The technology sector begins the 2026 academic year immersed in a deep contradiction. And if we analyze the state of the hardware and software from a purely technical point of view, the level of maturity is indisputable.
We have devices with computing power that a few years ago was unthinkable in the consumer market, connectivity has almost completely eliminated waiting times and automation is beginning to be effective in complex tasks.
It is important to mention that engineers, as well as programmers and other professionals, have done their part, where technology works better than ever. However, the user experience does not advance at the same pace.
In fact, in many ways, we are receiving worse, more expensive and more confusing service due to hard-to-justify business decisions. The current paradox lies in the contrast between innovation capacity and market strategy.
We have the most advanced tools in history in our pockets, but Big Tech is implementing policies that seem designed to hinder their daily use rather than facilitate it, which creates a problem.
Pay more to receive the same (or less)
It is important to first recognize the qualitative leap in hardware. The integration of neural processors in mobiles and PCs allows heavy tasks, such as high-resolution video editing or data analysis, to be done locally and immediately, which is brilliant.
However, that speed is slowed by increasingly hostile interfaces. Especially because Companies have stopped prioritizing fluidity to focus on retention and aggressive monetization.
We find operating systems that hide the most basic configuration options behind unnecessary menus, or apps that prioritize showing you content suggested by algorithms instead of letting you do the task for which you opened the app.
Technology is fast, but interaction has become slow and cumbersome. The economic aspect is where this disconnection is most evident. 2026 will consolidate a trend of widespread price increases in digital services and telecommunications that do not respond to an improvement in the product.
We will pay higher monthly fees for streaming platforms, productivity software, and internet connections, but the service we will receive will be essentially the same as it was a year ago, or even lower.
The strategy of big technology has changed. They no longer seek to attract users with low prices and innovative functions; Now they exploit the captive customer base.
They withdraw basic plans, eliminate the possibility of sharing accounts with family or friends, or show advertising in paid services.
In fact, the subscription has become an inflationary fixed cost for the pocket, where added value is conspicuous by its absence. Paying more has become the norm to simply maintain access to what we already had
The forced integration of artificial intelligence
Another sticking point is the pervasiveness of artificial intelligence. The industry has decided that generative AI needs to be everywhere, regardless of its actual usefulness to the average user.
This has generated a saturation of functions that, far from helping, often get in the way. When we try to write an email or write a note, text editors interrupt you with automatic suggestions or virtual assistants that try to rewrite your content.
Instead of invisible tools that make work easier, we are faced with intrusive technology that demands constant attention. The integration of AI is being done from a marketing perspective («we have AI») and not from a usability perspective («this solves a real problem»).
In the end, there is no doubt that we have at our disposal a very powerful technology of high value, but underused in trivial functions that complicate the interface and its use.
The user as quality control
Finally, the quality of the final product has suffered more than necessary, much more so, because the launch of incomplete devices and software has become normalized.
We buy technology on launch day at full price, but there are performance glitches, software bugs, and promises of features coming in future updates.
Companies have shifted the responsibility of quality control to the buyer. It is you who detects errors and reports failures, becoming a «beta tests«unpaid.
Added to this is the elimination of physical and software features that worked perfectly – such as ports, included accessories or compatibility with old formats – under security excuses that, in practice, only serve to reduce manufacturing costs and force you to buy additional peripherals.
In conclusion, 2026 shows that having the best technology does not guarantee having the best product. The gap between what engineers build and what managers decide to sell is increasingly widening.
We have brilliant technology in our hands, capable of doing things that we never thought of a few years ago, but managed through decisions that, too often, go against our own interests.