Talk about selection bias. Nearly all developers who have a problem selling on the app store aren't ios developers.
Sure. And that's their self-manufactured problem.
Oh, I completely understand why -you- like it. But it's pathetic you can't understand why it's not suitable for everyone.
Why does it have to be suitable for every developer? Is there some kine of equal opportunities social programme for developers that I missed?
If someone sets up in business making things out of wicker, then they are going to be excluded from the stores that sell pine furniture. If they want to be in the store that sells pine furniture, then they need to sell pine, not complain that the pine store is discriminating against them.
Life would be simpler if the only store in town was walmart and it was illegal to open a competing store. Simpler. But not better.
Not a suitable analogy. Here's what would make it a suitable analogy: Walmart does a sea reclamation project, where new land is created. They set up a big store on the land, but refuse to let any other store set up there. But there's plenty of room for people to set up home there. People then move to that new land because they like the environment there, and the one stop shop Walmart store. Then, because those people are there, companies other than Walmart come along and want to set up stores there. And companies that sell goods that are not suitable for sale in a Walmart store complain that they can't sell there.
Yes, it's a bit unrealistic, but that's because your original notion for the analogy is was so far off.
I didn't say HumbleBundle was a charity. I said charity was a victim.... You seem to have a real axe to grind here, why?
On that score my problem is not with HumbleBundle, but with you. You trying to paint this as a charity problem, when it's just a business that uses charity as promotion. It's almost like a "think of the children" plea.
Yes, lets blame humble-bundle's chosen business model of selling crossplatform licenses as the problem here.
It's not a problem. It's simply their choice of business model. Just as the App Store is Apple's. And their choice to do that, and to stick to it is what prevents them doing business on iOS. Not anything Apple does. 10s of thousands of other developers have no problem selling on the App Store. Why does HumbleBundle choose to do things in a way that means they can't? I don't know. It's their choice. But it certainly isn't Apple's fault or problem.
I don't know about you, but I actually am a mobile developer, and have been on and off for 15 years. And both myself and other mobile developers that I know were very happy when the single app store model came along. I think I actually whooped. It;s that good. If you don't know why, it's because you don't have experience of having to do business with several different app stores. Nor do you understand the reason that being a one stop shop makes it more sucessful. Both for Apple and for the developers that choose to do business there.
On android you can actually download and install the humblebundle app, that essentially adds another "store"; and you can install any of your android apps through that app.
That's exactly the kind of user hostile shit that you don't get on iOS. Every fucking developer going their own way with their own proprietary and different solution. Rather like Windows.
I bought the previous round, which had xplatform games for Win/Mac/Linux and Android. But not IOS, even though several (all?) of the games are available on IOS.
You cannot buy a license to cross-platform ios games because there is no way get the game to you. You can't side load the game. And you can't even download a locked game and then activate it via a key or something because that implies that you are working around the apple store and "ripping apple off its 30% take" and "that's not allowed".
Kind of pathetic that even charity is a victim of apple's policies here.
First of of "HumbleBundle" are not a charity. They are a business that uses charity and the work of developers to promote themselves and profit.
Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to stop humblebundle, selling apps through the App Store, or using in app purchase, and donating some or all of their profits to charity.
That the humble-bundle's chosen business model, designed after the App Store was opened, isHumble-Bundle's choice, not Apple's.
Remember, Apple's success with creating an app ecosystem is BECAUSE of their one stop App Store policy, not despite it. User's have been able to "sideload" apps to smartphones, since the late 1990s. And yet it didn't take off until Apple gave users ease of use in finding, buying and installing apps.
Other companies that want to sell apps or services don't get access to that for free. Why should they?
Apple is bound to lose over the long term, as products sold by them are 30% more expensive
Do you have any evidence for that? Thought not.
a) If services aren't sold through Apple's system, then they need to be sold through another system. And none of them are free. Not even home-rolled ones. 30% is decent value for the service.
b) Software products are priced to end users by what the market will bear, not by a bill-of-materials.
Users win from all the apps that DO use Apple's standard in-app purchase system, that gives them a standardised purchasing system, without having to enter name address and credit-card details over and over again to each different service.
Apple makes it easy for developers to to the right thing for users, and hard to do the user hostile thing.
You say this as if Microsoft has done some clever manoeuvring. But they've taken one of the two choices that Apple explicitly give. One which thousands of apps before have taken.
