I'm not an Apple hater, - simply have no reason to purchase any of their products. I am truly puzzled how Apple can claim there is a method to purchase in-app wherein the publisher retains all revenue from a customer brought to the app by a publisher.
The topic is about purchasing through an app, either by linking (which is now banned) or by direct purchase through the app. Ergo, the statement is meant to imply the publisher has some method to retain 100% revenue through in-app purchasing if they bring the customer. How is this accomplished without jailbreaking? That's the beginning and end of my question, which has yet to be answered by anyone.
I get all that. It's pretty much inline with my perceptions about how Apple operates regarding in-app purchasing.
My point was, how does a seller bring "a customer to the app" in any meaningful sense in terms of Apple's analogy to Apple bringing a customer and getting a 30% cut. They're talking about an app transaction in their case specifically, and in the same breath describing the alternative of a company bringing a customer to the app. That seems to implicitly mean a transaction could occur in the latter case without the 30% Apple tax while also involving the app for the purchase. I don't get the mechanics of that, unless it's a lie of omission.
That's not "bringing customers to the app" though. That's a purchase despite the app. My question is specifically how a publisher can get an app and a customer together without the app store or jailbreaking.
Maybe I'm missing something in what you're saying.
Were your apps used to sell products linked through the app? Otherwise, the percentage is taken on a product with different economics from your app, and hence your experience does not apply.
Even if you did sell products through your apps, they don't necessarily have the same margins as other products. Products with a margin less than 30% would not sell profitably through an Apple app, regardless of your personal experience.
Your products may do fine. Others may not. Mileage may vary; not everyone gets the same gas mileage as you, and it's arrogant in the extreme to claim otherwise.
I don't own any Apple devices. Is there a way to buy apps that doesn't go through the Apple app store? If not, I don't see how the following is possible:
When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.
If you can only get the application through Apple (jailbreaking aside), then only Apple can bring new subscribers according to their logic. The above then becomes a sort of red herring.
Now me, I've been in situations where I've done the right thing even though nobody would know, but that's because I'm so egotistical I *still* think I'm special. I don't have proof of that, nor do I need it. My geek narcissism is sufficient to make me think of myself as wonderful. Now I suppose that by some standards I'm a fool for passing up on opportunities that "everybody" takes, but my way has its compensations. I don't have to worry that other people will find out I'm not as good as they think I am, because I'm too self-centered to care what other people think. But there is one person whose opinion matters a great deal to me. I'd hate to disappoint him, because he's in a position to know if I'm not up to scratch.
If only there were more people who viewed themselves this way.
Not short-lived companies necessarily, but fly-by-night companies that reorganize under a new name at the drop of a hat.
The first would be a pseudonym that someone abandoned for something other than using it as a burn name. The second would be using a new pseudonym to engage in the same behavior that lead to the burning of the last pseudonym. That's the one people have a problem with.
The startup culture is not really about funding short-lived companies. Most companies, regardless of how the are funded, turn belly-up. That's just the nature of doing business, because even well-laid business plans frequently depend on interactions not under the control of the person running the business. There's a lot of guesswork involved, and more often than not the start-up makes an incorrect guess (or usually multiple incorrect guesses) that prove fatal to the business. The start-up culture is actually about funding a lot of companies knowing that most go belly-up, but trying to get a couple hits that will actually survive long-term in the process. Yes, there are vultures, but stable businesses are better for gains over the long term.
Definitely agree. My pseudonym may as well be my real name. It has a great degree of history behind it that is publicly available, and can, in fact, lead directly to my real name relatively easily. Then again, I prefer not to act like an unmitigated asshat even when I could easily disguise myself anonymously to do so. Unfortunately, there are a great number of people who engage in exactly the opposite sort of behavior.
Some places like Washington state do a better job allowing nurse practitioners to practice more in primary care. The world won't come to an end if you allow more freedom in the health system.
It's not just primary care. The Washington oncology practice I use wouldn't be able to function on both a volume and cost basis without the two ARNPs who practice there. My ARNP may as well be my primary care doctor.
Then some bureaucrat saw some statistic that said, people with B and M's earn 50% more in their lifetime than those without it. And so,.... hey... if we all got our B and M, then we'd all be well off!! So we all did... and those of us who came to our senses realized... we can't all be special... so we can't all get those jobs. And worst of all... now that we're all educated, the job can no longer carry a premium... and wages drop.
