Google and Windows Aren’t Rational II
Few are happy seeing factory time and energy of workers being used to make slow defunct computers and phones. And two major tech companies do this profusely:
- Windows
Each product is mass produced and takes worker energy and effort to make. Google and Windows logistically allot sections of their factory lines toward cheaper goods that will fail to work as greatly as the more expensive ones. Yet, the overall cost and time to make the more expensive technology is relatively small. This is to perhaps give those with lower incomes more opportunities to at least buy tech made exclusively by Google or Microsoft. However, we pose the simple question:
If the cost and time to make better products is significantly marginal (same exact materials), why not make all the products the best one’s we have? In addition, following this thinking, why not make them affordable so as to not put an emphasis on disparity between income and quality of life? It seems the companies that do this, implicitly promote the inequality that is entirely optional. Is Google wasting time on purpose? Windows? And are the polluting the earth with cheap parts that break easily and devoting labour and materials to goods that fail?
We will tell you the bright side:
Google and Windows can make their cheaper products better to use and feel. In terms of computation and performance, users can have a smooth and clean design. The methods and technology are there for both companies.
Now the not so bright side:
But, they don’t want to do this. Perhaps without knowing so. Maybe it’s unintentional. They put the best features exclusively for higher priced models which, in terms of parts, aren’t that much better. The old phone from 2013 or so still works, so its durable and the interface is decent. Yet, the software is deliberately made to be bad. Yes, ceos at Google and Windows work hard thinking of ways to make their computers terrible for the lower income consumers and think
Satire: google and microsoft, “You know…for those who want to pay less, let’s take away these features. How about making the devices work less efficient for this much money? They aren’t paying as much as we need and we need to show them this. Set up the assembly lines and make the terrible computers and phones when the nice ones could all be made with the same materials and time.”
When a developer makes too efficient code:
“good work, [insert name here]. but, this is for the $50 phone. please make it bad. let the lead tech come in and help you.” lead tech: “oh. this isn’t that bad. I was having a hard time doing this for the $300 phone, let me take the code. here take away this loop, these variables, degrade the user interface, slow the cpu, and…run the code. … there! it works just as a $50 phone needs to work.”
Developers spend time making bad software for a cheap device and the other developers spent more time for the higher devices. Their shifts involve segmented tasks and dedication to lower quality goods and some others work towards making the higher quality goods.
But, really we can make the cheap goods better and it’s nothing too difficult and takes the same materials and time. This is my insight.
Google and Microsoft make an analogy of income inequality by representing it with the prices of their goods.
Google and Microsoft put psychology first and consumer’s joy at the bottom. They value profit over environmental policies as well as consumer satisfaction. The same materials are used to make the slower devices at no extra benefit for that model bought. Meaning, by switching to the cheaper model made in the same amount of time with the same materials, I actually don’t get specialized performance with the same quality dedicated to what I need to have done. I get a cheap, defunct device made on purpose to promote the company’s ideals.
What did we learn?
Basic lesson: Google and Microsoft can devote energy and talent (pooled talent) into single goods toward a certain aim, and try to rip consumer’s off wasting time and energy weighing in how much money have and quality of product.
The workers at google and microsoft show talent at what they do. So, when cheap goods come out made by both company’s logistics, one can’t help but wonder why this happened. It is, from a humane perspective, odd to see talented workers devote time to defunct quality goods. Because the same materials are being used for the better goods. Plainly, this (perhaps unintentionally) promotes the feelings associated with income inequality and also shows that google and windows value profit over actual customer satisfaction. Those who make less money will almost always buy the lower quality computers that are (unintentionally) made for people like them. At the same time, behind the large wages that those who work for companies like google and windows are many many small purchases of lower quality goods since there are more lower income people than higher income people and the demand for windows and google’s products comes from the cheap goods.
Satire
While this isn’t how things exactly are, it is somewhat demonstrated by the way Google and Windows display their products.
$50: we make bad, on purpose
$100: we make better but same time and nothing hard to do
$200: we make best. but if the 50 to 100 dollar guys helped, we’d have more of these things.
The boss gets upset seeing $50 phones with cool software and dedicates assembly lines to defunct products. Sometimes we imagine Google and Microsoft design lab conversations as this:
“You know, I was just thinking about that cheap 50 dollar phone idea, you know…something that’s going to not work correctly for some time. Yes, something about $50 in price and I’ve got the for-loops and bad chip design’s right here for it! Let’s do it!” or maybe “Hmm…nice architecture, but this is for the $50 phone, stay with me here buddy. Five. Zero. Dollars. They didn’t ask for a good one. Let me move this to the $200 phone people and we’ll take off these cool features right here and put this crappy design over here instead. There! Now it’s for a $50 phone. How’s this boss?”
When, really, it can be better than this. Google and Microsoft: really, it can be better than this. So why not make the best goods? Why are you dedicating worker time and health to lower quality goods that no one actually likes buying? No likes your cheap goods. At all. And the workers don’t even like making them when there’s more than enough time for the better ones made of the same exact parts. For companies that use basic logic and have doctorates working for them, I found this hard to believe. Smart, smart, talented doctorates not understanding the basics of human happiness. Rather dumb, isn’t it? Then generation after generation of them come and go taking in lofty salaries and then corrupt the world with ideals that promote income inequality: a fact that is inevitable by the very government that promotes it. Sad, such logical people made a mistake of logistics. Is this the legacy of Windows and Google? Cheap products here, expensive ones there?
Rationally,
- the parts are the same in material
- the time to make them is the same
So, what makes one want to actually set aside time and energy for cheaper goods? Is it necessity? No. It’s profit.
Lesson: Major tech companies promote the idea of lesser and greater in their products and don’t use rationality at all to promote human happiness. The aim of windows and google is primarily profit since rationality is not known at the moment.