4 ms·

Star Trek shows me lots of devices we'd like. What's your evidence that the device you want EXISTS TODAY (or could exist, given existing technology), but Apple

by hilux 2y ago

Star Trek shows me lots of devices we'd like. What's your evidence that the device you want EXISTS TODAY (or could exist, given existing technology), but Apple and Google or whoever are gatekeeping it? E.g. do you think Apple could have released the iPhone 15, 14, 13, etc. in 2007, but held back because Steve Jobs was counting his billions? Also, maybe you intended "every other year" as a figure of speech, but I buy an iPhone only every four or five years, and my last one was free (to me) with a "commitment" to the very affordable carrier plan I already had. I do occasionally need to replace the battery, but if better battery tech exists, I have not heard about it. Are the Chinese and Koreans complicit in this gatekeeping? Last but not least, do you work in the tech industry? I used to work for a well-known chip manufacturer, and if we were gatekeeping our chip releases to increase future profits, I certainly didn't hear about it. That reminds me - a key feature of capitalism is COMPETITION. If someone is holding back on building magic devices, the field is open for someone else, maybe you, to profitably build them.

fragmede 2y ago
Assuming a level playing field. If I have good cash flow from my operating system and office software business, I can make a web browser, and give it away for free, which screws up the market for companies that sell web browser software. no one can compete with that price so a company that only makes web browser software gets screwed. Until such time that a different company with a monopoly in another area is able to fund development of a competing browser which they can give away for free, the market for web browser software was and it's dominated by one free option to the next. Point being, free markets and competition is great, but there isn't always going to be competition because the game is fixed.
- hilux 2y ago
  The question was about (hardware) "devices," which tend to be limited by chip technology, not browsers. Are you suggesting that Arm and AMD and Apple and Huawei and Intel and Nvidia and Samsung are all colluding to stay at roughly the same level of chip technology - when they could easily be generations ahead?
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Ask Sun, DEC, and Cray about that. Worse but better wins for business reasons that aren't related the quality of the underlying technology. I'm not saying they're colluding, or that there's some grand conspiracy, but because Apple has bought out the production lines at TSMC to make their Apple Silicon chips, Samsung can't use those lines which means comparing products from the two isn't fair because Apple has those lines and Samsung can't use them to produce chips for their phones. I'm saying we, the human race, could be further along, if we made the markets more of a fair fight. Microsoft's OEM agreement, which came to light in 1998, was that a manufacturer, say Dell, had to pay Microsoft for every computer they sold, regardless of if it had Windows on it or not. This means, that if Dell sold a computer with BeOS on it, they still had to pay for a Microsoft Windows license for that box! From a business perspective, that means Dell doesn't need to bother selling BeOS. Business hasn't changed, so even though Arm and AMD and Apple and Huawei and Intel and Nvidia and Samsung haven't been taken to court on an antitrust case, there's all sorts of anti-competitive behavior going on. I can't buy a Samsung phone with an Apple A17 chip as the CPU. I think if the market were better regulated, I would be able to, but because we don't prohibit that kind of vertical integration, the result is an anti competitive market, and that's holding us back. We couldn't easily be generations ahead, because it's a lot of hard work, fighting lots of powerful people, but we could be.
    - hilux 2y ago
      I used to work for Sun. As for Cray, did you know that Cray used AMD chips on many of their supercomputers? I bet you didn't. As for the rest of it, you think that forcing arch rivals to collaborate on their key products, in other words, reducing competition, is the best way to help the consumer? Good luck in your Marxist-Leninist fantasy world.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        The fact that the Cray XD1 used AMD chips is well documented, but I'm not sure why that's even relevant, or why you feel the need to insult my knowledge. Increasing competition is the best way to help the consumer. I think leveling the playing field increases competition and is the best way to help the consumer. I don't know why you think I'm a communist simply because I think there's anticompetitive behavior going on. Take CPUs. Between AMD and Intel, I have to pick a motherboard that supports one or the other. This fantasy world I'm pushing would say hey you two, make a standard that both of you can agree on, so that one motherboard can have either an AMD or Intel CPU. I don't know what's communist about that. That then lets Transmeta and other players actually compete, reduces e-waste, and lets consumers decide for themselves. In my mind, setting and enforcing standards and limiting the amount of vertical monopolizing that can happen increases competition, and doesn't put you on a train to Siberia. Why were Oracle (I used to work there) and Sun even competitors? They're both so monstrously big that they had overlap, and so they were, but Oracle is known for its database software, and Sun is known for its hardware. In my fantasy world, Sun would never have competed with Oracle. Oracle would have competed with Sybase to see who could write better database software, and Sun would have competed with HP and Dell to see who could make better hardware. IBM would be split into a bunch of smaller companies that competed in each area, instead of being the monstrosity that it was and is today. Still don't see how that makes me a communist.
hcarvalhoalves 2y ago
You make it seem I’m talking about sci-fi technology. I’m talking about not intentionally crippling the product to force upgrades (easily replace batteries, backwards compatible software). It’s not rocket science and we had it before.

