With the billions of dollars Google has, they can't even build a proper file manager for their Android operating system.

The pre-installed file manager on Android OS, codenamed "DocumentsUI", is functionally crippled and lacks the most basic functionality.

First of all, there is no range selection or A-to-B selection of items. If many items need to be selected, each item has to be tapped individually. Meanwhile, ES File Manager had A-to-B selection since at least 2012, back when Android OS was an operating system of freedom, before Android OS got cucked.

As any low-tier mobile app, the file manager by Google also lacks a draggable scroll bar, so long lists have to be scrolled through manually. Even the file manager of Windows Mobile 6.5 Professional has a draggable scroll bar! And Windows Mobile 6.5 Professional was released in 2009! Samsung "My Files" had a draggable scroll bar in 2013 but it was later unexplainably removed.

Its search feature can only search the entire storage, not an individual folder, and lacks filters such as date and file type.

Obviously, as in any terrible Android file manager, after items are selected for copying and moving, tapping "Copy to..." or "Move to..." navigates back to the initial directory rather than staying in the current directory. The user is forced to navigate all the way to the folder with the selected files if the intention was moving files to a sub folder. Any Android file manager that does this automatically qualifies as a low-tier file manager.

The file manager by Google even lacks a "details" feature which shows information such as the exact file size and name and the total size and file count of a folder. Some file managers such as the one by MediaTek are unable to show the details for multiple selected items, which is somewhat forgivable, but the Google file manager does not have a "details" feature to begin with.

Files are always sorted alphabetically after each start. The Google file manager does not memorize if the user selects sorting "by size" or "by last modified". As one might expect, it indeed lacks reverse sorting.

Of course, there is no "open with" feature where the application can be selected manually, and there is no ability to create new blank files, and it lacks tabbed browsing, and does not show the number of files inside folders in list view. ES File Manager (before it became adware in ~2016) has all of these features.

Last but not least, there has been a bug where cancelling a file move operation deletes the source folder without it having been transferred. Presumably it has been patched by now, however, a bug where tapping "cancel" leads to data loss is inexcuseable. It shows the app has not even been properly tested, let alone properly created.

http://archive.today/2020.10.27-160...

Google could have hired a college student who could have built something better than the scrapyard-worthy "file manager" they have built.

But granted, at least Google's ever-so-terrible file manager does not limit file names to fifty (50) characters like Samsung's TouchWiz file manager, also known as "My Files", did until at least 2016. There is no way to know what went through the head of the programmer who implemented this pointless limitation. Google's file manager also correctly handles file name conflicts by renaming the new files.

Microsoft built a better file manager for their operating system decades earlier than what Google threw together. Microsoft spent more of their money building a proper file manager.

Never launch on the front camera!

There is not a single reason for a mobile phone camera software to launch on the front camera. Programmers of the software might believe it is "smart to memorize the last used camera", but in actuality, launching on the front camera is a common reason for not being able to capture events fast ehough.

Did the developers really think users will say "oh thank you, dear camera app, for not forgetting the last camera I used!" ?

Or, likelier than not, will they end up taking a selfie while the moment passes by behind the phone?

Many smartphone cameras lack the ability to turn off burst shot mode.

The burst shot feature on smartphone camera software is almost always not helpful, only annoying. All it does is spam the storage with useless near-duplicate photos.

"Then simply don't hold the camera shutter button!"

Sometimes, this happens by accident. Or the phone has an I/O lag in the moment of releasing the shutter button, so the release of the shutter button is not registered and burst mode is initiated after the I/O lag.

The only purpose of burst shot seems to be making many low light photos to find one that is not shaken. Even then, there must be an option to turn it off.

Also, the point-and-shoot intuition of holding the camera shutter button to set focus and exposure, and releasing to capture a photo is far more convenient. On newer phones, that has been replaced with highly annoying burst shots.

"Then use a third-party app that does allow turning off burst mode."

