That doesn't make sense. How do meet your own needs and desires if you can't use your own property the way you want?

And isn't the point in this very situation that people simply can't buy what they want because Google and Apple are a duopoly and now Google is going to follow the path of restricting what you can do with your own property?

> How do meet your own needs and desires if you can't use your own property the way you want?

My needs and desires aren’t that complicated. There’s nothing that I really want or need to do that I can’t do on my phone or iPad.

The logic here seems to be "I don't care about freedom because my jail cell is large enough." What if you wake up one day and it isn't?

Your response reminds me of Snowden's quote, which I'll likely butcher because it's from memory, but roughly: "Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say".

I'm 45 years old. I've woken up 16,000+ times and it's been fine.

I know what I do on computers/phones/iPads. I know that every computer/phone/iPad I've ever owned has done more or less what I wanted. I'm usually the weak link, not the device.

I don't go to bed worried that the sun is going to rise in the West. I've got things that seem likely to happen to worry about.

If I were in the 0.01%, savings wouldn't be a thing. I wouldn't even need a home. Just go around staying wherever I like for as long as I like doing whatever I want. I wouldn't really care about what google or apple does with their devices, who attacked or defeated whom and all that bs because I wouldn't be in survival mode.

At least this is probably how people in charge of enshittification think like.

This is based on the false assumption that the free market solves every problem.

But the reality (which was correctly identified by Adam Smith himself) is that the effort required to enter a market can sometimes be so high, that we practically end up with oligopolies, see mobile OSs. They require a network effect to make sense, so the entry cost is not just developing the product, but also to somehow convince basically every other player to consider you a target platform - which is a cyclical problem that you can't just bootstrap yourself into. Even Microsoft failed at it, even though they were paying hefty sums to companies for apps working on their OS.

> This is based on the false assumption that the free market solves every problem.

I assure you it is not.

Ok I'll bite. Tell me what you find appealing about losing authority? Is this some kind of emotional response for not wanting to take responsibility?

How can I lose something that I don’t have any interest in having?

My needs and desires are to have control over my tech stack.

Neat! That’s why I said, “I’m personally OK with…” rather than “You’re personally OK with…”

Are you intentionally defending a rent-economy or just ignorantly?

Oh it’s intentional.

OK. Why?

Because I have a fundamentally different view than the comment I replied to.

Ya but why. Were you born this way?