Is Obsolescence Planned, or is It Natural? - DTNS 5356

[music] Welcome to the daily tech news show big tech question edition where we look at the tech news this week and ask what it means. I'm your referee Tom Merritt. This week the big questions are do companies plan obsolescence on purpose? Should you get permission before summarizing a conversation with AI? And is there a need for smart glasses? Uh joining us here to draw the top tech news of the week, Len Peralta is on board. Uh he'll be illustrating our discussions. But first, today's tech news with me and Sarah Lane. [music] >> Motorola posted a teaser for a new device coming September 22nd with the line, "A new perspective is coming and close-up shots of different materials." Now, Android authorities suspects that this is the Signature 27. That's the follow-up to the Motorola Signature that launched back in January. Motorola has also been using that same tagline on signup pages and a previous teaser showed up on the US homepage. So, a US launch seems possible, but that's not confirmed yet. >> An independent agent verification organization called the Advanced AI Society has announced it joined the Linux Foundation as well as the Linux Foundation's Decentralized Trust. The society also released version one of a working draft of proof of control for public comment. Uh, it hopes to provide an independent way to verify agent controls. >> Whimo is expanding to Singapore with its first Jaguar iPace vehicles arriving over the next few months. Those are the ones that you've seen around if they're in your neighborhood. The company plans to manually drive the cars around Singapore in 2027 to map roads, adapt to local weather, road geometry, then offer public rides in 2028 through the Whimo app. Uh, if you're keeping score, Whimo's Tokyo rollout still on track with commercial rides expected in 2027. >> Anthropic has established a biology research lab in the San Francisco area. I imagine no one will have a problem with this. Anthropic head of life sciences, Eric Carter Abrams, told Reuters, "We believe that to do biology, the final test is still and will be for a while in real lab work." While the lab is in the early stages of automation, he did say that human oversight remains essential for safety. Anthropic launched Claude Science in June, which among other things may be used for drug discovery, which seems to be what they want this lab to do. Reuter sources also say Apple Pay is expected to launch in India next month, starting with Access Bank credit cards. Apple's been also talking with HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank, but hasn't finalized commercial terms with them yet. Reportedly, this looks like a card-based launched, not unified payments interface, also known as UPI support in India. That's important because UPI accounts account for more than 84% of digital payment volume in the country. >> Yeah, they're going to have to get UPI integrated uh if they want adoption of that. But, you know, making making progress, I guess. As part of OpenAI's bug hunting program, a team of security researchers from Hacktron AI used Claude uh on Opus 5 in the end to gain access to an Open AI employees ChatgPT account, which would have let them read OpenAI's private software. They didn't do it, but they said, "We saw that we could have had access." One flaw they used was in an unpatched version of image magic being used by a thirdparty message board called Discourse, which they chained to another flaw in OpenAI's own software. They alerted Discourse Discourse patched its flaw on July 27th, and OpenAI paid the team $6,500 for finding the bug in the OpenAI software. >> Oo, what are you going to do with all that money? >> I don't know. >> Google announced early access to home MCP. That's home support for the model context protocol so that thirdparty AI agents can read and control Google home devices that can include device history, cameras, speakers, lights, thermostats, dashboards, but Google is blocking certain sensitive actions like unlocking doors. For now, it's limited to Google Home Premium Advanced Subscribers in the US, limited to English, and setup still sounds like an early developer feature. Uh, we got a lot of headlines about these internal documents unsealed in the copyright case that the New York Times is a part of against Microsoft and Open AI about using news publications for training data. Uh, they're very salacious. They show that executives at the companies were aware of copyright issues which I mean shocker. Uh, but Microsoft director of applied science Brent Heck uh apparently was one of the lone voices of disagreement with his colleagues saying that scraping news data for training was not fair use. Well, a lot of his colleagues have had been saying it was uh chat GPT head Nick Turley wrote in an internal message that news publishers would face an existential threat. Uh and another Microsoft document warned of a doom loop if chatbots drove out the news publishers whose content was needed to improve the performance of the models. Uh none of this is going to be determinative, but it is going to be a way to show whether they were trying to undermine the marketplace, any of those fair use defenses they might bring. Uh, and the case has not gone to trial yet. This is part of the party's seeking pre-trial rulings. >> US Representative Daryl Issa introduced a bill that would let copyright holders seek court orders requiring internet service providers, domain name system providers, and virtual private networks to block foreign p foreign piracy sites. The proposal would apply to services with at least 100,000 monthly US users or subscribers. There are some exceptions. Root name server operators, top level domain registries, and local Wi-Fi networks at places like a library or a restaurant. They would be excluded from this. Supporters say it targets fastmoving piracy. Critics say it creates overly broad blocking infrastructure based on accusations. >> And as we all know, piracy is the number one threat that the US should be dealing with right now. Scientists at Stanford have made the first direct observation of a quantum jump in a mechanical resonator which you're going to see described as a quantum jump in sound because you know sound resonates. Uh a quantum unit of sound is called a phonon and represents a coordinated movement of a group of atoms altogether. I mean that's what sound is. It's it's atoms vibrating. Uh this behavior could be useful for developing quantum computing. It could also help solve error correction problems specifically in quantum computing and it could be used to develop improvements for sound in our everyday devices as well. DTNS Live is made possible by you. Thanks to all of you including Ali Sanjabi, AB Puppy, Dale Mulke, and Scott Thomas. Thank you. All right, it's time for the big tech question of the week. Apple released its new operating system. uh of all of its new operating systems this week. Uh that of course has lots of people complaining about performance and battery life because new operating systems take time to reindex and fully install. So that you know drives down your battery life temporarily. Usually they go back to normal performance and battery drain in less than a week. But