| > if everyone is reluctant to try the Framework laptop because they're not sure about long-term support, it will never receive said support. I'm willing to take the risk here, for the greater good! I dunno, this whole idea of 'trickle down innovation' that ends up coming at the expense of the working class is a very bad deal when you consider the amount of advanced technologies available today yet which have been enclosed/commoditized as 'intellectual property'. Another example is Musk's scammy 'secret master plan' hustle that tells a feel good (yet misleading) story to the propertied class that they should 'buy a $170,000 Tesla to help make mass produced Tesla's possible for poor people'. Which is a rich story when you see that big oil companies, together with governments, suppressed viable electric car technologies for years ('Who Killed The Electric Car?' documentary). My point is that these are deep systemic issues that should be remedied at their root, instead of them being presented as something the non-propertied -class should plan and pay for, especially when you consider that we have actually already paid for it (remember we gave them those big juicy low-interest government loans). At this point in time, buying a modular laptop like a Framework computer should have no risks involved with it. We need to just grow many more open source standards. All that proprietary hardware and software does is remove valuable feedback loops and lessons from the commons. It criminalizes cooperation, interoperability, repairing and repurposing. Only the propertied class wins here. All the above arguments only compound and multiply when you consider that most of the technology that exists today was developed with taxpayer backed government loans (Mazzucato: The Entrepreneurial State), meaning that, as she puts it, "we have ended up creating an ‘innovation system’ whereby the public sector socializes risks, while rewards are privatized". |