And so now we up the ante as people try and feel special again. Now we need more degrees to stand out.
Of course, it's not the degree that earns you more money. It's that you out competed someone else for a job.
So when we all have M and PHDs, it will still be the exact same problem.
This, right here, is probably one of the best descriptions of the problem I've read to date.
Most "training programs" are an entirely different beast than an apprenticeship. The latter is far more intensive, and actually entails years of direct hands-on use of the skills that are required to move up into the job proper. A couple management training courses are a joke by comparison.
As for formal management apprenticeship? It may as well not exist. Such a thing might exist somewhere, but is in no way the norm.
I've believed for years this would be the inevitable outcome of universal higher education. The people with drive will get the same jobs, and those with less will go into debt just to get an entry-level job that they would have previously gotten with one step less education.
This isn't a benefit to society as a whole, just to those who service education loans.
Yes, it's a better name, but reading the discussion shows why it's not actually void without more work done to one project or the other (or better yet, both).
If you don't get this, you are part of the problem.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the majority of the population in one way or another. If you're singled out, obviously you must have done something wrong. No cop ever singles someone out for reasons other than cause based on actual evidence. A cop is never prone to personal bias, or retaliatory behavior.
DWI/DUI laws were the first place where many of the most egregious abuses by law enforcement started. The first time a blanket stop-and-search without probable cause was allowed was because of such laws.
Unfortunately, in actual practice, the 9th amendment means nothing. Since it is non-specific, the courts ignore it completely. That, and the 10th amendment.
What should have been two of the most important amendments in the Constitution currently mean jack, since they were written to essentially say again that the Federal government has no authority over anything not specifically granted them. The Feds have goatsed the Commerce Clause out to cover absolutely everything, which limits the 9th and 10th amendments to covering absolutely nothing.
The problem isn't really the use of this device in general. It's the specifics of when, where, and under what circumstances it's used.
To determine identity of someone who is arrested upon probable cause is one thing. To detain people simply to use it, absent probable cause, is something entirely different. Given the way many officers view their work, it is in no way unreasonable to believe there are many who would see no problem using them someplace like a DUI checkpoint. It's no different from stopping and fingerprinting everyone at a given place even if there is no reason to believe they have committed a crime. I'm sure there are lots of people who think that's a great idea, but fortunately most courts don't agree that's acceptable. Yet, anyway.
There is, in fact, a right to privacy. The 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments make that abundantly clear. So do many Supreme Court rulings, though the Roberts court has made great strides in reversing that.
In addition, the Supreme Court has been fairly consistent in limiting technology used against individuals. In general, if it cannot be accomplished by a human without the technology, it requires a warrant to use against an individual. Someone can be identified via photograph or by visual recognition. The same cannot be said about the iris. An example of this reasoning would be Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27.
Hard drives are an option if you've built a redundant array, but even with that you're still going to be out of luck if you burn up your raid controller.
A RAID array is not a backup solution; it's meant to keep the server up while you replace the failed hardware. Also, an important array should be using mirrored controllers or you should have spares available. Anything else is madness.
Well, yeah. RAID isn't a backup solution, it's an availability solution. Unless you're using something relatively unknown, it's not hard to get a replacement controller. Even if you can't, you can recover your data from your actual backup solution when you replace the failed RAID system.
Anyway, if you really need high availability, there should be mirrored RAID controllers so a single controller failure doesn't halt your operation.
Unlikely. The current generation in power is the one that acts as gatekeepers to the next generation of power brokers. Those who do not embrace the system the way those currently in charge embrace it will have a much harder time getting into a position to change anything than those who toe the line.
Surprising, actually, since the logic behind motor vehicle regulations is that you agreed to them by signing. That's why most things are handled in an administrative manner, with little recourse to appeal. Even then, if the maximum length of imprisonment is less than 6th months, most jurisdictions say the 6th amendment right to trial by jury for all criminal offenses does not apply. They summarily sentence and imprison you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an Apple hater, - simply have no reason to purchase any of their products. I am truly puzzled how Apple can claim there is a method to purchase in-app wherein the publisher retains all revenue from a customer brought to the app by a publisher.
