4 ms·

I shudder at the amount of retraining non technically sophisticated users will need. The doctors, teachers, and everyday people who just want their e-mail to wo

I shudder at the amount of retraining non technically sophisticated users will need. The doctors, teachers, and everyday people who just want their e-mail to work so they can worry about their real jobs will all have some annoying cognitive load forced on them for reasons that benefit Google and not them.

agumonkey 5y ago
I'm starting to see real problems with the continuous upgrade way of life. Giving people clearer and longer cycle of use seems healthier (especially for non tech savvy people). Less random surprises, less regressions, less relearning, and when it needs to happen there's one clear hurdle to climb, if you want it.
- Majestic121 5y ago
  I think there is multiple stages in technology. A quick growth stage, typically when the subject is still new and being explored, and where a continuous or very regular upgrade is the best strategy. For example, smartphones or computers were evolving so much still not that long ago, that keeping one for more than 3 years was rare, and costing a lot in term of usability. And then, there's a cooling down phase, when the evolution is much slower, and gains are few and far between. In this context, a consolidation strategy is better, and if one keeps the previous strategy, you can end up with changes that feel forced and are not actually evolution, but just something pushed because one has to push new things constantly.
nerdponx 5y ago
One of many great reasons to care about open protocols and the ability to use third-party client applications. Software freedom (protocol freedom? interface freedom?) has _practical_ benefits for the public good. Attempts to deviate towards closed systems and protocols should generally be viewed as monopolistic antisocial rent-seeking by default, in my opinion.
fartcannon 5y ago
I genuinely despise google. But this argument that people shouldn't need to learn things ever is what entrenches google, and Microsoft in our lives.
na_other 5y ago

agumonkey 5y ago

I'm starting to see real problems with the continuous upgrade way of life. Giving people clearer and longer cycle of use seems healthier (especially for non tech savvy people). Less random surprises, less regressions, less relearning, and when it needs to happen there's one clear hurdle to climb, if you want it.

Majestic121 5y ago
I think there is multiple stages in technology. A quick growth stage, typically when the subject is still new and being explored, and where a continuous or very regular upgrade is the best strategy. For example, smartphones or computers were evolving so much still not that long ago, that keeping one for more than 3 years was rare, and costing a lot in term of usability. And then, there's a cooling down phase, when the evolution is much slower, and gains are few and far between. In this context, a consolidation strategy is better, and if one keeps the previous strategy, you can end up with changes that feel forced and are not actually evolution, but just something pushed because one has to push new things constantly.

nerdponx 5y ago

One of many great reasons to care about open protocols and the ability to use third-party client applications. Software freedom (protocol freedom? interface freedom?) has _practical_ benefits for the public good. Attempts to deviate towards closed systems and protocols should generally be viewed as monopolistic antisocial rent-seeking by default, in my opinion.

fartcannon 5y ago

I genuinely despise google. But this argument that people shouldn't need to learn things ever is what entrenches google, and Microsoft in our lives.

na_other 5y ago