'By 2030, You Won't Own Any Gadgets' (gizmodo.com) 259
"By 2030, technology will have advanced to the point that even the idea of owning objects might be obsolete," argues a thought-provoking new piece by Gizmodo's consumer tech reporter:
Back in 2016, the World Economic Forum released a Facebook video with eight predictions it had for the world in 2030. "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy," it says. "Whatever you want, you'll rent. And it'll be delivered by drone...."
In some ways, not owning things is easier. You have fewer commitments, less responsibility, and the freedom to bail whenever you want. There are upsides to owning less. There's also a big problem... The reality is when you buy a device that requires proprietary software to run, you don't own it. The money you hand over is an entry fee, nothing more. When everything is a lease, you also agree to a life defined by someone else's terms... When hardware is merely a vessel for software and not a useful thing on its own, you don't really get to decide anything. A company will decide when to stop pushing vital updates. It might also decide what you do with the product after it's "dead...." The power has shifted so that companies set the parameters, and consumers have to make do with picking the lesser of several evils...
You can trace much of this back to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which basically makes it illegal to circumvent "digital locks" that protect a company's proprietary software... One day in the future, if you buy a physical house, you will likely have to rent the software that operates it. You won't really have a say in the updates that get pushed out, or the features that get taken away. You'll have less of a say in when you renovate or upgrade, even if you want to continue using the house as is. You might not even have the right to do DIY repairs yourself. Just because you've bought a smart washing machine, doesn't mean you'll be allowed to repair it yourself if it breaks — or if you'll be allowed to pick which repair shop can fix it for you. You only have to look as far as John Deere, Apple, and General Motors. Each one of these companies has argued that people who bought their products weren't allowed to repair them unless they were from a pre-approved shop.
The scary thing is that only sounds terrible if you have the mental energy to care about principles.
Making decisions all the time is difficult, and it's easier when someone else limits the options you can choose from. It's not hard to turn a blind eye to a problem if, for the most part, your life is made a little simpler. Isn't that what every tech company says it's trying to do? Make your life a little simpler? Life is hard enough already, and living in a home that maintains itself so long as you hand over control — well, by 2030, who's to say that's not what we'll all want?
In some ways, not owning things is easier. You have fewer commitments, less responsibility, and the freedom to bail whenever you want. There are upsides to owning less. There's also a big problem... The reality is when you buy a device that requires proprietary software to run, you don't own it. The money you hand over is an entry fee, nothing more. When everything is a lease, you also agree to a life defined by someone else's terms... When hardware is merely a vessel for software and not a useful thing on its own, you don't really get to decide anything. A company will decide when to stop pushing vital updates. It might also decide what you do with the product after it's "dead...." The power has shifted so that companies set the parameters, and consumers have to make do with picking the lesser of several evils...
You can trace much of this back to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which basically makes it illegal to circumvent "digital locks" that protect a company's proprietary software... One day in the future, if you buy a physical house, you will likely have to rent the software that operates it. You won't really have a say in the updates that get pushed out, or the features that get taken away. You'll have less of a say in when you renovate or upgrade, even if you want to continue using the house as is. You might not even have the right to do DIY repairs yourself. Just because you've bought a smart washing machine, doesn't mean you'll be allowed to repair it yourself if it breaks — or if you'll be allowed to pick which repair shop can fix it for you. You only have to look as far as John Deere, Apple, and General Motors. Each one of these companies has argued that people who bought their products weren't allowed to repair them unless they were from a pre-approved shop.
The scary thing is that only sounds terrible if you have the mental energy to care about principles.
Making decisions all the time is difficult, and it's easier when someone else limits the options you can choose from. It's not hard to turn a blind eye to a problem if, for the most part, your life is made a little simpler. Isn't that what every tech company says it's trying to do? Make your life a little simpler? Life is hard enough already, and living in a home that maintains itself so long as you hand over control — well, by 2030, who's to say that's not what we'll all want?
Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I run Linux at home so that I can control what my computer does. I use a Pixel so that I only have one megacorp's layer of privacy-invading, liberty-restricting software on my phone. My home is "dumb" because I don't want to hand control and usage statistics over to whatever other company. I spent time building a widget to monitor my sump pump rather than buy an IoT thing for the same reason. If my options are to rent every fucking thing I use, or to become a modern-day Luddite, I'll choose the latter and not look back.
Re:Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless people with guns take away my devices and force me to use the new ones, I think I'll just use what I have now and if I need to, I can probably build some device instead of buying an IoT one.
If a device requires an internet connection to work, even though its function does not need it, I'm not using it. If I can't get an AC unit that can be managed locally over the network (SNMP, telnet, web), then I'm better off just buying an AC unit that can only be managed with the remote control, I am not going to use an IoT device where the manufacturer can cut off my access at any time.
From TFS:
One day in the future, if you buy a physical house, you will likely have to rent the software that operates it.
Well, I would rather just buy a different house or negotiate the price of this house down enough that I would have money left over to hire contractors to rewire the house and rip all the "smart" crap out. I can walk to a light switch. Maybe when I'm old I won't be able to, but there are still ways to do this without IoT.
Re: Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:3)
I use home assistant and only buy IoT devices that I can put 3rd party firmware on. All the automation is on its own vlan with only the server allowed online for updates. No data leaves the house.
Re: Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
You quite simply, good person, are not doing enough. I find all that sort of stuff an annoyance, why bother with that effort. You can sort of expend that effort only once, work to make it illegal for them do it, why, because I don't want to have the hassle of having to work to keep them out. I want the police to arrest them, the courts to prosecute them and correctional services to 'ADJUST THEIR BEHAVIOUR'. I neither want to learn how to keep them out nor make the effort to do so. I want the criminal justice system to DESTROY them confiscate their assets and wipe out their corporations, imprison all those the broke the laws we force in because what ever reason we want to.
I see that as far more reasonable than making the effort to have to learn to keep them out and apply it, really rather unfair to have to go through, far simpler for me, to just have been beat up and arrested, thrown in jail, prosecuted and left there. A whole lot easier than all the stuff you are doing and thus more fair.
Re: (Score:3)
I can walk to a light switch. Maybe when I'm old I won't be able to, but there are still ways to do this without IoT.
The Clapper?
Re: (Score:3)
Hire a butler.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe when I'm old I won't be able to, but there are still ways to do this without IoT.
You can have a dog and teach it to switch on the light. Or have sound activated switches, e.g. with a clap of your hands.
Re: (Score:3)
As some other have said before me, it's never smart, it's just stupid automation hidden behind a glossy surface and it will fuck something up at the least convenient time. Doubly so if it can be remote controlled.
Re: (Score:3)
Doubly so if it can be remote controlled.
Sometimes the remote control mitigates more risk than it creates. For example, I'm pretty comfortable with how my locks are secured over the internet, and the 'auto-lock when someone leaves' mitigates risk of an accidentally unlocked door being opened by an opportunistic kid in the neighborhood. In *theory* sure someone could break my security remotely and unlock my door, but the chances they manage to do so *and* know my address *and* be in a position to take advantage of it are far lower than 'whoops I fo
Re: (Score:2)
A house does not NEED to be a so-called 'smart house'.
All of this they're pushing is just BULLSHIT, plain and simple, and they're all RENT SEEKERS.
Doesn't *need* to be, but man it sure is convenient. Whoever built my house put 23 light switches on the first floor (which is only around 1000 sq ft)
It sure is nice to have one button to push to turn on a group of lights in the kitchen/dining area instead of having to walk to 4 different locations to turn them on, or to double click my bedroom light switch when I go to bed to have the rest of the house lights turn off.
I use local Z-wave switches and a non-cloud Hubitat hub to control it all.
Re:Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Smart homes and smart cities and smart grids are all "to save the environment" and "meet our legal commitments to net zero", so yes, it'll be mandated. It's literally what Mussolini called "Corporatism".