The choice is, and has always been:
1) You take the money via the App Store, either in the cost of the app, or by in app purchases. And Apple gets a 30% cut.
2) You take the money outside the app. As you like. But you can't promote that within the app.
(For the pedantic, yes there was a time before the App Store has in-app purchases. But that didn't affect those choices - 30% if via App Store. 0% outside the App Store. But you can't promote paid for extras in the app, unless they come from the App Store.)
In other news today, Samsung, have very clearly said NO to this new browser direction of Google's. They're going for a different new projectwith Mozilla. And given that they are about the only successful Android OEM, that's going to be interesting.
That might be the theory. The historical reality is that multiple browser engine implementations have been a major pain in the ass for developers, who've had to code round all their quirks, and test against them all. And they've been a moderate pain in the ass for browser users, who've experiences web-sites that haven't worked well, or at all, with their browser. So just who has been served by this "good" of multiple implementations?
Show the peer reviewed studies that show statistically that frutarian cancer remedies work. Otherwise this is just snake-oil and quackery. It doesn't matter how many downmarket tabloids and blogs you link to.
Sure, no one is in any doubt that wholefoods (fruit, veg, meat, fish etc.) are better for your general health than processed food like twinkies and milkshakes. But that's a whole different issue from whether certain foods do anything to combat cancer.
In much the same way that a fundamentalist imam is a douche-bag. Because he denounces everyone who doesn't subscribe to his religion, and every thing that his religion doesn't like. No matter how reasonable those people and things otherwise are.
For the rest, there are professional artists in all those areas that use the iPad as one of their tools. And when they do, it's because the iPad is the best tool for that particular job.
Take musicians for example. Many of them are using iPads when gigging, as part of their kit.
And so the goalposts move again, from capability, to ease of use. Well if you want a hypercard like environment to develop these free to share apps, then that's available too.
So not a single example of it being debunked then. Thought not.
And yes, you are trying to take people's freedom of choice away. Lots of people choose proprietary products such as Apple's iPhone, amongst other things because of the security of a closed system. And you are trying to take that away.
Yes the Islamic Fundamentalism thing fits well. They too talk about freedom, but actually want to make other people live according to their particular principles. Thankfully, your lot haven't become violent about it... yet.
When I am talking about AI, I mean real AI, not a silly chat box (Siri-liked) crap, simple minded automation, or mined data analysis tools.
There is a possibility that the bubble will burst before the real AI technology arrives to general public
There's a good possibility we'll all be dead before the level of AI you're alluding to arrives. Back in the 70s they thought AI was just a few years away. Here we are, 40 years later, and we're still playing tricks to simulate AI rather than doing the real thing. Siri (the simple chat box) can be useful in certain situations, but really it's not much more than ELIZA with a web backend.
Meanwhile, today's smartphones have far more power than needed nearly everyone's app ideas. They are more powerful than a PC of just a few years ago.
OK, so there was a.com bubble, that burst about the year 2000. So web developers haven't had any jobs for the last dozen years.
Except they have. Apart from the general world wide woes of a poor economy since 2008, web developers are still developing. There might have been a tech stock bubble, that made a bunch of people very rich over a short time, and then most of them very poor again. But the internet didn't go away. And nearly every business needs a presence.
As to the intern, he shouldn't worry. App development isn't going away, and even if it did the skills are very transferable.
With iOS it certainly isn't. Note the iPhones used in the article were deliberately selected to be very old. iPhone 3G.
With newer iPhones, every single byte is written using a hardware based encryption key. AES-256. Wiping the phone involves deleting just the key. At that stage none of the phone's data is recoverable. Not by anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about selection bias. Nearly all developers who have a problem selling on the app store aren't ios developers.
Sure. And that's their self-manufactured problem.
Oh, I completely understand why -you- like it. But it's pathetic you can't understand why it's not suitable for everyone.
Why does it have to be suitable for every developer? Is there some kine of equal opportunities social programme for developers that I missed?
If someone sets up in business making things out of wicker, then they are going to be excluded from the stores that sell pine furniture. If they want to be in the store that sells pine furniture, then they need to sell pine, not complain that the pine store is discriminating against them.
Life would be simpler if the only store in town was walmart and it was illegal to open a competing store. Simpler. But not better.
