This one will still be playable offline after the fact, so its offer is way better than the games that are the focus of the Stop Killing Games movement. The games they’re targeting are completely unplayable after being killed.
What’s wrong with submitting bugs? That seem standard, that’s one part of getting it attention and hopefully getting it fix. The reason Bluetooth probably suck back then because low adoption and likely it was still getting started.
They are buying cheap earbuds and rant about cheap manufacturing. Doesn’t make sense. I think it’s a genius solution to avoid ridiculous licensing costs. Also why does it matter if the audio goes through the cable or wireless? In this price range it all sounds like shit.
Yea, this is not cheap companies doing cheap things. This is companies getting annoyed by stupid licencing and restrictions, getting around the problem.
Even if it’s a nice solution the licensing issue, they are still deceiving their users. I don’t think I have seen anything like them but they should be clear that they are bluetooth.
I don’t really see the big problem here? Like sure, it’s silly that it’s cheaper to make wireless headphones than wired ones (I assume - the manufacturers are clearly not too bothered by trademarks and stuff if they put the Lightning logo on it so they wouldn’t avoid wired solution just due to licensing fees), but what business does Apple have in cracking down on this? Other than the obvious issues with trademarks, but those would be present even if it were true wired earphones. It’s just a knockoff manufacturer.
Cheapest possible wired earphones won’t sound much better than the cheapest possible wireless ones, so sound quality probably isn’t a factor. And on the plus side, you don’t have multiple batteries to worry about, or you could do something funny, like plugging the earphones into a powerbank in your pocket and have a freak “hybrid” earphones with multi-day battery (they’re not wireless, but also not tethered to your phone). On the other side, you do waste some power on the wireless link, which is not good for the environment in the long run (the batteries involved will see marginally more wear)
Honestly the biggest issue in my mind is forcing people to turn on Bluetooth, but I don’t think this will change anyone’s habits - people who don’t know what Bluetooth is will definitely just leave it on anyway (it’s the default state), and people technical enough to want to turn it off will recognize that there’s something fishy about these earphones.
Cheap Bluetooth might have connection hitches and, to my knowledge, Bluetooth doesn’t work with airplane mode although I think most airplanes these days aren’t actually affected or we’d have planes dropping out if the sky daily.
Also, does Bluetooth get saturated the way WiFi does? That, I don’t know, but an airplane full of 100 people all on Bluetooth might create some noise issues that would hurt the performance.
Apple sort of shot themselves in the foot here with removing the headphone jack if they had any interest in this issue.
Fair enough, but I’ve only ever seen this happen with cheap wireless cards / chipsets that do both Bluetooth and WiFi and don’t properly avoid interference between these two (for example, I can get perfectly functioning Bluetooth audio out of my laptop with shitty Realtek wireless card if I completely disable WiFi (not just disconnect)). I think this is less of an issue for dedicated Bluetooth devices.
Bluetooth doesn’t work with airplane mode although I think most airplanes these days aren’t actually affected or we’d have planes dropping out if the sky daily.
Yeah, that’s true. As for the second part, AFAIK there was never an issue with 2.4 GHz radios (which is the frequency band Bluetooth uses) interfering with planes, it was more of a liability / laws thing - the plane manufacturer never explicitly said that these radios are safe (so the airline just banned them to be safe) and/or laws didn’t allow non-certified radios to operate on planes.
Also, does Bluetooth get saturated the way WiFi does?
Eventually yes, but it’s much more resilient than WiFi - 2.4 GHz WiFi only has three non-overlapping channels to work with (and there’s a whole thing with the in-between channels being even worse for everyone involved than everyone just using the same correct three channels that I won’t get into), while Bluetooth slices the same spectrum into 79 fully usable channels. It also uses much lower transmission power, so signal travels a shorter distance. And unlike WiFi, it can dynamically migrate from channel to channel (in fact, it does this even without any interference). 100 people actually seeing each other’s devices might be a problem, but I don’t think that’s a realistic scenario - Bluetooth will use the lowest transmit power at which it can get a reliable link, so if everyone’s devices are only transmitting over a meter or so, there shouldn’t be any noticeable interference on the other side of the plane.