Re: Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:2)
Re: Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:2)
That standard you is surprisingly rare, the generation coming through now doesn't want facebook, and likely never will, that's why facebook tried to buy them with whatsapp, but they all just switched to something else (mostly tick toc it seems)
Re: Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that. Doesn't take long for the third-party ROM scene to dry up as phones and technology move on. I have several phones that were once well-supported by LineageOS or it's ancestor. But of course today not at all. It takes a lot of resources to keep firmware patched and updated and still working on the older devices, so it's not surprising that most older phones quickly lose support. I acknowledge that in phone age your 2013 S4 is ancient and I'm impressed it is still supported by the Line
Re:Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know who says "you'll own nothing, rent everything, and like it"? RENT SEEKERS!
Screw them. Screw the 1%. Screw downgrading the 99% to being just peasants and slaves. FUCK ALL THAT SHIT.
I'd rather see the Earth burn to a cinder in a world war than let that sort of bullshit destroy our lives.
Yes, but (Score:2)
is the rusty chainsaw running?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fuck. That. Shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't worry too much. People are notoriously and almost universally awful at predicting the future, especially with regards to tech.
Do you remember how many people in the media were speculating that the PS4 and Xbox One were likely to be the last generation of console ever? This was right in the middle of the smartphone boom. Why would you buy a gaming console when everyone would have their own personal supercomputer (and thereby completing missing the point of a console).
Yeah... oops. Everyone who
Re: (Score:2)
My home is "dumb" because I don't want to hand control and usage statistics over to whatever other company.
And a thousand Slashdot nerds cry out "Home Assistant!!"
Re: (Score:3)
I usually check is something can be hacked before buying it. Some companies are actually waking up to hackability being a selling point, e.g. there are lots of ESP32 based smart devices that can take open-source Tasmota firmware and it's the only reason many people buy them.
Rent Seeking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple claims when you buy an iPhone, it is their platform.
Re: (Score:3)
One first big step would be to push Rights to Repair through. But I'm sure the idiots will argue that this will stifle innovation or something other stupid that's not even related to the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
How does Right to Repair solve this? Apple sells non-user-serviceable computers, phones, and copyrighted software. Microsoft is now making non-user-serviceable laptops and desktops under the Surface brand. Every car brand makes ASE-serviceable-only cars, and they're not handing out ASE licenses to non-dealers anymore.
This causes expensive services, but cheaper devices.
Messes were common at homes due to user-done oil changes in the past. Computers that can't be opened can't be contaminated by "This Is Fire"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, we'd rather kill those who steal software and shows...
Re: Rent Seeking (Score:2)
If you don't own anything... (Score:5, Interesting)
They can and will take it from you when they want for any reason they want.
Bad mouth apple, lose your everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung doesn't actually want your used refrigerator or dryer, an they won't in the future. What they do want is for you to keep paying subscription fees. To accomplish that, they'll disable some of the "upgrade" features. Like a Ring doorbell, it still works as a doorbell if you don't continue paying your subscription, you just don't get the fancy features without it.
Re:If you don't own anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole "you own nothing" goes quite beyond "features", it's a vision where there's no houses for sale anymore.
Drone delivery -- yeah, right! (Score:5, Informative)
The concept of having business to consumer deliveries by drone is a fairy-tale dreamed up by those who want to make a fortune out of selling UTM (unmanned traffic management) systems to governments around the world.
There are a host of companies vying for this role right now and they've lobbied regulators into believing that this *is* the future -- even though commonsense and logic dictates otherwise.
Drones can only fly in good weather. Drones have limited ranges. We're told that drones are dangerous -- far to dangerous to fly over people, houses, cars and property. Drones are expensive and easily hijacked/stolen. Drones have a very low payload capability.
By comparison, regular old trucks and cars (especially once driverless) are much cheaper, safer, more reliable, resistant to weather and less burdened by over-regulation in the way that drones are.
In the Milton Keynes in the UK, fast food is already being delivered -- not by flying drones but by youths on mopeds and by little robotic buggies that trundle the towns many sidewalks and walkways -- delivering stuff for next to no cost and at no risk to anyone.
THAT is the future of "drone" delivery -- not the "(pizza) pie in the sky" being promised by those who have duped our regulators and politicians in order to make a quick dollar from taxpayers.
Don't be ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Drones can only fly in good weather. Drones have limited ranges. We're told that drones are dangerous -- far to dangerous to fly over people, houses, cars and property. Drones are expensive and easily hijacked/stolen. Drones have a very low payload capability.
