Why consumer choice is stripped away and how the tech industry profits from it

6 hours ago

Tech companies often remove features or change policies without clear, user-serving justifications, leading to frustration.
The real reason behind many restrictive policies (e.g., sideloading bans, proprietary standards) is revenue and control, not user safety or technical limitations.
Dependency is engineered into products to lock users into ecosystems, making it costly to switch even when service degrades.
Accessibility is frequently neglected, with many products shipping with basic failures that exclude disabled users.
Regulation (e.g., EU’s Digital Markets Act) has been more effective than consumer complaints in forcing companies to change anti-user practices.
Companies use vague language like 'platform integrity' or 'user experience' to justify decisions that primarily benefit their bottom line.
Many products rely on cloud services that can be shut down, rendering hardware useless despite being physically functional.
Right-to-repair restrictions (e.g., parts pairing) are designed to funnel users into expensive manufacturer repair channels.
Public backlash sometimes forces temporary retreats (e.g., BMW’s heated seat subscription), but systemic issues persist.
Honesty about corporate motives is rare—policies are framed as beneficial even when they’re purely extractive.

Hasty Briefsbeta