894
Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete and Unsupported (spectrum.ieee.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
229 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

These early adopters found out what happened when a cutting-edge marvel became an obsolete gadget... inside their bodies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 48 points 2 years ago (4 children)

They exist to make money not help humanity. Open source don’t make them money so they will never bother

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    They exist to make money not help humanity.

    From the article...

    Greenberg spent many years developing the technology while working at the Alfred Mann Foundation, a nonprofit organization that develops biomedical devices

    EDIT: For those challenging what I am saying, I was speaking towards his motives, when I responded to this comment …

    They exist to make money not help humanity.

    I was challenging the notion that he did not care about humanity, and just wanted the money.

    Its ok to want to help others AND make money doing it. (Unfortunately) We live in a society where money is needed to exist.

    EDIT2: I'm all for open source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    “he spun off the company Second Sight with three cofounders in 1998”

    The rest of the sentence from your quote. The company that put these implants into people was, from what I understand, indeed for profit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Non-profits, just like for-profits, need to keep revenue at or above expenditures. Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.

    I'm going to push back against this part of your comment. You are making an assumption. You can do both, help Humanity AND make money (since we live in a society that requires money to exist).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    Open Source can and very often is profitable, though. Large companies like to trade technologies as assets, but a lot of people don't realize that as individuals they can claim full rights and ownership over their product while also making it free to use and modify.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're giving a roundabout justification for regulation.

    It should not be their choice when are discussing items/services that impact health this directly. Buy the ticket (release product and profit) take the ride (support for the life of installed user base at least).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •