4 ms·

"I'm young and rich, and I can't understand why the rest of the world caters to other people than me" is a position, for sure. No matter how amazingly technolo

"I'm young and rich, and I can't understand why the rest of the world caters to other people than me" is a position, for sure. No matter how amazingly technologically savvy you are, if your smart TV is more than just three years old, it's already running a deprecated browser that in all likelihood never be updated. And nearly all apps on modern smart TVs run in the browser, so yes, companies will have to support that (if their apps run on those TVs. Think Netflix, Spotify, even probably Apple's integration with Samsung). As for governments, you assume that it's only "people on benefits" that use outdated or deprecated technology. And you assume that governments will run through acquiring and updating millions of iPads once every few years. Because iPads and browsers on those iPads also get deprecated (a 7 year old iPad Pro while fully functional is no longer supported).

rcarr 4y ago
> I'm young and rich, and I can't understand why the rest of the world caters to other people than me" is a position, for sure. I'm certainly not rich. I've yet to earn a salary in any given year that was above the median in my country. I've had to start from nothing and claw my way to where I am today. What I did however see, was that technology was going to dominate life in the future so I invested the money I did have in good quality Apple products, starting with second hand products until I could afford to buy brand new. But you know, feel free to carry on making assumptions about the internet strangers you chat with. > No matter how amazingly technologically savvy you are, if your smart TV is more than just three years old, it's already running a deprecated browser that in all likelihood never be updated. And nearly all apps on modern smart TVs run in the browser, so yes, companies will have to support that (if their apps run on those TVs. Think Netflix, Spotify, even probably Apple's integration with Samsung). Not really. Said companies could just refuse to support them and only develop for Apple TV, Firestick and Chromecast. Which would make a lot more sense than spreading yourself thin and wasting resources on each crappy built-in browser made by every TV company. Every time Smart TVs come up on HN the general consensus is don't connect it to the internet, don't update the firmware and use a proper external device for Smart TV functionality. Because TV companies suck at software the same way car companies do. > As for governments, you assume that it's only "people on benefits" that use outdated or deprecated technology. No, but you implied that the reason why people couldn't access them was monetary. If people aren't on benefits, then presumably they have enough money to purchase a second hand iPhone or Android that can run chrome for less than £100. > And you assume that governments will run through acquiring and updating millions of iPads once every few years. Because iPads and browsers on those iPads also get deprecated (a 7 year old iPad Pro while fully functional is no longer supported). Yes, if it is economically cheaper to do. What do you think happens to the existing computers owned by the government? Are they just never updated or replaced? Are they all still running Windows XP? The basic truth is that it is simply uneconomical to support everything.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > Not really. Said companies could just refuse to support them and only develop for Apple TV, Firestick and Chromecast. See, your attitude screams "I'm rich, I'm young, I can afford to upgrade to latest technology whenever". I mean why should companies support anything older than 3 years? Right? Right? > No, but you implied that the reason why people couldn't access them was monetary. If people aren't on benefits, then presumably they have enough money to purchase a second hand iPhone or Android that can run chrome for less than £100. You assume too much. > Yes, if it is economically cheaper to do. Again. Not everything is, or should be, driven by profit. > Are they all still running Windows XP? You'd do well to learn how long Windows XP was supported, and why (hint: released in 2001, supported until 2015, absolutely final end of support was in 2019). > The basic truth is that it is simply uneconomical to support everything. The basic truth is that: - no one is talking about supporting everything - depending on where you work and product you build, you may need to support obsolete and outdated devices for numerous reasons: from goodwill, to secondary and primary market needs, to the sheer fact that manufacturers abandon their devices just a few years after release while millions of people still use them. Oh. And those "cheap Android phones" you're talking about? Pray that they don't run something like UC browser, the one of the most popular browsers in Southeast Asia, which is likely to be several years out of date and with weird support for anything. And those TVs that companies souldn't support? 30% of TVs sold worldwide in 2017 were Samsung TVs. That's 30 million units.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    > See, your attitude screams "I'm rich, I'm young, I can afford to upgrade to latest technology whenever". Right. So I've specifically just told you I am in no way rich. In my country, I am statistically in the bottom half of all earners. In fact, my average income last year was equivalent to the average income of someone in Poland in 2020 according to this chart[1], despite living in a more expensive country with a higher cost of living. But according to you, my attitude is a rich person attitude. > I mean why should companies support anything older than 3 years? Right? Right? Did I say this anywhere? No. You've completely made it up and heard what you wanted to hear. I specifically invested in Apple products precisely because they have long term support. I'm currently running an iPhone 8 in it's seventh year of life. Last November I replaced my iPad Pro because it was 8 years old and I could no longer update to the latest iOS. The same with my MacBook Pro which was a 2013 model - 9 years old. I invested in these Apple products precisely because they had a good reputation for longevity and long term support and were recommended by developers. I then self taught myself how to code on them to escape being trapped in minimum wage hospitality and leisure jobs. It took me the majority of my 20s to do but I did it. >> No, but you implied that the reason why people couldn't access them was monetary. If people aren't on benefits, then presumably they have enough money to purchase a second hand iPhone or Android that can run chrome for less than £100. > You assume too much. You literally quoted a story about a homeless woman being able to access government websites on a PSP as your justification for why we should support all browsers. What I said was in no way an assumption. Yet you assuming I was rich and continuing to assert I have rich person attitude is a fucking gigantic one. > Again. Not everything is, or should be, driven by profit. No, we should also consider maximising user experience and functionality. Something we can do better if we're not wasting massive amounts of developer time and funds so 2 people can access a website from their xbox. > Are they all still running Windows XP? Yes I'm well aware of how long it was running for. Doesn't change the fact that it has now been replaced does it. > The basic truth is that: - no one is talking about supporting everything Well where are you drawing the line if not 0.25% of the population. How low does the percentage have to go before you consider it a waste of time? > depending on where you work and product you build, you may need to support obsolete and outdated devices for numerous reasons: from goodwill, to secondary and primary market needs, to the sheer fact that manufacturers abandon their devices just a few years after release while millions of people still use them. Oh. And those "cheap Android phones" you're talking about? Pray that they don't run something like UC browser, the one of the most popular browsers in Southeast Asia, which is likely to be several years out of date and with weird support for anything. I very specifically said `or Android that can run chrome for less than £100`. Which are very easy to find. If manufacturers want to abandon their handsets after 3 years, let them. Customers will soon tire of it and will learn to buy products from manufacturers that don't. All you are doing by supporting these devices is enabling the manufacturers to get away with shitty support. They're offloading their work on to you because you're willing to put up with it. Stop doing it and watch them either collapse or start taking longevity seriously. > And those TVs that companies shouldn't support? 30% of TVs sold worldwide in 2017 were Samsung TVs. That's 30 million units. Yeah but how many people are running the Samsung Smart TV functionality and how many are running ChromeCast/Apple TV/Firestick through them. If you are being honest with yourself, do you really think that the SmartTV UX is better than the standalone sticks? Put a shit version of the app on the tv if you really want to but really we're better off encouraging uptake of the other platforms. And you can pick second hand fire sticks up off eBay for less than £10 so people are hardly priced out of it. If someone can afford a brand new smart tv they can certainly afford a fire stick to go with it. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...