The problem with third-party applications is that they are awfully slow, since they can not be optimized for a specific device like pre-installed camera applications are. This slowness, as one might expect, leads to missed moments.
On some smartphones, third-party applications can not even access all camera features, such as 2160p video recording. Some phones use a proprietary API that can only be accessed with the pre-installed camera app.

How politics work in 2023:

99% of smartphone users: "Non-replaceable batteries should be illegal."

Legality of non-replaceable batteries: true

The gnome-screenshot tool has a white flashing effect. Every single pixel of the screen is at the brightest colour for the fraction of a second.

Did the developers of gnome-screenshot really think users want a camera flash in their face whenever they hit the "print screen" button?

That flashing effect hurts users' eyes, especially if a white flash appears on a dark-theme user interface.

Formerly, gnome-screenshot had a short black-out, which was tolerable. Thankfully, mate-screenshot has no shutter effect at all. These flashing effects are not helpful in the slightest, just purely annoying.

Moving files is emotionally easier than copying and deleting files, and moving eliminates the risk of selecting the wrong files at the deletion part.

I have read that it is safer to manually copy and manually delete files rather than to move it, but copying and deleting has a hidden risk that was not mentioned: selecting the wrong files for deletion.

Moving files feels like moving an obstacle from one room to another. The deletion part of copying and deleting feels like destroying something, which is an added emotional barrier.

Technically, copying and deleting is safer, since there is no risk of source files being deleted without having been transferred as a result of a device disconnecting or the buggy media transfer protocol (MTP) failing to load the entire file list. However, on mass storage devices, this pretty much never happened to me, and on MTP, data loss can be avoided by not moving folders but opening the source folders and selecting all files and moving those out. This prevents a parent folder with incompletely loaded file listing from being deleted.

However, something that is not considered about copying and deleting is that the risk of selecting the wrong files in the deletion step exists. One might end up selecting files that were never copied.

Not only is moving straightforward and time-saving, but it has no emotional barrier and the risk of selecting the wrong files to delete from the source is eliminated, since a proper file manager like Nemo or Windows Explorer (mass storage only, not MTP) only deletes a moved file from the source after it has been properly transferred. The user does not need to pay attention to select the correct files to delete, since the file manager already did it.

It needs to be outright illegal for laptops to have fewer than four USB ports.

If the purpose of law is to improve the quality of life, why not outlaw the time-consuming annoyance of laptops with few USB ports?

The purpose of laptops is portable computing. Depending on a USB hub makes it less portable.

If it was legally mandatory for laptops to have at least four USB ports, there would be no more competitive disadvantage for laptop vendors sacrificing unimportant slimness for important practicality.

And to the very few people who consider slim design more important than USB ports and who are going to whine online about the extra 3 millimetres of thickness: Sorry, life is unfair. Your preferences don't matter. Practicality is the purpose of computers. You are the reason laptops are ruined for the rest of us. Get lost.

If you have clumsy people around you, your belongings are never safe.

I left the laptop on the table for just a few hours, and this is what I returned to. Someone carelessly moved the laptop to the right without paying attention to the USB stick, so it bent from the table to the right with a higher position.

Indeed, lack of protrusion is the main reason SD cards are better than USB sticks, and why laptops should have full-sized SD card slots, and why external SD card readers are no valid replacement for built-in SD card slots. Relying on an external SD card reader outright defeats the primary benefit of SD cards, lack of protrusion.

One can be careful with ones belongings every day and have them last a long time, but then someone else comes and ruins it for you. Years of effort with being careful have been wasted. Clumsy people will certainly find new creative ways to break your stuff.

Dear web developers, please think of the boot disk users.

Users might have to boot their computer from external bootable media such as a live USB stick, SSD, or live CD/DVD, after their operating system caught a problem that prevents it from booting.

Emergency boot media usually has earlier versions of web browsers because they are not frequently used, much less updated. Sadly, the developers of many websites have a habit of breaking compatibility for older web browsers. For example, the new audio player used by the Internet Archive (Archive.org) does not even support Firefox 57, a version that was released as recently as November 2017!

