6 ms·

I like how the $4.5T company can’t pay for the 100 engineering hours a year to maintain this, or just fork over the Claude tokens to do it, while they keep tell

by oefrha 25d ago

I like how the $4.5T company can’t pay for the 100 engineering hours a year to maintain this, or just fork over the Claude tokens to do it, while they keep telling us how productive AI is making them (which, to be clear, has indeed made me a lot more productive).

compiler-devel 25d ago
The greed is as endless as the earth is old.
- uinibubhb 25d ago
  [flagged]
- Shank 25d ago
  Is it also not greedy to demand virtually unlimited support from companies? Why should Apple spend money on this random utility that virtually nobody uses?
  - saagarjha 25d ago
    Because I use it and pay them money for that?
    - xethos 25d ago
      Yes, you've made the right call trusting Apple with this, the company with famously-good backwards-compatibility and long-lived support for third-party software /s
    - throw0101d 24d ago
      > Because I use it and pay them money for that? This is like saying to a cop that's pulled you over for speeding "I pay for your salary". Yes, you do. But so do a bunch of other people do as well. And someone has to decide how to balance the needs of the many, which is where management / governance comes it: and said management has decided that the resources will be spent, or not spent, on certain things.
      - saagarjha 23d ago
        It's more like I report a crime and the cops don't do anything about it, a situation in which I feel fairly justified being upset?
        throw0101d 23d ago
        > It's more like I report a crime and the cops don't do anything about it, a situation in which I feel fairly justified being upset? Sure. With cops, a public service. But Apple is not a public service (this is an analogy after all). You gave them money for what they offered at a particular point in time because you thought it provided you value; has Apple taken away anything that you purchased? Did they go from x.2 to x.3 and break/remove something? That's certainly a dick move. But you are still getting what you paid for. Apple is free to change its offerings in the future based on what it thinks its customers need/want, and you are free to re-evaluate whether those changes still provide you with value, and whether you want to continue giving them money. "I got X in the past so I should continue getting X forever into the future" has never really been promised by any software vendor.
akerl_ 25d ago
"can't" here isn't really the right word. They obviously could, in the same way that a company making $4.5 million could. But there's a near infinite number of things they could do; they're constantly choosing which to actually do. AI has made my life more productive and I could use the time it's saved me to go for a run, but here I am.
- dosisking 25d ago
  > AI has made my life more productive and I could use the time it's saved me to go for a run, but here I am. So in reality, AI has not changed your productivity at all, because you are using the extra time you saved to post on HN
  - ranger_danger 25d ago
    Whose to say that more HN posting isn't more productive? /s
  - akerl_ 25d ago
    That was the joke, yes.
a012 25d ago
Not working in a $4.5T company but often I found that people rather don’t _want_ to maintain the code than can’t
altairprime 25d ago
Refusing to maintain something isn't some sort of 'poorness signal', it's a wealth-neutral choice that could have any number of contextual drivers. Apple may not be eligible for 'too poor to maintain it' but invalidating one potential motivation leaves many others unaddressed and offers no useful argument against removal.
leshenka 24d ago
Does it need to though? After so many years I can assume the program is complete as in there aren't any bugs left that need fixing and there aren't any new features needed in the scope of the program
throw0101d 24d ago
> I like how the $4.5T company can’t pay for the 100 engineering hours a year to maintain this […] “People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I'm actually as proud of the things we haven't done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things.” — Steve Jobs Perhaps Apple is a "$4.5T company" because of the fact that they don't 'waste' time/energy on things they don't feel create value (for the company itself or for the company's customers)?

by oefrha 25d ago

compiler-devel 25d ago

The greed is as endless as the earth is old.

uinibubhb 25d ago
[flagged]
Shank 25d ago
Is it also not greedy to demand virtually unlimited support from companies? Why should Apple spend money on this random utility that virtually nobody uses?
- saagarjha 25d ago
  Because I use it and pay them money for that?
  - xethos 25d ago
    Yes, you've made the right call trusting Apple with this, the company with famously-good backwards-compatibility and long-lived support for third-party software /s
  - throw0101d 24d ago
    > Because I use it and pay them money for that? This is like saying to a cop that's pulled you over for speeding "I pay for your salary". Yes, you do. But so do a bunch of other people do as well. And someone has to decide how to balance the needs of the many, which is where management / governance comes it: and said management has decided that the resources will be spent, or not spent, on certain things.
    - saagarjha 23d ago
      It's more like I report a crime and the cops don't do anything about it, a situation in which I feel fairly justified being upset?
      - throw0101d 23d ago
        > It's more like I report a crime and the cops don't do anything about it, a situation in which I feel fairly justified being upset? Sure. With cops, a public service. But Apple is not a public service (this is an analogy after all). You gave them money for what they offered at a particular point in time because you thought it provided you value; has Apple taken away anything that you purchased? Did they go from x.2 to x.3 and break/remove something? That's certainly a dick move. But you are still getting what you paid for. Apple is free to change its offerings in the future based on what it thinks its customers need/want, and you are free to re-evaluate whether those changes still provide you with value, and whether you want to continue giving them money. "I got X in the past so I should continue getting X forever into the future" has never really been promised by any software vendor.

akerl_ 25d ago

"can't" here isn't really the right word. They obviously could, in the same way that a company making $4.5 million could. But there's a near infinite number of things they could do; they're constantly choosing which to actually do. AI has made my life more productive and I could use the time it's saved me to go for a run, but here I am.

dosisking 25d ago
> AI has made my life more productive and I could use the time it's saved me to go for a run, but here I am. So in reality, AI has not changed your productivity at all, because you are using the extra time you saved to post on HN
- ranger_danger 25d ago
  Whose to say that more HN posting isn't more productive? /s
- akerl_ 25d ago
  That was the joke, yes.

a012 25d ago

Not working in a $4.5T company but often I found that people rather don’t _want_ to maintain the code than can’t

altairprime 25d ago

Refusing to maintain something isn't some sort of 'poorness signal', it's a wealth-neutral choice that could have any number of contextual drivers. Apple may not be eligible for 'too poor to maintain it' but invalidating one potential motivation leaves many others unaddressed and offers no useful argument against removal.

leshenka 24d ago

Does it need to though? After so many years I can assume the program is complete as in there aren't any bugs left that need fixing and there aren't any new features needed in the scope of the program

throw0101d 24d ago

> I like how the $4.5T company can’t pay for the 100 engineering hours a year to maintain this […] “People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I'm actually as proud of the things we haven't done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things.” — Steve Jobs Perhaps Apple is a "$4.5T company" because of the fact that they don't 'waste' time/energy on things they don't feel create value (for the company itself or for the company's customers)?