4 ms·

You seem to be saying market forces will sort it out, but the premise behind legislation is that they haven't. (In my specific case, as an iOS developer, I can

You seem to be saying market forces will sort it out, but the premise behind legislation is that they haven't. (In my specific case, as an iOS developer, I can't buy anything but a Mac.)

filleokus 9y ago
Well, my point is that everything has a cost, even repairability/upgradeability, either in monetary value, or in lack of some features. With this in mind, then manufacturers have to consider where on that spectrum they want to be. What things to give up in order to provide "optimum" user value. And I think, for many people, that the current limited upgradeability of for example iPads is quite close to the optima. Screens and batteries can be quite easily changed, but you can't upgrade the storage or other internal components. The lack of repairability does not necessarily, in my opinion, show any market force failure. All the failed attempts of modular phones might even show the opposite. And don't take me wrong, I would looove a more upgradeable Mac (also an iOS developer), but I feel that Apple should be allowed to make those choices by themselves. If upgradeability would be so important for me I could always be an .NET-dev.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  One thing to remember is that manufacturers don't optimize for "user value" as in "how much users will like it", but for the value they can take from users, i.e. profit. The two are correlated, but not perfectly and not equally well in every dimension.
- kartickv 9y ago
  I see where you're coming from, but I wasn't talking about phones or tablets. I specifically mentioned the iMac — for a desktop computer, the costs are negligible. You're not holding or carrying it, so weight and thickness are not that important. My iMac is already 10kg. Nobody would notice it if it were 10.5. The benefits far outweigh any negligible costs. In my assessment, Apple hasn't make the right decisions when left to themselves. And it's not just me saying that. Even some Apple fans are saying so: https://marco.org/2017/04/15/mac-pro-audacity-of-yes https://marco.org/2017/04/15/mac-pro-audacity-of-yes You're still free to disagree, but in that case we should agree to disagree.
Jach 9y ago
Market forces sort a lot out given time. The first iPhone was only 10 years ago. You didn't have to be an iOS developer. At the same time you don't have to be one in the future unless legislation comes along to force you to maintain your apps.
- kartickv 9y ago
  That's not a practical reality for many of us. Economics textbooks assume there are an infinite number of suppliers to choose from, but in reality there's often only two or three, so "do something else" isn't often an option.
  - Jach 9y ago
    I mean if you're dead set on mobile development, yeah, your choices are iOS and Android, and if you want to make more money, prioritizing iOS. But you don't have to be in mobile development. "Do something else" is an option, because there are a vast number of opportunities in the wider tech arena. That's what I'm getting at. Edit: also do you have any thoughts on the idea of legislation forcing you to maintain an old app? There's a Go game scoring app I use on android but it's buggy as hell, not as good as it used to be, as far as I can tell the developer keeps some servers on but hasn't updated it for a very long time. Should there be a law requiring him to keep the servers on? I can't use anything else on android (that I know of), I'd have to develop it myself.
    - kartickv 9y ago
      Regarding your second point, I think it would be a very bad idea. Many apps bring in little money. Mine doesn't even pay for my Internet bill, let alone my other expenses, as a concrete example. If I'm forced legally to maintain them, I won't be able to take the risk of building more. I'll have to quit and take up a 9-to-5 job again. How much did you pay for that app? A few dollars? For that money, it's not realistic, given the economics, to expect support for a defined period of time. Enterprise contracts, as an example, do have a defined support period but are much costlier. Or you can outsource the development, or buy the app from the developer, all of which are much costlier than a few dollars. Or write it yourself, which is again much costlier in your time. It's simply not financially viable to guarantee that for a few dollars. Instead, it's more like a one-time thing: you buy what is offered today. There's no promise of updates. Heck, there isn't even a promise that the developer will keep the servers running. If the business isn't working out, despite the developer trying everything possible to make it work, the only option is to shut it down, which is no different from other businesses. This is the unfortunate reality.

You seem to be saying market forces will sort it out, but the premise behind legislation is that they haven't. (In my specific case, as an iOS developer, I can't buy anything but a Mac.)

filleokus 9y ago

Well, my point is that everything has a cost, even repairability/upgradeability, either in monetary value, or in lack of some features. With this in mind, then manufacturers have to consider where on that spectrum they want to be. What things to give up in order to provide "optimum" user value. And I think, for many people, that the current limited upgradeability of for example iPads is quite close to the optima. Screens and batteries can be quite easily changed, but you can't upgrade the storage or other internal components. The lack of repairability does not necessarily, in my opinion, show any market force failure. All the failed attempts of modular phones might even show the opposite. And don't take me wrong, I would looove a more upgradeable Mac (also an iOS developer), but I feel that Apple should be allowed to make those choices by themselves. If upgradeability would be so important for me I could always be an .NET-dev.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
One thing to remember is that manufacturers don't optimize for "user value" as in "how much users will like it", but for the value they can take from users, i.e. profit. The two are correlated, but not perfectly and not equally well in every dimension.
kartickv 9y ago
I see where you're coming from, but I wasn't talking about phones or tablets. I specifically mentioned the iMac — for a desktop computer, the costs are negligible. You're not holding or carrying it, so weight and thickness are not that important. My iMac is already 10kg. Nobody would notice it if it were 10.5. The benefits far outweigh any negligible costs. In my assessment, Apple hasn't make the right decisions when left to themselves. And it's not just me saying that. Even some Apple fans are saying so: https://marco.org/2017/04/15/mac-pro-audacity-of-yes https://marco.org/2017/04/15/mac-pro-audacity-of-yes You're still free to disagree, but in that case we should agree to disagree.

Jach 9y ago

Market forces sort a lot out given time. The first iPhone was only 10 years ago. You didn't have to be an iOS developer. At the same time you don't have to be one in the future unless legislation comes along to force you to maintain your apps.

kartickv 9y ago
That's not a practical reality for many of us. Economics textbooks assume there are an infinite number of suppliers to choose from, but in reality there's often only two or three, so "do something else" isn't often an option.
- Jach 9y ago
  I mean if you're dead set on mobile development, yeah, your choices are iOS and Android, and if you want to make more money, prioritizing iOS. But you don't have to be in mobile development. "Do something else" is an option, because there are a vast number of opportunities in the wider tech arena. That's what I'm getting at. Edit: also do you have any thoughts on the idea of legislation forcing you to maintain an old app? There's a Go game scoring app I use on android but it's buggy as hell, not as good as it used to be, as far as I can tell the developer keeps some servers on but hasn't updated it for a very long time. Should there be a law requiring him to keep the servers on? I can't use anything else on android (that I know of), I'd have to develop it myself.
  - kartickv 9y ago
    Regarding your second point, I think it would be a very bad idea. Many apps bring in little money. Mine doesn't even pay for my Internet bill, let alone my other expenses, as a concrete example. If I'm forced legally to maintain them, I won't be able to take the risk of building more. I'll have to quit and take up a 9-to-5 job again. How much did you pay for that app? A few dollars? For that money, it's not realistic, given the economics, to expect support for a defined period of time. Enterprise contracts, as an example, do have a defined support period but are much costlier. Or you can outsource the development, or buy the app from the developer, all of which are much costlier than a few dollars. Or write it yourself, which is again much costlier in your time. It's simply not financially viable to guarantee that for a few dollars. Instead, it's more like a one-time thing: you buy what is offered today. There's no promise of updates. Heck, there isn't even a promise that the developer will keep the servers running. If the business isn't working out, despite the developer trying everything possible to make it work, the only option is to shut it down, which is no different from other businesses. This is the unfortunate reality.