to my knowledge, Bluetooth doesn’t work with airplane mode
The radio regulations were amended about 10 years ago to allow both Bluetooth and Wifi frequencies to be used on airplanes in flight. And so cell phone manufacturers have shifted what airplane mode actually means, even to the point of some phones not even turning off Wi-Fi when airplane mode is turned on. And regardless of defaults, both wireless protocols can be activated and deactivated independently of airplane mode on most phones now.
an airplane full of 100 people all on Bluetooth might create some noise issues that would hurt the performance
I don’t think so. Bluetooth is such a low bandwidth use that it can handle many simultaneous users. It’s supposed to be a low power transmission method, in which it bursts a signal only a tiny percentage of the time, so the odds of a collision for any given signal are low, plus the protocol is designed to be robust where it handles a decent amount of interference before encountering degraded performance.
even to the point of some phones not even turning off Wi-Fi when airplane mode is turned on
I didn’t know that part (the rest yes). So much for using airplane mode to conserve battery. I suppose it’s the tower handshake that is most energy hungry in my experience.
both wireless protocols can be activated and deactivated independently
100% although my comment was in the context of people who don’t really understand Bluetooth at all.
So much for using airplane mode to conserve battery.
Your understanding is slightly off.
Airplane mode Does In Fact Turn off your CELLULAR Radio This radio is what powers your (2/3/4/5)G and LTE (This is 4G btw) connection to the cell towers.
Most international radio communications laws can prohibit the use of Cellular Radio in flight; however they often don’t prohibit the use of shorter range radio technologies such as WIFI or Bluetooth.
It’s all about ‘loudness’. Think about it. Your phone must ‘scream louder’ at a farther away cell tower than it would need to communicate with a nearby WiFi router or a Bluetooth headset.
Also, phones don’t use a lot of power to purely listen for Wifi beacons. They’re not transmitting until they actually try to join, so leaving wifi on doesn’t cost significant power unless you just happen to be near a remembered network.
Not sure why you’re saying that. I wasn’t disagreeing with any of your points, but adding to them another angle that answered the parent comment’s concerns about whether leaving wifi on for airplane mode drains battery. You addressed the cellular radio side, and I was adding a separate point about the WiFi radio that complements what you were saying.
It’s confusing phrasing by GOG, but I take it to mean a court order settling an estate or other similar documentation. Which makes sense, since otherwise you could claim someone is dead and just social engineer yourself a free account.
Their full statement is really just that they’ll comply with a court order specifically relating to the library, less a general estate settlement.
In general, your GOG account and GOG content is not transferable. However, if you can obtain a copy of a court order that specifically entitles someone to your GOG personal account… we’ll do our best to make it happen.
This is really just a more casual phrasing of valves policy.
Steam accounts and games are non-transferable. Steam support can’t provide someone else with access to the account or merge its contents with another account. Your Steam account cannot be transferred via a will.
It’s not like valve is going to ignore a court order either.
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand where you’re getting your limitation on GOG and expansive interpretation on Valve.
GOG’s says a court order that “specifically entitled someone to your GOG personal account” is enough. Arguably a will that leaves “my personal GOG account,” recognized by a court determining estate, would suffice. Why wouldn’t it?
Conversely, Valve is specific that Steam accounts “cannot be transferred via a will.” Not only is Valve affirmatively denying a will qualifies, it seems Valve is likely relying on an interpretation that the account is not descendible in the first place.
No, you need to think like a lawyer. Let’s start from the end, if a court ordered GoG/Valve to transfer the account, they would do their best to do so, so saying so is meaningless. So the question becomes: How can a court order them to do so? Valve specifically states that a will is not valid, GoG doesn’t, but if the court decides that the will is valid Valve’s wording is meaningless, if on the other hand the court decides that a will is not valid for digital licenses then you wouldn’t get the court order for GoG, therefore mentions to will on their legal agreement is meaningless. And just a will doesn’t give you right to the account without a judge ordering so.
So long story short, both are meaningless, one says we will comply if forced and the other one says you can’t use a will, both means: you can’t use a will, but if a judge forces us we will comply.
