6 ms·

> a living proof that software companies do not give a single shit about their users and just want to push more crap, for cheaper, all the time. Exact opposite

> a living proof that software companies do not give a single shit about their users and just want to push more crap, for cheaper, all the time. Exact opposite, to me Electron is the living proof that software companies correctly care a lot about building a product people want, and correctly realize that the large majority of people correctly do not care that one of their top productivity app uses $1 worth of RAM, but want the app to have the features and UX they need instead. The irrational obsession of part of the Hacker News crowd for the RAM usage of web apps is borderline psychotic. Man, take a chill pill, go get more RAM for a couple bucks once every 3 years, and let the engineers focus on UX and features ok? I don't want my productivity app to be a codegolf exercise

palata 3y ago
You seem to believe that companies do what's best for their users. Not sure in which world you live: companies do what seems most profitable for them (and pray that it is). Can we at least agree on the fact that it would not be that difficult (and costly) for Slack to actually expose an API allowing for third-party clients? That way I could have a lightweight CLI client and I would be fine with most users staying on their crappy Electron client. I guess they don't do it for a reason, which is probably not user experience. Maybe having only official apps is (or seems, again) better for lock-in?
- crubier 3y ago
  Couple reasons: 1-An external API is a product, you have to maintain it, keep it backward compatible even when you change your internal models, monitor it, protect it against attacks, etc. So no, I do not agree that it would be easy for Slack to expose an external API for 3rd party clients. It would be at least millions worth of investment. 2-A lightweight CLI client for Slack? Let me tell you, this would have a very very tiny user base. Probably just you, and even you would be bored of it after 1week. Would it be worth it for Slack to invest millions in an external API just so a couple hundred geeks can make their own crappy client? 3-Analytics. Slack runs analytics on usage of their app, in order to know what users use and want. Can't do that if you don't own the frontend. 4-Brand. If one of your main competitive advantages is a good UX (And believe me, it is the case for Slack), would you want to grant people the right to create crappy apps that ruins the UX and turn people off your product? This is what is killing Android brand value for example. Sure it's open, but it means there are a lot of Crappy UIs that turn people off. The beauty of liberal capitalism is that ultimately, at least to some extent, what is good for users is good for the company, so incentives are aligned to some extent, and very unlikely to be completely opposed as you seem to suggest. So yes, I believe that companies are taking strategic decisions (such as not shipping an external API and 5 different native clients) in large part because it does indeed benefit the majority of their users.
  - palata 3y ago
    1- I would hope that they already maintain and protect their private API against attacks (it has to be exposed to the internet, right?), and that they keep backward compatibility for the ElectronJS (and isn't the Android app native?) that are not updated out there. You forgot to mention something like "they would have to invent access control", to which I would answer that they already need that. They would literally just have to open their API to third parties. I doubt this would cost millions. 2- Don't assume too much. I use IRC from a CLI. But anyway you are just repeating your previous point, which is that you think it would cost millions. 3- Well, they would know what the third-party apps use in the API. They could also provide integrations for most popular languages, and those would send telemetry (what do you think the Google Play Services do?). For my crappy app, probably they don't need to know what I do, I am just a useless geek as you said. 4- Counter example: I was always able to connect my crappy app to my GMail account, and it did not prevent GMail from essentially taking over e-mail. But the couple hundred geeks who don't like the web frontend can use their crappy e-mail app, and everyone is happy. > The beauty of liberal capitalism is that ultimately, at least to some extent, what is good for users is good for the company. Respectfully, that is the most naive comment I have read today. I don't even know where to start answering that, so I'll just pass :-).
radicalbyte 3y ago
There are a lot of Apple users here and I'm pretty sure that Apple charge $200 for that $1 worth of RAM ;-)
- crubier 3y ago
  Apple charges $200 for 8GB additional RAM. So the cost of 600MB of Apple RAM in $15. That's the cost of 1 month of a subscription to Slack. You're likely to use your laptop for ~4years = 50months, so the RAM cost of Slack is around 2% of overall Slack cost, even on Apple hardware. Users pay 2% more to get more RAM, Slack developers have 200% productivity thanks to not having to deal with low-level optimization crap, and can focus on building features and UX. That's how the world works. But some angry HNers can't wrap their heads around it
  - modo_mario 3y ago
    The thing is that slack developers are not the only ones that think that way. So now people lose some percentage to their mail client, their chat client, their ide,... A bit more ram for developer comfort, a bit more processing power, a bit more to download,... Additionally at the end of the day some people do interact with non developers and realize they tend to have less beefy devices. Being the tech support in the family can be interesting because of that front. For example when I'm asked what's causing my fathers or grandparents relatively new laptop to be so laggy despite how much better it is than the predecessor and finding out there's no happy answer for that. There's no explaining that some software regressed on this front and they should just accept more electronic waste.
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    No, the cost of 600MB of RAM is $200. You just end up having bonus to waste on more electron apps. This whole "this is how the world works" bullshit is post-hoc rationalisation done by wealthy idiots trying to justify their purchase by saying "it's just 5 cents a day if you consider it'll last ten years". This is bullshit and only applies if the purchase you're making is insignificant to you. So, congrats, $200 is insignificant to you. It's not, for most of the world, but you'd see that if you pulled your head out your ass. This isn't even "not having to deal with low level optimization". Using a normal toolkit is not low level optimization, it's the bare minimum. Putain, elle est belle la French Tech avec des gens comme ça.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>the large majority of people correctly do not care that one of their top productivity app uses $1 worth of RAM, but want the app to have the features and UX they need instead. The large majority of people care about programs that run fast and feel snappy, programs that don't look like some high school dropout's modern art project, programs that don't demand a pocket supercomputer to bankrupt you, programs that just get shit done because computers are just a god damn appliance comparable to a toaster from Walmart.
ohgodplsno 3y ago
Overprivileged HN-commenter believes that upgrading RAM is something that every user can afford, wants to afford (oh, I'm sorry, let me blow 50 bucks for your pretty eyes because you couldn't be arsed to not blast a whole javascript runtime on your app that you're forcing me to use to upgrade my drivers or launch a game), ignores physical limitations (unupgradable laptops, already maxed out configs from back in the day). Today's software runs worse on modern hardware than yesterday's does, because you "let the engineers focus on UX and features" without teaching them to care for a single moment about _actual_ user experience instead of whatever bullshit their product owner put out. Talk to any real engineer and not the US bullcrap of "oh sure everyone out of a code camp is an engineer" and ask them if quadrupling the weight of a bridge and multiplying resource consumption by ten is an option. You are making our profession look like fucking clowns.
- cinntaile 3y ago
  He's right though, most people really don't care about 600 MB of RAM or whatever.
  - palata 3y ago
    Our whole industry is a big joke technically. On the business side, though, we managed to get people used to downloading huge apps, that run slow, and are full of bugs. That's admittedly a big business achievement, but not the kind of world I want to live in. Just like people learn to completely ignore popups (and are often not even aware that a popup appears, even an important one), they learn to accept bugs, overall bad apps, and the fact that they need a new smartphone every two years to keep up. Doesn't mean at all they wouldn't enjoy better technology. They just do not have a choice.
    - palata 3y ago
      Just found this, which I think fits my point perfectly: https://nitter.net/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960 https://nitter.net/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

