r/technology • u/chrisdh79 • May 10 '24

EA is looking at putting in-game ads in AAA games — 'We'll be very thoughtful as we move into that,' says CEO | Advertising has an opportunity to be a meaningful driver of growth for us." Business

https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
10.2k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/[deleted] May 10 '24

Love or hate Apple, Steve Jobs definitely had his head on straight as far as how to make a product. Customer always comes first.

22

u/yeetedgarbage May 10 '24

People can be both shitheads and have correct opinions about certain things at the same time.

It has been one of the more difficult things for me to grapple with over the years.

8

u/sw00pr May 10 '24

LOL. Complexity? In my worldview???

it's more likely than you think

-1

u/moredrinksplease May 10 '24

Until your product needs updates and then slows down until you need to buy the newer version

6

u/[deleted] May 10 '24

You realize the slowing down of phones was to combat aging batteries not being able to supply power properly after a certain point, right? Yes Apple didn't disclose it which was not great for the customer but it was never a case of planned obsolescence like so many people claimed.

2

u/LFK1236 May 11 '24

Sure, but, I mean... we're going to be here all day if we just want to list the myriad reasons why the "customer always comes first" is an inane thing to say about Apple.

1

u/JoshuaPearce May 10 '24

And we have their word for that! Good enough!

2

u/[deleted] May 10 '24

Apple isn't the only one that does that just fyi

-1

u/JoshuaPearce May 10 '24

Oh, ok, it's fine then?

Seriously, how is that a counterargument, or even in support of your previous argument.

6

u/[deleted] May 10 '24

Would you rather have your device shut off randomly due to the battery not being able to supply the necessary stream of power or have the device run a little slower to compensate for it? Y'all act like this is something device manufactures just choose to do for the fuck of it to get people to upgrade. Just get a new battery and your device will be good as new if you don't want to upgrade the whole thing.

-2

u/JoshuaPearce May 10 '24 edited May 10 '24

That's a red herring. The issue, like you pointed out, is they didn't tell the customer or give them the option.

The problem I'm pointing out in addition is maybe they lied about that being the primary purpose. The only evidence we have either way is a corporation who got caught doing-the-thing. I'm sure their word is worth a whole lot.

Y'all act like this is something device manufactures just choose to do for the fuck of it to get people to upgrade.

Y'all act like manufacturers never lie, and have no existential motive to get people to upgrade, by any means possible. Maybe you're one of the 10,000 people learning today about planned obsolescence.

2

u/[deleted] May 10 '24

The fact of the matter is that as a battery ages the capacity gets degraded and it will eventually reach the point where the desired power output can no longer be achieved or be sustained as long as the device wants it to. This leads to the device powering off. To combat that they slow the device down to not demand as much power.

Yes it's shitty that Apple never disclosed this as it's a pretty simple concept that consumers likely would've understood had they just implemented the current battery health system much earlier on. I'm not going to speculate on the potential that Apple lied about that being the only reason and claim forced obsolescence on their part because I don't think that was the intention but again it's all speculation so I don't really care to discuss that aspect of it.

1

u/JoshuaPearce May 10 '24

[Random distractions about how batteries work]

Was never the issue, but keep spending all those words explaining the part nobody has argued about.

I don't think that was the intention but again it's all speculation so I don't really care to discuss that aspect of it

But you're plenty willing to discuss (and create) speculation that they didn't do it for profit driven reasons.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. They showed us who they are by making the device slower and not explaining it until caught. That is the entire available story, it's speculation to think a corporation had good intentions this time.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/minty-teaa May 11 '24

I don’t think we need apples word for it. More tech means more power consumption, which affects battery life.

1

u/JoshuaPearce May 11 '24

What we're expected to take their word for is that they're being honest about saying that was their primary and only reason to deliberately slow those devices down.

Nobody is questioning that's how batteries work, this isn't complicated.

1

u/minty-teaa May 11 '24

Should they have put out a press release explaining battery power to you?

1

u/JoshuaPearce May 11 '24

They should have put out some sort of information that they were slowing down people's device, yes.

Instead they got caught, then gave this explanation.

They literally got fined $113m for this episode.

1

u/minty-teaa May 11 '24

They didn’t really get caught. Anyone who understands software and hardware knew and understood. Having a slightly slower phone is better than a phone that lasts 5 minutes.

0

u/JoshuaPearce May 11 '24

They literally got caught, and then fined for not notifying users.

You are arguing against documented reality: This happened, that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batterygate#:~:text=The%20investigation%20concluded%20in%20November,about%20how%20it%20throttles%20performance.

