Sock puppets just don't like the truth. "One or two viruses a month" is a fail. Then again, so is claiming expertise based on "subscribing to Windows IT Pro magazine". Everyone come on over and join the fun - this guy is so lame it's a hoot.
I am not a paralegal, smartass. Paralegals don't do cross-examinations in open court. Duh!
So, why don't you answer the real question - why are you attempting to push a fraudulent anti-virus solution? One that you have demonstrated by your own figures doesn't work? That's the real question - the one you have failed to answer, despite changing the topic SO many times.
The apk "hosts file security solution" is a failure. Your own posts show it. "One or two viruses a month" is a failure. And no, reading "Windows IT Pro" magazine doesn't make you a professional - paid employment in the IT field makes you a professional (and no, working the cash at McD doesn't count).
I already posted my solution - friends don't let friends use Windows.
According to your own argument, you should be encouraging everyone you know to switch from Windows, since linux and bsd are less of a target.
Look, your attempts to pimp your host-based "security solution" aren't working. It didn't work back in 1995 when we started playing around with that sort of stuff, and it doesn't work now. Your own figures prove it. Stupid shill, all you're doing is drawing more attention to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, and that the apk hosts "solution" is a fraud.
Oh look, lame sock-puppet trying to pimp their "use my custom hosts file solution and you'll only get one or two viruses a month" and posts from a "400 hz. computer" - thanks for pointing yourself out so I don't have to. Everyone, head on over - watch apk and co try, and fail, to run with the pack.
Be careful though - because the lamer "knows what they're talking about because they're a "subscriber to Windows IT Pro magazine". You might have to buy a new keyboard.
I would bet that if that person quit using javascript where he did not know the websites he goes to, he would not see a single one
Funny how I have javascript enabled and I don't get viruses, and I don't use a modified hosts file. Not one virus. Not this year. Not this decade. Not this century. Not this millennium.
Your "solution" is akin ot fixing Toyota's brake problem by removing the wheels. It sucks.
apk and anyone else who recommends a hosts file as the be-all and end-all of security is a moron. That includes you. But you already knew that, sock-puppet.
Getting 2 viruses a month shows you don't even know how to run a Windows box.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
The facts, which you ignore:
Your own "experience" shows that the hosts file is not the way to prevent getting viruses. Getting one or two a month is a failure.
The rarity of viruses in the wild for non-windows users (I've never had one on any linux, bsd, or aix box - and that's going back to the previous century).
Anyone who recommends using the hosts file as a security measure is a moron. That includes you. And your other sock-puppets.
You obviously don't know me. I've spent LOTS of time in civil, regulatory, and criminal courts arguing cases, examining witnesses, writing, filing and arguing motions, and other fun stuff.
In one 4-day proceeding, I went head-to-head against the judge AND the government lawyers for 5 minutes before the judge finally saw the light - that I was right, and that the witness had done everything except answer the question.
My most recent me-against-the-government case - a couple of years ago, I sued the government - 2 days in court, and they had to not only drop their claim that I owed $70k - they had to pay me.
What else? I won a judgment that forced the city I'm living in now to change almost every street sign, etc., over a stupid $15 parking ticket that they wouldn't admit was wrong. The judge agreed with me.
I have Well over 1,000 hours experience. I enjoy it. So why don't you STFU? Oh wait, people without a clue have to keep babbling so that they can't hear the truth.
We can put linux in a watch - but for most, a laptop is "good enough."
Same thing with TVs - the 27" color TV was the staple for a whole generation - and it went from almost the price of a new car to $200 during that time (and there are still all those people who haven't moved on to hi-def tv).
Yes, doubling the screen size was nice, but I'm not trading in my 50" for a 100" any time soon - where would I put it? That's becoming a problem. Same as you can only cram so many screens (or a screen of a certain size) on your desk. Do you really want to have to stand while working on your computer, like those faked interactive screens on the TV crime shows?
You're forgetting the transaction charges for credit cards/paypal.
Since when do they add up to more than a couple of percent? Or if you live in a more advanced country with a modern banking system, you can just have the money emailed to you. No need for either party to use paypal or a credit card. Or you can accept checks and money orders. People still accept checks. I'm sending one off Monday to pay for some domains I registered.
