Slow down your thinking and consider this: why would any practical person fully develop something without getting market feedback and understanding demand?

This is by the book “Preto-typing”. You can frame it as lying, but the reality is Apple had faith that all of the “faked” features in the demonstration would be fully developed before launch.

IBM did something similar before voice-to-text existed. They faked the technology during market research and discovered that people didn’t enjoy speaking to their computer as much as initially thought. It showed them that they could better invest that money elsewhere.

It would make zero sense and be a foolish use of capital to fully develop a product that complex and expensive without understanding market preferences.

This is a non-story, rage-bait headline.

My take is that Excel is great for people to throw together quick and efficient tools for their own use. The problem is when these get distributed and then everyone uses something that has no version control or QA/QC.

I see this a lot because an engineer gets annoyed with IT or existing software restrictions and learns enough VBA to be dangerous. (Spoiler, it me.)

Didn’t Teddy Roosevelt implement wealth taxes via the Estate Tax and Capital Gains Tax?

These aren’t exactly new ideas. We’ve just slowly dismantled them over the past decades.

My summary of his book is that people rise to power by contributing to the greater good. They empathise with those around them and are likeable. Power is thus given to them by others.

The paradox is that it’s been suggested by several studies that those that gain power (or those that feel powerful) tend to be less empathetic and focus more on themselves.

He does not prescribe to the Lord of the Flies world view.

Keltner’s The Power Paradox covers this phenomenon. As we rise in power and influence, it is very easy to lose those same qualities that allowed us to gain power in the first place.

That’s interesting, thanks for bringing that up! Just goes to show that there are always multiple sides and layers to every issue.

I encourage everyone to read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

Excellent book that covers this topic with examples ranging from successful businessmen to why most professional Canadian Hockey players are born around the same time of year.

This is a great example of why completely de-regulated markets don’t work. It’s the government’s job to ensure that consumers have choices and prevent both regional and outright monopolies.

Provision of choice allows consumers to vote with their wallets unless firms collude to fix prices.

Either way, this is the fault of government regulators.

I do believe market economies are still the most efficient means of managing resources, but there have to be guardrails. Free Market implies that consumers are free to choose, but that choice shouldn’t come down to Option A or Nothing.

Apple will start selling subscription services to Android platforms including iMessage. It’s just a matter of time.

That’s a bit myopic. VC is just a fancy word for large financial backer.

You can basically credit the entire age of discovery (America, Australia, etc.) to “VC” in the form of kings and wealthy elite financing voyages.

I think modern VC goes awry when they become defacto decision makers for the venture in question.

Everything like this just means now I have to spend more of my billable hours fighting through automated bullshit.

It looks like savings on paper, but the true cost is hidden when every other employee now spends more of their time not doing their actual job.

I would love if they would just roll out an iMessage app to android. Ideally free.

I could realistically see them roll out an apple subscription pack to android eventually. Give users a way to access Apple Music, Fitness, etc. May even allow android users make use of Apple Watch.

I’m not an Apple fan boy, but this seems like a decent compromise from a business perspective. This meets a need and I don’t think there’s a decent enough argument that it would cannibalize iPhone sales (flagship models anyway)

You act like capitalism is something that was invented. Market economies have existed since the dawn of time.

Think of it more like a spectrum where free market and unregulated capitalism is on one end and economies under total state control are at the other.

There is clear evidence that one side of that spectrum favors innovation more than the other.

I guess you could argue that one end of the spectrum is more “moral” than the other, but I would counter that the opposite end is amoral rather than immoral.

You’re confusing economic systems with systems of government.

I’m interested to hear how you explain the drive to create streaming as an option to cable without including tenets of a market driven economy.

Reddit/Lemmy/Etc really has a hard-on to blame all bad things on capitalism. Capitalism is amoral. It is cold and uncaring. But not recognizing it as a driving factor for growth, innovation and societal advancement is a path of willful ignorance.

Everything has pros and cons in life.

Don’t blame tech, blame the bait-and-switch business model of loss leading products.

Uber never made money because they chose to undercut prices of all competitors and bleed them out.

I’d argue that newer streaming companies (those founded by studios, such as Disney +) did the same thing by roping in customers before jacking up prices.

It may be the “fault” of capitalism, but consider it was capitalism that birthed streaming in the first place. In the long term, the expectation would be a better solution will surface in reference to streaming… the same way streaming was a solution to cable. Thus is the business cycle.

Yes. We will never be able to change the things we want to change unless we first understand them. Also, money.