I really liked that video. It explains the issue in a simple and accurate fashion. The only thing missing, which usually is, is a larger discussion of how that fits on a very old model called...
I really liked that video. It explains the issue in a simple and accurate fashion.
The only thing missing, which usually is, is a larger discussion of how that fits on a very old model called capitalism. Capitalism seems so natural we don't even see it, it's like trying to make a fish see the water. But it is still there, and much of what Marx and Deleuze wrote is still true, but most people seem to dismiss the discussion of the model.
I didn't watch the video but I'm wondering if you could explain in more detail what you think most people don't see? It seems to me that making and spending money is a huge concern for most...
I didn't watch the video but I'm wondering if you could explain in more detail what you think most people don't see? It seems to me that making and spending money is a huge concern for most people. Business and economics are common subjects for study and research. There is also a lot of controversy, which doesn't seem consistent with it being taken for granted?
I'm talking about the super-structure in which business is subsumed: capitalism. Marxism basically states that there are at least two classes of people: the ones who control the means of...
I'm talking about the super-structure in which business is subsumed: capitalism.
Marxism basically states that there are at least two classes of people: the ones who control the means of production (owners), and the ones who don't (workers). There's more to it than that, but you get the idea.
His theory was created to explain industrialism, but it is still valid in other kinds of economic activity. For example, Apple controls the market of iOS apps, so in a way, they're the ones controlling the "means of production". Independent app makers are the workers, who have to abide by the rules of the patrons. It's a class struggle right there. The same is true between Uber vs drivers etc. The fact that we're not talking about a traditional industry model anymore doesn't make it false that this is still a class struggle, and Marxism is still largely valid.
One of the main ideas of Deleuze regarding capitalism is that demand is not only something that capitalism fulfills but also something that capitalism creates, in detriment of our best interests. Think about all the people deeply in debt because they felt they need to acquire unnecessary goods. Why did they do so? Are they the only ones to blame? No, according to Deleuze: marketing and social pressure creates desire that did not existed before, trapping society in a consumerist agenda.
Those are just two very brief, laymen explanations.
It seems like most people these days are skeptical of advertising, consumer debt, and wasteful spending? To say this is invisible is like saying smokers don't know smoking is bad for you. (They...
It seems like most people these days are skeptical of advertising, consumer debt, and wasteful spending? To say this is invisible is like saying smokers don't know smoking is bad for you. (They probably haven't heard of Deleuze, but the basic idea seems to have become widespread.)
I have a pretty crude understanding of the Marxist view of things, about the level you briefly summarize here. I have questions. Someday I'm hoping to find a really good, readable, modern introduction. Any recommendations?
I understand the idea behind this video was to make an argument for subscriptions. It does a good job for services like Netflix but not for products. The argument for products doesn't come across...
I understand the idea behind this video was to make an argument for subscriptions. It does a good job for services like Netflix but not for products. The argument for products doesn't come across as being honest with itself.
It assumes an ideal scenario where bugs are inevitable and never ending despite anything else. I don't think that's reasonable if an app is features stable. It also assumes apps will just decay and become "incompatible". Which is odd because most platforms take a lot of care to provide backwards compatibility.
But the main issue is I don't think it really takes the time to compare subscriptions with other business models. Or even the issues with subscriptions services like netflix where you might only be interested in a single show.
The problem is that he's fundamentally categorization products and services. Subscription boxes are not services, period. Just because you may or may not know what you are getting in the...
The problem is that he's fundamentally categorization products and services. Subscription boxes are not services, period. Just because you may or may not know what you are getting in the subscription does not magically turn it into a subscription (and I would argue that not knowing is highly problematic in it's own way, but that's another conversation). Likewise, software subscriptions have more in common with services than with products, since the expenses you are paying for are development and support related costs.
The problem that most people seem to have with subscriptions is that the model doesn't make sense for them. Let's use the Adobe Photography Plan as an example. If I'm a professional photographer, I will be using Lightroom and/or Photoshop constantly. Having access to this kind of software is a keystone to my livelihood, and having this subscription service is great since I'm not paying for this expensive software package upfront, which actually has the effect of making the software cheaper. Plus it comes with additional services to help me build an entire website and online portfolio!
But what if I am a Hobbyist? I still need this kind of software to produce the kind of images I want. Sure, I'm not going to be paying for an expensive software package, but since this is a hobby, I don't need the latest versions; I can keep using the same version of the software for years after the support period ended.