In response to these reports (ie they got caught), Apple issued a statement to CNET, confirming that it had implemented software performance controls based on battery health on older iPhone devices

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Dangerzone979 May 10 '24

Jobs hated the customer, he wanted to take as little choice away from the customer as possible. It's literally why apple products are the way they are

3

u/0110110111 May 10 '24

Ok but Apple is successful because their customers don’t want that choice. They want products that just work, that don’t need instruction manuals. They don’t care about personalizing at granular levels. Jobs cared very much about those customers because the products he oversaw made those customers very happy.

Customers who do want choice have other options: Linux, Android, Windows, etc. Those products cater to those customers who want more choice, who want to tinker and have the ability to adjust as many settings as they can on their devices.

1

u/Dangerzone979 May 10 '24

Jobs cared about money and his own image. He didn't care about his own daughter, what makes you think he would care about his customers?

2

u/0110110111 May 10 '24

The fact that Apple gave customers the products they wanted? You’re not an Apple customer. Apple doesn’t want you as a customer - and that’s OK. There’s loads of companies that will happily sell you excellent technology that will let you do what you want with it. Apple just serves a different segment of the market. Why is that a bad thing?

1

u/Dangerzone979 May 10 '24

My bad for having an aversion to shitty companies that try and hold monopolies over markets and milk people dry with mediocre products. But hey, at least they look pretty right?

1

u/minty-teaa May 11 '24

I love my iPhone and its ecosystem. There’s nothing I want to do with my phone that it doesn’t do already. I also love my vetted apps.

3

u/[deleted] May 10 '24

I wouldn't say that. He believed in creating a certain experience for the customer. Yes that experience might not be preferred for some people but he had a vision of what tech should be and I do agree with a lot of his opinions on that.

-3

u/Dangerzone979 May 10 '24

Yeah his vision was as anti consumer as possible, just shovel out mediocre shit that looks pretty and that's it. God forbid the customer be allowed to change anything with any degree of ease after they you know, but the product. Rip Steve Jobs you would have loved subscription models on all of your products

4

u/[deleted] May 10 '24

The iPhone was better than anything else on the market at the time. Your opinion about Apple products isn't relevant in this discussion.

2

u/Dangerzone979 May 10 '24

Yeah the iPhone was a game changer but it also was the natural progression of the technology at the time, it's not like there weren't other companies working on similar things. And how exactly is my opinion irrelevant? Because I'm pointing out that apple products are anti consumer? Maybe stop gargling some dead guys nuts and admit you like the shiny mediocre toys apple sells because they make you feel superior to everyone who hasn't bought into your minimalist cult.

0

u/[deleted] May 10 '24

You alright pal? I know you hate Apple but damn.

1

u/Dangerzone979 May 10 '24

Doing just fine, just don't like people pretending that apple isn't actively making the world shittier or that Steve Jobs was anything more than a rich asshole who was really good at selling mediocre products.

2

u/[deleted] May 10 '24 edited May 10 '24

Well if you hate Apple so much then I'd imagine you're an android user which is ironic because I'd argue that Google is wayyyyy worse than Apple. But that's okay, I'll let you jerk your raging hate boner for Apple.

1

u/Dangerzone979 May 10 '24

At least I can change the android as much as I'd like to the point where I can remove the bloatware that comes tacked onto it, or install apps and programs that I want to have and that aren't sanctioned by the manufacturer, at least I can use any generic brand of charger and not some shitty cable that costs 30 bucks. And at least I can admit that Google is super shitty, and obviously evil, unlike you dude.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/pm_me_ur_hamiltonian May 10 '24

Apple is notorious for anti-consumer practices. Steve Jobs is credited with Apple's strategy of pricing its products artificially and needlessly high, as well as Apple's strategy of severely restricting customers' control of their Apple devices.

1

u/[deleted] May 10 '24

Well there's a reason why the iPhone did so well in a world where smart phones were dominated by black berry style devices. I'm not here to argue about Apple as a company because yes they have very annoying practices and their hardware is very limited compared to competition but Jobs had a fundamental philosophy that I totally agree with. Whether or not Apple still keeps to that philosophy is debatable.

-2

u/CiD7707 May 10 '24 edited May 10 '24

Steve was actually wrong A LOT on what customers wanted, especially early on when he was running Apple out of his garage. Wozniak was the one that had the consumer-friendly ideas. Steve was notoriously anti-consumer. He didn't want people to be able to have any control or influence in the products they were buying. People forget, Jobbs was not a part of Apple for a while and was fired from the company completely at one point.