3 ms·

They're not overpriced, they're expensive. And they are expensive because they are rare. And they are rare because vendors stopped manufacturing them. And vendo

They'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 ago
  Not 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 ago
Most people have very limited use cases with devices and very unspecific requirements. So the majority wins. Makes sense, I think.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Most 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.

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 ago
Not 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 ago

Most people have very limited use cases with devices and very unspecific requirements. So the majority wins. Makes sense, I think.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Most 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.