There are hundreds of factors for each company and application. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s rarely as simple as retail prices.
Even the same number of "technical specialists" doesn't mean it's the same if one option lets you move faster or remain more reliable.
If you look around a bit, it’s not their users who are making noise about wanting it. Why should they care about a competitor’s users?
As one of their actual users, I’ll tell you this. I am sick and tired of all these loud mouths being outraged on my behalf. I made a rational decision to buy an iPhone, knowing full well what it means. In the end all that matters is that it works well, and most likely will for a long time, as for now I’ve my successive iPhones have been used for at least 5 years (apart from the 3G which was unbearably slow after 3). I don’t hate openness, customisation and tinkering, which is why my main desktops run Linux. I just don’t want to be a sysadmin for my phone, which is something you really often see actual iPhone users say, including in this thread.
Because the scale of these companies gives them immense power and control over people's devices and (digital) lives. The size of the corporation leads to a geometric increase of power through network effects.
Now that you have an answer, what are you actually trying to ask? Do you have an issue with megacorps providing more control to users?
I have a problem with any kind of absolutes. I also have a problem with a self-appointed tech commenters deciding what is best for everyone else due to their own biases. There is essentially a Google/Apple duopololy, but let's not pretend there are no other choices. Neither company is stopping anyone buying Fairphones, Pinephone, or whatever other libre devices exist on the market if that's what the individual wants.
> "I also have a problem with a self-appointed tech commenters deciding what is best for everyone else due to their own biases."
This sounds like you.
> "but let's not pretend there are no other choices."
Nobody is confused by the current choices. Saying that the iPhone can't do the thing today that we want it to do in the future is just repeating a fact that is literally the reason for the discussion in the first place.
And yes it's strange to take the side of a trillion-dollar megacorp instead of users, especially considering the size and power of such a company.
"Trillion dollar corporations should give their users all the choice and flexibility they want, not the other way around." is an absolute.
> "This sounds like you."
My 5 year old would respond with a better comeback than "I know you are, but what am I?"
> "Saying that the iPhone can't do the thing today that we want it to do in the future is just repeating a fact that is literally the reason for the discussion in the first place."
Who the fuck are we?! Have you asked iPhone users? Or just your immediate circle? No. We is the arrogant, opinionated "power users" and tech-commenters that think that the know what is best for everyone else.
> "And yes it's strange to take the side of a trillion-dollar megacorp instead of users, especially considering the size and power of such a company."
I'm not. I'm siding with the status quo, which is a considerably safer environment for the vast majority of iPhone users (yes, including me, a actual user of the software and hardware made by the megacorp) than that of what your are espousing.
At least I know not to invest in your fund, especially given your aversion to businesses that make money.
> "My 5 year old would respond with a better comeback""No. We is the arrogant, opinionated "power users" and tech-commenters that think that the know what is best for everyone else."
What are you doing? Why is this discussion so triggering for you? You made the initial accusation and failed to see that it describes you.
The "we" is the commenters here talking about features they want, representing themselves and others, just like millions of other users who also have their own specific needs. The discussion is about why these features should exist, the benefits they bring, and the effects they might have.
Do we need to poll a billion users to discuss any functionality? Isn't Apple itself also just a few people deciding on changes that affect billions, while adding features that might only support a small minority? If someone says they want bigger buttons or slower animations, is that invalid because they're saying "what is best for everyone else" or are they just talking about what they want and why?
> "I'm siding with the status quo"
Cool, so just say that and make your argument. Many others have said similar things and there's been plenty of discussion about how this would affect the vast majority. But why get upset and call everyone arrogant because they have a different need or opinion? That's neither helpful nor productive.
> "At least I know not to invest in your fund, especially given your aversion to businesses that make money."
This is juvenile. Maybe take a break from the internet if you need to make personal attacks over this. We're also not open to outside money, perhaps if you weren't anonymous we can help you with investments more fit for you.
> The "we" is the commenters here talking about features they want, representing themselves and others...
That's not the case here, and never has been. "Others"? Please. Were that actually the case, I have less of a problem, but it isn't.
