I've never felt less in control of my own hardware

Because the most important part of this writeup is that it's almost devoid of judgement calls on whether what the updates do are actually good or bad, it's about the lack of control and the lack of any ability to beforehand tell whether it's going to be good or bad.

If you love pocket, rock on, but maybe you would have also discovered that if you had been suggested to opt in to it for a few days, to see if you'd like it, rather than it suddenly being not just on your computer, but fully and irrevocably integrated into your web browser. And that maybe is literally that: maybe. We'll never know, because you were never given that option.

I agree with the comment below about this being an argument for delta updates.

Last night I was in a discussion about the whole shift in market power that a central role playing app like WeChat could enable: the premise of debate was that Alexa and competitors are potentially a step towards a new interest in text interfaces. Only our own generation has had our vision occluded by growing up in the command line interface, which is too involving and too complicated for widespread use. The word involving, we chose to describe the experience of working with a CLI, which, having stripped away every attribute we could, we concluded that you had to be involved in a continuous thought process to gain any utility from a CLI. Whereas we figured casual users wish to receive answers to questions, or refine queries without any parsing or precise expressions. So if we had a text interface that was more, so to speak, open ended, then also voice might be workable, and the interface become a widely used interaction. This then could really create the foundation for individual customisation, as local processing power can be applied to learning from the user's total interaction with many different types of connected application, as well as from existing phone voice command systems. We imagined further, that the opportunity might exist for a newcomer to enter this space, as the need for a independent and unaffiliated party for brokering online interaction is potentially a strongly perceived need, whilst we figured it remains one that is subject to the same negative perception of big internet names in a era when I more than my colleagues think that saturation reporting of privacies dying by the thousand cuts has engendered public apathy. We all agreed that public apathy or cynicism, even straight up hostility towards any attempt at selling a "do no evil" message, is a significant hurdle. The question we retired to consider, is how you can organically grow the required trust, in a market where giant capital can leave you alone with outmoded paradigms and entirely whole technologies behind the willing big spenders. As we have seen, there's no marketing to generational segments, when it comes to a web where the generations would not willingly be separated by communications islands - at least presently you couldn't sell a safebook social network to seniors and expect them to get their grandchildren on the platform.

Once gone our ways to home, a few hopeful texts were thrown around, wondering if there was some way to get sufficient a body of technology figureheads to be part of a board approving technologies for some kind of do no harm branding evaluation. This died the moment one of our more cynical lot linked a sheet of the quick results of his rough and ready search for directorships held by the first ten names we'd bandied about. He signed off, "you already know each advertising budget for those."