After having gone through decades of adopting the "latest and greatest" tech, I've gotten to the point where what I really want is the least-complex thing I can find that does the essential job I want done.
For a computer, I want something with SeaBIOS, a stripped-down kernel, and a handful of packages from the Debian Stable repository. I want it hackable and repairable -- something like a Framework. Nothing like a MacBook. For a phone, I want something that can run Signal, Fastmail, a music/audiobook player, Syncthing, and Organic Maps, more or less. Minimal connectivity to Cloud services, and nothing about it vying for my attention. Nothing like an iPhone.
For a car I want hackable and repairable. Again with minimal complexity. I don't want it spying on me. I don't want computer glitches rendering the car unusable. I want the parking brake attached to a cable that I engage with a lever. I want to be able to shift it into neutral by pressing down on a clutch pedal and pushing a stick. If my 12v battery dies I want the car to be fully functional after a jump. I want a spare tire in the rear hatch with a jack I can use on the roadside. I want to be able to easily fix most things that can go wrong with the car with parts I can find at a common automotive shop or junkyard. Nothing like what an Apple car would have been.
Given the number of people on HN with iPhones and Teslas I guess I might be running counter to hacker culture. I don't know. But I'm thinking I might not be the only person around thinking this way about technology these days.
A lot of people want (as you describe) the “least-complex thing I can find that does the essential job I want done”
But what you then go on to describe is the antithesis of other people’s definitions.
People want an experience that works out of the box. That they don’t have to think about package managers or maintenance. That’s low complexity for the vast majority of people.
People want something that works out of the box and keeps working without additional maintenance or annoying you all the time.
The post you are replying to has a stronger focus on the second part but still wants the same thing.
Same reasoning for getting debian instead of windows. The preinstalled option seems easier at first sight (someone else prepared the box for you), but then windows has McAfee trials, hey sign up for this, oh you don't want updates right now... too bad, your microphone does not work in Skype and you have no clue where to even look to fix it. I don't have the time or patience to deal with this, so debian it is.
I understand what the person I was replying to wants. I was replying to their point that they don’t understand that other people don’t want the same, when they do but they just value other forms of simplicity.
And how does being on Debian meaningfully change your scenario? You’ve just shifted the issue elsewhere to something that you are subjectively more familiar with and subjectively more willing to debug.
Let’s be real. Most people aren’t going to do that. The year of Linux on the desktop would have come by now (and let’s not trot out the steamdeck which hides that away)
Any vanilla option with millions of users and some reputation for quality works for this. Windows works just fine out of the box. As does mac os. As does debian.
With windows you ofc run the risk of purchasing your kit from a shitty vendor - so that for sure is a slight extra hurdle.
> People want an experience that works out of the box.
I hear this since 30 years. Yet absolutely nothing works out of the box. Everything has a learning curve, sometimes only for the sake of change (see Windows, iOS, etc)
A lot of things work out of the box. Hairdryers. Cooking stoves. Fridges. Coffee machines.
It's just as soon as a company wants to make everything into a full-blown computer (to get that sweet data), that's when the problems start. The system becomes complex, feature creep and lack of engineering effort do the rest. Maybe not everything needs to be a computer.
> A lot of things work out of the box. Hairdryers. Cooking stoves.
I wish my cooking stove worked out of the box. After the control panel died a technician who didn't know what they were doing replaced it and then neglected to push a new firmware version into the Linux box running in my stove. That messed up the communications between the control unit and the power board, and my oven was perpetually 25F cooler than what I had set it to until I called another tech back to figure that out.
That was actually a food safety issue, as one might assume that if you cook your meat at a particular temperature and time then it will be safe to consume. The cook top also seemed to only be able to cook at settings 6 or 7; the lower settings seemed to be way too weak.
Fortunately I had the sense to buy an oven thermometer just to make sure.
I have always hated how almost everywhere I go I get told “no one can know everything/no one cares how a plain works so long as it works” for me that’s fundamentally untrue.
But I have heard it said so many times and seen so many people simply agree with it that I believe that for many many people out there, it is true.
Why do a lot of technical people own iPhones and use Mac’s? It’s not because they can’t understand the technology and it’s not because they don’t like to tinker.
