My guess is it is basically a real world survey of how people would use such a device, and what developers would do with it. Then they could later focus on a cheaper product that is only a display, or a product that is only a media viewer, or a product that focuses on VR/AR applications while deemphasizing other use cases.

This is the version of reality that doesn’t require anyone to be stupid. In my experience if a reality candidate requires that someone is just really really stupid to arrive at the outcome (in this case Apple execs), probably you are missing something about someone’s perspective.

<6 months later>

Media: "Americans Don't Like X"

It’s possible somewhere does properly incentivize this, but the companies who were regarded as doing it the best still don’t in my experience (at least once the company gets bigger than a startup).

Like is the reason why free X is better is just because whenever rules are made, the maker of rules can be corrupted to make rules for corrupters? And corrupters always exist, so minimizing the rules attack surface is a good strategy. And corrupters try to broaden the attack surface by having more rules and rule generation mechanisms in place.

I thought they were sanctioned to hell and back. Do tariffs even apply as a concept?

> If a landlord owns 500 homes and tenants pay off the mortgage

So I agree that this situation feels like a scam, and I think that feeling is based on human instinct and so it is in a way just objectively true (since unfairness is fundamentally defined by that instinct).

But, what is inducing this unfair situation?

Is it the part where someone owns the land and the building and someone else pays them to use it?

Or, is it the part where some third party gets to decide who can use its money, which is to say “who is in the club”, and people outside of that club pay both the third party and the people in the club for basic necessities, without which they will die. In essence they are held hostage and must pay their own ransom. And the reason that’s ostensibly fair under the current moral regime is that club membership is… itself determined by money.

Do we think that part might be the root cause of the unfair feeling in this situation?

Please do respond to my specific point here as I’m curious to engage and I’m not trying to nitpick you. If you just respond with a dismissal such as “the argument doesn’t rest on this point”, then I will conclude your overall argument is not sound (whether due to being insufficiently thought through or whether due to being fundamentally invalid, I don’t know, but I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to figure that out and I can just dismiss the claim until someone comes along with a more well structured argument).

Like if the means of production is land, and you are seizing land, sure that makes sense to me.

But most goods are not made by land alone but by machines and factories and transport systems and etc. If you seize those as preexisting entities, what happens after you seize them? If you as a group can operate and expand those things, can’t you just build them yourselves also, and if so there is a way to work within the existing framework to do that, which is to start a company. Is seizing the means of production not equivalent to starting a company and stealing things others have built for the company to get started with? Why is that a good thing?

Like I personally agree that wealth accumulation is bad if it has political power go along with it, and there are huge problems with our system and lots of debt formats should be made illegal, I just don’t get why anyone thinks “seize the means of production” is the answer and I feel like I might be confused about what that really means.

People who don’t believe it are bad.

If you even question it, people get angry and say you’re bad.

People support wars against other people solely on the basis of their disagreement with it.

People think we should spread it to other people.

Functionally, how is that different from religion?

Sure, I am using a different definition of religion because the normal definition focuses on the mascot, but I believe that is wrong and the presence or absence of a mascot is not the important part of religion. Believing things for reasons other than evidence or logic is the important part. Which doesn’t mean we need to stop doing it, to be clear, we should just be labeling it accurately to avoid becoming confused about what we are doing.