upvote
> Sure it was the Apple engineers' and designers' labor transformed into a product, but it was a fucking great product and something that I'm sure those teams were very proud of. The same was true with the the iPod and the iPhone.

...

> Work doesn't have to be exploitive. Products don't have to exploit their users.

bruh do people have any idea what they're writing as they write it? you're talking about "work doesn't have to be [exploitative]" in the same breath as Apple which is the third largest market cap company in the world and who's well known for exploiting child labor to produce its products. like has this comment "jumped the shark"?

> Viewing everything through the lens of production and consumption

i don't view everything through any lens - i view work through the lens of work (and therefore production/consumption). i very clearly delineated between this lens and at least one other lens (art).

reply
The guy in Cupertino aren't the ones behind bars so they can't jump their deaths; for someone who supposedly "clearly delineated", you sure are mixing up those who are being exploited with the people who benefitted.

Ultimately the exploitative pyramid always terminates in a peak, and the guys working up there can for sure be having a hecking great time doing their jobs.

reply
Maybe you'll dismiss it as another poetic waxing but what I understand they're saying is that capitalism hasn't yet captured all the inefficiencies of the human experience.
reply
So the definition of art is work except you don’t get paid?
reply