You're forgetting the cost of aquiring/developing/setting up your ecommerce system.
Domain name $10. Hosting - look around, there are TONS of cheap hosts out there. And plenty of open-source systems. Pick one. If you find that all too daunting, you're on the wrong site.
You're forgetting that when your sales are already good on the App Store, the appearance on best seller lists pushes your sales into high gear.
But for someone starting out, that is not the case. And everyone has to start somewhere.
You're forgetting the time taken to set up your own registration number scheme or whatever other form of rights management you do.
Some php and one sql statement. Come on. Really.
You're forgetting all the time that you would otherwise spend looking up users registration codes that they've lost.
Riiight.... like that problem hasn't been solved a million times with lost passwords and user names. OMG - I must be from the future!!! Or you're from 1980.
There's no such thing as 100 cents on the dollar.
95 cents on the dollar is better by far than 70 cents on the dollar. Especially since you can decide WHAT to put up on the site, and you need it anyway, to promote tha App, because just sticking it in the App store isn't going to make it a winner all by itself. So you already have the costs for the domain name and hosting, etc.
But the main thing that you're forgetting is that the one stop, easy route to purchase of the App Store means that you will sell orders of magnitude more copies on the App Store than you would from selling mobile apps from your own store. 70% of 50,000 downloads is a lot more money than 100% of 500 downloads.
Oh yes... and 50,000 free downloads puts lots of money in your pocket ("We'll make it up in volume. We'll sell a silver version for $0.99. And a gold version for $1.99. And a platinum version for $2.99. We'll add some code that calls a premium phone number in the background at $10 a call!" - which, btw, one app did)
Yes, I have been there and done that. You haven't.
Show me ANY proof the average App store app is making money. Because that's what this thread is about - that the App store doesn't make the average developer a profit. You know, [citation needed]. And while you're at it, show some stats on the number of developers who managed to get their numbers up without having anything except a place in the App store - no outside marketing, no web site, nothing but "I put my app in the app store and now I has cheeseburger". Somehow, I doubt that's the average experience.
Deprecated? Hosts files still work and took the gent named Kings Joker quoted down from 200 viruses a month to only 2
One or two viruses every month means it doesn't work.
Next you'll be claiming that one or two STDs a month means that you're practicing safe sex.
Or one or two child rapes a month doesn't make you either a priest or a pedophile.
Or that an under-age pregnant daughter or two means that fundie faith-based abstinence instruction works... hello, Bristol!
Or that going to a gay bar once or twice a month to get pounded doesn't make you gay.
Or that binge-drinking once or twice a month doesn't mean you have an alcohol problem.
Or that one or two criminal convictions a month doesn't make you a felon.
Or (bad car analogy time) that one or two car accidents a month doesn't make you a bad driver.
See the pattern? One or two viruses a month is FAIL. You can no has cheeseburger. Or, to put it in simpler terms, your faith-based computing sux.
The best way is for her to simply switch operating systems. I haven't seen a single virus in the wild on any *bsd or linux systems (or even the aix box). The second best way is for her to get someone who knows what they're doing to take over from you. Maybe she can ask the kid next door?
reclaiming the space gives us up to 8 to 10 years more. This is because of two reasons usually glossed over:
1) IP space demand in N.A. is pretty much met. The market is mature, saturated.
2) It's only the requests for the largest contguous blocks that will not be fulfilled in 2 years time - they'll have to settle for 2 or more smaller blocks.
8 to 10 years is a good enough reason to claw back the numbers. 2 years is total b.s., as anyone who actually read the article would have known.
... in other words, if Apple didn't have a lock on what Apps can be installed on non-jail-broken iPhones, these guys would be getting 100 cents on the dollar, instead of 70 cents (or almost 45% better). So tell me again how you figure the App Store is such a good idea?
1. The ebook market as it is today is doomed. Too fragmented, and overpriced compared to print. At least with print, I can pass it on, resell it, etc. ebooks? The price will trend down over time towards the incremental cost of producing a copy - which is pretty much $0.
