I get that people have a handful of reasons why they would prefer that the headphone jack sticks around.
But do you think that in 10 years, and if not that, in 100 years, that the headphone jack will still be the primary interface?
And if the answer is no, that will not be the case, and we are ready to move on today, what's wrong for a company to move on? There will always be tradeoffs in the short term, but the vector of this movement is clearly down the path of no headphone jack.
Your original outburst began with negativity and calling names. I pointed that out, and it turned into a conversation of whether comments that have consensus are good advice. And certainly, even comments that have consensus can violate the HN guidelines.
People are free to choose how to use their own time.
Seems like there's a few things going on here. It is possible to make a moral statement on minimal information, as you did. It's not very a helpful or useful statement, but there isn't much helpful or useful input either. With more information, what the most moral thing to do, especially regarding the business, would change.
The question is really what constitutes good advice. I suppose it turns out good advice also varies to what is being sought, and why. Maybe someone wants a better answer, maybe reassurance, maybe validation. With more data, we can provide a more objective assessment of the consequences of different actions. Of course, unfortunately, we are not provided any of that here. You can certainly offer your subjective preference to take the moral/consensus action as advice. This advice, as we discussed, is not necessarily effective, and perhaps already known. If what is being sought is objective advice, in that dimension, with only minimal information, the best thing to offer is relevant experience.
Anyone can post any "advice' here. I explicitly stated that the class of advice you gave is not actionable or helpful. Not only is #5 not a particularly strong position, but the point I'm making is that statements that people have consensus about don't necessarily make advice that creates effective results.
You are so tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad, that you are missing how the business is an entirely different entity. There are employees, customers, and investors all potentially affected by this outcome. In the case of a breakup, there is potentially a greater moral obligation to create the best result for the other parties, than just fixate on the betrayal of the victim.
Not to mention your idea of this requiring moral punishment is not something that would draw consensus on HN, or in general. That is your fantasy, not reality.
No, you certainly can't speak for me. I have no empathy or relevant experience regarding betrayal, I simply wanted to point out how your response was more irrational than rational.
You are right the majority consensus is betraying your buddy is bad. But do you see how without details, it's not possible to give actionable and helpful advice? You are parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice. Certainly most people already know this, and yet this sort of situation is not uncommon. Maybe this advice isn't producing meaningful results? The fact is you don't know, because you don't have the relevant experience.
That's the first part of your advice. The second part is about deciding company ownership, and that's even more irrational, it doesn't really follow or is related to this relationship.
The problem is that this is your subjective interpretation of what YOU think the consensus is. This is what you think other people think is wrong. Why should someone on this board believe that your conclusions about the consensus are accurate, reliable, or valid? No one is interested in sorting that out. In contrast, the best information to offer here is experience, AKA a data point. Fundamentally your input here is suboptimal.
It's also really clear that what the consensus may be here would vary a ton by the actual situation:
1. Was the original relationship happy? Would the consensus be against this if it were an abusive relationship?
2. Was it just a casual girlfriend, or were they engaged?
3. Was the OP intentionally trying to seduce the girl, or did it just happen that they recognized it was a better pairing?
The reality is the consensus WILL differ based on the situation. There are a ton of shades here, but you fixated on the idea of "betrayal", as if all things with this pattern were uniformly bad. That's clearly not true, and there is simply not enough data for you to overfit and then moralize.
It's fine to use intuition, but it's extremely important to be able to reflect and recognize on its shortcomings, which is that you may be inadvertently layering your own subjectivity on what you think is objective. In this case your outburst is not valid.
Is forcing yourself on another person immoral? Yes. Is intentionally manipulating someone's relationship for personal gain immoral? Yes. Are two people recognizing they would be happier together, and leaving a previous relationship immoral? That doesn't seem wrong.
You are the one coloring this scenario as "stealing". There is no information here about who these people are, what their relationships are like. You are projecting onto this situation and constructing this strawman, and in turn moralizing about the strawman. That isn't reality.