Oh don't be ridiculous.
Because drones can't handle *every* delivery, there won't be drones handling *any* delivery - is that your position?
Lots of deliveries can be made within a mile of a parked truck, by air-drones and by street drones. Delivery person parks a van at a convenient spot, lets the drones fly/roll out, then drives around and delivers the furniture and other heavy items by hand.
The street drones will become cheap enough that the van doesn't have to wait for the customer to retrieve their package - leave the drone at the address overnight and have it return to a different van the next morning.
This would reduce the energy and effort of deliveries *and* the fossil fuel consumption *and* the time needed for deliveries by quite a lot. You can still have classic delivery for rural areas, heavy objects, or during a rainstorm.
Or depending on the forecast, wait until the rain is over and deliver a couple of hours later. Or the next day. I'll bet delivery algorithms could take weather forecasts into account and make those decisions automatically.
There's a lot of low-hanging fruit for drone delivery. Whoever enters the market first will be the main player for decades to come.
P.S. - I'm not sure how one would go about hijacking an air drone, but I'm pretty sure "easily" isn't an appropriate adjective.
Re:Don't be ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
P.S. - I'm not sure how one would go about hijacking an air drone, but I'm pretty sure "easily" isn't an appropriate adjective. ...
By having a remote controller with a stronger signal
Re: Don't be ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These software guys did a great job of prototyping this:
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
https://www.vans.mercedes-benz... [mercedes-benz.com]
Re: Don't be ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it's not about drone delivery. It's about getting third-round funding and cashing out before someone with an aeronautical engineering degree sees your beautiful Photoshop(tm) marketing materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely think this is the direction. The "drone" of "drone" propellors will basically prevent drones in an urban environment.
But I have very little concerns about a set of Boston Dynamics "big dog" type things stepping out of a truck and delivering 20 items from a truck stuck around a corner.
Beating the air into submission (ie: flying either fixed wing or multi-copter) is way more intrusive than having something on land in the same places that people and animals walk. If we look at what's around us evo
I don't think this is correct (Score:2)
From TFS:
Making decisions all the time is difficult, and it's easier when someone else limits the options you can choose from. It's not hard to turn a blind eye to a problem if, for the most part, your life is made a little simpler. Isn't that what every tech company says it's trying to do? Make your life a little simpler? Life is hard enough already, and living in a home that maintains itself so long as you hand over control â" well, by 2030, who's to say that's not what we'll all want?
How is it easier when someone limits you to choose between, say, three options that all are not good enough, but also, not really worse than the other two? Just like buying a laptop - do I want a better video card or a higher quality screen? Or maybe this one that looks a bit more durable? This (at least for me) pretty much guarantees that I will spend much longer deciding and will not be happy with the result anyway.
And it's not just control, it's money. Life may be hard enough, but if you are forced to overpay for stuff, it makes it even harder. And the reason for all of those restrictions is to force people to overpay.
Oh, yes I will. (Score:3)
I might not use them regularly, but I sure as sh*t will own them and keep them in an operating state so I'm not screwed when services fall or there is a price hike or something mission critical is disabled from one day to the next.
Depends on how you define "own" (Score:3)
I might not use them regularly, but I sure as sh*t will own them and keep them in an operating state so I'm not screwed when services fall or there is a price hike or something mission critical is disabled from one day to the next.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "own".
You might pay money for a physical object and still not own it - be legally prevented from repairing it, from switching to a different provider, from having recourse if the service shuts down, have to pay a monthly fee on top of the purchase price, and be unable to sell it to someone else.
All of these points are currently in force for some gadgets, it's just that no gadgets enforce all of them. Currently.
Note that the Samsung dryer demands access to your co
Re: (Score:3)
I will never purchase any product that requires internet connectivity to function. What insanity!
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbole but mostly correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but I feel confident I won't be getting a washing machine delivered by drone.
Re: (Score:2)
And people laugh at me when I say I own CDs, DVDs, and books. For this very reason. They're mine. No one can take them from me short of breaking into my place and physically taking them. Their contents can likewise not be altered by anyone.
