2 ms·
> but consumers also lose the ability to shape the extent to which they manage their own devices. Which is only useful for the consumers who have the skill, th
by sjwright 9y ago
> but consumers also lose the ability to shape the extent to which they manage their own devices.
Which is only useful for the consumers who have the skill, the depth of knowledge and who maintain that knowledge to keep it up-to-date. Maybe one percent of users. Probably fewer.
This is why most people outsource this stuff to third parties, just like we outsource the pasteurisation of milk and the maintenance of sewerage systems.
The typical analogy is the age-old argument about whether consumers should be expected to know how their car works. Maybe they should but that's beside the point—they don't. Insisting that they should is irrelevant. Most people don't know what brake fluid does and they won't care if you explain it to them.
- washadjeffmad 9y agoNot to sound too Monty Python, but shouldn't they have at least the right to know these things? And your example proves the point; because others cared to become the third-party, we have projects like LineageOS for smartphones and tablets. However, they could not have if Google had locked its OS down or restricted it to certain hardware. Just because most people only want to know the time doesn't mean no one but clock makers should have the right to understand how clocks work.
- sjwright 9y agoI just don’t agree with your premise (because you don’t need to know how a Seiko watch works to learn how watches work) or your conclusion (because in the absence of AOSP, projects like Firefox OS might well have been successful).