From watching his videos, he's an Apple guy for his personal devices, though his server infrastructure (and also the bulk of the devices he reviews and experiments with ) are Linux machines.
Internet influencers - nothing against this one, I like his videos, I think I got JetKVM because of one video - are a persona which is different from their person. They sell something in their videos and do things in videos that are different from their true self. Videos are primarily done to drive more subscribers. I don't dispute that he might be an exception but he has >1M subscribers which makes being authentic and not driven by audience difficult.
Take LTT as an extreme example.
[Edit] I'm not judging Jeff or saying this is good or bad.
I use Linux as a daily driver, write and modify kernel (mainline and out of tree) and userspace drivers, have reverse engineered various things. ie beyond most of the HN peanut gallery. That said I use an iPhone because I have a day job and nothing “open” is worth dealing with.
I use Linux as a daily driver, using it on servers since 1991 (or 92 whenever boot.tgz/root.tgz was released), have been coding for 45 years, started several successful open source projects, wrote a full text search engine in Java in the 90s before there was Lucene, wrote the core Wiki markup engine that powered Atlassian Confluence for quite some time, because Mike asked me. That said I use a Google Pixel because - after decades of using Apple (from first iBook G3, first MacBook, first iPhone, first iPod, iPod nano, first iPad, Xserve, Xsan, iMac Pro and on and on an on) I left the Apple ecosystem when Steve died - to me Apple feels too constraining.
Not sure what that exchange was for, but I like it!
PS: Not a native speaker, don't know what "HN peanut gallery" means. But I like peanuts, though I think Peanuts are overrated. Though sometimes our dog looks like Snoopy, when her ears are flying.
So, this wasn’t a dick sizing contest about who contributes to open source. The point is there is a certain extent I will go to maintain my ideals of using certain systems and it is more than average even for here (the peanut gallery), and on par with the influencer in question, ie I can relate regardless of their “inauthentic” persona. Most people, even those that consider themselves “enthusiasts”, simply won’t go to the effort of reverse engineering or writing drivers - if it were the case there would be a much larger ecosystem of high quality drivers and a larger pool of contributors. I am in that minority and still use an iPhone, and I don’t have a subscriber count.
2. A google pixel isn’t meaningfully more open than an iPhone (I depend on functionality that would be unavailable if rooted). This wasn’t meant to be an iPhone vs android debate. For the purposes of this discussion they are equivalent.
"inauthentic" is your judgement based on your values. My post was not about judgement, just about explaining what I think happens with influencers. Your reply was based on your perception and assumptions, not on what I said it feels. Most influencers use Apple if using Graphene doesn't drive subscribers.
"reverse engineering or writing drivers"
When I encountered Linux I was already too old to be interested in that kind of things. But I did disassemble C/PM code. I was interested in blue boxing, cracking of games, infinite life reverse engineering and hacking in the 80s though.
"For the purposes of this discussion they are equivalent."
Again it feels like you made some assumptions about me and what I wanted to say which are just that, assumptions.
You literally said: “They sell something in their videos and do things in videos that are different from their true self. ”
“Inauthentic” was I still think a close enough reference paraphrase of your statement.
Not a value judgement. You even used the word "authentic" in your thesis. And in general I wouldn’t necessarily disagree but I don’t see how it is necessarily related to their choice of personal devices.
An internet celeb probably doesn’t use GrapheneOS because the limitations sucks for most people, not because of some calculated subscriber count play.
If you use an unrooted Pixel, why are we even having this conversation, and if not.. well maybe the dude just wants to use a secure wallet.
Regardless of this influencer's "real life" persona I see nothing incongruent about even their "influencer" persona using an iPhone.
Therefore I see no relevance to anything in your original comment.
Yes I did, and you called that "inauthentic" based on your value system. I'm not a native speaker but in German "inauthentic" (unauthentisch) would not be considered a neutral description.
"So, this wasn’t a dick sizing contest"
You can say "I didn't intend this a dick sizing contest" but you can't say "This wasn't a dick sizing contest".
Again this is based on your judgement.