It’s because they don’t want to carry that constant burden of thought with them. Maybe some do, but a lot of folks like the base state to be one where they can just chill.
> It’s because they don’t want to carry that constant burden of thought with them
With me it's the thought of how it's going to prevent me from doing what I want because "it's not the Apple way" (but that applies to more than just apple). It's the main reason not to use those.
I want my iPhone to connect via cloud with my Mac, because I can scan documents with the iPhone and open them there. Without me doing anything to connect the devices apart from first install.
I want to experience new things like new music hence why I use Spotify to get something new washed in (but in the past it worked better).
All the gain but without the pain of fixing it. I already have to fix packages during work time and debug through software. Not in my spare time please.
I bought into the "it just works" ideology after using Android since my first smartphone. Not only is the UX really confusing and lacking any sort of help to understand what you can and cannot do, but the "It's not the Apple way" is really getting in the way of the most basic stuff.
Apple gave iPhone users "Automation" yet it's so lacking you cannot do things automatically when you receive a text message for example, without requiring manual action. Apple CarPlay doesn't seem to have been tested with people actually driving and using it, exemplified by receiving a call while trying to use map navigation and the receiving call covers the navigation. There are so many examples like this, while what I thought I would get would be something that excelled in every way.
There are so many examples of UX that is lacking of thought, that this is my first and last iPhone.
I had exactly this experience! I’m so frustrated people convinced me to buy an iPhone, because it was so expensive I can’t justify switching back. I have been using a Pixel 6 for some drone photography and everything about is nicer than my iPhone 14 Pro.
I found out long ago that it's easier and more cost-effective[] for me to change my habits than it is to try to shove the square peg of my habits to the round hole of the tool I'm using.
The final part of my comment got cut off by my tab switching behaviour but it was along the lines of “I find it hard to believe that even the most passionate hacker or tinkerer could become an adult and not have realised most people aren’t like that.
Was going to say this. I went from what he describes as the solution, to what he describes as the antithesis, for the exact reasons he went in the opposite direction. Funny eh?
Tesla (and Apple) don't just work though. The latest Tesla issue I have is the navigation system which caches nothing and often takes 2-4-10 minutes before it updates the map WHILE I'M DRIVING and trying to find a new route. I end up having to take out my phone (more dangerous) and search there. This happened often in both SF and LA. Say you're driving, you want to zoom out a little to get some idea of where you need to be, which exits it's picked, etc. You zoom out and the tiles at that zoom level don't fill in for minutes. And, if you want to them to fill in you need to keep fingers on the screen, otherwise it auto-zooms back to the default level and throws away whatever data it started downloading. It's infuriatingly bad
I didn’t say they were perfect. I very much do think there’s room for improvement but the stock experience in a Tesla is miles ahead of other companies. The only thing that would be better IMHO (and much better) is if they allowed CarPlay or Android auto.
Let’s not miss the forest for the trees with equating flaws with what the original topic was: hackable. All their examples require up front knowledge and patience. They’ll still have flaws after all that.
Most people don’t want that. They’ll put up with flaws if they can skip the up front mental energy and friction.
Okay so it's not just me. I feel like the map issues have been absolutely infuriating recently. There are also offline maps that are downloaded as well so I don't understand how the maps are so awful. I don't remember it being this bad in 2019/2020.
> People want an experience that works out of the box. That they don’t have to think about package managers or maintenance. That’s low complexity for the vast majority of people.
> That’s why people are going for Apple and Tesla.
Agreed. that I think why some here prefer the more stripped down but more actively operated products is that, in contemporary versions of Apple (or similar) products is that the surface level simplicity of those products comes in exchange with a far more complex business model of DRM, product ecosystems, subscriptions, IOT nonsense etc.
Ironically Apple's appeal used to be the buy it and forget it product, where Toyota today remains one of the last champions of the buy it and forget it practice.
by similar, I mean firms that take a page of Apple's book with sleek, consumer friendly design and decidedly consumer unfriendly business (Peloton etc).
Not what I meant. "People want an experience that works out of the box."
That experience of a car just working out of the box, doing what it is supposed to do, and never having any issues whatsoever, is more typical of Toyota/Honda than it is of any of the EV makers. Even though electric vehicles as a category should be better in principle (fewer moving parts).