I really think it’s a case of valve being explicit (no, your uncle can’t will you his steam collection), and gog having the same policy but looking for the closest way to say “yes” to avoid falling into the same PR trouble.
“No, access is lost when you die” is a valve support person giving a direct response to an individuals question.
“Yes, if we are given no legal choice” is a gog PR person answering a reporter to sound as good as possible.
It’s one of the better known downsides of digital media, so this whole thing feels a little… Much ado about nothing new.
A probate court validating a will isn’t a court order is the thing.
For both companies, they agreed to provide you access to the titles in exchange for money. You can’t generally will a service to someone else. It’s why things like bank accounts get crazy weird with estates (weird for anyone other than a banker or lawyer). We’ve had a very long time to work out how we handle it. The money in the account is an asset owned by the estate. It’s a “thing” that you can will. The account itself is owned by the estate, but it can’t be willed because it’s an agreement between the bank and the deceased.
When the estate is being handled, only the person managing it can access the bank account, and then they move the money to the accounts of the person who gets the money, even if it’s at the same bank.
Games in your game library aren’t assets like money is. They’re non-transferable licenses. A physical disk is an asset.
We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.
Their user agreement is particularly approachable, and includes nice explanations next to the sections.
This is whole thing is really a case of valve being very explicit about a significant drawback of digital assets to avoid confusion (their support has clearly had to address this situation before 😔). Gog is answering a press question being asked in response to the explicit reply from valve, so of course they’re going to avoid saying “our policy is the same”.
If it were routinely transferable via normal estate transfer, they wouldn’t need to specify the need for a court order, or that the installers are drm free so they couldn’t revoke access. If it went to an estate, the account would transfer automatically with the estate like every other tangible good.
the fact that gog is even in business is impressive to me.
You mean to tell me you can actually make money and run a successful company by just, respecting the customers? And giving them what they want? Even in late stage capitalism?
If the words on the internet are to be believed, GOG’s been running at a loss all this while, with papa Witcher covering the costs. Maintaining a large library of games is expensive.
Someone crunched the numbers and worked out this was cheaper than dealing with people wanting refunds of their DLC content when the main game was delisted.
Well technically yeah, because just giving it the game doesn’t inherently cost then anything. It’s just a “lost” sale. But it’s soon not going to be able to be bought so what’s the difference. This is a very sane and good move from MS. Still sucks that they have to delist it though
As horrified as I was to read this, it is a little exciting to think that I live in a world where Bluetooth radios are so inexpensive that building it that way is cheaper
LOL. Not in this case. Cheap headphones do not pay Apple a dime. And Apple can’t go after every little headphone manufacturer they have real things to deal with like entire knock off Apple Stores that push millions of dollars a month.
In this case, the answer is less insidious. It’s the batteries. These headphones have BT but no batteries, hence why they are wired (need the power).
Two reasons. One, it’s actually expensive to wire up lightning to audio. Because the connection is digital, not analogue like the headphone jack. Two Apple can detect data thru software and even disable it, leaving the headphones useless. Why would they? Because you didn’t apply for their mifi program and pay them. These headphones don’t have data, they just plug directly into power.
To add to it, you probably also have to deal with parts sourcing. You can probably scavenge Bluetooth radios from several generations worth of equipment or get cheap from China. In contrast, a Lightning cable that can turn data to sound is likely really hard to come by.
Bluetooth’s digital too, my guy. You need a digital-analog converter either way. It’s just that when you use the Lightning port for audio you don’t also need a Bluetooth radio. Besides, USB DAC chips are like a dollar.
Also you just proved my point that they only did this to avoid licensing fees.
They are cheaper than batteries. The cost of shipping and adding batteries to the production line. They are volatile and require strict regulation so most cheap manufacturers just don’t want the hassle. That’s why it needs power. It has BT, but no battery.
I really wish game and film companies would stop sharing trailers on xitter, and people should definitely find a different source before resharing it. We all need to quit driving traffic to Elon’s nazi bar.
Ok, but it was planned as one. I’m very wary of this project, to be honest. Seems like they developed one thing, changed it, then went back to the original vision - not a good sign for a cohesive, stable project.
x.com
Top