Therefore, websites should retain support for old web browsers. If not all features can be made to work, at least the essential features should work on older browser versions. Websites should not let down people who are stuck due to a computer problem. Those users should still be able to browse the Internet for help, and perhaps enjoy basic entertainment such as watching videos (YouTube, Dailymotion) and listenening to music or audio books (SoundCloud, Internet Archive) while at it.

The attached screenshot shows something no internet user wants to be "greeted" with.

Keep the Internet accessible.

Samsung apparently thinks they are doing us users a favour with their "genius" TV block feature.

Let the following be clear: I will never get a television which can be remotely disabled by ANY one, even if allegedly for my benefit.

In fact, I'd be happier with 768p "HD ready" garbage from 2005 that at least works reliably than a shiny "QLED+" Samsung TV that can fail without warning at the press of a button at some giant corporation's headquarters.

Remember the May 2019 Firefox incident?

"We can remotely disable your TV, but it's just for your protec...." Get lost.

Software developers be like: “Let's remove useful features that I'm sure no one will mind being revoked!”
Also software developers: “WHY, OH WHY WON'T USERS UPDATE THEIR SOFTWARE???? WHYYYYY????? :'-CCCCCC ”

MTP is utter garbage and belongs to the technological hall of shame.

MTP (media transfer protocol, or, more accurately, MOST TERRIBLE PROTOCOL) sometimes spontaneously stops responding, causing Windows Explorer to show its green placebo progress bar inside the file path bar which never reaches the end, and sometimes to whiningly show "(not responding)" with that white layer of mist fading in. Sometimes lists files' dates as 1970-01-01 (which is the Unix epoch), sometimes shows former names of folders prior to being renamed, even after refreshing. I refer to them as "ghost folders". As well known, large directories load extremely slowly in MTP. A directory listing with one thousand files could take well over a minute to load. On mass storage and FTP? Three seconds at most. Sometimes, new files are not even listed until rebooting the smartphone!

Arguably, MTP "has" no bugs. It IS a bug. There is so much more wrong with it that it does not even fit into one post. Therefore it has to be expanded into the comments.

When moving files within an MTP device, MTP does not directly move the selected files, but creates a copy and then deletes the source file, causing both needless wear on the mobile device' flash memory and the loss of files' original date and time attribute. Sometimes, the simple act of renaming a file causes Windows Explorer to stop responding until unplugging the MTP device. It actually once unfreezed after more than half an hour where I did something else in the meantime, but come on, who likes to wait that long? Thankfully, this has not happened to me on Linux file managers such as Nemo yet.

When moving files out using MTP, Windows Explorer does not move and delete each selected file individually, but only deletes the whole selection after finishing the transfer. This means that if the process crashes, no space has been freed on the MTP device (usually a smartphone), and one will have to carefully sort out a mess of duplicates. Linux file managers thankfully delete the source files individually.

Also, for each file transferred from an MTP device onto a mass storage device, Windows has the strange behaviour of briefly creating a file on the target device with the size of the entire selection. It does not actually write that amount of data for each file, since it couldn't do so in this short time, but the current file is listed with that size in Windows Explorer. You can test this by refreshing the target directory shortly after starting a file transfer of multiple selected files originating from an MTP device. For example, when copying or moving out 01.MP4 to 10.MP4, while 01.MP4 is being written, it is listed with the file size of all 01.MP4 to 10.MP4 combined, on the target device, and the file actually exists with that size on the file system for a brief moment. The same happens with each file of the selection. This means that the target device needs almost twice the free space as the selection of files on the source MTP device to be able to accept the incoming files, since the last file, 10.MP4 in this example, temporarily has the total size of 01.MP4 to 10.MP4. This strange behaviour has been on Windows since at least Windows 7, presumably since Microsoft implemented MTP, and has still not been changed. Perhaps the goal is to reserve space on the target device? However, it reserves far too much space.

When transfering from MTP to a UDF file system, sometimes it fails to transfer ZIP files, and only copies the first few bytes. 208 or 74 bytes in my testing.

