Complementarily, I would say that because of corporate greed (or corporate behavior / politics more generally), it will be a long time before we can use computers built on the principles Alan Kay outlined in his talk.
Greed motivates corporations to try to provide people with what they demand. It can be channeled for good if consumers inform themselves about what products/services better their lives and actively choose them in the market.
The growth of the health food market - or at least some subcategories of it which are genuinely healthy - would be an example of this happening.
> It can be channeled for good if consumers inform themselves about what products/services better their lives and actively choose them in the market.
...assuming they're given a meaningful choice in the first place. Consumers choose from what's available on the market, not from some abstract space of possible products. Not only is technology too complicated for the mainstream audience (and products on the market do their best to make everything seem like "magic" that cannot be understood casually by non-specialists), the market doesn't really listen to user feedback anyway, preferring to divine everything from telemetry.
Greed, in general, motivates corporations to make money. Sometimes, providing people with what they demand is the easiest way to profit. Oftentimes, there are better ways. Like investing in marketing to make people demand what you want to provide them. Or scam them through convoluted business models.
That's why we need public resources expended on producing useful and true information and making it available for public consumption.
This can be done through both state-backed initiatives and non-governmental ones like Wikipedia, or speculatively, a public interest DAO that crowdfunds R&D. Gitcoin may be the first iterations of the latter.
I think the products/services the market provides mostly enhance our lives. Society works better than than our cynicism would imply, and when you zoom out over a span of a couple centuries, or even 40 years, that becomes apparent.
Of course there are many cases where the consumer is underinformed, and harmed by what the market urges them to buy, and these need to be addressed.
On the other hand, we are potentially now closer to our doom than ever before. If we look at all the things, that _in the short term_ improve our lives, but _in the long run_ might seriously impact future generations, then I am no longer so sure about that statement. Zooming out is fine, but not only looking at the past, but also what the future seems to hold, is a worthy perspective to take sometimes.
