On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 12:09 PM coshvji cujmlqef via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Let's delve into some fundamental economics, my friend. Small companies often struggle to thrive in a competitive landscape. When large companies increase their organic composition, it tends to reduce the socially necessary labor time, leading to a decrease in the prices of goods. Consequently, small companies can lose surplus value to their larger counterparts, who benefit from super profits at the expense of smaller businesses.
>
> It's worth noting that there are exceptions, such as Google, which has shown a willingness to break ABI compatibility. Nevertheless, even Google has numerous sections of code that must remain unaltered. In contrast, it appears that Microsoft is quite cautious about breaking ABIs.

... how does that address anything Ville said?

Here's what you don't understand: *everybody* is hurt by an ABI break.
But as with any generalized economic harm, larger, higher-wealth
entities are better equipped to survive such harm. An ABI break that
requires Apple to spend $10 million to rewrite parts of its stack
would be a bad thing for them. They don't want to spend that money if
they don't have to. But.. they do *have* that money to spend. So the
circumstance would be bad-but-survivable.

A small company that takes in $3 million annually in revenue that's
dependent on some binary-only library might only have to spend
$500,000 to rewrite it in the event of an ABI break. But unlike Apple,
they don't have that much money lying around. So their company breaks.