2. The barrier to entry for advertising in the New York Times is the cost of a classified ad. That's not that high.
3.
can slap up a website promoting my software online and wait for the bucks to roll in, but I've got to compete in a completely flat market: there are billions of people who don't need my program, and millions of people who might, but who will never spend money for it. In order to find my customers, I still need to purchase advertising or work unpaid channels and pay with "promotional labor". And no matter how good my software is, I can still be outspent in marketing dollars by a competitor. It's just like you said: "Network effects don't scale when the amount of time a person has doesn't scale."
Compare that with the app store model: my software competes in its category, perhaps only a dozen other apps, to get the attention of a sector of the market that has money, some willingness to spend it, and a unified platform to spend it on. I can still be "outmarketed", but I sit on essentially equal footing to begin with. Especially with a unified ratings system (with all its flaws), there's a better chance for word-of-mouth to do its magic. A closed app store does "filter 99% of it somehow".
Then how come almost everyone is losing money? How come the "sector of the market that has money" is complaining about apps being over-priced at $4.99 when game console owners - who pay less for their console than you do for an iphone or ipad - don't bitch about paying multiples of that?
The fact of the matter is that most Apple App Store customers are cheap. Let me rephrase that - most Apple App Store customers are CHEAP! $0.00 to $0.99 is their price point, because they see the phone itself as disposable. It's a phone. When the battery craps out, it's history, it's a disposable product, and the competition already has better stuff out than the leaked G4.
People regularly pay $30-40 for DS/PSP/etc games.. how is the iPad any different?
... and all those games now run on the iPhone... um, actually, they don't. Call me back when Apple has Mario Brothers on the iPad, or the iPhone for that matter (hint - never gonna happen).
The iPad is a terrible gaming platform - several times the price of a console, shitty display for games and videos (the "hi-def video stream" is down-scaled to 1990s 1024x576 because the ipad simply can't push more pixels with any sort of motion), not portable enough for school kids to shove in their pockets, not big enough to compete with a real console hooked up to the TV. Neither fish nor fowl... my gawd - it's a frigging SPORK!
In other words, combining the best features of two devices sometimes produces overpriced junk.
Well, if I have a well written app that serves a particular niche that isn't too crowded, then potentially a lot of people.
Here, let me fix that... Well, if I have a well written app that serves a particular niche that isn't too crowded, then potentially a few people.
It's a niche market. Niche == few people.
And people who own iPhones are cheap. The same person who won't blink t spend $60 on a console game will not spend $30 for the same game on a crappy platform - and that's what the iPhone is compared to a laptop, a pc, or a console hooked up to a big screen - lousy graphics, lousy sound, lousy controls. Fine for a phone, lousy for games, and forget things like a spreadsheet.
Of course, the fun part would be to watch them install their software on a linux laptop. Especially if you use a minimalist desktop environment, or better yet, don't start the graphical login process - just a half-dozen console sessions.
"But how do you do email?"
"Pine, elm, whatever..."
"Where's the web browser?"
"Links, lynx, whatever..."
"Word?"
"vim"
"Where's the file manager?"
"mc hammers on files for me!"
"music player?"
"mpg123"
"remote desktop?"
"ssh"
"don't tell me to shut up!"
"how do I get help on this POS?"
"man, man!"
"what?"
>man man! Because man woman doesn't work!"
"anti-virus?"
"don't be stupid."
"You can still get a virus in DOS."
"Don't be stupid. It's not DOS."
... then type startx and show off some more of the goodness that lies under the hood...
I agree 100%. Those days are coming fast, thanks to the reduced energy requirements of adding more cores compared to more complex cores. Video is one of those things that is comparatively easily parallelized. And bandwidth is getting better and better, cheaper and cheaper. 1 ghz to the curb is a reasonable goal for 2020. And considering that the average home probably has over a terabyte of storage right now, a petabyte by 2020 is probably a very conservative estimate.
Really? When most developers are complaining that they can't make a profit because they have to compete with the free and $0.99 stuff? Most developers are LOSING money on the iPhone. And with 100,000 competitors all trying to crowd on that same tiny screen, people have mostly gone from "We'll make money off it" to "We'll consider it advertising".
And the same thing will happen to the iPad.