I like both Jeff and Apple products, but this does seem a pretty ... odd ... thing to say within the context of his audience. A normal person wouldn't bat an eye but the kind of people watching Jeff Geerling videos will probably have some strong opinions about it
Apple portable hardware is unparalleled. Linux is what runs the internet.
For now, my old gaming PC runs as a Linux server hosting all my dev services and home lab projects and my MacBook is where I work with them and build apps that consume them.
It would be nice to have the server setup mirrored on a laptop I could take places with me.
This was a spectacular fumble to watch in real time. Apple panicked and rushed Apple Intelligence out of the door.
There's a nagging feeling in the back of my head because Apple Marketing was very very convincing. If they did this with vaporware, how much are they stretching the truth with other features? Lived experience tells us that Apple products are good, but I wonder whether the ads for Apple Watch, and Airpods .. oversell what's really possible.
Also, it is fascinating to read comments here on HN that say Apple is "strategically sitting AI out".
Something I've always found funny is when Apple creates a technology that can be used for malicious purpose, it is a user error. But when another company creates something that has adverse effect, it is the company's fault.
Here's a thought experiment
Meta creates Instagram leading to anxiety and mindless scrolling - Meta bad
OpenAI creates ChatGPT leading to jobloss and AI slop - OpenAI bad
Apple creates Airtag leading to IRL stalking - ???
I know Tim Cook is still the CEO, but I'm sure this was done with JT's approval. So much for Apple leaning more into hardware. They are never gonna let go for that sweet sweet recurring revenue.
More likely they would buy the assets of AI companies for pennies on the dollar. There could be a lot of H100s floating around at fire sale prices. Or they would acquire these companies for talent.
Google did this for several years in the early 2000s – snapping up talent and data center capacity from the casualties of the dotcom bust.
What will they do with all that H100s? They dont O&O any data centers. AFAIK, Apple uses GCP for iCloud.
Also, remember H100 will be ~years old. Sometimes I wonder whether the average HN crowd really thinks through things.
Apple has historically shown an unwillingness to deploy capital to "own" things. They partner with TSMC for manufactoring, they get their panels from Samsung, Google on Gemini ..
Vertically integrated doesnt mean they "make" everything, but instead partners build things to their specification.
For the same reason that Yahoo should have bought Google after the dot-com bust. AI is useful and will eventually change the world. Many companies won't be able to provide sufficient returns, but will still have useful assets that Apple could buy at a discount.
> Previously, content would appear in Google Search, visitors would come in, and creators could earn revenue through ads, courses, or other products. But now Google can answer directly through AI Overviews, making it harder for content creators to survive independently.
This isnt a Google issue. Users are asking for it - ChatGPT and Perplexity did it first and it'd be crazy for Google not to do that.
You could argue Google being late to LLMs were a good thing, and once they were forced to play the game, they played
This makes sense from a financial perspective. But Google’s main service became centralized and convenient because it acted as the traffic gateway of the web. The moral question is a different matter.
Suppose an electricity utility builds the power grid, and many businesses build their operations around that grid. Then later, the utility uses its privileged position in the grid to directly replace the businesses that depended on it. Would that be morally acceptable? It may be correct from a business perspective, but that does not automatically make it good for the whole ecosystem.
In a capitalist society, companies are pressured to create new cash cows, enter adjacent markets, and even perform self-disruptive innovation in the interest of shareholders. This may be one such case. But whether that benefits the overall ecosystem is a separate question.
Users want free content.
Users want services without ads.
Users want fast summaries.
Users want answers without reading the original source.
Those desires are natural. But if producers cannot remain sustainable under those desires, then the long-term quality of information may collapse.
Google can preserve revenue through AI Overviews, while creators may lose revenue. The problem is that AI Overviews occupy a large container near the top of the results page and hide or push down the sources users would otherwise visit. In other words, the UX design emphasizes Google’s AI answer while making external sites less visible.
It is true that content creators now have to compete with Google’s AI Overview. But this competition is asymmetric.
From the company’s perspective, and from the shareholder perspective, Google’s decision may be correct. They are far smarter than I am. But it is still unclear whether Google will remain unharmed if the ecosystem that feeds it is gradually destroyed.
