On the other hand there are things like this:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/upperstory/spintronics-...
Now it will be up-to parents to decide whether they want to bring up an iPhone consumer kid or more of a PC creative kid.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/upperstory/spintronics-...
Now it will be up-to parents to decide whether they want to bring up an iPhone consumer kid or more of a PC creative kid.
It reminds me a bit of Oliver's, a fast food chain in Australia. They set up shop at roadhouses along major highways, and market themselves as a healthy alternative to McDonalds or KFC. You look at the menu, though, and it consists of organic acai berries, quinoa, antioxidant-rich kale smoothies and the like. They've hyper-optimised their brand's goal/mission to the point where the product is unapproachable and unaffordable for most consumers.
All we want is chicken and rice, but our choice is between a double bacon cheeseburger or an overpriced organic bliss bowl.
If you ever fly to (the US via) SFO, perhaps check out Amy's at terminal 1B:
(Technically I think you cannot/should not drive through the airport location.)
If I was on holidays in the US, I don't think I'd be looking for healthier options as much as I'd want BBQ sauce, ribs and burgers.
I mean, technically it is, but then so is the microwave timer controller.
In terms of user interaction, an iPhone does its best to be an appliance, not a general-purpose computer. So do Android smartphones - lest one thing it's an Apple problem, it's not. It's a modern computing problem.
At least you get to run arbitrary software on them as a standard feature. And on many, the bootloader is unlockable, so you could root the thing and/or tinker with the OS.
The modern computing problem isn't this particular thing, it lies higher. It's presuming that the user is stupid and can't possibly be trusted with figuring stuff out and making their own informed decisions. Won't be surprised if people who design software like this consider every setting a liability.
I agree with that. It's pretty much an unquestioned axiom in the industry. You can see it mentioned in almost every article or book about writing software, doing UI design or UX work. The user is stupid. They're incapable of thinking for themselves, figuring things out, having their own goals. They have to be carefully guided so they follow the exact path the software prescribes for them, and incentivized along the way with "engagement patterns", lest they get bored mid way.
> Won't be surprised if people who design software like this consider every setting a liability.
Which is funny, because the first thing every single piece of software on this planet does, is disclaiming any and all liability for anything.
So the kind of liability they feel, I believe, is just that of getting bad press over some reviewers deciding something is too confusing, leading to reduced sales.
It's even more malicious than that. The corporations and governments are hostile towards users. They lock the computer down so we can't do anything that harms business and government interests. Can't copy or share files. Can't use strong cryptography the government can't crack.
These people believe computers are too subversive to allow the masses unrestricted access to them. They would rather we have nothing but restricted appliances that obey them instead of us. The computer doesn't serve us, it serves them as a tool to control us.