It's the same reason I drive a stick shift. I don't have to worry about some strung out programmer deciding they know what's best for me when it comes to what gear I should be in. When I put my car in gear it will stay in that gear until I shift to another gear. Nor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We'll all rent a flying car (Score:2)
...and fly to...nowhere, since everything comes by drone.
Sure it you are young (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm 58, 7 years out from potential retirement. Paying rent could would probably take about half my pension, good thing I finally got a free hold house last year. Power is the next big bill, but since I own my house I can invest now in better insulation and solar panels. Can't do that if renting. I own a battery electric car, which is good as I live rural. No public transport or ride shares here. Either an expensive taxi trip or drive yourself.
Stop and think who really benefits if you own nothing? Corporations. Do you think they are going to take care of you in your old age when you fall off their target demographic?
Re: (Score:2)
Re... tire... whatnow?
Oh you old folks and your dated language, there's no such thing, gramps!
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I plan a 'soft' retirement where I keep working but only on what I feel like. So what is the Newspeak word for retirement?
Re: (Score:2)
To quote a local comedian, Austria has no dialect word for "high sea rescue cruiser" because, well, we don't have it, we need no word for it.
Why'd we need a word for something that we won't have anyway?
Re:Sure it you are young (Score:4, Funny)
So what is the Newspeak word for retirement?
Death
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Close Newspeak term is "FIRE" Stands for Financial Independence, Retire Early.
Nope (Score:2)
So communism wins by 2030? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it make a difference whether a "one-party government" makes the 5-year-plans on what to produce, versus a small group of CEOs deciding the same? Does it make a difference whether there is a person cult about some "party leader(s)" or whether that person cult is about some equally non-elected CEO? Does it make a difference whether the profit from what you produce is entirely diverted into funding "the system", or whether "that system" is some mega-corporation that can take whatever they want from you, as a fee for the items you rented from them?
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much, yes.
I mean, whether it's some corporations that own everything or whether it's "the state", in the end it means that you own jack shit and some asshole gets to tell you when and how you may use his stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up !! This guy gets it. You can have either government by the public, or government by the private corp (inverted fascism).
Choose wisely -- don't vote for *either* of the mainstream parties!
This is very obviously just an attempt (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't futurism. This is a pathetic attempt to disguise the horrible things being done to us all. Like in that video game syndicate when they put a chip in your brain so you would think you were living in comfort and luxury instead of squalor.
Re: (Score:2)
Dealing with landlords is a serious pain, even though there are many to choose from.
Dealing with rent seekers in this future scenario will be just as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Dealing with landlords is a serious pain, even though there are many to choose from.
Dealing with rent seekers in this future scenario will be just as bad.
How so? Having been both a renter, and a landlord (a week after I bought my first townhome, my company asked me to go overseas, so a I rented it out for seven years) for many years, I never really had an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
You're joking, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
"You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy," it says. "Whatever you want, you'll rent. And it'll be delivered by drone...."
Fuck no. I'm often not happy with what I already own, because I've had to choose from among shitty, shittier, and spectacularly terrible. Being forced to rent that stuff, and therefore have no right to repair or modify it, would be a living hell.
In some ways, not owning things is easier. You have fewer commitments, less responsibility, and the freedom to bail whenever you want.
Owning things is easier, because there's less chance of an assault charge when I punch out the lights of whoever dares to tell me how and how not to use, maintain, fix, or dispose of my stuff. MY stuff, get it?
One day in the future, if you buy a physical house, you will likely have to rent the software that operates it.
Again, "fuck no". I'll rip out and burn anything that requires software I didn't choose and install. If it's illegal to own a libre home, then I'll live in a box under a bridge and piss on the shoes of passing politicians, banksters, and traitors like you.
The scary thing is that only sounds terrible if you have the mental energy to care about principles.
No, the scary thing is that you think 'caring about principles' is the only reason this sounds terrible. The primary reason this is worth taking a principled stance on is this: a life dependent on important material goods that other people own, control, and can dick with or outright disable on a whim, will drive people to suicide and/or murder. We humans are not meant to be sheep.