> Suppose an electricity utility builds the power grid, and many businesses build their operations around that grid. Then later, the utility uses its privileged position in the grid to directly replace the businesses that depended on it. Would that be morally acceptable?
This analogy is incorrect. If someone wants to use bing.com, they just have to type b-i-n-g.com. You chose an example with high barrier to entry. So if the utility behaves poorly, the consumer cant switch.
Google did none of that.
You dont like google? go to ddg, bing, ..
You dont like google maps? use apple maps ..
You dont like youtube? .. go to tiktok, fb reels, and if you're a creator, upload it elsewhere.
---
You can say that Apple does a fantastic job of removing altnernatives. You dont like Apple Airpods? Good luck buying Sony to work the same way as Airpods with your iPhone.
People do not usually type a specific alternative into the address bar. They use the search widget on their phone or the default search box in their browser. How much does Google pay Apple every year to maintain that default position?
A technical barrier and a distribution barrier are not the same thing.
From the way you are arguing, I suspect you may be connected to Google in some way.
To be clear, I do think Google is a good company in many respects.
But let me make my point seriously.
TikTok may be the place for short dopamine-driven content, but lectures and reviews are still mostly on YouTube. And YouTube was strengthened by Google’s broader market power and distribution position.
I think we should look at this not only from the consumer side, but also from the supplier side.
You seem to be treating vendor lock-in too lightly.
You say users can “just” switch. But when there is a dominant router, “just switching” is much harder than it sounds.
Search is a two-sided market. Google controls the overwhelming majority of search traffic. From the supplier’s perspective, saying “just go to Bing or DuckDuckGo” is almost like telling them to shut down their business, because the audience is not there.
I am not denying your point of view. In fact, I partially agree with it. But you are not considering the supplier side at all.
> People do not usually type a specific alternative into the address bar.
I dont get thsi argument at all. When I walk into Safeway, Coke products are kept in the front of the store and Pepsi products are at the back of the store. Coke probably paid Safeway a bunch of money for this to happen, and you could argue people will pick up Coke more than Pepsi based on this. How can you argue Coke is "evil" / "bad" / "monopolistic" based on this? It is Safeway's choice who to get the money from. If anything, I'd argue Safeway is being a little naughty here.
> TikTok may be the place for short dopamine-driven content, but lectures and reviews are still mostly on YouTube. And YouTube was strengthened by Google’s broader market power and distribution position.
I disagree. YouTube's position was strengthed by creators who uploaded there by their own free will. YouTube didnt pay anyone to do that. Again, to use an analogy, it'll be like saying most software dont have a Linux variant and always seem to have Mac version. Indepedant, rational actors decide to favor Mac, and for that Apple is bad? What should Apple do here - tell creators that you cant publish on App Store unless you create a Linux / Windows version?
> Search is a two-sided market. Google controls the overwhelming majority of search traffic. From the supplier’s perspective, saying “just go to Bing or DuckDuckGo” is almost like telling them to shut down their business, because the audience is not there.
What do you mean? How is searching for 'new york times' on bing.com or ddg.com bad for nyt? bing, ddg, google are all search engines - and they all surface the same information / sites. People seem to prefer (whether by habit or by preference) to Google. But Google isnt saying "if you are on Google Search, you cant be on Bing or DDG) It isnt exclusive, you know?
> This product was incredibly ambitious but the real miss was the market fit for what they were targeting.
Why is it that Apple gets 'participation' brownie points? When a movie flops, we dont go like 'The project was incredibly ambitious, but the market fit was bad' - We just say that 'it is a bad movie because nobody watched / liked it'.
Huh? Just because a movie flops at the box office doesn't necesssarily mean it's bad. There a plenty of examples of movie flops that later became cult classics.
If I remember correctly, Office Space did particularly poorly at the box office but it’s totally a cult classic that I’m sure a good chunk of this community has watched.
Shawshank Redemption is much better example of this IMO... Absolute bomb at the BO that ended up being not just a classic but won like a millions Oscars as well
What phone and laptop does Jeff use?
reply