When transfering several thousand files, Windows Explorer also sometimes decides to quit and restart in midst of the transfer. Also, I sometimes move files out by loading a part of the directory listing in Windows Explorer and then hitting "Esc" because it would take too long to load the entire directory listing. It actually once assigned the wrong file names, which I noticed since file naming conflicts would occur where the source and target files with the same names would have different sizes and time stamps. Both files were intact, but the target file had the name of a different file. You'd think they would figure something like this out after two decades, but no. On Linux, the MTP directory listing is only shown after it is loaded in entirety. However, if the directory has too many files, it fails with an "libmtp: couldn't get object handles" error without listing anything.

Sometimes, a folder appears empty until refreshing one more time. Sometimes, copying a folder out causes a blank folder to be copied to the target. This is why on MTP, only a selection of files and never folders should be moved out, due to the risk of the folder being deleted without everything having been transferred completely.

(continued below)

Websites that use a snow effect in Winter, with many little snowflakes moving on screen, needlessly drain the battery of mobile devices. Since batteries in portable electronics are usually not replaceable as of 2022, it also shortens the overall useful life of mobile devices.

If web designers feel the need to appear creative, which the snowflake effect isn't since it apparently existed since the 2000s, they should at least give users an option to turn it off. And that option should be available without logging in. Perhaps this useless effect should be turned off by default for mobile users.

YouTube recently introduced a two-column view on their mobile website that is so narrow that only the first three words of video titles are readable.

Epic design fail.

https://imgur.com/a/PbyoMOX

You can make your software as good as you want, if its core functionality has one major flaw that cripples its usefulness, users will switch to an alternative.

For example, an imaginary file manager that is otherwise the best in the world becomes far less useful if it imposes an arbitrary fifty-character limit for naming files and folders.

If you developed a file manager better than ES File Explorer was in the golden age of smartphones (before Google excercised their so-called "iron grip" on Android OS by crippling storage access, presumably for some unknown economic incentive such as selling cloud storage, and before ES File Explorer became adware), and if your file manager had all the useful functionality like range selection and tabbed browsing and navigation history, but it limits file names to 50 characters even though the file system supports far longer names, the user will have to rely on a different application for the sole purpose of giving files longer names, since renaming, as a file action, is one of the few core features of a file management software.

Why do I mention a 50-character limit? The pre-installed "My Files" app by Samsung actually did once have a fifty-character limit for renaming files and folders. When entering a longer name, it would show the message "up to 50 characters available". My thought: "Yeah, thank you for being so damn useful (sarcasm). I already use you reluctantly because Google locked out superior third-party file managers likely for some stupid economic incentives, and now you make managing files even more of a headache than it already is, by imposing this pointless limitation on file names' length."

Some one at Samsung's developer department had a brain fart some day that it would be a smart idea to impose an arbitrary limit on file name lengths. It isn't.

The user needs to move files to a directory accessible to a superior third-party file manager just to give it a name longer than fifty characters. Even file management on desktop computers two decades ago was better than this crap!

All of this because Google apparently wants us to pay them instead of SanDisk or some other memory card vendor. This again shows that one only truly owns a device if one has root access. Then these crippling restrictions that were made "for security reasons" (which, in case it isn't clear, is an obvious pretext) can be defeated for selected apps.

It's these individually tiny annoyances in products and software that together form a huge annoyance.

For example, it's 2022 and Chromium-based web browsers still interrupt an upload when hitting CTRL+S. This is why competition is important. If there was no Firefox, the only major web browsers would, without exception, have this annoyance, since they're all based on Chrmoium.

I remember Chromium for mobile formerly locking scrolling and zooming of the currently viewed page while the next page was loading. Thankfully, this annoyance was removed.

In 2016, the Samsung camera software was updated to show a "camera has been opened via quick launch" pop-up window when both front and rear sensors of the smartphone were covered while the camera was launched by pressing the home button twice, on the camera software Samsung bundled with their custom version of Android 6. What's more, if that pointless pop-up was closed by tapping the background instead of the tiny "OK" button or not responded to within five seconds, the camera software would exit itself. Needless to say, this defeats the purpose of a quick launch. It denies quick-launching while the phone is in the pocket, and the time necessary to get the phone out could cause moments to be missed.