There’s no single axis to people’s decisions though.
The Japanese brands have stagnated in terms of style, features and BEV availability. Especially in the case of Honda, they’ve also lost that impression of reliability.
Tesla and Hyundai/Kia are eating their market for what people’s wants have changed to: cars as an extension of the rest of their lives, not just a utility.
> cars as an extension of the rest of their lives, not just a utility
I don't even understand what that means. That could be a marketing slogan.
Cars have been at the center of our lives for decades in most developed countries, we don't even notice it anymore. Unless you live in the Netherlands, Japan or a big European metropolis, everything has been designed for them.
What do people do the rest of their day when they’re not in a car?
They’re using apps to navigate, listen to music, entertain themselves, get support etc…
A Tesla gives them an extension of the rest of their day in car form. It’s a smartphone on a car.
That’s in addition to their ecosystem of chargers. Not having to worry as much if a charger is compatible or cross shop gas price rates.
It’s also why most buyers require CarPlay or Android auto as a must have feature.
I don’t care if it sounds like marketing. You can see people make the decision time and time again that new technology should be an extension of what they already use outside of it.
For iPhones, I’ve been meaning to try out Assistive Access as a “minimalist mode”. It gives you a big icon launcher becomes a dumb phone, more or less.
Unfortunately it's much more limited than an actual "dumb phone" because of some weird choices Apple made. In particular:
1. You can only receive messages from numbers that are in your contact list.
2. You can only send messages and make phone calls to select numbers that are in your contact list, and which have been additionally whitelisted under Assistive Access.
3. The Settings app (which lets you configure the whitelist) is not available.
I am not against technology "that just works" and you dont need to do much... but it comes at a cost, being your freedom (lack of configurations)
I am not here to point fingers and anyone. I just like to have control over my technology, or it is relatively easy to repair (or pretty cheap if I pay someone else with more experience to do it)
For laptops and desktops, I do not have much negatives about using GNU/Linux. Some people mentions the bad experiences they have but that is not the case for me. I say this for many years, now.
For phone... yes, I have an Android. Before that, I had a Firefox phone for 5 years... and I honestly enjoyed it. A bit clunky at times but worked really well. I do keep an eye of OpenSource-esque phones from time to time. I remember the openmoko phone which must have been 10 years ago, now. Today I know about Librem or Pinephones. I would like to move over to one of these babies... but maybe leave it another 5 years.
As for my Car, I like Polo, Corsa, Fiesta type Cars. I will leave it there.
Imagine the mountain of electronic waste if everyone needs a separate gadget for every task.
A screen is a screen. In theory, a single general-purpose computer with a screen is the simplest solution of all.
The real problem, as I see it, is that it has become very hard to make a general purpose computer with good UX and decent privacy. All the forces are working against it. But we should not give up trying.
You’re enumerating all kinds of failure cases and how the most important thing about the product is how fast/easy to rectify them but you should really consider the probability times the effort (plus some risk penalty for increased risk).
Isn't hacker culture about being able to hack and repair things? I.e. you aren't running counter to hacker culture. You might be running against the mainstream, but that's all right.
What you're looking for is 'Basic Premium'. I got that way after burning out on tech enthusiasm. Now I just want the best I can get of the things I need.
On the subject of electric cars, I would argue that the _components_ in an electric vehicle are far simpler than those in an internal combustion engine.
From the wheels, working inwards -
1. Brakes are used less because of regenerative braking, so less wear and tear.
2. Brake vacuum is provided by an electric pump, cheap part to replace. If you use an iBooster you eliminate master and slave cylinders - much less complex.
3. You don't need a gearbox of any kind because you don't have to keep the engine RPM in an optimal torque band - it's all constant torque.
4. Therefore no clutch required. Even if you want to keep a gearbox, you don't need one because an electric motor has so little rotating mass that you can clutches shift.
5. The motor is vastly simpler. No combustion, no timing issues, no fuel delivery issues, vastly less wear and tear, less fluids.
