I use windows for ~10 hours per day, 5 or 6 days per week because my team is currently maintaining a legacy .NET framework codebase. I’m sure there are people on earth who use windows more than I do, but I think it’s extremely unlikely that you’re one of them.

Sure.

MacOS is an excellent workspace operating system, largely due to its near-POSIX compliance and the fact that it has access to the enormous body of tools developed for UNIX-like OSs. For development work in particular, it can use the same free and open source software, configured in the same way, that Linux uses. Aside from the DE, a developer could swap between Linux and MacOS and barely realize it. Everything from Node, to Clang, to openJDK, to Rust, along with endless ecosystems of tooling, is installable in a consistent way that matches the bulk of online documentation. This is largely in contrast to Windows, where every piece of the puzzle will have a number of gotchas and footguns, especially when dealing with having multiple environments installed.

From a design perspective, MacOS is opinionated, but feels like it’s put together by experts in UX. Its high usability is at least partially due to its simplicity and consistency, which in my opinion are hallmarks of well-designed software. MacOS also provides enough access through the Accessibility API to largely rebuild the WM, so those who don’t like the defaults have options.

The most frequent complaint that I hear about MacOS is that x feature doesn’t work like it does in windows, even though the way that x feature works in windows is steaming hot garbage. Someone who’s used to Windows would probably need a few hours/days to become as fluent with MacOS, depending on their computer literacy.

People also complain about the fact that MacOS leverages a lot of FOSS software, while keeping their software closed-source and proprietary. I agree with this criticism, but I don’t think it has anything to do with how usable MacOS is.

I’m not going to start a flame war about mobile OSs because I don’t use a mobile OS as my primary productivity device (and neither should you, but I’m not your mom). The differences between mobile OSs are much smaller, and are virtually all subjective.

You’re welcome.

Having the highest market share doesn’t mean that windows uses logical conventions, it just means that lots of people are accustomed to the conventions that it uses. The vast majority of professionals that I’ve interacted with strongly dislike having to work on a windows machine once they’ve been exposed to anything else.

Off of the top of my head, the illogical conventions that Windows uses are: storing application and OS settings together in an opaque and dangerous, globally-editable database (the registry), obfuscating the way that disks are mounted to the file system, using /cr/lf for new lines, using a backslash for directory mappings, not having anything close to a POSIX compatible scripting language, the stranglehold that “wizards” have on the OS at every level, etc. ad nausium. Most of these issues are due to Microsoft deciding to reinvent the wheel instead of conforming to existing conventions. Some of the differences are only annoying because they pick the exact opposite convention that everyone else uses (path separators, line endings), and some of them are annoying because they’re an objectively worse solution than what exists everywhere else (the registry, installation/uninstallation via wizards spawned by a settings menu).

For basic usability functions, see the lack of functional multi-desktop support 20 years after it became mainstream elsewhere. There is actually no way to switch one monitor to a 2nd workspace without switching every monitor, which makes the feature worse than useless for any serious work. In addition to that, window management in general is completely barebones. Multitasking requires you to either click on icons every time you want to switch a window, or cycle through all of your open windows with alt-tab. The file manager is kludgy and full of opinionated defaults that mysteriously only serve to make it worse at just showing files. The stock terminal emulator is something out of 1995, the new one that can be optionally enabled as a feature is better, but it still exposes a pair of painful options for shells. With WSL, the windows terminal suddenly becomes pretty useful, but having to use a Linux abstraction layer just serves to support the point that windows sucks.

I could go on and on all day, I’m a SWE with a decade of experience using Linux, 3 decades using Windows, and a few years on Mac here and there. I love my windows machine at home… as a gaming console. Having to do serious work in windows is agonizing.

Of the three major desktop operating systems, windows is by far the worst.

The only advantage windows has is that Microsoft’s monopolistic practices in the 90s and 00s made it the de-facto OS for business to furnish employees with, which resulted in it still having better 3rd party software support than the alternatives.

As an OS, it’s hard to use, doesn’t follow logical convention’s, is super opinionated about how users should interact with it, and is missing basic usability features that have been in every other modern OS for 10+ years. It’s awesome as a video game console, barely useable as an adobe or autodesk machine, but sucks as a general purpose OS.