Making decisions all the time is difficult, and it's easier when someone else limits the options you can choose from.
Speak for yourself, asshole. Making decisions all the time is much easier than being in a position where I have no freedom of choice. And before you blather on about how freedom of choice derives from the 'principles' you seem so unfamiliar with, let's just put you in solitary confinement for a month. Your frantic animal need for human contact, freedom of movement, the feel of the elements, and a glimpse of the sun will drive principles right the fuck out of your addled brain.
Life is hard enough already, and living in a home that maintains itself so long as you hand over control — well, by 2030, who's to say that's not what we'll all want?
I'm part of that "all", and no, I will never want that. I suspect most people reading this agree with me. As for life being "hard enough", a significant portion of that difficulty is a result of the psychopaths who are already running much of the show. Giving in to them and handing them power over you will make life harder, not easier. If you believe otherwise, you need to give your head a shake and demand your money back from whatever educational institutions allowed you to graduate with such a profound lack of critical thinking ability.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. I could see it. (Score:2)
Maybe. Having owned a home and lots of stuff for 30 years, I see the appeal. I'm ready to downsize.
There are downsides. For example, I like owning tools because I can just wander into my garage and start up the table saw or whatever. I don't want to get halfway into a project just to realize I need a router and have to wait half a day for it to arrive. On the other hand, I don't have a drill press because I don't need one often enough to want to store it. There's definitely a business opportunity there some
By 2030 (Score:2)
By 2030, companies that try this shit will not be getting my money. Certainly not enough to buy the item. Maybe they'll onkly get 1/4 of what it would cost to buy, if that even.
Fuckin greed. Money for nothing. Corporate wet dream. If they want to rent everything out, then they can damn well absorb full liability for whatever happens, or STFU.
Silly premise (Score:2)
Sure, a lot of companies are doing their utmost to get you to rent everything... but, from a consumer point of view, it's a flawed model. You don't even have to go any further than cost.
The only companies that could get away with this are de facto monopolies (e.g. Comcast, Adobe). Fortunately, most companies still have some competition - as soon as they try to require a subscription, one of their competitors will take advantage of the opening.
Re: (Score:2)
A minimal lifestyle. (Score:4, Interesting)
In some ways, not owning things is easier. You have fewer commitments, less responsibility, and the freedom to bail whenever you want. There are upsides to owning less.
And there's the middle-ground called minimalsim [becomingminimalist.com] where you own stuff, stuff doesn't own you.
Closest approach to "In Soviet..." (Score:2)
What I was looking for was:
"In Soviet America, the devices own you!"
Also, cloud. The cloud owns you, too. Paid for with cryptocurrencies, of course.
just wait for them to do rent a car ding & den (Score:2)
just wait for them to do rent a car ding & dent BS with the rented hardware you drooped it an there is an very small dent that will be $600 on the 2 year old hardware
Click-bait at it's finest (Score:2)
One day in the future, if you buy a physical house, you will likely have to rent the software that operates it.
Seriously? There is zero software that 'operates' my house (whatever the hell that even means). I'm also curious as to what a 'physical house' is vs. a regular house. I didn't even bother to RTFA after reading this laughable line from the summary.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of us were alive at a time when the idea that you might need to reboot a phone was absurd. There was no software in washers, dryers, dishwashers, TVs, light bulbs (yes, some light bulbs have firmware now), cars, stoves, radios, etc. Not long before that even cash registers and adding machines had no software in them.
But unless your appliances are all from the '70s or before, your house DOES have software.
If you delete the software running your home, you have no appliances and no heating and air. You li
Good old WEF (Score:2)
You have to frame it right (Score:2)
Let's put it into terms people might understand better. The people will own nothing. Things will be owned by the corporate party. The company politburo will decide what you are allowed to do with it's things, but only if you pay enough taxes to be allowed to use anything at all. If they decide they want more later you pay or they take their stuff back.
It's the USSR all over again only they don't even bother to pretend that you get to vote.
