That also supposes that you make a single $0.99 app per year.
If you make two apps (assuming you're doing it full time) then it starts to look a little better. (Not counting income taxes or anything).
Ideally if you're depending on the App Store solely for your income then you need to make more than 2 or 3 apps per year, or charge more than $0.99 per app (assuming a higher price won't affect volume of sales too much).
Yes, because running servers, bandwidth and processing small transactions on credit cards are all free, right?
That 30% is just "siphoned off to line pockets". Mmmmm.
The App Store barely makes a blip on the "profit" line of Apple's sheets compared the vast, vast torrent from their hardware sales. They're almost the reverse model to the razor blade model (give the handle away free, charge for blades). In their case the profit comes from selling the handle. The blades are just to entice you to do so.
That's not to say it can't be profitable for the third party devs though.
I think it's more to head off the inevitable "It's gone from the store!!!! Apple deleted it!!!!! Evil!! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!" that would result if they just silently took it down for coding work.
By all accounts it really lived up to the name "beta" - even if Google's version of "beta" tends to be a little more polished.
But you don't even do that - why would you bury such a useful resource?
You reprocess it and use it again. The fact that it's strongly radioactive shows you how much energy is still in it! You can use it in a different reactor type, and work your way down until the final waste product is almost inert.
(we still don't know what the fuck to do with the waste, burying it for 10,000 years doesn't do it for me.)
Nonsense! We've known what to do with the waste for years - why would you bury something with all that vast, juicy energy still in it? You reprocess it and use it a different type of reactor. Nuclear fission is an excellent way to harness energy, and certainly one of our most effective ways until we can make economically viable commercial fusion power plants.
Just because the politics of the situation don't allow for it doesn't mean the technical knowledge isn't there.
You say "Nuclear power has proven itself neither safe nor practical" but that's demonstrably false - nuclear is one of the safest forms of energy generation we have, in terms of raw accident numbers *and* in terms of deaths/accidents/casualties per kWH.
What next, you'll tell me that air travel has proven itself to be "neither practical nor safe" because of the Hindenburg accident?
Chernobyl was was one of those "edge cases" - not so much an accident as gross negligence (funny what happens when you intentionally disable all the safety systems and put untrained operators in charge of a reactor that has no containment building, then tell them to execute a very dangerous procedure on a reactor with numerous design flaws beyond that first major one [no containment building]...). Again, it's like saying cars are unsafe because a guy was killed while riding on the roof of his buddy's truck on the highway. It doesn't mean cars don't crash sometimes.
Fukushima was much more like a "classic" nuclear accident (as was TMI, or Windscale), and even in those cases the extent of radiation contamination is small and manageable (note: not zero - I'm not saying it is totally safe).
Where have I posted that? I would be very interested to see where I've espoused that opinion anywhere on this site or elsewhere.
I merely called you out for being immature in your response to an AC calling out someone going for a cheap troll. Feel free to disagree with such a position, but making yourself look like a frothing neckbeard isn't helping your case.
I personally think it's lazy (using the acronym 'M$') since it's extremely tired and says more about the poster's personal bias than being an accurate identifier for Microsoft. It's not really immature, just weak.
Your response to that post, however, was one of the most immature tantrums I've seen on/. for a while. My post was addressing that, not whether using "M$" was immature.
Re:C and Unix not used initially at Apple
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 1
I was talking later for C's influence on things that Jobs was up to, for example at NeXT.
Considering that his achievements were well documented before the release of the iPod. Just because he became more widely known doesn't change what he did in the past, or what people who already knew about him thought of that.
Re:That's why the world works.
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
You didn't log in, so I did not read any of that. Sorry.
That was my point though, and remember Steve's influence was not just at Apple - he had a major hand with NeXT, which was a big part in creating tools that were used by other people in the creation of the web as we know it (Berners-Lee, for example).
