This feels notably off the original topic. But what the hell.

I've been hearing that Apple in general has stopped giving a damn a few years ago. Between stupid designed shit that is worser designed than earlier stuff (like a phone with only one plug/port that has to be shared between the charger and everything else you might want a port for, headsets etc) and so low quality builds that you might as well be buying some cheap no name chinese knock off, where it feels like they are intentionally tanking quality to force their customers to have to buy more, and crappy customer service. Only stuff I've heard indirectly since I've never bought Apple but I've been hearing it very consistently from many sources. Don't buy Apple. Or limit to old used purchases.

But that story feels like a experience I had at Aldis, I've had a few returns I needed to do there because of low quality product they sell (like a complete line of product can have issues, like sweet potato chips that consistently have a portion of chips in the bag burnt black) They have a policy where they give you your money back and give you a new product. But it seems if you use it a few times, even if the circumstances are completely legit (you can show them exactly how the product was inferior) they don't care. If you do it too much, they simply ban you, treating you like a thief abusing their policy. Well then don't have such a generous policy and listen to customer feedback regarding quality issues instead of blaming it on them like you could never possibly have quality control issues!

I was a sticker-loving Apple fan when Wozniac and Jobs began, back when they were a elite niche in the bellum omnium contra omnes computer revolution frontier of the 1980s. I loved the idea of a Newton, for example. But I felt the last of any sentimentality ebb away when it was revealed that the Mac hardware was, as many had prophesied, indeed a generation worse than the best PC architecture, whilst being more expensive, because it was now clear that the brand had matured to the point where it wasn't necessary to actually be better.

Australia has mandated federal customer protection laws — usually referred to in fine print as "your statutory rights" — that ensure a customer will be able to return faulty goods, to the seller, for a full refund, even if it is not defective.

The was an article in the Wall Street Journal, first week of November, by Khadeeja Safdar, analyzing the new normal. People are now given a Customer Lifetime Value, which is a risk calculated by the prices paid, against the perks received, in line with advertisement targets; it is possible to have a negative value (this is no surprise to a small sales office: in a SOHO, there are some customers who require more effort to service than a company can pay to provide), and is typically used to score probabilities for airline class upgrades, or access to higher technical competency when calling a helpdesk (instead of the barely-literate monkeys who man the general line).

All bank accounts, all mobile telephony, and all online shopping use CLVs.

Distrust Falsification
This is just technology, however, and therefore is ethically neutral; if you use Uber, for instance, your passenger rating is analogous to the driver's rating, and I am confident Adam Smith would find this an acceptable compromise that builds resilience efficiently.

Online shopping provides even more metadata, collecting browser visits to competitors, say, and the keywords used in searches, to estimate whether the seller needs to offer any more incentive to close the deal. "Churn" scores can be calculated, both on products and people; if you habitually change between several providers they are probably less likely to tempt you with anything except raw low pricing; theshholds can be calculated beyond which customers will not pay for a service, etc.

Oh, and the next generation of Smart Assistants (Google, Amazon, Apple) will not just have a passive (read: always on) speaker to listen for commands, but also now include a camera (or probably two).

Please examine the definition of faulty and defective and then explain this statement to me.

The "fault" being one of taste, naturally, since anyone who returned a fantastic product must be lacking in generally-distributed good taste. :o

(Yes, that was not part of my answer, and therefore must have been the result of typical gremlin malignancy. :")

GOG's curation ensures that every game will get some exposure. While I imagine they might end up having to reevaluate their margins in light of what Epic is doing, I don't think 30% is that bad all things considered.

Here is a real life example of all this. I was examining different games to buy, looking at the reviews and issues mentioned. One serious of games I examined was Heroes of Might and Magic.

Particular of interest was HoMM 4, which had interesting mechanics mentioned that sounded good, but also apparently issues of being abandoned prematurely leaving balance issues and stuff. So figuring fans would make a mod for it I searched what there is for mods of it. In all this I learned how HoMM4 was the product of a now defunct 3DO. The reason there was no more work done on it is because the company that bought the brand name of the HoMM series didn't own 4 or the IP(intellectual property) in general.

So, if lack of ownership and bankruptcy of the old company that was doing HoMM4 is why it was left in a shamefully incomplete state where fans have to address it for free. Why should I do the right thing and pay for a game (when I can get it for free with no real effort) when the lack of ownership is why its incomplete in the first place!

I asked this before and no one answered, who's getting the money for games like HoMM4 and earlier when the people who made it are no longer around? With such games, are we buying something that should be free in the first place? It seems with no ownership, either GoG is 100% getting all the money, or some corporate IP buyer is getting the the money in place of actual developers who give a fig about game design. Either way, not contributing to future game development by voting and aiding with properly paying for things instead of just getting for free pirate style. Either way, no one in the ownership/sales area is fixing the issues of HoMM4 but they still expect money for it, and fans still work on those issues for bloody free.

Or take Nintendo, jealously guarding their ancient IP while doing very little with it and zero consideration of the emulator IP.

I mean if the owners of an IP don't care about the IP except for how it gets them money, or there is no one to care about the IP, why should I care about said IP in regards to just downloading for free or not.
And with GoG and Steam the cared about IP and the uncared about IP are mixed in as though there is no difference.

I mean how would it feel if for example GoG started selling Atari roms. Would it be stealing if we downloaded said roms elsewhere? What if said Atari roms weren't so distinct? How many of the IP access rights(otherwise known as games) being sold on GoG and Steam are the same as Atari roms?

Organic food brands vary on how impactful they are to the environment, buying organic can be a environmentally friendly thing to do.

Probably shouldn't be so dismissive of the whole concept.

Just realized thread was older.