Your perspective on your last point is interesting. I actually feel the opposite, its become a motivator for me.
I used to love coding, and did it a ton. Then it became less and less part of my job, and I started hating coding. It was so frustrating when I knew exactly what needed to be done in the code, but had to spend the time doing low value stuff like typing syntax, tracing through the code to find the right file to edit, etc when I'm already strapped for time.
LLMs and agentic coding tools have allowed me to not spend time on the low-value tasks of typing, but instead on the high-value tasks of solving problems like you mentioned. Just interesting the different perspectives we have.
That's a fair point and I actually agree with you. A large part of writing code is doing something menial as you said.
I think both of the viewpoints are valid depending on where you're at in your career.
We can imagine a junior developer who isn't quite bored with those low-value tasks just yet.
As you grow more senior/experienced, the novel problems become harder to find - and those are the one's you want to work on. AI can certainly help you cut through the chaff so you have more time to focus on those.
But trends are trends and AI is increasingly getting better at solving the novel/interesting problems that I think you're referring to.
Everyone's different and I know there are folks who are excited to not have to write a single line of code. I'd wager that's not actually most engineers/developers though.
People still garden by hand because it's innately satisfying.
There is a lot I hate about building apps and releasing them on the App Store, and I'd be happy for there to be alternatives. But that said, I don't understand how its a monopoly. There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices. There are other devices and means for software delivery out there. What makes their control of their own ecosystem monopolistic? As someone who has paid the apple tax for digital sales, it sucks but I'm also choosing to try to capture that market and that's the cost of doing business.
I'm not smart enough to get into the politics of other parts of the world, but just because the EU found something illegal doesn't mean its the basis of a good lawsuit under the US rules. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Microsoft was hit with monopoly on browser even though you can install anything or go buy a Mac.
But when you control a huge portion of the PC market, and you put it in by default, you are cascading your monopolistic benefits down to installed software.
Apple does not have complete domination of smartphone across all demographics, but they do have domination in many segments.
For example, it is estimated that around 88% of teenagers have iPhones. Apple makes it very hard to leave their ecosystem because of iMessage, Facetime, and ALL of your digital purchases being tied to their ecosystem. So, what happens when all those teens grow up? Do we really think they will leave Apple ecosystem?
What cascades from that is a long term digital domination strategy, and when you have that only one digital store option, now you have a monopoly argument.
Apple also blocks any web browser on their mobile devices except their web browser. Chrome, Firefox, and any other browser on IOS is using Safari under the hood.
Now why would Apple do this? Because they have hobbled Safari so that it does not have modern web APIs which would allow web developers to create web-apps that use APIs that are only allowed on App-store apps on IOS devices.
This forces developers to either make an app for the App-store, or don't have any IOS users.
This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ - because they won't allow any other browser engines on IOS, at least not in the US, the EU slapped them on the wrist and now it's allowed there.
Safari is the current worst web browser in terms of features and bugs, and Apple wants to keep it this way for no better reason but greed. They want to push people to make App-store apps, which they can extract 30% revenue from.
That is anti-competitive, and monopolistic behavior.
Yeah I hadn't thought about the browser being intentionally bad to push actual apps. That's been the reason for about half of the apps that I've made. The next is also somewhat anti-competitive, and its how bad the web services notifications are compared to the app-based notifications.
> Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work
Buying something used to mean something. If you're still beholden by company rules of a product you _bought_, you have been leasing/renting it.
If I buy a house from a builder, and it came with a requirement that you can only use Amazon Ring cameras, or builder-approved groceries - you'd be pretty pissed.
That's not a valid analogy. There isn't a "requirement" that you only use vanilla Apple software on an iPhone. More accurate would be that the house is set up for ring cameras and the builder doesn't support implementing any other type of camera system.
The house is set up for ring cameras and makes it either impossible or painful to use anything else. Not because of technical limitations, but in order to steer you away from competitors. Building something with it working in a particular way is fine, but building it in a particular way _in order_ for it not to work with competitors hurts everyone. I get the argument it's just because it makes their products work better, and call bullshit.