And what if photography is only a small hobby, one that I may not deal with for weeks or even months at a time? Or what if I just want to use it once and never again? You would think that this person would benefit the most from a subscription model, but in practice Adobe has completely abandoned these audiences. They say that their subscription bundle is only $9.99 a month, but that's extremely misleading because in reality Adobe only offers that subscription in year-long blocks with optional monthly payments; you're realistically looking at paying a minimum of $119.88.
To put things in more general terms, people are upset with subscription services when they do not feel like they are being better served by the subscription model. Just compare the amount of upset over Adobe versus Autodesk. Both of them switched to subscription services, but people were far more likely to complain over Adobe than Autodesk because the vast majority of Autodesk users are professionals who rely on the product for their livelihood (and even more likely to have those costs covered by an employer).
But it's not cheaper, that's the problem. Same goes for Office, which you mentioned further down. Most people, even professionals who depend on it, are more than happy to stick with a software...
Having access to this kind of software is a keystone to my livelihood, and having this subscription service is great since I'm not paying for this expensive software package upfront, which actually has the effect of making the software cheaper.
But it's not cheaper, that's the problem. Same goes for Office, which you mentioned further down. Most people, even professionals who depend on it, are more than happy to stick with a software version that's a couple of revisions out of date, because it does everything they need.
That's the real reason that Adobe and MS push the subscriptions so hard, because then the customer is buying every new version, and the supplier can still claim it's good value by ignoring the fact they would only have otherwise bought one in every three or so when a relevant feature was added or if compatibility was becoming a problem.
The video's premise that ongoing development needs ongoing income is very fair, but I think it dramatically overestimates how much most users actually care about that ongoing development. I'd fully expect the average consumer to take a "no subscription, no updates" package if offered.
Even the professional photography in this scenario might not benefit from a subscription. An important part of professional pipelines is stability. But when adobe updates it's products you're...
Even the professional photography in this scenario might not benefit from a subscription. An important part of professional pipelines is stability. But when adobe updates it's products you're often getting features, bug fixes, and regressions. From personal experience I know having a single stable version of my video driver, wacom driver, and photoshop is the only way I can stay sane if I want to use my wacom pen consistently.
For that reason I honestly think almost everyone benefits more from a single upfront cost for a specific polished version of software compared to a subscription that provides updates. The only entity that doesn't benefit from that is Adobe.
I didn't want to insert my personal feelings into that analysis, but Adobe is perhaps the worst possible example of a good software subscription. Their software is extremely buggy, slow, and...
I didn't want to insert my personal feelings into that analysis, but Adobe is perhaps the worst possible example of a good software subscription. Their software is extremely buggy, slow, and temperamental; their technical support is rude and ineffective, the cloud services are limited and mediocre, and updates can and do break your local installation. There are many comments in the Photography subreddit from professionals who have switched to Capture One, which I find amusing considering that it doesn't have as much "value added" and costs twice as much.
A much better example of professional software subscriptions that match the Adobe Photography Plan in substance and style is Microsoft's Office 365 subscription. The software is extremely stable and polished, doesn't change dramatically year over year, and doesn't constantly ask you to log in to prove that you are a not a dirty thief. Their mobile and online apps are fairly decent; even if they don't have the full desktop functionality, you can complete most projects entirely within them and not need to retouch them after you get access to a PC. Better yet, they don't treat android like a second-class citizen. Plus they offer five times as much cloud storage as Adobe does, and it's not just for Office files; it's general-purpose.
Liked the video... though, a software, when purchased usually comes with support for X years (kinda like physical things with warranty). This subscription thing is trying to change that. From the...
Liked the video... though, a software, when purchased usually comes with support for X years (kinda like physical things with warranty). This subscription thing is trying to change that. From the company point of view it makes sense to make a product a service, but from a customer i don't see any gain. Sure, if you buy a software that you will only use say twice a year it might be worth it subscribing only when you need it, but if you use it everyday it makes no sense to "subscribe" to a product, the argument that it might stop being supported is kinda ridiculous cause usually the "basis" (operating system) tries to be backwards compatible. And even if it isn't there will be tools to make it so
It's true that people often don't see the value of it, but writing software that works fine if it's unmaintained for years seems increasingly rare? This is most obvious when stuff runs in the...
It's true that people often don't see the value of it, but writing software that works fine if it's unmaintained for years seems increasingly rare? This is most obvious when stuff runs in the cloud. If the servers stop running, some or all features might stop working.
But even software that's standalone tends to stop working as platforms change underneath them. If mobile apps aren't maintained then eventually they disappear from the app store and you won't be able to use them on your next phone. Old Mac programs eventually stop working when Apple drops support, like happened recently for 32 bit support.