Another bad camera behaviour Samsung introduced with the camera software bundled with their customized Android 6 was that if it was launched again shortly after exiting or switching to stand-by mode, it would also exit itself again within a few seconds. It could be that the camera app was initially designed around Android 5.0 in 2015 and then not properly adapted to Android 6.0, and some process management behaviour of Android 6.0 causes this behaviour. But whatever causes it, it is annoying and results in moments to not be captured.

Another such annoyance is that some home screen software for smartphones only allows access to its settings by holding a blank spot not occupied by a shortcut. However, if all home screen pages are full, one either needs to create a new page if allowed by the app, or temporarily remove a shortcut to be able to access the settings.

More examples are: Forced smartphone restart when replacing the SIM card, the minimum window size being far too large in some smartphones with multi-windowing functionality, accidental triggering of burst shot mode that can't be deactivated in the camera software, only showing the estimated number of remaining photos if less than 300 and thus a late warning, transition animations that are too slow, screenshots only being captured when holding a button combination for a second rather than immediately, the terminal emulator being inaccessible for the first three minutes after the smartphone has booted, and the sound from an online advertisement video causing pain from being much louder than the playing video.

Any of these annoyances might appear minor individually, but together, they form a major burden on everyday use. Therefore, developers should eliminate annoyances, no matter how minor they might seem.

The same also applies for missing features. The individual removal of a feature might not seem like a big of a deal, but removing dozens of small features accumulates to a significant lack of functionality, undermining the sense of being able to get work done with that product or software when that feature is unexpectedly needed. Examples for a products that pruned lots of functionality from its predecessor is the Samsung Galaxy S6, and newer laptops featuring very few USB ports. Web browsers have removed lots of features as well. Some features can be retrofitted with extensions, but they rely on a third-party developer maintaining compatibility. If many minor-seeming features are removed, users will repeatedly hit "sorry, this product/software can not do that anymore" moments.

The default USB voltage hould have been specified to 6 instead of 5 volts.

Six (6) volts would allow for longer cables than five (5) volts do, since the spare voltage compensates for the resistance of cables. This is even more crucial for USB hubs. USB hubs are highly dependable upon these days due to laptop vendors dropping the number of USB ports down to two or even one. I am looking at you, Medion.

If several devices are connected to a USB hub, the voltage can quickly drop below 4.5 volts due to the resistance between the USB hub ports and the computer's USB port, causing some devices to restart themselves even if the computer's USB port is not over capacity. If it were over capacity, it would just regulate down its output voltage to prevent overcurrent.

Lithium-ion batteries need at least 4.3 volts arriving at the battery terminals to fully charge, and mobile devices are typically not equipped with a boost converter. Even if they were, they are rather inefficient, meaning they would produce significant heat and waste a power bank's energy. Other USB devices such as flash drives and peripherals might power off below 4.5 volts. However, 6 volts have solid 1.7 volts of margin to 4.3 volts, more than twice the margin of 0.7 volts that 5 volts have. On the way from the power supply to the end device, the voltage has to pass several barriers which weaken it, including the cable, connector endings, and the end device's internals such as the charging controller.

Sure, there are quick charging standards such as by Qualcomm and MediaTek which support elevating voltages to nine (9), twelve (12), and even twenty (20) volts. However, they require support by both the charger and mobile device. If six (6) volts were the default USB voltage, all devices would have been designed to accept this voltage, and longer cables could have been used anywhere. Obviously, all USB devices should be able to run on five volts as well.

Six volts would have been more stable, flexible, and reliable.

What is the point of specifying whether one connected headphones or an external speaker to the computer or smartphone?

When attaching an audio device, some operating systems and smartphones ask the user about the type of audio device. For what purpose?

How did mid-2000s computer users get along with just 1 GB of RAM or less?

As of today, anything less than 8 GB of RAM seems impractical. A handful of tabs in a web browser and file manager can quickly fill that up.

