Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Killed by Apple

killedbyapple.theden.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Killed by Apple

#101

Post by brk »

ryandrake wrote: post #66
benoau wrote: post #33

I think this conflates "old" with "killed". Most of the stuff is just old. I would say the Mac Pro was "killed", left to languish after the trashcan model, then isolated from third party GPUs when it finally got upgraded to Apple Silicon, and then left to languish again until the lack of sales justified killing it. Rosetta 2 will certainly deserve a spot on this list next year when they start yeeting it, an amazing p…

I think it's important to highlight Apple's mentality : That old devices are dead to them, and the pretending that they don't even exist anymore. I have a house full of Apple hardware and none of them get updates from Apple anymore, and I can't manually update them without hackery (OpenCore) or wiping them to install Linux (where possible). Also, because third party app developers largely align with Apple's philosoph…

This isn't really just an Apple mentality though. I have all kinds of old electronics and devices from Google, Samsung, Intel, WD, etc. that all fit this exact same description.

If you've ever tried to run a hardware business (or really any business), you know that it is not financially sound to continue to support old devices that have been superceded (sometimes more than once) by newer products that consumers are currently spending money on.

We can debate if this is the way things should be, the aspect of whether you truly "own" things, software escrow, and on and on. But the phenomenon itself is in no way unique to Apple. If anything, I have found that the usable lifespan of Apple hardware is, on average, longer than the usable lifespan of other name-brand electronics in similar categories.

Re: Killed by Apple

#102

Post by thewebguyd »

amelius wrote: post #46
jjtheblunt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market seems to think otherwise, though?

I'm surprised so many people are ok with not owning the device they paid for, and with being nannied by Apple all the time. But I know, I'm not the target audience anymore.

Probably because the vast majority of people either don't know a different world outside of mobile, or actively wants to be nannied or a combination of both.

It used to be that there was Android for those who didn't want the Apple way of doing things and wanted more control over their pocket computer, but Google saw how rich Apple got off the walled garden and has been slowly boiling the frog in that direction for years now.

Re: Killed by Apple

#103

Post by ryandrake »

brk wrote: post #101
ryandrake wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's important to highlight Apple's mentality : That old devices are dead to them, and the pretending that they don't even exist anymore. I have a house full of Apple hardware and none of them get updates from Apple anymore, and I can't manually update them without hackery (OpenCore) or wiping them to install Linux (where possible). Also, because third party app developers largely align with Apple's philosoph…

This isn't really just an Apple mentality though. I have all kinds of old electronics and devices from Google, Samsung, Intel, WD, etc. that all fit this exact same description. If you've ever tried to run a hardware business (or really any business), you know that it is not financially sound to continue to support old devices that have been superceded (sometimes more than once) by newer products that consumers are c…

Absolutely, we could easily have any number of killedby[manufacturer] websites. A device being "old" is a common reason/excuse manufacturers use to stop supporting it. Just making the point that Apple is not a special exemption.

Re: Killed by Apple

#104

Post by troad »

ryandrake wrote: post #66
benoau wrote: post #33

I think this conflates "old" with "killed". Most of the stuff is just old. I would say the Mac Pro was "killed", left to languish after the trashcan model, then isolated from third party GPUs when it finally got upgraded to Apple Silicon, and then left to languish again until the lack of sales justified killing it. Rosetta 2 will certainly deserve a spot on this list next year when they start yeeting it, an amazing p…

I think it's important to highlight Apple's mentality : That old devices are dead to them, and the pretending that they don't even exist anymore. I have a house full of Apple hardware and none of them get updates from Apple anymore, and I can't manually update them without hackery (OpenCore) or wiping them to install Linux (where possible). Also, because third party app developers largely align with Apple's philosoph…

I always thought it was strange how intolerant Homebrew is of users who are not surfing the bleeding edge.

I held out using MacPorts for ages, but there came a point when I just could not reasonably expect to find the software I needed on MacPorts, but could on Homebrew, and so I switched. I wish Homebrew hadn't won that particular mindshare war. Moving from MacPorts to Homebrew felt like downgrading from an actual package manager to a duct-taped shell script.

Re: Killed by Apple

#105

Post by criddell »

horsawlarway wrote: post #100
criddell wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it can run more software (legally) than any other platform.

Yes, the company that explicitly closes its ecosystem can also run the more open ecosystems legally, and those open ecosystems can't legally run the closed one. That's a knock against Apple, not a bragging point.

