3 ms·
In the era when users had to pay $50 and install software upgrades, these kinds of interface changes and feature additions were viewed as greedy "planned obsole
by saturdaysaint 15y ago
In the era when users had to pay $50 and install software upgrades, these kinds of interface changes and feature additions were viewed as greedy "planned obsolescence". But now that web apps are updated seamlessly and without cost (and often with painstaking user education), developers are somehow exerting control over end-users. I guess the pundit class needs to justify their existence somehow.
- Goladus 15y agoWeb apps updated seamlessly without cost to the end user are great, however that doesn't mean developers aren't exerting control over end users. And whether charging $50 for feature additions and changes was greedy or not is completely irrelevant to the point.
- code_duck 15y agoIndeed, this occurred more slowly but just as surely back in the desktop software days. Even if you really loved Windows 3.1 or AmigaDOS 1.3, you didn't have much of a choice about upgrading eventually. The difference is you had control over exactly when it happened, and could usualy delay for years if you were stubborn. Now changes appear suddenly.
- cbs 15y ago>I guess the pundit class needs to justify their existence somehow. You're blindly defending the one you like by refusing to see the larger picture. You're conflicting two very different issues. The changes in location of control don't necessarily tie to the changes in price or upgradeability. I use web "apps" that I pay for, some of them even require a large purchase for major-version upgrades. I use free, automatically self-updating desktop software. Free user-initiated update desktop software and everything in between.