Right? Funny how C-level employees never think they’ll get outsourced. Ten or twenty years from now there will be great CTO level talent founding companies in Latam if they aren’t already. Then the whole company can operate in a cheaper country with lower taxes and benefits. Good luck competing with that in the US.
> Right? Funny how C-level employees never think they’ll get outsourced.
Plenty C level people know this is the eventual outcome. They just also know that the runway is likely to extend beyond their working career because they control most business decisions for the foreseeable future.
They still operate on a relationship basis with ownership/capital while managing the company on a Netflix performance model for everyone else. Those relationships are likely to stay in place until both sides age out of the industry.
I've worked with a number of C level folks hired into companies from low cost regions and they have all been utterly stellar. This is coming, just not for the current generation of senior execs.
This is correct. Work like a dog and like you have a target on your back, because you do, and you’ll be safe for as long as possible, maybe even until retirement.
They won't because they don't have anywhere near the same access to capital. There is no country even close to the US in this regard, and US salaries in software engineering are the exception, not the norm.
I think the macroeconomic trend is that the work is moving slowly to poorer countries. Makes perfect sense, as in US there is a lot of money, it should mean less desire to work and more to enjoy life, meanwhile in poorer countries people have high appetite for money/work.
For example in India it used to be only outsourcing, but now they are launching their own startups as well, some quite succesful. Slowly the capital will start accumulating there as well. And that is a good thing, for global inequality.
Lower taxes? Which countries are you thinking of? (Genuinely interested not a rhetorical question; IME many poorer countries have higher taxes, in percentage terms.)
Yea. It could be! It’s my job to work really hard and have a huge impact so that option seems like a bad idea. I expect to one day be fired or demoted for someone better who can help the company grow more than I can.
I worked at an American company (smallish ad tech) that was fully remote and the CTO was a citizen of a LATAM country while CEO and most engineers (but not all) were USA based. Worked great.
the most popular results on that website, require emulating windows or game streaming.
from personal experiance the mouse movement in almost any game on my m1-pro before i sold it was borked, and even 'native' games that were supposed to work didn't feel good at all
tabbing out of counter-strike go usually froze my macbook requiring a restart
the ergonomics of the laptops are generally also poor (keyboard is flat, glossy screen, limited angle on the screen hinge so it requires serious hunching )
If like 50% of people use iPhones, which they do, how can it be possible to not know anyone young who uses one? Just doesn’t pass a common sense test to be true.
How does that change if the majority is small or large? Like 1% or 10% what difference do you think that makes?
I like being able to trust my device and my kids device, if you wan't something to hack on get a pinephone or something
the reality is that billions of people need to trust their phones with their most personal information, fininaces and lives and apple's policies while sometimes annoying do a lot to build that trust
they aren't a big secret and if you don't like it you're free to not buy their products
Apple could still have a "developer" mode you have to jump through a complicated technical process to enable...just like MacOS let's you disable system integrity protection by running a terminal command and rebooting into a boot disk then running another terminal command. It could void support plans so it's not Apple's problem.
That wouldn't affect your kids and telling Grandma how to do that over the phone is very difficult. And at that point she could be handing over her credit card anyway.
Ok. But now imagine that using Facebook or TikTok in the browser on your Mac is a terrible, pared down experience, full of banners pushing you to get the app. But the app isn’t on the App Store, where there are rules, it’s on their website. Just follow these steps! Do you not think people can’t follow step by step instructions to do something like that, if they had a very strong reward at the end?
It’s not just little Billy and Grandma who shouldn’t be turning that mode on, it’s most people.
I'm sorry... You think Facebook would start a mass campaign to disable the warranty/support contracts of millions of their iPhone users by walking them through a very complicated technical process... To achieve what exactly? Download an app the same person could get using the app store?
The media would have a field day at Facebooks expense. Why would Apple even let them on the app store if they did something so stupid?
Facebook already abused the limited side loading available on iPhones to trick teenagers into installing spyware. The media did have a field day, and Apple pulled their enterprise certificate.
