4 ms·

Companies want people to be happy in a post-ownership society, Apple and Amazon are part of that I hope more people start resisting this narrative that all or

by syshum 6y ago

Companies want people to be happy in a post-ownership society, Apple and Amazon are part of that I hope more people start resisting this narrative that all or our property and in essences our lives should be leased / rented...

m-p-3 6y ago
I'm okay if the terms of the rental or subscription are clearly defined. For example, I have no problem subscribing to Netflix and I expect to lose access to its library if I stop paying. What is not okay is buying a perpetual license and lose access to it because our big tech overlord decided someone shouldn't and go away with the money. At least locking the account and forbidding access to buying more content would be a fair middle ground IMO.
- syshum 6y ago
  Netflix/Spotify etc is not really part of a post ownership society, not the in the way it is envisioned by people that promote such thing Post Ownership society is an expansion of the Planned Obsolescence model, where planned obsolescence still observed the right of ownership which most often becomes the issue as people inherently believe it is unfair / unethical for a company to planned for their product to fail at a certain time. Post Ownership society wants to do away with the very concept of ownership, this way planned obsolescence, things like requiring a person to rebuy all of the their songs if they forget their password, or if the company chooses it it time for you to buy them again (i.e a tos violation made up by the company) there is not ethical issue as you never owned it anyway
- Jochim 6y ago
  I think having the option to rent or subscribe is fine and it might actually be of benefit to some people. However, there is a problem when the option to own a product disappears because a rental/subscription model is more profitable, which we're seeing more and more. It's a pretty strong example of corporate interests not lining up with human/societal interests.

by syshum 6y ago

m-p-3 6y ago

I'm okay if the terms of the rental or subscription are clearly defined. For example, I have no problem subscribing to Netflix and I expect to lose access to its library if I stop paying. What is not okay is buying a perpetual license and lose access to it because our big tech overlord decided someone shouldn't and go away with the money. At least locking the account and forbidding access to buying more content would be a fair middle ground IMO.

syshum 6y ago
Netflix/Spotify etc is not really part of a post ownership society, not the in the way it is envisioned by people that promote such thing Post Ownership society is an expansion of the Planned Obsolescence model, where planned obsolescence still observed the right of ownership which most often becomes the issue as people inherently believe it is unfair / unethical for a company to planned for their product to fail at a certain time. Post Ownership society wants to do away with the very concept of ownership, this way planned obsolescence, things like requiring a person to rebuy all of the their songs if they forget their password, or if the company chooses it it time for you to buy them again (i.e a tos violation made up by the company) there is not ethical issue as you never owned it anyway
Jochim 6y ago
I think having the option to rent or subscribe is fine and it might actually be of benefit to some people. However, there is a problem when the option to own a product disappears because a rental/subscription model is more profitable, which we're seeing more and more. It's a pretty strong example of corporate interests not lining up with human/societal interests.