Yup, there is little downside to supporting this concept as it should inevitably move others to adopt similar functionality. It isn’t the perfect solution or likely even the best idea in the room but the biggest player just made a big move in the consumer’s favor. It does coincide with a big privacy push that will keep their market share up so not really benevolence.
Why would not paying doctors be the natural consequence? It’s a fairly significant jump to go from don’t let cost be a primary decision driver to let’s force doctors to work without pay.
Because in reality, there are always tradeoffs and constraints. In the US, a disproportionate amount of healthcare costs come at the very, very end of life.
It's possible to meet the sole criteria of science, quality, and patient wishes with exploding costs. I think the OP's point was that money has to come from somewhere.
"a disproportionate amount of healthcare costs come at the very, very end of life."
One might ask why that is; while some is surely due to natural decline in later years, one could likely also posit that the cost-fears leading up through that period (decades), and the general inability to get people to do preventative care throughout adulthood contribute to that significantly.
It is one consequence of a highly atomized culture. I suspect it happens because individuals are expected to take responsibility for their care (basically, this is the human side of cost-shifting and corporate planning around the care gradient available to someone at a given wealth level).
To someone at the end of their life, money is usually less interesting to them than a few more days of breathing. So the market provides.
The explanation I've heard is that it's rooted in the cultural sanctity of life and how that translates to trying to preserve life at any costs (even when quality of life is no longer present).
To be clear, I'm talking about the absolute twilight of one's life that's reached regardless of levels of preventative care. I think there's potentially an opposite point that could be made: taking care of one's self can prolong this period and make it cost more. Someone who drops dead of a heart attack one afternoon won't have the same end-of-life costs as someone who gradually becomes enfeebled with age.
As someone who has declined in gaming skills as I lose free time I’ve adopted just using mods on PC versions. It removes the online aspect of the game but allows you the chance to explore the world. I’ll be in the retirement home paying someone $20 to update the mod engine for Elden Ring 3.
you really really dont need a mod for ER, nor do you need online mod.
the game is super accessible and if you thorougly explore the world, also quite easy
Major services have major pay outs when majorly bad things happen to their enterprise customers. Finance will not approve a level of risk that would bankrupt your cloud provider for any critical service. I suppose this is mostly immaterial for startups given they don't have the weight or value.
Sure, that part is straightforward. But it's also tied to the mechanism by which a repair shop would get parts... which gets us back to the business decisions at the heart of the conflict between AASP and Right to Repair.
Therefore bringing up Apple attaching their name to the repair as a justification when someone is criticizing the AASP's design is a deflection.
I guess I am out of touch on the topic. Why would Apple ever want to engage with this unless forced to do so by an external entity? There looks to be zero benefit except for power users who can self repair and repair shops. Would it be fair to say these changes are primarily to get ahead of legal concerns and any tangible gains are vapor?
>Why would Apple ever want to engage with this unless forced to do so by an external entity?
You're right, this gets to the heart of the way manufacturers exert control over goods after sale. Apple is far on the restrictive end of the spectrum regarding consumer electronics. [Insert your own speculation about business reasons behind the obviously deceptive and incomplete public justifications here.]
>Would it be fair to say these changes are primarily to get ahead of legal concerns
Yes, nakedly so.
>any tangible gains are vapor?
Anyone with passing awareness of Apple's previous aftermarket repair stance would have to be blindly optimistic to see this press release as anything but expanding the customer base of a program that let select shops do a limited number of fixes, often at might-as-well-buy-new cost of goods.
I don't mean to be standoffish to people like yourself that don't have the context. But when it's just us chuckleheads talking shop on the internet, I'm no fan of the people who are informed on context kidding themselves that PR statements shouldn't be read as critically as possible.
You provide enough value without over reaching to gobble up the planet's engaged time. You know massive ad engines which make the social media concept profit driven will not stop existing as a driver for the metaverse. We would need to pay to play in this space or accept a terrible freemium model which is likely to cause unintended consequences. The worst outcome would be a combination of both.
Which legacy media is not making a streaming migration effort currently with enough sway to manipulate the narrative? I'm not aware of any major players not moving to svod or avod in the US.
All you need to know is Youtube, one of the biggest and most popular streaming services with young people, is literally turning your children into Nazis.
Please, please keep doing this and encouraging this behavior. The more senior on the ic track you get the harder it is to find time to mentor. The reality is that is a core tenet of our position and we may be staying silent to not smother the room. If you need help and you have a competent senior they should encourage your questions or delegate to an appropriate senior if they are too busy.
Nobody? Give it a rest. We're not dumb enough to think everyone in technology, specifically ad tech is ethical by default. Facebook made their own bed and made the mistake of allowing the internal research out of the closed corporate box. They can mitigate the impact of their most engaged content but it would be to their own fiscal detriment which is why they fundamentally decide not to mitigate it.
You need a contingency plan for when vendors go down even in 3rd world countries. It just so happens a lot of us would not mind this vendor failing entirely. It’s unfortunate that we have so little choice in the matter but ultimately the same advice holds true for all of us smugly throwing insults while keeping our billing in AWS.
