And suggests ~$10 billion in revenue; assuming $1 per download, that suggests 1 out of 4 downloads was paid. Even at $5 per download that suggests 1 in 20 downloads was paid. I find even that hard to believe.
Apple's users don't mind paying for getting something with better quality. That's the major reason why, despite the larger numbers of Android phones, developers prefer the iOS platform.
And yes, the figure will include in-app purchases. It's the "paid out to developers" figure, so is not just downloads.
For example I bought my son a "toy guitar" for christmas; it pretty much needs constant tuning. so I went through 7 or 8 different free guitar tuning apps before finding one I liked.
Sure, and there will be other people like you. And then there will be people who are not like you. People tend to overestimate the number of people that are similar to themselves.
This would particularly be interesting if you take off the outliers. Remove Angry Birds, and any other really big hit apps and then see what it looks like for the masses of developers.
The "masses of developers" haven't put the work in to developing their app that the Angry Birds programmers did.
I believe that Stallman comes across as more balanced and sensible
I have the exact opposite belief. Jobs did indeed create his products out of a sense of creating beautiful solutions. Where beauty includes exterior appearance, but is not just skin deep. The entire industry changed to follow him.
Stallman on the other hand, created his software and license out of political ideology. An ideology that gives all the power to the users of software and takes it away from the creators. An ideology whose inevitable end result is the impoverishment of computer programmers. It devalues a whole profession.
Most hippies worked out the flaws in their beliefs sometime in the 1970s. Stallman didn't.
He was one of the World's most failed decision maker too. He alone almost destroyed Apple before being forced to retire.
What the fuck are you talking about? Jobs took Apple from near bankruptcy to the most successful tech company in the world in the 15 years before he retired.
The fact that he got many opportunities and managed to get lucky in one of them
Successful with Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad. But it wasn't ever luck.
llegal was what he did, by making a conspiracy to fix employees salaries through agreements with CEOs of other companies:
Multinational companies have many legal challenges every year. Some they win, some they lose. That one the various tach companies were not found guilty of anything, but simply given a code of conduct to use. And what the fuck does it have to do with anything in the thread preceding.
But he was not. I made a simple statement. If he disagrees with the statement it should be because he had facts to contest it.
No, you made a contentless assertion. Something neither you can prove, nor anyone can disprove. And it was a stupid one. Satire is a very good way to draw attention to that. As is is when politicians make them. Your post is now -1 flamebait, the satire is 3 insightful. And you've been told why. The only person now sticking their head in the sand is you. End of topic. It's not worth any more posts.
Unlike RMS, Jobs was too egoistic and wrongly thought that ideas could be patented, and that it was wrong or illegal for any one else to copy or use ideas which were used in iPhones. Jobs was wrong.
There are three separate concepts here: That copying of Apple's ideas is something 1) Jobs didn't want. 2) Is wrong (immoral). 3) Is illegal.
Now it follows from your quote that (1) is true. But you assert he was wrong on (2) and (3). And (2) is in any case only your opinion.
Now it's certainly true that Jobs set the lawyers on Android (Google, Samsung etc) with regard to patents. That doesn't mean that Jobs opinion was that patents protect ideas. Simply that that was the available legal means to fight those companies.
Jobs spent his life in the tech industry. He was one of the world's most successful decision makers in it. Your theory that he didn't know what patents protect (as well as you do) is feeble. It's feeble because you're examining one thing that he said, in a rant, out of millions of other things that he said, and treating it like it's an answer in an exam question.
Both versions made exactly as much or little sense a the other, since both are merely assertions. And when people have a different point of view to you, it's not because they are disconnected or hiding their head. They have just had different experiences, and synthesised them into different points of view.
Now of course people can be wrong on the facts. But you're nowhere near the territory of examining facts with your contentless assertion.
Tell that to the people sued for buying legal textbooks printed in India and shipping them to the US for sale.
1) The very fact that you have to a fringe case about importation of copies made abroad for which someone holds a US copyright, indicates that within the jurisdiction of the US copyright, what I said is true.
2) That case has not even finished yet.
It is "illegal" in the US to rent PC software on CD.
