|
|
|
|
|
|
by dgreensp
510 days ago
|
|
|
While it’s just one small section of the article, I notice there is the sort of industry-standard erasure of the entire concept of good vs bad UI or engineering, in the “Web apps are bad” section. A “good” app, in this article, is one that is “successful, versatile, [or] capable.” Any McDonald’s kiosk is an example of a “good” app, because it’s so “successful.” If you think a much-used app has UI that isn’t “good” and would be improved by using native technologies, well, first of all, “the market” is the arbiter of what’s good, not you, and second of all, even if you are right, your criticism lacks empathy for the “requirements and constraints” developers face, you are ignorant about the fact that things have tradeoffs, or you are some perfectionist who thinks everything needs to be a work of art. Software engineers are so preemptively defensive about quality. |
|
|
This is why you cannot buy a car or a TV that doesn't spy on you. These things are objectively bad and everyone agrees. Nobody outside of adtech thinks spyware TVs are a good thing, and yet the magical market fairy has removed all non-spying options.
Does this mean that a TV spying on you at all hours and beaming your private conversations to an adtech firm in real time is a good thing? Is your car reporting realtime statistics on your driving habits and destinations to your insurance good for you? The market sure seems to think so.
"The market" is not a fairy godmother with your best interests at heart. As far as the market is concerned, you only exist as a source of dollars. Whether or not you exist or will have dollars in the future is irrelevant. The market wants your dollars now and literally nothing else matters.