[gumby]

It would be nice if cars actually could have user-configurable lights and such but the cost (financially, yes, but in structural change and reliability) aren’t worth it. Plus who cares any more about their car, at least enough to change any defaults? Even laptops get at most a sticker or to and that’s it.

The phones and apps are infinitely customizable, the dimensions though is user generated content. Instagrams have a standard “frame” but within that constraint (and benefiting from it) each subscriber can run free.

I actually agree that the unification of features in Google and FB is somehow wrong but, as the author says, it’s hard to draw a line dispassionately. I feel less so (also wrong but perhaps less so) about Apple, as they aren’t a majority in any market except perhaps tablets, and they make relatively few acquisitions. But because the line is so hard to draw this logic could be wrong too.

[082349872349872]

I find it strange when people who happily use Office* (because it's "easier" than, say, Arch Linux) also complain about enjoying the sausage of "big government".

* my metaphor is probably out of date. please replace by whatever the bundle-du-jour may be. Happily use Facebook?

Edit: consistent for me would be to consistently be pro- or anti-bundling. If you have an argument for being pro-software-feature-bundling but anti-state-service-bundling, please make it.