> a Mac without macOS is just an overpriced PC, and Netflix without its excellent browsing and playback software is just cloud storage media stocked with MP4 files<p>Netflix is a production studio and on-demand broadcaster - more like HBO (though internet only) or Hulu or Apple TV+. For my use case, their browsing software is poor - I would prefer a simple and complete catalog interface rather than endlessly cycling through the same few dozen bad "recommendations."<p>Whether Macs running Windows or Linux are nothing more than overpriced PCs is an argument that tends to be resolved in the opposite direction depending on whom you talk to; historically many Mac (and iPhone) models have compared favorably to some competitors (notably high-end competitors) in terms of design and functionality and poorly to other competitors (notably vs. some enthusiast/gaming PCs and lower-end competitors) in terms of purchase price.<p>The author is correct though that the software often adds a lot of value to the hardware - part of that is due to Apple's vertical integration, design sensibility, and ecosystem. Apple's support infrastructure also helps.
> Can we have something as beautiful and pure as B2B SaaS but for individuals as well as businesses, and for desktop, mobile, and other native apps? [...] And indeed there does seem to be movement toward subscription-priced prosumer products in the $5 – $15/month range.<p>I wouldn't call subscription based software as anything close to "beautiful and pure".<p>> As a ~user~ customer, I like the idea of finding a few great tools that empower my work and paying for them directly. That gives me confidence the product will serve my needs long-term, because I’m the customer.<p>As an actual user/customer that has paid for software, i absolutely do not like the idea of subscriptions because it ends up placing too much control at the hands of the developer instead of my own hands. I'd rather pay for software once and then have control over it (this implies at least an offline native version of course and i mainly refer to desktop applications here).<p>> And this doesn’t mean a bigger budget for my tech product purchases overall: I can subtract these subscriptions from the money I previously spent on a new phone and laptop every two years, then buy new hardware a little less often.<p>So in other words, the only reason it doesn't mean a bigger budget isn't because this isn't an additional expense but because you cut some other expense from your existing budget.<p>But if you do not cut from any other expense (either because you do not want to or because you already do not buy a new shiny phone and laptop every two years, like for example i am - my laptop is from 2012 and works mostly fine and my phone is from around 2014 or so and while it is a bit sluggish nowadays, it does the main tasks i want from it to do, like receive phone calls, read ebooks and read some article now and then) then it absolutely does mean a bigger budget.<p>Anyway, these are the usual daydreams many developers have but aren't met with actual consumer behavior because, guess what, when you have literal decades of every big software company on earth commoditize and give away for free everything expensive to make so they can mine data for advertisement purposes on one hand and open source developers on the other hand making a ton of free utilities for all sort of mainstream and niche users, you essentially teach every single end user that software has no monetary value and as such they expect to get everything for free (and ads are already everywhere anyway, so they might as well be part of the environment).
> Because the user is the product rather than the customer, the user’s needs are not the priority of the business.<p>That's a reasonable way to look at it but it omits an important detail. User's needs do matter a great deal to these businesses, but only to the extent meeting those needs can increase engagement or use time. It's a case of incentives.