How absolutely pointless. Words are just words. Sounds made by a human mouth, to which we've attached a meaning for the purpose of communication. They don't hurt anyone in and of themselves. Making an arbitrary division of words into "swear words" and "not swear words" and then not saying one category is ridiculous.
Sentences, on the other hand can and do cause offence and harm. Because they give words context. The offence in sentences doesn't come down to the individual words used, but the meaning of the idea being expressed.
If anyone is impressed simply by avoidance of an arbitrary set of words, than they trivial people.
Actually in the case of curry mile and other such places, they all use the same set of names for menu items, but they vary a bit in what's actually delivered. But there's more similarity than difference. The variety on The App Store is huge compared with what Indian restaurants offer.
It is, if you can instantly teleport to any restaurant in the world and additionally, each restaurant can host infinite customers at once.
Analogies are not identical in every way. If they were they'd be descriptions, not analogies. They only need the attributes necessary to illustrate the point. And the point is that it's as ridiculous to expect every business in a given industry to be equally as successful or equally a failure as every other one. An example of a failure does not say that and entire industry or business model is doomed.
There's no natural pressure with apps like that so it turns into winner takes all.
Only if you are producing an app identical to many others. Takes games for example. There are many games, and most of them don't sell because they are derivative and low quality. Quality original games sell. And no, they don't necessarily need huge teams to make. Take Threes for example, or Minecraft. Both simple but well executed and original, and produced as indie titles by single programmers.
Bullshit. You think Facebook did market research before starting up?
Not only do I think Mark Zuckerberg did, I know. Thanks to the court case and the movie, it's well documented. Before creating FB, as a student, Zuckerberg spent a night as a student putting together FaceMash. Although this was just a student prank with no intention of being market research, it was the viral success of that which was one reason to move forward to Facebook.
The other was the input of the Winklevoss twins who were popular kids at Harvard. Exactly the types that knew the market FB was initially aimed at.
Thus Zuckerberg had information on how likely the market was to be interested in FB, before he wrote a single line of it's code. This *IS* market research.
A company that only sell 8 copies of a cheap app clearly didn't have any worthwhile market research.
It's also equally naive to think that doing market research and marketing automatically means you'll be a success.
Strawman. No one claimed it did. It's the other way around, and not an absolute. Don't do market research and you'll probably fail.
This analogy would ALMOST work except for there aren't 42 italian restaurants lined up, side by side, doing the same thing, all for $.99 with the only visible difference being olive garden vs olive g4rden.
In London and various other cities there is "China Town" with Many Chinese restaurants. Amongst them is Mr Wu's which is an all you can eat buffet for 5UKP (about US$8).
In Manchester there is curry mile with many Indian restaurants. Again many are very cheap.
It is a completely valid analogy.
Try that with a burger king...
They opened a Burger King near me, behind a petrol (gas) station, where it was't easily seen from the nearby busy road. It was a bad location, so it got virtually no customers. It was open a couple of years then closed - presumably the minimum time before they could get out of the franchise agreement and/or property let. ALL businesses suffer if the owners don't do the market research.
Most... and I mean 99.99% of apps in both the Apple and Android stores are utter crap. Completely worthless. Surprise surprise, after a few years your customer base has become jaded. I never pay for anything through any app store anymore.
You're generalising from your experience of Android stores. From previous posts you've made it clear you don't have an iPhone or a Mac, so don't pretend you know what the software on those stores is like.
So, you've spent $800 just to start developing the app.
Which is an extraordinarily low investment in a new business. If you think this is a significant sum, then you don't have a business idea, you have a hobby.
If it's a hobby it doesn't matter whether you make money. And come to that, $800 is fairly modest for a hobby.
Maybe it's not fair for me to count the price of buying the initial computer for Mac and not count it for Android.
The difference is obviously significant to you. But then you aren't seriously considering it anyway. It's irrelevant to people that would actually be considering writing Mac software because they are already Mac users. And even for iOS they are probably already Mac users.
I know a team of developers that worked for nearly a year to create their app. They put it on the app store for a price point of $4.99. A week later they had sold five copies. The following week, three more. After a month, they had less than $100 in revenue for a year of work.
Where was their market research? Where was their marketing? Any traditional non-technology startup that forgets do do these things will fail. If you build it they won't necessarily come. One has to sell the right thing, execute well, price it right, and let people know about it. Why expect to be able to not do these things just because one is on the internet? If they didn't already know of 8 people that would buy it, why did they create that software?
