Potentially, but not necessarily more than they're going to spend on the work.

Maybe Apple sees it as just the right thing to do. Apple has access to enormous volumes of data that they could monetize if they wanted, but they don't. They jumped through a bunch of hoops to make Lockdown Mode that, if the user screws it up, means that everything is lost. They are unlikely to be making money on that, especially since it limits some app installations and functionality, and they're not going to get fined by anyone for not having it. There is, in fact, a real risk that someone is going to fine them for being unable to recover the data.

It's been 21 years since the Sony CD rootkit debacle and Windows still runs random shit from external sources. Is this a new thing introduced by young dipshits who don't remember the Sony CD rootkit debacle? Or is it older people who are just so fucking stupid that the only tech job they could get was being on the Windows team?

It holds a legal and fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Tim Cook rather famously told off an Apple shareholder who asked him to commit to pursuing only programs that would be profitable, saying, "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don't consider the bloody ROI."

That's just one small example by a powerful CEO after a shareholder initiative was shot down 98-2, but most companies spend money on things that reduce profits or are not profitable. Look at the sprawling HQs with fancy buildings that are set up by so many companies when they could have gone with simple brutalist architecture. There are companies that pay well because it promotes long-term stability even at the expense of short-term profits.

I get that these big companies don't deserve blind trust, but understanding what their obligations are is much more helpful than oversimplifications.

NT was fucking garbage. It was unstable and security bugs abounded. Later versions were profoundly better. I remember getting new servers on Windows 2000 and it saved me from an incredible amount of firefighting.

If even he thinks AI is dubious, you know AI is bad news.

Lol

Some industries do it. Most run on standard schedules year-round, at least in the US.

Business drive personal schedules. Bigger businesses won't shift because it complicates internal work. That means smaller, local businesses largely won't shift because they often need to match their customers' hours. The end result is that people who are expected to show up at 8:00 for work now will still have to show up for 8:00 then, even if it's two hours before sunrise.

When the version of iOS is released iPhones will be able to do everything this does, be more portable, and they have a camera for uploading photos to ask questions about. Google and Samsung phones already have that functionality. So do a lot of Chinese phones. Why would anyone buy a low end speaker that does less than the phone they already take everywhere? I cannot see how this appeals to anyone but industrial design geeks who idolize Jony Ive.

IBM is still in fine shape. The company is not losing money. Revenue did not fall off a cliff like the stock price did. If they're smart IBM can wait this out and quietly prepare for things to bounce back when the insane AI capex ends and people need something IBM is ready to provide. (But, realistically, IBM will just lay off 25,000 good people instead of putting human capital to good use as part of a long term strategy.)

I don't have time to keep track of security updates for my router, apply them, and check now and then to make sure it hasn't been compromised. Comcast has the infrastructure and people to do it all themselves. I don't have to think about it at all.

Of course it's probably the only thing Comcast can do right, but I think most people on Slashdot have heard that story a million times so I won't go there!

Grab the rope hanging from the bubble! It will pull us all up forever! We're all gonna be millionaires! Put your whole 401k into NASDAQ growth funds! YEEHAAAAAAAAAAW!

Companies want to pay CEOs high salaries. It gives the impression that the company is doing well because it can afford to pay the CEO handsomely and that the CEO is doing their job well. Which inflates share prices.

This is the blandest, most watered-down way to say "lost their job" yet. Quite nauseating.

I credit most of SpaceX's success to CEO Gwen Shotwell. She keeps things going even when Musk is off on an irrelevant tear somewhere else.

Unfortunately, Musk seems to be on a path to sabotaging her efforts. The SpaceX prospectus showed that xAI (which bought Twitter, because why not?) was the reason they posted a loss in the last fiscal year. Even with all the expenditures on Starship, SpaceX would have been profitable. Like every other major AI company, it is not at all clear that xAI can reach profitability anytime in the near future, especially since xAI is blocked from so many enterprises and doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the big three at all. As Starship production scales up, the costs are going to increase, and they need payload revenue to offset those costs. There's so much focus now on the Pez dispenser and the lunar mission that I haven't seen any hints of the conventional payload delivery version (aka, "Chomper") in a couple of years. Maybe it's being quietly worked on. I hope so, because the big space station payloads that were talked about a few years ago will need it.