7 ms·
> Except for a handful of very over-priced models that I can't afford to buy. This statement here made me pause for a bit. He wants a computer with specific fe
by koverda 6y ago
> Except for a handful of very over-priced models that I can't afford to buy.
This statement here made me pause for a bit. He wants a computer with specific features, but doesn't want pay for the models that offer those features because they are too expensive?
Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, but unfortunately, reality has constraints.
- monkeyingaround 6y agoAs someone who has watched the increasingly absurd price of laptops over many years in relation to what one should expect for the price, I'd say I have people like you to thank.
- jodrellblank 6y agoAs someone who has watched laptops get thousands of times faster, smaller, lighter, more battery life, clearer higher resolution screens, smaller chargers, faster connectivity, quieter fans, I flagged your comment for signing up a new account to post a personal attack.
- monkeyingaround 6y agotime well spent then, sleep well
- google234123 6y agoLaptops do not have absurd cost now. There are good options from 300$ upto 2000$+
- jodrellblank 6y agohttps://hn.algolia.com/?query=downvoters%20should&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=downvoters%20should&sort=byPop... https://hn.algolia.com/?q=downvoters+should https://hn.algolia.com/?q=downvoters+should
- xyse53 6y agoI think there are two ways to look at that. 1) The relevant characteristics of these models shouldn't be specialist. 2) Cheaper, constrained portals to the internet may be subsidized by Google, Facebook, etc.
- dom2 6y agoIncome shouldn't be a barrier to having technology that you own completely, a concept that until recently was common.
- hypertele-Xii 6y agoTechnology you don't own is cheaper because the provider can sell your data. I suppose it's a "good thing" there exists tech the poor can afford.
- jbay808 6y agoThat's one reason, but economies of scale are another. If the movement to reject technology you don't own gained traction, the cost of joining that movement would also come down.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- drdaeman 6y agoThe issue is there is no true demand. Yeah, everyone kinda want a device they own - when faced a very direct question and explanation how things really really work. But typically most people don't even think about ownership of the devices they buy - or even falsely assume they "own" those. And those who are aware about the issue have to either pay premium for their rarity (if that's even available in their market - which is not always the case), or agree to not own a device. So, yeah, ideally everyone should own what they buy, if they want so - and they should be aware what exactly they buy and what are the gotchas. But... how? I believe this "caveat emptor" informational disparity is a multimillenia-old issue. (Fine print, obviously, doesn't work - because human nature.)
- salawat 6y agoHomestly, this started going downhill with car or any technology advanced enough for documentation to split between user vs. Admin docs. Once manufacturers were offthe hook for being able to transition all relevant info with regards to operation, maintenance, and servicing along with the thing bbeing sold, it created the ignorance/info-asymmetry marketplace that entrenched engineered knowledge scarcity as a profitable business model.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago> He wants a computer with specific features, but doesn't want pay for the models that offer those features because they are too expensive? Correct. He wants a computer with less complexity and less spying "features", and the market is failing hard at that. > reality has constraints No, these are entirely artificial restrictions. Companies invested very significant efforts to implement DRM, management engine, AMT, all sort of telemetries and backdoors. The emerging model of "privacy for the rich, surveillance for everybody else" is it expected consequence. EDIT: wow, downvoted to -3 already? Truly shining the hacker culture in "hacker" news /s
- Retric 6y agoSurveillance is profitable for the computer manufacturers. The “barebones” version therefore costs more. SmartTV’s, cellphones, etc don’t make a lot per person but it’s enough you need to go up market to find any real privacy.
- m463 6y ago> Except for a handful of very over-priced models that I can't afford to buy. Yeah, that weakens his whole argument. That said, I would like to know what models these are? Because I think it's pretty much universal. I think the answer is linux.
- luxuryballs 6y agothe answer is probably an entirely new computing architecture
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y agoWhy would you need that? Ex. Debian running on a Talos Raptor would be architecturally "normal" but be 100% user-controlled.
- varenc 6y agoThere's System76 and Purism: https://system76.com https://system76.com, https://puri.sm https://puri.sm Can't speak to the quality, but I suspect those are the expensive models the author is referring to.