Shortly after booting, 2 GB of RAM are already eaten up on today's operating systems.

When I occasionally used an older laptop computer with 6 GB of RAM (because it has more ports and better repairability than today's laptops; before upgrading the memory), most of the time over 5 GB were in use, and that did not even include disk caching.

It appears that today's web browsers are far more memory-intensive than 2000s web browsers, even if we do similar things people did in the 2000s: browsing text-based pages with some photos here and there, watching videos, messaging and mailing, forum posting, and perhaps gaming. Tabbed browsing already was a thing in the 2000s. Microsoft added tabs to their pre-installed browser in 2006, back when an average personal computer had 1 GB of RAM, and an average laptop 512 MB!

Perhaps a difference is that people today watch in 720p or 1080p whereas in the 2000s, people typically watched at 240p, 360p, or 480p, but that still does not explain this massive difference. (Also, I pick a low resolution anyway when mostly listening to a video in background.)

One could create a swap file to extend system memory, though that is not healthy for an SSD in the long term. On computers, RAM is king.

Automatically copying screenshots to clipboard has never been a good idea to begin with.

The screenshot feature since Windows 8, the full-page screenshot feature from the Firefox developer tools, and many smartphones automatically copy screenshots to the clipboard, which usurps the existing content of the clipboard If there is a clipboard manager (like on Samsung smartphones since at least the early 2010s), it usurps existing entries since clipboard managers only hold a limited number of entries. On Samsung's keyboard, that's twenty.

Thankfully, some other tools like gnome-screenshot for Linux make it optional. There is a "copy to clipboard" button on the file naming dialogue, but it does not happen unsolicitedly. This is the user-friendly way to do it.

Most websites and mobile applications do not support pasting screenshots from the clipboard anyway, only attaching them as file through a file picker or drag-and-drop gesture, making it pointless to copy screenshots to the clipboard. If I want to send a screenshot, I will attach it as a file.

It's 2022 and mobile web browsers still lack basic export options.

Without root access, the bookmarks, session, history, and possibly saved pages are locked in. There is no way to create an external backup or search them using external tools such as grep.

Sure, it is possible to manually copy and paste individual bookmarks and tabs into a text file. However, obviously, that takes lots of annoying repetitive effort.

Exporting is a basic feature. One might want to clean up the bookmarks or start a new session, but have a snapshot of the previous state so anything needed in future can be retrieved from there.
Without the ability to export these things, it becomes difficult to find web resources one might need in future. Due to the abundance of new incoming Internet posts and videos, the existing ones tend to drown in the search results and become very difficult to find after some time. Or they might be taken down and one might end up spending time searching for something that does not exist anymore. It's better to find out immediately it is no longer available than a futile search.

----

Some mobile web browsers such as Chrome (to Google's credit) thankfully store saved pages as MHTML files into the common Download folder, where they can be backed up and moved elsewhere using a file manager or an external computer. However, other browsers like Kiwi browser and Samsung Internet incorrectly store saved pages into their respective locked directories inside "/data/". Without root access, those files are locked in there and can only be accessed through that one web browser for the lifespan of that one device.

For tabs, there are some services like Firefox Sync. However, in order to create a text file of the opened tabs, one needs an external computer and needs to create an account on the service. For something that is technically possible in one second directly on the phone. The service can also have outages or be discontinued. This is the danger of vendor lock-in: if something is no longer supported, it can lead to data loss.

For Chrome, there is a "remote debugging" feature on the developer tools of the desktop edition that is supposedly able to get a list of the tabs ( https://android.stackexchange.com/q... ). However, I tried it and it did not work. No connection could be established. And it should not be necessary in first place.

I do not like the direction laptop vendors are taking.

New laptops tend to feature fewer ports, making the user more dependent on adapters. Similarly to smartphones, this is a detrimental trend initiated by Apple and replicated by the rest of the pack.

