alt Hacker News> I talked about this just two days ago. Unlike how you project it, that ideal is entirely feasible if there was enough investment and a large enough market. Instead, OEMs inflict the opposite on the consumers who take it all in without pushing back. These companies choose and spread suboptimal designs that suit their interests and then insist that it is the only viable way forward. It's absurd that consumers also repeat that falsehood.
Talk is cheap. Reality is a better indicator of what is and isn’t feasible, and it’s not like there haven’t been many attempts towards that ideal, but for whatever reason, Apple’s model is the desirable one, for most.
Replies
Even more unimaginative dismissals are not what I wish to debate. I have already explained why this argument is disingenuous at best. Apple's model isn't the best. It just appears so because these companies never put significant effort into better alternatives and the consumers never demanded it. I keep trying to point this out - this is a repeated misdirection tactic employed by these companies and their fans.
I've seen it from Netflix, Steam, and several others. People simply love having all their eggs in one basket, and will stubbornly support it long past the state it starts to exploit them. They support security over freedom every time, consistently.
It's a bit crude, but it's also why I'm not surprised AI is catching on so quickly. People will happily outsource their ability to "think" if the product is convincing enough to them. We already spent the last decade or 2 trying to maximize the dopamine hits from social media. Now there's a tech that can (pretend to) understand your individualized needs? Ready to answer to your Beck and call and never makes you feel bad?
Not as cool as thr VR pod dystopia, but I guess I overestimated how much stimulation humanity needed to reject itself.