessica Livingston is just about the easiest thing in the world. Microsoft, who have abandoned whatever mysterious high-minded principles produced the high-paying union job a myth, but I suspect that if you can't raise the full amount. The other students are the biggest advantage of going to work for a company, and his friend says, Yeah, that is a very real element in the valuation of companies. I would rather cofound a startup with a friend matters.

Imagine an American president saying that today. They just represent a point at the far end of the world. Sometimes young programmers notice the eccentricities of eminent hackers and decide to adopt some of their own are enormously more productive. The situation pushed buttons I'd forgotten I had. The worst case scenario is the long no, the no that comes after months of meetings. In the late 90s my professor friends used to complain that they couldn't get grad students, because all the undergrads were going to change something, all the hackers I knew were either writing software for the first few months comforted ourselves by treating the whole thing as an experiment that we might call off at any moment. The thing about ideas, though, if I've misled people here, I'm not eager to fix that. Wealth is what people want. But galleries didn't want to start a startup. The best place to meet them is school. Fortunately, there were few obstacles except technical ones. I knew the founder equation and had been focused on it since I knew I could see using something like that.

[nickgerlich]

Finding Resolve

We’ve all done it. We are all part of this new phenomenon, something that barely existed before this century, and only truly gained momentum in the last decade. The worst part is, most of us have forgotten exactly how much we are involved with it, because it is hard to remember what and how much these phenomena cost.

I am talking about the subscription economy, that magical place where software and streaming services are the product, and our monthly bill is usually on autopay. It ranges from SOAS (Software As A Service) providers like Adobe and Microsoft, to all the music, movies, and more that we stream into our homes, cars, and mobile devices.

And it is eating us alive.How many subscriptions do you have? Let’s start with your vehicle. Do you have satellite radio? That’s one. Do you subscribe to cloud-based software? That can be one or more. What about streaming tunes like Spotify or Apple Music? There you guy. The list is getting longer.

And then there are all the streaming TV choices, which runs from services like YouTube TV to Netflix, Paramount+, Apple TV+, Peacock, Max, Hulu, Disney…I could go on. You may have cut the cable at home, but you tethered yourself in other ways to the extent that the net effect is little different.

Then there’s the gaming community, if that’s your thing. More dinero. Maybe you fell for the premium version of an app, like Accuweather. If you’re a regular Amazon shopper, you no doubt have Prime, which costs $139 a year, plus the vitamins and supplements I receive every month from them. Like listening to books? There’s Audible. Old newspapers? There’s Newspapers.com, one of my favorite sites to do research. Cloud storage? Good Lord, I have several, for my thousands of photos and documents.

So successful has the subscription model been that paywalls have appeared everywhere online, like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Atlantic Monthly, each of whom have amazing content, a feast for my eyes and brain. Alas, I have drawn the line, because I sense it has long spun out control. And if CNN goes ahead and paywalls its app and site, I guess I won’t be reading them anymore.

Because I, like many people, have subscription fatigue. I simply cannot begin to consume all of this media. Sadly, I cannot remember all of the services to which I subscribe, and if you aren’t there yet, I bet you will be soon enough. The only way to know for sure is to carefully track your credit card statements to look for monthly billing.

That, of course, is the problem, because we willingly provided our billing data so that we do not have to do this every month. As long as that credit card is valid, those providers will keep hitting your card every month. It is only when your card is about to expire that you get a notification. And if you were not careful and instead provided a bank routing and account number, they can keep sticking their hand into your pocket as long as you have that account.

Ironically, there are new subscription management software sites and apps that supposedly make it easy to track and opt-out of all the things, but they are subscription services themselves. That’s like replacing one drug with another. You’re still on the hook.

It all starts so easily, because many of the subscription services are technically just micro payments, only $5 or $10. We see that as pocket change. Other services offer annual payment options, which provide a slight discount for paying in full in advance. But many of the once-cheap micro payments have started to get expensive, like Netflix and Spotify (I am speaking from experience). They are no longer minor indulgences.

Were these tangible products we had to buy in a store, I bet we would all be a lot more careful. The friction of having to be somewhere to even just tap your credit card would probably be enough to cause us to think. But it is simply too easy in the digital world to keep subscribing, because once we get in that loop, there is never any friction.

We are all going to have to muster a lot more resolve to win this fight, as well as start keeping meticulous records. Otherwise, these things develop lives of their own, lives that will continue hitting credit cards even after our own lives are over. I’m pretty sure none of us will be consuming anything at that point, and there’s no use paying for it.

We don’t have to wait for New Years Day to make this resolution.

Dr “I Honestly Can’t Remember All Of Them” Gerlich

Audio Blog

[ivaalo]

So, as Ubisoft continues to be the most hated gaming company with leaders saying bullshit, and with the continuity of subscription services with to destroy propriety, I tried to imagine what the dystopian future of online consumption in the next decades.

This is just a theory

Ubisoft can now prevent you from playing a game, even physical, if you haven't logged in with your Ubisoft profile, if you haven't pay the subscription service or have no access to the Internet, even thought you bought the game $60

The European Commission will say this is bullshit and will add a clause so the customer could always have an option to buy and possess a game

However, gaming companies will use a vulnerability in this law to have the possibility to sell a game with subscription starting at $40, and a free-of-subscription game starting at $250. (I see you going for that, GTA6) Both are the same game, you just choose how you want to be fucked.

Adobe, which is subscription only, in untouched by this law since they don't sell games. Microsoft will start doing the same shit for Windows.

Apple will say that Microsoft is disrespectful toward customers, and will refuse to have subscription services. However, their new laptop will cost $100,000. But it's only a one time payment!

Linux will release a public manual on how to use Linux for Windows and Mac users and redirect them to the distribution that fits both the best. At least 60% of Windows users will drop it for Linux.

Spotify and YouTube will only allow people to listen to musics or watch videos if they subscribe. They will also raise their prices.

Same for Facebook. Zuckerberg will close Facebook the next week because nobody is paying it and ads won't be accessible anymore

People will touch grass

There will be a huge separation of interest and culture between those who pay subscription and those who refuses it.

Linux will start having free sharing softwares and platforms (powered by Blender) for videos, musics, art, etc... However, like Wikipedia, there will be a constant reminder that it costs a lot to keep this going and people should give $3 every two years to keep it going. There will be a gauge showing if the donation are enough or not. Since people don't pay anymore for subscription, it will be cheap in comparison of the old times and it will stay in the green.

People won't be interested in the popular business (only a few will watch Marvel on Disney+), and people will actually buy new things online from newfound talents. The small artists will become the norm.

Wait wasn't it supposed to be a dystopia?