- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Just wait until the fridges keep inventory by inside cam and offers services like shopping lists and targeted ads.
“Hi, I noticed your ice cream will be gone tonight, would you like to have some delivered before?. There is a coupon if you use Kroger’s ”
Whoever thought it to be a good idea to buy a fridge with a screen and internet conectivity honestly deserves that.
I disagree. People have the right to be naive or distracted. States should put into prison people who create harmful products. Yes, advertising is harmful to your mind, this is why huge companies pay incredible amounts for it!
I totally understand and support the sentiment of your message!
But: Basically, companies are selling what customers are buying.
In effect this means, that the people who buy this touchscreen-riddled internet-of-shitty-things stuff are the ones largely responsible that
- cars ancillary functions can’t be operated without looking down any more
- microwaves have 5-level deep context menus instead of two turn-knobs and a button
- most stoves have touch sensitive surfaces that run amok as soon as some liquid spills
- my solar panels inverter now has an shitty privacy compromising phone app instead a serial hardware port
.
I hate that development and this is the reason why I welcome the news that some of the people who are responsible for why it is spreading, now have the opportunity to perhaps learn one of the reason why it sucks the hard way. Maybe it has a positive effect.
People do not naturally “want” a microwave with a 5-level deep menu. This “want” is carefully engineered through decades of advertising, marketing, and cultural narrative that equates “new” with “better,” “connected” with “smart,” and “touchscreen” with “premium.” The desire is not organic; it is cultivated. Companies spend billions not just responding to demand, but actively creating it.
People often buy these products due to social pressure, the fear of being left behind, or the promise of convenience sold to them. The choice is rarely between a simple knob and a complex touchscreen; it’s increasingly between a complex touchscreen and nothing, as the former replaces the latter in the market. This is not consumer sovereignty; it’s a forced march.
The relationship between a massive multinational corporation and an individual consumer is not an equal negotiation. The corporation has vastly more information, resources, and power to shape the terms of the transaction. They design products for their benefit (planned obsolescence, data harvesting, proprietary lock-in), not for the user’s benefit (longevity, repairability, intuitive use).
This is true. Until it isn’t any more and the cycle breaks again.
It just needs one stylish brand grasping the chance and offer a simple, user centric product it manages to market as desirable.
Consider what Apple did at the end of the 00s to the oligarchical structured phone market that was only selling crappy, complicated phones with features mainly dictated by network providers at the time.Sure, nowadays Apple is on the crappy product side again, together with most Android manufacturers. Guess that is just the nature of such enshitification cycles…
Another example are the most popular WIFI routers in my country (FritzBox. Yes the name is real…). Instead of selling cheap trash with crappy update support as was common 20 years ago, they listened to their customers and offered powerful, but easy to operate alternatives with supreme support. People are happy. Although today they almost have a monopoly, and the enhitification cycle may soon restart again…
So, I won’t share your depressing view. Buyers have power, and markets work. Sometimes it just takes time and a market niche to be opening and gaining popularity. Like high-end fridges without IoT-crap but with simple, functional controls.