6. Vastly less heat generated means simple, easy to repair coolant system.
7. No gas tank, no fuel lines to block or corrode.
8. Battery is a single unit, if you've got a good BMS, cells are protected so you can replace bad cells.
9. Controlling all of these things need not use zillions of wires which are impossible to trace. Either these components work just fine in failover mode (i.e just give them power and they work) or are simple to control with CANBUS. Canbus is scary because it is unfamiliar. It's generally an eminently hackable system, and you just need to route 2 wires from the CANBUS spine to the component. It's actually waaaay simpler than, say, Ethernet.
All in all, I would argue that an electric motor is a vastly better technology to base a _simple, repairable personal transport solution_ on top of. It's just that no EV producer has identified 'repairability' as a market need.
All the electric tech is raising car prices and blocking the right for repair ( eg. You can fix the LED light, but need a 10 k. Branded diagnose machine to indicate you fixed it).
We calculated the prices from an official shop and came to the conclusion that they billed us 150€ for basically a walk to get a 2€ part.
I feel as though a lot of newer EVs include a ton of code complexity just for the sake of having a ton of code complexity. It's as if the culture of "value-add" went into hyperdrive for some of these newer car manufacturers.
For me to return to the EV market I would require that I be able to source a third-party battery pack, at the very least. I'd be fine with government regulations to block the cheap packs that catch fire. I just want the option of swapping out the pack on my own terms if I want in the future, including getting next-gen battery tech that can increase range with less volume and weight. I'd also insist that they have a "do not phone home" mode of operation, along with buttons and knobs and a small screen. And a pull-brake. And a charging infrastructure that works. And that I can use with cash.
nothing wrong with buying a frameworks laptop and a 1996 miata.
most folks don't know what a BIOS is, but care if it takes more than a couple days to replace their device. nice thing about apple is you can basically walk in with a damaged device and walk out with its memories and soul ported into a new body.
What you describe are simple systems. Most people confuse simplicity and intuitiveness. The Apple Car or the iPhone are intuitive to use but far from simple, because of the abstraction level. I like simple systems, which are maintainable, because they lack high abstractions.
All electronics fail, and all systems reliant on electronics fail. Not all worm gears fail.
As someone who has worked in tech my whole life, and who currently runs a technology-centric company, I generally detest the state of technology these days. I have reached a point in my life where I consciously limit my use of technology, and make it a point to steer clear of purchasing and making use of devices and services with "superfluous technology" unless their are no alternatives.
Many (if not most) modern technology systems are far too complex to be properly tested, especially when taking into account integrations (via "standard" interfaces) with third party technology systems. As technology systems have become more complex, their reliability as tools to accomplish an intended goal has drastically decreased while the telemetry capabilities of the systems have been drastically improved (without me knowingly realizing any benefits thereof). As such, I have learned to rely on technology less and less as I have aged.
There are surely many reasons for the inverse relationship between complexity and reliability of technology systems, but a cursory list of suggested root causes that come to mind include:
- use of (necessary, in modern software development) automated test tools;
- use of programming languages too-abstracted from technologies employed within the system;
- a likely growing percentage of developers lacking a working domain knowledge of the systems they are developing;
- the corporate / financial pressure to needlessly upgrade or evolve technology systems--even in the absence of flaws or demand for the upgrade--in the name of maintaining / increasing shareholder value (see also: planned obsolescence, etc.)
Two immediate examples of "too much technology" that come to mind, because I have experienced them within the past few days:
1) Bluetooth is soon to be 26 years old, yet my model year 2022 smartphone cannot reliably communicate with my model year 2022 vehicle's head unit via Bluetooth to play music or relay audio during phone calls. I cannot tell you how many point releases of smartphone software (or vehicle head unit software) have been released since I have owned both the phone and the via Bluetooth, but Bluetooth has never worked correctly on any of them. Why?
2) On some recent releases of macOS Sonoma, the OS can read FAT* formatted USB media without issue, while other releases (to include 14.3.1) cannot read FAT* formatted USB media. Regarding 14.3.1: on 14.3, I could read and write to FAT* USB drives just fine, but I could not type an email longer than a couple of lines without the UI overlaying text on top of other text in the email, making the entire text of the email illegible. When 14.3.1 (with the text overlaying issue fixed) was available, I applied the update right away. Now I can write emails without issue, but I cannot read FAT* formatted USB drives. Why?