Microsoft does a lot of work to maintain binary compatibility and Linux is kind of different due to the efforts of Debian maintainers and recompiling from source all the time. Old games may work due to the efforts of emulator writers. But for the most part, you don't see software lasting forever and just working without much effort, like you might with a collection of mp3's.
I think it's great when it does and the emulator scene sets a good example. Also, the interactive fiction community did a great job of picking a small number of binary formats and sticking to them.
The lamp was interesting to me because of how it actually carries over to houses. For example electrical code changes, your house may have been built on a code that is now considered unsafe. But...
The lamp was interesting to me because of how it actually carries over to houses. For example electrical code changes, your house may have been built on a code that is now considered unsafe. But people regularly choose to leave it be because it's not illegal, they aren't making changes, and it's very difficult to change.
If the same thing happens in software, however it's seen as a larger issue because it's free, and easy to update to a new version. So choosing to use vulnerable software isn't acceptable where as living in an old more dangerous house is fine.
I really liked that video. It explains the issue in a simple and accurate fashion.
The only thing missing, which usually is, is a larger discussion of how that fits on a very old model called capitalism. Capitalism seems so natural we don't even see it, it's like trying to make a fish see the water. But it is still there, and much of what Marx and Deleuze wrote is still true, but most people seem to dismiss the discussion of the model.
I didn't watch the video but I'm wondering if you could explain in more detail what you think most people don't see? It seems to me that making and spending money is a huge concern for most people. Business and economics are common subjects for study and research. There is also a lot of controversy, which doesn't seem consistent with it being taken for granted?
I'm talking about the super-structure in which business is subsumed: capitalism.
Marxism basically states that there are at least two classes of people: the ones who control the means of production (owners), and the ones who don't (workers). There's more to it than that, but you get the idea.
His theory was created to explain industrialism, but it is still valid in other kinds of economic activity. For example, Apple controls the market of iOS apps, so in a way, they're the ones controlling the "means of production". Independent app makers are the workers, who have to abide by the rules of the patrons. It's a class struggle right there. The same is true between Uber vs drivers etc. The fact that we're not talking about a traditional industry model anymore doesn't make it false that this is still a class struggle, and Marxism is still largely valid.
One of the main ideas of Deleuze regarding capitalism is that demand is not only something that capitalism fulfills but also something that capitalism creates, in detriment of our best interests. Think about all the people deeply in debt because they felt they need to acquire unnecessary goods. Why did they do so? Are they the only ones to blame? No, according to Deleuze: marketing and social pressure creates desire that did not existed before, trapping society in a consumerist agenda.
Those are just two very brief, laymen explanations.
It seems like most people these days are skeptical of advertising, consumer debt, and wasteful spending? To say this is invisible is like saying smokers don't know smoking is bad for you. (They probably haven't heard of Deleuze, but the basic idea seems to have become widespread.)
I have a pretty crude understanding of the Marxist view of things, about the level you briefly summarize here. I have questions. Someday I'm hoping to find a really good, readable, modern introduction. Any recommendations?
I understand the idea behind this video was to make an argument for subscriptions. It does a good job for services like Netflix but not for products. The argument for products doesn't come across as being honest with itself.
It assumes an ideal scenario where bugs are inevitable and never ending despite anything else. I don't think that's reasonable if an app is features stable. It also assumes apps will just decay and become "incompatible". Which is odd because most platforms take a lot of care to provide backwards compatibility.
But the main issue is I don't think it really takes the time to compare subscriptions with other business models. Or even the issues with subscriptions services like netflix where you might only be interested in a single show.
The problem is that he's fundamentally categorization products and services. Subscription boxes are not services, period. Just because you may or may not know what you are getting in the subscription does not magically turn it into a subscription (and I would argue that not knowing is highly problematic in it's own way, but that's another conversation). Likewise, software subscriptions have more in common with services than with products, since the expenses you are paying for are development and support related costs.
The problem that most people seem to have with subscriptions is that the model doesn't make sense for them. Let's use the Adobe Photography Plan as an example. If I'm a professional photographer, I will be using Lightroom and/or Photoshop constantly. Having access to this kind of software is a keystone to my livelihood, and having this subscription service is great since I'm not paying for this expensive software package upfront, which actually has the effect of making the software cheaper. Plus it comes with additional services to help me build an entire website and online portfolio!
But what if I am a Hobbyist? I still need this kind of software to produce the kind of images I want. Sure, I'm not going to be paying for an expensive software package, but since this is a hobby, I don't need the latest versions; I can keep using the same version of the software for years after the support period ended.
