Viewing a history listing
This is my attempt to make it possible to respond at length to Morbius's tootstorm on Mastodon, which appears to have started here.
I'm going to keep the toots separate in order to allow for individual threads off each one, for clearer context.
I've also interpreted a bit and left out some interstitial pieces.
"The whole history of Microsoft from its origin is about the primacy of software over hardware. Hardware is a commodity — software is where the value lies."
This ... explains so much.
It's also an interesting example of how framing blinds one to further understanding: do we argue the merits of HW vs. SW in this dichotomy, or look for value elsewhere?
What of computers as nodes on a network: traffic, search, attention, users (you remember users, right?), ads, etc.
The article describes MS and OSes, Vista particularly, but touches on what the different components of a system do: the OS, the applications, the hardware. The network. Netscape and Java as threats to the shrinkwrap moat Microsoft had built.
Too: if SW is your value proposition, what could /possibly/ be more threatening than the concept of Free Software.
There are two ways to control a river: one is to dam it. The other is to steal it. Diverting flows can be far more powerful.
The fundamental problem, for the organisation (or individual) looking at modifying the shape of this space is: how do I sustain my own efforts?
Microsoft threw a moat around a commodity by way of per-CPU licensing -- the phenomenal break which launched an empire.
Microsoft were threatened when its monetisation gateway -- shrinkrwaps, preloads, per-CPU licenses -- was challenged by DR-DOS, Novell, Sun, Netscape, Linux, BeOS. And ultimately Google, Search, Ads. And Gmail.
The war of the Five Titans now is one over where to dig moats and lay down drawbridges, and ticket-booths. Google. Apple. Amazon. Facebook. Microsoft.
MS is still, mostly, based on preloads and sales, though it's shifting to subscriptions + ads.
Google is straight-up advertising.
Apple refutes that hardware is a commodity.
Amazon sells ... everything else.
Facebook is Google, but weaker: Advertising without intentionality. (But it's bigly useful for tyrants and puppets.)
If I can call a winner out of the set, I'm leaning to Amazon.
(I don't /want/ to lean to Amazon, but it seems to make sense.)
The problem with Google, Microsoft, and Facebook, is that what they're selling is ultimately what the /user/ does not want: ads.
Amazon, though, has what we really want: /stuff/. Food, clothing, furniture, books, movies, hardware, software. Some of which you absolutely need to live, and yes, much of which you don't (which means an incentive for over-selling).
But stuff is what everything else (and most especially ads) are trying to deliver.
What Apple's got to offer is probably next-best: ideally, a solid set of hardware -- desktop, laptop, and a massive shit-ton of mobile devices. Things you can hold, or at least put your hands on.
Things which don't have to be a channel for slamming more crud down the users' maws (though Apple does seem to be moving rather distressingly in this direction). Which means a much better experience, overall.
Google and Facebook are the Devil and L'il Evil. Both of them are increasingly creepy, spooky, surveilling, and intruding, unavoidably, where users (and non-users) don't want them to be.
The reward systems of each company are fundamentally aligned against user interests. Something a couple of Stanford researches pointed out a while back.
Question I've got is: what other options are there?
Silicon Valley and Ycombinator have been cranking out iterations over the past decade or so with no real relief in sight. Variations on the "we are going to invade your life with ads" are common, anything else, not so much, in the general systems, hardware, or services category.
Business services are the chief exception.
Question I've got, and no, I don't really have an answer to it: where else might the value lie?
Why can't we solve the problem of "provide general information-system access to the masses" without turning into assholes, creeps, thugs, and/or spies? Or insulting the customers?
Are we holding it wrong?
The answer is to put it down and get a different model.
...by which I mean, of course, a different business model: one oriented towards the public good rather than towards shareholder profits. (Stop me if this is sounding familiar.)
(originally posted here)
Models built around shareholder profits seem to dominate though. Why is that?
The answer seems like a no-brainer to me, but I'm having trouble wordifying it...
Okay, short version: because for-profit investors are the entities with the lion's share of resources in our society, as it now stands.
(originally posted here)
"Shareholders have resources" punts on the question why do shareholders have value?
I've been digging into dynamics of joint-stock ownership, limited liability, various mint and money acts, financial conferences, etc., over the past couple of years, with a few interesting hits in the past few days. I apply the principle of William R. Cattton, Jr.: focusing on the /personalities/ involved -- or even some given identifiable social group, strikes me as grossly miscast.
The problem transcends this. It's based on some set of dynamics.
What is it about the overall structure, the feedbacks, the dynamics? How can this possibly be addressed?
For example: what are the types of goods, services, or other phenomena which are priced within an economic system, and what is the behaviour of those prices?
Crack open Smith and you'll find commodities, labour, skilled labour, rent, stock, capital, and money discussed. It's a good start.
And in the case of rents, the salient behaviour is that a rentier is one who is able to extract the surplus value out of a system.
I've been flipping this around for a while, and trying to sort out why, and what it is that rent-producing entities are. What I'm leaning toward is that they are network control nodes. That is, if you own a rent-producing entity, you control a gateway through a network.
And if the orientation itself is a problem, how do you change things such that that orientation is less successful.
How do you steal the river?