And regarding Apple, while Woz was the technical genius, Jobs was his driving force - putting Woz into the right places at the right time to be able to really show that off. Neither one would have made it to where they were without the other (or without meeting someone else like that - they're two essential pieces of a puzzle). I'll let the "ripping off" thing slide (that's all been done to death - PARC shared the innovations in exchange for Apple stock etc, it wasn't 'wholesale theft'), but no one person works in a vacuum - Jobs and Woz wouldn't be where they are without each other, nor would they be where they are without Ritchie (and a whole slew of other pioneers).
To use a film analogy, a classic film needs a number of different skills applied to it to make it what it is. You can be the best director in the world, but with a terrible crew or poor acting or a dire script you are not going to make it very far. What Jobs brought to the table in the early days was an essential ingredient - this doesn't mean I think that what others brought (Woz, Ritchie, others at PARC, etc) should be diminished at all.
I see you've chosen to think about "modern" Steve Jobs. Just ignoring all that stuff at the beginning with Woz, and then later at NeXT?
I swear the bling, frothing hatred for "modern Apple" for daring to release a smartphone that doesn't work in exactly the way neckbeards want it to is clouding people's view of history.
The comment:
Steve Jobs made no [in the same ballpark as Ritchie] contribution to the modern computing era.
..might be one of the most short sighted and "I really wish it were true because I hate Apple!" comments in a long time.
Love or hate the man, his contributions to the early days of personal computing are really not something you can just pretend didn't happen. (And no, this doesn't mean I think "he did it all himself" or that he "personally invented computers" or that Woz wasn't an integral part of the whole thing etc etc. No single person works in a vacuum.
This also doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) thinks any less of Ritchie's achievements, which were clearly extremely substantial.
Re:That's why the world works.
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And who says I won't? Why does it have to be mutually exclusive, is the point I'm driving at with the Ritchie/Jobs comparisons. It seems to be a common feature of slashdot lately that it's not good enough to simply like or support Thing A, but that part of that means trashing Thing B and disparaging anyone who thinks Thing B has any positive aspects at all. Why must I choose between Woz and Jobs? Why can't I highlight both? Or Ritchie and Jobs?
I think Dennis Ritchie should be recognised for his massive contributions to computing, but because I also think Steve Jobs deserves recognition my opinions are now suddenly invalid as a "worthless fanboy who only wants to suck Steve's cock" (and I'm really not using hyperbole there)?
This comment is what I was driving at in one of my replies above. The current state of some slashdot commentary is just absurd.
Re:That's why the world works.
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You missed off "in my opinion" from the end of your comment. As good as "inventing Unix and C" is, "helping to ignite the home personal computer industry" is not far off. Neither did it alone, of course. And Dennis didn't court the spotlight like Jobs, but that doesn't automatically make Jobs' contributions any less profound. They both made pretty significant contributions in the genesis of the modern computing era.
Should I start a thread on how Alan Turing is overrated because of Tom Flowers and Bill Tutte doing the heavy lifting on the Lorenz cipher - ie, the really hard one:p
(for the record, I do not believe Alan Turing is overrated, but I should probably specifically spell that out for the purposes of quickfire moderators who read but don't comprehend)
You misunderstand what he means (probably deliberately, but I'm not ruling out ignorance - I'm erring on the side of you being intelligent enough to be able to understand what he means).
What he's talking about is specific special interests out to call his methods and data into question rather than the science and theory that is involved. This is not the same as "the theory not being falsifiable" - the main aim of the denailists has been to question the competence of anyone who disagrees with them - for example, the whole red herring around the temperature data in the ice cores. They're not questioning the theory based on science, they simply wilfully (most likely) or ignorantly (possible, but unlikely) misinterpret the way to read the data from those cores, then using that incorrect method of data analysis to "prove the AGW people wrong", and then even worse - getting people to believe that.
They've been very good at that sort of thing because they are very well funded and learned a great deal about how to do this during the whole "smoking is good for you, and no we had no idea it caused cancer, honest!" propaganda campaigns they ran for the tobacco industry.