palata 3y ago

You seem to believe that companies do what's best for their users. Not sure in which world you live: companies do what seems most profitable for them (and pray that it is). Can we at least agree on the fact that it would not be that difficult (and costly) for Slack to actually expose an API allowing for third-party clients? That way I could have a lightweight CLI client and I would be fine with most users staying on their crappy Electron client. I guess they don't do it for a reason, which is probably not user experience. Maybe having only official apps is (or seems, again) better for lock-in?

crubier 3y ago
Couple reasons: 1-An external API is a product, you have to maintain it, keep it backward compatible even when you change your internal models, monitor it, protect it against attacks, etc. So no, I do not agree that it would be easy for Slack to expose an external API for 3rd party clients. It would be at least millions worth of investment. 2-A lightweight CLI client for Slack? Let me tell you, this would have a very very tiny user base. Probably just you, and even you would be bored of it after 1week. Would it be worth it for Slack to invest millions in an external API just so a couple hundred geeks can make their own crappy client? 3-Analytics. Slack runs analytics on usage of their app, in order to know what users use and want. Can't do that if you don't own the frontend. 4-Brand. If one of your main competitive advantages is a good UX (And believe me, it is the case for Slack), would you want to grant people the right to create crappy apps that ruins the UX and turn people off your product? This is what is killing Android brand value for example. Sure it's open, but it means there are a lot of Crappy UIs that turn people off. The beauty of liberal capitalism is that ultimately, at least to some extent, what is good for users is good for the company, so incentives are aligned to some extent, and very unlikely to be completely opposed as you seem to suggest. So yes, I believe that companies are taking strategic decisions (such as not shipping an external API and 5 different native clients) in large part because it does indeed benefit the majority of their users.
- palata 3y ago
  1- I would hope that they already maintain and protect their private API against attacks (it has to be exposed to the internet, right?), and that they keep backward compatibility for the ElectronJS (and isn't the Android app native?) that are not updated out there. You forgot to mention something like "they would have to invent access control", to which I would answer that they already need that. They would literally just have to open their API to third parties. I doubt this would cost millions. 2- Don't assume too much. I use IRC from a CLI. But anyway you are just repeating your previous point, which is that you think it would cost millions. 3- Well, they would know what the third-party apps use in the API. They could also provide integrations for most popular languages, and those would send telemetry (what do you think the Google Play Services do?). For my crappy app, probably they don't need to know what I do, I am just a useless geek as you said. 4- Counter example: I was always able to connect my crappy app to my GMail account, and it did not prevent GMail from essentially taking over e-mail. But the couple hundred geeks who don't like the web frontend can use their crappy e-mail app, and everyone is happy. > The beauty of liberal capitalism is that ultimately, at least to some extent, what is good for users is good for the company. Respectfully, that is the most naive comment I have read today. I don't even know where to start answering that, so I'll just pass :-).