As of 2022, many mid-range laptops feature just one USB-A port and one USB-C port, resembling Apple's toxic minimalism. In 2010, mid-class laptops commonly had three or four USB ports. I have even seen an MSi gaming laptop with six USB ports. Now, much of the edges is wasted "clean" space.

Sure, there are USB hubs, but those only work well with low-power devices. When attaching two external hard drives to transfer data between them, they might not be able to spin up due to insufficient power from the USB port or undervoltage caused by the impedance (resistance) of the USB cable between the laptop's USB port and hub. There are USB hubs which can be externally powered, but that means yet another wall adapter one has to carry.

Non-replaceable [shortest-lived component] mean difficult repairs and no more reserve batteries, as well as no extra-sized battery packs. When the battery expires, one might have to waste four hours on a repair shop for a replacement that would have taken a minute on a 2010 laptop.

The SD card slot is being replaced with inferior MicroSD or removed entirely. This is especially bad for photographers and videographers who would frequently plug memory cards into their laptop. SD cards are far more comfortable than MicroSD cards, and no, bulky external adapters that reserve the device's only USB port and protrude can not replace an integrated SD card slot.

Most mid-range laptops in the early 2010s also had a LAN port for immediate interference-free connection. That is now reserved for gaming-class / desknote laptops.

Obviously, components like RAM and storage are far more difficult to upgrade in more modern laptops, or not possible at all if soldered in.

Touch pads increasingly have the buttons underneath the touch surface rather than separate, meaning one has to be careful not to move the mouse while clicking. Otherwise, it could cause an unwanted drag-and-drop gesture. Some touch pads are smart enough to detect when a user intends to click, and lock the movement, but not all. A right-click drag-and-drop gesture might not be possible due to the finger on the button being registered as touch. Clicking with short tapping could be unreliable and sluggish. While one should have external peripherals anyway, one might not always have brought them with. The fallback input device is now even less comfortable.

Some laptop vendors include a sponge sheet that they want users to put between the keyboard and the screen before folding it, "to avoid damaging the screen", even though making it two millimetres thicker could do the same without relying on a sponge sheet. So they want me to carry that bulky thing everywhere around? How about no?

That's the irony. They wanted to make laptops lighter and slimmer, but that made them adapter- and sponge sheet-dependent, defeating the portability purpose.

Sure, the CPU performance has improved. Vendors proudly show off in their advertisements which generation of Intel Core they have this time. As if that is something users especially care about. Hoo-ray, generation 14 is now yet another 5% faster than the previous generation! But what is the benefit of that if I have to rely on annoying adapters to get the same work done that I could formerly do without those adapters?

Microsoft has also copied Apple in demanding internet connection before Windows 11 will set up. The setup screen says "You will need an Internet connection…" - no, technically I would not. What does technically stand in the way of Windows 11 setting up offline? After all, previous Windows versions like Windows 95 could do so 25 years earlier. But also far more recent versions. Thankfully, Linux distributions do not do that.

If "new" and "modern" mean more locked-in and less practical and difficult to repair, I would rather have "old" than "new".

It's 2022 and web browsers are still unable to unfollow redirects.

If I open some URL in a new tab and it redirects me to /503.html or similar due to some server errors (which is bad design to begin with), there is no way to see which URL was redirected from. The "back" (←) navigation button is greyed out, so there is nowhere to go back to.

One might open a new tab to look at it later without realizing it redirected to an error page. Then one opens it, sees /503.html, and has forgotten which article one was going to read.

Only on the mobile edition of Chrome/Chromium, switching between desktop and mobile view unfollows the redirect. But on Firefox mobile, Chrome/Chromium-based desktop, and Firefox desktop, there is no way to know which URL redirected me there.

If you can be locked out of it remotely, you don't own it.

On May 3rd, 2019, the Microsoft-resembling extension signature system of Mozilla malfunctioned, which locked out all Firefox users out of their browsing extensions for that day, without an override option. Obviously, it is claimed to be "for our own protection". Pretext-o-meter over 9000!

