You joke, but I half-suspect that this was intentional; a way to draw even more attention to the subject than if they had merely published a report with information that anybody who cares/is paying attention already knows.
Instead of Google getting to shoot the ball from a shorter distance, this seems closer to reality:
Google is the new kid on the team who is getting the ball more often at the expense of the previous "star" (really, the only one who can even dribble the ball without turning it over): the coach's kid (Charter). The coach wants to win, and his kid wouldn't be considered good enough to make most other teams, but there's no real competition here. So he's instructed his guys to get the ball to Google.
Now the whiny, entitled brat is bitching to the crowd that his scoring average is reduced, even though he's not playing any worse (if that were even possible). He's been around longer, and his group of friends don't think it's fair, but much of the crowd can see the difference, so there aren't many sympathetic ears.
Am I reading this wrong, or does this have nothing to do with DRM? EFS means you've encrypted your HDD, which is completely independent of even installing the game, let alone dealing with whatever copy protection they are using.
This sounds more like the game has a shit-ton of small graphics assets that need to be loaded on the fly, and if the HDD is encrypted, that adds a lot of overhead. It can almost certainly be mitigated by installing to an unencrypted partition.
I may be way off base here, if the DRM is encrypting files rather than the OS, but if that were the case, I would expect the issues to show up in many more PC configurations. I have a hard time seeing that getting past QC. It's much more likely that they either didn't test the game on an encrypted device, or at least not one at the lower end of recommended hardware.
Oops, hit enter too soon. When can I delete my comments, Techdirt?
This was supposed to say, they'll just make the CFAA even more onerous in response. Politicians will never pass up an opportunity to make enforcement stronger when faced with the alternative of expanding freedoms.
I've got a pretty simple return, and the online companies have been free the last few years. Any 1040 or 1040EZ is still free to file, but now Form 8889 screws that up. That's the form that has to be submitted if you use an HSA in your health plan, which the government has been pushing.
So they mandate that tax filing has to be free for simple returns, then mandate that you file paperwork that makes your return not simple. This the the effect of tying health care to taxes.
But since we're banning forms of communication that aren't actually being widely used, clearly the best response to a folder titled in English is to ban the use of French. Only 1.12% of the world is a native speaker, so the disruption would be minimal.
That's where we disagree, then. I believe this should be seen as the consumer's traffic.
The result is the same, no matter who is throttling, or optimizing, or whatever it should be called. People are getting a degraded experience, through no affirmative choices of their own, due to the actions of a company somewhere in the chain.
As the party actually displaying the content, that gives Netflix a lot of power to be the one controlling the message. Now they are doing the same thing ("adjusting" the video) but not telling anyone about it since they are doing it by choice. And, surprise!, not being totally up front about it.
I understand why they are doing it, but it seems like a bit of a double standard to throw Verizon to the wolves over throttling without telling people about it, raking T-Mobile over the coals for throttling on an opt-out basis, but completely defending Netflix for doing the same things.
If they had been open and honest about this and provided an opt-in within the app, they could have permanently claimed the moral high ground on the issue. Not that I think it's illegal (the Telcos are just blustering), but it's certainly a missed opportunity.
a) "Google" isn't some generic term that just happens to be used by a tech giant like "Apple" is. Using that very specific term might imply some relationship between the two. b) The ONLY thing covered on the site is news regarding Google. c) The site's logo, while using different colors, seems to use a similar font as the official Google logo.
It's no great leap to think that somebody unfamiliar with the site, and visiting for the first time, might be confused about the source of the content. The initial inquiry certainly could be considered unnecessary, given the limited reach of this site, but hardly evil.
"We don't want Apple to create a back door. We just want them to cut a hole in the wall. But they can totally frame it in and put a covering over it, and even put a lock on it! As long as they give us a key, perhaps one made of gold. But no back door, that would be wrong."