3 ms·

Probably true, but maybe you should also ask them how much they would be willing to pay to fix that. I guess it would be less than $100 for the lifetime of thei

Probably true, but maybe you should also ask them how much they would be willing to pay to fix that. I guess it would be less than $100 for the lifetime of their device.

cwel 3mo ago
This implies that a better version is on offer. It is not. You get the telemetry stuffed, stuttery garbage, and your company pays for it.
- echoangle 3mo ago
  That wasn’t what I meant. I am saying that the reason nobody offers better software is that people don’t want it enough. The average user is a little bit annoyed from time to time but not enough to actually care, so there’s no pressure to change.
  - cwel 3mo ago
    I understand what you meant. > the reason nobody offers better software is that people don’t want it enough I wouldn't say that's THE reason, or even a contender. The average user has little agency over what the established tools are. There is no pressure to change the tools because there is no competition. You use what your employer dictates. office and/or gsuite. Whether or not people 'want it enough' has very little to do with whether something actually occurs. > average user is a little bit annoyed from time to time but not enough to actually care this part is still true.
    - echoangle 3mo ago
      But this only explains why software used for work is like that. What about software people use privately and where they could chose a different one?
      - Dylan16807 3mo ago
        When you go buy a CPU you have twenty different points on the price versus performance curve to choose from, if not more. And they all have roughly the same feature list. When you buy software to do some task, you have a lot fewer choices, they differ wildly in other features, and it's unclear which ones perform well.
Dylan16807 3mo ago
That would pay for so many millions of dollars of dev time. It would be a big win-win if you could organize that deal. In the tradeoff between more dev time and better hardware, typical consumer software is way too tilted toward the latter and wasting lots of money. If you don't think people are willing to pay, phrase it as $100 more for software and $200 less for hardware with better overall performance. The problem is that hardware performance is easy to upgrade and software performance isn't.
dijit 3mo ago
> Probably true, but maybe you should also ask them how much they would be willing to pay to fix that. Clearly at least $100 (not adjusted for inflation) based on trends from 1990-2015. Peoples primary reason for upgrading computer was better performance for years, after all.

Probably true, but maybe you should also ask them how much they would be willing to pay to fix that. I guess it would be less than $100 for the lifetime of their device.

cwel 3mo ago

This implies that a better version is on offer. It is not. You get the telemetry stuffed, stuttery garbage, and your company pays for it.

echoangle 3mo ago
That wasn’t what I meant. I am saying that the reason nobody offers better software is that people don’t want it enough. The average user is a little bit annoyed from time to time but not enough to actually care, so there’s no pressure to change.
- cwel 3mo ago
  I understand what you meant. > the reason nobody offers better software is that people don’t want it enough I wouldn't say that's THE reason, or even a contender. The average user has little agency over what the established tools are. There is no pressure to change the tools because there is no competition. You use what your employer dictates. office and/or gsuite. Whether or not people 'want it enough' has very little to do with whether something actually occurs. > average user is a little bit annoyed from time to time but not enough to actually care this part is still true.
  - echoangle 3mo ago
    But this only explains why software used for work is like that. What about software people use privately and where they could chose a different one?
    - Dylan16807 3mo ago
      When you go buy a CPU you have twenty different points on the price versus performance curve to choose from, if not more. And they all have roughly the same feature list. When you buy software to do some task, you have a lot fewer choices, they differ wildly in other features, and it's unclear which ones perform well.

Dylan16807 3mo ago

That would pay for so many millions of dollars of dev time. It would be a big win-win if you could organize that deal. In the tradeoff between more dev time and better hardware, typical consumer software is way too tilted toward the latter and wasting lots of money. If you don't think people are willing to pay, phrase it as $100 more for software and $200 less for hardware with better overall performance. The problem is that hardware performance is easy to upgrade and software performance isn't.

dijit 3mo ago

> Probably true, but maybe you should also ask them how much they would be willing to pay to fix that. Clearly at least $100 (not adjusted for inflation) based on trends from 1990-2015. Peoples primary reason for upgrading computer was better performance for years, after all.