BMW has locked heated seats, a physical interior feature of their vehicles, behind a subscription wall. This both means one has to routinely spend time and effort renewing it, and it can be terminated remotely. Even if BMW promises never to do it, it is a technical possibility. You are in effect a tenant in a car you paid for. Now imagine your BMW refused to drive unless you install a software update. You are one rage-quitting employee at BMW headquarters away from getting stuck on a side of a road. Then you're stuck in an expensive BMW while watching others in their decade-old VW Golf's driving past you. Or perhaps not, since other stuck BMWs would cause traffic jams.
Perhaps this horror scenario needs to happen once so people finally realize what it means if they can be locked out of their product whenever the vendor feels like it.

Some software becomes inaccessible and forces the user to update, even though they could work perfectly well. An example is the pre-installed Samsung QuickConnect app. It's a system app like the Wi-Fi (WLAN) and Bluetooth settings. There is a pop-up that reads "Update Quick connect", "A new version is available. Update now?"; when declining, the app closes. Updating requires having a Samsung account to access the Galaxy app store, and creating such requires providing personally identifiable details.

Imagine the Bluetooth and WiFi configuration locking out the user because an update is available, then ask for personal details. Ugh.

The WhatsApp messenger also routinely locks out users until they update. Perhaps messaging would cease to work due to API changes made by the service provider (Meta, inc.), however, that still does not excuse locking users out of their existing offline messages. Telegram does it the right way: it still lets the user access the messages.

"A retailer cannot decide that you were licensing your clothes and come knocking at your door to collect them. So, why is it that when a product is digital there is such a double standard? The money you spend on these products is no less real than the money you spend on clothes." – Android Authority ( https://androidauthority.com/digita... ).

A really bad scenario would be if your "smart" home refused to heat up in winter due to "a firmware update is available!" or "unable to verify your subscription". Then all you can do is hope that any "dumb" device like an oven heats up without asking itself whether it should or not. And if that is not available, one might have to fall back on a portable space heater, a hair dryer or a toaster. Sounds fun, huh? Not.

Cloud services (Google, Adobe Creative Cloud, etc.) can, by design, lock out the user, since they run on the computers of the service provider. However, remotely taking away things one paid for or has installed on ones own computer/smartphone violates a sacred consumer right.

This is yet another benefit of open-source software: someone with programming and compiling experience can free the code from locks.

I don't care for which "good purpose" these kill switches exist. The fact that something you paid for or installed locally on your device can be remotely disabled is dystopian and inexcuseable.

Adjusting volume during PC freeze = risk of loud blast at the moment of unfreeze.

Once the WebExtensions process of Firefox crashes, one must restart each extension individually.

This means one has to open the add-on manager and double-click these small toggles with the cursor. When one does not double-click fast enough, the listed extension moves from the "enabled" down to the "disabled" section, and the add-on manager lacks a search feature, (Ctrl+F just actuates the "Search addons.mozilla.org" search bar), meaning one has to manually scroll and find it.

It almost seems like it is deliberately designed to annoy users.

Web browsers correcting "ttps://" to "https://" is so damn convenient!

Why open-source matters: I can remove annoyances like starting in front-facing mode from a smartphone camera software, and hide the button for the "effects" drawer that I never use since I can add Sepia or black/white in post processing should I ever need it.

Both of these annoyances cause missing moments. If the source code of the camera software is open, and if the operating system is rooted, these utter annoyances can be removed.

There are open-source third party applications like "Open Camera", but they lack quick launch support and might have, presumably due to lack of optimization, a two-second shutter lag. Big no.

Some image viewers on smartphones let the user delete photos and videos by swiping them off the screen vertically. This causes the risk of it happening accidentally. Someone must have thought this is a smart idea.

If a gallery application has this anti-feature, I will immediately stop using it and install a third-party one without swipe-to-delete.

Iconless menus – another effect of the toxic minimalism trend. Icons in menus such as the mobile web browser and device settings help finding items faster!

In 2014, Samsung removed icons from the upper right menu of their mobile Internet browser. At some point, roughly 2017, they realized it was a bad idea and brought them back. Could've told ya that earlier. 😁