I've had nearly flawless Bluetooth support across several different car brands and devices in my cars for well over a decade. Pair it once, and it just works all day every day. I truly don't understand people saying Bluetooth is unreliable, I've personally never experienced it and I use Bluetooth across several different devices every day.
Even now, my phone's Bluetooth is my key to the car. I don't normally carry any other key.
> All electronics fail, and all systems reliant on electronics fail. Not all worm gears fail.
This is kind of a weird take: I was reading about the Therac 25 (radiation therapy machine that killed a few people because of software bugs), and one of the reasons why they were so confident it was going to work is that software isn't vulnerable to two classes of 'bugs' that analog devices suffer from: wear, and manufacturing defects.
I mean, they turned out to be wrong, but they have a point: physical devices are subject to entire categories of bugs that software can be reliably proofed against. All worm screws will ultimately fail, while software can (if done correctly) run forever. All manufactured devices are unique and have unique defects. Software can be reproduced without any defects whatsoever.
Worm screws have a known and simple failure mode, however, which people understand. It can also take a very long time to fail depending on the design - longer than the useful life of the product in many cases.
Software fails suddenly and unexpectedly, and when it does, it's rarely clear how to mitigate it. Witness all the "turn it off and on again" jokes...
Mechanical objects frequently fail unexpectedly, especially if you're trying to do something weird or unusual. We're just used to living in a world of machines that are in their second century of iterative improvement.
I make installation art, and from personal experience, despite being an equally shitty programmer as I am an engineer, the software is way more reliable, and there are way fewer ways in which it can fail. Anything from materials being not what they say they are, to some jackass accidentally making earth live, to stuff catching on fire - it's all possible.
Mechanical components becoming lines of code improved reliability and performance greatly, but at the cost of massively increasing complexity and making modifications impossible unless you are willing to reverse engineer.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but shortly after I relocated in the dead of winter to a place that's further north my driver's side window wouldn't roll back up after I rolled it down. It's not fun trying to transport your family around with a window stuck open in freezing temps.
If a crank-based mechanism would have made that less likely to happen, or at least if it would be easier for me to get the window back up with simple tools, I would have been all for that at the time!
Most failures of windows I've seen are the glass falling off the track or the track getting physically jammed or out of alignment. There's a good chance whatever failure you had a hand crank wouldn't have prevented it.
Even when its like "the motor burned out", well what caused the motor to burn out? The lift was way out of alignment and would have been dang hard to turn by hand, and probably would have just broken the gearing.
It seems like a lifelong journey to find and customize your stuff to be exactly what you'd like it to be. Realistically I'll never get "there" without making some pretty big compromises, but the hacker in me enjoys trying.
My phone is a Pixel 7a running GrapheneOS. My laptop is a Thinkpad T80s running Debian Stable, and I'm waiting for my Framework 16 to ship. My vehicle for out-of-town trips is a GR Corolla, but for around-town stuff I use a custom steel frame e-bike.
When I have the time and energy I try to protect my privacy. For the GR Corolla I followed some steps* that might have done the job, but I can't say for sure. This summer I hope I have time to play with the hardware, up to and including replacing the headunit with something OSS-based.
For a computer, I want something with SeaBIOS, a stripped-down kernel, and a handful of packages from the Debian Stable repository. I want it hackable and repairable -- something like a Framework. Nothing like a MacBook. For a phone, I want something that can run Signal, Fastmail, a music/audiobook player, Syncthing, and Organic Maps, more or less. Minimal connectivity to Cloud services, and nothing about it vying for my attention. Nothing like an iPhone.
For a car I want hackable and repairable. Again with minimal complexity. I don't want it spying on me. I don't want computer glitches rendering the car unusable. I want the parking brake attached to a cable that I engage with a lever. I want to be able to shift it into neutral by pressing down on a clutch pedal and pushing a stick. If my 12v battery dies I want the car to be fully functional after a jump. I want a spare tire in the rear hatch with a jack I can use on the roadside. I want to be able to easily fix most things that can go wrong with the car with parts I can find at a common automotive shop or junkyard. Nothing like what an Apple car would have been.
Given the number of people on HN with iPhones and Teslas I guess I might be running counter to hacker culture. I don't know. But I'm thinking I might not be the only person around thinking this way about technology these days.