We could watch Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares and come to the conclusion that it's impossible to make money running restaurants. And indeed it's not easy. Yet there are many successful restaurants as well as many failures. The failure is always in the specifics of a particular restaurant, not the concept of restaurants.
Right. On FB, where I personally know most of the people I see commenting, it's pretty obvious that the victim blamers are invariably those of a conservative persuasion. As people of that ilk are often not persuadable by things like the science of evolution and AGW, it's hardly surprising they are illogical on this issue too.
Note that Xerox did not "bring the GUI to the consumer".
And the extent to which Lisa and Mac OS was like Xerox Star is vastly overexagerated. Later GUIs such as Windows and the various Linux ones were derived from Mac OS, not Star. They copied features that were invented for Mac OS and were not in Star.
Love your Leaf as you might, it has nothing to do with Elon Musk. Even if you don't use any Apple products, you are far more affected by what Jobs did that anything Elon Musk has done.
If Jobs didn't have Woz, he would have got another engineer to design the computer. A visit to the Homebrew Computer Club would have found quite a few engineers who were just as capable of putting a microcomputer together.
Marketing was only one of Jobs talents. Another was motivating people to deliver their best work. Since Woz stopped working for Jobs, he has done nothing notable - beyond spending the wealth that his association with Jobs earned him. Other designers and engineers that worked for Jobs HAVE produced a number of outstanding and market defining products.
Also note that marketing includes coming up with the concept for the product in the first place. Such as the fact that the Apple II was a complete computer in a case. As I mentioned earlier, Woz wouldn't have made a case - and the Apple II would therefore never have been the mainstream success it was.
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck with that. Macs don't depreciate much.
mainly created by lieberal MSM...
What a fucking moron.
Those aren't the same thing.
They don't have the same meaning, but they descibe the same action. You can lead a dog to walkies but you can't make it shit.
How absolutely pointless. Words are just words. Sounds made by a human mouth, to which we've attached a meaning for the purpose of communication. They don't hurt anyone in and of themselves. Making an arbitrary division of words into "swear words" and "not swear words" and then not saying one category is ridiculous.
Sentences, on the other hand can and do cause offence and harm. Because they give words context. The offence in sentences doesn't come down to the individual words used, but the meaning of the idea being expressed.
If anyone is impressed simply by avoidance of an arbitrary set of words, than they trivial people.
Which is either done by a Mac enthusiast or a company that has had commercial success on that other platform. Either way, not a problem.
There are few apps that don't appear in both stores.
This is the evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. Most apps on the iOS store are not available for Android.
You're saying jeddidiah isn't a Linux zealot? Hmm?
Actually in the case of curry mile and other such places, they all use the same set of names for menu items, but they vary a bit in what's actually delivered. But there's more similarity than difference. The variety on The App Store is huge compared with what Indian restaurants offer.
It is, if you can instantly teleport to any restaurant in the world and additionally, each restaurant can host infinite customers at once.
Analogies are not identical in every way. If they were they'd be descriptions, not analogies. They only need the attributes necessary to illustrate the point. And the point is that it's as ridiculous to expect every business in a given industry to be equally as successful or equally a failure as every other one. An example of a failure does not say that and entire industry or business model is doomed.
There's no natural pressure with apps like that so it turns into winner takes all.
Only if you are producing an app identical to many others. Takes games for example. There are many games, and most of them don't sell because they are derivative and low quality. Quality original games sell. And no, they don't necessarily need huge teams to make. Take Threes for example, or Minecraft. Both simple but well executed and original, and produced as indie titles by single programmers.
Bullshit. You think Facebook did market research before starting up?
Not only do I think Mark Zuckerberg did, I know. Thanks to the court case and the movie, it's well documented. Before creating FB, as a student, Zuckerberg spent a night as a student putting together FaceMash. Although this was just a student prank with no intention of being market research, it was the viral success of that which was one reason to move forward to Facebook.
The other was the input of the Winklevoss twins who were popular kids at Harvard. Exactly the types that knew the market FB was initially aimed at.
Thus Zuckerberg had information on how likely the market was to be interested in FB, before he wrote a single line of it's code. This *IS* market research.
A company that only sell 8 copies of a cheap app clearly didn't have any worthwhile market research.
It's also equally naive to think that doing market research and marketing automatically means you'll be a success.
Strawman. No one claimed it did. It's the other way around, and not an absolute. Don't do market research and you'll probably fail.
Just wait till you read on to paragraph 2...
Your chosen consumer brand fixation is not a special unique snowflake.