This isn’t even a hypothetical, it really happened. And yet people still have a hard time believing Facebook (and other companies) would abuse iPhone side loading if given a chance. Of course they would!
They could do that, but then would need to also immediately require a big [X] next to "the instant you do this you forfeit any and all support for any hardware or software issues on your device".
Apple doesn't want to deal with a million hackers screwing with their devices and clogging up their support system, and also then having to deal with endless reports of terrible customer service because someone paid 1000$ for an iPhone and then Apple won't help them out when they brick it with the latest flashware they downloaded from usenet. Followed by the inevitable complaints that "Apple Customer Care is terrible". Easier just to control the entire ecosystem, and tell folks who don't like it, "cool, cya".
It’d be easy to gate this: require that the iOS device be connected to a Mac and a special app used to change “advanced” settings. These could include side loading, the ability to install alternate app stores, and low level OS access of various kinds.
It would be very helpful to developers and debugging too.
So why do you think Apple doesn't want that to happen?
Surely a developer or ten has suggested the same thing by now?
My guess is focus: they are 100% focused on being the best closed platform that is easy to use and everything is handled for the user. A lively sideloading and 3rd party homebrew scene would be a massive distraction for the Dev team and most importantly the support side with little direct business ROI (indirect could be big but a harder sell).
Possibly harming brand reputation showing people what they could have absent the paid wall. When the alternative exposes people to risk, and they'd rather not have to explain themselves?
That's like say "why does cancer happen?" "because your cells will die"
Well obviously that's the most basic reason why but that doesn't help us solve the problem.
How exactly does it cause a loss in revenue? It's very possible the benefits that come from being more open improve the platform for everyone and increase sales. So it's valuable to be very specific on where the costs are.
I think the issue with that scenario is that some hack of a Mac in developer mode will get reported in the media in big scary headlines as "All Macs finally hackable" - (which would technically be true but it'd be missing the fact that developer mode would have needed to be enabled). And then the flood of Grandma voicemail messages would startg.
A single news cycle of a story full of misinformation would dissuade them? Sorry it has to be a far bigger problem than that. A very complicated easily communicated opt-in hacking risk is very very low on the totem pole.
I've told this story here before, but "we don't support that" doesn't go nearly as far as you think. When they released the intel macs and boot camp, boot camp came with explicit "we don't support this or problems you have with it". At the time I worked for Apple retail and one of my most memorable customers came in steaming mad. She wanted to return her brand new macbook because it was having all sorts of problems. The sort of problems that shouldn't even be possible on a mac, and the sort of problems that were addressed by a firmware update 6 months earlier. I managed to get her to agree to demonstrate what was going on for me before we did the return and as soon as she booted the computer, it booted right into Windows. It turns out she'd bought her new mac and given it to her "computer guy" nephew to help get it set up. Nephew apparently thought that what she really needed was not a mac, but an expensive windows computer instead. So he installed boot camp, shrunk the mac partition to it's smallest size and then configured the system to boot into Windows by default. As a result, she had a macbook that had been without any recent firmware updates to solve some issues (because firmware updates run through the OS update software, and not in windows) and hadn't even installed an anti-virus software (because "macs don't need it") and so had a number of malware infections going too. From Apple's written perspective, we would have been absolutely within our rights to say "well you've installed boot camp, we don't support that and you need to use macOS instead" and sent the customer on her way and denied the return... and that would have been a shitty customer experience. So we spent some time getting the customer's computer re-configured, moving some of their important info to the mac partition, showing them the new OS, explaining what the heck happened in the first place (which involved explaining to someone who barely knew how to use email what bootcamp was and why a mac running windows isn't really "a mac" in the colloquial sense) and convincing them to give it a try for a while before deciding they wanted to do the return. Now that experience in the end turned that customer into a very good and reliable customer, but it also meant that "we don't support that" was a meaningless boundary. It also meant that the issue wasn't that the customer did this to themselves. They didn't. Someone who understands the implications of developer mode isn't what Apple is concerned with. It's the people who don't understand that, who will never see the "here be dragons" warning because they didn't enter developer mode, their "computer guy" nephew did.
