So what you're saying is that we should put you in the category of people that just don't get it?
So what you're saying is that we should put you in the category of people who can't read and are stupid?
Musicians and artists struggled for the sake of their art before. Now they can't make a dime because of faggot shitheads like you and unlike piss pots, which we don't need because we now have toilets, there's nothing to replace music with.
If I had my way, everyone related to you would be killed in the dead of night with a blunt object. It's the only way to efficiently allocate the resources of society to people who aren't faggot pieces of shit.
It sucks because it was written by retarded hippies during the 70s, which hr hired because they have the most experience and are therefore the most qualified?
Maybe he can start his own computer company that's better if he knows so much.
I can name several successful secretive organizations but I couldn't name a one that was open.
Even now that my app is finished, I realize I do better to keep some things close to the chest, even with the guys who helped me build it.
The problem with Apple is not secrecy, which has contributed enormously to their organizational success, but that the path from developer to consumer is so convoluted.
If there's one thing the app store has convinced me of, it's that even in this new age of online distribution, there's still a place for publishers in the ecosystem. Indeed, with such powerful tools making it so easy for amateurs to produce shitty content, publishers are more relevant than ever. As the greatest developer who ever lived, (suck it, Carmack) I resent being blown off so a game that would be considered shitty on Newgrounds can get catapulted to #1 by a bunch of "geniuses" who should really be working at Kinko's instead of a tech company.
Someone has to filter out all the crap since Apple can't and/or won't do it. And someone has to get after Apple to approve the quality because I speak from experience when I say they don't do that either. Maybe they're jealous that I created a better UI than Jonathan Ive could ever dream of if his life depended on it.
Look, someone has to give personalized attention, marketing, and support to the programs that rock vs. those that shouldn't have ever left the bedroom. Otherwise there would never have been any PC publishers since anyone who wants to can make and sell any PC game they want.
Frankly, the online community and even word of mouth can be a helpful supplement to this process, but never a substitute for it.
It is self-evident that there just is no way to get quality in front of consumers without professional gatekeepers and anyone who has seen the App Store knows Apple epically fails at this.
You can't tell the Linux community nothing because their open attitude means they know everything already and they have the best solution to every problem.
That's why Linux has awesome games like Nethack and Battle for Westnoth and no shitty games like Madden or GTA.
At least they should have a hierarchical tree of subcategories like Yahoo! rather than making you wade through 451 pages of apps in the entertainment category.
Ranting aside, it's good on a consumer level to have access to so many entertaining apps at such a low price point. At the same time, I think it's safe to say the iPhone has yet to prove itself as a platform for serious developers.
Far from being an app bubble, we are simply seeing a transition into a more mature market with richer products. Because it's so easy and cheap to create apps I'm sure we'll always see a ton of simple apps, but the market will grow on from that base instead of contracting as the term "bubble" would imply.
Quoted for bullshit. There is ZERO incentive to create better quality apps and it will never happen unless Apple changes its marketing strategy.
As things stand, 3.0 and 3GS are irrelevant bullshit because you don't need either one to run the #1 smash hit app, Moron Test.
That's not a function of a free marketplace. That's a function of Apple creating a ranking system that implicitly pressures devs to reduce their prices to nothing to get exposure. Apple thinks they can just piss away the blood sweat and tears of the world's best and brightest to get more retards to pay $90 a month for the privilege of downloading 99 cent moron tests.
The only problem is, smart devs will only consent to be taken advantage of for so long before they decide it's just not worth it and drop their support for the platform. I'm sure as shit not going to give my best effort for 99 cents, except to your mom.
If devs get pissed off, they'll abandon Apple, which will cause non-fanboi users to abandon the platform too. It nearly killed the company before and I dare say it could happen again. Contrary to popular belief, there were always thousands of apps for the Mac, but the problem was they were all shareware garbage. Apple, if you're reading this: *HINT, HINT*
People will eventually realize that about that about the iPhone's most popular offerings once the hype dies down and may eventually wonder what in the hell they're supposedly getting for their $90/mo.
Apps are the only edge the iPhone has over its competitors at present. The company nearly died before because they failed to support their devs. (best hardware in the world is useless without software) In contrast, Microsoft is the #1 computer company in the world today because from the beginning, they went out of their way to create a robust development ecosystem where the devs who supported them were able to thereby support themselves. But Apple still just doesn't get it. If they fail again, they won't get another chance.
If your game is really good, then won't it sell more copies, making you more money?
Growth in units shipped is asymptotic. At some point you're going to saturate the market and the only way to make more money is to charge more for each one.
Is there some hidden cost in producing more copies of a binary file?
No. Create as many copies of your MySpace profile as you'd like. But there are hidden costs to producing a better binary file.
Sure it's "economically-inefficient," but the fewer customers who appreciate something enough to pay for it will then have something unique to distinguish themselves, culturally, as opposed to a monoculture of dancing baby videos of such bullshit variety as will not displace Disney now or ever.
