cross-posted from: https://lemmy.nowsci.com/post/5896434
Quest 1 becomes near-E-waste Apr 30
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
191 points (94.4% liked)
Anti-Corporate Movement
409 readers
1 users here now
This community is the first one on lemmy of its kind. It sits between the idea of anarchism/anti-capitalism and left leaning economic policy.
Our goal is to make people aware of the dangers of corporate control, its influence on governments and people as well as the small but steady abrasion of empathy around the world indirectly caused by it.
Current topics this includes but is not limited to:
- Meta's entry into the fediverse
- Game companies putting gambling mechanics in childrens games
- Embracer groups buyout and closing of smaller game studios
- IP trolls destroying small companies and keeping progress back for profit
Feel free to debate this but beware, corporate rhetoric is not welcome here. If you have arguments, bring them on. If its rhetoric trying to defend the evil actions of corporations, we will know and you will go.
Our declared goal so far is to have all companies and individuals worldwide capped at 999 mil USD in all assets, including ownership of other companies, sister companies and marital assets. The reason for this is that companies (and individuals) are not supposed to resemble small(?) countries with a single leader(-board) and shareholder primacy. Thats why we feel like they must be kept in check indefinitely.
But companies will just wander off The argument that large companies will just wander off is valid, which we embrace. We dont need microsoft, apple, google, amazon and other trillion dollar companies. There are small competitors being kept small and driven into brankruptcy by anti competitive behavior of these giants or simply bought up and closed. If starbucks left tomorrow, we would not have an issue with this.
But then we have x little microsofts that all belong to the same person(s) If in fact nobody was allowed to accumulate more than 999 mil in assets, they would not be able to own all these. And like defending agains burglary, it is not about complete defence but time and effort. You only have to keep the thief occupied long enough for them to be caught, give up or make a mistake.
But these giants have tons of IP which would then limit our growth Thats another topic we must touch on. We will (only this one time) take a page out of russias playbook and demand that IP of non complying companies (assets over 999 mil USD) will be declared invalid, which opens them up to be copied.
But then they will "live" in one country that doesnt accept this Correct, and they should be taken into custody the moment they enter the airspace of a country that supports this act.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is functionally similar to what Apple and Google do with their app stores. They don't explicitly ban certain devices, but they mandate minimum API targets, which means they stop allowing apps that support older OSes. This effectively blocks old devices as well once they stop getting OS updates.
See: https://developer.android.com/google/play/requirements/target-sdk
This is part of the problem with walled gardens. There is inherently a conflict of interest when the same company operates the marketplace, creates the OS, and even sells devices that run that OS. If the marketplace were independent, they would not have the incentive to block new games for old devices.
targetSdk is different than minSdk.
targetSdk means the app is aware of newer devices and is used to make sure the app is updated and supports new security features, like runtime permissions and scoped storage, when run on newer devices. This is to get out of a state where newer devices have to emulate skipping all those protections to keep apps running that were built without knowledge of them.
minSdk is the minimum android version an app needs to function. To my knowledge there's nothing stopping apps from declaring any minSdk, even 1, and continuing to install and function on Android from 2007 if they choose.
There is one caveat: Google Play Services and by extension Google's Play Store stopped receiving updates on Android 4.4 (released late 2013) last August, just before that OS hit 10 years old. Even so, the servers still work with that old app in the short term and there are alternatives for installing apps without relying on Google Play at all.
That 10 year age is for the OS, not the device. Nexus 4 for example launched in 2012 with Android 4.2 and got updates up to Android 5.1.1 in 2015. So it still gets Play Store updates now. You can install apps from other sources, and you don't need to rely on internet or servers for initial setup if you don't want to, and you can even install a custom OS like Lineage's build of Android 8.1.
Nexus 4's 2.5 years of OS updates was still abysmally low compared to how long phones should be perfectly usable for. Yet that 12 year old phone remains far more usable this year than a <5 year old Oculus Quest soon will be.
Yup, plenty of stuff still gets updates on my old phone running Android 4.
I completely agree. That is why we‘re here. Feel free to post more articles, resources and ideas or start a discussion. The more we do, the faster we will grow and the faster we will end this. I‘m sure of it.