The issue there is that typically PC software doesn't run on the CD, it has to be installed, which is a copying action. Once again, since you don't seem to have caught on yet, it's perfectly legal to rent software on CD. It's not legal to copy software from that CD. That's why you don't see PC software being rented. Not because it's illegal, but because there is no legal benefit that anyone could get from renting said CD. Renting it with the expectation that the rentee will install it would be an act conspiracy.
It is "illegal" in the US to rent PC software on CD.
It is not illegal to rent software on CD, and indeed many companies do it. There is nothing in the law about PC software specifically.
You're basing your opinion on your experience of being a teen, not being a parent. You'd do better to listen to those people here who have experience of being a parent (as well as a teen). They know better than you.
Otherwise, you're just acting like a teen yourself. Thinking you know everything.
Something does seem truly odd about the parents seeking prosecution of their own teenage child.
A girl that drugs her parents, probably wasn't an angel before. Sounds like a very thick and very heavy last straw.
There is a stage, when kids are completely out of control, that many parents consider getting the law involved is the best thing not just for them, but for the child too.
In most cases rounding will go UP by a penny or four, because of the tendency to price things at xxx.99.
Then there's a choice: a) Have the new typical price xxx.00 b) Have the new typical price xxx.95
You're assuming that (a) applies. However the same marketing thought that thinks xxx.99 is better tahn xxx.00 will think that xxx.95 is better than xxx.00.
So it may well be that (b) is adopted more often. If (b) is adopted even one fifth of the times, then overall, on average, prices stay the same.
Yes, I know the definition of rounding, but mark my words, nobody will be rounding down.
I think you're wrong. But if you're right, then at least there's the bonus of not having to trouble with irrelevant amounts of change.
The US has had a $1 coin in regular circulation since 1999 (and special printings in 1979-1981 before that). However, the government hasn't been able to convince people to use them instead of dollar bills.
They don't have to persuade. They just have to stop printing dollar bills, and continue to withdraw used dollar bills that come into the banking system in a worn state. Problem solved.
If you RTFA, you'll see that the Canadian Mint his issued rounding guidelines. 1c & 2c round down. 3c & 4c round up.
Whilst clearly a business could try to ignore that and always round up, they'd tend to lose more trade through bad feeling than they could ever make up in stealing pennies.
The iPhones have never been near the high end of pixel density. They like to claim that, but it has just never been true. Even an old HTC Rezound beats the iPhone and that Nokia you are talking about.
Bullshit. The iPhone 4 with it's Retina display, had by far the highest pixel density of any phone of it's day (June 2010). The "old" HTC Rezound, whilst it in turn had the highest pixel density when it launched, that wasn't released till Nov 2011, a year and a half AFTER Apple's Retina display.
Yes, they changed screen more 3/4 way down the screen, from monochrome square pixels for the wireframe, to oblong pixels with 4 colours for the dashboard.
They hung a routine off the VSync interrupt, that changed the screen to mode 4, and set up a timer in the 6522 VIA chip. When the timer expired, it kicked off another interrupt service routine that changed the screen mode to mode 5.
Clever stuff for the time. I wonder if Acorn helped them with that, as no one had done it before.
It was groundbreaking and amazing at the time, from a 9 year old child's eyes.
I was 19 at the time, and it was groundbreaking and amazing to my eyes too. And the eyes of every computer geek at the time that saw it. No need to limit it to 9 year olds.
But yes, it's no longer rewarding to play today, with eyes that have seen more modern games.
Slashdot Mirror
And suggests ~$10 billion in revenue; assuming $1 per download, that suggests 1 out of 4 downloads was paid. Even at $5 per download that suggests 1 in 20 downloads was paid. I find even that hard to believe.
Apple's users don't mind paying for getting something with better quality. That's the major reason why, despite the larger numbers of Android phones, developers prefer the iOS platform.
And yes, the figure will include in-app purchases. It's the "paid out to developers" figure, so is not just downloads.
For example I bought my son a "toy guitar" for christmas; it pretty much needs constant tuning. so I went through 7 or 8 different free guitar tuning apps before finding one I liked.
Sure, and there will be other people like you. And then there will be people who are not like you. People tend to overestimate the number of people that are similar to themselves.
