"you endorse a behavior that is in and of itself toxic -- publicly crucifying somebody because you don't agree with their beliefs... it's downright disgusting."
Lol, didn't take you long to become a hypocrite on that one!
But seriously, "someone" and "CEO of a major corporation that relies on its good image" are different things. We rightly hold them to different standards. Holding unpopular (and exclusionary) political beliefs is incompatible with leading a company like Mozilla.
You hold CEOs to a different standard because they are the public face of an organization; their personal brand impacts the brand of the company. That's not elitism, that's common sense. If a common employee holds some unpopular opinion, why should anyone care? But if the CEO does, it damages the company, and the company should care about that.
Well, and go one further: if a common employee does hold an unpopular opinion and they publicize it widely, think how long they'll last at the company anyway.
Take a totally fictional example, a product manager at Intel who, on the weekends, has been leading neo-nazi marches and getting on the news. The reporters ask him, "what do you do to pay for all these flags and banners and tattoos?" "Oh, I work at Intel during the week. I'm a product manager in the networking hardware division."
Think how many weekends they'd give out that interview answer before Intel let them go for whatever reason.
I have fond memories of taking a class with David Kelly and listening to his ranting about why 17 is objectively the best number. ("For example, the average length of a Giraffe's tongue is 17 inches! What more do you need?") He also hated the number 23 "because it's the mortal enemy of 17, I don't have time to explain why." While I was in the class the movie "23" came out: he urged us all to boycott the film, or better, form a picket line.
What's the downside of turning this on? From the article it just seems like it would mean more capabilities, more consumer choice. Is the only "downside" that it allows you to bypass cell networks when getting content?
It only works if there are headphones attached, which confuses users.
Plus, Google or another company has to pay an engineer to write an app for it, and test it against the hardware in the phones, etc. etc.
Usually this functionality is a byproduct of some random other chip on the phone that is multifunction, usually Bluetooth. So people who don't use Bluetooth get confused/upset/paranoid/tin foil hat when their FM Radio app tells them that Bluetooth needs to be enabled to use it.
Many users who really want FM can already do it today, but it involves rooting their phone and installing something like Cyanogenmod.
Running any circuits within the constrained space of a cellphone risks (i.e., definitely does) cause RF interference with the antenna(s) listening to cell towers , which is a huge engineering challenge.
Maybe because the quality sucks? I mean, if you had TV on your phone but could only get 3 channels and they all had static, who would the customer blame that it doesn't work?
Lol, didn't take you long to become a hypocrite on that one!
But seriously, "someone" and "CEO of a major corporation that relies on its good image" are different things. We rightly hold them to different standards. Holding unpopular (and exclusionary) political beliefs is incompatible with leading a company like Mozilla.