I've come to believe Apple's way is probably the only sustainable way.

I'm a Windows user who also develops for Windows desktop and it's kind of sad that even though Windows has a way larger desktop share, there just isn't much going on compared to MacOS. Every week I read about some cool new or updated MacOS application and I can't remember the last time I read something similar about a Windows application (other than games).

The only reason I can think of is that MacOS developers are more motivated at least in part by having users that are willing to support developers by paying for software.

In turn, users and developers willing to pay for computing motivates and enables Apple to make better hardware. They don't always get it right, but I think they are doing a better job than most companies. It's also the reason why I think Apple's recent push for services revenue is so dangerous. The incentives aren't as aligned with users.

Maybe next year Framework or System76 will come out with their answer to Apple's M-series chips and I'll have to re-evaluate, but right now it feels like it's Apple against everybody else and everybody else is racing to the bottom.

Re: Killed by Apple

#106

Post by ryandrake »

troad wrote: post #104
ryandrake wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's important to highlight Apple's mentality : That old devices are dead to them, and the pretending that they don't even exist anymore. I have a house full of Apple hardware and none of them get updates from Apple anymore, and I can't manually update them without hackery (OpenCore) or wiping them to install Linux (where possible). Also, because third party app developers largely align with Apple's philosoph…

I always thought it was strange how intolerant Homebrew is of users who are not surfing the bleeding edge. I held out using MacPorts for ages, but there came a point when I just could not reasonably expect to find the software I needed on MacPorts, but could on Homebrew, and so I switched. I wish Homebrew hadn't won that particular mindshare war. Moving from MacPorts to Homebrew felt like downgrading from an actual p…

The good news is that MacPorts is IMO better than ever. I previously did the MacPorts -> Homebrew switch, but recently moved back and am very happy with MacPorts.

Re: Killed by Apple

#107

Post by joeyagreco »

> iPhone 5c

> Apple TV Remote app > Apple's official iPhone and iPad app for controlling Apple TV. Pulled from the > App Store after Apple moved the remote into Control Center.

lol

Re: Killed by Apple

#108

Post by cpuguy83 »

Scaevolus wrote: post #70
benoau wrote: post #33

I think this conflates "old" with "killed". Most of the stuff is just old. I would say the Mac Pro was "killed", left to languish after the trashcan model, then isolated from third party GPUs when it finally got upgraded to Apple Silicon, and then left to languish again until the lack of sales justified killing it. Rosetta 2 will certainly deserve a spot on this list next year when they start yeeting it, an amazing p…

Apple could easily support eGPUs if they wanted to, but they choose to have vertical integration over fragmentation or usefulness. It's the same as them not supporting OpenGL or Vulkan: they could if they wanted to be a better gaming/porting target, but compatibility of any sort is not a priority.

Apple did recently approve drivers for both nvidia and amd, but not for gaming purposes.

Apple supported OpenGL plenty, just that the world moved. Apple created metal, shortly after Vulkan was created.

"They could support it if they wanted to" is almost a tautology. Of course they could. But then they have to support another thing. They are on the hook when something goes wrong.

Re: Killed by Apple

#110

Post by tpmoney »

andrewmutz wrote: post #8

Hacker news holds Apple and Google to different standards, so I doubt this post will get much traction. (I'm still angry about how I must use an iPhone if I want to be able to text high quality video to people I don't know very well)

> I'm still angry about how I must use an iPhone if I want to be able to text high quality video to people I don't know very well

You’re mad at the wrong people in this case though. iMessage can do high quality video and images because it’s a separate channel from the telecoms. RCS can now do high quality video and images too because it’s a newer standard and was built for that (and iPhones do support RCS now). But for normal “text” messages using the MMS/SMS systems, your quality is capped by the carriers and the carries have ridiculously (relative to current standards) low size limits. AT&T limits them to 1MB [1]. Verizon limits you to 1.2MB for images and 3.5MB for video [2] and T-Mobile limits you to 1MB for outbound and 3MB for inbound. Low quality is just baked into those paths and there’s nothing Apple (or Google) can do about it other than build parallel messaging systems

[1]: https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1041906/

[2]: https://www.verizon.com/support/knowledge-base-14641/

[3]: https://www.t-mobile.com/support/devices/device-troubleshoot...

Post reply on HN