Talk to any climate scientist (or scientist in general who is working tangentially in the field, like chemists with a specialism in spectroscopy) and they'll be more than happy to discuss the theories and models and the way they improve them using the scientific method as you discuss above. This is how the models work - testing and experimentation, and verification.
If you think the entire field of climate science (and all those other peripheral fields that skirt the edge of it but aren't directly climate-only sciences) are all wrong because of one quote from a single scientist during a time when they were being hounded like McCarthy-era "commies" then I'm really not sure what there is to be done.
It's funny how no one seems to have a problem with, for example, spectroscopy, when it applies to something other than climate science - and not in a sense of "how do you know your results are accurate way", in a way that says "I have no problem with your results for experiment A, but when you do the exact same method in Experiment B that is designed to take measurements for climate data, now I think everything you say is lies!"
I assume you're referring to the "locationgate" issue, where no data was actually sent from the phone to Apple.
I admit it's an odd position to take, given that the EULA for the iPhone does mention the possibility of Apple collecting data, although so far no one has been able to verify that they actually are doing so.
Funnily enough, the "zomg all iPads/iPods/iPhones/XBox360s/PS3s/Prius/Starbucks/Round Glasses/Doc Martens/Anything Not Blessed By The Slashdot KnowAlls are being bought by people sold on the hype" argument is just weak. Good one on "faddists" though - that's relatively new.
On the topic of HP "undercutting" the iPad, do you not think that someone at the company (or anyone with any connection to a company capable of building a tablet) hasn't thought of that? So far the closest anyone has come is the Eee Pad Transformer at $100 under the iPad. They're just not cheap things to make at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
"In the event of a gold rush, open a shovel store"
That also supposes that you make a single $0.99 app per year.
If you make two apps (assuming you're doing it full time) then it starts to look a little better. (Not counting income taxes or anything).
Ideally if you're depending on the App Store solely for your income then you need to make more than 2 or 3 apps per year, or charge more than $0.99 per app (assuming a higher price won't affect volume of sales too much).
Which is already included in the maths.
It's also not a bad cut for handling all of the updates, hosting, payment processing (the real reason it's worth the cut on its own really) and so on.
It's a pretty sweet deal for what you get as a developer.
Yes, because running servers, bandwidth and processing small transactions on credit cards are all free, right?
That 30% is just "siphoned off to line pockets". Mmmmm.
The App Store barely makes a blip on the "profit" line of Apple's sheets compared the vast, vast torrent from their hardware sales. They're almost the reverse model to the razor blade model (give the handle away free, charge for blades). In their case the profit comes from selling the handle. The blades are just to entice you to do so.
That's not to say it can't be profitable for the third party devs though.
I think it's more to head off the inevitable "It's gone from the store!!!! Apple deleted it!!!!! Evil!! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!" that would result if they just silently took it down for coding work.
By all accounts it really lived up to the name "beta" - even if Google's version of "beta" tends to be a little more polished.
But you don't even do that - why would you bury such a useful resource?
You reprocess it and use it again. The fact that it's strongly radioactive shows you how much energy is still in it! You can use it in a different reactor type, and work your way down until the final waste product is almost inert.
(we still don't know what the fuck to do with the waste, burying it for 10,000 years doesn't do it for me.)
Nonsense! We've known what to do with the waste for years - why would you bury something with all that vast, juicy energy still in it? You reprocess it and use it a different type of reactor. Nuclear fission is an excellent way to harness energy, and certainly one of our most effective ways until we can make economically viable commercial fusion power plants.
Just because the politics of the situation don't allow for it doesn't mean the technical knowledge isn't there.
You say "Nuclear power has proven itself neither safe nor practical" but that's demonstrably false - nuclear is one of the safest forms of energy generation we have, in terms of raw accident numbers *and* in terms of deaths/accidents/casualties per kWH.