> "Do we need to poll a billion users to discuss any functionality?"
Not at all. Never suggested we did. The issue at hand is speaking on behalf of "everyone".
> Isn't Apple itself also just a few people deciding on changes that affect billions, while adding features that might only support a small minority?
They're the ones making the device in a free market. They get to choose what goes into the product. They offer it for sale in an open market, selling at the price point they have set. If people didn't want the devices as they are, they wouldn't be a "Trillion dollar mega corporation". So there is clearly a market for this small group of people to sell product into. Given the price point of iPhone's, I'd strongly argue they are a deliberate choice, much like any "flagship" device. It has been ever thus from Apple, and they have done rather well off the back of it. For those that want other features, as we've established, other options exist, one is significantly more successful. After all, the more open Android handsets outsell Apple 4:1 or 5:1, depending on the quarter.
Here is where I take umbrage with your assertion. Clearly, there is a choice. In fact the individual that you replied to made this point eloquently, but here you are essentially demanding that this trillion dollar megacorp be forced to bow to these requests by people that clearly don't use the devices, and that already have a choice not to use the devices. The issue as fas as I see it, is that you seem to want to punish a company that is successful because you don't like what they offer, and that they should offer whatever you (disguised as "users") want, despite being catered to by a segment of the overall market that is 4-5 times larger, that offers significantly more choice. When there is push back, the retort is always along the lines of thinking of the children.
> If someone says they want bigger buttons or slower animations, is that invalid because they're saying "what is best for everyone else" or are they just talking about what they want and why?
Absolutely not, but that is very different from "Trillion dollar mega corporations should give their users all the choice and flexibility they want..." and is not what is being discussed. No business, trillion dollar valuation or otherwise, can cater to, or indeed please all the people all the time. It's a pointless endeavour to pursue. Neither should any business be forced to produce products to cater to everyone.
The argument made here, as illustrated by the start of this particular thread, is that the "walled garden" is bad for those whom are choosing it and it's a false choice anyway, because "walled garden", lock in, etc. This comes across to me as arrogant. The tone is very much "I know best", and the reasons of dubious benefit. It almost alway boils down to "because that's what I want", which inevitably circles back to the choice discussion.
> "This is juvenile."
You are, of course, absolutely right. Genuinely, I can only apologise.
These people are perfectly able to do it right now, just by buying another device. If you don’t like that something lacks features you think are important, you just don’t buy it. How does it matter to you what other people do with their phone? It’s not like Android is in danger of disappearing or anything
If you’re upset that something you bought does not do something that it was never advertised it could do, and in fact is notorious for not doing, then the problem is squarely on your side. Plenty of people did know what they were buying into.
Complaining is one thing, saying that their users, overall, are unhappy with the product requires at least some serious references and a good narrative.
Nobody here is confused. We know what devices we bought, and we know what they do and don't support today. That's the point. Otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion in the first place to talk about what they can, and likely should do.
And that's what this is - a discussion (on a discussion forum). If you're upset that you people don't share your views, the problem is squarely on your side. Plenty of people can understand and discuss the topic though.
Using vague terms like "the platform" are not useful. What does an operating system like "iOS/iPad OS" have to do with the "iOS/iPad ecosystem"? You're not clear even in your own reply. Please try to be more precise.
I'll assume what you're really asking is from the perspective of Apple since the benefit for users is clear - it'll help make more apps available which has network effects of more Apple devices and usage.
This is part of why they are being forced to allow sideloading in the EU. As it turns out in the real world, the interests of corporations are often at odds with the interests of every day people.
I get shit like this all the time, just yesterday I got "select all the squares with stairs" and then every photo was a part of a flight of stairs... I always wonder what you're supposed to do with questions like this.
That has nothing to do with Kafka, or Java as a language.
Distributed big data processing systems need big data to actually be useful. Small data that fits on a single machine can also be processed on a single machine, which will always be faster than using a cluster with orchestration, distribution and network overhead.
Cassandra (and ScyllaDB which is the same data model) allow for customizable consistency level on a per-query basis. You can send 1 write with only one node confirming while sending another requiring full cluster acknowledgement.