it always brings up the questions, do companies intentionally plan their products to go obsolete after several years to get people to upgrade? You can vote on which side you would join in our poll at patreon.com/dtns. Go click on that. It's right there at the top. Taking the position of Yeah, they kind of do is Molly Wood. Thank you, Molly Wood, for joining us. >> Hello. Yay. What a treat. >> On the side of no, it's not something they pursue as a main goal. Roger Chang. >> Hello. >> And Amos. >> Hi. [laughter] And in the swing seat, uh, listening to the arguments on both sides is Jen Cutter. Welcome, Jen. And Sarah Lane. >> Yep. >> I'm I'm swinging. >> I'm swinging. Keep swinging. >> Swing. >> You You miss a 100% of the swings, you don't take, right? Isn't that what they say? >> That's what everybody says. >> Everybody always saying that constantly. I'm Tom Merritt. I'm your referee. Uh, we are going to start off with Molly uh telling us her side of the story. Molly, you got two minutes, so go for it. >> All right. I love that we need a referee in case it's going to get that out of hand. Um, I actually think that it is pretty incontrovertible that companies not only plan on but depend on planned obsolescence. And I I think it's not necessarily malice, but it is business. And I would argue that a lot of us certainly in the United States right now are feeling like business is kind of malice. Um especially as earnings pressure gets higher and higher. My strongest proof for planned obsolescence is uh forward guidance in the form of earnings calls. Like if a company tells you quite directly, we plan to sell more devices and selling those devices is in fact essential to the future of business then they are 100% planning on obsolescence. And I know that sounds a little like splitting hairs and like I'm dodging the question of whether they engineer that. I would say again are we maliciously engineering obsolescence? Not necessarily. We have however flooded the ecosystem and I mean that quite literally with in some cases inexpensive devices and components that may not be designed to fail but their failure is inevitable because their replacement is assured. Separate from that I do think there are technology developments that have ensured some level of obsolescence. I'll just note that many of them were pioneered by Apple. The primary driver here is repairability. Once components were glued in, once potentially repairing a device or replacing those components voided your warranty, then again failure was inevitable. That was obsolescence by design and the rest of the market followed. I mean, Apple had to be sued into repairability. And then the release cycle itself is so rigorous that companies inevitably drift toward engineering for the latest and greatest hardware and software. Apple doesn't necessarily mandate from its app developers that they drop support for older hardware, but it does require them to be built with the current year's SDK and design system. Microsoft does the same thing. Apple and Google also pressure their app developers to use the most recent requirements. And yes, you can say that that is all about security and all of those things, but all of that is because these businesses 100% only exist as long as they sell more devices and services. >> That was like perfectly timed. [laughter] >> Really? I still got my radio vibes. >> I was like watching the clock go down. I'm like, "Oh my gosh, she's >> like she's not going to make it." >> Yeah. >> Hi, ma'am. >> Uh, okay. That was not the sound effect I want. I'm going to I'm going to try a different one for the uh the next one. >> That timer one stressed me out. I was like, "Oh god, I have to get out [laughter] of bed alarm." >> It it reset to the to a different one. Uh so we'll try a different one, but uh Roger and Amos, I I don't know if you're joining in on on the opening statement or not, but you all have uh two minutes starting now. Uh, no. It would be my [laughter] statement. But, uh, listen, I I I will concede. Actually, I don't even concede it. I agree with Molly. Businesses are in the business to make money. And if it means selling something that people want more of, then yeah. So, this is this is my take. If we never really advanced any of the software we use, we'd all be using WordStar to punch up reports or book reports or whatever. we would still be clicking through a bunch of GIF flooded pages, you know, with with obnoxious noises and really ugly color schemes because why upgrade? Why update any of that? But the thing is, as soon as you give something that has the taste of the future, that gives either convenience uh stylistically, it feels a little more modern, it doesn't feel so uh uh hidebound to to past, you know, concepts of aesthetics. uh people are always going to go for it. I mean, fashion is all about that. Now, you can say we could, you know, businesses could just sort of just draw the line and all agree that nothing needs to be updated. But the truth of the matter is when you have security breaches with smartphones, uh, with servers, with software, with operating systems, yeah, you want to keep updating it because you don't want to keep leaving a Swiss cheese, uh, of firewalls and, uh, security breaches just waiting to happen because, oh, people can't upgrade. So, this is the thing. I have an old 2012 MacBook Pro. I can open it up. I can swap out the the optical disc drive. I swapped out the memory and I swapped out the drive at least five times. I went from a larger from the uh 256 to uh to a 512 and then to a one TB SSD all in the span of three years. At some point the machine is too slow. It does not run the software that I need to do my work. So I need to upgrade. Now, my argument isn't that things don't go obsolete. My argument is that companies don't go in thinking, let's just make this so it's just a little bit shy of where everyone wants it wants it to be. We'll sell it, you know, at at at this price point and then, you know, 5 years they need to upgrade to something else. I think the advancement of technology, the advancement of software, the advancement of people's tastes dictate that you neither change or you just get, you know, left behind on the the the the rubbish heap of business. And I think yeah, that is a form of obso, you know. >> Okay, that is uh that is the time for the uh the opening statement. We're now uh able to take a few minutes for open discussion. I'll let you all know uh when we need to move on. Amos, I don't know if you uh want to jump in here on this side or Molly, if you've got some responses to what Roger said, we could start there. >> I um I'm going to go a little bit further back than I think what Roger was saying is kind of on the right track and what Molly said is valid in in a bubble. But if you expand past that, why are companies doing what they do? Why why is it that they are continually innovating and therefore having technologies that are left behind? Are companies making things to where yes, this is definitely going to break in 2 years? I don't think they are at all. I think they are continuing to innovate and bring new features in. And when you do that, certain features are going to get left behind. Certain products are going to get left behind because that's