What next, you'll tell me that air travel has proven itself to be "neither practical nor safe" because of the Hindenburg accident?
Chernobyl was was one of those "edge cases" - not so much an accident as gross negligence (funny what happens when you intentionally disable all the safety systems and put untrained operators in charge of a reactor that has no containment building, then tell them to execute a very dangerous procedure on a reactor with numerous design flaws beyond that first major one [no containment building]...). Again, it's like saying cars are unsafe because a guy was killed while riding on the roof of his buddy's truck on the highway. It doesn't mean cars don't crash sometimes.
Fukushima was much more like a "classic" nuclear accident (as was TMI, or Windscale), and even in those cases the extent of radiation contamination is small and manageable (note: not zero - I'm not saying it is totally safe).
Where have I posted that? I would be very interested to see where I've espoused that opinion anywhere on this site or elsewhere.
I merely called you out for being immature in your response to an AC calling out someone going for a cheap troll. Feel free to disagree with such a position, but making yourself look like a frothing neckbeard isn't helping your case.
I personally think it's lazy (using the acronym 'M$') since it's extremely tired and says more about the poster's personal bias than being an accurate identifier for Microsoft. It's not really immature, just weak.
Your response to that post, however, was one of the most immature tantrums I've seen on /. for a while. My post was addressing that, not whether using "M$" was immature.
I was talking later for C's influence on things that Jobs was up to, for example at NeXT.
The NeXT cube was not shiny. Nor was the Apple II.
Oh, you thought that the iPod and beyond was all that mattered?
Um... yes?
Considering that his achievements were well documented before the release of the iPod. Just because he became more widely known doesn't change what he did in the past, or what people who already knew about him thought of that.
You didn't log in, so I did not read any of that. Sorry.
Log in next time.
You're trying too hard, I can see the bridge you're standing under. 1/10.
You forgot to log in!
That was my point though, and remember Steve's influence was not just at Apple - he had a major hand with NeXT, which was a big part in creating tools that were used by other people in the creation of the web as we know it (Berners-Lee, for example).
And regarding Apple, while Woz was the technical genius, Jobs was his driving force - putting Woz into the right places at the right time to be able to really show that off. Neither one would have made it to where they were without the other (or without meeting someone else like that - they're two essential pieces of a puzzle). I'll let the "ripping off" thing slide (that's all been done to death - PARC shared the innovations in exchange for Apple stock etc, it wasn't 'wholesale theft'), but no one person works in a vacuum - Jobs and Woz wouldn't be where they are without each other, nor would they be where they are without Ritchie (and a whole slew of other pioneers).
To use a film analogy, a classic film needs a number of different skills applied to it to make it what it is. You can be the best director in the world, but with a terrible crew or poor acting or a dire script you are not going to make it very far. What Jobs brought to the table in the early days was an essential ingredient - this doesn't mean I think that what others brought (Woz, Ritchie, others at PARC, etc) should be diminished at all.
I see you've chosen to think about "modern" Steve Jobs. Just ignoring all that stuff at the beginning with Woz, and then later at NeXT?
I swear the bling, frothing hatred for "modern Apple" for daring to release a smartphone that doesn't work in exactly the way neckbeards want it to is clouding people's view of history.
The comment:
Steve Jobs made no [in the same ballpark as Ritchie] contribution to the modern computing era.
..might be one of the most short sighted and "I really wish it were true because I hate Apple!" comments in a long time.
Love or hate the man, his contributions to the early days of personal computing are really not something you can just pretend didn't happen. (And no, this doesn't mean I think "he did it all himself" or that he "personally invented computers" or that Woz wasn't an integral part of the whole thing etc etc. No single person works in a vacuum.
This also doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) thinks any less of Ritchie's achievements, which were clearly extremely substantial.
