I was on hacker news scrolling reading through and across a title:
"America's confidence in technology firms has dropped"
and figured I'd give my perspective, after reading a user comment:
"OP has a point - the incentives for tech companies are profoundly fucked right now. We need to get the profit motives aligned with the good of society."
Here's the thing:
The people's digital lives have been weaponized due to lack of respect by big tech and lack of demand for morale towards big tech by general users.
As a result:
We've come at crossing roads where it seems as though the only choice for users is to either double down on the ecosystem(s) that they are using or opt-in for an opensource alternative.
However,
there's a little problem: the average user barely comprehends what a command line is, let alone the stereotype(s) pushed by mainstream media where most associate Linux/UNIX with a system for hackers or tech-savvy individuals;
it has created tensions and stress for ones heavily invested in either one of the FANG Eco-systems(s).
Therefore,
I propose: if opensource developer community and individuals alike, come together and organize systems that directly fund either individual/teams of developers creating said alternative;
we have a chance at breaking out of exile from these invasive practices being pushed on the public by big tech.
That being said...
First, the individuals have to all agree on a general direction and compartmentalize each project, while designating it for a specific scope (mobile/stationary/cloud/offline/etc...).
For instance: I grew up using Apple products, I even worked at their retail stores. My only gripe in general of how Apple is handling things is their current vision and organization of doing things.
They've traded the end-user for more capital. Part of it, I blame on users for demanding a new product every quarter; creating constant need for unending hype every season.
As a result, this has caused innovation to dwindle; while it's never just Apple facing this current problem,
other FANG big tech companies like Google are dealing with similar dilemma:
"How can we make more from the user?"
You know Google is an ad company that gets it's user analytics from the search engine (which has also been weaponized), so I'm never shocked by their current practices.
Another factor,
ease-of-access and scalability has caused hardware innovation stagnancy by big tech; despite emerging markets making progress irrespective of current trends.
Innovation by big tech has been replaced with incremental optimizations marketed as "Brand New".
Based on this, it is why you keep seeing the same product(s) with a different name and a big ticket price using base specs of previous model(s). Let alone, the attempted cover-up with more line-up options...
If the average user became more self competent; these trends may eventually fade...
As it is:
without competence, users are going to keep getting taken advantage of.
I'm never saying you should know the chip inside your phone, how many memory busses it has or the hardware addresses of each component;
thought it does pay a long way to know the basic difference between the newer model compared to previous one(s), in order to prevent companies from selling the same rebranded product.
I mean,
"I thought they where talking about reducing e-waste and carbon footprint; yet the same few key players are doing opposite"?
For instance,
I personally (my own view) think there was no reason for the iPhone14 or 15.
When you really look closely and dial the clock back and observe one of Apple's core values they're known for:
optimization...
To them it would have been as simple as: "Hey, we are no longer releasing the next 2 generations of iPhone; instead we are going to focus on optimization of the current line-up..."
This would've likely built further trust between end-user and vendor and likely increased their revenue for digital products/services.
Even then,
a real ground-breaking iPhone would be way more likely to sale like the first 4s, had they taken this approach compared to what is currently going on: recycling same parts while doing partial upgrades.
It's now up to the people to decide where the future of technology is headed.
The days of being spoon-fed are over. We've learned what this can do (surveillance capitalism, anti-competitive practices, cyber attacks, mass censorship, etc..) more or less.
The opportunity is now to see what trends emerge from innovation empowered directly by the people instead of letting the few big players decide for us.
Part of what is stopping this is lack of agreement (currently we are too disorganized to make any real change) on general goals of what we intend to accomplish as the users of their product(s).
I watched Google come up with a bootstrap (Chrome OS) operating system forked from Gentoo Linux, that is now likely to be a worthy competitor of the current options on market.
Meanwhile the rest of opensource community specific to Linux; is yet to decide on base standard(s) for everyday computing are.
Linux has been around for a while,
but yet the current standard for a desktop interface, is MIA (missing in action). Instead the user has to go out there and source it on the own.
Further more, they have to also do prior research in order to find what works for their use case. Let alone, digging through forums to see if their component(s) is going to be compatible with their custom setup, including hardware.
In other words:
if the surface part of opensource Linux/UNIX becomes more user-friendly and the useless developer politics drops to a manageable level: the future or personal computing may likely be in the hands of the people, instead of dictation by few hands motivated by increasing share-holder portfolios.
Keep in mind:
I got nothing against co-operations, I am simply stating they has to be a balance.
Unless, big tech can be tasked with the heavier more detailed parts of personal computing like hardware manufacturing or digital infrastructure management, while being held accountable for their actions:
Maybe then we'd see more innovation in a progressive direction.
Therefore,
until the people start to come together and agree on specific standards while leaving room to continue the research and development of opensource technologies (or what Linux/UNIX has always been known for): the same questions will go unanswered and big tech will keep abusing it's users.
Yes, the world may be going through turbulence at the moment;
but I believe there's no moment like now to come together and at least agree on the basics, before we keep heading down a questionable path.
Open source is great and is one of the most direct way to get into computing at low risk without prior qualification. For this same reason is also why it ought to be handled delicately and imperatively:
we are entering an age of personalized solutions that require molecularity & flexibility. I'm reluctant to say that big tech knows what's best for everyone based on this direction.
The ball is the people's hand; now we decide how things play out.
Top comments (0)