That is false.

Cops aren’t investigating misdemeanor thefts for the same reason that they don’t investigate anything that they’re not forced to. They don’t care.

It’s funny that you blame prop 47 for the fact that cops are refusing to enforce prop 47.

Are you mixed up? Prop 47 reduces jail time for nonviolent and non serious drug and property crimes.

Seems pretty disingenuous to represent that as preventing the police from doing their jobs. Unless you honestly think cops’ job is to maximize the amount of time that drug addicts spend in jail.

Which CA ballot initiative are you talking about stops the police from doing their work?

Sorry but it’s very uncommon for the people who are making a place into somewhere that the underprivileged hate to be the same people that are moving to other places.

If you’ve got the power to drive up housing prices in the state that you currently live in, you’re not going to be in the group that’s moving across the country to have a shot at being successful.

Of course when people can’t earn enough to be successful in CA and move to CO for a better life, the uncreased housing demand in CO is going to bring prices up a bit. But those people aren’t the ones who made CA so expensive. In fact, they’re actively making it less expensive by leaving the state.

Those are great examples of why I, as a progressive Californian, am often really frustrated by California’s laws.

California is very liberal, but we are also very wealthy. So we get a lot of policies that seem to tick liberal boxes on the surface, but do so in a way that is heavily protective of the interests of the wealthy. We get plenty of laws outlawing plastic straws and bags, but nothing to discourage property investors from making it impossible for families to own a home.

I love my state and I’m really happy here, but I also make enough money to be comfortable here. It’s sad that even someone earning the median wage is effectively locked out of the housing market, and is likely forced to live with roommates.

Also, the gun laws are largely performative garbage. So many things on the books that only serve to be a stick in the eye to people who want to lawfully and safely own firearms. Making it a legal requirement for me to configure my AR 15 in a way that makes it awkward to use doesn’t do anything at all to prevent someone from taking an allan key to theirs and spending 30 seconds to make it an “assault weapon”. I’m all for gun laws that make the world a safer place (for example, mandatory free safety classes and free registration for handgun), so it’s super frustrating to see all of the laws that we have that don’t even seem like they’re intended to make an actual difference.

This is a really good point, and I’m glad that someone who’s got a decent understanding of basic economics is replying to me.

The 95% profit margin was definitely to make a point, as you pointed out. And as you said, according to conventional thinking on capitalism, market forces should push that down to a fair equilibrium.

I think that the issue I was hinting at is that there is a fair amount of contemporary thinking that provides pretty convincing arguments that the nature of capitalism necessarily tends towards consolidation and monopoly over time. The classical model of a baker charging too much on an island, so someone else opens a bakery, doesn’t really work too well when we’re talking about telecom companies and media conglomerates. Once a high-tech segment has consolidated enough, it becomes impossible for anyone other than large companies to enter the market. And when those large companies are actually owned by a larger parent company, we start to see the failures of the classical market forces to produce a ‘fair’ equilibrium due to monopolization.

We definitely aren’t at the point of total failure yet, but in my opinion the trend line isn’t hard to spot. And I think the bigger issue is that due to regulatory capture, there’s not much we can do to patch the sinking ship.

Of course the market forces that are naturally present in a purely capitalist economy require there to be workers and employers.

In the scenario that you described, are you suggesting that instead of 10,000 people working at TSMC, we’d have 10,000 semiconductor factories that are built, operated, maintained, cleaned, and supplied by 10,000 individual people?

We can use an even simpler scenario. I believe that you’re suggesting that instead of the way that the food service sector currently works, it would instead be possible under capitalism for all food-service workers to individually sell served food to customers, presumably from their own kitchens.

In that scenario, what happens when Bob McDonald offers 10 of his friends to come work in his kitchen for an hourly wage, and they’re able to produce better food (due to specialization) for a lower price (due to lower overhead per worker)? Bob (and the countless other people who will undoubtedly copy his success) will outcompete the slower, more expensive kitchens. Individually owned and operated kitchens will be driven out of business. Then small, 10-person kitchens will start to struggle against larger kitchens and chain kitchens that have been able to spread the costs over multiple locations.

