It's not feigned. I'm astonished to learn how hard people will work for the (seemingly to me) false convenience of doing things on their phone which would be (to me) much more straightforward to do on a more suitable device.
So I tend to assume that these stories are often the outliers, and that my personal experience is more common. I recognize the fallacy, and I suspect we're both wrong and we're both right. I just honestly don't know which one of us is more of which.
It probably devolves to a question of what kind of work we're talking about. The work that I do (or the way I do it), I do not believe could be done effectively on a phone or tablet, most of the time. I work with people whose work can be done there. And there are probably more of them that there are of me. But that does not mean I could become one of them.
(addressing your comment on another subthread): if music, camera, and web are a person's "work", then sure. But that does not resemble "work" for me in any way.
Again, you can look at the worldwide penetration of cell phones vs laptops, where most web traffic comes from, the amount of resources spent on mobile development vs desktop, the amount of revenue globally of phone sales vs PC sales, etc
I also don’t spend all day working and I definitely don’t take out my laptop when I’m not working
Worldwide is not relevant, and mobile-vs-desktop dev is not relevant.
Mobile-vs-web dev is probably a better metric. And developed, mature markets only. Anything else introduces the second- and third-generation tech gap inconsistencies.
> Anything else introduces the second- and third-generation tech gap inconsistencies
This is completely responsive to your thread if you think countries that use their phones more than the US is some type of signal they are 3rd world countries.
It's easy to be wrong about Jobs, because he was iconoclastic and idiosyncratic. And very very public.
And he did some personally, individually, shameful things. Especially in his 20s when he hadn't learned how to be an adult, much less a billionaire. And the latter protected him from needing to be the former for a while!
But if you believe for a second that Jobs would have tolerated Trump's wholesale ignorance and cruelty, you are making a huge mistake of understanding. That was never in Steve Jobs' personality -- in fact he was very outspoken about the excesses of power over people.
He was an anti-establishment Californian by birth, not a xenophobic RealAmerican™. These streams do not cross. If you do not understand the difference, you cannot possibly understand Steve Jobs.
This comment confuses me. You call Jobs idiosyncratic, but then try to backwards-justify his political stance with stereotypes about anti-establishment politics and Californian ideals. What makes you convinced that he'd resist neoreactionary politicking any better than Cook?
Jobs was fickle, I agree with you there. I just don't think that a fickle iconoclast would last more than two weeks fighting against Trump, especially if he was threatened with an FTC antitrust probe. The only difference with Cook is that he's not as coy, and recognized that there was no way for a monopoly like Apple to fight the fed and win. Trump can disembowel Apple's profit margins, and neither Cook nor Jobs nor Jesus of Nazarath could convince the shareholders that morality is worth more than $AAPL. 2016 Jobs would be retired by the board of directors before he even threatened to make a conscientious objection, reality distortion be damned.
I have no love for the sitting administration, but it is a fantasy to pretend that a FAANG business could resist federal coercion. Just because Apple enjoys a moral halo-effect does not mean they're better positioned than Microsoft or AWS to do the "right" thing. Apple's inability to prosecute NSO Group is a recurring example of how heavily the US can muzzle them.
Which claim? That Jobs was not a monster or pedophile? I'm on absolutely solid ground there.
Assuming you mean whether Jobs would intensely dislike Trump, then -- what can I say? You clearly don't know anything about the guy and that's fine. But if you doubt it, you're wrong.
We were far from personal confidantes, but I had several candid conversations with him over the decades. His personal politics were never in doubt, or far from the surface. He held a special revulsion for warmongering, dishonest, scapegoating, and authoritarian-leaning US candidates and administrations.
He was always at least a bit frustrated with US economic policy. He would abhor Trump for all of the above reasons and more.
I'd say that personality-wise, you probably don't know Jobs well enough to serve as a character witness. I'm not aware of any recorded interview where he explains how far he'd go to defend his business from unfair government treatment. He never saw a preview of the 2016 election or cast a ballot in the vote. He didn't live the interceding years leading up to the election, or form an opinion on the politics dominating the polls.
