If you want to reuse an existing cmd window you can type in "cd " then drag/drop the directory from any Explorer shell. You could also close the shell after finishing with it.
Not trying to take anything away from your script, it has a use-case, but just pointing out that there are alternate solutions for systems that don't have your script installed.
I created a bookmarklet that does the same thing for any website you're browsing. Makes it easy to transfer from PC to phone, assuming the phone can read QR codes.
I'm not that excited about the product itself but the technology behind it and the opportunities it creates for future tech. I'm sure I'm not the only one looking at it from that angle.
That's a fair comment but stating what makes sense from a business perspective isn't the same as saying you support the actions. Far from it, but when you discuss the actions of companies, you have to see it from their point of view. That doesn't mean you agree with that they're doing but it helps explain the reasoning and rationale behind it.
What's right for consumers may not be, and often isn't, right for the business so it's not a case of "right" or "wrong" (because that can vary depending on who's point of view you're looking from) but a case of explaining why the strategy was taken.
>Denying every single "good" action in our professional lifes because it could cheat a shareholder somewhere ... that would definitively be a strawman.
No one said every single good action can be denied and, in fact, I explicitly said that I don't believe the people involved didn't have good intentions. However, if there was a choice to be made between increasing profits or "being good", a public company would often choose the profit route.
I understand what you mean regarding the accountability to the shareholders but I think it's used more as a euphemism to say that they are required to make a profit. They're more than welcome to have a philanthropic branch to their company but if you're investing millions of investor funds without financial gain, questions will be asked; that's the reality.
Why would Samsung want to suddenly switch to a Nexus device when they're dominating the entire Android market with the Galaxy brand? Most users don't know what version of Android they're running, let alone worry about what stock Android is or whether or not an update is available. In fact, now that Samsung has a greater brand name than Android, they can be more confident that their Tizen project will have a greater head start than if they hadn't started with Android initially.
You're looking at it from the angle of a tech consumer, not a business. They've done very well with their Android strategy considering the marketshare it has. Pretty much all Android users will be using at least one Google service which generates revenue or signed up to Google services that will tie them to their ecosystem.
>Maybe, but where the idealism gone? Both on HN, in tech circles, and, yes, at Google, there was some healthy dose of idealism. You know, this thing that make people do thing for something else than money, for the better good of humanity for example.
The people who brought Linux, Vim etc.. had a different motive from the outset. A public company spending millions, if not billions, on a project needs to see return on that investment. I'm not saying that the people involved were not doing it for the sake of improving technology for humanity, and they certainly have, but when you're accountable to shareholders profits often take higher priority.
Unlike MS and Apple's services, Google doesn't need Android to be a brand. I think it was quite clear from the beginning that their aim isn't to ship devices for the sake of spreading Android rather than to ship devices for the sake of spreading their online services and increasing ad revenue streams. I don't think this whole premise that the Android brand is being diluted/removed is anything new nor surprising.
Look at it like this. They may have cool new features not seen on existing tablets. Your favourite company might then incorporate and, hopefully, improve upon the feature and you now have a new feature on your platform that may not have been planned before.
No one is forcing you to use it but it still has potential to positively affect your tablet experience, even if it's indirectly.
I generally agree but from first hand experience, I know this isn't always true. Before, I'd be happy to announce/show prototypes of stuff I was working on but it's clear that there are developers out there who take parts of the concept and release it. It may not be as full as the original app since it's a case of rushing something out but it undermines my USP. Of course, it could've all been coincidence, but I personally doubt it considering similarities and timing.
Having said that, that's what the market's all about so I'm not really complaining but just saying that the article isn't always true from first hand experience. I think a lot depends on the nature of the app (i.e. web app, game, smartphone app etc..) and what parts are "copied".
I agree about the outrage part. There may not be malicious intent from Path, but I do think that there's a better way of allowing users to control their data. A simple extra option of "include location data from photos" would mitigate this entire scenario.
Judging by the post we're commenting on, it's not exactly a shot in the dark guess. Technically, Path has done nothing wrong. They've been given permission to the photos and that's what they're accessing with all the information it brings.
But, to me, if I was told that my app can't access location information, I would assume that it's because the user doesn't want my app to access location information and have my app run with that mindset.
You want your iPhone's camera to access location for one app, but not for another. What would you do? What you're saying is that the user has no choice and it's all or nothing. Give location data to all apps requiring photos or disable it completely.
>I think the point is, if you pick "don't read my location data" and then every day post a message "Today I'm at the SF Library", "Today I'm at the NYC Stock Exchange". "Today I'm at DC checking out the White House"
That's not the point at all. Your example is of someone explicitly announcing their location. The issue at hand, which may or may not be a bug, is that the metadata is being used to publish the user's location even after they've said that they don't want the app accessing the Location Services.
Technically, there's nothing wrong in that because the app isn't accessing the Location Services. However, I'm pretty sure most users would assume the app won't use any location data by turning that setting off. If you denied an app location data, would you be happy that they still managed to get location data via a means that's not necessarily obvious?
I think you're conflating two very different scenarios. Someone saying "I'm in San Francisco" or posting a picture of them at the Golden Gate Bridge is clearly aware that their location can be determined. EXIF data hidden within a JPEG file is not so clear cut and most users are unlikely to be aware of it.
As you said, Location Services and Photo access are different permissions. Users are therefore likely to assume that location data is not being retrieved if they deny permission to it. If I deny location data to an app, it's because I don't want that app to have my location data. It seems somewhat underhanded, to me at least, to assume that the user wouldn't mind me accessing location data from their photos, knowing full well that the majority of users will not know what EXIF data is. I'd go so far as to say that I would explicitly ask the user if EXIF data should be read alongside the standard location services.
Not trying to take anything away from your script, it has a use-case, but just pointing out that there are alternate solutions for systems that don't have your script installed.