Before long, it will be impossible for a Sally Jones to open and run her own kitchen alone. In order to just break even, Sally’s prices would be significantly higher than the food sold at Bob McDonald’s chain. The cost of her premises will be higher relative to the amount of food she can produce on her own, the cost of the ingredients themselves will be higher because of bulk purchase prices vs retail, the cost of preparing the food will be higher because she doesn’t have access to an industrial onion chopper that can peel and chop a 50lb bag of onions in 30 seconds.

Market forces make it impossible for an individual to compete, due to the economies of scale. This is the same reason that over time, corporations under capitalism merge and restructure as they tend toward a monopoly.

I might be totally misunderstanding what you’re suggesting. If what you meant was that instead of the 10,000 TSMC workers each having their own chip foundries, that they’d all still work at the same factory, but that they’d have collectively funded and built the factory, and that they each individually work for themselves at the factory and share in the money they get from selling chips, then I’d agree that that’s an awesome system. It’s still not really possible under capitalism, because if that’s what you’re describing, it is actually called socialism.

I think this answer misses the mark a little bit with regards to the context of what it is about capitalism that causes so much controversy.

People who critique capitalism aren’t usually advocating for an economic system completely devoid of private ownership (though some are). They’re often raising issue with a certain type of capital ownership.

Say you’re the owner of a sprocket manufacturing corporation, and I’m a worker. You yourself don’t work, you just inherited a sprocket empire from your grandfather, who founded that sprocket empire using funds from selling his emerald mines that were worked by slaves.

I put in an honest days work 5 days a week, and in those 5 days, I produce $2000 worth of sprockets. It costs $10 per week to maintain the sprocket machines, $10 per week for electrical power to cover my sprocket making activities, $30 per week to repay the loan that was taken to build the factory, and $50 per week in other miscellaneous expenses needed to allow me to make sprockets.

That means that of the $2000 worth of sprockets I produced, $1900 of profit was generated.

You pay me a salary of $500 per week, and collect $1400 per week from my (and each other laborer’s) work.

The point of criticism is that you’re accumulating wealth, which other people had to work to produce, without doing any work yourself. You’re simply a parasitic freeloader on society because of an arbitrary concept of “ownership” over something that you don’t use personally.

Some responses to these criticisms include the following:

“You should just negotiate for a higher salary, or go work somewhere that’s paying more.”

This is the example from classical economic theory, and there are a whole handful of reasons that it doesn’t work. The voluntary exchange between a worker and a capitalist (meaning one who owns the means of production) isn’t actually (fully) voluntary. A worker who finds his working conditions unsatisfactory can’t reasonably just choose not to work. The threat of financial ruin, homelessness, and starvation act as a metaphorical gun to the head of the laborer giving the capitalist a significant negotiating advantage.

Add to this the fact that it’s been theorized and demonstrated that capitalism tends toward regulatory capture and monopoly, and you have a situation where the means of production become more and more concentrated in the hands of a group of elites, while the workers’ bargenaining power becomes weaker and weaker due to less competition in the labor market.

“The capitalist deserves the profits that they extract because of [this work that they’ve done]”

If the owner of the factory is functioning as a floor manager, they should be paid a fair salary for being a floor manager. If they’re working as a director, they are entitled to a director’s salary. These critiques of capitalism aren’t saying that there should be no hierarchy in an enterprise (though some alternatives to capitalism do call for that). Just that the only people who are entitled to the wealth from something that’s produced are those who are working to produce it.

This same thing goes for other forms of capital ownership too, by the way. Landlords are a classical example. I’ve heard it claimed that landlords are entitled to their rents because many of them work so hard at repairs and managing their properties. They’re totally entitled to be compensated for any labor they engage in, but the wealth that they extract from tenants far exceeds the value of the labor that they supply. Which is kind of the whole point of rental property, if “investors” couldn’t extract a passive income (income in excess of work performed), they wouldn’t be buying homes and then renting them out.

I don’t believe in ethical for-profit companies either.

The open nature of Android was the single biggest reason I used it for the decade that I did. If I were to switch back, I’d buy a pixel.

But android isn’t as open as it used to be. Yes, you can still unlock your bootloader, root, and install custom roms, but Google is now actively fighting against users who want to do so. On my pixel 3, it became a never-ending battle to keep apps like my banking portal working while rooted, and to keep rooting working through updates. At least once a month, I’d be out of the house and have my phone fundamentally break in some way.

