AOsborn

He's being intentionally vague and combative in his statements. I think it's fair to assume there was a process issue when even as he admits he was "grilled by legal about why the Google logo and brand colors are on the Google Workspace GitHub code repositories".

Clearing up the issue would take a single comment that all the correct processes were followed. The fact he hasn't said as much is the elephant in the room here.

File transfer that just works.

My mum can use airdrop. She sends us things. She doesn't need to install anything or configure things. She just uses the first-party UI.

It's the same with Airpods. Bluetooth headphones? Yeah, you can buy some for $20, who needs Apple ones? Apparently everyone. Turns out providing great noise cancellation and bluetooth that just works means the product is appealing to general consumers.

With respect, you’re very out of touch.

Connecting online is the primary social space for many kids nowadays, not in person.

Some parents (or those without kids) have a bit of a naive view and think ‘social media’ and just imagine Facebook, instagram etc - things they understand and that don’t provide much connection.

The kids connect using private accounts, completely different apps, or even just inside the chat of other apps like games, if that is where your specific group hangs out.

The part you’re missing is that the decision to be online isn’t like choosing to do drugs. It’s closer to deciding to go to parties and socialise at all.

Social media for teens is ubiquitous and where your peers connect. It’s being included in your social group, not opt-in thrill seeking.

Most teens will have multiple accounts for various networks - private accounts for their friends, and then again for closer friends. Or they use apps like Discord that parents have no visibility into at all. There is a lot that most parents never see.

For better or worse.

Yeah absolutely.

I find Copilot is great if you add a small comment describing the logic or function. Taking 10s to write a one line sentence in English can save 5-10 mins writing your code from scratch. Subjectively it feels much faster to QA and review code already written.

Having good typing and DTOs helps too.

No, I disagree.

This is about lifestyle ergonomics and your community. Like it or not, social media has significantly reshaped the world. Issues aside, it has brought people together and made communication significantly easier than in the past. There is a reason 1/3 of the world is on Facebook.

So, my point is that if you're choosing to be difficult, that is fine but you need to accept the burden falls on you. This is similar to adopting a vegan diet - your body your choice, but don't be intentionally difficult at dinner parties.

Personal example here: I've cut down social media significantly, in my case all notifications are off even if the apps are installed. So you're not bombarded and can engage on a cadence that makes sense to you. That said, I need to dedicate time to checking up on extended family, friends etc - as otherwise you do miss announcements and major events.

Absolutely agree.

I'd say this goes one step further. We hand down older devices to our parents. They are completely happy with a device several generations back. The current product philosophy has completely cut them out as purchasers. They are product users, but will never purchase again.

In fact, without planned obsolescence/battery degradation I suspect they would be happy never replacing their phones until they physically broke. It's a shame that they continually slow down to such a degree - the decreased speed is actually the only Apple 'feature' they notice.

I absolutely am.

Part of the appeal about iOS for me is that apps are reviewed for quality and don't have obvious scams or spywear inside.

I'm happy to guide my parents to use and download apps from the app store without worrying about it. Compare this to the constant education and guidance I need to provide about websites, phone calls, text messages etc. The amount of targeted scams and spam we receive nowadays is excessive.

I think this is the problem: people want access to the 'app store' while forgetting/ignoring that the tight security and rigid processes are a feature, not a liability.

I don't think it is egregious at all.

Instead, many people seem to have had a head-in-the-sand view that many of the services Apple provided were no-cost, or done out of goodwill.

So, now there is the option for alternative marketplaces, the costs have been shifted to those marketplaces.

Makes complete sense.

It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate.

What? How do you think they support developing the OS, running security, notarizing and reviewing your apps etc.

This needs to be funded somehow.

I'm surprised there are commenters who have such a strong view - that they should just be able to access all the benefits of the iOS ecosystem that Apple has built over many years, and then have all that access for free too.

But why? Apple is providing the whole ecosystem, operating system, security, notarization etc - there are costs to be covered.

Of course there are costs incurred per install. Previously there were covered by a higher 30% fee on app costs. Now, with opening up the platform to alternative stores, the EU has pushed Apple to a per-install model.

So to me, this seems completely reasonable as a standard iPhone user.

I understand the security and performance of the platform costs more - that is why I use an iPhone not an Android.

That's an interesting point regarding suggestions. I wonder if they are having a massive drop in user engagement as the user base has matured.

As in, anecdotally, all my friends and I just talk about using the radio from a track or another playlist, as opposed to curating playlists ourselves.

The golden egg that Spotify was sitting on (user-driven curation and favourites across a huge userbase) may be slowly evaporating.

That view misses the point for their likely customers.

My company will be all over this.

We 'could' continue to use open-source components we're gluing together ourselves.

But risk-aversion and speed-of-iteration are key for us. We'll throw money at a reliable end-to-end solution with solid infrastructure.

I think you're looking at this completely the wrong way.

This is like saying you'll only pay your brain surgeon for four hours work because that is as long as the operation you require will take. But that four hour operation is built on a lifetime of training and skill.

The value that you provide the customer is the metric from which you should be deriving your billing. If someone else provides an equally effective solution but takes an order of magnitude more time to deliver it, then you are just that much more efficient.

Because very few people use the term open core unless they are trying to be a pedant or nitpick, and your comment (and the grandparent) come off as trying to detract from the thread with a strawman.

The original post even explicitly explains what part of the offering is MIT licensed and what is commercial. So what is your point arguing semantics about open core?