His source doesn't verify anything, beyond the fact that you can't trust so-called "news" websites to report even press releases accurately.
Read the original press release here, and decide for yourself if "given the fact, that they can not be found in any AppStore list and are very likely to be overseen by the search engine, these apps hardly generate any download" = "2/3's of the apps in Apple's App Store have never been downloaded"
I just got home from the office. You do know that the world has different time zones, right? Why is the fact that the earth revolves around the sun so difficult for some people?
I found your attempt at snark and - ah, just as I guessed, a blog / "news" site post that misrepresents the content of the Adeven press release. I'll leave it to you to use your superior Google skills to find the original source (hint: try searching for the quotes I used in my original comment).
I thought about that, and came to the conclusion it sounded like BS.
So I googled around, and the closest I could come up with is a recent press release from a new advertising metrics / mobile analytics startup that is - surprise, surprise! - pushing their own AppStore analysis tool.
And that report doesn't say "never been downloaded" at all - it says (to paraphrase their press release) that only 1/3 of the apps hold a rank in the top 300 of their category (43 categories), and the other 2/3 don't rank "any visible position at all" (i.e. they're not in the top 300), and surmise from that figure that "these apps hardly generate any downloads".
Bit of a jump from that to your claim of "never been downloaded", isn't it?
I wont give the marketing scum's name or website - if anyone wants to find the original details they can google for themselves, follow the trail back to the source, and read the original press release.
1. $50,000 is not a high amount and doesn't require corporate donations. I've seen missionaires collect more money from friends and family than that. 2. Why are you posting to Slashdot about this? I may not like ABC's position, but have no control over it. 3. Why did Slashdot accept this? They aren't even close to their mission statement on this
That's not "a couple problems". It's THREE problems.
No, he's right. There are a couple of problems (1 & 2) with the OPs story.
How about they jam their "social API" up their arse, and use the now-free developer time to maintain feature users want?
Or, at the very least, those developers could be retrained and fruitfully employed. Testing cluebats on the Mozilla community co-ordinators & technical evangelists - who would rather gaslight people with different opinions than listen to them - might occupy a few...
Sitting through 90 minute suck-fests can be an enjoyable way of spending an afternoon out at the movies, or a lazy night in front of the TV. But it's almost impossible to do these days - all they seem to make is 210 minute suck-fests...
Fair enough - I should've probably said "people", not "you" specifically.
But from an engineering viewpoint, Apple's pentalobe screw seems to have quite a few features - shallow tool head depth, maximum tool contact surface, no sharp corners (weak spots), fairly large tool self-centreing zone, and less likely to be damaged from cam-out - which are advantageous for tiny machine-inserted screws.
When they started appearing on the iPhone 4, my first thought was "that's quite an elegant design solution to the typical problems of small screws" (e.g. heads large enough to be strong but that also require a fairly large recess / countersink; )
No one else uses it. Most likely because it isn't any better. It only serves to sell new tools, or have some people that would otherwise have done their own repairs to take it to an authorized repair shop. The tamper resistant torx would have done the same.
The original Torx design was invented & patented in the late 60's; the patent ran out in the mid-90's (they tried to separately patent Torx TR but couldn't). In between, people said exactly the same thing about it.
Funny how "evil" becomes "good" as soon as you can buy a screwdriver for it. Would you be complaining about Apple's Evil Screws if they'd used Torx Plus, which are still patented?
The parent is largely right, but from a pessimistic viewpoint.
1) The species concept, as taught in high school, of "a group of individuals that can interbreed & produce viable offspring", is a gross oversimplification. 2) Individual organisms lie along a continuum. Humans draw boundary lines on that continuum and define a "species" as the individuals that lie between two adjacent boundary lines. 3) Why? Because (a) that's what we like to do, and (b) it's often useful. 4) Why (b)? Because if groups of organisms are morphologically & functionally equivalent down to the smallest detail that we care about, you may as well bundle them together & treat them the same (i.e. as the same species). 5) Why is the concept of "species" seemingly so flexible? Because we keep discovering more & moving the goalposts established in Point 4
India. Africa. South America. Places where people have already "innovated" their own money exchanges, payment transfer, & order fulfillment systems based on nothing more than plain ol' text messaging.