Eventually, I reached the point where I needed a smartphone as a tool more than I needed one as a toy to tinker with, so I left it stock. But stock android sucks from a privacy perspective. I realized that I wasn’t using 3rd party App Stores and I wasn’t rooting my phone, so the largest benefits of avoiding an iPhone weren’t really a factor to me anymore.

I was also extremely disappointed in the hardware, quality control and longevity of new android phones, especially compared to the iPhones being released. So I switched. And was amazed at how glad I was.

No police showed up to my door to force me to trade my Sony headphones in for AirPods or my Dell laptop for a MacBook. I already had an iPad because at the time, it was the only serious tablet of you care about using a stylus, but that had been working beautifully for me without any other apple products.

I think it’s silly to list the fact that an OEM has a ton of products that work well together as a reason not to buy any of that company’s products. If you don’t want to get locked in, don’t buy an Apple Watch. As far as I know, nothing else requires an iPad. And anyway, the resale value on apple products is so solid that if you did totally buy in, selling all your apple hardware would get you more than enough to buy matching hardware of a similar age from other manufacturers. Sell your two year old iPad and you can probably get 3 two year old Samsung tablets, assuming you can find any that still work.

The web browser thing also hardly locks you in. If you really don’t want to use safari, that’s a decent reason not to want to use iOS. For me at least, safari is the browser I would choose to use, so I don’t really care that I can’t use Firefox.

Probably my fault you didn’t see this because it was buried deep in the wall of text, but I clarified that I’m definitely not trying to morally exculpate Apple.

In the context of which of two companies you choose to do business with, you shouldn’t criticize one while ignoring the immoral actions of the other. If we’re just talking about the things apple does wrong, I’m right there with you. But if we’re talking about which mobile phone ecosystem is less predatory than the other… at least my relationship with apple is a voluntary business arrangement with exactly two parties. That’s actually the reason I moved all of my stuff out of the android ecosystem in ‘21 after >10 years. Seeing ads across a dozen websites related to a private medical diagnosis made me realize Google just knows too much about me, and I do care about my privacy after all.

That’s obviously just my personal opinion but my point is that if you’re looking for an ethical tech company, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

That’s interesting, but it’s hardly what I was imagining based on what the user I replied to was saying.

The source linked quoted an Apple exec explaining that the cost/benefit analysis of building a piece of free software on a platform that generates them no revenue doesn’t justify them spending the resources to build the software.

I get it, we all want corporations to be benevolent entities that give us free software out of the kindness of their hearts, but if we’re going to criticize one of them for not doing so, I think it’s more clear-minded to criticize the system as a whole.

Why in the world would anyone expect Apple to spend development resources building iMessage for Android (for free), especially if they’ve determined that it will hurt user retention? Because we want them to? It sucks, but not like “evil mega-corp manipulating users” sucks, more like “corporation making decision that literally every other for-profit corporation would make in that situation” sucks.

I’m not trying to morally justify it, I’m strictly speaking in the context of “use products from x instead of y because y did bad thing”. In that context, that’s a bad argument if it’s true that x is just as anti-user as y is.

And if we’re specifically talking about using Apple products vs using Google products here, you’d have to be taking crazy pills to think that Apple is more anti-user than a company who’s entire business model is the commoditization of vast amounts of personal data gathered for the purpose of more effectively manipulating literally everyone, including non-users of their products, into increasing their consumption.

That’s some real salt there buddy.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but ‘apple hardware and software is objectively inferior’ isn’t much of one.

It’s especially disingenuous to present those opinions like they’re established fact, when they definitely aren’t. You may not think that Apple is particularly innovative or that their UX is particularly good, but I think you’d definitely be in the minority there, especially outside of niche online communities filled with people with an axe to grind.

I’m pretty close to being as much of a power user as someone can be within the use case that I have for general purpose computing. I also feel like I probably know the mobile/desktop software space better than the average person on the street, I’m a SWE by trade.