by hilux 2y ago

fragmede 2y ago

Assuming a level playing field. If I have good cash flow from my operating system and office software business, I can make a web browser, and give it away for free, which screws up the market for companies that sell web browser software. no one can compete with that price so a company that only makes web browser software gets screwed. Until such time that a different company with a monopoly in another area is able to fund development of a competing browser which they can give away for free, the market for web browser software was and it's dominated by one free option to the next. Point being, free markets and competition is great, but there isn't always going to be competition because the game is fixed.

hilux 2y ago
The question was about (hardware) "devices," which tend to be limited by chip technology, not browsers. Are you suggesting that Arm and AMD and Apple and Huawei and Intel and Nvidia and Samsung are all colluding to stay at roughly the same level of chip technology - when they could easily be generations ahead?
- fragmede 2y ago
  Ask Sun, DEC, and Cray about that. Worse but better wins for business reasons that aren't related the quality of the underlying technology. I'm not saying they're colluding, or that there's some grand conspiracy, but because Apple has bought out the production lines at TSMC to make their Apple Silicon chips, Samsung can't use those lines which means comparing products from the two isn't fair because Apple has those lines and Samsung can't use them to produce chips for their phones. I'm saying we, the human race, could be further along, if we made the markets more of a fair fight. Microsoft's OEM agreement, which came to light in 1998, was that a manufacturer, say Dell, had to pay Microsoft for every computer they sold, regardless of if it had Windows on it or not. This means, that if Dell sold a computer with BeOS on it, they still had to pay for a Microsoft Windows license for that box! From a business perspective, that means Dell doesn't need to bother selling BeOS. Business hasn't changed, so even though Arm and AMD and Apple and Huawei and Intel and Nvidia and Samsung haven't been taken to court on an antitrust case, there's all sorts of anti-competitive behavior going on. I can't buy a Samsung phone with an Apple A17 chip as the CPU. I think if the market were better regulated, I would be able to, but because we don't prohibit that kind of vertical integration, the result is an anti competitive market, and that's holding us back. We couldn't easily be generations ahead, because it's a lot of hard work, fighting lots of powerful people, but we could be.
  - hilux 2y ago
    I used to work for Sun. As for Cray, did you know that Cray used AMD chips on many of their supercomputers? I bet you didn't. As for the rest of it, you think that forcing arch rivals to collaborate on their key products, in other words, reducing competition, is the best way to help the consumer? Good luck in your Marxist-Leninist fantasy world.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      The fact that the Cray XD1 used AMD chips is well documented, but I'm not sure why that's even relevant, or why you feel the need to insult my knowledge. Increasing competition is the best way to help the consumer. I think leveling the playing field increases competition and is the best way to help the consumer. I don't know why you think I'm a communist simply because I think there's anticompetitive behavior going on. Take CPUs. Between AMD and Intel, I have to pick a motherboard that supports one or the other. This fantasy world I'm pushing would say hey you two, make a standard that both of you can agree on, so that one motherboard can have either an AMD or Intel CPU. I don't know what's communist about that. That then lets Transmeta and other players actually compete, reduces e-waste, and lets consumers decide for themselves. In my mind, setting and enforcing standards and limiting the amount of vertical monopolizing that can happen increases competition, and doesn't put you on a train to Siberia. Why were Oracle (I used to work there) and Sun even competitors? They're both so monstrously big that they had overlap, and so they were, but Oracle is known for its database software, and Sun is known for its hardware. In my fantasy world, Sun would never have competed with Oracle. Oracle would have competed with Sybase to see who could write better database software, and Sun would have competed with HP and Dell to see who could make better hardware. IBM would be split into a bunch of smaller companies that competed in each area, instead of being the monstrosity that it was and is today. Still don't see how that makes me a communist.

hcarvalhoalves 2y ago

You make it seem I’m talking about sci-fi technology. I’m talking about not intentionally crippling the product to force upgrades (easily replace batteries, backwards compatible software). It’s not rocket science and we had it before.