You want to see what they can come up with in the way of improved ad-hoc decentralised systems like that, & the software to support it? Wait until they get their hands on a cheap phone with smartphone-like features.
(That said, the article is bullshit; nothing more than the usual 'Mozilla is a dynamic organisation identifying horizontally-integrated market opportunities!" fluff that comes up everytime anything with a different browser in is launched...)
We can't even manage Holocene Park properly - the dominant animal at the top of the food chain runs rampant, destroying everything in its sight, and is starting to escape its confines and invade neighbouring locations - and you want to start on Pleistocene Park?
It means you want to provide something for nothing. You want to run a website that costs money to operate, but you do not want to pay for it.
It's not stealing. It's not a crime. But it is childish and hypocritical.
"But I want them to see my content." waa, waa. The grown up, principled thing to do would be to stop expecting people to pay for your wants.
That's okay though. Everybody wants someone else to pay. But the old "I can't afford it" or "I'm providing a benefit, I shouldn't have to pay" or "my content is important, and a little ad or 2 saves having to restrict it to people who will pay me directly" is just unprincipled crap. Just admit you want to don't want to pay for your actions rather than coming up with ridiculous rationalizations.
Incorporated in Delaware; headquartered in NYC; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ; the chairman/CEO (Murdoch), president/COO (Carey), CFO (DeVoe), and about 1/2 the rest of the board are US citizens; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ...
No there isn't - that's there is not much more than a shitty 'feature' table, too high level to be anything other than facile, which is "Based on [the author's] own user experience and research".
As an student user of all 3 I would have been interested in reading a good comparative review or explanation aimed at outsiders. This ain't it; it's just more slashvertising.
I'm with the AC on this one - I was an apprentice technician back at the time, and Tesla wasn't an unknown genius. We'd covered him in various AC theory subjects & electromechanics, and even learned of Wardenclyffe etc. His contributions, and his failings, were well known at the time,
Then that book came along, and everything changed. The first one is bordering on the batshit insane (I haven't read the second one) on how Tesla was _special_, almost _unearthly_ , and experimented with _almost magical_ powers - and associated nutjobs flocked to that like flies to a turd. And the whole story has grown like that since then.
Most likely this, plus the fact it's on pay TV (not big in Aus compared to the US; subscription rates have been hovering around 30% of households for the last 5 years), plus habit.
S1 aired 3 months later in Aus - a month after it had finished in the US - so anyone who wanted to see it quickly got into the habit of downloading it. S2 is 2/3rds over, and I only learned a week ago that Foxtel's showing it a week after the US.
I heard today that Go! (FTA channel) is about to start showing Fringe S4 soon. I didn't even know until I just looked that Movie Extra is currently showing Mad Men S5 about 2 weeks out of sync with the US. It seems that in Australia, after initially being driven by a historical combination of long delays, random schedule changes, deliberately incorrect start & finish times*, and minimal penetration of pay TV, downloading is now an entrenched habit.
(* I used to be amazed when I saw people in the US & UK complain about shows being 2~5 minutes off the scheduled start/finish time. In Australia, 15 ~ 30 minutes is not unusual by mid prime-time. Even if you record to watch later, to be reasonably (90%, not 100%) sure of seeing a program you have to pad each end by 30 minutes. Any wonder why Australians have started treating Bittorrent as a big, world-wide PVR?)
Perhaps a henna tattoo, which I believe lasts about three weeks and is completely painless.
On the back of the hand, or on the forehead?
(No, I don't believe that shit, but some people do. Worst of all is that your country would pander to them and reject such an idea outright. Sane countries would tell them to fuck off and/or get a religious exemption from voting.)
Slashdot Mirror
His source doesn't verify anything, beyond the fact that you can't trust so-called "news" websites to report even press releases accurately.
Read the original press release here, and decide for yourself if "given the fact, that they can not be found in any AppStore list and are very likely to be overseen by the search engine, these apps hardly generate any download" = "2/3's of the apps in Apple's App Store have never been downloaded"
I just got home from the office. You do know that the world has different time zones, right? Why is the fact that the earth revolves around the sun so difficult for some people?
