I don't think they are anymore. The vast majority of ordinary person computer/internet use has already moved to smartphones, tablets, smart TVs and other such devices. It seems nowadays many people don't even know the basics about how to use a desktop operating system.
I find this hard to believe considering how bad the UIs are on phones and TVs. Even google.com does not offer feature parity between their desktop and mobile websites.
My phone still didn't come with a functional paint or notepad apps. Google docs is a horrible experience on phones (but at least it works now - a few years ago it was straight up unusable).
And you're telling me that this is the only computing platform for a lot of people? How is everything still so unusable about it then?
My experience tells me that everything mobile is basically an afterthought outside of a few dozen websites and I guess phone games.
> My phone still didn't come with a functional paint or notepad apps [...] And you're telling me that this is the only computing platform for a lot of people? How is everything still so unusable about it then?
Not to sound harsh, but you come at this with an somewhat old perspective, the same one I grew up with too and probably also retain too much of.
People don't open their phones looking for something like paint or notepad apps, they want a messenger/social network to connect with their family/friends which is most likely why they got the phone in the first place, and if they're "advanced", they'll even edit their own photos and images but via a whole host of various phone image editors. Sometimes the social network offers those things too, sometimes as separate apps, people use that sort of stuff instead of looking for "paint.exe" or tools to crop/edit images in a more, I guess "crude" way that you and I might be used to and favor still today.
I don't open my phone for notes or paint either, but sometimes I really need it. And then I am endlessly frustrated that the stuff we do get by default has half-baked functionality.
For example, the gallery app's image editor on my phone doesn't let me cut out a piece from the middle and then let me pull the sides together. Eg if I have a picture of a table and I want to cut out a certain column. This is super easy to do in paint, but on my phone I need to look for extra (ad-riddled) apps for that.
Also, there's no way that phones are mainly for social networks. It's estimated that there are 5.5-6 billion smartphone users.
All that stuff actually works decently well on mobile... as long as one is willing to accept certain compromises.
Note-taking works fine, in Google Keep, Apple Notes, or some other cloud equivalent. Yup, your data is in the cloud and owned by one of those tech megacorps, but most people just don't care.
Basic photo editing works okay too, in Google Photos, Apple Photos, etc. Ditto the cloud stuff.
What really makes most desktop users outliers is caring about, or even being aware at all of the concept of, actually owning your own data versus trusting cloud providers for everything.
Does it work fine though? Because I haven't even heard of Google Keep, let alone have it installed.
If I need to take some notes I can't even imagine going to search through a store to find a note taking application since that should be a built in feature of every consumer OS.
The same goes for Google Photos. And I imagine that Google photos also doesn't let you edit it a column in the middle of a table. It's trivial to do in real life or in MSpaint or any real image editor but somehow exceeds the limits of mobile apps.
My kid was in a ECE program at a top 25 university. About a third of their first year classmates did not know how to navigate a desktop file system. And these are the kids interested in tech. It’s far, far worse for the ones with no interest in tech. Tablets in school have left a generation of kids behind where the previous generation was.
I wonder if this is an American thing, because my nephews regularly use desktops and laptops. Tablets never caught on here though.
I was worried about this when they were younger though. The youngest played a lot of games only on a phone, but even he seems to have moved on from that.
Right. Laptops are basically work (or school) tools now for a lot of people. They might have one tucked away that they pull out now and then when they need it, similar to a power drill or a sewing machine. It’s not a daily use device.
I think it helped Microsoft historically that people used their operating systems at home, although even then a lot of people would have learned Windows at work or school first.
Well I'll give you that most of the stuff about accessing other star systems is deeply unrealistic now. But pretty much all of the awesome stuff that we've actually created in the last 150+ years started out with someone's imagination running away on something that didn't seem very realistic at the time. The idea of having artificial satellites was once a pipe dream, and now we have so many of them we have to redo our numbering scheme to track them all properly.
I'm not gonna hold my breath for the other star system stuff, but if they manage to get the kinks worked out of Starship and it delivers full reusability as promised, it seems like off-world colonies might actually be possible in our lifetimes. If that gets up and running, we might plausibly develop enough space infrastructure that some of the ideas don't seem too crazy anymore.
I agree, and add that the N900 shipping 2 years later is another piece of proof that Nokia was doomed long-term. It was way too little, way too late. Nokia was never anywhere near the expertise they needed to be a first-class mobile OS platform developer. Apple and Google started executing on features and platform capabilities 10x faster than Nokia ever did, and they never even really tried to figure out how to fix that.
I don't think anyone cares about E2E encryption as much as tech people think.
For all of the much-vaunted complains about their lack of it, I am not aware of any proof or credible claims that Telegram the company has ever revealed the contents of non-encrypted messages or group chats.
Meanwhile, I don't think any authorities actually care about to what extent E2E Encryption makes it harder for Signal the corporation to extract message data. There's plenty of other ways to skin that cat - on-device compromises, abuse of backup mechanisms, abuse of mechanisms to manage linked devices, etc. They'd go after them just the same if they thought there was anything they really wanted on there.
If there's any real difference, I think it's most likely because many more of the group chats that such authorities are aware of and find "interesting" are on Telegram because basically nobody really does E2E well in medium-large groups right now.
