Bullcrap. This is just a demoralization play from an ubermensch who doesn't want young bucks trying hard like he did and perhaps giving him and his friends some competition/grief.
No one knows what they're doing when they are just starting out. This is just dumb.
Jobs was ahead of his time, and he pushed the vision of HTML5 and offline apps. He was resistant to app stores, I suspect, because he wanted maximum freedom for users in the future rather than the corporatized, schlock-filled, freedom restricting, walled garden the post-Jobs Apple brought.
You see his vision as a big miss. I see his vision as evidence of good taste and also an eventuality.
Jobs clearly wasn't resistant to app stores. He literally had one in the works when the product shipped. It just wasn't ready, so he spun a yarn about web apps (and yes: he was ahead of his time, and these days you can totally do that, but now that Apple owns that 30% fee, they're decidedly anti web apps).
> Jobs clearly wasn't resistant to app stores. He literally had one in the works when the product shipped.
This is a myth. Jobs was genuinely against a native SDK and made the final decision to go for it on the 2nd of October 2007. Then Apple had to rush out the first version of the iPhoneOS SDK in just over three months. This is documented in contemporaneous emails produced during discovery for the Epic trial.
It’s been 15% for years. The only people who pay 30% are people who earn more than a million dollars a year through the App Store. Almost everybody pays 15%.
> It’s been 15% for years. The only people who pay 30% are people who earn more than a million dollars a year through the App Store. Almost everybody pays 15%.
Right. And by the same logic Amazon makes exactly zero revenue from AWS, which is completely free for "almost everybody". You knew what I meant.
Don't argue. Just read my mind through the screen, you already agree with everything I said.
----
I don't get a dopamine hit from threads like this, they drain me. The opposing side gets a dopamine hit, reputation be damned.
I wish everyone would broaden their media sources as well as treasure history more (myself included.) I do appreciate flippant vs. philosophical exchanges like these to sift the comments for nuanced truths.
The psychology of knowing ahead of time you'll delete all the code is interesting. Devs would be in hack-hack-hack mode and not worry about design - the goal is just explore all the territory to find the hilly parts and landmines. Move as quickly as possible and report back.
In general I think developers value their code too much and should be willing to scrap and rewrite, especially whenever requirements are changing. I chalk it up to everyone's desire to conserve mental energies due to not understanding what their energy peak/limits are.
I cannot abide. What is your point? That the last 5 years have seen _fewer_ true conspiracies and clownish gaslightings? Are you quibbling over the number 5 or something?
I think fiat is dying and all the bond values are going to zero which will prevent the big megacorps from paying their bills. That collapse is a better explanation of the curious, brand-destroying things these companies have done recently.
I noticed recently YouTube made it REALLY hard for me to download an mp4 for a video using VLC.
Now if I were a betting man, and the collapse of Google were imminent, I'd bet that in liquidation, they'd want to charge to get an offline copy of the videos they store. Soooo, in the meantime before the collapse, they're making it painful/time consuming to download their videos so they can max out their post-meltdown profits.
Imperative shell, (ever-expanding-through-relentless-refactoring) functional core seems to work pretty well for practical applications. Modern Java gets the job done in that regard.
What I don't like is the concentration level required for functional productions over equivalent imperative routines. I have found it difficult to impress upon junior developers the testing advantages of functional programming and in refactoring pairing sessions with them, they quickly lose the thread and go all doe eyed.
I feel like the current functional programming paradigms favor terseness that completely obliterates the thought process that led to the production. So, even if junior has the aha moment when we reach the end of the production, and understands what we just achieved there in 6 lines of dense code, they'd be at a loss to retrace it themselves in the future because the thought processes of each operator in the production require too much simulation space in the head.
That, and libraries like RxJS that layer in concepts of time and observables and higher-order observables with sneaky completion states that only stretch the mind further because the true semantics of the program are coupled with under-documented quirky edge cases of the operators. Running into one of those while pairing with junior is not exactly confidence building.
Long-form programming with named pure functions might help, but then I suppose you can lose the terseness and can get lost in a sea of 1-line named functions.
No one knows what they're doing when they are just starting out. This is just dumb.