arc

repairability means jack shit if it doesnt get supported a year later.

I think this will be Apple's plan when the EU forces them to sell devices with replaceable batteries. The EU says end users should be able to replace the battery without special tools, heat, solvents. It doesn't say the battery can't be DRM'd up the ass, or how long or what quantity of replacement stock should be made available.

So I expect Apple will do exactly that - DRM'd expensive batteries in limited supply. So even if you wanted to replace the battery you won't be able to get hold of one. Maybe they'll allow OEM batteries but in the typical Apple way - gimping the phone and putting scary warnings on the screen that the battery is not Apple certified, that rapid charge, screen brightness, or something else is disabled. Because Apple are dicks.

I wouldn't say the Fairphone 5 wins prizes for looks or functionality but it does show that it is entirely possible to make a phone with a replaceable battery and repairable components in a modern form factor. If they, a small boutique phone maker can do it, then there is absolutely no excuse that Apple, Samsung, Oppo etc. cannot do the same.

One failing of Fairphone is you cannot buy the mainboard (the core component) from their store. All the other components yes, but not the mainboard. The core is not just the CPU, flash but also some other things like microphone are on it. It would also be nice if people could order all the parts that make up a Fairphone 5 and assemble one entirely from scratch.

I've also read through their ethics / green reports in the past, and while it talks it up with "supply chain engagement" reports and so on, most of their components are still made to order by Chinese OEMs so how far does it go down the chain in reality.

A lot of subjectivity about what is a success or not, but I would say many nationalised companies (and most were only nationalised for 20-30 years) were absolutely stagnating and/or suffering from widespread union disruption and should have been cut loose. But just picking out a handful of privatisations that went well, I think British Telecom, British Gas & British Airways did much better as privatized companies. Some privatisations went not-so-well - look at steel or coal privatisations or British Rail.

And an example of successful nationalisation - hospitals & doctors were a loose arrangement of private / charitable causes before being nationalised as the NHS. I think we can agree the situation is far better for everyone as a public health service than if it were run for-profit.

I never said anything about copyright giving you right to copy movies. But if I own a CD, blu-ray or a book, I physically OWN that blu-ray or book. I can stick it on a shelf, lend it to someone, give it away, burn it, sell it on e-bay. It doesn't entitle me to duplicate it, but the media is mine, as is my right of ownership in law.

Conversely if I buy a digital movie on Amazon (or any other provider) I've bought a license to it. Next time I go view it, the movie might have gone. Or maybe Amazon just shitcans the entire service (as it has before). Or maybe they just decide to ban my account for whatever reason. Or maybe they don't like that I've moved to another continent. Whatever the reason I have no recourse. Nor can I sell my license, lend it, or anything else.

That's the problem I'm talking about. There is no reason that when I buy a movie from Amazon or another provider it has to be this way. Instead I should buy the movie, and have a copy of movie and a token that shows my ownership of it. They can watermark the mkv to bind it to the token and me and copyright holders might come after me if I unlawfully share the file. But I should be able to sell my copy if I want. I should be able to borrow a copy from a digital library. I should be able to do things equivalent to a physical copy.

People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it’ll say as much within that wall of text.

Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.

That may be but it's what these services are doing and will continue to do until lawmakers enact digital property laws along the lines that I suggest.

IMO textbooks, at least in schools should just be given away in electronic form. I live in Ireland where parents have to buy physical copies from a retailer and it's just stupid duplication of effort and a waste of money.

People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it'll say as much within that wall of text.

Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.

I think streaming is fine - if a show is removed or the service dies you haven't lost content because you never owned any in the first place and never expected to.

I really don't know why anyone buys from the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon, Sony etc. People don't own the content, they own a license which lasts as long as the service or the rights to the content and then it's gone.

The problem here is people didn't buy content. They've bought a license to view content and somewhere in the smallprint is Sony's right to revoke the right whenever they like for whatever reason. Other services have done likewise, either withdrawing content or just failing altogether.

So first off, as a consumer stop buying DRM'd shit because it won't end well under any circumstances. Second, lobby for digital property to have rights akin to physical property so the right to destroy, lend, sell, or donate it is inherent to a purchase. e.g. maybe a purchase gives you a token and a signed / watermarked file in a playable format. And incentivize providers to sell digital property by taxing services that impose DRM to create a favourable price disparity.

That’s literally uncomparable. Government does things that ignore profit. That’s what government is for. The provide services at a loss. The only “profit” might be things like societal improvement, education, security, and such.

People pay taxes that fund the government. If the money is wasted then services suffer. So it's not profit or loss but they must deliver value. Value is harder to quantify than profit but governments have to figure a way out of doing it and provide incentives to staff to deliver it.

This is something you really can't say one way or the other.

I could cite examples of sick, failing government owned companies that did better under privatization, or simply shouldn't have been governments owned in the first place. On the other hand, I could cite disastrous privatization efforts that should never have happened because they were vital services, or in the national interest. I lived through most of it in the UK when they were privatising stuff left right and centre - some succeeded, others didn't.

And if they stay under the control of government then they need incentivization and means for measuring success. Success doesn't just mean profit but it does mean value and quality of service. And in some ways that would require operating similar to if it were a private company.

If he were some normal dork people would shun him or just tell him to shut the fuck up until the penny dropped and he moderated what he said. But since he is mega rich we get to enjoy his personality in all its terrible glory because there is nobody who can or would dare stand up to him.