6 ms·

This is the circle of life. FAANG is the new IBM. Who will succeed them? Chinese big tech? Next gen full remote startups? Or will the public stop trusting tech

This is the circle of life. FAANG is the new IBM. Who will succeed them? Chinese big tech? Next gen full remote startups? Or will the public stop trusting tech entirely ?

simultsop 3y ago
Huge distances in-between your predictions. Why approach it as Chinese big tech when it is us earthlings developing tech? Not that public stops trusting tech but it should not become a burden to give or take trust. Full remote, I guess was always here, we just allowed it once in a while, in rotations, I guess if a company has top MRR, ARR, wont be caring about it. I believe tagging not a good practice, makes no sense at all, even creates disgust.
ChatGTP 3y ago
To be honest, out of all the FAANG, I think Apple still mostly holds true to it's original promise of trying to make the world better. Do I think they're perfect, absolutely not, not even close. But compared to Google, Amazon and Facebook (which IMO just seem like total and utter nightmare fuel freak shows), they just seem sane, trustworthy and purposeful to me. Netflix, I'm fairly neutral about, I just think their products and their shows are absolutely shit so I plan to cancel my subscription soon, I don't feel strongly about it.
- tudorw 3y ago
  If they wanted to make the world better, they'd build what people want and need, not what they will buy.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    What do people want and need? Personally, I don't own an Apple product I don't constantly get value out of. Whether it's a 10+ year old Macbook Pro, iPhone or an Apple Watch. I'd never trust anything but iCloud with anything I'd like to keep private. Meta? lol not a freaking chance in hell.
    - tudorw 3y ago
      open source, long termism, transparency, interoperability, one login, no monitoring of personal data without control, no walled garden, no dark patterns, no weasel words, unions, basic respect for human rights, good ESG, that sort of thing :)
      - api 3y ago
        They can’t build that. Nobody else can either. Nobody will pay for it. People will generally only pay for things that make them pay by being closed. So we can’t have nice open completely free (as in freedom) things because there is no way to finance their creation.
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        You can have both, I'm also an avid Linux user and advocate.
- 1023bytes 3y ago
  Apple devices are luxury products, not necessities. Sure, they may make your life marginally better, but it's nothing world changing
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    iPhones aren't world changing?
    - 1023bytes 3y ago
      $80 Android phones are world changing
    - maest 3y ago
      Mobile phones in general were world changing. iPhones, on their own, not so much.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        The iPhone literally created the smartphone/mobile market and killed off flip phones, where Windows Phone, Blackberry, Palm, et al. all failed to do so.
        ben_w 3y ago
        Android was already going to happen if the iPhone never came out; that said, Apple's influence over the direction of the devices probably killed Flash on the web in general, and made it both easy, cheap, and a viable business strategy to develop mobile apps… but Google may have done the same on both anyway and for similar reasons. That they killed off Blackberry and Windows Phone is impressive from a business standpoint, but which fruit the phones have as a logo probably didn't change the world all that much.
        yakireev 3y ago
        I owned an ipaq hx4700 in 2004, two years before the first iPhone came out. Take a look, that device was actually better than early iPhones. The screen was better, the specs were better. It even supported 3rd-party apps (and there were many), while early iPhones did not have app store at all. Apple is very good at marketing, but they did not invent the concept of PDA (that's how these devices were called back then) with the iPhone - they just came up with a yet another PDA which was decent, and were very good at marketing.
- wittycardio 3y ago
  [dead]
- gregoriol 3y ago
  "promise of trying to make the world better" it what their marketing teams wants you to believe, and they are quite good
- ksec 3y ago
  >I think Apple still mostly holds true to it's original promise of trying to make the world better. Not by a wide margin. Steve Job's Apple and Tim Cook's Apple is very different. To the point I would even argue you might as well call it a different company. At least the "Better World" in Tim Cook's view is very different to Steve Jobs's "Better World". The message Tim Cook is sending in its PR and marketing is very different to the message Steve Jobs is trying to tell/sell.
spaceman_2020 3y ago
Think we’re about 3-5 years from public completely losing trust in anything online. Political party propaganda cells are already using AI tools to distribute fake images. Once the tech gets a little better, we’ll likely get videos and audio too. The Indian elections in 2024 will likely be the testing grounds for large scale AI generated propaganda. Just a few days ago, the ruling party’s IT cell was circulating morphed images of protestors that were impossible to tell from the real thing. I suspect this will ramp up to a massive scale within the next 12 months. I don’t know what happens once no one trusts anything online. Maybe we’ll finally give up our black mirror prisons.
- xwdv 3y ago
  People will only mistrust things that go against their beliefs and everything else “just makes sense”.
  - mola 3y ago
    If that were true, then manipulation of the masses through media would be impossible. And you wouldn't see so much resources in to advertising and propaganda. We are susceptible to changing our minds. Some of us more by logical arguments, most of us by emotional means. The emotional response by itself is very complicated. It's influenced by your core values, which you usually indoctrinated into as a child, and by multiple other cultural and personal tendencies.
    - xwdv 3y ago
      We are not susceptible to changing our minds. A mind is a hard thing to change once it’s been made up. Manipulation is done by feeding information that already sounds like it’s true, but carries a payload of false information intended to influence people toward a certain goal. If you say the President is a pedophile, and provide fake evidence to people who don’t like him, they’ll just dislike him more, they aren’t going to go against their own thoughts and think “I don’t like the President but clearly he isn’t really a pedophile.” That is too complex for most people. They don’t want to defend something they don’t like. People are simpletons.

