5 ms·

The problem is a complex client-provider relationship. The end user (children) don't make the purchasing decision. The ones choosing the software (teachers) hav

The problem is a complex client-provider relationship. The end user (children) don't make the purchasing decision. The ones choosing the software (teachers) have no control over the hardware. The ones choosing the hardware (school tech admins) have no idea what the teachers really want or need. But the child will be punished if they don't do their homework. I think that's a grave injustice. It's not her fault that the school didn't provide the tools. We should be encouraging people to learn when they want to, not making it hard for them! Healthcare is another area where there's a complex client relationship between doctors, insurance companies, and patients. I really think that developers in education and health are doing important work to save lives, but the capitalist approach of prioritising the person who pays isn't that simple. With those fields, it shouldn't be just about money. On that note, I liked this comment yesterday: "hey, will you help me move? I'll pay you $21.58 for your time," I'd probably bristle. Even though that might be the equivalent price of a few slices of pizza and a beer" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23106932 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23106932

horsawlarway 6y ago
I don't disagree with you, I just think you're placing blame in the wrong spot. The decision that harmed the child was made by the school. The entity that has the power in this situation is NOT company selling the product, it's the purchaser that chose to use them. The school is the immediate and obvious place to resolve the issue, and that's why the school is responsible for the new costs (or alternatively - Choosing a new provider). I think it's an incredible oversimplification to assume that a company is updating "just because", and that they've done it without any consideration. I'm not bullshitting when I say I've seen multi-year discussions about when/where we can afford to drop support for a particular devices/system. It's a constant analysis of - What does the upgrade buy us? - What does losing those users cost? - What relationships will be damaged? - What impact does it have on company morale? And the answers to all of those questions vary over time, as the user base changes and new systems are released. Basically - I promise the company acted in a way that they believe will help themselves and their customers most. They might be wrong, but who cares? No one is omniscient, we're humans not gods. So does updating happen to hurt this one kid on an older device? Yes. No on is happy about it, but they believe that the compromise was justified by the benefits it brings to all their OTHER users. Who they are also responsible for thinking about. ---- Now, I strongly agree that products that are purchased by people who don't use them tend to be inferior. But again, I find it hard to blame the developers of those products because the unfortunate reality is that when the person buying and the person using are different, usually the buyer just comes in with a checklist of "features" and selects the product that checks the most boxes. That means the company selling the product is forced to act in a way that checks boxes instead of making happy users. But again, the solution to that isn't to blame the developer - The solution is to make actually using the damn product a requirement of the purchasers job description. And again, only the school can do that. Now, the final ugly bit of this is as follows - You cannot wave a magic wand and make all problems disappear. There will always be better/worse outcomes for different parties after a decision is made. Maybe the school purchaser DID actually use the product, and DOES actually want the features a new upgrade brings, and has done exactly the same calculations for their school district that the company made, and has STILL decided to use that product even though it happens to hurt you, because they believe it helps more folks. I can't help you with that, but it does bring to mind the quote from Churchill >Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.… It's a shitty situation and if you know how to make it better, let me know...

horsawlarway 6y ago

I don't disagree with you, I just think you're placing blame in the wrong spot. The decision that harmed the child was made by the school. The entity that has the power in this situation is NOT company selling the product, it's the purchaser that chose to use them. The school is the immediate and obvious place to resolve the issue, and that's why the school is responsible for the new costs (or alternatively - Choosing a new provider). I think it's an incredible oversimplification to assume that a company is updating "just because", and that they've done it without any consideration. I'm not bullshitting when I say I've seen multi-year discussions about when/where we can afford to drop support for a particular devices/system. It's a constant analysis of - What does the upgrade buy us? - What does losing those users cost? - What relationships will be damaged? - What impact does it have on company morale? And the answers to all of those questions vary over time, as the user base changes and new systems are released. Basically - I promise the company acted in a way that they believe will help themselves and their customers most. They might be wrong, but who cares? No one is omniscient, we're humans not gods. So does updating happen to hurt this one kid on an older device? Yes. No on is happy about it, but they believe that the compromise was justified by the benefits it brings to all their OTHER users. Who they are also responsible for thinking about. ---- Now, I strongly agree that products that are purchased by people who don't use them tend to be inferior. But again, I find it hard to blame the developers of those products because the unfortunate reality is that when the person buying and the person using are different, usually the buyer just comes in with a checklist of "features" and selects the product that checks the most boxes. That means the company selling the product is forced to act in a way that checks boxes instead of making happy users. But again, the solution to that isn't to blame the developer - The solution is to make actually using the damn product a requirement of the purchasers job description. And again, only the school can do that. Now, the final ugly bit of this is as follows - You cannot wave a magic wand and make all problems disappear. There will always be better/worse outcomes for different parties after a decision is made. Maybe the school purchaser DID actually use the product, and DOES actually want the features a new upgrade brings, and has done exactly the same calculations for their school district that the company made, and has STILL decided to use that product even though it happens to hurt you, because they believe it helps more folks. I can't help you with that, but it does bring to mind the quote from Churchill >Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.… It's a shitty situation and if you know how to make it better, let me know...