This would particularly be interesting if you take off the outliers. Remove Angry Birds, and any other really big hit apps and then see what it looks like for the masses of developers.
The "masses of developers" haven't put the work in to developing their app that the Angry Birds programmers did.
That is an average of 7000000000/775000 or $9032.25 per app.
76% of apps are on the app store are free, and thus don't expect any income, at least from downloads. Some of them will have in game purchases though.
I believe that Stallman comes across as more balanced and sensible
I have the exact opposite belief. Jobs did indeed create his products out of a sense of creating beautiful solutions. Where beauty includes exterior appearance, but is not just skin deep. The entire industry changed to follow him.
Stallman on the other hand, created his software and license out of political ideology. An ideology that gives all the power to the users of software and takes it away from the creators. An ideology whose inevitable end result is the impoverishment of computer programmers. It devalues a whole profession.
Most hippies worked out the flaws in their beliefs sometime in the 1970s. Stallman didn't.
He was one of the World's most failed decision maker too. He alone almost destroyed Apple before being forced to retire.
What the fuck are you talking about? Jobs took Apple from near bankruptcy to the most successful tech company in the world in the 15 years before he retired.
The fact that he got many opportunities and managed to get lucky in one of them
Successful with Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad. But it wasn't ever luck.
llegal was what he did, by making a conspiracy to fix employees salaries through agreements with CEOs of other companies:
Multinational companies have many legal challenges every year. Some they win, some they lose. That one the various tach companies were not found guilty of anything, but simply given a code of conduct to use. And what the fuck does it have to do with anything in the thread preceding.
But he was not. I made a simple statement. If he disagrees with the statement it should be because he had facts to contest it.
No, you made a contentless assertion. Something neither you can prove, nor anyone can disprove. And it was a stupid one. Satire is a very good way to draw attention to that. As is is when politicians make them.
Your post is now -1 flamebait, the satire is 3 insightful. And you've been told why. The only person now sticking their head in the sand is you.
End of topic. It's not worth any more posts.
Here's a fact. It was samkass that satirised your post, not me. I'm just informing you why he was right to do so.
Unlike RMS, Jobs was too egoistic and wrongly thought that ideas could be patented, and that it was wrong or illegal for any one else to copy or use ideas which were used in iPhones. Jobs was wrong.
There are three separate concepts here: That copying of Apple's ideas is something
1) Jobs didn't want.
2) Is wrong (immoral).
3) Is illegal.
Now it follows from your quote that (1) is true. But you assert he was wrong on (2) and (3). And (2) is in any case only your opinion.
Now it's certainly true that Jobs set the lawyers on Android (Google, Samsung etc) with regard to patents. That doesn't mean that Jobs opinion was that patents protect ideas. Simply that that was the available legal means to fight those companies.
Jobs spent his life in the tech industry. He was one of the world's most successful decision makers in it. Your theory that he didn't know what patents protect (as well as you do) is feeble. It's feeble because you're examining one thing that he said, in a rant, out of millions of other things that he said, and treating it like it's an answer in an exam question.
Both versions made exactly as much or little sense a the other, since both are merely assertions. And when people have a different point of view to you, it's not because they are disconnected or hiding their head. They have just had different experiences, and synthesised them into different points of view.
Now of course people can be wrong on the facts. But you're nowhere near the territory of examining facts with your contentless assertion.
Don't be ridiculous.
Microsoft went to trial under Clinton. Within months of GW Bush MS was in the clear. Microsoft had contributed to Bush's campaign.
The investigation of Google was STARTED under Obama, despite Google being an Obama contributor in 2008.
It's not possible to truthfully say that Obama did wrong and GW Bush did right.
Fragmentation.
Yay! 2013 is the 13th "Year of Linux!"
Tell that to the people sued for buying legal textbooks printed in India and shipping them to the US for sale.
1) The very fact that you have to a fringe case about importation of copies made abroad for which someone holds a US copyright, indicates that within the jurisdiction of the US copyright, what I said is true.
2) That case has not even finished yet.
It is "illegal" in the US to rent PC software on CD.
