Hacker News Reader

Comment by drnick1 | Hacker News Reader

> Capitalism gonna capitalism.

Then respond with more capitalism and don't buy devices that are not user-serviceable.

- Buy a PC instead of a PS5/Xbox

- Buy appliances that are compatible with Home Assistant, or stick to "dumb" devices

- Refuse to connect to the Internet devices such as TVs and cars that do not strictly need it, regardless of "convenience"

- Reject proprietary software and apps

- Only buy phones whose bootloader is unlockable, so that the stock OS can be replaced by something user-controlled

View on HN

You as an individual are not going to solve a market failure alone, that's the role of regulation.

you misunderstand, the alternatives already exist, and en masse we would ensure such alternatives survive, even without interference.

I've done all those at some point. But the lions share of people aren't even aware these issues exist. Many when brought up don't care.

This isn't really an issue where capitalism prevails in favor of the user like with some privacy issues. We need legislation to pass.

> We need legislation to pass.

Laws don't prevent firms from doing illegal things. Without public awareness, nothing will change.

Laws aren't the fine step, but the biggest one. You'd be surprised how many companies comply without any coaxing once they are made aware of new legislator.

And for those that don't: we now have a legal channel to report them to. Having the government enforce its laws is more effective than trying to arrange a general boycott.

Do laws serve any purpose? If so, what?

They do, when they are enforceable and the punishment for violations is credible. But in the tech world, punishment for things such as privacy violations and market abuse most often amounts to a trivial fine, and business then continues as usual.

The manufacturers should respond with capitalism:

- offer a locked and unlocked version and let the free market decide which is preferred. Provide an unlock option that divorces the device from corporate control and release the hardware to the customer (i.e. a MacBook that can be unlocked and put Linux on, but can never be used for macos again)

- subject to FTC anti-monopolistic regulations just like other industries. In some alternate universe, the FTC decided that sony should not have a monopoly on PS5 games, and competitors should have the ability to enter the market. This is the converse to unlocking, although competitors would still be bound to preventing copyright infringement.

Nobody is gonna buy the unlocked version if it doesn’t include the manufacturer subsidy that’s made back from users buying games

Reply on news.ycombinator.com