The topic is about purchasing through an app, either by linking (which is now banned) or by direct purchase through the app. Ergo, the statement is meant to imply the publisher has some method to retain 100% revenue through in-app purchasing if they bring the customer. How is this accomplished without jailbreaking? That's the beginning and end of my question, which has yet to be answered by anyone.
I get all that. It's pretty much inline with my perceptions about how Apple operates regarding in-app purchasing.
My point was, how does a seller bring "a customer to the app" in any meaningful sense in terms of Apple's analogy to Apple bringing a customer and getting a 30% cut. They're talking about an app transaction in their case specifically, and in the same breath describing the alternative of a company bringing a customer to the app. That seems to implicitly mean a transaction could occur in the latter case without the 30% Apple tax while also involving the app for the purchase. I don't get the mechanics of that, unless it's a lie of omission.
That's not "bringing customers to the app" though. That's a purchase despite the app. My question is specifically how a publisher can get an app and a customer together without the app store or jailbreaking.
Maybe I'm missing something in what you're saying.
Were your apps used to sell products linked through the app? Otherwise, the percentage is taken on a product with different economics from your app, and hence your experience does not apply.
Even if you did sell products through your apps, they don't necessarily have the same margins as other products. Products with a margin less than 30% would not sell profitably through an Apple app, regardless of your personal experience.
Your products may do fine. Others may not. Mileage may vary; not everyone gets the same gas mileage as you, and it's arrogant in the extreme to claim otherwise.
I don't own any Apple devices. Is there a way to buy apps that doesn't go through the Apple app store? If not, I don't see how the following is possible:
When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.
If you can only get the application through Apple (jailbreaking aside), then only Apple can bring new subscribers according to their logic. The above then becomes a sort of red herring.
Now me, I've been in situations where I've done the right thing even though nobody would know, but that's because I'm so egotistical I *still* think I'm special. I don't have proof of that, nor do I need it. My geek narcissism is sufficient to make me think of myself as wonderful. Now I suppose that by some standards I'm a fool for passing up on opportunities that "everybody" takes, but my way has its compensations. I don't have to worry that other people will find out I'm not as good as they think I am, because I'm too self-centered to care what other people think. But there is one person whose opinion matters a great deal to me. I'd hate to disappoint him, because he's in a position to know if I'm not up to scratch.
If only there were more people who viewed themselves this way.
Not short-lived companies necessarily, but fly-by-night companies that reorganize under a new name at the drop of a hat.
The first would be a pseudonym that someone abandoned for something other than using it as a burn name. The second would be using a new pseudonym to engage in the same behavior that lead to the burning of the last pseudonym. That's the one people have a problem with.
The startup culture is not really about funding short-lived companies. Most companies, regardless of how the are funded, turn belly-up. That's just the nature of doing business, because even well-laid business plans frequently depend on interactions not under the control of the person running the business. There's a lot of guesswork involved, and more often than not the start-up makes an incorrect guess (or usually multiple incorrect guesses) that prove fatal to the business. The start-up culture is actually about funding a lot of companies knowing that most go belly-up, but trying to get a couple hits that will actually survive long-term in the process. Yes, there are vultures, but stable businesses are better for gains over the long term.
Definitely agree. My pseudonym may as well be my real name. It has a great degree of history behind it that is publicly available, and can, in fact, lead directly to my real name relatively easily. Then again, I prefer not to act like an unmitigated asshat even when I could easily disguise myself anonymously to do so. Unfortunately, there are a great number of people who engage in exactly the opposite sort of behavior.
With less money due to the 2 years of loans and interest that the next two years of work won't actually pay off.
Some places like Washington state do a better job allowing nurse practitioners to practice more in primary care. The world won't come to an end if you allow more freedom in the health system.
It's not just primary care. The Washington oncology practice I use wouldn't be able to function on both a volume and cost basis without the two ARNPs who practice there. My ARNP may as well be my primary care doctor.
Then some bureaucrat saw some statistic that said, people with B and M's earn 50% more in their lifetime than those without it. And so,.... hey... if we all got our B and M, then we'd all be well off!! So we all did... and those of us who came to our senses realized... we can't all be special... so we can't all get those jobs. And worst of all... now that we're all educated, the job can no longer carry a premium... and wages drop.