Not a suitable analogy. Here's what would make it a suitable analogy: Walmart does a sea reclamation project, where new land is created. They set up a big store on the land, but refuse to let any other store set up there. But there's plenty of room for people to set up home there. People then move to that new land because they like the environment there, and the one stop shop Walmart store. Then, because those people are there, companies other than Walmart come along and want to set up stores there. And companies that sell goods that are not suitable for sale in a Walmart store complain that they can't sell there.
Yes, it's a bit unrealistic, but that's because your original notion for the analogy is was so far off.
I didn't say HumbleBundle was a charity. I said charity was a victim.... You seem to have a real axe to grind here, why?
On that score my problem is not with HumbleBundle, but with you. You trying to paint this as a charity problem, when it's just a business that uses charity as promotion. It's almost like a "think of the children" plea.
Yes, lets blame humble-bundle's chosen business model of selling crossplatform licenses as the problem here.
It's not a problem. It's simply their choice of business model. Just as the App Store is Apple's. And their choice to do that, and to stick to it is what prevents them doing business on iOS. Not anything Apple does. 10s of thousands of other developers have no problem selling on the App Store. Why does HumbleBundle choose to do things in a way that means they can't? I don't know. It's their choice. But it certainly isn't Apple's fault or problem.
I don't know about you, but I actually am a mobile developer, and have been on and off for 15 years. And both myself and other mobile developers that I know were very happy when the single app store model came along. I think I actually whooped. It;s that good. If you don't know why, it's because you don't have experience of having to do business with several different app stores. Nor do you understand the reason that being a one stop shop makes it more sucessful. Both for Apple and for the developers that choose to do business there.
On android you can actually download and install the humblebundle app, that essentially adds another "store"; and you can install any of your android apps through that app.
That's exactly the kind of user hostile shit that you don't get on iOS. Every fucking developer going their own way with their own proprietary and different solution. Rather like Windows.
Stupid comment. If one company has your details, that's far safer than if 100 companies have them.
I bought the previous round, which had xplatform games for Win/Mac/Linux and Android. But not IOS, even though several (all?) of the games are available on IOS.
You cannot buy a license to cross-platform ios games because there is no way get the game to you. You can't side load the game. And you can't even download a locked game and then activate it via a key or something because that implies that you are working around the apple store and "ripping apple off its 30% take" and "that's not allowed".
Kind of pathetic that even charity is a victim of apple's policies here.
First of of "HumbleBundle" are not a charity. They are a business that uses charity and the work of developers to promote themselves and profit.
Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to stop humblebundle, selling apps through the App Store, or using in app purchase, and donating some or all of their profits to charity.
That the humble-bundle's chosen business model, designed after the App Store was opened, isHumble-Bundle's choice, not Apple's.
Remember, Apple's success with creating an app ecosystem is BECAUSE of their one stop App Store policy, not despite it. User's have been able to "sideload" apps to smartphones, since the late 1990s. And yet it didn't take off until Apple gave users ease of use in finding, buying and installing apps.
Other companies that want to sell apps or services don't get access to that for free. Why should they?
Apple is bound to lose over the long term, as products sold by them are 30% more expensive
Do you have any evidence for that? Thought not.
a) If services aren't sold through Apple's system, then they need to be sold through another system. And none of them are free. Not even home-rolled ones. 30% is decent value for the service.
b) Software products are priced to end users by what the market will bear, not by a bill-of-materials.
Users win from all the apps that DO use Apple's standard in-app purchase system, that gives them a standardised purchasing system, without having to enter name address and credit-card details over and over again to each different service.
Apple makes it easy for developers to to the right thing for users, and hard to do the user hostile thing.
You say this as if Microsoft has done some clever manoeuvring. But they've taken one of the two choices that Apple explicitly give. One which thousands of apps before have taken.
The choice is, and has always been:
1) You take the money via the App Store, either in the cost of the app, or by in app purchases. And Apple gets a 30% cut.
2) You take the money outside the app. As you like. But you can't promote that within the app.
(For the pedantic, yes there was a time before the App Store has in-app purchases. But that didn't affect those choices - 30% if via App Store. 0% outside the App Store. But you can't promote paid for extras in the app, unless they come from the App Store.)
Probably. When is spring break?
Yes. On day one.
http://lists.kde.org/?m=104197092318639
It's possible, maybe even likely Blink will be the new universal rendering engine and WebKit an Apple only thing, timeframe a year or two.