the nature of what we're doing. And if you want to look at the root cause of it, it's not the companies saying, "Hey, we need to keep selling products." It's the consumer saying, "Hey, I continually want something new to buy." So, it's not the company's trying to say, "We need to stay in business." It's the company's responding to the demand of the consumer, saying that they want something new and they want something more stylish or faster or more powerful. And in that process, you have things that need to be left behind. Are there some some areas where they could improve the longevity of their devices? Sure. But that's not a money-making move. What they're doing is trying to innovate for the new sale as opposed to trying to uh design their products to where it's intentionally going to not be there 5 years from now. >> Now, there's where I have to jump in with you because I think on some level Amos and I made 80% the same argument. And and to Roger's point, like yeah, I don't I'm not again I think this is business, not malice, right? It's the obsolescence is guaranteed because things will continue to get better. The part of Amos' argument though that I have to take issue with is that Apple is just just Apple, right, is legendarily the most successful marketing company in history. Consumers in a vacuum, in a bubble don't want a new thing until a company comes along and says, "You have to have this new thing. You need this new thing." Nobody was sitting there being like, "Man, >> I wish that I had a hunk of metal that played uh and and stored 50,000 songs." Like, nobody was think, you know, well, God, I wish it was more convenient. >> That's the famous Steve Jobs line, right? They they don't know what they want until we tell them. >> Exactly. Which has always been the case with companies. They come along and they're like, "You have to have this thing." And we go like, "Oh my god, I totally have to have that thing." >> I mean, that's the thing. I totally agree with you, Molly. But that's business. That's not planned obsolescence. That's like, "Hey, right. It's both." I I see an opening of the market. >> I think they both because business doesn't exist without obsolescence. You don't trust a company and say if if they want their business to grow, you know, like Molly was saying, um, you know, with, uh, you know, here's here's what we are expecting in Q2 of this year. Uh, you know, we're going to sell all these new devices. It's I don't know. I mean, sure, that's business, but it can also be malice >> at the same time. I mean, capitalism is extractive. I think that's where >> I mean, but but this [laughter] is the thrust of the argument is your money. I mean, this is the thing. You know, computers, computational devices are a different breed than a wine opener, right? I have the same wine opener I got over at Ernest and Galla when my mom and dad went through the tour back in like 1995. Like they, you know, you get them on the way out. It works fine. A new wine opener, but but you see >> Does it work as well as your microwave used to? >> Well, see, that's the other thing. You can say [laughter] my micro my microwave literally just dissolved like the housing just, you know, disintegrate. But that's not planned obsolescence. That's just being subject to to excessive wear cuz I eat a lot of my food served by, you know, Chef Mike [laughter] and >> so but but this is the thing like yeah, Apple's a great marketing company, but you know, marketing is only half of it, right? Granted, people were encouraged to buy rocks and treat them like pets in the 70s and we called them pet rocks. uh mood rings. There's a bunch of things that you can sell people all the time. But you cannot run a successful tech company as long as Apple has if you did not provide a service or a device that actually fulfilled those promises. Sure. I mean, >> where I think the planning comes in, respectfully, where I think the planning comes in is that like a company with enough money in the bank could absolutely design to the best of their ability, right? They could be like this is going to be the most longlasting, the most backwards compatible, and we're going to make sure that every app maker uh conforms to these standards and we are going to design the freaking like have you ever heard the Neil Stevenson College address where he talks it's a commencement address and he talks about how we 100% could easily build a tower that goes to space like we could just we could do that. We have everything that we need to do that we just don't have the will and we don't know who would pay for it. A company that sells you electronics requires on past sales to fund future developments. Like they know that things can continue to get better, but they're not incentivized because we live in a capitalist system with quarterly reports. They are not incentivized to build the most futuristic best tower to space that is technically possible to build. There's no reason for them to do that because they need to sell. So the incentives start to encourage a little bit of like laziness. Well, the the thing is, yeah, you could do it, but the problem is what if you hit the wrong mark? Oh, I decided to go with HD DVD instead of Blu-ray and suddenly now I have a product that gets orphaned before it's time. I mean, because Blu-ray had better. It's great to think Buck Rogers, let's go, you know, send Gerard 20, you know, in the, you know, 20 25 centuries in the future. But the the problem is we don't know because we are living in the present. We can't figure out what the future is. I will say this, Apple's products all conform to Steve Jobs original desire, which was the computer as an appliance. He originally designed the original Macintosh not to be user accessible because that's all the person needs. You you turn it on, you turn off, you have the keyboard. I mean, that's why the floppy, you know, had a motorized system to take your disc in. And Steve Waznjak famously disagreed with that because you could not upgrade your own components and tinker with your own devices and own your own stuff. So, I'm just saying over time, what looks like what over time what is smart business starts to feel like malice to consumers on the other end who are like, "A new iPhone comes out every year. A new $2,000 device appears every single year, every other, you know, every other year because the incentive is to to design for that thing instead of the thing in the past, then people start to feel abused. I'm not saying they things are designed to die, >> but there's there's so many things in the product chain that go into making the camera, the software, the in the integrated circuits, right? The the the SOC's. You can Apple doesn't build them, right? It has to wait for TSMC to develop the two nanometer process to make the A22 A20 Pro because they're not for you to swap that out once a new one comes. I mean that I mean like if your argument is that consumers are wasteful, sure. But that's not the same thing as you know maliciously planning a product to go, okay, this phone now falls apart. >> Molly, to be fair, Molly said she didn't think it was malice. >> Nope. But but but I'm saying like if if if I sat down and said like, hey, this credit card will no longer work in five