The problem is that the App Store isn't a marketplace - it's a monopoly, so the regular market rules don't apply. Also, the locked-in market, despite what Apple wants to claim, is CHEAP. Because the market itself is "throw-away". The same people who will pay $50-$70 for a pc or console game, or $15/month for a game subscription, won't pay $10 for a phone app. Because of the smaller, crappy screen, crappy sound, crappy controls, the perceived value just isn't there.
It's a niche market, and with 8,000 new apps being added every week, a totally polluted one.
There's no reason why shading can't be added. Or do you think that we must not extend any technology? Think, for example, of a square. 4 points. Now pick a 2-color blend. Your total data size is only 2 points for the bounding box (total of 8 bytes), 2 rgba 32-bit colours (total of 8 bytes), the start and end-point for the line to paint the shading (to give the direction - 4 bytes), and, say, a 4-byte opcode. Total, no matter how big the box, is 24 bytes.
There's no reason we can't extend the technique to libraries that cover all sorts of irregular shapes, as well as for laying down rules for deforming/transforming base shapes. It's easier to say "use this eye and apply these transforms" than it is to describe a new eye from scratch - and it's how we actually perceive things, so to both the eye and the mind the perceived quality will be better than it actually is.
The original.swf format had a plugin for Netscape Navigator in 1995. When did the formats you refer to have a browser plugin (rather than having to download the file and spawn an external process)?
That's 8 years before your "By 2003" date. 8 years to get to be THE product.
Also, the tools in Flash 2004 MX were a lot more useable - and delivered video content to all platforms, including linux. The compression level was good enough for even the slowest dsl customers, and it "just worked" in most cases. Real? They were dead long before. Quicktime had issues on non-Apple platforms. And wmf (the container for avi video files) still needed to be compressed - there were so many different codecs to choose from, and you had to be careful that the client side had the same codecs, so you ran into LOTS of driver problems.
That's how Adobe won. A product that was "good enough", "easy enough", and had been around since 1995.
You'd probably be wrong. You're competing for attention with tens of thousands of others in a limited store. The other person has the entire world to work with. Plus the freedom to develop their app using any technology they want - like flash, for example. It worked for youtube...
They also have the opportunity to sell it as a service, and to continually add new features to grow the customer base. YOU, on the other hand, are competing in a market where everyone is either free or 99 cents to "get market share." Adding new features? Let us know how customers feel about being charged for their updates.
30% for built in exposure to 80 million potential customer and application distribution is actually pretty cheap.
I see the "Let's place an ad in the New York Times and we'll be rich because SO MANY PEOPLE READ IT" fallacy made it to the net intact.
Your "exposure" to 80 million customers is bogus. There are tens of thousands of apps - how many people are going to see YOUR app?
And the more apps in the closed store, the less that being in that closed store is worth.
Think of it - if everybody had 10,000 friends on facebook, it would become even more useless than it already is. You'd have to filter out 99% of it somehow.
Network effects don't scale when the amount of time a person has doesn't scale.
If it's such a great model, and the best way to get your apps sold, then why is Apple afraid to let people install stuff from outside the App Store? They should welcome inefficient competition as a way of demonstrating their superior approach - except that, like any pyramid scheme, it's only superior for those at the top.
They both have full access to H.264 and related tools today, so nothing would change with adoption of VP8: the status quo is maintained.
Neither Apple nor Microsoft is satisfied with the status quo. They want MORE!!! Otherwise, why come out with new products that attempt more lock-in? Why the FUD? Why the indirect patent threat mumbling?
Slashdot Mirror
Sock puppets just don't like the truth. "One or two viruses a month" is a fail. Then again, so is claiming expertise based on "subscribing to Windows IT Pro magazine". Everyone come on over and join the fun - this guy is so lame it's a hoot.
So, why don't you answer the real question - why are you attempting to push a fraudulent anti-virus solution? One that you have demonstrated by your own figures doesn't work? That's the real question - the one you have failed to answer, despite changing the topic SO many times.
The apk "hosts file security solution" is a failure. Your own posts show it. "One or two viruses a month" is a failure. And no, reading "Windows IT Pro" magazine doesn't make you a professional - paid employment in the IT field makes you a professional (and no, working the cash at McD doesn't count).
