The issue is there is no true demand. Yeah, everyone kinda want a device they own - when faced a very direct question and explanation how things really really work. But typically most people don't even think about ownership of the devices they buy - or even falsely assume they "own" those. And those who are aware about the issue have to either pay premium for their rarity (if that's even available in their market - which is not always the case), or agree to not own a device.
So, yeah, ideally everyone should own what they buy, if they want so - and they should be aware what exactly they buy and what are the gotchas. But... how? I believe this "caveat emptor" informational disparity is a multimillenia-old issue.
(Fine print, obviously, doesn't work - because human nature.)
Homestly, this started going downhill with car or any technology advanced enough for documentation to split between user vs. Admin docs. Once manufacturers were offthe hook for being able to transition all relevant info with regards to operation, maintenance, and servicing along with the thing bbeing sold, it created the ignorance/info-asymmetry marketplace that entrenched engineered knowledge scarcity as a profitable business model.
Remember back when you could get "free" dial-up internet by accepting ads? And later Facebook did much the same thing?
I see the whole personal data/tracking industry as that model. You can get a tracking-supported smartphone for $50 or with almost no tracking for $150. This whole thread is people saying they don't want to pay $150 to own a smartphone when they can get that phone for $50 with tracking.
I have a similar problem with slavery. I don't like it. But the smartphone market is utterly dominated by people who are just fine with slavery so there's just one company making a "less slavery" phone and that phone barely sells. Their forums have multiple threads with people complaining quite openly "why does it cost more to make a phone with less slavery" and suggesting that the company could provide more features for a lower price if they just forgot this whole "fairphone" business.
Smartphones are expensive to make and expensive to run. You pay that price either with money, or a mix of money and social/ethical cost.
This. We haven't really had software until just slightly more than half a century - and now everything but a kitchen sink has a microprocessor, running some sort of firmware. Which is never sold, merely leased^W licensed.
That's one reason, but economies of scale are another. If the movement to reject technology you don't own gained traction, the cost of joining that movement would also come down.
During what period was income not a barrier to “having technology that you own completely”?
Given that the only people frothing at the mouth in desire of “having technology that [they] own completely” seem to be rich computer programmers, why wouldn’t companies jack the price up?