And so now we up the ante as people try and feel special again. Now we need more degrees to stand out.
Of course, it's not the degree that earns you more money. It's that you out competed someone else for a job.
So when we all have M and PHDs, it will still be the exact same problem.
This, right here, is probably one of the best descriptions of the problem I've read to date.
Most "training programs" are an entirely different beast than an apprenticeship. The latter is far more intensive, and actually entails years of direct hands-on use of the skills that are required to move up into the job proper. A couple management training courses are a joke by comparison.
As for formal management apprenticeship? It may as well not exist. Such a thing might exist somewhere, but is in no way the norm.
I've believed for years this would be the inevitable outcome of universal higher education. The people with drive will get the same jobs, and those with less will go into debt just to get an entry-level job that they would have previously gotten with one step less education.
This isn't a benefit to society as a whole, just to those who service education loans.
Yes, it's a better name, but reading the discussion shows why it's not actually void without more work done to one project or the other (or better yet, both).
Yep, this guarantees any Google+ account I get in the future will be the only Google service on that account.
If you don't get this, you are part of the problem.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the majority of the population in one way or another. If you're singled out, obviously you must have done something wrong. No cop ever singles someone out for reasons other than cause based on actual evidence. A cop is never prone to personal bias, or retaliatory behavior.
DWI/DUI laws were the first place where many of the most egregious abuses by law enforcement started. The first time a blanket stop-and-search without probable cause was allowed was because of such laws.
There is, but it's ignored. That would be the 9th amendment, but it has been ignored for the majority of US history since it's completely open-ended.
Unfortunately, in actual practice, the 9th amendment means nothing. Since it is non-specific, the courts ignore it completely. That, and the 10th amendment.
What should have been two of the most important amendments in the Constitution currently mean jack, since they were written to essentially say again that the Federal government has no authority over anything not specifically granted them. The Feds have goatsed the Commerce Clause out to cover absolutely everything, which limits the 9th and 10th amendments to covering absolutely nothing.
The problem isn't really the use of this device in general. It's the specifics of when, where, and under what circumstances it's used.
To determine identity of someone who is arrested upon probable cause is one thing. To detain people simply to use it, absent probable cause, is something entirely different. Given the way many officers view their work, it is in no way unreasonable to believe there are many who would see no problem using them someplace like a DUI checkpoint. It's no different from stopping and fingerprinting everyone at a given place even if there is no reason to believe they have committed a crime. I'm sure there are lots of people who think that's a great idea, but fortunately most courts don't agree that's acceptable. Yet, anyway.
There is, in fact, a right to privacy. The 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments make that abundantly clear. So do many Supreme Court rulings, though the Roberts court has made great strides in reversing that.
In addition, the Supreme Court has been fairly consistent in limiting technology used against individuals. In general, if it cannot be accomplished by a human without the technology, it requires a warrant to use against an individual. Someone can be identified via photograph or by visual recognition. The same cannot be said about the iris. An example of this reasoning would be Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27.
Hard drives are an option if you've built a redundant array, but even with that you're still going to be out of luck if you burn up your raid controller.
A RAID array is not a backup solution; it's meant to keep the server up while you replace the failed hardware. Also, an important array should be using mirrored controllers or you should have spares available. Anything else is madness.
Well, yeah. RAID isn't a backup solution, it's an availability solution. Unless you're using something relatively unknown, it's not hard to get a replacement controller. Even if you can't, you can recover your data from your actual backup solution when you replace the failed RAID system.
Anyway, if you really need high availability, there should be mirrored RAID controllers so a single controller failure doesn't halt your operation.
Unlikely. The current generation in power is the one that acts as gatekeepers to the next generation of power brokers. Those who do not embrace the system the way those currently in charge embrace it will have a much harder time getting into a position to change anything than those who toe the line.
Surprising, actually, since the logic behind motor vehicle regulations is that you agreed to them by signing. That's why most things are handled in an administrative manner, with little recourse to appeal. Even then, if the maximum length of imprisonment is less than 6th months, most jurisdictions say the 6th amendment right to trial by jury for all criminal offenses does not apply. They summarily sentence and imprison you.