And what if photography is only a small hobby, one that I may not deal with for weeks or even months at a time? Or what if I just want to use it once and never again? You would think that this person would benefit the most from a subscription model, but in practice Adobe has completely abandoned these audiences. They say that their subscription bundle is only $9.99 a month, but that's extremely misleading because in reality Adobe only offers that subscription in year-long blocks with optional monthly payments; you're realistically looking at paying a minimum of $119.88.
To put things in more general terms, people are upset with subscription services when they do not feel like they are being better served by the subscription model. Just compare the amount of upset over Adobe versus Autodesk. Both of them switched to subscription services, but people were far more likely to complain over Adobe than Autodesk because the vast majority of Autodesk users are professionals who rely on the product for their livelihood (and even more likely to have those costs covered by an employer).
But it's not cheaper, that's the problem. Same goes for Office, which you mentioned further down. Most people, even professionals who depend on it, are more than happy to stick with a software version that's a couple of revisions out of date, because it does everything they need.
That's the real reason that Adobe and MS push the subscriptions so hard, because then the customer is buying every new version, and the supplier can still claim it's good value by ignoring the fact they would only have otherwise bought one in every three or so when a relevant feature was added or if compatibility was becoming a problem.
The video's premise that ongoing development needs ongoing income is very fair, but I think it dramatically overestimates how much most users actually care about that ongoing development. I'd fully expect the average consumer to take a "no subscription, no updates" package if offered.
Even the professional photography in this scenario might not benefit from a subscription. An important part of professional pipelines is stability. But when adobe updates it's products you're often getting features, bug fixes, and regressions. From personal experience I know having a single stable version of my video driver, wacom driver, and photoshop is the only way I can stay sane if I want to use my wacom pen consistently.
For that reason I honestly think almost everyone benefits more from a single upfront cost for a specific polished version of software compared to a subscription that provides updates. The only entity that doesn't benefit from that is Adobe.
I didn't want to insert my personal feelings into that analysis, but Adobe is perhaps the worst possible example of a good software subscription. Their software is extremely buggy, slow, and temperamental; their technical support is rude and ineffective, the cloud services are limited and mediocre, and updates can and do break your local installation. There are many comments in the Photography subreddit from professionals who have switched to Capture One, which I find amusing considering that it doesn't have as much "value added" and costs twice as much.
A much better example of professional software subscriptions that match the Adobe Photography Plan in substance and style is Microsoft's Office 365 subscription. The software is extremely stable and polished, doesn't change dramatically year over year, and doesn't constantly ask you to log in to prove that you are a not a dirty thief. Their mobile and online apps are fairly decent; even if they don't have the full desktop functionality, you can complete most projects entirely within them and not need to retouch them after you get access to a PC. Better yet, they don't treat android like a second-class citizen. Plus they offer five times as much cloud storage as Adobe does, and it's not just for Office files; it's general-purpose.
Liked the video... though, a software, when purchased usually comes with support for X years (kinda like physical things with warranty). This subscription thing is trying to change that. From the company point of view it makes sense to make a product a service, but from a customer i don't see any gain. Sure, if you buy a software that you will only use say twice a year it might be worth it subscribing only when you need it, but if you use it everyday it makes no sense to "subscribe" to a product, the argument that it might stop being supported is kinda ridiculous cause usually the "basis" (operating system) tries to be backwards compatible. And even if it isn't there will be tools to make it so
It's true that people often don't see the value of it, but writing software that works fine if it's unmaintained for years seems increasingly rare? This is most obvious when stuff runs in the cloud. If the servers stop running, some or all features might stop working.
But even software that's standalone tends to stop working as platforms change underneath them. If mobile apps aren't maintained then eventually they disappear from the app store and you won't be able to use them on your next phone. Old Mac programs eventually stop working when Apple drops support, like happened recently for 32 bit support.
Microsoft does a lot of work to maintain binary compatibility and Linux is kind of different due to the efforts of Debian maintainers and recompiling from source all the time. Old games may work due to the efforts of emulator writers. But for the most part, you don't see software lasting forever and just working without much effort, like you might with a collection of mp3's.
I think it's great when it does and the emulator scene sets a good example. Also, the interactive fiction community did a great job of picking a small number of binary formats and sticking to them.
The lamp was interesting to me because of how it actually carries over to houses. For example electrical code changes, your house may have been built on a code that is now considered unsafe. But people regularly choose to leave it be because it's not illegal, they aren't making changes, and it's very difficult to change.
If the same thing happens in software, however it's seen as a larger issue because it's free, and easy to update to a new version. So choosing to use vulnerable software isn't acceptable where as living in an old more dangerous house is fine.