Also, people already gripe about the fact that to "fully unlock" your mac these days, you need to disable SIP, and how that disables some things (but at least not your warranty). Do you really think the same people would be happy with "developer mode but no more warranty" on iPhones? Especially if someone like Epic or Facebook or Google insist that their apps need this unlocked mode and so the only way to use them is to void your warranty?
You seem to be arguing that only apple (or google) has the ability to protect your device.
Honestly, the best protection would be the ability to control your own device, and make apple just one of many ways to help you secure it.
I would love to be able to firewall my device. To see what apps are doing and to prevent them from doing things you don't like. Then you can trust but verify.
By the way, apple does TONS of stuff behind your back - rapant telemetry, allowing and even helping with tracking, and doing its own advertising. Look at deep linking, iBeacon, and lots of other silly things.
One of the problems with giving users access means that they can forward such access to malicious actors. It's a tough choice and perhaps not the right one for some, but I think preventing people from shooting themselves in the foot is the right call for many. Many do not understand the consequences of their actions and will readily grant access incorrectly.
While I agree that a single company shouldn't be unilaterally in charge of controlling access on behalf of users, I would say the industry doesn't do a good job of coming together to produce an option that works. Look at the software supply chain as an example of what tends to happen. The Linux distros do a pretty good job, but they maintain far fewer packages and getting your application into a distros repos isn't trivial.
> You seem to be arguing that only apple (or google) has the ability to protect your device.
Hey yeah, let’s all return to the golden era where everyone installed Symantec Norton Utilities and AVG antivirus on their computers and hoped for the best.
I’m aware about all of the known telemetry on iPhone and literally none of it is an issue for me. Collecting data is not an issue, especially when such collection can help make a product or service better. How data is used is the issue, and in this respect I’m unaware of any major tech companies whose hands are cleaner than Apple’s.
you don't know what they do because apple does not allow introspection into the device you own.
afaict ibeacon allows apps to locate bluetooth beacons. think department store beacons and department store app. deep linking allows apps to (silently) intercept email/browsing/messages with specific urls. all of them and other schemes let apps wake up in the background.
So use Android? One of the things I don't understand about this whole argument is the choice people want is already there. Why does Apple also need to provide that option? Yes I've heard the argument over the "cost of re-buying all of your apps" to switch, but is there seriously anyone out there who really cares about this that didn't already know about the restrictions and still bought into the iPhone ecosystem? If so, why? Why if freedom to install any software you want on your phone was a priority for you would you ever have bought an iPhone in the first place? It's not like they started wide open and got locked down.
Not having the option forces companies like Facebook to play by some simple rules.
Having the option would mean that many apps that are currently available through the App Store, and therefore broadly trustworthy, would suddenly become side-load-only and follow basically no rules at all.
If you have no personal objection to Apple making their products more open, why defend their 'privacy' facade? Have you missed the last major iPhone exploits?
That's just not true. Making some things impossible by a company with Apple's clout prevents the exploitation of people who will click "next, next" to disable protections without really understanding the implications.
If you're truly a developer, you can add whatever apps you want to your phone from source via xcode, free now, so what's the issue?
Yeah I've no idea how Twitter works or what kind of fires they have to put out on a day-to-day basis, or what other things grow - so I wouldn't dare to make any rash predictions like that. My thinking is that even if Twitter had double the headcount they needed, it'd be really tough to axe that many people without firing or turn away the people needed to put out those fires.
And yeah if you weren't a Twitter user before, you're probably not signing up at this moment in time :)
the nvidia shield store for games was pretty solid when it was around
I'm not sure how I'd rate the quality of the amazon app store but they did have cool features that let you trial an app in your browser
in all honestly with these two stores owning the entire us market there's never going to be much iteration or innovation.. even something simple like a ios version of itch.io would be fantastic
