4 ms·

This is a very good, if a bit windy, argument. There would have been no technological progress we were able to enjoy in the past decade or two without the foun

by 4cao 6y ago

This is a very good, if a bit windy, argument. There would have been no technological progress we were able to enjoy in the past decade or two without the foundations laid by the open PC platform, and the Internet based on open standards. These open foundations are now slowly being substituted piece by piece with proprietary walled gardens, and conversely we can now witness the pace of innovation subsiding. In the current environment, there could not be another Google emerging as a successful contender the same way the original Google did, very much like there could not have been another Disney for quite a while, due to all the regulatory restrictions put in place largely as a result of the lobbying on the part of the original Disney: only this time it's more than Mickey Mouse's future that's at stake. However, as the situation appears to be largely made possible by regulatory failure, the problem is inherently political, and any lasting solution would also have to be of such nature. Thus, while I wish Purism all the best, expecting them to be able to significantly change the situation is unfortunately not realistic.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> However, as the situation appears to be largely made possible by regulatory failure, the problem is inherently political, and any lasting solution would also have to be of such nature. Thus, while I wish Purism all the best, expecting them to be able to significantly change the situation is unfortunately not realistic. I always hate this argument. The idea that Purism is going to topple Apple overnight is pretty unrealistic. Even if they "succeed" it would be years, maybe decades before they're the dominant platform. That's an unreasonably long time to suffer the status quo and it makes sense to try to solve the problem in other ways before then. But sometimes the regulatory solutions fail, e.g. because the incumbents pour money into the coffers of politicians. And chipping away at the the problem slowly in the market, over a decade or more, until the incumbents are weaker and a political solution can do them in, is far better than a permanent defeat as a result of long-term regulatory capture.
m463 6y ago
I believe the pc revolution was created two ways: Microsoft became a software giant, and to sell more copies of its software, it had to drive the price of hardware to zero. This is "complements" joel talks about here [1] By the commoditization hardware, people bought more copies of windows, and we all benefitted by the relentless march of faster, better, cheaper that resulted. (The thing is they caused linux to flourish as software got more expensive) Then apple did the opposite. Apple is actually commoditizing software to sell hardware. Before the app store, software - very good apps actually - were frequently $39.95 or more. Apple drove software to zero. It gives away the OS with it's hardware, and apps on the app store started at a few dollars, then 99 cents, then all the top apps were free. and now data has become the way these free apps can survive and compete. advertisers and data brokers are the ones who fund things, by monetizing our data. The thing is - I think hardware vendors can be aligned with free software. it sells hardware. purism can succeed. so can pine. and system76. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  Likewise, we can thank Apple's commoditization of the software market for the rapid proliferation of microtransactions over the last decade. Hopefully we'll soon see a new paradigm come along and dethrone the whole, "be annoying but just fun/useful enough to exploit the impatient and impulsive" monetization scheme so many microtransaction-heavy apps have taken up in lieu of just charging $5 up front.
- herf 6y ago
  This is well argued, and I think the big change there was the early-2000's DRM ideas: that a hardware platform like the iPod could protect the IP used on it. Initially this was seen as important for music, even though the restrictions got relaxed over time. But the same applies to any digital good. As a result, we're seeing the software industry squashed (and commoditized) to fit the needs of a couple companies that control hardware today.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  I largely agree although software pricing had been trending down long before the app stores came along. The marginal price of software is effectively zero so you would expect prices to converge on that in a competitive market.

by 4cao 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> However, as the situation appears to be largely made possible by regulatory failure, the problem is inherently political, and any lasting solution would also have to be of such nature. Thus, while I wish Purism all the best, expecting them to be able to significantly change the situation is unfortunately not realistic. I always hate this argument. The idea that Purism is going to topple Apple overnight is pretty unrealistic. Even if they "succeed" it would be years, maybe decades before they're the dominant platform. That's an unreasonably long time to suffer the status quo and it makes sense to try to solve the problem in other ways before then. But sometimes the regulatory solutions fail, e.g. because the incumbents pour money into the coffers of politicians. And chipping away at the the problem slowly in the market, over a decade or more, until the incumbents are weaker and a political solution can do them in, is far better than a permanent defeat as a result of long-term regulatory capture.

m463 6y ago

I believe the pc revolution was created two ways: Microsoft became a software giant, and to sell more copies of its software, it had to drive the price of hardware to zero. This is "complements" joel talks about here [1] By the commoditization hardware, people bought more copies of windows, and we all benefitted by the relentless march of faster, better, cheaper that resulted. (The thing is they caused linux to flourish as software got more expensive) Then apple did the opposite. Apple is actually commoditizing software to sell hardware. Before the app store, software - very good apps actually - were frequently $39.95 or more. Apple drove software to zero. It gives away the OS with it's hardware, and apps on the app store started at a few dollars, then 99 cents, then all the top apps were free. and now data has become the way these free apps can survive and compete. advertisers and data brokers are the ones who fund things, by monetizing our data. The thing is - I think hardware vendors can be aligned with free software. it sells hardware. purism can succeed. so can pine. and system76. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

entropicdrifter 6y ago
Likewise, we can thank Apple's commoditization of the software market for the rapid proliferation of microtransactions over the last decade. Hopefully we'll soon see a new paradigm come along and dethrone the whole, "be annoying but just fun/useful enough to exploit the impatient and impulsive" monetization scheme so many microtransaction-heavy apps have taken up in lieu of just charging $5 up front.
herf 6y ago
This is well argued, and I think the big change there was the early-2000's DRM ideas: that a hardware platform like the iPod could protect the IP used on it. Initially this was seen as important for music, even though the restrictions got relaxed over time. But the same applies to any digital good. As a result, we're seeing the software industry squashed (and commoditized) to fit the needs of a couple companies that control hardware today.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
I largely agree although software pricing had been trending down long before the app stores came along. The marginal price of software is effectively zero so you would expect prices to converge on that in a competitive market.