years, you know, so people will have to go out and new buy a new credit card. I mean that yeah >> does happen >> dude [laughter] that may not be your best example but >> I mean listen in the United States again I'm talking about capitalism >> 80% of gross domestic product is consumer spending >> yeah no universe in which no it is not it is because we have artificially decided that that's how we measure growth in an economy so the inevitable of measuring growth in an economy based on consumer spend spending is that you are going to need consumers to spend more and more and more and so then you are going to tell them you need this, you need that, you got to have this other thing, this thing. >> Do you disagree that the system is set up to encourage consumers to spend? >> Yes, I I totally believe that, right? >> Yeah. Okay. So, so you guys are in agreement on like yes, the system is leaning towards let's figure out ways to get consumers to buy. I would get further into the economics of it because I disagree with Molly because you actually do want to you do I mean the EU's you know GD bulk of the GDP is still you know internal consumer spending and then export >> but you guys generally agree that the system is trying to without getting into the econom but but in this direct question of whether or not you know Apple goes in and says you know Federiki make sure this thing doesn't work in three years >> I never I don't think I do not think that's So Molly clarify you're not thinking Craig Federigi is in there like haha let's make it break like but redescribe what you were saying earlier on what I'm saying is that I the incentives lead to a system in which obsolescence is guaranteed by the business cycle and is in fact required for the ongoing success of the business >> and I I would argue yeah but the last time you know society was flat was like the medieval period during feudal society. Okay, but that's an economic argument. Stick to the planned obsolescence argument. But that's what I'm saying is like your argument is that yeah, the economic system sort of encourages people to consume and buy new stuff. Not disagreeing with you at all. >> I'm saying it depends. If if you're saying that, you know, Apple is creating an iPhone, creating a a tablet or a MacBook or whatever, um an iPad just so it, you know, starts it stops working around like the 5year mark. Make sure it hits the 5year, but after that, >> that's not what I'm saying. That is specifically not what I'm saying. Could they design an iPad that wouldn't die after 5 years? Absolutely. >> They certainly could. >> I have not, but I'm not saying it's malice. I'm just saying it's business. >> But that's the thing is at some point people want something faster because there's new features that are included with software. It's not like all the feature set is baked in from like when man stepped out of a cave, right? It's literally it's literally iteration after iteration after people come up with new ideas. I mean, heaven forbid people have an imagination. >> You know what that is? Planned obsolescence. >> Imagination. You heard >> good ideas are planned obsolescence. snuffle up against you get off Sesame Street because no imagine >> I'm just saying obsoles obsolescence is a guarantee you plan on it >> you know there will be no security because once you pass 35 same thing Roger >> I'm just saying is that retirement plan on the obsolescence of the human body >> yes and that is a >> it's a guarantee like it's not even an argument it's just a guarantee >> yeah I know >> and it's just the only question is how you get there if your your argument is that things go. >> All right, Roger. I don't know if you could hear that, but there's a timer going on. So, uh I think we I think we've got some good arguments that have been made. Uh and we'll hand it over to Sarah and Jen on the swing seat side. Do you have any any more questions before you uh make up your mind? Or or you could stay in the swing seat. It's comfy there. I don't I don't >> like I want to go home. >> I definitely have a question cuz there are two things that are arguing in my brain about this. So, I have my backup phones and iPhone 11. Uh, but it's still on iOS 17 and it still functions as a phone and it still does the things I need it to do right now. And, uh, my watch series 8 is end of life and I know it's going to do the things internal to the phone uh, and to the watch, but the apps I use like for hockey tracking uh, aren't going to support it very soon. Uh, but still functions. The stuff on the watch will continue to work. So, it still does the things I bought it for. And then there's Microsoft and Windows. Uh, I do not have a machine capable of running Windows 11 just because of the TPM module. It can run it fine, which I know because I've done the backd dooror way to put it on. That feels more malicious to me because TPM is not like a huge factor in most people using Windows 11. So, that feels like a forced upgrade, a forced hardware upgrade, which felt really weird from the Windows standpoint. So, that makes me think I don't want to call it full malice, but it's like ah, it's kind of a dick move. Yeah. >> So, like where would you like fall on that? Yeah. On that side of the spectrum. Yeah. It feels like Molly's just like, "Yeah, sister." Uh, Roger, what about you? [laughter] >> So, my argument is and then just don't use Windows, use a different operating system. >> I have been experimenting with Basite and Pop OS. [laughter] >> I have a I have a laptop from 2013 that works fine with Linux on it. I mean, it's, you know, it does it do everything I need it to do? No. Does it play games? Not even close. But if I need something to get on the web, if I need something to send an email, if I need something that weighs, you know, 10 pounds and it fits in my backpack because my shoulders aren't buffed enough, yeah, I can, you know, I can lug that around. But at the same time, I understand that technology has moved on. There are new services, there are new features, there are new things that people want to do, right? People want thin and light. You know, my my my my Dell Precision, you know, 4800 from uh from 2015 weighs 10 pounds. It's neither thin nor light. If you look >> Yeah, >> that's huge. >> Is that a business unit? It's a That's a very I know. We're like, "Wait, tell us more." We're off the rails like, "Wait, what? Really? 