I found your attempt at snark and - ah, just as I guessed, a blog / "news" site post that misrepresents the content of the Adeven press release. I'll leave it to you to use your superior Google skills to find the original source (hint: try searching for the quotes I used in my original comment).
Everyone else, you can all read it here.
narcc, when you eventually find it, you might notice it doesn't back up your claim that "2/3's of iOS apps have never been downloaded" at all.
Care to admit you were either misled, trolling, or deliberately lying?
In light of this comment, I'll make the following offer:
If narcc will cite his source(s), I'll follow up with the source I used for my comment above within 24 hours.
I suspect they're substantially the same, except that his source is another tech blog / news site that misrepresents the original press release.
I thought about that, and came to the conclusion it sounded like BS.
So I googled around, and the closest I could come up with is a recent press release from a new advertising metrics / mobile analytics startup that is - surprise, surprise! - pushing their own AppStore analysis tool.
And that report doesn't say "never been downloaded" at all - it says (to paraphrase their press release) that only 1/3 of the apps hold a rank in the top 300 of their category (43 categories), and the other 2/3 don't rank "any visible position at all" (i.e. they're not in the top 300), and surmise from that figure that "these apps hardly generate any downloads".
Bit of a jump from that to your claim of "never been downloaded", isn't it?
I wont give the marketing scum's name or website - if anyone wants to find the original details they can google for themselves, follow the trail back to the source, and read the original press release.
No, he's right. There are a couple of problems (1 & 2) with the OPs story.
The third is a problem with Slashdot...
How about they jam their "social API" up their arse, and use the now-free developer time to maintain feature users want?
Or, at the very least, those developers could be retrained and fruitfully employed. Testing cluebats on the Mozilla community co-ordinators & technical evangelists - who would rather gaslight people with different opinions than listen to them - might occupy a few...
Yes, but he's already got a job...
"90 minute suck-fests"? If *only* ...
Sitting through 90 minute suck-fests can be an enjoyable way of spending an afternoon out at the movies, or a lazy night in front of the TV. But it's almost impossible to do these days - all they seem to make is 210 minute suck-fests...
"Is this just Linus being Linus? Or does such outspokenness on non-technical matters reflect poorly on the Linux community that Torvalds leads?"
It's a natural result of spending too much time programming in C. You used boolean operators all the time, but forget it has no logical XOR...
Fair enough - I should've probably said "people", not "you" specifically.
But from an engineering viewpoint, Apple's pentalobe screw seems to have quite a few features - shallow tool head depth, maximum tool contact surface, no sharp corners (weak spots), fairly large tool self-centreing zone, and less likely to be damaged from cam-out - which are advantageous for tiny machine-inserted screws.
When they started appearing on the iPhone 4, my first thought was "that's quite an elegant design solution to the typical problems of small screws" (e.g. heads large enough to be strong but that also require a fairly large recess / countersink; )
The original Torx design was invented & patented in the late 60's; the patent ran out in the mid-90's (they tried to separately patent Torx TR but couldn't). In between, people said exactly the same thing about it.
Funny how "evil" becomes "good" as soon as you can buy a screwdriver for it. Would you be complaining about Apple's Evil Screws if they'd used Torx Plus, which are still patented?
The parent is largely right, but from a pessimistic viewpoint.
1) The species concept, as taught in high school, of "a group of individuals that can interbreed & produce viable offspring", is a gross oversimplification.
2) Individual organisms lie along a continuum. Humans draw boundary lines on that continuum and define a "species" as the individuals that lie between two adjacent boundary lines.
3) Why? Because (a) that's what we like to do, and (b) it's often useful.
4) Why (b)? Because if groups of organisms are morphologically & functionally equivalent down to the smallest detail that we care about, you may as well bundle them together & treat them the same (i.e. as the same species).
5) Why is the concept of "species" seemingly so flexible? Because we keep discovering more & moving the goalposts established in Point 4
Because there's at least 2 1/2 billion of them, and only 300 million Americans?
One day soon, your country is going to get its economic arse kicked by poor brown people...
India. Africa. South America. Places where people have already "innovated" their own money exchanges, payment transfer, & order fulfillment systems based on nothing more than plain ol' text messaging.
