4 ms·

The headline that would bring tears to my eyes is "Users dive into Linux to cut reliance on big tech" The endless cola versus pepsi discussion is not really go

The headline that would bring tears to my eyes is "Users dive into Linux to cut reliance on big tech" The endless cola versus pepsi discussion is not really going to move the needle and the users pay with inferior experience. Apple has been playing its cards well and in a sense its good that it exists. It shows that different business models are possible but thats a far cry from it being a functioning market that delivers for users. Ultimately you want multiple manufacturers, low switching costs between platforms that wont lock-in users, 100% stop with the abominable surveillance adtech, extensive recyclability and reparability. These are not absurd demands that cant be delivered, these are very basic aspects of a sane personal computing landscape. But we will not get them if all the ink is spent on which of the two options is the least bad one.

jvm___ 3y ago
low switching costs between platforms that wont lock-in users, 100% stop with the abominable surveillance adtech, extensive recyclability and reparability. Who pays for that? What you want is less "pollution". A polluted market where you can't switch from apple to Samsung. A polluted privacy environment online. A polluted world with a phone that's just full of glue. Companies, and humanity in general, just pollutes as much as their local environment allows. What your saying is possible to do, but doing those things means less money for the owners of the companies and less features going out the door (as money and time are spent on non-profit expenses). No one will pay $$ to switch between apple and google. Why would either company make it easy to lose monthly app subscriptions? They'd be paying money to shoot themselves in the foot. What needs to happen is more regulation (just like physical world pollution) but the USA culture is very anti-government so nothing will happen.
- nologic01 3y ago
  > Who pays for that? Users will pay. One way or another users pay for everything. But you cannot pay for something that doesnt exist. Reduced competition is the best way to ensure real choice doesnt exist. Its the simplest of truths yet we are past the stage of even grasping simple truths.
  - jvm___ 3y ago
    "Reduced competition is the best way to ensure real choice doesnt exist." Your asking phone and app manufacturers to increase competition - which goes against their own reduced competition interests. Each individual company has no incentive to increase competition, locking customers in even more is the way to profit.
    - nologic01 3y ago
      No, I am not that naive. Of course it has to happen through competing interests (and regulation). Its true what you say that in the US they don't like regulation, but on the other hand they like consumption. If you want to have a diverse menu of products to consume you need to ensure its a competitive market. You can't have it both ways.

jvm___ 3y ago

low switching costs between platforms that wont lock-in users, 100% stop with the abominable surveillance adtech, extensive recyclability and reparability. Who pays for that? What you want is less "pollution". A polluted market where you can't switch from apple to Samsung. A polluted privacy environment online. A polluted world with a phone that's just full of glue. Companies, and humanity in general, just pollutes as much as their local environment allows. What your saying is possible to do, but doing those things means less money for the owners of the companies and less features going out the door (as money and time are spent on non-profit expenses). No one will pay $$ to switch between apple and google. Why would either company make it easy to lose monthly app subscriptions? They'd be paying money to shoot themselves in the foot. What needs to happen is more regulation (just like physical world pollution) but the USA culture is very anti-government so nothing will happen.

nologic01 3y ago
> Who pays for that? Users will pay. One way or another users pay for everything. But you cannot pay for something that doesnt exist. Reduced competition is the best way to ensure real choice doesnt exist. Its the simplest of truths yet we are past the stage of even grasping simple truths.
- jvm___ 3y ago
  "Reduced competition is the best way to ensure real choice doesnt exist." Your asking phone and app manufacturers to increase competition - which goes against their own reduced competition interests. Each individual company has no incentive to increase competition, locking customers in even more is the way to profit.
  - nologic01 3y ago
    No, I am not that naive. Of course it has to happen through competing interests (and regulation). Its true what you say that in the US they don't like regulation, but on the other hand they like consumption. If you want to have a diverse menu of products to consume you need to ensure its a competitive market. You can't have it both ways.