And who says I won't? Why does it have to be mutually exclusive, is the point I'm driving at with the Ritchie/Jobs comparisons. It seems to be a common feature of slashdot lately that it's not good enough to simply like or support Thing A, but that part of that means trashing Thing B and disparaging anyone who thinks Thing B has any positive aspects at all. Why must I choose between Woz and Jobs? Why can't I highlight both? Or Ritchie and Jobs?
I think Dennis Ritchie should be recognised for his massive contributions to computing, but because I also think Steve Jobs deserves recognition my opinions are now suddenly invalid as a "worthless fanboy who only wants to suck Steve's cock" (and I'm really not using hyperbole there)?
This comment is what I was driving at in one of my replies above. The current state of some slashdot commentary is just absurd.
You missed off "in my opinion" from the end of your comment. As good as "inventing Unix and C" is, "helping to ignite the home personal computer industry" is not far off. Neither did it alone, of course. And Dennis didn't court the spotlight like Jobs, but that doesn't automatically make Jobs' contributions any less profound. They both made pretty significant contributions in the genesis of the modern computing era.
Should I start a thread on how Alan Turing is overrated because of Tom Flowers and Bill Tutte doing the heavy lifting on the Lorenz cipher - ie, the really hard one :p
(for the record, I do not believe Alan Turing is overrated, but I should probably specifically spell that out for the purposes of quickfire moderators who read but don't comprehend)
You misunderstand what he means (probably deliberately, but I'm not ruling out ignorance - I'm erring on the side of you being intelligent enough to be able to understand what he means).
What he's talking about is specific special interests out to call his methods and data into question rather than the science and theory that is involved. This is not the same as "the theory not being falsifiable" - the main aim of the denailists has been to question the competence of anyone who disagrees with them - for example, the whole red herring around the temperature data in the ice cores. They're not questioning the theory based on science, they simply wilfully (most likely) or ignorantly (possible, but unlikely) misinterpret the way to read the data from those cores, then using that incorrect method of data analysis to "prove the AGW people wrong", and then even worse - getting people to believe that.
They've been very good at that sort of thing because they are very well funded and learned a great deal about how to do this during the whole "smoking is good for you, and no we had no idea it caused cancer, honest!" propaganda campaigns they ran for the tobacco industry.
Talk to any climate scientist (or scientist in general who is working tangentially in the field, like chemists with a specialism in spectroscopy) and they'll be more than happy to discuss the theories and models and the way they improve them using the scientific method as you discuss above. This is how the models work - testing and experimentation, and verification.
If you think the entire field of climate science (and all those other peripheral fields that skirt the edge of it but aren't directly climate-only sciences) are all wrong because of one quote from a single scientist during a time when they were being hounded like McCarthy-era "commies" then I'm really not sure what there is to be done.
It's funny how no one seems to have a problem with, for example, spectroscopy, when it applies to something other than climate science - and not in a sense of "how do you know your results are accurate way", in a way that says "I have no problem with your results for experiment A, but when you do the exact same method in Experiment B that is designed to take measurements for climate data, now I think everything you say is lies!"
I assume you're referring to the "locationgate" issue, where no data was actually sent from the phone to Apple.
I admit it's an odd position to take, given that the EULA for the iPhone does mention the possibility of Apple collecting data, although so far no one has been able to verify that they actually are doing so.
I can see why you posted AC. No facts!
I wouldn't want to stand behind that post either!
You bought that UID didn't you?
No way you're old enough to have registered it for real.
I can see why you didn't log in - nothing you said is true. But nice try.
Funnily enough, the "zomg all iPads/iPods/iPhones/XBox360s/PS3s/Prius/Starbucks/Round Glasses/Doc Martens/Anything Not Blessed By The Slashdot KnowAlls are being bought by people sold on the hype" argument is just weak. Good one on "faddists" though - that's relatively new.
On the topic of HP "undercutting" the iPad, do you not think that someone at the company (or anyone with any connection to a company capable of building a tablet) hasn't thought of that? So far the closest anyone has come is the Eee Pad Transformer at $100 under the iPad. They're just not cheap things to make at the moment.