10 pounds? [laughter] Like, where'd you get that thing?" >> It It's a It's a mobile workstation. It's designed like as a big fat battery, has a big fat case. It's designed to be opened up. I can replace the screen. I can replace the keyboard. But the thing is it's you know it's running uh five generation six generation old Intel processor. So it's not going to be the speediest or the fastest as a you know an Nvidia. >> But your point is that it wasn't planned obsolescence. >> It wasn't planned because you can still use it. >> I can still use it but it doesn't do all the things that are available now. It doesn't have all the nice shiny you know fun. You know you could drive a Model T right but you're not going to get you know power windows. CarPlay. Yeah. >> Don't have CarPlay, right? And you're definitely not going to get a cup holder. I mean, you could fashion one out of barely wire >> if you wanted to, but you know, and and you know, air conditioning, you could forget it. I mean, the the Model T would barely move. >> Roll the window down. You're good. >> Or push the front window down or the windshield down. >> Yeah. So, so as somebody still in the swing seat, I'll just say I had a conversation with a friend the other day right after going back to Apple after Apple's latest iPhone announcement. And he asked me, you know, like Sarah, you're the Apple expert. And I'm like, "Oh, okay. What is it?" And he said, "Why did they go aluminum for the uh iPhone 18 Pro rather than titanium?" And I was like, "Don't have a great answer for you right now, but I can certainly look into And he said, "Well, I heard because of course, you know, the internet has thoughts that it's because titanium overheats and so they're going with aluminum, but aluminum will break more easily." And that's a lot of the issues that people had with the 17 Pro. And don't you think that's weird that Apple would give you a product that's going to break more easily? And I was again I was like I I mean you can say that Apple did that on purpose so that you break your phone and if you don't have Apple Care then you have to buy a new one. I doubt that's the case. I'm sure it's more of a cost cutting measure. >> No titanium is much more expensive than >> right. So you know it's it's people do feel this way about >> it could be a thermal management issue which is another concern as those processors get faster. I think people do feel this way and I do think that it is the result of an incentive system that starts to prioritize new overlasting. And I don't think there's any argument that our consumer-based society prioritizes new overlasting. Like we know that from fast fashion. We know that from somebody made the point in the chat actually about gameboys, you know, which were initially designed to be as cheap as possible so the games would be as cheap as possible. And so as those incentives start to feel out of alignment, like it feels out of balance, you just don't trust. And and honestly, like if I put to you as a hypothetical, let's say you have limited resources, right? Nobody has unlimited resources, even Apple or Microsoft. You have limited resources. Your job is to produce new devices and new services for people to buy and and your business depends on that. And you have to make choices. Where are your choices inevitably going to start to lead you? >> I mean, yeah. I mean, that's a that's a critique on capitalism. Great. But it's I do not think it's >> Yes, it is. But also, >> it is not just that. It is. No, >> my point is you in given in a world of limited resources where you have a job and that job is to sell new things then your priorities are inevitably going to be toward supporting those new things at the expense accidentally or otherwise of the old things. >> Yeah. But at some point those old things cannot support all the new things that you want. Right. We don't go rolling around in like carbureted V8s because there's a number of issues least among them like emissions issues, right? A lot of >> I'm not saying that things shouldn't get better. What I'm saying is that over time you will start to prioritize new things over old things and you won't necessarily make the new things all the way as good as they could be because you know you're going to make some more new things after that. Although one thing that no one has brought up and I just want to uh suggest it uh is if you aren't making your new thing as good as it can be and a competitor does then they drive you out of the business. So my question to Molly then is do you think that the reason we're you're seeing that incentive is there's not enough of that competition >> 100%. Like what? Yes. I mean, right, in a duopoly, in in a limited marketplace, like no question. This is a conversation Tom and I have been having for two decades now, right? Competition 100% worsens the problem of planned obsolescence because you only have to be better than one competitor and you can make up the difference with marketing. >> All right, we have uh started to relitigate again. So, uh let me swing seats. You you guys have had a chance to ask questions. Do you have another one you want to get in or or are we ready to decide uh our positions? >> I guess one more thought about okay along the lines of companies kind of being mean about stuff people have. Uh games, all the cloud stuff. Uh PlayStation users lost a lot of movies. Uh a lot of cloud games still work right now uh except on the original Switch. games that were running on Nintendo servers that granted like in no way could run on the original Switch anyway. Uh you can't play anymore. You bought them. Uh you got to use them for those couple years and now they're gone. >> That feels like planned obsolescence. >> And I'm worried about game passes the same way. >> Seems like you may have left your swing seat, Jen. [laughter] >> Yeah. It's like uh this is just in my particular fields. It's like okay. Yeah. I feel like I'm getting taken advantage of at this point. >> The game space. No question. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Oh my god. >> Uh Sarah, are you uh are you still swinging or are you ready to to jump off? >> I'm swinging. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think everybody made very good points. Um I you know that whole business versus malice. I don't I don't think we're going to figure that out right now. I think that there's there there is truth to both. I if you don't trust a company, sure, they absolutely can do something like that. And that's just up to you as a consumer or you know anybody who's buying any product that is on offer to say you know you know this company is going to screw me over in a couple of years versus this company is not going to. Uh repairability very good point by Molly. uh repairability is better than it was, but again had to go through the court system for companies uh who were screwing people over again to use that term in that way to say, "Okay, you're right. We'll do it differently going forward and give people more of an option to keep their devices longer." So, I I I really don't I I don't I'm swinging. >> Yeah, you're still swinging. I I think I would like to sum up the conversation here, which was very good. Uh, thank you Molly, Roger, and Amos uh, for for an excellent exploration of all the angles on here. Uh, I heard and we we we started to have to stop talking past each other. Uh, Roger and Amos making a very good argument that they don't plan obsolescence into the device. And Molly made a very good advocation for but they plan for obsolescence. And so, you know, I think I think I I don't know that there's that that either either of those sides is wrong. Uh and and I think that gives you a fuller picture of what's going on here, which is like no, they don't maliciously and and we we all agreed on that. They don't maliciously say, "Haha, let's make it break in a year." But, uh there is an incentive for them to try to make you want to get the new one and feel like your old one is obsolete. >> Yep. >> So, that that is good stuff. Thank you. uh everybody for a good conversation on that. Uh before we move on