Your Linux zealotry doesn't make you a unique special unique snowflake either. Nor a unicorn with pixie dust sprinkles.
I've had an iPhone
You're full of shit.
This analogy would ALMOST work except for there aren't 42 italian restaurants lined up, side by side, doing the same thing, all for $.99 with the only visible difference being olive garden vs olive g4rden.
In London and various other cities there is "China Town" with Many Chinese restaurants. Amongst them is Mr Wu's which is an all you can eat buffet for 5UKP (about US$8).
In Manchester there is curry mile with many Indian restaurants. Again many are very cheap.
It is a completely valid analogy.
Try that with a burger king...
They opened a Burger King near me, behind a petrol (gas) station, where it was't easily seen from the nearby busy road. It was a bad location, so it got virtually no customers. It was open a couple of years then closed - presumably the minimum time before they could get out of the franchise agreement and/or property let. ALL businesses suffer if the owners don't do the market research.
When I want a Mac version of an App, I just Google the product name and download the .dmg file from the vendor's download site.
Only a minority of apps are available as a direct download as well as a Mac App Store download.
How did you find them before the Mac App Store?
Most... and I mean 99.99% of apps in both the Apple and Android stores are utter crap. Completely worthless. Surprise surprise, after a few years your customer base has become jaded. I never pay for anything through any app store anymore.
You're generalising from your experience of Android stores. From previous posts you've made it clear you don't have an iPhone or a Mac, so don't pretend you know what the software on those stores is like.
So, you've spent $800 just to start developing the app.
Which is an extraordinarily low investment in a new business. If you think this is a significant sum, then you don't have a business idea, you have a hobby.
If it's a hobby it doesn't matter whether you make money. And come to that, $800 is fairly modest for a hobby.
Maybe it's not fair for me to count the price of buying the initial computer for Mac and not count it for Android.
The difference is obviously significant to you. But then you aren't seriously considering it anyway. It's irrelevant to people that would actually be considering writing Mac software because they are already Mac users. And even for iOS they are probably already Mac users.
I know a team of developers that worked for nearly a year to create their app. They put it on the app store for a price point of $4.99. A week later they had sold five copies. The following week, three more. After a month, they had less than $100 in revenue for a year of work.
Where was their market research? Where was their marketing? Any traditional non-technology startup that forgets do do these things will fail. If you build it they won't necessarily come. One has to sell the right thing, execute well, price it right, and let people know about it. Why expect to be able to not do these things just because one is on the internet? If they didn't already know of 8 people that would buy it, why did they create that software?
We could watch Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares and come to the conclusion that it's impossible to make money running restaurants. And indeed it's not easy. Yet there are many successful restaurants as well as many failures. The failure is always in the specifics of a particular restaurant, not the concept of restaurants.
Maybe it's because climate change is just another reason to grow budgets, grab more money... and perpetuate the system itself.
Goddamn liberal military!
You mean libertarians.
Right. On FB, where I personally know most of the people I see commenting, it's pretty obvious that the victim blamers are invariably those of a conservative persuasion. As people of that ilk are often not persuadable by things like the science of evolution and AGW, it's hardly surprising they are illogical on this issue too.
Note that Xerox did not "bring the GUI to the consumer".
And the extent to which Lisa and Mac OS was like Xerox Star is vastly overexagerated. Later GUIs such as Windows and the various Linux ones were derived from Mac OS, not Star. They copied features that were invented for Mac OS and were not in Star.
Love your Leaf as you might, it has nothing to do with Elon Musk. Even if you don't use any Apple products, you are far more affected by what Jobs did that anything Elon Musk has done.
The study was flawed, you now know that now as two people have dissected it for you.
Two slashdot posters being of the same mind does not make them right.
Frankly you deserve WP: the world's largest dump of unreliable facts for use by idiots.
WP is used by everyone, including academics.
I looked up a German Theologian the other day.
A nameless one apparently.
If Jobs didn't have Woz, he would have got another engineer to design the computer. A visit to the Homebrew Computer Club would have found quite a few engineers who were just as capable of putting a microcomputer together.
Marketing was only one of Jobs talents. Another was motivating people to deliver their best work. Since Woz stopped working for Jobs, he has done nothing notable - beyond spending the wealth that his association with Jobs earned him. Other designers and engineers that worked for Jobs HAVE produced a number of outstanding and market defining products.
Also note that marketing includes coming up with the concept for the product in the first place. Such as the fact that the Apple II was a complete computer in a case. As I mentioned earlier, Woz wouldn't have made a case - and the Apple II would therefore never have been the mainstream success it was.