When things are available at zero or very low cost, it reduces their cultural value. Enough Chinese have seen Star Wars to appreciate the unparalleled superiority of American culture and how their own "culture" is simply garbage in comparison. What have they written in the past 2000 years even worth translating into English, let alone learning Chinese for?! A backwards and degenerate race of monkeys, to be sure. Chinese talking about culture really is worth entsichering meinen Browning over.
It is therefore incumbent on civilized societies to learn the lesson of the abysmal cultural failure of Chinese and ensure that thought leadership is economically valued - not just highest quality at lowest price of given X, which must be pre-identified as a social good by the bureaucracy. In the latter case, you necessarily wind up with crap for culture, because there is no reward for its creation.
The problem of the commons therefore still applies to cultural and intellectual artifacts. The problems of excludability created by IP protection can be solved by creating more efficient markets for it and organizations disparagingly referred to as "patent trolls" are one way to do just that.
To suggest that the market for anything in the realm of thought can be improved by ensuring that they're low-cost or free is to suggest that the problem of hunger can be solved by making bread low-cost or free.
The beer wants to be free crowd is doing the public a wonderful service but I for one don't think less of, say, doctors for wanting to be paid cash money for the services they render to others, rather than healing the sick purely out of the goodness of their hearts.
Likewise, one would think that inventors, designers, artists and the like would feel incentivized to seek remuneration for their efforts as well. While corporations do receive many patents, there's nothing technically stopping most anyone else except for the lack of a good idea.
I have difficulty subscribing to the narrative of monks oppressing Tibetans since the oppressed apparently much prefer the rule of their former masters.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that we should put you in the category of people that just don't get it?
So what you're saying is that we should put you in the category of people who can't read and are stupid? Musicians and artists struggled for the sake of their art before. Now they can't make a dime because of faggot shitheads like you and unlike piss pots, which we don't need because we now have toilets, there's nothing to replace music with. If I had my way, everyone related to you would be killed in the dead of night with a blunt object. It's the only way to efficiently allocate the resources of society to people who aren't faggot pieces of shit.
*Sigh.* Gooktards with shitty logic always get modded up for toeing the party line.
Copying and distribution of content hasn't been a significant cost center since Gutenburg.
Creating quality content in the first place, that's as expensive now as it ever was. If you weren't such a worthless gooktard fag, you'd know that.
> They're faithfully participating in a system which is intentionally insane. It's not that hard to understand... Only 15 years until retirement...
Get your RFID cloners now! Ever wanted to be a CIA agent despite your unfavorable history of drug usage? Now you can be!
It sucks because it was written by retarded hippies during the 70s, which hr hired because they have the most experience and are therefore the most qualified?
A few months? Google needs a few more years before Android will be ready for primtetime.
Maybe Google should fire some of their PhDs and hire some people who can design an icon or UI or write an API worth a damn instead.
Maybe he can start his own computer company that's better if he knows so much. I can name several successful secretive organizations but I couldn't name a one that was open. Even now that my app is finished, I realize I do better to keep some things close to the chest, even with the guys who helped me build it. The problem with Apple is not secrecy, which has contributed enormously to their organizational success, but that the path from developer to consumer is so convoluted.
If there's one thing the app store has convinced me of, it's that even in this new age of online distribution, there's still a place for publishers in the ecosystem. Indeed, with such powerful tools making it so easy for amateurs to produce shitty content, publishers are more relevant than ever. As the greatest developer who ever lived, (suck it, Carmack) I resent being blown off so a game that would be considered shitty on Newgrounds can get catapulted to #1 by a bunch of "geniuses" who should really be working at Kinko's instead of a tech company.
Someone has to filter out all the crap since Apple can't and/or won't do it. And someone has to get after Apple to approve the quality because I speak from experience when I say they don't do that either. Maybe they're jealous that I created a better UI than Jonathan Ive could ever dream of if his life depended on it.
Look, someone has to give personalized attention, marketing, and support to the programs that rock vs. those that shouldn't have ever left the bedroom. Otherwise there would never have been any PC publishers since anyone who wants to can make and sell any PC game they want.
Frankly, the online community and even word of mouth can be a helpful supplement to this process, but never a substitute for it.
It is self-evident that there just is no way to get quality in front of consumers without professional gatekeepers and anyone who has seen the App Store knows Apple epically fails at this.
You can't tell the Linux community nothing because their open attitude means they know everything already and they have the best solution to every problem.
That's why Linux has awesome games like Nethack and Battle for Westnoth and no shitty games like Madden or GTA.
Well, Steve Jobs did say he wanted Apple to be like Sony.
The more you tighten your grip, Tark, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
At least they should have a hierarchical tree of subcategories like Yahoo! rather than making you wade through 451 pages of apps in the entertainment category.
