Title makes it sound like Search shrunk, but it's rather everything else grew drastically, especially Cloud. This diversification is generally a good sign, but investors still seem to panic.
Is it really devastation? It's not like Search shrinked, it's that everything else grew so much. Yes, the landscape is shifting, but Google now has multiple legs to stand on, which should be a good sign to investors.
You could say the same about many products, but marketing is often about not making the tiering obvious. Just try to make sense of the naming strategy of Samsung TVs, and you'll either eventually give up or go insane.
That's basically how Apple TV works and it drives me nuts.
And miss me with the "but you can use your iPhone", because that's exactly what is wrong with Apple products. I don't want an iPhone, and there is absolutely no technical reason to not have a better virtual keyboard or supporting non-Apple devices as remote controls.
Tangentially related, but thinking about what to teach your kid years into the future before it's even born has a bit of an unhealthy touch to it. Take it step by step and especially don't pressure your kid with high expectations.
Regardless of making big money later or not, I find it horrible to push your kids in a direction simply because of that. They might be better off with less income but liking their job. Or like their job, become very good, and make a lot of money anyway because of that.
But maybe that's because I grew up in a place where you can make a decent living in a wide variety of jobs. Or because almost nobody in my (childhood) vicinity ever had a STEM, or even any white collar job.
For someone like me who doesn't know much about modern physics, dark matter has the vibe of a band-aid to me. Like a programmer who discovered that the algorithm was always off by 1 in the results, and just ended up returning r + 1 without thinking twice.
I'd bet a large chocolate cake that one day, physicists will discover a much more logical explanation for this unexpected behavior of matter.
Yeah, the implementors also act as representatives of the human users of software to be built. That's something which can't be automated away pretty much by definition.
The never-delegate is silly. That would mean a CEO would just vibe-code the whole product alone, which in turn would mean anyone can do it. I haven't seen this happen at any reasonable scale yet.
Engineering changes, but principles and skills still apply. Good engineers are able to switch languages, move from low to higher levels, and also move to AI-supported coding. A good software engineer is much more than a coding monkey. Although it's true that for many of them, the most fun part of the work is going away.
Well, imagine racing car manufacturers competing on making better, faster engines. At some point engines are so strong that other parts become the limiting factors, such as tires for traction. Now someone invents superfuel, but cars are still only marginally faster because the additional engine power didn't change the bottom line much.
That's what's happening in software. We knew that coding is only a fraction of the overall work, and even completely automating it away won't increase productivity by an order of magnitude.
Yes, the job is changing, but only parts of it. High-level engineering best practices still apply even without the coding part. And there is no free lunch.
That's exactly what big tech executives and AI bros don't get: It would be useful to use AI for the grudgy but verifiable sub-steps of such a task, e.g. have it help with the email search, and have it suggest a reminder. Or even better, suggest creating a reminder when receiving/reading the email. But leave the user in control, and provide evidence and transparency. Instead, many companies put their bets on the long-shot, do-it-all assistent AI, but technology is just not there yet, or maybe never will even.
That's true, although having 19° inside when it's 30° outside is bad for several reasons. My office (in Europe) gets cooled down in summer to like 23°, and that's already inconvenient when wearing appropriate summer clothes. And no one is expected to wear formal clothing.
I first read the title as "oldest letter", and kept waiting for an explanation or twist in the article, getting increasingly confused. I just felt like sharing this, thanks for reading my comment.
The obsession with ACs in some places (or rather people I guess) is something I will never sympathize with. Just wear reasonable clothes for the weather, no need to cool down below 20° C. And yes, I'm going to die on that hill.
6/230 seems closer to 3%. And while the number is relatively low, it seems to be a niche where they might lose customers to other platforms. It must have been unprofitable/very expensive to maintain that they killed it.
OTOH, it's Apple, so users would rather buy a bigger iPhone and complain than switching brands (see other comments here), in which case Apple loses nothing.
There's a lot of truth to this: Execs want their own use case covered. In addition, everyone wants to be better than the competition at basic use cases, because that's what people compare first - even though we all know they are not a good reflection of reality.
I'm currently working on exactly a project like this.
Google also has millions of lines of code in several languages written over decades. Probably access to more non-public (quality) code than most other companies in the world.
Most devs choosing Macbooks has a lot to do with culture. It's boutique, cool, and all the other successful people have it. Yes, officially it's always for technical reasons, but no one would ever admit to get something just because it's shiny.