Though I see a difference between "obsoleted to prop up sales of new gadgets" and "throttled to improve stability", Apple failed at comms here.
But it's the modern mantra to do it anyway and apologize if someone complains. Cause really, why spend time/money in advance of a possible non-issue?
Free market decided long ago customers were the product, not the customer. We will be treated how they want and appear to put up with it just fine, given the stock market.
> There's a reason that who it is matters, and unfortunately, that still leads to people being selected who reflect the starting set of less-than-diverse people.
I'd agree with arguments that this is true more because of network effects than whether others can do the job or not.
If you're only looking to repeat success, skilled folks are the best bet.
But it leaves others who want to learn behind. And a lot of the folks with skills got there because someone propped them up.
I'm just totally done with the idea our economy needs to be this fucking "always grow, always invent" scheme. So much of it is pointless shit that doesn't add to human discovery, rather it serves to change values in a bank account.
I'd rather we focus on getting the basics right; healthcare, food, shelter, for the masses. Make that our daily focus, and give people time otherwise to find their talent or cool idea.
But we're too addicted to universities telling us economics are like laws of physics and thus we must abide and live by them. Which is not much different than churches telling us the Bible is like laws of physics and the only model for living and we must abide.
Smart folks get lost in their discoveries and pretend they apply to all of us. And manipulative folks will take that and make it the law of the land for their benefit.
I can't help but think you're talking about modern billionaires too, like Bill Gates or Buffet, who basically traded in a finance market measures of others efforts.
Did he provide a benefit? Sure. Did he provide one that humanity couldn't have provided on its own? Dubious. Open-source could have been the de facto provider of an operating system.
IBM was gifted technology designed, build, and paid for the government taxes.
The rich only ever get rich off public invention, collective effort. Yet the myth is one of self-sufficiency (nevermind all the basic organization in society that has to be such that it can lift up a "tycoon" in the first place - we keep layering on self-made myth because a more sober telling of reality likely means they're not rich anymore -- we fetishize their status more than their real efforts).
When will we be done with this financial chicanery? Probably never since these models keep popping up in human society.
But it's the modern mantra to do it anyway and apologize if someone complains. Cause really, why spend time/money in advance of a possible non-issue?
Free market decided long ago customers were the product, not the customer. We will be treated how they want and appear to put up with it just fine, given the stock market.