I think you’re missing the point that we’re here to discuss technology not the business of it.
Just because technology is driven by business processes doesn’t mean that this form must also be consumed by discussion over business processes that are only somewhat related to technology.
I’m not sure why this distinction is difficult. If you want a technology politics community then make one, stop polluting technology with technology politics.
Apparently not, given how many people post and upvote articles about technology business.
But frankly, I don’t think you can isolate technology from the business and politics around it. You can choose to only talk about specs and functionality, but it is often being driven by business interests regardless.
Unless you are talking about some social blunder they have done during vacations, “Google CEO does a big dumb dumb” is sure to have implications for the technology and the users of said technology. As Elon Musk’s decisions are having to the structure of Twitter’s platform and their users.
At this point I think it’s very misguided from technology enthusiasts to believe that the matter can be discussed in isolation and detached from human interests. In fact many of the ills of social media, gaming and AI came about because the matters were handled in such a way, and consequently they had political implications.
They were not designed in isolation from business and politics either. Phones moved away from 3.5mm to only have a single USB/Lightning input so that they could sell more wireless earbuds, and iPhones will be forced to change use USB-C due to an European Union decision. Business. Politics. Technology.
But why google created a new standard, what the standard is, how it will be used, what other companies will adopt that standard, when products using that new standard will become available, etc. are all on the business side of things, and so can be directly affected by Google’s CEO doing a big dumb dumb. Without the business side of things actually making things happen, a new standard is just a bunch of rules that someone wrote down.
Remove business from the equation, and you’re mostly left with technical papers that describe hypothetical technology that no one is actually making, and hobbyists cobbling together gadgets in the basement or writing code in their free time for fun. And don’t get me wrong, that’s cool stuff too, but it’s a much more niche community.
In an ideal world, we’d probably have about 3 different communities, one dedicated to the businesses side of technology, one dedicated to pure technology with specs and technical papers and such disconnected from business, and a 3rd one where we discuss both aspects and how they come together in the real world. Since we only have the one main community though, to me at least, the third approach seems most appropriate for here. If you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you should consider creating those other communities, perhaps call them something like TechBusiness and PureTechnology.
The two are inseparable unfortunately. Business and the actual technology itself are closely intertwined. Talking about technology in a vacuum can be somewhat interesting, but it doesn’t work in an online forum. Applications of the technology are going to require business. And if you can’t discuss the applications, what will you discuss? An online forum doesn’t have enough subject matter experts to solely discuss the technology.
I agree tech and applications of it tend to go together. But dumb business decisions of tech that has gone mainstream like telephones and PCs certainly doesn’t have to enter the discussion. And they don’t always tie to application of tech.
As a counterpoint, there’s still plenty of tech news that isn’t necessarily business related for telephones, with constantly developing smartphone technologies. I don’t know that going mainstream precludes it from offering good discussion.
I think you’re missing the point that we’re here to discuss technology not the business of it.
Just because technology is driven by business processes doesn’t mean that this form must also be consumed by discussion over business processes that are only somewhat related to technology.
I’m not sure why this distinction is difficult. If you want a technology politics community then make one, stop polluting technology with technology politics.
Apparently not, given how many people post and upvote articles about technology business.
But frankly, I don’t think you can isolate technology from the business and politics around it. You can choose to only talk about specs and functionality, but it is often being driven by business interests regardless.
“Google invents a new standard” is very different from “Google CEO does a big dumb dumb”
Unless you are talking about some social blunder they have done during vacations, “Google CEO does a big dumb dumb” is sure to have implications for the technology and the users of said technology. As Elon Musk’s decisions are having to the structure of Twitter’s platform and their users.
At this point I think it’s very misguided from technology enthusiasts to believe that the matter can be discussed in isolation and detached from human interests. In fact many of the ills of social media, gaming and AI came about because the matters were handled in such a way, and consequently they had political implications.
They were not designed in isolation from business and politics either. Phones moved away from 3.5mm to only have a single USB/Lightning input so that they could sell more wireless earbuds, and iPhones will be forced to change use USB-C due to an European Union decision. Business. Politics. Technology.
But why google created a new standard, what the standard is, how it will be used, what other companies will adopt that standard, when products using that new standard will become available, etc. are all on the business side of things, and so can be directly affected by Google’s CEO doing a big dumb dumb. Without the business side of things actually making things happen, a new standard is just a bunch of rules that someone wrote down.
Remove business from the equation, and you’re mostly left with technical papers that describe hypothetical technology that no one is actually making, and hobbyists cobbling together gadgets in the basement or writing code in their free time for fun. And don’t get me wrong, that’s cool stuff too, but it’s a much more niche community.
In an ideal world, we’d probably have about 3 different communities, one dedicated to the businesses side of technology, one dedicated to pure technology with specs and technical papers and such disconnected from business, and a 3rd one where we discuss both aspects and how they come together in the real world. Since we only have the one main community though, to me at least, the third approach seems most appropriate for here. If you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you should consider creating those other communities, perhaps call them something like TechBusiness and PureTechnology.
The two are inseparable unfortunately. Business and the actual technology itself are closely intertwined. Talking about technology in a vacuum can be somewhat interesting, but it doesn’t work in an online forum. Applications of the technology are going to require business. And if you can’t discuss the applications, what will you discuss? An online forum doesn’t have enough subject matter experts to solely discuss the technology.
I agree tech and applications of it tend to go together. But dumb business decisions of tech that has gone mainstream like telephones and PCs certainly doesn’t have to enter the discussion. And they don’t always tie to application of tech.
As a counterpoint, there’s still plenty of tech news that isn’t necessarily business related for telephones, with constantly developing smartphone technologies. I don’t know that going mainstream precludes it from offering good discussion.