why would anyone want Android OS on a tablet?

[latepaul]

Sgt.Stubby, I think I'm almost done here (there's only so much I can stand to be patronised).

However a couple of things:

The freedom you think you have is largely an illusion.

No it's not. Firstly I'd argue with "largely" but more importantly I'm not under any illusion because I'm aware that it has limits.

On the other hand the idea of "freedom" that involves completely giving something up rather accepting any compromise in its use doesn't feel like any practical kind of freedom to me.

So you endorse copyright on all software, with no separation and without regard to how it's used?

I endorse the ability to copyright all types of software, not just video games, yes.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

It's absolutely foolish to dictate how the packets are produced or used. I don't give a rats ass how someone generates or reads a packet - just how much traffic they add to the congestion and whether a packet is malicious.

I don't see what the problem in understanding this is. The 3G was fundamentally meant for the Kindle Store+translations+Wikipedia. Amazon out of the goodness of their heart allowed unhindered browsing with the assumption that on an e-ink device you will never use enough data to become a problem.

Once people started exploiting that connection, Amazon was forced to redefine what was acceptable use. Tethering is ONE WAY to allow you to use far more data than Amazon ever anticipated or was willing to fund, and anyone who assumed Amazon was fine with that is a fool.

All Amazon did was rein in the usage back to what they intended when they offered the service to begin with, and screw the literal meaning of their offer. Which is perfectly fair. You hack the device to make use of a data connection which was never meant for any purpose other than the device's built-in browser, you get what's coming to you.

Seriously, what are you upset about? That you can't make use of the Kindle's 3G connection "for browsing in our experimental browser" as a means to download tons of data on your laptop? I mean, really. What right do you have to that to begin with? The only people who have ANY right to complain are the people who are using the BUILT-IN BROWSER abnormally often, to the point where they accidentally hit Amazon's data cap meant to stop any future hacks before they get started. And it's not Amazon's fault if that happens, it is yours. You did this to all those innocent e-ink browser-users.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It doesn't. The point is that you can't do anything except basic page browsing on the browser of a 3G Kindle, so you're never going to use more than a few MB in a month.

And if I've paid for 5 GB, but use only a few MB, who gets the other 4+ GB?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Hack your Kindle so you can tether it to a PC and you can - and probably will - use many GB. This is not some harmless hack - it's a criminal act which costs Amazon real money...

Yes, my money duly paid for; and rendered useless by a draconian TOS. And not a criminal act, at worst a civil action.

If someone uses “many GB”, they should be charged for many GB, at a rate that is consistent with the real cost of bandwidth. In the US that’s about $10 (or a bit more) per GB. But don’t charge me for 5 GB, and then impose artificial rules that limit me to a “few MB”.

Originally Posted by HarryT

... and a few mindless jerks were responsible for curtailment of the service for everyone. As always, it's the irresponsible morons who spoil things for everyone.

Is it irresponsible to insist on value for my money?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by wodin

Is it irresponsible to insist on value for my money?

Of course not.

But once again... that value is to be determined BEFORE you spend your hard-earned money. You decide up front if the money they're asking for the products/services they're offering is adequate. You check the ToS (because at this point, anybody who doesn't is just being lazy). If not, you pass. You don't get to lament the "Draconian" ToS AFTER your purchase and then take something that wasn't given to you in order to raise your perceived value of the item.

You only get to decide what you're willing to buy (or not buy). The seller decides what they're going to sell you. It couldn't be simpler.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by wodin

And if I've paid for 5 GB, but use only a few MB, who gets the other 4+ GB?



Yes, my money duly paid for; and rendered useless by a draconian TOS. And not a criminal act, at worst a civil action.

If someone uses “many GB”, they should be charged for many GB, at a rate that is consistent with the real cost of bandwidth. In the US that’s about $10 (or a bit more) per GB. But don’t charge me for 5 GB, and then impose artificial rules that limit me to a “few MB”.



Is it irresponsible to insist on value for my money?

You haven't actually paid for anything, it was given for free and then taken away when you abused the free gift.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You only get to decide what you're willing to buy (or not buy). The seller decides what they're going to sell you. It couldn't be simpler.

It most certainly could be simpler, for example if I pay for a MB of data I get a MB of data; to be used at my discretion. If I use two, then I pay for two.

As it stands, at least in the US, all of the major carriers have some scheme to charge for an amount of data that most customers will never use, then impose limits (euphemistically called “Terms of Service”) that insure they will not use the amount they paid for. And the carrier gets to re-sell the unused bandwidth.

What makes it insidious is that all of the major carriers have similar schemes so the consumer has little choice in the matter. If you want the data you have to knuckle under and buy into their schemes.

[evanft]

This is a great thread. 10/10 would read again.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You haven't actually paid for anything, it was given for free and then taken away when you abused the free gift.

Oh? I guess you haven't seen my Sprint bill.

And I haven't abused anything, I abide by the TOS. But I don’t have to like it! I pay for 3 GB of data every month, and use a couple of hundred MB.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by wodin

Oh? I guess you haven't seen my Sprint bill.

Someone may have missed a tangent, but as far as I knew we were discussing the free 3G offered by Amazon on eink Kindles.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ApK

Someone may have missed a tangent, but as far as I knew we were discussing the free 3G offered by Amazon on eink Kindles.

Apparently we made a similar mistake. If you could call it a mistake -- who knew the conversation would be hijacked by random complaints about the high cost of data?

[wodin]

Originally Posted by ApK

Someone may have missed a tangent, but as far as I knew we were discussing the free 3G offered by Amazon on eink Kindles.

Speaking of hijacking threads, I thought the OP was; why would anyone want to use Android over Linux.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by wodin

Speaking of hijacking threads, I thought the OP was; why would anyone want to use Android over Linux.

Self-inking stamp, R2-D2. Bunny ears. Wisconsin!

ApK

[DiapDealer]

The primary tangent was tethering. There can be no secondary tangent.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The primary tangent was tethering. There can be no secondary tangent.

Exactly, thus my rant about the major cellular carriers establishing TOS prohibiting it, even tho' I've paid for bandwidth that I'll never use without it.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by wodin

Speaking of hijacking threads, I thought the OP was; why would anyone want to use Android over Linux.

You didn't hijack the thread, you hijacked the conversation.

Originally Posted by wodin

And if I've paid for 5 GB, but use only a few MB, who gets the other 4+ GB?

Yes, my money duly paid for; and rendered useless by a draconian TOS. And not a criminal act, at worst a civil action.

If someone uses “many GB”, they should be charged for many GB, at a rate that is consistent with the real cost of bandwidth. In the US that’s about $10 (or a bit more) per GB. But don’t charge me for 5 GB, and then impose artificial rules that limit me to a “few MB”.

Is it irresponsible to insist on value for my money?

If you are quoting and thus responding to someone who was discussing the tangential point of the 3G Kindle, the you are no longer discussing android vs linux; you are discussing the 3G Kindle, thus the responses you got which assume that that is indeed what you mean.