[garretraziel]

Perhaps computer resources are cheaper than developer time spent on optimizations.

[kasabali]

Computer resources aren't cheaper, they're externalized (to users, environment, etc.)

[tatersolid]

This is definitely not true for the client-side software under discussion. Millions of devices requiring more resources and energy. The problem is that’s an externality to the developer.

[dzhiurgis]

> energy

My MacBook Pro M1 16" seems to be averaging about 13 watts of power, about the same as previous i7. My house idles at around 200 watts (lots of smart devices, etc). Hardly worth obsessing over it.

[Rotundo]

They are not, if you consider all the instances of the bloatware running.

How many users does Spotify have? Multiply that by the 79GB mentioned above. Is it still cheaper?

[estimator7292]

Irrelevant because Spotify doesn't pay for, nor do they have to care about user's resources.

If a user doesn't have enough ram to use Spotify, Spotify doesn't care. That user canceling their service is lost in the normal user churn. Spotify most likely has no idea and doesn't care if resource wastage affects their customers. It isn't an immediate first-order impact on their bottom line so it doesn't matter

[razoorka]

But let’s agree, that you will not be able to scale just with resources forever. Basically AI already struggles because of lack of resources

[antonvs]

I don’t agree. AI is a special case that has nothing to do with what you’re talking about. AI uses a lot of resources because we don’t currently know any other way to implement it, not because it’s been developed to optimize for other factors.

[estimator7292]

This is antithetical to capitalism's founding principles. Resources (profit potential) will always increase unbounded forever. That's the only way the scam works