3 ms·

If we're hoping for things, what about an even semi-conscious consumer base that just doesn't purchase cloud appliances? Collective action would end this probl

If we're hoping for things, what about an even semi-conscious consumer base that just doesn't purchase cloud appliances? Collective action would end this problem overnight, just like it did here (although I think they are insane for buying cloud appliances in the first place).

EvanAnderson 3y ago
The biggest risk I see to these Internet-hosted services is losing access to features (or, worse, 100% device functionality) when servers inevitably go away. That's why I won't use them. (Privacy is a concern to me too, but secondary. I wish the situation were good enough that I could worry about privacy.) What boggles my mind is how the average person seems so accepting of this. I get this pervasive sense that because "it's computers" or "computer adjacent" it's a given that you'll have to accept loss of functionality as devices age. I guess it needs to get a lot worse before it gets better.
- pixl97 3y ago
  What does the average person know about engines in cars? Materials their houses are made of? This and about a million other complexities that are abstracted away in their lives? Needs to isn't the write term... Going to get a lot worse is going to happen. Getting better, well the issue is in doubt.
  - EvanAnderson 3y ago
    > What does the average person know about engines in cars? Materials their houses are made of? They don't know much about how those things work. They do know if they're losing functionality even if they don't know how they work. My observation is that people seem endlessly patient about losing functionality in computer adjacent devices-- far beyond what they would tolerate with other devices. I simply don't understand why this is the case. For virtually every consumer good there is some ability for independent repair. I think people would be up in arms if their car stopped working and the manufacturer said "Yeah, you just need to buy a new one". We have consumer protection laws in the US to prevent this very thing. With software connected to "smart" devices there are no significant protections. I don't think people even know to be up in arms about a device that doesn't work because it's "old" and the native app stops working or the Internet hosted servers went away. Worse, they just landfill the device and go buy the newest one. I assume it has something to do with the subsidized nature of smart phones and relatively short time people stick with a given phone. The "wow" factor of new technology probably dazzles people into forgetting about long-term usability too. Hopefully when the "throwaway" mentality of smart phones really starts to cost people (as more durable good type "smart" devices embrace this model) we'll see some public backlash.

EvanAnderson 3y ago

The biggest risk I see to these Internet-hosted services is losing access to features (or, worse, 100% device functionality) when servers inevitably go away. That's why I won't use them. (Privacy is a concern to me too, but secondary. I wish the situation were good enough that I could worry about privacy.) What boggles my mind is how the average person seems so accepting of this. I get this pervasive sense that because "it's computers" or "computer adjacent" it's a given that you'll have to accept loss of functionality as devices age. I guess it needs to get a lot worse before it gets better.

pixl97 3y ago
What does the average person know about engines in cars? Materials their houses are made of? This and about a million other complexities that are abstracted away in their lives? Needs to isn't the write term... Going to get a lot worse is going to happen. Getting better, well the issue is in doubt.
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  > What does the average person know about engines in cars? Materials their houses are made of? They don't know much about how those things work. They do know if they're losing functionality even if they don't know how they work. My observation is that people seem endlessly patient about losing functionality in computer adjacent devices-- far beyond what they would tolerate with other devices. I simply don't understand why this is the case. For virtually every consumer good there is some ability for independent repair. I think people would be up in arms if their car stopped working and the manufacturer said "Yeah, you just need to buy a new one". We have consumer protection laws in the US to prevent this very thing. With software connected to "smart" devices there are no significant protections. I don't think people even know to be up in arms about a device that doesn't work because it's "old" and the native app stops working or the Internet hosted servers went away. Worse, they just landfill the device and go buy the newest one. I assume it has something to do with the subsidized nature of smart phones and relatively short time people stick with a given phone. The "wow" factor of new technology probably dazzles people into forgetting about long-term usability too. Hopefully when the "throwaway" mentality of smart phones really starts to cost people (as more durable good type "smart" devices embrace this model) we'll see some public backlash.