Valve has done a pretty good job at standardizing VR tech with OpenVR/SteamVR. All of the headsets except the oculus seem to have really good hardware compatibility. The vive controllers can be used with the pimax hmd, etc.
Facebook seems to be trying really hard to create a lockin with the oculus, if you buy games on the oculus store, you are now forever locked in to only buying oculus hardware from now on.
>It turns out that E.T. isn't a bad game after all. With a few simple changes we were able to dramatically improve an already good game by eliminating the most common complaints.
If only they had the ability to remotely update games back then.
I haven't used it personally but I was told that the RockPi (https://rockpi.org/) is similar to the rpi but runs on totally free drivers. Having a backdoor with full system access is just not acceptable in 2019.
OSs didn't implement it though. And they never would unless browsers forced it on them. The right approach is for browsers to bring it in and then when the OS supports it, default to the OS version. But right now I don't know of any OS other than I think android that supports it.
So you are left with the choice of making something that works right now and will provide enhanced privacy for everyone or attempting to fight middleboxes and corporate configs and see a similar rate of adoption as ipv6.
Once absolutely everything is running through opaque https requests we might see middleboxes go away since they aren't able to do anything anymore.
You comment just confirmed my thoughts that people in the US often can't afford a car and are forced to go through any insane measures possible to use one since it is a requirement for life in the US.
Its corporate green washing. Companies know that customers generally feel some amount of guilt over the products they purchase due to the environmental impact of them so they get the marketing teams to find some way to ease that guilt without actually doing much at all.
Recycling has mostly been a global scale PR move to make people think they can buy as much product as they want and its ok because it gets turned in to new products after. What most people don't understand is while many things can be recycled, most things aren't. And most of the time recycling is actually downcycling. The product gets turned in to a lower form of material and after that its garbage.
Its also a method to turn the blame around. Environmental damage isn't the corporations fault. Its your fault for not recycling enough even though the recycling centers have just shipped it off to the 3rd world to be burned.
>2. The U.S. is a rich country and more people can afford their own car or to take a taxi/rideshare.
Is this true? It was my understanding that a large % of Americans can't even afford to buy a car and have to take out a loan as well as cutting down on other living expenses to have enough money to drive to work.
I'm happy to listen to alternative solutions on how the environment can be protected from needless product waste. And no, recycling doesn't come close to reuse/repairs.
>Not every consumer wants or cares about this
What consumers want or care about is less important than the ability to live on the planet in 100 years.
I don't mean to suggest that this is a simple problem to solve. But the importance of this is far to great to ignore.
>How much stock should they keep around for the 10 extra years after 3 years on the market? (and what happens if they underprovision, will they be sued, or overprovision, throw it all in the bin? they can't sell it, or the 10 year clock starts again)
There is no reason they need to replace parts with the exact same chip they came with. If newer CPUs/chips are available they could put a new model in. There will likely need to be more standardization so individual parts can be replaced/upgraded but this is not impossible and is very common for parts like GPUs and pci cards.
There are also mountains of these parts floating around after sale. The OEM could encourage the return of unwanted electronics and then gut them for parts to use in repairs after they have been tested. Any leftovers after 10 years can be sent to recycling.
>vendors sold thinner and thinner devices, and customers preferred them over the others.
Customers preferences need to take a back seat over environmental needs. A customer can live with a 1mm thicker phone. They can't live without air and survivable weather.
None of this is trivial and it will be a massive shakeup to the status quo but there is no other alternative. In the end we will all be better off.
The problem is even though we can do this, the average user doesn't. They get the unsupported message and they then throw the laptop in the bin and buy the same thing again.
All electronics makers should be required by law to supply security updates and spare parts for devices for at least 10 years after the point of sale (not after the release date).
Another thing I think would have a big impact is requiring all consumer electronics with a battery to have a user accessible method for replacing the battery. This used to be standard with all consumer electronics until very recently.
These laws aren't just needed to protect the customers from corporate bullshit, they are critical for the survival of our environment. Designing electronics to last for 2-3 years is devastating.
This is getting really hard with some devices. I got a bose soundbar at the start of the year and it comes with a remote that has a few basic features but it is almost impossible to use properly without configuring it via the app and the app demands that you first create an account and then give the device your wifi password.
In the end I eventually caved and installed the app and connected it to the internet to configure and then blocked the device from my router.
And even when they find out they don't really have other options without a lot of hassle and research. This is why I think the GDPR was great. Its not just "We are spying on you, if you don't like it then turn off your tv" It requires that you have an option to say no while still using the product/service.
I think the concept of a smart TV is a good one its just the implementation is always awful. It is useful to be able to stream content directly to your tv but every single smart tv I have seen has a slugish UI, is awkward, has random bugs, becomes unsupported by the OEM after a few years and is now insecure and gets ransomware. And then OEMs crap it up themselves and fill the OS with adverts and tracking.
After all that its just so much simpler to buy a tv thats just a dumb screen and plug in a smart layer on top via hdmi.
Facebook seems to be trying really hard to create a lockin with the oculus, if you buy games on the oculus store, you are now forever locked in to only buying oculus hardware from now on.