That's vague to the point of being completely meaningless. Do you have any examples of a time they've been in "very big trouble", whatever that means? Exactly how often constitutes "all the time"? Do you have an example of a valid court order in any jurisdiction that they have failed to comply with? Do you have any examples of a court not mandating similar compliance for Signal, iMessage, or any other E2EE platform due to that? There is no exception in the law for E2EE and it will not save you from consequences from failing to comply with a valid court order.
Famously, Pavel Durov (owner of Telegram) was arrested in France a couple of years ago and held in custody until he complied with one he'd received earlier.
Famously, Signal complies with court orders by giving up all the data that's requested that it has, which isn't very much. This is what you expect from E2EE platforms.
A court order to do the impossible is invalid. Telegram gets in trouble because it's possible for them to comply but they choose not to. Subpoenas are usually worded as "you must provide all information you have, relating to ..."
But as long as Signal controls the client app, there are very possible court orders to provide access to "encrypted" user chats even if courts haven't made use of those yet (as far as is publicly known).
The published reports of the exact things requested of them in the French arrest seem pretty vague. If they're related to the security of private messages and chats, it would seem to prove the point that they do infact refuse to provide that for anybody. The details around his release seem even more vague. We have only speculation and no actual proof that he or Telegram caved on such a request. As far as I know, we've never seen any charges that definitely came from Telegram revealing the messages of a private group chat.
Meanwhile, if you believe that any Governments actually refrain from prosecuting Signal executives due to their refusal and/or inability to produce the messages from private chats because they have E2EE, well, I've got a nice bridge to sell you.
If they actually are refraining from going after Signal executives in a similar fashion, most likely either 1. Nobody is actually using it for anything interesting, 2. They are actually secretly cooperating somehow, or 3. Governments are already happy with other technical means of extracting the contents of Signal chats they are interested in. See the US FBI's curious sudden lack of interest in Apple's ability, or lack thereof, to extract a wanted suspect's iMessage messages.
Thanks for your perspective. I do wonder if this arrangement is usually not as bad as some people are implying. Though on the other hand, the line between this sort of thing and something that can reasonably be called slavery can be quite fuzzy.
> Even here on HN, if you read the comments, there is so much blind hate against subscriptions, with little (if any) consideration for a sustainable software business.
I'll admit I mostly don't care for subscriptions for this sort of thing. But to be more constructive, it seems to me like it's a hole in the market that doesn't have a really good solution right now. I mean, software like this which does need at least a little bit of ongoing support, but doesn't seem to generate enough ongoing value for customers for it to feel reasonable to have a subscription for. None of the solutions we have for that right now really feel great to anybody.
Is there a laptop with super-awesome battery life on Linux? I'll buy one if so.
I'm not sure it's fair to ding Framework specifically for not being able to make Linux battery life as good as Windows. Is that actually something they could reasonably fix?
It’s not about dinging Framework specifically and more about if you want *nix and top tier battery life, MacBooks remain the best option.
My understanding is that the reason why Linux still struggles in this front is that nobody has put in the hardware-specific optimization work to make it happen. There’s also some friction with how the bulk of Linux dev attention is paid to servers rather than portable consumer hardware.
Along those lines, IMO these "spec wars" are not that important. I get that some people want the best bang for their buck, but pretty much everything has more than enough speed and battery life for most practical uses in my opinion.
I am probably not competent to improve linux battery life myself (or at least I certainly don't have the time to get into that). But I can choose to spend my money on hardware and companies that explicitly support Linux, even if they aren't at the very top of the spec sheet. This has the best practical chance of convincing big-money companies and Linux kernel experts to actually spend time and money on this. Meanwhile, buying a Macbook and installing Linux on it is fine, I guess, but also invisible to the corporate world.
On this note, the world where buying a Framework or really any other Windows PC meant getting roughly 1/2 the battery life of a MacBook really doesn't exist anymore like it did in 2020, so long as you do your research and buy the right system.
I think there's a lot of assumption among the group of people who have stuck with MacBooks since the M1 days that shopping the competition means compromising with a huge performance/battery life/value gap, but that reality that existed in 2020 is much different than the current situation in 2026.
If you are in the market for a MacBook Air for the kinds of things that most people use MacBook Airs for, the average user won't notice that the battery life or performance on a computer equipped with a Panther Lake or Qualcomm chip is different from a MacBook Air at all.
Are these chips exactly the same price/performance ratio of an M5? Maybe not. But, if it's close enough, it's close enough.
There are ones with decent to good battery life. There are none with awesome battery life and abso-fucking-lutely none for super-awesome battery life.
That was one thing I never realized I needed until I had it. Having my laptop basically be optional to charge 99% of the time I use it changed my life. I can take it out with 20% left having not charged it in a week and still get a workday out of it. wtaf
Killer battery life is a defining feature of a laptop in my opinion, unless we’re talking hulking desktop replacement workstation laptops or something. Aside from physical attributes, nothing modulates portability like battery life does.
The user of a laptop with top tier battery life isn’t tethered to the wall, doesn’t need to care about availability of power outlets, and in many circumstances doesn’t even need to carry a charging cable and brick (or if they do, they can get by on trickle-charging with a tiny 15w phone brick overnight). This kind of laptop is in its own class of ultraportability.
reply