>I can't because a world with magic and world peace is more realistic and believable. It's impossible. How do you even define advertising?
No ads in TV programming. No product placement in movies. No billboards. No subway or bus station advertising posters. No paid recommending of specific products. No promotional material for products - nothing with fictional elements. No web ads. No sponsored links. No social media ads. No paid reviews.
(you could still do some of those covertly, with "under the table" money, but then if you caught you get fined or go to jail)
No tracking consuming preferences of any kind, not even if you have an online store. Just a database of past purchases on your own store - and using them for profiling via ML should be illegal too.
If people want to find out about a product, they can see it on your company's website (seeking it directly), or get a leaflet from you. In either case no dramatized / finctional / aspirational images or video should be shown.
>And in all cases, you are self-imposing a restriction that will give other nations an economic advantage and jeopardizing long-term sovereignty.
Are products allowed to have labels? Am I allowed to tell my friends I like a product? What if I put a video on youtube and accidentally include a brand name in it?
Last time I checked, a product label (on the product or on the package) is not an advertisement. It's just the name of the product and/or brand, and maybe some lines about what it does. Even if you call a product label "a sort of an advertisment" it's fine.
When people complain about advertising today, do they refer to product labels? Or to their friends telling them about a product? If not, why are you bringing this up?
>Am I allowed to tell my friends I like a product? What if I put a video on youtube and accidentally include a brand name in it?
Sure, as long as you aren't getting paid for doing it (directly or via affiliate kickbacks). If you are, and you're discovered, you pay a fine - or go to jail.
You try to paint a "it's impossible" all or nothing scenario around marginal advertising and edge cases. Doesn't matter. If we can get rid of 90% of overt advertising - tv ads, streaming ads, posters, billboads, radio jingles, that's enough, even if "you put a video on youtube and accidentally include a brand name in it".
The strange thing here is that you've chosen to defend the indefensible on the grounds of trying to "both sides" something that really is only from one side.
>based on my experience, whenever someone says that something is "hard" or "complicated" or "difficult", it means 1 of 2 things: Either the person doesn't understand it and assumes that no one else could understand it, or the person understands it, just wants to protect his/her job, and keeps everything a secret, forcing everyone else to reverse engineer his/her work. No exceptions.
Not even remotely close to true. Some things are inherently hard, regardless of the motivation of somebody describing them as hard.
We have 80 years of experience building software, millions of bugs - and bugs costing millions, or billions, space explosions, medical equipment failures, national security compromises, and many other everyday issues, plus delayed projects with huge budgets, and going way past their budgets.
All this hard empirical evidence doesn't translate to "building software isn't hard, it's just because of ignorance/job security saying so".
>Anyway, you can simply not run into stuff with a wire. There's nothing you can do about bluetooth glitching out randomly for five seconds.
Sure you can. Buy a quality headphone and transmitter device. Never had a BT issue with several airpod models (v1, v2, pro) and an iPhone for 7+ years. And I'm pretty sure most other brands have solved this by now too.
How do you recommend vetting brands? This is simply not a problem wired technology ever had. I can't imagine ever trusting a brand to get things right without my fixing their mistakes.
> This is simply not a problem wired technology ever had.
I had plenty of wired sets where you had to hold the cable just so in order to get audio to play through. Happened a ton with those cheap crappy skullcandy earbuds, but would also eventually happen with the higher quality stuff too.
>I don't understand what people see in airpods (they work sufficiently but they're bleached and molded plastic; vomit, way too expensive for any possible use-case)
"They work sufficiently" is already a high bar given experiences people had with earlier wireless headphones. They were also the very first reliable detached (split ear) headphones. And they added excellent ANC (at least in the Pro version).
As for being "bleached and molded plastic" what else would they be? Wood? Metal and genuine leather?
I can't say I claim to have heard of ANC before, but the rest of these reasons to purchase apple headphones are true of the $20 chinese knockoffs I bought on amazon. And they come in a cute orange/salmon color rather than blanched.
The only perceptual difference is that apple special-cases airpod management to ease switching of devices. They trash their own product by making such consumer-hostile ux obvious.
>for most people a water resistant phone is worth losing the 1/8” jack
fun fact: the 1/8th jack was never an issue with making a phone water resistant. It doesn't need to expose the internals any more than USB-C does (actually, even less).
It’s another component that requires water resistant components. Obviously you can make it water resistant, but it comes at an additional cost. More importantly though, the 3.5mm jack is physically quite large inside the phone. It’s much larger than a USB-C jack, for instance. Easily 2-3x the size internally.
Yea but this only matters if you're considering fatness as a factor. This factor disappeared long before the headphone jack did. I have never in my life heard "i won't use that phone cuz it's too fat". Apple just irrationally hates wires. God forbid someone ask for a button!
>I don't understand why the industry forced a move to wireless before the technology was up to it.
The industry lives on selling units. A technology that "is not up to it" and can have several iterations re-sold as improved versions is the very thing the industry prays to God for.
Ok, but don't they want my money? Why not cater to my money? The tech scam only works if people actually think the tech is better. What's so hard about offering a jack? Especially in any situation outside of phones. You could market it with "this will actually last" or "we ship headphones".
I just pray we are not stuck with current versions of bluetooth in perpetuity. What a nightmare.
reply