There's no "end" per se, but shifting dynamics. I personally think we are currently seeing a "slow", but noteworthy-in-hindsight, shift in interest and development of alternative options and platforms from the big tech monopolies. From things like Bluesky, Framework laptops, minimalist cell phones, and even smaller local language models and other types of useful local ML models.

I don't think it's going to be anything like 50% or even 30% of users using non-flagship hardware or software products. But it could still be significant. And I think the more important thing isn't going to be market share as much as proof of viability. More successful examples will beget more.

It's about planting seeds from which future digital ecosystems can grow -- that have interoperability, functionality, and openness built into their foundations.

I believe that what drove you to make this post and the way I feel is not unique and are part of a larger swell in similar sentiments.

You throw in other factors too like the mass tech layoffs and the continued doubling down of tech barons on their cravings to intermingle with the surveillance state and military industrial complex... I just can't see how the future doesn't have more people disillusioned with the current state of the tech industry.

I think big tech will continue to overplay their hand and the mess that comes after will be an opportunity to give people what they want and show alternatives to what's already been done that we know won't work out.

That's the class war you're worried about?

Is every forum just full of Reddit users complaining about le capitalism now?

It’s never been easier to make your own software. You don’t even need to know how to program. You don’t even need to buy an operating system. You need like $200 for a shitty laptop. People doing good and interesting work aren't reliant on these agents. People writing these posts aren’t outputting good software — let alone any software anyone actually cares about. Where’s the billion dollar game franchise written mostly by Claude? It doesn’t exist.

It's such a weird take. You have a project, it costs X to make. Either it's worth it or it's not worth it. Some tool might bring the cost down, but the breakdown is the same. If X is too high, don't do the project.

If the tools you use are cheaper, shouldn't it make you more competitive? If the expensive tools are worth it, wouldn't it mean that you can jack your price? Where's the problem?