Attention whoring BASICs... (Score:3, Insightful)
10 PRINT "Say something ridiculous and or incendiary"
20 PRINT "Sit back and rake in clicks and views as outrage fueled Internet lusers take your obvious bait."
30 GOTO 10
Don't care, take it (Score:2)
Why Do We Have Computerized Gadgets Anyway? (Score:2)
So all our gadgets will be old used dirty ones (Score:2)
And Be Denied Access To It (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope.
Still going to own my stuff and have real money.
People are already renting evrerything... (Score:2)
...when you borrow money for your house, you're renting it from the bank.
When you take up loans or get credit cards, you rent stuff - you don't own it at all, untill it's all paid for.
I've never missed a payment in my life, and I'm an old guy now. But I own stuff, lots of it.
"Stuff" is good when SHTF, because FIAT and other currencies can fall flat at any time, this is when basic human needs sets in, and they're coming for your "stuff".
By stuff - I mean all kinds of useful things, vehicles, repair equipment
I can guarantee you (Score:2)
The people you're renting from own stuff.
This is the end state of capitalism approaching, when it becomes impossible to own anything anymore unless you're born into wealth to start with. Those with the capital have an advantage, and it gets them further ahead, and it gets their children further ahead.
At some point, unless they're spectacularly bad with money like Trump, the money starts to manage itself - more realistically, you have enough capital that returns on basic competent investment outpace inflati
It's a wrap (Score:2)
I"m so glad I grew up in a world where it was possible to own stuff.
>1990 Soviets don't own anything- HAHA!
2030+ Americans don't own anything - HAHA!
I am so glad that when 2030 rolls around I won't have much more time in my life to live anyway, and shit will be so user hostile at that point (even before the king owns everything), I might just fuck it all off and go back to paperback books, records, and old cassette tapes.
Sucks to be those after Generation Z.
No more tossed packages... (Score:2)
If a drone gets angry or is below delivery quota, will it just drop my package from 50 ft in the air and move on to the next delivery?
These drones are gonna put disgruntled UPS "kickers" to shame.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA passed the DCMA to meet its obligations under the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Copyright Treaty of 1996. The EU passed a directive in 2001 that obliged member states to implement anti-circumvention rules in their own copyright laws.
"Not owning anything" might have come about without these laws, but the laws make it easier. If it's legal for consumers to root hardware, a vendor that wants subscription revenue to keep coming in has to spend a lot of time and money to make the hardwa
Re:This will age like milk (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you are going to replace something every 10 years anyway, why pay for it upfront? Why not just lease?
It all depends on the rental cost. A $10,000 item expected to last 10 years is indeed a big up front cost. $1,000 per year rental is worth it. $2,400 per year is getting to be a big up front cost, but at $200 per month, then it is doable, and is not far off the cost of some existing items.
But at $5,000 per year, that it is half the cost of purchase every year, and you still don't own it.
Re: (Score:2)
Renting a phone makes the exact same sense as renting (leasing) a car: go for it if you're wealthy or trying to project a wealthy lifestyle and money is no object. You'll stay trendy and somebody will give you a like for it. Same goes for most other rental schemes.
My $80 phone does everything I could possibly imagine wanting, a $30 phone would do everything I need, just as a $2000 car does everything one needs from a car. Nobody will offer cheap stuff for rent, and nobody would bother renting it if they did
Re: (Score:3)
. For a product like a cell phone, more than 2 years old = junk. Not just because the manufacturer stops updating the software, but because significant advances keep being made, and the phone hardware itself has choices made to limit it's life, with the benefit of lower hardware cost and smaller size.
Maybe back in 2007. Because smartphones were relatively new. With most everything being web-based or an app that's essentially a Webview, there's no need for either storage or horsepower. These days the only reason your phone is trash after 2 years is that the battery was too small from the beginning and it now no longer holds a charge for a whole day. If you're convinced you need more after 2 years, you've just been duped by marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I had my leased vehicle serviced when I wanted. There was no requirement for me to do otherwise.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating this not owning anything BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: half true (Score:2)
"Smart devices" are the trojan horses that wi bring this collective nightmare.
We will likely see a revival of "dumb" appliances, X10 for home automation, and a higher demand for sign-grade video monitors. Most people will just take it up the butt as usual, but a lot wont.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet people keep renting Adobe products.