I honestly think that the gap between the UI/UX design on Apple software and the UI/UX design on windows in particular, but android to a lesser extent, is the most compelling reason to use apple. And I also think it’s ridiculously out of touch to claim that Apple’s innovation’s (especially in hardware) aren’t significantly better executed and consistent than the competition. Sure, they don’t throw every half-baked idea into every new product they release, only to abandon that idea in 18 months for a new batch of experiments. I think that’s one of the reasons Apple users like Apple products. Personally, I’m not buying a phone because I want to spend two weeks trying out a bunch of gimmicks and then never using them again unless I’m showing my friends the cool thing my phone can do.

But, of course those are my subjective opinions and I’m not faulting you for disagreeing. There are people out there who thing Outlook is good UX, and they’re entitled to that opinion lol. But I do think it’s a little silly to disagree in a way that makes it obvious that you think that anyone who disagrees with you has no idea what they’re talking about.

Source?

Consumers used to expect their phones to be attached to the wall with a wire, the market innovated, now their expectations are different.

… which is exactly what I just said, but you’re apparently dead set on interpreting every bit of information you run into in a way that supports your worldview, which honestly is consistent with your whole argument here.

You presumably have access to the internet, you’re capable of doing 10 minutes of research for yourself to find the numerous phones released in the past 5 years that have easily serviceable batteries. I could not care less if you do so or not. I’ve had this exact conversation half a dozen times, I already know what that list will look like. If you want to know what the list looks like, you can do the work yourself, I don’t care either way.

The s21 ultra has more mAh per cubic mm of phone, which is a more explicit way to say more battery in a smaller size. Regardless of that, the fact that you’re resorting to pedantry shows me that you know that you can’t respond to my point in a meaningful way. I claimed that sealing smartphone internals allows manufacturers to fit larger batteries in smaller form factors, the fact that a phone with a 30% larger battery is 5% bigger than another phone isn’t a refutation if that.

There’s plenty of competition globally, but less so in the US. Regardless, there was a ton of competition when smartphones first started having sealed internals. Interestingly, the two manufacturers that leaned the hardest into sealing the biggest possible battery in the smallest possible footprint are the two manufacturers that currently dominate the market, which is another point against you.

5 years was an arbitrary number highlighting the fact that manufactures are trying to make phones more repairable within the same dimensional constraints, which would not be the case if they had an agenda to force people to upgrade by making phones less repairable. Again, your only response to my argument is pedantry.

And finally, thanks for yet another wildly off-base assumption. I’m a 32 year old SWE who works in mobile app development. I’ve had probably a dozen android phones over the past 15 years. I could enthrall you with anecdotes about how much more durable a modern iPhone is than any flagship android phone that’s been made, but I don’t have to. There are plenty of reasonably high quality drop tests that paint an objective picture.

Smartphones are immeasurably better than they were in the past. They’re faster, have multiple days of battery life, have incredible displays, and vastly better software.

I am certain that you don’t use smartphones in any way that’s more demanding than the way I use smartphones, so you can take that whole condescending monologue and shove it right back where it came from.

Except it’s not, you just live in an echo chamber where people endlessly repeat the misconception that the average consumer as any interest in replacing their own battery. They don’t. Marketers aren’t manipulating millions of people into thinking they don’t, either.

If companies like Apple wanted to force people to upgrade, all they would have to do is stoop to the level of the competition by not offering 6 years of OS upgrades on new phones. Or they could not offer first-party, warrantied battery replacements for ~90 dollars. Honestly, apple constantly goes out of their way to make their devices last longer than the competition, and still the bigbrains on Internet forums walk around with their heads in the sand.

You go ahead and do you homie, nobody is going to be able to change your mind from something you’re so desperate to believe.

Of course they don’t, I’m not saying anything about what phone companies communicate, I’m talking about what they do.

The smartphone market is extremely competitive, they are very highly motivated to find the most efficient way to engineer a device that maximizes consumers’ purchasing preferences.

A world class product team produces a design that matches customers’ preferences according to world class market research. World class engineers figure out how to maximize features that satisfy those preferences. That virtually always involves trade-offs.

When one company does a better job of maximizing features that match consumer demands, their market share goes up.

When a company focuses on maximizing features that a vocal minority of users want, they struggle to move units.

It’s not some conspiracy to provide inferior products, it’s just capitalism being capitalism. Companies make what people will buy.