Having recently perused the latest App Store offerings, I must say I find no evidence to back this claim.
Ranting aside, it's good on a consumer level to have access to so many entertaining apps at such a low price point. At the same time, I think it's safe to say the iPhone has yet to prove itself as a platform for serious developers.
Far from being an app bubble, we are simply seeing a transition into a more mature market with richer products. Because it's so easy and cheap to create apps I'm sure we'll always see a ton of simple apps, but the market will grow on from that base instead of contracting as the term "bubble" would imply.
Quoted for bullshit. There is ZERO incentive to create better quality apps and it will never happen unless Apple changes its marketing strategy.
As things stand, 3.0 and 3GS are irrelevant bullshit because you don't need either one to run the #1 smash hit app, Moron Test.
That's not a function of a free marketplace. That's a function of Apple creating a ranking system that implicitly pressures devs to reduce their prices to nothing to get exposure. Apple thinks they can just piss away the blood sweat and tears of the world's best and brightest to get more retards to pay $90 a month for the privilege of downloading 99 cent moron tests.
The only problem is, smart devs will only consent to be taken advantage of for so long before they decide it's just not worth it and drop their support for the platform. I'm sure as shit not going to give my best effort for 99 cents, except to your mom.
If devs get pissed off, they'll abandon Apple, which will cause non-fanboi users to abandon the platform too. It nearly killed the company before and I dare say it could happen again. Contrary to popular belief, there were always thousands of apps for the Mac, but the problem was they were all shareware garbage. Apple, if you're reading this: *HINT, HINT*
People will eventually realize that about that about the iPhone's most popular offerings once the hype dies down and may eventually wonder what in the hell they're supposedly getting for their $90/mo.
Apps are the only edge the iPhone has over its competitors at present. The company nearly died before because they failed to support their devs. (best hardware in the world is useless without software) In contrast, Microsoft is the #1 computer company in the world today because from the beginning, they went out of their way to create a robust development ecosystem where the devs who supported them were able to thereby support themselves. But Apple still just doesn't get it. If they fail again, they won't get another chance.
If your game is really good, then won't it sell more copies, making you more money?
Growth in units shipped is asymptotic. At some point you're going to saturate the market and the only way to make more money is to charge more for each one.
Is there some hidden cost in producing more copies of a binary file?
No. Create as many copies of your MySpace profile as you'd like. But there are hidden costs to producing a better binary file.
. When I was working in Paris I found that almost everyone spoke English until the tourists arrived, and then nobody did.
Shit, I had that problem in London.
In that case, the UN is made irrelevant by Reddit.
I see no evidence for absolute "wrong" or "right" in the universe.
Is that due to the absence of right and wrong in the universe, or the limitations of your understanding?
That passage from Matthew is misguided in it application because there are cases when it is your brother who has a beam in his eye.
If everyone only focused on themselves and ignored problems elsewhere, we should all live as hermits.
As Martin Luther King observed, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Sure it's "economically-inefficient," but the fewer customers who appreciate something enough to pay for it will then have something unique to distinguish themselves, culturally, as opposed to a monoculture of dancing baby videos of such bullshit variety as will not displace Disney now or ever.
When things are available at zero or very low cost, it reduces their cultural value. Enough Chinese have seen Star Wars to appreciate the unparalleled superiority of American culture and how their own "culture" is simply garbage in comparison. What have they written in the past 2000 years even worth translating into English, let alone learning Chinese for?! A backwards and degenerate race of monkeys, to be sure. Chinese talking about culture really is worth entsichering meinen Browning over.
It is therefore incumbent on civilized societies to learn the lesson of the abysmal cultural failure of Chinese and ensure that thought leadership is economically valued - not just highest quality at lowest price of given X, which must be pre-identified as a social good by the bureaucracy. In the latter case, you necessarily wind up with crap for culture, because there is no reward for its creation.
The problem of the commons therefore still applies to cultural and intellectual artifacts. The problems of excludability created by IP protection can be solved by creating more efficient markets for it and organizations disparagingly referred to as "patent trolls" are one way to do just that.
To suggest that the market for anything in the realm of thought can be improved by ensuring that they're low-cost or free is to suggest that the problem of hunger can be solved by making bread low-cost or free.
The beer wants to be free crowd is doing the public a wonderful service but I for one don't think less of, say, doctors for wanting to be paid cash money for the services they render to others, rather than healing the sick purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Likewise, one would think that inventors, designers, artists and the like would feel incentivized to seek remuneration for their efforts as well. While corporations do receive many patents, there's nothing technically stopping most anyone else except for the lack of a good idea.
I have to think that if your point of view was that valid on an issue that concerns all, you'd want to share it with all.
I have difficulty subscribing to the narrative of monks oppressing Tibetans since the oppressed apparently much prefer the rule of their former masters.
Nigger, please. Antonin Scalia be layin out how it all *be* for ya'll muthafukkas!