LogFAQs > #908137998

AllstarSniper32 posted...

So you don't think a corporation is slowing down their old tech to make people be more inclined to buy the new non-slowed down products?

No, I think a corporation created a product that had inherent technical limitations, and then proceeded to not fix them because the flaw encouraged people to buy more of their product. I don't think they deliberately handicapped the tech to force a planned obsolescence scenario, I think they merely took advantage of a negative and turned it into a positive for themselves (in spite of it still being a negative for users).

(I'm not saying Apple wouldn't deliberately sabotage their product if they needed to in order to make more money, and they thought they could get away with it, but in this case, that's not what they did.)

But do you think that's MORE evil than deliberately ordering developers to design games in ways that explicitly prey upon human addiction psychology to exploit them and encourage them to spend thousands of dollars on non-existent product? Or predatorially acquiring and then eventually destroying multiple successful studios solely to grind out slightly more short-term gain?

I am in no way saying Apple isn't greedy (they absolutely are). But the question is which is worse.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family