It's easy on the creators primarily, they get to skip a lot of steps and don't have to explain away things like cell phones.
For consumers, they get quantity.
Although it shouldn't be impossible, it seems really hard to get any kind of real quality out of isekai stories. Usually the stakes are low and the setting is surprisingly similar (even though having a different setting is ostensibly the entire reason for the genre). All you end up with is variety in characters, and even then there are common tropes.
As you said, the readers get quantity and honestly above all else that's what they want.
They already enjoy the stories enough to buy them or support patreons for them, I don't think trying to up the quality would be wise for the authors assuming it slowed down how quickly they wrote.
Most people will sign up for a Microsoft account, or already have, and so won't even see these ads.
But let's say you use Microsoft Windows, but don't want a Microsoft account. You're going to leave Windows over this? And go where?
Wait, is 2023 the fabled Year of Linux on the Desktop, at long last?
I haven't used Windows in many years, and I'm not trying to defend Microsoft here. Still, the framing of this piece seems silly. Very rarely is any single thing reason enough for the average person to completely switch operating systems. The cost of switching is too high.
Of course! I don't disagree. And yet here we are at 69.43% desktop market share[0] for Windows for March 2023, decades after I started hearing about how this year, for sure, was going to be the Year Of Linux On The Desktop™.
Most people don't seem to be using the best possible desktop experience. Their desktop is decided by an employer, or whatever is pre-installed, or who knows what. But an ad in the start menu doesn't seem like it's likely to budge that number much.
And yet Duke Nukem Forever has shipped, and Cybertruck has not. So right now, today, at this moment, DNF is not vaporware, and Cybertruck is. This is true regardless of how one feels about it.
> Regulating data privacy isn't Apple's job, if you want that fixed then you should take it up with the government or someone who can actually hold them accountable.
I live in the United States of America, where the government is bought and paid for by companies who dislike privacy for their users.
In the meantime, it may not be Apple's "job," but it's part of their value proposition, and the grumbling from software vendors indicates it's reasonably effective.
You live in the United States of America, which has had Google, Microsoft and Apple under it's thumb since Snowden's leaks. If you want to insinuate that Apple protects you against state-level actors, you should disprove that or at least refute their own transparency page[0].
> the grumbling from software vendors indicates it's reasonably effective.
If not the software vendors, who are you trusting to keep your best interests at-heart here?
Because Facebook announced publicly that Apple's privacy policy changes would cost them $10 billion[0], putting them on the record as having strong motive to avoid the App Store.
Yes, Facebook has plenty of motive. Apple mandating that Facebook give users the ability to opt out of their tracking has made a major dent in their revenue, and Google never implemented an equivalent requirement for the Play Store.
Additionally, iOS users' attention has traditionally been worth more to advertisers than that of their Android using counterparts because they buy so much more.
App Tracking Transparency is more App Store policy than technical feature, and even if Apple were stonewalling third party dev access by technical means, outside of the App Store there's nothing to stop Facebook from using a rotating set of holes to pull data through, turning the situation into an arms race which will only result in iOS being locked down progressively further, despite having sideloading.
Think about it this way: any app that refuses to go through Apple's store is telling you that you're not a customer they want. If Facebook makes that choice, it's a great time to give up Facebook!
4.15% is lower than 4.81%, but how did you decided that UFB defines "current market rates?"
UFB, I note, does not offer a debit card.
4.15% is not the highest yield currently available, but it would put them fourth on this list[0] of ten, making them better than average even on that rarified list. This without fees or minimums, which would put them behind only Betterment, which is not a bank, but a brokerage account.
As always with an Apple offering, there are ways that some people under some circumstances can find better terms so long as they don't care about some of the benefits Apple is offering, but that's a very long way from "below current market rates," and comes from a company a lot of people are already trusting with their funds.
It's fine if you already have an account with UFB, carry on! And next month when it's a different company leading the pack, transfer. And the month after that, while Apple is still consistently in the top five.
> Your contention is that any and all poor performance is due to the pandemic, not in any way related to Brexit?
Your interpretation of the parent post is mistaken. They are saying that if you wish to try to isolate the effects of Brexit from the effects of the pandemic (and the recovery) in your analysis you should compare 4 years' data.
I'm not sure the initial comment lends itself to that reading, but it isn't clear it lends itself to my initial response either, so I'll switch over to your more charitable reading. Thanks!
Apple's Numbers and Pages seem very far from ideal. Zoho didn't quite work for me. Maybe I should try Clickup.