to our next topic, Sarah, what's on live with it this week? >> Well, if you want product reviews after that initial honeymoon period, putting gadgets and services and platforms to the long-term test is what we do on Live with It each week. We talk kitchen solutions, audio gear, smart TV upgrades. We run the gamut. In fact, speaking of audio, this week Jason Howell is reviewing his UAD Apollo Twin X. That's a studio solution for not just podcasters, but people who dabble in music or are full-fledged musicians like Jason is, and that might save you a lot of money based on the alternatives that you have. Uh, if you want to know more, subscribe at youtube.com/livewithitow. And big thanks to all of our patrons who keep us trying out new things. Become a patron today. It's a lot of fun. patreon.com/livewithit. [music] >> Next up, Apple's new watch will eventually get the ability to listen to a conversation and summarize it. This is the so-called Siri recap feature. Uh, it is not available on the watch at launch, but they do say it'll come soon, and it is described by Apple in the following way. Siri recap does not create a recording. It does not produce a verbatim transcript and does not identify and attribute speakers. The output is a brief high-level summary comparable to notes a person might write after a conversation. There is no audible signal because no raw audio is retained and there is no way to reconstruct the original audio from a Siri recap or share raw audio with anyone. Bloomberg has reported, however, that some states are looking into whether this qualifies as recording or interception of a conversation, which requires two-party consent in some areas. Now, whether it's legal or not is what Bloomberg is concerned with. Here, our question is the ethical one. Should you need permission for your AI to summarize your conversation? So, I'm having a conversation with one or other people. I'm gonna let Siri recap work. Should I tell them first? Should I ask them first? Taking the position of, "Yeah, you need to ask. You need permission." Is Roger Chang and Molly Wood on the side of like, "Nah, it's fine." Is Amos and back in the swing seats. Uh, Jen has just climbed back up onto the swing. Jen Cutter, uh, and Sarah Lane. I'm Tom Merritt, the referee. Uh, I flipped a coin in private. And starting us off is yes, you should need permission. Uh, it's nice to see Roger and Molly. [laughter] >> Exactly. >> It's a perfectly legit the whole time. >> Yeah. Uh, Roger and Molly teaming up. Uh, and then Roger, uh, you can start us off. You have two minutes. >> Uh, ethically, yes. Because, uh, a lot of people do feel uncomfortable around a lot of AI features. And it's less about what's getting recorded, what's getting processed, what's getting taken down. It's just letting that person know so they can make a value judgment about like they can feel some sort of agency whether or not like hey I would rather not just to make myself feel comfortable. uh I would totally be down for that. And I think just asking generally doesn't take too much effort and I think it puts everyone at ease. And if it's a highstakes negotiation or conversation, like say it's a job interview or or or a pre-in like, hey, you want you're you're trying to negotiate some sort of sale or something and you just want things to be between you two. Uh I don't think I don't think it's an issue. I think ethically just having someone involved in it that doesn't have the device say like oh are you okay with me doing this and they say that's okay. I mean honestly I used to I took a class back in uh college and one of the students was deaf and she had a stenographer with her and one of the things stenographer asked is like is everyone okay if I type up your questions or whatever in the class because I am noting down your question. I don't put your name, but I note that one of the class, you know, one of her classmates asked this particular question so she could have a transcript uh for her to read later uh after class. And I think I just honestly I think >> I can't imagine anyone saying no, don't do that. Make it harder for our deaf classmates. >> I think I think asking is always the nice thing to do, polite thing to do. >> Yeah. >> All right. You still got some time. If Molly, you want to jump in or you guys ready? Are you are you good >> if you unless Roger has more. >> Yep. >> Yeah. I mean I I I part of this triggers my this triggers my journalism brain on the one hand, right? which is like you and and also the the legal brain. Like I want to separate what Apple is saying about this feature specifically and Apple has been very very careful like to a an impressive degree to make it clear that they are not doing the thing that like an AI notetaker does which is in fact record your conversation and then summarize it even if it is discarded later because that's where there is active conversation about consent. like I think it's 12 states um are two-party consent states where you are legally required to get the other person's consent before you record something. And Apple is pretty clearly saying that's not what we're doing. It's not a recording. But I would argue that still ethically and in terms of social norms, like just as we've gotten used to saying, "Do you mind if my otter or my notion notetaker listens in on this conversation?" We should do that in real life, too. Like don't be a creep. >> All right, that is time. Uh Amos, are you ready for your two minutes? >> I am. >> Carry on. >> I want to direct this conversation away from social norms and put it into the realm of social realities. There is no expectation of privacy anytime you're in public. As a photographer, this is very important to me. Anytime you are in public, your expectation of privacy is zero. That's a legal basis and that's really where you should be living. You should feel that anything that you're doing in public can be observed, can be recorded and can be played back later if if someone has recordings of it. There are cameras everywhere there. I've got cameras all over my house as we just discussed and live with it. Um they record audio. Do I need to tell everyone that I'm recording if you're in my driveway? I don't think I do. And legally I don't. I think the concept comes in that when you expect privacy, you should be it should be incumbent on you to tell the other person or to tell the people involved, I expect privacy. I expect this to be between us. This is what happens in many situations in my friend groups and things like that where hey, we're having a conversation. Oh, I'm going to say something, but I need it to stay between us. That's exactly how it should be handled. You should assume at all times that anything that you're doing that's not in the privacy of your own home is being recorded by someone somewhere. And you should explicitly state when you want actual privacy because that's just the reality of where we're living and how the world is going. And that's that that's the end of the argument right there. Like if you're going to be in public, if you're going to be in a non-private space, you should not have the expectation and should explicitly state that you want something. whatever you're saying, whatever you're doing to be private between you and