I am afraid you have obfuscated the reason and meanings of what I posted.
All I responded to was the car analogy, and why I don't think it works.
The ability to save and recycle great devices like older laptops from the scrap heaps and recycle sweat shops in Asia created by our digitally dysfunctional consumerism is of great economic importance.
I used to think so. Now I am less sure. The oldest PC I have, I can't even give away - charities and schools don't want it because it wouldn't even be economic for them, for free. Parts for it are so much more expensive than new-standard parts that it isn't worth upgrading - cheaper to buy new. Running recent desktop software (Windows _or_ OSS) on it is a chore, ditto any recent websites, running different versions of software on different devices is also a pain.
Yes, I could re-purpose it as a NAS, if I can find disks to fit, and at some time cost. But I won't, it will be thrown out, because big old PCs running 24/7 drink lots of power - it is cheaper to buy and power a dedicated NAS than run the PC I already have as a NAS. The NAS will probably run Linux of some form but the software hood will be shut, and I won't care if it works - and if it doesn't it will get returned. It only has to run for a year and it has saved me money.
Similarly in terms of helping less-rich parts of the world, I think they will be far better of with new Ponder this, using the Windows old saw "people use it because it just works" doesn't.
"It just works" is Apple, not Windows - MSFT might have tried to steal it but rarely lives up to it. Apple on the other hand does just work, provided you only want to work their way.
Also ponder this;
all the cloud really is is an excuse to shear the sheep even further.
"Cloud" is simply marketing term, for what we used to call managed services, outsourced to off-site datacenter, and piled higher and sold cheaper (with virtualization being one key enabling technology underneath it) - nothing more nothing less. Some vendors who already did off-premise managed services offerings simply re-badged them as "cloud" when that term came in. The whole thing happened because external network connections reached the point that made it physically viable, and internal IT departments grew their own bureaucracies to the point that made it financially viable to replace them.
The MSFT and Apple's vision of the future of computing
I don't think MSFT and Apple have a coherent viable vision for anything anymore, both are well behind the curve now. If they catch up again it will be through having the resource to buy someone else's vision, not their own. I would look elsewhere for the future vision of computing.