It seems the market isn't what you tink it is. At the same time, people also don't understand that the issue isn't what they think it is.

There is a vocal minority on most of these things:

- Powerusers and "learnt just enough to be dangerous" users complain about products not being targeted towards their wishes

- Privacy alarmists don't like what they can't control

- Commercial interests don't like having to pay for things, but do like getting paid for their own things

Technically all correct, but in practise this is nearly all in the same bucket as fastfood, sugar, air pollution etc. It's something that affects everyone, but it's much easier to deny it, ignore it, and just go with the nice, easy, comfortable, and profitable paths.

  > It seems the market isn't what you tink it is.

Then what is it?

I think that the market is an opportunity for companies to compete on features, price, service, and quality. Is that incorrect?

If Apple is not competing on features, then shouldn't the market provide an alternative company that does? Specifically, Apple requires a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality yet consumers do not like this. Other companies provide devices that do not require a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality, though possibly at a higher price (doubtful) or lower quality, or worse service. But the opportunity does exist.

I'm happy to hear where either my understanding is wrong, or where the market is failing.

Just look around you, do you see any critical mass on both the vendor or consumer side that does something the way you describe it?

Every time someone comes up with some confident theory on markets or how things should be, or how bad the things are as they currently are, they forget that the reality is 'the market' (whatever their definition happens to be at that time) did not, in fact, change due to either supply or demand.

So when you were to say "the market demands offline devices, and the big companies are failing because they don't deliver that", you're either talking about a theoretical market, or about a different market, but not about the mass consumer electronics market. Because the big companies aren't failing, and regardless of the demand, no significant portion seems to be supplied.

  > Just look around you, do you see any critical mass on both the vendor or consumer side that does something the way you describe it?

Yes, I do. I personally want a phone with a stylus. Samsung makes one. Somebody else wants a phone with a good camera - Apple and Samsung both make phones with terrific cameras. Somebody else wants a small phone. That's where Palm Phone and Unihertz fill the niche. Others want inexpensive phones, there is a flood of inexpensive Chinese phones. Others want security, or battery life, or E-ink screens. All of that is available. What segment do you feel is underserved?

You're missing your own point: none of those do what you described in your reply. I'm not talking about that is there, I'm talking about what you proposed should be there but isn't there.

Yes consumers have so much power against cartels /s

Then that's a failure of this particular market, not markets in general, no?

Or do you dispute that a market-based economy is the proper form for designing, selling, and buying goods and services?

Consumer choice doesn't work to affect shit.

For example many people want smaller phones. However manufacturers all decided to make them bigger instead.

To function in society I need a phone, so I either buy one that needs 2 hands to be operated or be an outcast and have major problems having a normal life with no access to banking, communication and so on.

What's wrong with the Unihertz Atom, or the Palm Phone for that matter? They are both solid devices. They're not Samsung or Apple, but that's the point. The large manufacturers decided that you are not their target market, so stop buying from them. There exist smaller manufacturers that supply what you want.