radicalbyte 3y ago

There are a lot of Apple users here and I'm pretty sure that Apple charge $200 for that $1 worth of RAM ;-)

crubier 3y ago
Apple charges $200 for 8GB additional RAM. So the cost of 600MB of Apple RAM in $15. That's the cost of 1 month of a subscription to Slack. You're likely to use your laptop for ~4years = 50months, so the RAM cost of Slack is around 2% of overall Slack cost, even on Apple hardware. Users pay 2% more to get more RAM, Slack developers have 200% productivity thanks to not having to deal with low-level optimization crap, and can focus on building features and UX. That's how the world works. But some angry HNers can't wrap their heads around it
- modo_mario 3y ago
  The thing is that slack developers are not the only ones that think that way. So now people lose some percentage to their mail client, their chat client, their ide,... A bit more ram for developer comfort, a bit more processing power, a bit more to download,... Additionally at the end of the day some people do interact with non developers and realize they tend to have less beefy devices. Being the tech support in the family can be interesting because of that front. For example when I'm asked what's causing my fathers or grandparents relatively new laptop to be so laggy despite how much better it is than the predecessor and finding out there's no happy answer for that. There's no explaining that some software regressed on this front and they should just accept more electronic waste.
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  No, the cost of 600MB of RAM is $200. You just end up having bonus to waste on more electron apps. This whole "this is how the world works" bullshit is post-hoc rationalisation done by wealthy idiots trying to justify their purchase by saying "it's just 5 cents a day if you consider it'll last ten years". This is bullshit and only applies if the purchase you're making is insignificant to you. So, congrats, $200 is insignificant to you. It's not, for most of the world, but you'd see that if you pulled your head out your ass. This isn't even "not having to deal with low level optimization". Using a normal toolkit is not low level optimization, it's the bare minimum. Putain, elle est belle la French Tech avec des gens comme ça.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>the large majority of people correctly do not care that one of their top productivity app uses $1 worth of RAM, but want the app to have the features and UX they need instead. The large majority of people care about programs that run fast and feel snappy, programs that don't look like some high school dropout's modern art project, programs that don't demand a pocket supercomputer to bankrupt you, programs that just get shit done because computers are just a god damn appliance comparable to a toaster from Walmart.

ohgodplsno 3y ago

Overprivileged HN-commenter believes that upgrading RAM is something that every user can afford, wants to afford (oh, I'm sorry, let me blow 50 bucks for your pretty eyes because you couldn't be arsed to not blast a whole javascript runtime on your app that you're forcing me to use to upgrade my drivers or launch a game), ignores physical limitations (unupgradable laptops, already maxed out configs from back in the day). Today's software runs worse on modern hardware than yesterday's does, because you "let the engineers focus on UX and features" without teaching them to care for a single moment about _actual_ user experience instead of whatever bullshit their product owner put out. Talk to any real engineer and not the US bullcrap of "oh sure everyone out of a code camp is an engineer" and ask them if quadrupling the weight of a bridge and multiplying resource consumption by ten is an option. You are making our profession look like fucking clowns.

cinntaile 3y ago
He's right though, most people really don't care about 600 MB of RAM or whatever.
- palata 3y ago
  Our whole industry is a big joke technically. On the business side, though, we managed to get people used to downloading huge apps, that run slow, and are full of bugs. That's admittedly a big business achievement, but not the kind of world I want to live in. Just like people learn to completely ignore popups (and are often not even aware that a popup appears, even an important one), they learn to accept bugs, overall bad apps, and the fact that they need a new smartphone every two years to keep up. Doesn't mean at all they wouldn't enjoy better technology. They just do not have a choice.
  - palata 3y ago
    Just found this, which I think fits my point perfectly: https://nitter.net/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960 https://nitter.net/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960
- ohgodplsno 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]