This is the circle of life. FAANG is the new IBM. Who will succeed them? Chinese big tech? Next gen full remote startups? Or will the public stop trusting tech entirely ?

simultsop 3y ago

Huge distances in-between your predictions. Why approach it as Chinese big tech when it is us earthlings developing tech? Not that public stops trusting tech but it should not become a burden to give or take trust. Full remote, I guess was always here, we just allowed it once in a while, in rotations, I guess if a company has top MRR, ARR, wont be caring about it. I believe tagging not a good practice, makes no sense at all, even creates disgust.

ChatGTP 3y ago

To be honest, out of all the FAANG, I think Apple still mostly holds true to it's original promise of trying to make the world better. Do I think they're perfect, absolutely not, not even close. But compared to Google, Amazon and Facebook (which IMO just seem like total and utter nightmare fuel freak shows), they just seem sane, trustworthy and purposeful to me. Netflix, I'm fairly neutral about, I just think their products and their shows are absolutely shit so I plan to cancel my subscription soon, I don't feel strongly about it.

tudorw 3y ago
If they wanted to make the world better, they'd build what people want and need, not what they will buy.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  What do people want and need? Personally, I don't own an Apple product I don't constantly get value out of. Whether it's a 10+ year old Macbook Pro, iPhone or an Apple Watch. I'd never trust anything but iCloud with anything I'd like to keep private. Meta? lol not a freaking chance in hell.
  - tudorw 3y ago
    open source, long termism, transparency, interoperability, one login, no monitoring of personal data without control, no walled garden, no dark patterns, no weasel words, unions, basic respect for human rights, good ESG, that sort of thing :)
    - api 3y ago
      They can’t build that. Nobody else can either. Nobody will pay for it. People will generally only pay for things that make them pay by being closed. So we can’t have nice open completely free (as in freedom) things because there is no way to finance their creation.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      You can have both, I'm also an avid Linux user and advocate.
1023bytes 3y ago
Apple devices are luxury products, not necessities. Sure, they may make your life marginally better, but it's nothing world changing
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  iPhones aren't world changing?
  - 1023bytes 3y ago
    $80 Android phones are world changing
  - maest 3y ago
    Mobile phones in general were world changing. iPhones, on their own, not so much.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      The iPhone literally created the smartphone/mobile market and killed off flip phones, where Windows Phone, Blackberry, Palm, et al. all failed to do so.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Android was already going to happen if the iPhone never came out; that said, Apple's influence over the direction of the devices probably killed Flash on the web in general, and made it both easy, cheap, and a viable business strategy to develop mobile apps… but Google may have done the same on both anyway and for similar reasons. That they killed off Blackberry and Windows Phone is impressive from a business standpoint, but which fruit the phones have as a logo probably didn't change the world all that much.
      - yakireev 3y ago
        I owned an ipaq hx4700 in 2004, two years before the first iPhone came out. Take a look, that device was actually better than early iPhones. The screen was better, the specs were better. It even supported 3rd-party apps (and there were many), while early iPhones did not have app store at all. Apple is very good at marketing, but they did not invent the concept of PDA (that's how these devices were called back then) with the iPhone - they just came up with a yet another PDA which was decent, and were very good at marketing.
wittycardio 3y ago
[dead]
gregoriol 3y ago
"promise of trying to make the world better" it what their marketing teams wants you to believe, and they are quite good
ksec 3y ago
>I think Apple still mostly holds true to it's original promise of trying to make the world better. Not by a wide margin. Steve Job's Apple and Tim Cook's Apple is very different. To the point I would even argue you might as well call it a different company. At least the "Better World" in Tim Cook's view is very different to Steve Jobs's "Better World". The message Tim Cook is sending in its PR and marketing is very different to the message Steve Jobs is trying to tell/sell.

spaceman_2020 3y ago

Think we’re about 3-5 years from public completely losing trust in anything online. Political party propaganda cells are already using AI tools to distribute fake images. Once the tech gets a little better, we’ll likely get videos and audio too. The Indian elections in 2024 will likely be the testing grounds for large scale AI generated propaganda. Just a few days ago, the ruling party’s IT cell was circulating morphed images of protestors that were impossible to tell from the real thing. I suspect this will ramp up to a massive scale within the next 12 months. I don’t know what happens once no one trusts anything online. Maybe we’ll finally give up our black mirror prisons.

xwdv 3y ago
People will only mistrust things that go against their beliefs and everything else “just makes sense”.
- mola 3y ago
  If that were true, then manipulation of the masses through media would be impossible. And you wouldn't see so much resources in to advertising and propaganda. We are susceptible to changing our minds. Some of us more by logical arguments, most of us by emotional means. The emotional response by itself is very complicated. It's influenced by your core values, which you usually indoctrinated into as a child, and by multiple other cultural and personal tendencies.
  - xwdv 3y ago
    We are not susceptible to changing our minds. A mind is a hard thing to change once it’s been made up. Manipulation is done by feeding information that already sounds like it’s true, but carries a payload of false information intended to influence people toward a certain goal. If you say the President is a pedophile, and provide fake evidence to people who don’t like him, they’ll just dislike him more, they aren’t going to go against their own thoughts and think “I don’t like the President but clearly he isn’t really a pedophile.” That is too complex for most people. They don’t want to defend something they don’t like. People are simpletons.