In my case it's because I'm using another of their products (my Mac) that is _not_ locked down like the iDevices. My laptop doesn't lock me into my phone, but buying a phone that they have locked out of my laptop's special Apple-only APIs puts me at a disadvantage.
i see you’ve never purchased a condo or lived within an HOA community.
Furthermore, in the US (and some other countries), you don’t _actually_ own a house or it’s land. you own the rights to that house (a deed) as long as you continue paying your property taxes. see what happens when you stop paying uncle sam… it’s kind of like a subscription lol.
> - You agree to the letter of the ToS when you click "I Agree" when you set up the iPhone,
I reject that argument.
For start ToS may have unenforceable claims (if someone puts that I agree to give all things I own to them into ToS it has zero effect).
Also, at this point I dispute that ToS clickery should be treated as agreeing to them. "I have read and agree with ToS" is a blatant lie in at least in the first half.
The problem is that app developers can't ignore iOS because the market is too big. Therefore Apple can do whatever they want and developer have to accept their condition.
As a developer, there is no choice. Apple should not be able to abuse their dominant position.
The problem with this is in the very definition of what it means to be an "app" developer. You say "app" and most people immediately understand you mean the iPhone or Android kind, with all that entails.
These companies have been dominating the landscape for decades now, most likely for longer than most app developers have been app developers. As a developer, there's definitely a choice: don't make an iPhone app; don't make an app at all. Make something else.
If you say you want access to the walled garden because that's where the people are, then consider that they are in there because they like the walls. From this point of view, you don't have a right to demand that the walled garden have free entrance.
> If you say you want access to the walled garden because that's where the people are, then consider that they are in there because they like the walls.
I disagree there. Most people I know who have an iPhone didn't choose Apple because they like walls. There are many other reasons to choose Apple other than "I like getting screwed by TooBigTech".
That's not bad faith. Go build another phone if you don't like it. Go be one of those weird freaks with a Graphene phone that can't access carrier RCS because Google says no.
I think it's really a perceived monopoly. Apple has created such a great thing that everyone wanted to get in on it but some people don't want to pay the Apple premium. Because most of their market is Apple App Store, they can make more money from the App Store, it's perceived as having a monopoly on mobile phone app stores.
If tomorrow, Tesla insisted that their cars will only accepted Tesla branded tires, would you be ok with it?
Sure it's their car and they can do whatever they want with it, but consumers are losing choices - which is what anti-monopoly rules are for. Say, Michelin or Pirelli tires are strictly better but Tesla doing this harms consumer choice and that's why it is bad.
Imagine if this were extended to Tesla branded chargers. Or Tesla branded paint. It's your damn car so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it.
if tesla mandated tesla-only tires since day one (2012?), and they claimed it’s a perk/feature of the car, AND i bought the car anyway. Did i as a consumer not sign up for that?? There is more than 1 car manufacture after all.
None of the ios consumers are hoodwinked and apple offers free returns within 2 week in the US. The locked-down app store has been apples way since (almost) day one. Consumers voted with their wallets to not buy an android phone. I think that’s the difference?
IF android didn’t exist it wound be a different story, and it would also be a missing opportunity in the phone market.
> There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices
By this logic, there is also no requirement for one to eat and breathe, anyone can simply stop. The problem is the consequences.
Building an iOS app is requirement if you want to provide lots of services and compete on lots of market. The mobile phone OS landscape has become a duopoly, and society is free to impose certain obligations on those companies.
> stating plainly that he doesn't see AI replacing his employees. (Though that does immediately raise the "who brought that up?" question...)
Almost everyone who isn't highly informed in this field is worried about this. This is a completely reasonable thing to include in a memo about "forced" adoption of AI. Because excluding it induces panic in the workforce.