The issue there is that typically PC software doesn't run on the CD, it has to be installed, which is a copying action. Once again, since you don't seem to have caught on yet, it's perfectly legal to rent software on CD. It's not legal to copy software from that CD. That's why you don't see PC software being rented. Not because it's illegal, but because there is no legal benefit that anyone could get from renting said CD. Renting it with the expectation that the rentee will install it would be an act conspiracy.
It is "illegal" in the US to rent PC software on CD.
It is not illegal to rent software on CD, and indeed many companies do it. There is nothing in the law about PC software specifically.
If you have seen the video it is obvious the knifeman wasn't trying to kill.
It certainly was not. In the video you see him attacking a child around the head/neck with a meat cleaver. There is nothing non-lethal about that.
The other 22 attacked you don't see. Some of the kids lost fingers and parts of their ears.
He stole the knife. Because they have strict gun control there he couldn't have got a gun. In America it's quite likely he would have got a gun.
You're basing your opinion on your experience of being a teen, not being a parent. You'd do better to listen to those people here who have experience of being a parent (as well as a teen). They know better than you.
Otherwise, you're just acting like a teen yourself. Thinking you know everything.
Something does seem truly odd about the parents seeking prosecution of their own teenage child.
A girl that drugs her parents, probably wasn't an angel before. Sounds like a very thick and very heavy last straw.
There is a stage, when kids are completely out of control, that many parents consider getting the law involved is the best thing not just for them, but for the child too.
Ah, I didn't know that. I do know Elite was before Revs though.
If the metal in the penny was worth more than the penny people would be melting them down, as they did with gold coins. Clearly that is not happening.
You'd have to do more than just melt it down. You'd need to separate out the steel, nickle, copper, zinc and tin.
In most cases rounding will go UP by a penny or four, because of the tendency to price things at xxx.99.
Then there's a choice:
a) Have the new typical price xxx.00
b) Have the new typical price xxx.95
You're assuming that (a) applies. However the same marketing thought that thinks xxx.99 is better tahn xxx.00 will think that xxx.95 is better than xxx.00.
So it may well be that (b) is adopted more often. If (b) is adopted even one fifth of the times, then overall, on average, prices stay the same.
Yes, I know the definition of rounding, but mark my words, nobody will be rounding down.
I think you're wrong. But if you're right, then at least there's the bonus of not having to trouble with irrelevant amounts of change.
The US has had a $1 coin in regular circulation since 1999 (and special printings in 1979-1981 before that). However, the government hasn't been able to convince people to use them instead of dollar bills.
They don't have to persuade. They just have to stop printing dollar bills, and continue to withdraw used dollar bills that come into the banking system in a worn state. Problem solved.
If you RTFA, you'll see that the Canadian Mint his issued rounding guidelines. 1c & 2c round down. 3c & 4c round up.
Whilst clearly a business could try to ignore that and always round up, they'd tend to lose more trade through bad feeling than they could ever make up in stealing pennies.
The iPhones have never been near the high end of pixel density. They like to claim that, but it has just never been true. Even an old HTC Rezound beats the iPhone and that Nokia you are talking about.
Bullshit. The iPhone 4 with it's Retina display, had by far the highest pixel density of any phone of it's day (June 2010). The "old" HTC Rezound, whilst it in turn had the highest pixel density when it launched, that wasn't released till Nov 2011, a year and a half AFTER Apple's Retina display.
It definitely felt as if you could skew a market by buying or selling in quantity, repeatedly.
Wishful thinking is all. Once you hyperspaced on, all market prices were forgotten. There wasn't memory available to remember them.
Yes, they changed screen more 3/4 way down the screen, from monochrome square pixels for the wireframe, to oblong pixels with 4 colours for the dashboard.
They hung a routine off the VSync interrupt, that changed the screen to mode 4, and set up a timer in the 6522 VIA chip. When the timer expired, it kicked off another interrupt service routine that changed the screen mode to mode 5.
Clever stuff for the time. I wonder if Acorn helped them with that, as no one had done it before.
It was groundbreaking and amazing at the time, from a 9 year old child's eyes.
I was 19 at the time, and it was groundbreaking and amazing to my eyes too. And the eyes of every computer geek at the time that saw it. No need to limit it to 9 year olds.
But yes, it's no longer rewarding to play today, with eyes that have seen more modern games.