> No offence, but, I mean, you do not have the authority to decide how another company/person gets to spend their focus
I'm sorry but it's difficult to take this perspective seriously.
It ought to be very obvious that in the context of a Hacker News comment I am not claiming authority to decide what Apple does. I am merely stating that if Apple decided to support third party backup solutions they have more than enough spare money to increase resources rather than, as the OP suggested would be necessary, divert resources away from something else. The OP's "with a given number of resources" qualifier is incorrect because that number isn't actually constant.
The lengths some folks go to on Hacker News to defend Apple absolutely astounds me. They're a multinational corporate, they don't care about any of us here. Stating the simple fact that Apple has the ability to increase their resources is not somehow offensive.
I'm sorry but it's difficult to take this perspective seriously.
It ought to be very obvious that in the context of a Hacker News comment I am not claiming authority to decide what Apple does. I am merely stating that if Apple decided to support third party backup solutions they have more than enough spare money to increase resources rather than, as the OP suggested would be necessary, divert resources away from something else. The OP's "with a given number of resources" qualifier is incorrect because that number isn't actually constant.
The lengths some folks go to on Hacker News to defend Apple absolutely astounds me. They're a multinational corporate, they don't care about any of us here. Stating the simple fact that Apple has the ability to increase their resources is not somehow offensive.