I already posted my solution - friends don't let friends use Windows.
According to your own argument, you should be encouraging everyone you know to switch from Windows, since linux and bsd are less of a target.
Look, your attempts to pimp your host-based "security solution" aren't working. It didn't work back in 1995 when we started playing around with that sort of stuff, and it doesn't work now. Your own figures prove it. Stupid shill, all you're doing is drawing more attention to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, and that the apk hosts "solution" is a fraud.
Be careful though - because the lamer "knows what they're talking about because they're a "subscriber to Windows IT Pro magazine". You might have to buy a new keyboard.
Funny how I have javascript enabled and I don't get viruses, and I don't use a modified hosts file. Not one virus. Not this year. Not this decade. Not this century. Not this millennium.
Your "solution" is akin ot fixing Toyota's brake problem by removing the wheels. It sucks.
apk and anyone else who recommends a hosts file as the be-all and end-all of security is a moron. That includes you. But you already knew that, sock-puppet.
Getting 2 viruses a month shows you don't even know how to run a Windows box.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
The facts, which you ignore:
Anyone who recommends using the hosts file as a security measure is a moron. That includes you. And your other sock-puppets.
I think that says it all ... "subscribing member of Windows IT Pro" ... yeah ... right ... that makes you sound like a real winner ...
Get at least some experience with a real operating system if you're going to try to run with the big dawgs.
"Windows IT Pro magazine" ... that's funny.
You obviously don't know me. I've spent LOTS of time in civil, regulatory, and criminal courts arguing cases, examining witnesses, writing, filing and arguing motions, and other fun stuff.
In one 4-day proceeding, I went head-to-head against the judge AND the government lawyers for 5 minutes before the judge finally saw the light - that I was right, and that the witness had done everything except answer the question.
My most recent me-against-the-government case - a couple of years ago, I sued the government - 2 days in court, and they had to not only drop their claim that I owed $70k - they had to pay me.
What else? I won a judgment that forced the city I'm living in now to change almost every street sign, etc., over a stupid $15 parking ticket that they wouldn't admit was wrong. The judge agreed with me.
I have Well over 1,000 hours experience. I enjoy it. So why don't you STFU? Oh wait, people without a clue have to keep babbling so that they can't hear the truth.
We can put linux in a watch - but for most, a laptop is "good enough."
Same thing with TVs - the 27" color TV was the staple for a whole generation - and it went from almost the price of a new car to $200 during that time (and there are still all those people who haven't moved on to hi-def tv).
Yes, doubling the screen size was nice, but I'm not trading in my 50" for a 100" any time soon - where would I put it? That's becoming a problem. Same as you can only cram so many screens (or a screen of a certain size) on your desk. Do you really want to have to stand while working on your computer, like those faked interactive screens on the TV crime shows?
Since when do they add up to more than a couple of percent? Or if you live in a more advanced country with a modern banking system, you can just have the money emailed to you. No need for either party to use paypal or a credit card. Or you can accept checks and money orders. People still accept checks. I'm sending one off Monday to pay for some domains I registered.
Domain name $10. Hosting - look around, there are TONS of cheap hosts out there. And plenty of open-source systems. Pick one. If you find that all too daunting, you're on the wrong site.
But for someone starting out, that is not the case. And everyone has to start somewhere.
Some php and one sql statement. Come on. Really.
Riiight .... like that problem hasn't been solved a million times with lost passwords and user names. OMG - I must be from the future!!! Or you're from 1980.
95 cents on the dollar is better by far than 70 cents on the dollar. Especially since you can decide WHAT to put up on the site, and you need it anyway, to promote tha App, because just sticking it in the App store isn't going to make it a winner all by itself. So you already have the costs for the domain name and hosting, etc.
Oh yes ... and 50,000 free downloads puts lots of money in your pocket ("We'll make it up in volume. We'll sell a silver version for $0.99. And a gold version for $1.99. And a platinum version for $2.99. We'll add some code that calls a premium phone number in the background at $10 a call!" - which, btw, one app did)
Show me ANY proof the average App store app is making money. Because that's what this thread is about - that the App store doesn't make the average developer a profit. You know, [citation needed]. And while you're at it, show some stats on the number of developers who managed to get their numbers up without having anything except a place in the App store - no outside marketing, no web site, nothing but "I put my app in the app store and now I has cheeseburger". Somehow, I doubt that's the average experience.
