4 ms·

> unless we make privacy-respecting software easier to use than spyware This point is key. I don't use an Android instead of a Pinephone because I don't care.

> unless we make privacy-respecting software easier to use than spyware This point is key. I don't use an Android instead of a Pinephone because I don't care. I use an Android because Pinephone sucks right now, and I can't be hacking on the device I need to rely on to schedule my bank payments and call the emergency services if I fall in a ravine. That device has to be five-nines trustworthy. The solution is going to have to be make Pinephone suck less. That's the only way to mass adoption and actually changing the landscape. Music piracy didn't get its back broken by a sudden global attack of conscience. It got its back broken by iTunes making it more convenient to get music-to-portable-device than running a torrent server.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> Music piracy didn't get its back broken by a sudden global attack of conscience. It got its back broken by iTunes making it more convenient to get music-to-portable-device than running a torrent server. Huh? Music piracy is easier and better now than it ever has been. Every music label releases all their music, officially and for free, on YouTube. You can just download it directly from the official source. It's like Napster, if every music publisher had maintained an official account offering every song they owned, and paid commercial services to ensure that their Napster presence was up to date.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Most people just subscribe to a music streaming service because... convenience. An analyst friend of mine argued that Napster succeeded because convenience rather than free. I disagreed at the time. I think I was mostly wrong.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    The streaming service still doesn't have a convenience advantage. It has a discovery advantage. Listening to your own local music can never show you a song you weren't previously familiar with.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Mostly it does for me. I can put on some playlist that is generally satisfying enough. If I cared to put the effort into curating more playlists and spending the money on songs that I like that I'm missing I'd probably actually save money. I'm mostly not looking to discover hot new artists. Honestly, I wouldn't miss the lack of streaming much if it went away.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> Music piracy didn't get its back broken by a sudden global attack of conscience. It got its back broken by iTunes making it more convenient to get music-to-portable-device than running a torrent server. Huh? Music piracy is easier and better now than it ever has been. Every music label releases all their music, officially and for free, on YouTube. You can just download it directly from the official source. It's like Napster, if every music publisher had maintained an official account offering every song they owned, and paid commercial services to ensure that their Napster presence was up to date.

ghaff 2y ago
Most people just subscribe to a music streaming service because... convenience. An analyst friend of mine argued that Napster succeeded because convenience rather than free. I disagreed at the time. I think I was mostly wrong.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  The streaming service still doesn't have a convenience advantage. It has a discovery advantage. Listening to your own local music can never show you a song you weren't previously familiar with.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Mostly it does for me. I can put on some playlist that is generally satisfying enough. If I cared to put the effort into curating more playlists and spending the money on songs that I like that I'm missing I'd probably actually save money. I'm mostly not looking to discover hot new artists. Honestly, I wouldn't miss the lack of streaming much if it went away.