Another quote could be, "Companies who are serious about mental health should make physiologically aligned displays ."
You can't app your way out of hardware constraints. Most people believe apps are addictive. That social media is the problem. But this is like blaming fast foods for being unhealthy while ignoring the processed ingredients. Any fast food made with the right ingredients can be nourishing. A burger made with hyperpalatable (fat carb ratios) processed ingredients triggers overconsumption.
Displays are either hyperpalatable or satiating. Current screens are optimized like processed food. Engineered to be impossible to stop consuming. The physical sensation of looking at most displays is activating. The refresh rates, the color saturation, the brightness curves are not natural. They're the digital equivalent of added sugars and seed oils, designed to override your body's natural satiation signals.
We overconsume social media not because the content is irresistible, but because the display makes it impossible to feel satisfied. The form factor becomes turns you into Eddie Brock (succumbing to your digital symbiotes need). The haptic feedback is engineered for compulsion. No "digital wellbeing" feature or app can overcome this. Have you ever seen someone who uses a timer for IG? It useless friction.
If we're serious about solving the mental health crisis in computing, we need to rebuild from the photons up, the hardware layer. Not better apps on toxic displays but displays designed for satiation rather than endless consumption.
The moat is the ethical foundation that compounds into the future. Tech giants actually can't compete.
Not because they lack resources or talent, but because their foundations carry the burden of irreversibility. Apple and Google made optimization decisions 30 years ago—blue-light displays, engagement-maximizing refresh rates, form factors designed for constant access. . They can't uproot the foundation without invalidating everything built on top. Apple will be like Applebees. In the early 2000's Applebees tried to upscale and lost customers. This will be the faith of big tech if they try to compete on display tech..
Daylight's moat is now. The opportunity to build the foundational layer based on what society actually needs in the present.
1. Displays for wellbeing,
2. Hardware for satiation,
3. Architecture for human flourishing.
That choice compounds forward (like the doodle shows) into which apps succeed, developers thrive, and users stay (value-prop being they don't become retarded). The ethical constraints become structural advantages that deepen with time.
Start with the right foundation today, and every layer built on top inherits those principles as advantages. Start with the wrong foundation decades ago, and every attempt at reform collides with the architecture that made you successful.
That's the moat: being right at the foundational moment, while others are trapped by being first.
Perhaps, I can surmise this entire argument as is it "HARDWARE that creates it's own simulation for a user to live in? Can it be one of the worlds in the many worlds we inhabit?"
Maybe I don't want my AI that works on my digital notes to ever know what is in my paper notes. What I read on the Web should never take over recommendations on the Kindle and vice versa.
If that's the case, then you are creating a hardware that is not fungible in a user's life. It is only non fungible by user behaviour today but will be non fungible by AI delivered value tomorrow.
Hardware may not necessary be the solution to the negative externalities that shortsighted software companies have spilled over but I do agree “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware”. Steve Jobs did just that and I think OpenAI will be the next one.
Another quote could be, "Companies who are serious about mental health should make physiologically aligned displays ."
You can't app your way out of hardware constraints. Most people believe apps are addictive. That social media is the problem. But this is like blaming fast foods for being unhealthy while ignoring the processed ingredients. Any fast food made with the right ingredients can be nourishing. A burger made with hyperpalatable (fat carb ratios) processed ingredients triggers overconsumption.
Displays are either hyperpalatable or satiating. Current screens are optimized like processed food. Engineered to be impossible to stop consuming. The physical sensation of looking at most displays is activating. The refresh rates, the color saturation, the brightness curves are not natural. They're the digital equivalent of added sugars and seed oils, designed to override your body's natural satiation signals.
We overconsume social media not because the content is irresistible, but because the display makes it impossible to feel satisfied. The form factor becomes turns you into Eddie Brock (succumbing to your digital symbiotes need). The haptic feedback is engineered for compulsion. No "digital wellbeing" feature or app can overcome this. Have you ever seen someone who uses a timer for IG? It useless friction.
If we're serious about solving the mental health crisis in computing, we need to rebuild from the photons up, the hardware layer. Not better apps on toxic displays but displays designed for satiation rather than endless consumption.
The moat is the ethical foundation that compounds into the future. Tech giants actually can't compete.
Not because they lack resources or talent, but because their foundations carry the burden of irreversibility. Apple and Google made optimization decisions 30 years ago—blue-light displays, engagement-maximizing refresh rates, form factors designed for constant access. . They can't uproot the foundation without invalidating everything built on top. Apple will be like Applebees. In the early 2000's Applebees tried to upscale and lost customers. This will be the faith of big tech if they try to compete on display tech..
Daylight's moat is now. The opportunity to build the foundational layer based on what society actually needs in the present.
1. Displays for wellbeing,
2. Hardware for satiation,
3. Architecture for human flourishing.
That choice compounds forward (like the doodle shows) into which apps succeed, developers thrive, and users stay (value-prop being they don't become retarded). The ethical constraints become structural advantages that deepen with time.
Start with the right foundation today, and every layer built on top inherits those principles as advantages. Start with the wrong foundation decades ago, and every attempt at reform collides with the architecture that made you successful.
That's the moat: being right at the foundational moment, while others are trapped by being first.
Towards a better future!
Great job Anjan
🔥🔥🔥
Perhaps, I can surmise this entire argument as is it "HARDWARE that creates it's own simulation for a user to live in? Can it be one of the worlds in the many worlds we inhabit?"
Maybe I don't want my AI that works on my digital notes to ever know what is in my paper notes. What I read on the Web should never take over recommendations on the Kindle and vice versa.
If that's the case, then you are creating a hardware that is not fungible in a user's life. It is only non fungible by user behaviour today but will be non fungible by AI delivered value tomorrow.
Hardware may not necessary be the solution to the negative externalities that shortsighted software companies have spilled over but I do agree “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware”. Steve Jobs did just that and I think OpenAI will be the next one.
How does it work with an iPhone. And iCloud email?
The more does need more beautiful things to look at and use, not less