3. How you subjectively feel about the majority consensus.
4. How the OP subjectively feels about the majority consensus.
In this case, there was not sufficient information given to really understand what the majority consensus is. Additionally, just because something is the consensus, doesn't mean it is necessarily the best course of action individually. Facing condemnation is a consequence, not physical law. The initial response took no time to give an appropriate course of action, and drew on your subjective heated feelings attached to your interpretation of the consensus.
Good point, people were speculating that the innards would be swappable, but actually it looks like the model is that you keep the band, but swap the watchpiece.
So when V2 comes out in 2 years, you keep your $400 band, and just pay $500 for the watchpiece.
We should look at the bigger picture though, past our subjective preferences.
Lyft/Uber should be exciting from a business perspective to the HN community because it represents a business model that has been uniquely enabled by changes in the landscape. Ten years ago, this business wouldn't work, but the rise of the smartphone, and then GPS implicitly enabled this entire new segment. People, for better or worse, no longer need to be trained taxi drivers to drive people around the city because of smartphone GPS.
The more interesting conversation is about how this trend could have been anticipated.
>in realizing that there may actually be value in some of the BSing
I don't know if this is the conclusion to take away. The OP of this topic is an example of where meaning and relevance does exist for design decisions, and can lead to a very thoughtful conclusion.
The Pepsi one, in contrast, is just applying as many functions/transforms on a problem, and hoping some of the results look OK.
The mistake here is that you are conflating your subjective preference with reality. You are implicitly evaluating something against your own context, but to understand why twitter,etc are successful, you need to ask questions about what OTHER people value, and why they do it.
I understand how a watch guy would have strong feelings about the emotions and ideas behind a watch. But I think he is missing the greater context.
When an object has a permanence in utility and form, we have a certain relationship with it. This is the kind of emotion and relationship we have with watches. But the world changes, and very soon it will be competing against a different type of relationship. Our relationship with wearables may be skewed more to utility than heirloom. But that's OK because wearables represent the mesh of software with hardware, and software gives the ability to evolve. We will no longer have the singular relationship with one watch, but a broad relationship with a series of evolving wearables that slowly become more and more essential to our lives.
So no, we won't have the same emotions and same relationship with wearables as we did with watches. But that's just where the universe will be going.
While most posts are touching on privacy or failure cases, I am still struggling to understand this product from a social perspective. First of all, this general idea has been floating around since companies like loopt, when mobile started taking off. I remember working through the use case considerations for this kind of product, and that's where it really dies.
This breed of product is based on the idea that location = event. If someone is at a location, that means something is going on. But it ignores massive implicit social constructs: 1. Facebook friends are not real friends (Circles is slightly better but classification is onerous), 2. Someone you don't know well is unlikely to share their location to you, and less likely to agree to hang out based on location, in contrast someone you do know well, you will easily be aware of their location and availability.
The reality is that this product captures one piece of information - where is my friend right now. But on any serious reflection, you should be able to discern that this piece of information is incredibly secondary to the nature of the actual relationship when determining whether or not to hang out.
Having gone through a similar process, and coming out on the other end, my impression is that it really doesn't matter which school you go to.
All that matters is how you spend your time. If you are serious about entrepreneurship, and serious about going off the beaten path (this takes some introspection, with data that may take some time to collect), then the time you spend in school is really just a minor asset.
You need to ask the question - who am I and what kind of role can/do I want to play in creating a business. And your time should be oriented to that, as opposed to spending an excessive time acing classes.
And you exemplify the kind of self-righteous person that probably spews this kind of junk daily.
The reason people work on sexting apps over curing cancer is because it is a more human problem than curing cancer. In all your tunnel-visioned dash to label problems as "hard and "worthy" you are the one that missed the forest from the trees. All people will die, and while it would be great if they could stick around a bit longer without pain, the biggest difference is how people spend their lives today. If they can spend it connecting with other people they care about, and derive meaning from that, that is a thousandfold more compelling problem.
It's not that other people don't have their incentives and values right, it's that you don't recognize them.