Users of the fourth kind

The following is a general observation on how we can categorise tech users into a few categories and the topic of the Digital Markets Act, of which I can’t say I have very good knowledge. Its recent implementation made me realise the decade-old existence of a new type of technology user.

As far as I know, we’ve always had three big kinds of personal technology users:

1. “don’t know anything about it, know they don’t, indifferent”

2. “know a lot about it, know they do, partisan”

3. “know a lot about it, know they do, indifferent”

Of course, the “don’t know anything about it, indifferent” kind is the one we tend to associate with our parents. The differences between a web browser, a website, a bookmark, a Google search, and an app are not only hard for them to grasp, but they just don’t seem to care at all.

These users only know how to use their tech in the most basic ways, without knowing how it works or how to optimise it to make it more useful. For instance, I belong to this category of users for refrigerators: whatever works is fine by me, and if I’m using my refrigerator wrong, I frankly couldn’t care less.

In short: clueless, but discreet.

The “know a lot about it, partisan” kind is more diverse. This group includes annoying fanboys, apologists, and uberfans of companies or technologies. They can lose their objectivity; they will twist any narrative to make sure that their favorite tech shines, wins, or is perceived as the one made only for the ones who can truly appreciate it. Historically, these users have been very vocal on topics such as Nintendo vs. Sega, PlayStation vs. Xbox, Apple vs. Microsoft, Google vs. Apple, and so on.

They’re the kind of users who reply “You should use Ubuntu” every time you complain about Windows. This kind of power user buys with their heart, regardless of the problems their favourite tech has. I think I belong to this group when it comes to the Mac.

In short: annoying but savvy.

The third kind are power users, users who know how things work, with their informed preferences, but they won’t get into an argument with anyone. For video games, this can be someone who thinks in terms of games, and not platforms. For operating systems, they can switch if they have to, have their preference and their habits, and maintain an objective point of view.

This type of user accepts the flaws and limitations of their technology and make informed decisions. This is where I see myself with iPhone vs. Android, for instance.

In short: savvy but discreet.

Everything was pretty much the same for years, until a fourth kind emerged:

4. “don’t know anything about it, think they do, partisan”

They are the ones I called the nouveau-geeks. Initially from the “don’t know anything about it, indifferent” category, they had their epiphany in the late 2000s with the beginning of the iPhone era.

From that moment, anyone could pretend to be tech-savvy. “I have an iPhone, I install apps, and I browse the web while I ride the bus, I’m a geek!” They certainly have the passion, but not much knowledge of how things work, but certainly an opinion on how they should work.

This group is not even a fan of a particular technology but a fan of what they get from it, including social status, and from the habits formed around it. I am probably such a user when it comes to remote working from home: I practise it all the time, I have plenty of strong opinions about it that I happily share, but I am basically clueless about the impact it has on companies, workers, and society.

In short: annoying but clueless.

This fourth kind of tech user may even be the most popular now. So many times I’ve seen friends — who confidently refer to themselves as “Mac and iPhone people” — share the screen of their Mac and still have Launchpad in the dock while using Chrome with its icon only appearing in the “Recent apps” section. The kind of tech enthusiasts who can sometimes call a blog article a “blog.” [intense shivering]

Everything would be fine if these users didn’t end up working in the European Commission on the DMA legislation, with the confidence of true technology erudites. Most parts of the legislation I applaud and understand: clearly, some of the “gatekeepers” need to be regulated, and these companies had it coming, after cashing in billions on top of at-best questionable practices and at the expense of users.

While most of the DMA makes sense, some parts are just weird, and I think the fact that many legislators belong to the fourth kind of tech user explains it.

In brief, they would like, in the case of iPhone, for iOS to be more like Android, but they will never want to even consider buying an Android phone for themselves.

Will they one day go to the extent of accusing Apple of being anti-competitive because they sell iPhones with iOS pre-installed? No. Instead, they want their iPhone to have most of the benefits of Android without the hassle of switching platforms. And yes, I understand that Apple makes it somewhat difficult to switch, and that “lock-ins” and many features of iOS can be seen as anti-competitive. However, we can also argue that Apple has achieved its current position despite all of these “bad for the consumer” issues, not because of them.

In a free and competitive market, if we were unhappy with iPhones, we would no longer buy them; we would choose Android phones instead. And when Apple sees that Android is capturing most of their valuable iOS market share, they would adapt. Or perhaps not and stick to their vision.

Once again, I believe that anti-competitive behaviour should be curbed, and regulations like the DMA need to be implemented. This type of legislation was inevitable, and I am pleased that it now exists. However, some aspects of the DMA seem a bit overkill and just weird, which diminishes its ideological impact and undermines its original purpose and justification.

It feels like it’s now easier to ask companies to change, rather than questioning ourselves and our own consumer behaviour.

The DMA should have been smarter from the start, more focused, more detailed, and in my opinion, it should not solely target “gatekeepers” if we do not want the “gatekeepers” of the future to operate outside the scrutiny of the DMA for years. Unless some company behaviour is fine unless they are market leaders? This is weird.

I also don’t like the white knight tone adopted by most of the EC public speakers, which makes them sound arrogant and not driven by the needs of users, but by their political ambitions.

Certain elements of the DMA feel like mandating that restaurants provide free tap water because it is a consumer right and restaurant companies have been unfair to consumers for too long by making them pay for it, while simultaneously requiring all restaurants to include pizza on their menus because consumers enjoy pizza and should have access to it everywhere.

The involvement of the fourth type of user in shaping this legislation partly explains some of its strangeness. Also, I may belong to this fourth kind when it comes to the DMA: annoying, but clueless.