Readit NewsDeleted Comment
Dead Comment
At some point i had multiple older iPads with perfectly great screens, and i wanted to use them as "hubs" for a home setup to control various things, another option was using them as secondary screens, or maybe just give them to a kid.
You couldn't, they were simply to old for the new IOS update, and almost all apps including browsers requires the newer IOS and update automatically without asking - essentially bricking them on purpose.
Anyway i ended up giving them to a "safe e-waste center" but i'm sceptical they'll actually be recycled.
I think locking down a device should be illegal especially e-waste considered, and if there's some reason not to, then it should at least be opened the day official support ends so the device can be used to watch videos/games for kids/whatever.
The issue with Vision Pro IMO is that it costs so much and includes price boosting features like the creepy eye see through that are interesting in a prototype release like this but can be cut to reduce cost weight and other factors. If it had cost 1/2 as much it would have sold more than twice as much, and while it might not become the next iPhone, it would have a much more established user and developer base to build on over the next 5 years as they iterate. Then I think by 2030 we would have both the social understanding of where headsets and AR fit and Apple will have had the chance to iterate designs, software, supply chain, materials, etc and we would have a practical device for a much larger addressable market. But even so, the die has been cast and things will improve.
All that said, the point isn’t this - it’s that the tech critic authors are the worst type of people - the people who make their living nit picking great achievements in the goal of tearing them down and regarding investment and purchase for no other reason than “engagement.” Their points are only right from the narrow view of some people, cherry picked and mixed together, into a giant breathless fallacy. It’s lazy and slimy.
I've never understood this, and it sometimes seems like a conspiracy. It's a very controversial DE and has gotten a lot of negative reactions for many years now, and it was so bad that different devs made not 1, but 2 forks of it: MATE and Cinnamon, in addition to all the other competing DEs out there (KDE, LXDE, Xfce, etc.). But for some odd reason, all the highest-profile distros push Gnome. If they wanted to get more converts from Windows, or pitch themselves as an OS for office use that Windows users could easily switch to, you'd think they'd push KDE as the first choice, because it's the most similar.