I believe this is genuine support of the bill from Apple. Between Right to Repair winning in Massachusetts and the EU demanding compliance, I think Apple decided to flip the script. They would want to continue the illusion of customer friendly tech.

  • @Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    Very well thought out statement imo, thank you.

    I agree that the hardcore apple people are kind of cult like. But next comes where I disagree: We can’t teach a cult member that his cult is bad without being a trained therapist (most times).

    So imo we need to start earlier and outlaw the formation of these cults. They‘re not healthy and definitely not necessary as marketers would like you to believe.

    Think about it: sports teams, digital games, consoles. They all are cult like and all of them take away critical thinking. People go nuts over their favorite sports team and will often complain (in my experience) of spending too much money on them, even if they struggle to keep stuff running smoothly.

    The counter argument will be: „but that strengthens morale and keeps them going!“ No, wrong. It is one form of socializing that could have been done without alcohol in a better setting. It also keeps a lot of them on the hook.

    The counter argument again is: „But not everyone has that kind of problem. No need to ruin it for everyone!“ Again, wrong. This argument is also self defeating as it implies that the person using it has no regard for people who fall victim to these practices. Also, I don’t want to outlaw soccer teams but the marketing strategies behind them. The aggravating language, the false sense of purpose behind owning a certain console and so on.

    • Interesting take, mind if I dig a little deeper?

      The key part of Apple’s success is that they make idiotproof devices for people who want something to “just work” (insert linux desktop memes here). The way I’ve come to understand it in the last couple years (having relatives who’ve drank the cool-aid and are starting to spot the cracks in the facade), is that they have been pulled in by values way up high in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. They are locked into the ecosystem, believing that their current solution is somehow ideal and they seem most of all afraid that anything else will completely turn their world upside down. The weird part is that Apple manages somehow to convince people they are the only ones capable of providing an experience that will cover those needs.

      The thing is: Being convinced that there is no greener grass elsewhere puts up a barrier to entry into the unknown. I really do wonder if the solution there is cracking down on marketing, as it would require broad sweeping legislation that would likely defeat the purpose.

      Sure, companies will put forth the occasional blatant lie, misrepresenting their product, but oftentimes the heavy lifting is done by the established brand image. I would not know where to begin preventing such an image from forming in the first place without community pushback.

      And that is where my original point comes in: If we push back by ridiculing the userbase we’ll have a culture war on our hands. The trick is to be smarter than that and actually show them that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Every time the consumer gets fucked over by corporate greed, it is because we’ve let it happen by accepting the slippery slope brought upon us. (Publicly traded) companies will only listen to financial consequences from their actions, which means we have the power to stop their bullshit by not buying into it. Doing so requires a large enough group of people to start spending money elsewhere.

      Problem is: The current market is affected by Apple’s shenanigans (though examples of the same pattern are also found in other industries). Which means other manufacturers are copying all the anti-consumer design decisions and you’re not left with much of a choice.

      This is where legislation comes in. By providing basic consumer protections like in the proposed right to repair bills, we can at least be sure to have the option of choosing our own repair provider.

      Though I’m curious if there is an additional angle we need to explore as consumers. Having said all the above, would you still disagree that educating our peers in a respectful manner will lead to people changing their behaviour, and if so, why?

      • @Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Thanks again for explaining ans elaborating in depth.

        I‘ve been saying this for years and I might sound like a broken record by now:

        As someone who has spent 18 yrs in marketing I have the strong suspicion that „occasional blatant misrepresentations“ are not the problem. They are pretty easy to spot.

        What isn’t as easy to spot is the following:

        • Having tons of fun while drinking an alcoholic beverage
        • Being so cool and free when smoking a cigarette

        Those are two types of ads that don’t „misrepresent“ the product but still play with your desires (being accepted and having status).

        Now people always go like „but thats how you make ads!“ Not true. Thats how you make them now. It used to be (google it) and in parts still is a product representation instead of a lifestyle brand thing.

        This is where I see the danger, especially for young and/or vulnerable people. They are told that „cool, connected people need this“ and their subconscious gobbles it up.

        Now a lot of people go „but I am not like this.“ Wrong, you and I and everyone else is like this. You just may not be as susceptible to it than others are, hurray! This argument still makes you unempathetic towards the endless number of people who are less mentally strong than you are.

        I could go on for days. Probably should write a q & a about it and link to it at some point.

        Some facts:

        • companies use mental health professionals to analyse how to break our critical thinking to sell us more stuff, regardless if we need it
        • alcohol and tobacco ads are banned in some countries for the exact reason that they were so successful (and deadly) with the lifestyle idea
        • it is easy to break this by disallowing closed ecosystems, proprietary protocols and forcing interoperability and open standards
        • outlawing lifestyle ads and any kind of misleading/easily misunderstandable language or pictures will stop pulling in non tech people into buying or wanting a phone they cant even use fully.
        • That was awesome, thanks for sharing.

          I fully get what you’re saying and I think I know a thing or two about how lifestyle branding consumes people’s lives to the point where they’re fully absorbed.

          Social media platforms seem to be by far the worst offenders of stimulating this kind of addiction (let’s just name it for what it is).

          Coming from a background of designing products, as opposed to selling them I tend to be focused on product representation, rather than selling an idea. Which is not actually the route to making stupid amounts of money.

          You’ve convinced me that marketing is definitely part of the problem. Here in the Netherlands they’ve recently (about two years ago) relaxed some legislation on online gambling (gambling itself is legal, just the ads weren’t) and since we’ve seen a surge of ads on television and social media featuring sports icons and influencers. The result has been a giant increase in profits, which directly corelates to figures of increased debt, prevalent mostly in young adults. I firmly believe this is toxic and needs to be fixed asap.

          If you do decide to host a Q&A I’ll be sure to have a look for more cool insights.

          • @Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Thank you very much! I appreciate the acknowledgment.

            You‘re correct and then some, Social Media is more or less a giant ad platform, at least conventional ones are. The fediverse has no real „ads“ but a lot of jerks try to advertise for free here. That’s hardly gonna be a real problem (I hope).

            Product design sounds like a cool job as well. Still tech or something else entirely?

            The issue with marketing is precedent:

            1. you go to mcd‘s or any other burger restaurant, the image shows giant burgers.
            2. your mouth waters, you order a burger
            3. what arrives bears no resemblance with the picture. This should be outlawed!

            From there we have precedent that we are allowed to lie „a little bit“. Not keep information for us like a good salesman but outright misrepresent the product.

            The same goes for all other products. You see a motor drill in a hardware store prospect: 39,99* Farther down the page, it says „if you are gold member [and we sell your data], otherwise 139.99.“

            And there you have it again, precedent. If we allow giant companies to market like this, we shouldn’t wonder why they bullshit us in every other alley (taxes, labor laws, environment).

            Thanks for encouraging me to make a q&a, will definitely let you know if I do. But since you‘re seemingly one of three people on the internet who is open to learn stuff, how would you think some kind of podcast/blog? Would you participate?