4 ms·

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?

by Shank 1mo ago

saagarjha 1mo ago
Because I use it and pay them money for that?
- xethos 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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.

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?

by Shank 1mo 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 1mo ago

Because I use it and pay them money for that?

xethos 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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.