One or two viruses every month means it doesn't work.
Next you'll be claiming that one or two STDs a month means that you're practicing safe sex. ... hello, Bristol!
Or one or two child rapes a month doesn't make you either a priest or a pedophile.
Or that an under-age pregnant daughter or two means that fundie faith-based abstinence instruction works
Or that going to a gay bar once or twice a month to get pounded doesn't make you gay.
Or that binge-drinking once or twice a month doesn't mean you have an alcohol problem.
Or that one or two criminal convictions a month doesn't make you a felon.
Or (bad car analogy time) that one or two car accidents a month doesn't make you a bad driver.
See the pattern? One or two viruses a month is FAIL. You can no has cheeseburger. Or, to put it in simpler terms, your faith-based computing sux.
The best way is for her to simply switch operating systems. I haven't seen a single virus in the wild on any *bsd or linux systems (or even the aix box). The second best way is for her to get someone who knows what they're doing to take over from you. Maybe she can ask the kid next door?
1) IP space demand in N.A. is pretty much met. The market is mature, saturated.
2) It's only the requests for the largest contguous blocks that will not be fulfilled in 2 years time - they'll have to settle for 2 or more smaller blocks.
8 to 10 years is a good enough reason to claw back the numbers. 2 years is total b.s., as anyone who actually read the article would have known.
1. The ebook market as it is today is doomed. Too fragmented, and overpriced compared to print. At least with print, I can pass it on, resell it, etc. ebooks? The price will trend down over time towards the incremental cost of producing a copy - which is pretty much $0.
2. The barrier to entry for advertising in the New York Times is the cost of a classified ad. That's not that high.
3.
Then how come almost everyone is losing money? How come the "sector of the market that has money" is complaining about apps being over-priced at $4.99 when game console owners - who pay less for their console than you do for an iphone or ipad - don't bitch about paying multiples of that?
The fact of the matter is that most Apple App Store customers are cheap. Let me rephrase that - most Apple App Store customers are CHEAP! $0.00 to $0.99 is their price point, because they see the phone itself as disposable. It's a phone. When the battery craps out, it's history, it's a disposable product, and the competition already has better stuff out than the leaked G4.
The iPad is a terrible gaming platform - several times the price of a console, shitty display for games and videos (the "hi-def video stream" is down-scaled to 1990s 1024x576 because the ipad simply can't push more pixels with any sort of motion), not portable enough for school kids to shove in their pockets, not big enough to compete with a real console hooked up to the TV. Neither fish nor fowl ... my gawd - it's a frigging SPORK!
In other words, combining the best features of two devices sometimes produces overpriced junk.
One hour of work to save years of grief.
There IS a guide to making Windows secure - it's called "Windows Unplugged."
It has one page.
the page says:
Friends don't let friends use Windows.
Here, let me fix that ... Well, if I have a well written app that serves a particular niche that isn't too crowded, then potentially a few people.
It's a niche market. Niche == few people.
And people who own iPhones are cheap. The same person who won't blink t spend $60 on a console game will not spend $30 for the same game on a crappy platform - and that's what the iPhone is compared to a laptop, a pc, or a console hooked up to a big screen - lousy graphics, lousy sound, lousy controls. Fine for a phone, lousy for games, and forget things like a spreadsheet.
I would agree.
Of course, the fun part would be to watch them install their software on a linux laptop. Especially if you use a minimalist desktop environment, or better yet, don't start the graphical login process - just a half-dozen console sessions.
"But how do you do email?"
"Pine, elm, whatever..."
"Where's the web browser?"
"Links, lynx, whatever..."
"Word?"
"vim"
"Where's the file manager?"
"mc hammers on files for me!"
"music player?"
"mpg123"
"remote desktop?"
"ssh"
"don't tell me to shut up!"
"how do I get help on this POS?"
"man, man!"
"what?"
>man man! Because man woman doesn't work!"
"anti-virus?"
