> Because breaking the stranglehold that the tech megacorps currently have over devices is not going to be cheap. In the end, if users won't pay for it to happe

> Because breaking the stranglehold that the tech megacorps currently have over devices is not going to be cheap. In the end, if users won't pay for it to happen, it won't happen. Paying for an ad blocker and paying for a device that doesn't ban ad blockers are two different things. > Ads vs. ad blocking is a perpetual arms race, and it will continue as long as the ad supported business model is the primary one the tech megacorps use Which is all the more reason ordinary people should want devices that give them the advantage in the arms race, in turn helping to disadvantage that business model. > The real solution, as the last statement suggests, is to do away with the ad supported business model. But that would require users to be willing to pay for apps that they use It would require them to pay for the apps that aren't sustainable as open source, e.g. medical device apps or similar. > Or, alternatively, users could simply stop buying devices that are locked down, and buy open ones instead. Which in turn brings us back to antitrust, since the incumbent platforms are using things like attestation to make it so your bank app doesn't run on a competing device.