Given that the whole point of Blink is for Google to remove support for platforms other than their own, this is is either unlikely or impossible.
In other news today, Samsung, have very clearly said NO to this new browser direction of Google's. They're going for a different new projectwith Mozilla. And given that they are about the only successful Android OEM, that's going to be interesting.
http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/04/03/mozilla-and-samsung-collaborate-on-next-generation-web-browser-engine/
That might be the theory. The historical reality is that multiple browser engine implementations have been a major pain in the ass for developers, who've had to code round all their quirks, and test against them all. And they've been a moderate pain in the ass for browser users, who've experiences web-sites that haven't worked well, or at all, with their browser. So just who has been served by this "good" of multiple implementations?
Compared to iOS and Windows Phone, Android IS a "model open source" project.
You misunderstand the word model. The girl next door might be more attractive than your wife, but that doesn't make her a model.
To put it another way, consider the classic categories Good, better, best. Model refers to "best", not "better".
Android has some open source components, but it's certainly not all open, and it's definitely not free software. It's not a model anything.
Show the peer reviewed studies that show statistically that frutarian cancer remedies work. Otherwise this is just snake-oil and quackery. It doesn't matter how many downmarket tabloids and blogs you link to.
Sure, no one is in any doubt that wholefoods (fruit, veg, meat, fish etc.) are better for your general health than processed food like twinkies and milkshakes. But that's a whole different issue from whether certain foods do anything to combat cancer.
In much the same way that a fundamentalist imam is a douche-bag. Because he denounces everyone who doesn't subscribe to his religion, and every thing that his religion doesn't like. No matter how reasonable those people and things otherwise are.
The last one I already covered.
For the rest, there are professional artists in all those areas that use the iPad as one of their tools. And when they do, it's because the iPad is the best tool for that particular job.
Take musicians for example. Many of them are using iPads when gigging, as part of their kit.
None of that new age frutarian cancer therapy did much good for Steve Jobs.
And so the goalposts move again, from capability, to ease of use. Well if you want a hypercard like environment to develop these free to share apps, then that's available too.
http://plectrum.com/novocard/NovoCard.html
Of course you'll be limited to the kind of stuff hypercard was capable of - I don't share your nostalgia in this particular case.
So not a single example of it being debunked then. Thought not.
And yes, you are trying to take people's freedom of choice away. Lots of people choose proprietary products such as Apple's iPhone, amongst other things because of the security of a closed system. And you are trying to take that away.
Yes the Islamic Fundamentalism thing fits well. They too talk about freedom, but actually want to make other people live according to their particular principles. Thankfully, your lot haven't become violent about it... yet.
I'm enforcing my desires on people? yeah, sure, that must be it. It's not like Stallman has anything to say about the matter, right?
Just because a douch-bag like RMS shares your desires, still doesn't give you the right to dictate other people's product choices.
When I am talking about AI, I mean real AI, not a silly chat box (Siri-liked) crap, simple minded automation, or mined data analysis tools.
There is a possibility that the bubble will burst before the real AI technology arrives to general public
There's a good possibility we'll all be dead before the level of AI you're alluding to arrives. Back in the 70s they thought AI was just a few years away. Here we are, 40 years later, and we're still playing tricks to simulate AI rather than doing the real thing. Siri (the simple chat box) can be useful in certain situations, but really it's not much more than ELIZA with a web backend.
Meanwhile, today's smartphones have far more power than needed nearly everyone's app ideas. They are more powerful than a PC of just a few years ago.
OK, so there was a .com bubble, that burst about the year 2000. So web developers haven't had any jobs for the last dozen years.
Except they have. Apart from the general world wide woes of a poor economy since 2008, web developers are still developing. There might have been a tech stock bubble, that made a bunch of people very rich over a short time, and then most of them very poor again. But the internet didn't go away. And nearly every business needs a presence.
As to the intern, he shouldn't worry. App development isn't going away, and even if it did the skills are very transferable.
Quick, someone tell 2008 that they have a problem with phone security.
With iOS it certainly isn't. Note the iPhones used in the article were deliberately selected to be very old. iPhone 3G.
With newer iPhones, every single byte is written using a hardware based encryption key. AES-256. Wiping the phone involves deleting just the key. At that stage none of the phone's data is recoverable. Not by anyone.