the persons you're you're communicating with. >> Oh, so if I if I understand >> that's okay. Let's go into open discussion. Yeah, go for it, sir. >> Yeah. What what you're saying Amos is you as a person who wants a conversation to remain private, you take the initiative to say this needs to happen and then you can decide if you trust the other person or parties to uh you know to to oblige right >> instead of me as me saying like hey Amos uh is it cool if I record this conversation? uh because uh you know that that's that's me maybe not taking that initiative. And so later on it becomes let's say it's a legal debate between the two of us about you know why it was recorded and me saying well he didn't say anything you know that sort of thing. I I uh I can save my swing seat argument for a little bit later if we want to have more of a conversation. >> Do whatever you want. Yeah. >> Okay. So, I re I really came into this as I think both things are are I I don't I'm not really in a swing seat. I think it's all about context. For example, Plaude No Pro reviewed it on a live with it episode uh some episodes ago, Roger, I don't know how how long ago, a couple months ago. And you know this this is a physical device attaches to your iPhone. Well, attaches to my iPhone. My iPhone is not attached right now, but yeah, it's designed to record conversations. Plaude itself will say to you because they kind of legally have to remember, you know, always ask permission um and and it will do that within its software and the hardware itself. Um to make sure that you're not being nefarious because it doesn't want to be liable for anything regarding that later on. totally understand that. Don't know if that holds up in court for the company depending on, you know, the instance. But I think that that it it all depends on who are you talking to. If you are, you know, being clandestine and like being a detective and recording somebody without their knowledge, that's why certain states say no, you can't do that. You can't do it. If you are talking to a co-worker and you have previously agreed that like yeah everything's on record and you know AI will just you know give us a good summary and I'll share it with you later then do you have to ask their permission every time? Not sure. Not sure you do because you've already established that it's okay. Well, and I want to remind everybody, we're not talking about recording. And it's it's hard to wrap your head around that, but with the Siri recap, it is not recording. There is no audio file. It is not the same as what even what Plaude does. >> That is the tricky part about I mean that's where I you know, again, congratulations Apple. They are attempting to skirt this quite cleverly by saying we're listening but we're not recording. And then all we do is a summary that says Roger and Molly talked about football. >> But I will and I will say that even Amos in your argument about expectation of privacy, even though I disagree with you on the amount of dystopian hellscape I want to live in. >> Oh, I'm not saying I want to live here. I'm saying we do live here. >> Right. [laughter] But I but there are still differences legally around images versus audio. So actually you recording something from your driveway in a two-party consent state would still be illegal. So, we do treat and that's where I think Apple is that's why I think they're being so careful and like why Claude is so careful is because when it comes to recording conversations and Apple wouldn't be so careful, right, if they didn't know that they were skirting I think they're skirting the line and I think it'll be interesting to see what happens with this um and and how people receive it, right? But cuz we do treat audio a lot more strictly in terms of an expectation of privacy >> with this in particular. If you want to take this and just expand beyond just the watch. Um there are hearing aids out there that will take in all the sound and then computationally decide what it is that the person is actually trying to pay attention to and filter out those sounds. This is an assisted device that lets that it's taking all the sounds around me and tells me, hey, this is the relevant part of the last 15 seconds. It's doing it with text to me as opposed to audio pumping straight into my brain, but it's still the same basic concept. So, even on on that front, I don't see this as being any different than other computationally accessible access accessibility devices. And I my my whole argument isn't is even outside the whole legal, you know, framework. It's really just some people are very antsy around anything that smells or looks or acts remotely like a device that records. And to me, it's just a it's just a social grace, you know, social etiquette thing where it's like, hey, I'm just letting you know because, you know, it does this. Some people No, that's the timer. I'm stressed out. Waiting for Roger to wrap up his statement. [laughter] Somebody answer it. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh, so, uh, Jen, you're the only one who hasn't popped in on this. Do you have a a question from the swing seat before we decide? >> I I do. Uh, I'm glad Molly brought up journalism because when you know you're talking to a subject or uh in a conference or anything, uh, anything that is off the record, you need to establish that first, not after. >> You're the journalist, too. You don't wait for them to ask, "Are we off the record?" >> But I was carrying around a giant Canon XL2. Uh you can't miss it. You know when I'm recording. [laughter] Uh watches are, you know, ubiquitous. They're they're going to be everywhere and hidden. So you would not necessarily know that this is going to be uh recorded. Now, I know it's not recorded recorded. Like smart glasses are are a much stronger thing. Like we've decided with my hockey teams that no smart glasses in the room. You can use it on the ice if you're crazy enough to put it under your helmet, like if you're recording video and stuff, but not in the room. In the room, it's uh it's a no-go. And rinks have signs, too, saying like, "Oh, no phones." And the oldest rink I play in has a sign saying no Blackberries, which I should take a photo of at some point. >> But, um, but yeah, because of the watches, uh, is the new reputation going to be along the lines of the way people call glasses perfect glasses? Well, and I think that's why I keep repeating that it's not recording an audio file. Maybe that won't make a difference to >> Roger no difference at all. To me, socially it's really it's really >> it still is surveillance. >> Yeah. Really >> really it's just ensuring the person that you're with is at ease and that they feel that you are being fully transparent. Right? If I if I had like one of those bow bow ties with the little cameras in and I'm doing like you know dine secret you know. >> But again that's not a good analogy because all this is doing is saying here's a paragraph reminding you what you >> hypothetical though to maybe illustrate how this would feel. So you meet someone for coffee. Maybe you're actually you go to their house for coffee. Let's take the entire expectation of privacy out of it. >> You go to someone's house. You sit at their kitchen table, you