"don't be stupid."
"You can still get a virus in DOS."
"Don't be stupid. It's not DOS."
I agree 100%. Those days are coming fast, thanks to the reduced energy requirements of adding more cores compared to more complex cores. Video is one of those things that is comparatively easily parallelized. And bandwidth is getting better and better, cheaper and cheaper. 1 ghz to the curb is a reasonable goal for 2020. And considering that the average home probably has over a terabyte of storage right now, a petabyte by 2020 is probably a very conservative estimate.
Really? When most developers are complaining that they can't make a profit because they have to compete with the free and $0.99 stuff? Most developers are LOSING money on the iPhone. And with 100,000 competitors all trying to crowd on that same tiny screen, people have mostly gone from "We'll make money off it" to "We'll consider it advertising".
And the same thing will happen to the iPad.
The problem is that the App Store isn't a marketplace - it's a monopoly, so the regular market rules don't apply. Also, the locked-in market, despite what Apple wants to claim, is CHEAP. Because the market itself is "throw-away". The same people who will pay $50-$70 for a pc or console game, or $15/month for a game subscription, won't pay $10 for a phone app. Because of the smaller, crappy screen, crappy sound, crappy controls, the perceived value just isn't there.
It's a niche market, and with 8,000 new apps being added every week, a totally polluted one.
There's no reason why shading can't be added. Or do you think that we must not extend any technology? Think, for example, of a square. 4 points. Now pick a 2-color blend. Your total data size is only 2 points for the bounding box (total of 8 bytes), 2 rgba 32-bit colours (total of 8 bytes), the start and end-point for the line to paint the shading (to give the direction - 4 bytes), and, say, a 4-byte opcode. Total, no matter how big the box, is 24 bytes.
There's no reason we can't extend the technique to libraries that cover all sorts of irregular shapes, as well as for laying down rules for deforming/transforming base shapes. It's easier to say "use this eye and apply these transforms" than it is to describe a new eye from scratch - and it's how we actually perceive things, so to both the eye and the mind the perceived quality will be better than it actually is.
The original .swf format had a plugin for Netscape Navigator in 1995. When did the formats you refer to have a browser plugin (rather than having to download the file and spawn an external process)?
That's 8 years before your "By 2003" date. 8 years to get to be THE product.
Also, the tools in Flash 2004 MX were a lot more useable - and delivered video content to all platforms, including linux. The compression level was good enough for even the slowest dsl customers, and it "just worked" in most cases. Real? They were dead long before. Quicktime had issues on non-Apple platforms. And wmf (the container for avi video files) still needed to be compressed - there were so many different codecs to choose from, and you had to be careful that the client side had the same codecs, so you ran into LOTS of driver problems.
That's how Adobe won. A product that was "good enough", "easy enough", and had been around since 1995.
You'd probably be wrong. You're competing for attention with tens of thousands of others in a limited store. The other person has the entire world to work with. Plus the freedom to develop their app using any technology they want - like flash, for example. It worked for youtube ...
They also have the opportunity to sell it as a service, and to continually add new features to grow the customer base. YOU, on the other hand, are competing in a market where everyone is either free or 99 cents to "get market share." Adding new features? Let us know how customers feel about being charged for their updates.
I see the "Let's place an ad in the New York Times and we'll be rich because SO MANY PEOPLE READ IT" fallacy made it to the net intact.
Your "exposure" to 80 million customers is bogus. There are tens of thousands of apps - how many people are going to see YOUR app?
And the more apps in the closed store, the less that being in that closed store is worth.
Think of it - if everybody had 10,000 friends on facebook, it would become even more useless than it already is. You'd have to filter out 99% of it somehow.
Network effects don't scale when the amount of time a person has doesn't scale.
If it's such a great model, and the best way to get your apps sold, then why is Apple afraid to let people install stuff from outside the App Store? They should welcome inefficient competition as a way of demonstrating their superior approach - except that, like any pyramid scheme, it's only superior for those at the top.
Neither Apple nor Microsoft is satisfied with the status quo. They want MORE!!! Otherwise, why come out with new products that attempt more lock-in? Why the FUD? Why the indirect patent threat mumbling?