- Klonoar 6y agoEeeeh, System76 is certainly not expensive (though they do have expensive models). Purism is. If we're talking desktops, Raptor Talos fits the bill better I think: https://www.raptorcs.com https://www.raptorcs.com
- olddealer 6y agoEuh, could be. There are other manufacturers of computers out there, in the USD market "laptops" are retailing at e.g. Walmart, Amazon for 200-300$. 1G+ has been the traditional price to break into "worthwhile" computing, "worthwhile" here usually meaning computing you get a choice on how to configure. To give a bit of context, a "pay-day loan", typically something targeted at the majority of lower-working class folk who struggle to make it from rent check to rent check, goes for normally ~300-600$. For a "lower-middle class" individual making ballpark 60-80k and making housing or rent payments, the norm in even lower cost cities is 1-2k. We aren't talking addl. living expenses, but already someone has to deal with the un-pleasantries of extreme poverty (gangs, illegal activities, never-ending debt and the prison pipeline) in the lower classes, and in the "middle" classes they are facing potentially tanking credit scores, getting behind on rent by a month (most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck), just to have a shot at getting one of these laptops. Goodness help anyone in so called "3rd-world" countries.
- marcodiego 6y agoThey're not overpriced, they're expensive. And they are expensive because they are rare. And they are rare because vendors stopped manufacturing them. And vendors stopped manufacturing them because most people do not refuse to buy a device "that is designed largely to maximize the profits of the computer industry".
- vineyardmike 6y ago>...And [the computer industry] stopped manufacturing [a computer that is not designed to maximize computer industry profits] because ... When you read it back, it sounds silly to expect any company to make products that ever fit this criteria. Except expensive ones, of course, which maximize profits in their own way.
- bmn__ 6y agoNot only for-profit companies may build computers; non-profit organisations, cooperatives, governments may, too. I think that's a good way out of the problem described in the article.
- 0x008 6y agoMost people have very limited use cases with devices and very unspecific requirements. So the majority wins. Makes sense, I think.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoMost people don't know the anti-features present, and even if they did, the price hike to get rid of them is so big they wouldn't buy. Some may call it the market working as intended, but I see it as a problem - this is very far from "voluntary transaction between informed parties", and there's little ability for customers to use money to voice their preferences. It's a purely vendor-driven market: vendors get to dictate features and anti-features, with little to no way of opting out. I'd like to see this fixed, but I don't think there's an easy way to do it. The issue dovetails with intellectual property laws - situation could've been different if money could be made in gutting hardware, firmware and software and removing anti-features at scale. But we can't have that, because every single piece of a computer is its own IP minefield.
- Smithalicious 6y agoI hate using the word "privilege", but I think it takes a particular mindset/history to equate "can't afford" with "doesn't want to pay". For many people even in wealthy countries "can't afford" really does mean "I cannot purchase this without at least going into debt or foregoing necessities" even for <$1000 items
- andagainagain 6y agoExactly. I want these things too. But I'm also willing to pay for them. Everyone wants the best stuff for free. That's not controversial. But it is controversial to complain that the best stuff is more expensive than the cheap stuff. Of course it is. That's the type of stuff they sacrificed to make it cheap. If they want low end free btw, they do have that too. Pinebooks are super cheap.
- olddealer 6y agoIt's more connected than just that - people can't afford housing and food, let alone computers. A small sliver (~2-5%) of people can afford to do e.g. organics, fair trade commodities, free range animal products, small business, locally owned/sourced, etc. Of course, not to say the above are all panacea, but something much more directly measurable and visible, like your health, local economy/ecology welfare, people can barely afford. The invisible, like the privacy affecting where your precious wallet gets spent, the habits which can be used to target and manipulate you, that's the invisible hidden behind marketing promising "great performance at a low price". You get what you pay for, and the moral of this story is that what most people can afford, shit, is what they get (shit). At least, until people decide to take control and dethrone the tyrants from their thrones. That's why govt and big biz can't stand a message to be private, they are well aware they stand to lose, well, everything, from anyone ever bothering to unseat them. Not to lump all biz or govt together, there are some worse than others.
- dirkt 6y ago> But it is controversial to complain that the best stuff is more expensive than the cheap stuff. Nah. Technically, and in terms of manufacturing cost, it would be even easier to make a simpler computer, without all those bells and whistles that can be turned against the user, without the Intel Management Engine, TPM, and what have you. > That's the type of stuff they sacrificed to make it cheap. No, it's economies of scale which make one expensive, and the other one cheap. And human greed, and the human need to control other humans.
- culturestate 6y ago> Technically, and in terms of manufacturing cost, it would be even easier to make a simpler computer...without the Intel Management Engine, TPM, and what have you Maybe I'm missing something here but how is it possible that on-die features like IME affect the manufacturing cost and complexity of a laptop for e.g. Dell?
- pnt12 6y agoIs privacy thar expensive? Isn't each user's data worth 1 or 2 dollar? From the consumer perspective: I want the 500-2000 euros device I bought not to spy on me. Were it not the status quo, this would sound ridiculous.