I think Jobs would have been blindsided by Trump just as much as we all were. On a personal level I can believe that he's offended just like Cook is. But neither Cook nor Jobs' conscience has really ever stopped them from making a profitable business decision that they can take credit for. Even if it means building a meaningless gold trophy or somesuch, to appease the ego in charge.
I agree that he'd have been blindsided like the rest of us. And I agree that he would have put Apple first. That was never a part of my point though.
Jobs had a very strong personality and very strong opinions. Also a good human moral compass, at least in his adulthood.
I admit that I am extrapolating from his thoughts on previous administrations, but I will confidently assert that there is no part of Jobs being that would approve of what's going on today. The man was not ThielMuskAndreesenEllisonEtc. (Someone might point out that he was friends with Larry, which is true, but he did not agree with Larry about some very important things. Jobs was capable of that kind of relationship.)
The degree of appeasement he would be performing on behalf of Apple is a fair subject to contemplate. Whether he'd be besties with Steven Miller and Jeffrey Epstein, is not a reasonable topic to speculate on. The answer is obvious to anyone who knew him at all.
Didn't he buy a bunch of houses in different states so he could be on more organ donor lists than any of us could? I am asking sincerely. Maybe it was a myth.
He would also drive cars without license plates. Despicable man.
He was able to do this by exploiting a loophole in California vehicle law at the time (under California Vehicle Code Section 4456). The rule allowed new vehicles up to six months from the date of sale or lease before permanent license plates were required to be displayed (temporary tags or paper registration might have been involved initially, but no plates needed for that grace period).
Jobs leased identical new Mercedes models every six months through an arrangement with a leasing company. Just before the six-month deadline hit, he would trade in the current car for a brand-new one of the same type. This kept his vehicle perpetually under the six-month threshold, so he never had to attach permanent plates.
> My problem is more with governments ... pushing people to ... Google/Apple.
It's worse than that. Many municipalities and schools etc only post public notices to Facebook/Twitter or some similarly hostile environment.
> The article is definitely a bit over the top, it is just my personal blog and me trying to write a bit more funny to counter the bland LLMs.
But. Your headline contradicts your story. The only excuse for that (and it is weak) is when writers don't get to write their own headlines (this is common) and the editors who do write the headlines are corrupted for clicks or drama (but I repeat myself).
I wrote about my thinking here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47168225). I do not have a story and I am not a writer that has editors so I have no excuse but my personal taste ;). You will disagree with that, but just wanted to mention it so it does not seem like I am ignoring it.
I'll push back on one point: when I said "contradicts your story", I meant that the headline and the story (article content) are in conflict. So you do have a story/article, and yes your headline is squishy enough to argue misinterpretation, but it's clearly not honest.
So the tension is that the boring but honest headline of "Applying for a UK visa without a smartphone requires a few extra clicks that are easy to overlook" doesn't serve the (apparently higher) purpose of drawing people in.
I was expecting outrage in your article, but I only found inconvenience. That's manipulative in my opinion, and I would avoid reading future articles on your site based on that experience. Do as thou wilt, obviously, but that's my take!
Your topic (smartphone/appstore requirements) is a real issue! I'm glad to hear that the UK hasn't gone all-in, yet.
So I tend to assume that these stories are often the outliers, and that my personal experience is more common. I recognize the fallacy, and I suspect we're both wrong and we're both right. I just honestly don't know which one of us is more of which.
It probably devolves to a question of what kind of work we're talking about. The work that I do (or the way I do it), I do not believe could be done effectively on a phone or tablet, most of the time. I work with people whose work can be done there. And there are probably more of them that there are of me. But that does not mean I could become one of them.
(addressing your comment on another subthread): if music, camera, and web are a person's "work", then sure. But that does not resemble "work" for me in any way.
reply