rcarr 4y ago

> I'm young and rich, and I can't understand why the rest of the world caters to other people than me" is a position, for sure. I'm certainly not rich. I've yet to earn a salary in any given year that was above the median in my country. I've had to start from nothing and claw my way to where I am today. What I did however see, was that technology was going to dominate life in the future so I invested the money I did have in good quality Apple products, starting with second hand products until I could afford to buy brand new. But you know, feel free to carry on making assumptions about the internet strangers you chat with. > No matter how amazingly technologically savvy you are, if your smart TV is more than just three years old, it's already running a deprecated browser that in all likelihood never be updated. And nearly all apps on modern smart TVs run in the browser, so yes, companies will have to support that (if their apps run on those TVs. Think Netflix, Spotify, even probably Apple's integration with Samsung). Not really. Said companies could just refuse to support them and only develop for Apple TV, Firestick and Chromecast. Which would make a lot more sense than spreading yourself thin and wasting resources on each crappy built-in browser made by every TV company. Every time Smart TVs come up on HN the general consensus is don't connect it to the internet, don't update the firmware and use a proper external device for Smart TV functionality. Because TV companies suck at software the same way car companies do. > As for governments, you assume that it's only "people on benefits" that use outdated or deprecated technology. No, but you implied that the reason why people couldn't access them was monetary. If people aren't on benefits, then presumably they have enough money to purchase a second hand iPhone or Android that can run chrome for less than £100. > And you assume that governments will run through acquiring and updating millions of iPads once every few years. Because iPads and browsers on those iPads also get deprecated (a 7 year old iPad Pro while fully functional is no longer supported). Yes, if it is economically cheaper to do. What do you think happens to the existing computers owned by the government? Are they just never updated or replaced? Are they all still running Windows XP? The basic truth is that it is simply uneconomical to support everything.

