I'm sure people would like to have a delete button on life too, but it isn't going to happen. The internet is just part of life and people will be judged no matter what. Yes, it would be nice if they weren't, but it's not going to happen. This is one of those things where people think it's different because it happens online.
* so when and artist dies, and their children dies, and maybe even their grandchildren die, so that nobody cares any longer about the artist's precious work but it is still under copyright, it will be given to a lawyer to manage, or else remain legally inaccessible to anybody in any way.
"All that they really did was use the free players to pump up their existing universe."
Exactly. Dedicated users will pay, but you need a large user base to make it appealing to dedicated users.
If the free version is satisfactory to most people then the free version is the actual product. This is a perfectly valid way to offer something for free, and is a proven model used all over the internet, from Techdirt to Vimeo to Dropbox to games.
I can't think of anything more utterly petty than this response. Your whole life is wrapped up attacking some guy that runs a blog. I'm glad it entertains you so much. I will avoid reading anything you contribute in the future.
So what if he doesn't take a stand. He doesn't have to and that's his perogative. He's going to do and say whatever he wants and you're left complaining about it.
If you don't think he's honest or trustworthy, why come to his website - constantly - to try and out him. What's in it for you? You've been on this blog for years. That's one very sad life. Why do you care so much?
Find something you love to put your energy toward, rather than something you hate.
The guy publishes something every day and you come here just to read it, but then contend he offers nothing?
If you actually believe he brings nothing useful to the table, then why are you eating it up? Why not find something more nutritious?
And as I saw earlier today, the only reason people demand feedback from Mike is so that they can make every effort later to use those words against him.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me? All you seem to be interested in is discrediting the blog owner.
And I find it amusingly ironic that you dog Mike for making sweeping statements in an article about politicians and lobbyists making sweeping statements - people whose statements have far more influence than anything said here. But I guess you agree with those sweeping statements so it's fine.
And now I'm sorry I bothered to reply to you at all.