"wonder why everyone doesn't immediately replace the stock ROM"
Cuz the OEMs lock the bootloader to prevent you, they void your warranty for doing it, you have no one to ask for support or complain to when it doesn't work, certain hardware functions and buttons may cease to work (ex: camera features), and certain ROM functions will not work on your hardware.
And hacks to swap ROMs exist for only certain phones, and usually not until some time after the phone is launched.
Aside from that, only that it takes hours for a competent geek to figure it all out and to ROM-swap. This is a first-time delay and learning curve, the second would be fast...but most of us only do the one.
They work together to develop and test the final ROM that ships. Each installs their own bloat. There are some negotiations, some give and take, some strategic forces. Google is not usually consulted, but their Android terms do apply. You, the consumer, are never consulted.
Because of this, it is very hard for updates to roll out to our phones, because it requires another round of these negotiations, and technical updates of all the customizations. So our phones get updates late, we miss some Android updates, and eventually get completely orphaned.
- uses up available memory space - is a potential vector for malicious attack - is registered as the default for a function, despite the fact that you may prefer the core Android option, or an aftermarket download - become part of your update queue, causing you to be prompted and spend time thinking "what is this", "do I want to update this", when really you just want it deleted - updates cause you data traffic
and many bloatware apps also:
- communicate, causing data traffic - uses processor time, slowing your usage - are hard coded to hardware buttons, or long-press of buttons, in a way that WON'T allow you to program the buttons to the functions YOU want. - ARE ONE OF THE REASONS OUR NON-NEXUS PHONES DON'T GET ANDROID UPDATES IMMEDIATELY, because Samsung (or other) need to re-build, re-test, re-integrate, and re-deploy their bloatware layer onto the udpated Android codebase.
Tell me, Michael, does Novi launcher protect you from ANY of the above?
Let's assume that you're correct: that the market will fix the problem. How long after the first major, publicly sensational breach, do you think the market should take to respond?
Cuz, I'm thinking, it your assertion is correct, the market would have responded by now. There has been breach after breach, as long as there has been a www. Somehow, the market hasn't fixed the problem.
Your libertarian utopia would require perfect information for the market to function perfectly. Consumers would have to know exactly what kind of security each vendor offered, and UNDERSTAND that technology, and understand the risk profile it presents. Consumers would have to have that information each time they buy something like bedsheets from either Target.com or Walmart.com. Sound reasonable to you?
Admittedly, nobody likes the grammar police. So, I'll accept a few jibes for playing the part. But I just can't stand this particular grammatical error, which fits the definition of a pet peeve.
And mothafudge, you are wrong. It is NOT an accepted regionalism. It may be common, but so is the flu. Neither one is good. It is not an evolution of the language. It is a mistake. And one that displays a surprising level of mis-comprehension, illiteracy, and lack of aptitude. How does one get through grade school without having read the "'ve" contraction hundreds and hundreds of times?
1) it's either too brief to notice 2) it's not a service you rely on. Of course, it's all fun and games until it's a service YOU rely on.
Similarly, you would barely notice if I took a pint of blood from your body, or $100 from your bank account. But if I kept on doing it, the effects would become more obvious. I suppose you are someone that needs things to be obvious to understand that they matter.
Totally hypothetical. But lets say that a different airline got word of a crash, and notified half of the next of kin by SMS, but took their time sending out humans to knock on the door of the other half with a grief counselor in tow.
Of course, the press would have the story of the crashed plane all over the news and many would find out that way.
So...how many of the half that didn't get the text would be yelling and screaming "Why didn't I get a text? Why was I kept in the dark? I need answers. Something doesn't add up here."
Re: Vaccination Benefits Society, Not The Individual
A freeloader is someone who sleeps on your couch and empties your fridge. This is a mooch, and there are negative connotations automatically attached to the term.
I think the term you are looking for is "free rider". It's an economics term for those who get benefits from some social investment in public goods (like vax for societal health or public transit) without paying their share of the costs.
In the case of Christopher Best (his comments below) he is a free rider. But economics planning suggests that subsidizing some such free riders is often desirable. This is generally the case when the free rider is someone who, for whatever LEGITIMATE reason, would be unusually burdened by his share of the cost. The marginal cost of the free rider is often negligible (a free rider on a half-full train costs almost zero).
You, sir, are a member in good standing on the side of reason.
I feel like every "movement" needs many voices. Some explanatory, some kind, some tolerant, and some shrill. These different voices are like different tools in the toolbox.
It's funny. You don't see theists complaining that preachers run the full gamut of styles and methods. But put forward ONE vocal atheist (say Hitchens), and he is promptly demonized for having and talking about his own point of view, because it smacks them with cognitive dissonance.
My voice is usually more explanatory, with a hint of condescension. Yours is more of a smackdown. Dawkins is explanatory and in your face, Hitchens was demeaning, the Amazing Randi challenges the other side. Bill Nye is compassionate and explanatory.
On another topic, similarly, we need some Ron Wydens, AND we need some Ed Snowdens. Each fight for justice in their own way.
There is no "right" way to argue the side of reason. We need all of the tools in the toolbox.