It is funny that this post calls out groupthink, while failing to acknowledge that they're falling into the groupthink of "CEO dumb" and "AI bad"
Forced AI adoption is nothing more than a strategy, a gamble, etc from company leadership. It may work out great, it may not, and anyone stating with conviction one way or another is lying to themselves and everyone they're shouting to. It is no different than companies going "internet-first" years ago. Doesn't have to mean that the people making the decision are "performing" for each other or that they are fascists, my god.
Imo its a great way of allowing high performers to create even more impact. A great developer typing syntax isn't valuable. Their ability to engineer solutions to challenges and problems is. Scaling that out to an entire company that believes in their people is no different, less time spent on the time-consuming functions of a job that are low-value in isolation, and more time spent on high-value functions of a job.
The Twitter/Reddit-style "snark-for-clicks" approach is disappointing to see so high on a site like this that is largely comprised of intelligent and thoughtful people.
He's quite literally said that people have found AI useful, and that's great! For example:
> We don't actually have to follow along with the narratives that tech tycoons make up for each other. We choose the tools that we use, based on the utility that they have for us. It's strange to have to say it, but... there are people picking up and adopting AI tools on their own, because they find them useful.
And:
> The strangest part is, the AI pushers don't have to lie about what AI can do! If, as they say, AI tools are going to get better quickly, then let them do so and trust that smart people will pick them up and use them. If you think your workers and colleagues are too stupid to recognize good tools that will help them do their jobs better, then ..
Anyway, how many layers of accused irony and snark can we go down? Am I the next?
> This is an important illustration: AI is really good for helping you if you're bad at something, or at least below average. But it's probably not the right tool if you're great at something.
Considering the authors complaint is having professionals (who would in theory be good at their job because they are professionals) use AI puts that in the "not the right tool."
But I probably did stretch a bit there, and appreciate you calling it out.
Yeah, and to be clear, the context that I assumed most readers would have (on my site, where I think they'd know a bit about me, as opposed to here on HN) is that I'm a former CEO. So my disdain for CEO stupidity is higher, and my tendency to be critical is much stronger, because of that perspective.
Yup, this looks like a mashup of all the "rewriting $PROJECT from $OTHER_LANGUAGE to Go" I've read along the years, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were AI-generated...
I think it’s accurate. The Netflix service historically had no ads, now they are adding a tier with ads.
Netflix has been pretty vocal on how much ads suck for users, and I agree.
I dropped Netflix because their content sucked and their prices were high and their recommendation engine was bad. And they were getting suckier and higher.
I expect that ads will creep up higher tiers and also push up prices on the ad free tiers.
Human capital side would disagree with that I think. You're assuming the organization which owns this small/medium web app has the personnel already on staff to handle such a thing.
If you're outsourcing that, you'd likely have to pay a boatload just for someone to be available for help, let alone the actual tasks themselves. Like you said, if you're on-prem and something goes down, you can do something. But you've gotta have the personnel to actually do something.
That said, I think you're spot-on as long as you have the skillset already.
> Human capital side would disagree with that I think
I hear this argument a lot, but every startup I've been involved with had a full-time DevOps engineer wrangling Terraform & YAML files - that same engineer can be assigned to manage the bare-metal infrastructure.
> I hear this argument a lot, but every startup I've been involved with had a full-time DevOps engineer wrangling Terraform & YAML files - that same engineer can be assigned to manage the bare-metal infrastructure.
Bare metal infrastructure requires a lot more management at any given scale. I mean, you can run stuff that lets you do part of the management the same as cloud resources, but you also have to then manage that software and manage the hardware.
Depends entirely on the career you're looking to go into. There are certain fields that do, and should, require a college degree and appropriate certifications.
Assuming you are looking for a job in software development (since that's most of what HN is), the need for a college degree is becoming less and less. Some people are going the bootcamp route, some people are going self-taught. Just something to be aware of in terms of the talent pool, there's a ton of junior talent right now so it's hard to stand out. Actual projects you can showcase on Github and deployed on things like Heroku will be a good start
reply