But seriously, why would anyone be an early adopter to Google tech anymore. There's a good chance that whatever it is will be killed in a few years, so I tend to just not bother anymore.
I used to be the first to any new Google tech. Android, google Fi, google play music, and on and on. Now, I'm working towards degoogling entirely.
The apps do, but the website does not. music.google.com used to have native support, but to cast music.youtube.com you have to cast the tab, which is far less than perfect. (Instead of streaming directly from the CDN to the chromecast, casting a tab will stream from your desktop to the chromecast. It works so poorly that sometimes even the pitch changes slightly, like an old timey recording.)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that you can upload your music to YTM but it isn't seamlessly integrated into your listened experience like it is on GPM.
Is that right? If so, that is losing the best aspect of GPM.
The big difference here is that Google, for now, doesn't care if you create multiple accounts while Facebook requires one and only one account that is tied to your real life identity.
If I could create a fake FB account and not be banned, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
The anticompetitive part refers to social VR. Today we have multiple social VR apps (Rec Room, Altspace, Bigscreen and more). While Facebook aims to be a big player in social VR they're not there yet; their Facebook Horizons app is still in closed beta.
Requiring a Facebook login to use the Quest puts the competition at an immediate disadvantage, as they'll have to use their own login or submit to Facebook login as well, often at the cost of cross-platform compatibility. Onboarding friction will always be less with the app where you already have an account.
But seriously what a dark pattern and just like Little Shop of Horrors feeding the beast really doesn't benefit you. This is exactly why I never purchased an Oculus: because the price of entry for playing a VR game is too high.
> Are unions in the US really like that, or is it a one-off being used to spread fud?
Yes, they are. I've been working a booth at a convention showing off some tech and asked a passing worker for an extension cord. The response was that they asked on the radio, but the only person available to perform this role was on lunch so it'd be at least 45 minutes until I could get an extension cord.
I have had this happen in many different situations when working with union members.
Anecdotally, I do not want to be a part of any union that has these types of rules.
The situation around conventions is particularly bad. The nickel and dime-ing of the venues are part of it but, as you say, many of the work rules are pretty stereotypically outrageous. Not that everything is entirely unreasonable; at convention center scale, things would descend into chaos rapidly if booth staff and others started winging things. But it's pretty bad especially in places like NYC.
It's not universally bad but, as someone else said, organizations become about themselves and their leadership. A former GF was in a union and she had very few good things to say about hers. [ADDED: That is an anecdote. I state no opinion about unions generally.]
>> Are unions in the US really like that, or is it a one-off being used to spread fud?
> Yes, they are. I've been working a booth at a convention showing off some tech and asked a passing worker for an extension cord. The response was that they asked on the radio, but the only person available to perform this role was on lunch so it'd be at least 45 minutes until I could get an extension cord.
While the anecdote is true, it's also FUD, because there's no good reason to expect a tech worker's union would work like that. It would exist to solve tech worker's problems, which are different than those of a convention center worker. If tech workers would chafe at rigid role definitions, a tech worker's union that they control would not impose them.
> If tech workers would chafe at rigid role definitions, a tech worker's union that they control would not impose them.
Name a union, any union, that does not impose rigid role definitions.
The fact is, there aren't any. Their entire purpose is to categorize employees into roles as a basis for bargaining. If every worker was unique, then collective bargaining would be impossible. The entire point is to group people together and bargain for the rights of that group, and to sign up every member of that group to the deal that was obtained.
As others have said, none of the new features they have added have been desirable.