Yeah, thanks - that must have been it. I read their post with the inference I took from the title in my head and didn’t re-examine it after reading their message. And they didn’t say anything like “it’s been a great 8 years” like a lot of similar posts might to dispel it.

I mystified what it was that I read in that post that made me think that they only lasted a month to begin with, before announcing they were shutting down in a month. And even more confusing that I’ve literally never heard of them, that seemed reasonable when I thought they were a month old.

Some people are going to get screwed pretty hard here then, if they’ve been buying games there for years. Pretty horrific management of the situation if they can’t work out a deal with steam to save people’s games.

How could their costs be high enough that they can’t survive more than ONE month after launch? But we all dodged the bullet I guess, can you imagine this happening a year in when people actually had a chance to buy multiple games from them? What a pitiful response. It’ll be harder for anybody to enter the market when things like this happen.

Don’t be a pendant, you know what they fucking meant.

Edit: actually, it’s not even pedantic, it’s just wrong. Before the internet existed, there was never an internet shutdown.

Software decoding has clearly been sufficient.

I’m using a 15 year old i5 and a GTX 970, having no issues with AV1 video. Curious what hardware you’re running.

Not from THEMSELVES, never from themselves.

I will concede that the YouTube Music app started (and might still be) worse than GPM was in the end. But I’m not sure it could be considered enshittification. Yeah, the YTM app itself was kinda shit, especially at first - but they didn’t make the service materially worse and charge more for features they took away. They didn’t jack up the price to coincide with the “new” service, they just consolidated the two separate services into one. They didn’t introduce ads. They didn’t silently take down a ton of the music offered and leave the price the same - they still have the same 100M tracks as the other guys, and you ONLY get music from those other services.

I agree and get where you’re coming from on this example - but I think people use the term enshittification more broadly than it’s actual definition, and in my opinion this doesn’t fit.

I’ll never understand why people are proud to waste their life watching ads. Or are proud to use adblock and steal the content being posted by small creators. You’re really sticking it to the little guy, great job.

So you refuse to pay because they MIGHT do something bad? That’s a pretty weak argument. You’re taking a stand against… What? You were never a paying customer in the first place, and they have not enshitified YouTube Premium in the over 10 years I’ve had it. In fact, I still pay a grandfathered $8/mo for my account - which is grace I was never given by Hulu or Netflix as they repeatedly jacked up the price over that same timespan. Seems to me they’ve earned the benefit of the doubt.

I set up service in a new state last year with Comcast and was shocked that there was NOT a rental fee for the router/modem any longer. But idk if that’s them being forced to compete more than they had to in my previous area, or if they cut the fee across the board.

One time as a kid, I got myself in trouble and I got TV taken away from me - my dad came up to my room with a pair of scissors and just cut my coax cable. I stripped that bad boy and shoved the end back in to my TV, worked a treat. I also had my wifi antenna from my desktop taken from me at some point, so I took a paper clip and stuck it in there - not GREAT reception, but it was good enough!

Love this. If the dev needs a license to play it, Steam needs a license to sell it, is it really much different for them to then sue owners for not purchasing a license to listen?

This whole thing is utter bullshit. It sounds like the game studios DO have a license, and they’re claiming that Steam does not but should. Because you can’t tell me that Microslop, EA, and Rockstar, three ENORMOUS giants in the gaming industry, have willingly opened themselves up to litigation by not licensing music in their games, something they’ve been making for decades. Why are they entitled to a license from the developer AND a license from the shop selling it? Of course, they’re not, but let’s hope this doesn’t set precedent that says they are.

Yeah, Verbatim still remains… For now.

Oh that’s right - I forgot that the drives were slowly going disco too. Bleak indeed.

I have bad news for you - Panasonic, Sony, and Samsung have all stopped production on BR-R discs.

It’s hard to believe, I know. 😅

Agreed - we’re a LONG way past Touchwiz nightmare fuel at this point. Other than the Samsung branded bloat, it’s pretty close to stock android these days. The home screen has tons of customization features, and Goodlock adds even more. I stopped using Nova because of a LONG time Android bug with 3rd party launchers where apps would just show a blank screen or otherwise wouldn’t launch when opened immediately after going home. I found Pixel launcher to be passable (but I heavily preferred Nova), and found that Samsung’s launcher might have actually been better when I switched phones later.

I jumped on a Google issue tracker thread in 2023 that still sends me emails because it gets a flood of people all these years later still reporting the issue is not resolved.

Now I’m on a Fold 7 anyways, and Samsung handles your home screen while folding and unfolding pretty well, I don’t expect that Nova does.

You’re definitely right about them prohibiting devs from pointing to a web browser to subscribe. They can’t link, can’t even use language that explains WHY you can’t subscribe in the app (if the dev decides to forego using Apples payment system entirely). I think that THIS was what Apple recently was forced by a judge to relax, after the Apple v Epic case.

I must have been conflating the policy that they ABSOLUTELY did have (but only til 2011) and the outside links issue. Hughes Hubbard

Under the February rules, if developers wanted to use content purchased outside of the app, they also had to offer the content for in-app purchase and it had to be offered at the same price or less than it was offered elsewhere, despite the fact that Apple takes a 30% cut.

Macrumors

Apple has quietly changed its guidelines on the pricing of In-App Subscriptions on the App Store. There are no longer any requirements that a subscription be the “same price or less than it is offered outside the app”.

Apple doesn’t allow this - they expect your price to be the same everywhere or they’ll remove the app from their store or decline version updates. There have historically been a few high profile exceptions privately negotiated, and I think they were forced to relax this in the last year or two, but here they are again trying to claw away money they did literally nothing to earn.