You want to see what they can come up with in the way of improved ad-hoc decentralised systems like that, & the software to support it? Wait until they get their hands on a cheap phone with smartphone-like features.
(That said, the article is bullshit; nothing more than the usual 'Mozilla is a dynamic organisation identifying horizontally-integrated market opportunities!" fluff that comes up everytime anything with a different browser in is launched...)
We can't even manage Holocene Park properly - the dominant animal at the top of the food chain runs rampant, destroying everything in its sight, and is starting to escape its confines and invade neighbouring locations - and you want to start on Pleistocene Park?
Well, yeah, what did you expect? It's an Apple article on /., so the title is almost guaranteed to be a lie.
Or are you pining for the imaginary mythical non-trolling /. of days past? If so, I've got 8 words for you:
"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."
Posting to undo "+1, Insightful" mod - I thought your .sig was your comment ;-)
It means you want to provide something for nothing. You want to run a website that costs money to operate, but you do not want to pay for it.
It's not stealing. It's not a crime. But it is childish and hypocritical.
"But I want them to see my content." waa, waa. The grown up, principled thing to do would be to stop expecting people to pay for your wants.
That's okay though. Everybody wants someone else to pay. But the old "I can't afford it" or "I'm providing a benefit, I shouldn't have to pay" or "my content is important, and a little ad or 2 saves having to restrict it to people who will pay me directly" is just unprincipled crap. Just admit you want to don't want to pay for your actions rather than coming up with ridiculous rationalizations.
How is News Corp. a foreign company?
Incorporated in Delaware; headquartered in NYC; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ; the chairman/CEO (Murdoch), president/COO (Carey), CFO (DeVoe), and about 1/2 the rest of the board are US citizens; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ ...
How much more "American" do you want it to be?
Or you could just look at the top of this screen...
"Here is a breakdown of R, Octave and Python ..."
No there isn't - that's there is not much more than a shitty 'feature' table, too high level to be anything other than facile, which is "Based on [the author's] own user experience and research".
As an student user of all 3 I would have been interested in reading a good comparative review or explanation aimed at outsiders. This ain't it; it's just more slashvertising.
I'm with the AC on this one - I was an apprentice technician back at the time, and Tesla wasn't an unknown genius. We'd covered him in various AC theory subjects & electromechanics, and even learned of Wardenclyffe etc. His contributions, and his failings, were well known at the time,
Then that book came along, and everything changed. The first one is bordering on the batshit insane (I haven't read the second one) on how Tesla was _special_, almost _unearthly_ , and experimented with _almost magical_ powers - and associated nutjobs flocked to that like flies to a turd. And the whole story has grown like that since then.
Most likely this, plus the fact it's on pay TV (not big in Aus compared to the US; subscription rates have been hovering around 30% of households for the last 5 years), plus habit.
S1 aired 3 months later in Aus - a month after it had finished in the US - so anyone who wanted to see it quickly got into the habit of downloading it. S2 is 2/3rds over, and I only learned a week ago that Foxtel's showing it a week after the US.
I heard today that Go! (FTA channel) is about to start showing Fringe S4 soon. I didn't even know until I just looked that Movie Extra is currently showing Mad Men S5 about 2 weeks out of sync with the US. It seems that in Australia, after initially being driven by a historical combination of long delays, random schedule changes, deliberately incorrect start & finish times*, and minimal penetration of pay TV, downloading is now an entrenched habit.
(* I used to be amazed when I saw people in the US & UK complain about shows being 2~5 minutes off the scheduled start/finish time. In Australia, 15 ~ 30 minutes is not unusual by mid prime-time. Even if you record to watch later, to be reasonably (90%, not 100%) sure of seeing a program you have to pad each end by 30 minutes. Any wonder why Australians have started treating Bittorrent as a big, world-wide PVR?)
Congratulations on winning the Slashdot trifecta - you managed to invoke the GPL, cite XKCD, and slashvertise your own project all in one!
On the back of the hand, or on the forehead?
(No, I don't believe that shit, but some people do. Worst of all is that your country would pander to them and reject such an idea outright. Sane countries would tell them to fuck off and/or get a religious exemption from voting.)