chitchat for an hour and a half. Later on, you you think like you get home and you're like, "God, they said this thing and I just that didn't sit right with me. I just didn't I don't I don't know how I feel about that comment and this friendship and you know, I'm just like evaluating this and whatever." And so you you go back and you're just like, I didn't I didn't love how you talked about my brother, right? I don't know. and they're just like, "Here are six things that you actually said during this conversation that were completely summarized by my watch and you didn't know it was happening." >> And then you're basically your response to that as the friend on the other end is, "Oh, you're dead to me." >> I mean, like, which is why it's just a social norm like why be >> we are going to have to underline it right there. Okay. >> Uh Sarah and Jen, do you do you like your swings or would you like to come down and join Amos, Molly, or Roger? I I like I said before, I think I'm in both camps. I think it's it's all contextual. >> Yeah. >> Very situational. Yeah. >> Very situational. Yeah. And >> and like for places where like like I said where my friends have drawn the line, I know that in advance. So at least I can be respectful because I'm probably going to buy the new watch, but I'm not likely to turn it on ever. So I might have to when people look at my watch and side eye me, I'm gonna have to say, "Oh, no. It's not on. Don't worry." >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that kind of puts you in the Molly Roger camp, honestly. But all right. Uh, our third question, we're just going to do super lightning round. Everybody gets one sentence. Uh, Snap announced its spec glasses this week, which are self-contained AR glasses. Meanwhile, France opening a criminal investigation of the misuse of Meta smart glasses in a sexual harassment case. And there's just that general backlash against smart glasses these days. We kind of touched on a lot of these issues uh in in the last conversation. So, we're going to go around the horn and answer this question in one sentence. Do you think there's any need for smart glasses, Molly? >> No, these things are go to hell. I will fight the surveillance date until my last breath. >> We'll call that a subjunctive clause. You fit the one sentence. Roger, >> do you think there's any need for smart glasses? >> Yes, in limited circumstances. >> All right, Sarah, do you think there's any need for smart glasses? >> I do. I do. I smart glasses don't freak me out as much as the next person because I also I mean how many times maybe it's just me do you pretend to take a selfie but you're actually taking a photo of somebody across the room at the coffee shop. >> Uh this is already possible. Smart glasses just make people more suspicious. >> Jen Cutter, do you think there's any need for smart glasses? >> Yes, for accessibility I think it's huge for elders. >> Good point. Uh and finally, Amos, do you think there's any need for smart glasses? >> Need is carrying a lot of weight here, and I think the only place we need this is in accessibility. Everywhere else is a choice, and it's it's something somebody wants to do, but the need would exist in accessibility. I can see that. All right, that is going to wrap up the show. Uh, thank you Sarah Lane, thank you Jen Cutter, thank you Roger Chang, thank you Molly Wood, thank you Anthony Lamos, uh, for helping us explore planned obsolescence uh, and kind of lean towards, you know, maybe it's probably just best to tell somebody if you're using that Siri recap. Uh, and accessibility is the need for the smart glasses. Let's check in with Len Peralta who has been illustrating today's show. Len, what have you drawn for us this week? So, you know, uh I've decided to do something a little bit different with this new format, which is uh the big questions. And so, uh I this I tried to do all three questions into one drawing. So, these are the big questions for 918 uh 26. Uh do we need smart glasses? Should we need permission uh for AI to summarize? And do companies intentionally plan their products to go obsolete? Uh visually this is what that uh discussion looks like. [laughter] Uh >> person does not seem happy. >> We tried so hard [laughter] >> and yet we made this poor person gurg. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> And and look at the phone is summarizing it, you know. So uh that conversation. Uh hey, if you dig this new format and if you dig the big questions of the week, you can go and back me at Patreon. patreon.com/len back me at the DTNS lover level. You'll get this image immediately. Or you can go the oldfashioned way. Go to my store, lenolstore.com, go to the DTNS prints store and you can buy it and uh support human art. >> Yes. >> Excellent. Uh Mollywood, thanks for coming back on the show. A great debater you are. >> Great to see you. >> Yeah, great to see you, too. Let folks know where we can keep up with your latest. Everybodyinthepool.com the podcast is back from summer vacation with new episodes. We're still just out here finding hope. I know that [laughter] I know it's I know it's tough with the El Nino brewing, but smart people still doing the work. Thank you, Molly. Uh go check out her show. It is essential listening every time an episode comes out. Uh big thanks to everybody supporting us on Patreon, on Substack, using those hype points on YouTube. If you've been using those, thank you. Uh if you haven't uh throw some hype points our way. It helps other people discover the show. Uh and also thanks to Trisha Hersburgger for the raid today. It's good to see all the Trisha Hersburgger folks show up. Thanks to Chris Bento for resubscribing at Tier 1 for the 87th month. Uh it's great to see PacknW Fallstar and Theater Monkey and everybody in there as well. Thank you patrons for supporting the show uh and keeping us in business. Everybody can support us directly at patreon.com/dtns. And patrons, stick around for the post show exclusively on Patreon where we're going to play a game with Roger. Tomorrow's Saturday special is Patrick Norton and Roger Tang talking about what you need to do with your old cables. Which ones should you keep? Which ones can you get rid of? Keep an eye out for that. And we will talk to you again on Monday. Have a great weekend, everybody. This week's episodes of Daily [music] Tech News Show were brought to you by the following people. Host Jen Cutter, host Rob Dunwood, host Jason Howell, host Sarah Lane, host Tom Merritt, producer Roger Chang, producer Anthony Lenos, video producer Joe Counz, editor Hammond Chamberlain, social media producer and moderator Zoe Dtering. Our mods, Beatmaster W. Scottis 1, Biocow, Captain Kipper, [music] Steve Godama, Paul Reese, Matthew J. Stevens and JD Galloway. Mod and video hosting by Dan Christensen. Music provided by Martin Bell and Dan Lutters. Art by Len Peralta. A cast ad support from Ali Gallow. Patreon support from Bobby Wagner. [music] Our guests this week were Mollywood, Justin Robert Young, Nika Mford, Terrence Gains, and thanks to all our patrons who make the show possible. This show is part of the Frogpants [music] Network. Get more at frogpants.com. Diamond Club hopes you have enjoyed this broer. [laughter] Almost exactly