dmitriid 4y ago
> Not really. Said companies could just refuse to support them and only develop for Apple TV, Firestick and Chromecast. See, your attitude screams "I'm rich, I'm young, I can afford to upgrade to latest technology whenever". I mean why should companies support anything older than 3 years? Right? Right? > No, but you implied that the reason why people couldn't access them was monetary. If people aren't on benefits, then presumably they have enough money to purchase a second hand iPhone or Android that can run chrome for less than £100. You assume too much. > Yes, if it is economically cheaper to do. Again. Not everything is, or should be, driven by profit. > Are they all still running Windows XP? You'd do well to learn how long Windows XP was supported, and why (hint: released in 2001, supported until 2015, absolutely final end of support was in 2019). > The basic truth is that it is simply uneconomical to support everything. The basic truth is that: - no one is talking about supporting everything - depending on where you work and product you build, you may need to support obsolete and outdated devices for numerous reasons: from goodwill, to secondary and primary market needs, to the sheer fact that manufacturers abandon their devices just a few years after release while millions of people still use them. Oh. And those "cheap Android phones" you're talking about? Pray that they don't run something like UC browser, the one of the most popular browsers in Southeast Asia, which is likely to be several years out of date and with weird support for anything. And those TVs that companies souldn't support? 30% of TVs sold worldwide in 2017 were Samsung TVs. That's 30 million units.
- rcarr 4y ago
  > See, your attitude screams "I'm rich, I'm young, I can afford to upgrade to latest technology whenever". Right. So I've specifically just told you I am in no way rich. In my country, I am statistically in the bottom half of all earners. In fact, my average income last year was equivalent to the average income of someone in Poland in 2020 according to this chart[1], despite living in a more expensive country with a higher cost of living. But according to you, my attitude is a rich person attitude. > I mean why should companies support anything older than 3 years? Right? Right? Did I say this anywhere? No. You've completely made it up and heard what you wanted to hear. I specifically invested in Apple products precisely because they have long term support. I'm currently running an iPhone 8 in it's seventh year of life. Last November I replaced my iPad Pro because it was 8 years old and I could no longer update to the latest iOS. The same with my MacBook Pro which was a 2013 model - 9 years old. I invested in these Apple products precisely because they had a good reputation for longevity and long term support and were recommended by developers. I then self taught myself how to code on them to escape being trapped in minimum wage hospitality and leisure jobs. It took me the majority of my 20s to do but I did it. >> No, but you implied that the reason why people couldn't access them was monetary. If people aren't on benefits, then presumably they have enough money to purchase a second hand iPhone or Android that can run chrome for less than £100. > You assume too much. You literally quoted a story about a homeless woman being able to access government websites on a PSP as your justification for why we should support all browsers. What I said was in no way an assumption. Yet you assuming I was rich and continuing to assert I have rich person attitude is a fucking gigantic one. > Again. Not everything is, or should be, driven by profit. No, we should also consider maximising user experience and functionality. Something we can do better if we're not wasting massive amounts of developer time and funds so 2 people can access a website from their xbox. > Are they all still running Windows XP? Yes I'm well aware of how long it was running for. Doesn't change the fact that it has now been replaced does it. > The basic truth is that: - no one is talking about supporting everything Well where are you drawing the line if not 0.25% of the population. How low does the percentage have to go before you consider it a waste of time? > depending on where you work and product you build, you may need to support obsolete and outdated devices for numerous reasons: from goodwill, to secondary and primary market needs, to the sheer fact that manufacturers abandon their devices just a few years after release while millions of people still use them. Oh. And those "cheap Android phones" you're talking about? Pray that they don't run something like UC browser, the one of the most popular browsers in Southeast Asia, which is likely to be several years out of date and with weird support for anything. I very specifically said `or Android that can run chrome for less than £100`. Which are very easy to find. If manufacturers want to abandon their handsets after 3 years, let them. Customers will soon tire of it and will learn to buy products from manufacturers that don't. All you are doing by supporting these devices is enabling the manufacturers to get away with shitty support. They're offloading their work on to you because you're willing to put up with it. Stop doing it and watch them either collapse or start taking longevity seriously. > And those TVs that companies shouldn't support? 30% of TVs sold worldwide in 2017 were Samsung TVs. That's 30 million units. Yeah but how many people are running the Samsung Smart TV functionality and how many are running ChromeCast/Apple TV/Firestick through them. If you are being honest with yourself, do you really think that the SmartTV UX is better than the standalone sticks? Put a shit version of the app on the tv if you really want to but really we're better off encouraging uptake of the other platforms. And you can pick second hand fire sticks up off eBay for less than £10 so people are hardly priced out of it. If someone can afford a brand new smart tv they can certainly afford a fire stick to go with it. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...