Think about the future where a new developer needs to pay a license fee, and have their software reviewed just to show his friends.
Think about the future where a new developer needs to pay a license fee, and have their software reviewed just to show his friends.
I don't care if the inevitable future of the Mac platform is more locked down. In fact I welcome it. Does it limit what I can do with my device? Of course. Do I lament some of the control I’ve already given up? Sure. But the trade off is a safer and smoother computing experience that allows me to focus more on what I want to achieve with what the platform does provide.
I spent some time on Linux, I got into hyper-customizing every minute detail, I swapped out third party RAM and even early adopted SSDs by mounting them in the optical drive bay. I built a PC tower from personally selected components. I triple booted Windows and Linux on my first Intel Mac with community built boot loaders well before Boot Camp was a thing.
I can’t imagine spending my time that way anymore. I learned a lot, but now I just wanna get stuff done. I like having some of the system out of reach. I like knowing that it’s readonly and I like the kind of hardware advances Apple’s vertical integration has enabled.
It’s okay if we value different things, and it’s okay if we make different compromises to experience them.
You go so far as to validate the things he's concerned about and reiterate that you just don't care about them. I don't see what's wrong with pointing out the inherent shortsightedness of that line of thinking.
>it’s disappointing to me that so many here simply can’t conceive that some people don’t share their priorities, and make conscious choices that reflect their own priorities.
Have you considered that those people understand basic human psychology and that they take issue with the exact priorities that they are speaking against?
What problem? How do my decisions to prefer one computer platform have any impact on GP or you or anyone? Apple turning the entire Mac line into iPads can’t and won’t eliminate more open platforms that you or GP may prefer. There’s no future inflection point where Apple has locked down the Mac platform in a way that enables them to storm into your home and replace your Linux computer (or whatever) with a Mac.
It’s elitist because the suggestion is that my preference represents an inability to evaluate the impact it has on me. It has no meaningful impact on you. It would have no meaningful impact on you if I decided to eschew all computing technology and go live in a monastery.
> You go so far as to validate the things he's concerned about and reiterate that you just don't care about them. I don't see what's wrong with pointing out the inherent shortsightedness of that line of thinking.
I am allowed to have different preferences and priorities. It’s not shortsighted, I see the compromise I’m making and I’m satisfied with what it provides in return. And since it in no way harms you or GP, it’s not your business to tell me to change my preferences.
> Have you considered that those people understand basic human psychology and that they take issue with the exact priorities that they are speaking against?
Have you considered that taking issue with other people’s preferences and imposing your own is far more controlling than just accepting that some people like different things, even if their preferences are personally limiting in a way you’re not comfortable with for yourself?
>Actual money in the hand now is worth more than theoretical money in the future and so on.
Exactly, short-term profit will almost always trump long-term problems. Is that so difficult to consider?
>They likely did the math and found that the risk is worth the reward to them
GP is saying that they likely did not do the math or that they prioritized short-term gains over the long-term impacts of their decisions as for-profit entities typically do.
I'm not sure what there was to misunderstand about my original comment since I more or less said exactly that.
No, GP said they did not consider future impact, period. I said that entities can consider future impact and still choose short term profit (and that it is often rational to do so). I then pointed out that assuming someone else didn't do the math because their results are different than your results is egoistical.
Also, your point about Mac future is pure speculation at this point, which contradicts public statements from Apple.
Why is that so difficult?
Until the day when there aren't other options -- which isn't so difficult to understand, really.
And what makes you so important that every hardware provider has to bend to your will? I can't run Shor's Algorithm on my Raspberry Pi, whose fault is that?
EDIT:
> isn't so difficult to understand, really
You may be confusing "understand" with "imagine"
Like what? ps5/xbox series x/ps4/xbox one are very sophisticated, comparable to a modern desktop PC, yet it's totally closed off. Consoles no longer resemble embedded devices like previous gens. Heck, even the original nes used the MOS 6502 chip, which was very popular in PCs in the early days.
The openness of the PC should be enforced legally across anything that can be reasonably construed to be one.
Oh fuck no.
If you want a PC you can get a PC. Stop trying to force your mediocrity-for-all BS on those who don’t want PCs.