Those are promotions, not sustained prices. Or are you suggesting that Android users will just forgo the use of an application with the hopes of one day it appearing in the "free app days" listing?
If that's the case, it just reinforces the assertion that Android users will not pay for software (though I don't necessarily think it's to that extreme), and that this is an Android-specific phenomenon. There are plenty of free apps in the Apple App Store, yet people still buy the pricey ones.
Your point is valid. However, you are missing one thing: cause and effect.
The reason there are so many free apps in the Android market nowadays is because developers have moved to "freemium" and ad-supported model on that platform. The evidence suggests that this is precisely because people were not willing to pay the price of apps in the Android Market, so developers adapted.
This appears to be mostly an Android phenomenon, since even the same developers tend to offer the same apps on the iOS App Store for a non-zero price.
Most business, developer, and customer surveys, and even some studies, support this notion that iOS users are willing to pay for stuff, while Android users feel more comfortable with ad-supported software.
Horses for courses, as they say.
This of course says nothing about why games are the top downloads. I was just responding to someone claiming that suggestions of this phenomenon were mere speculation, so I offered some references.
By the way, you are right in that the Apple App Store reflects the same trend of games being the top downloads. Android and iOS users do have some things in common.
iPhone users continue to download more paid applications, however, with 50% of users buying at least one paid application a month, compared to 21% of Android users. The survey also included consumers on webOS devices, and found that while they were active, they downloaded fewer paid and free applications.
Because Netflix is not an innocent party here. They made some very questionable decisions, and then try to double-talk their customers into accepting higher charges for reduced service levels as if it were a discount or added value.
They did not "cripple" HTML5 apps in iOS. They added JIT-compilation of JavaScript code for Safari with an exception in their kernel access controls for code execution. They have not added the same to apps using embedded WebKit.
Presumably this is because the special security privileges required for JIT-compilation of JavaScript from data have a potential risk which is currently localized to Safari.
It is expected that the acceleration will eventually come to the embedded control, though of course, this is not official.
Anyway, the point is that not enabling a bleeding-edge, experimental feature is not the same as crippling currently functioning features.
While the screen is touched, move the simulated mouse pointer to the touch location. I admit that mobile devices lack mouseover, but if that's what you're talking about, what makes you think SWF games will use mouseover more than HTML5 games?
Wait, I can't keep up with these changing arguments... I thought the appeal of Flash was that it was ubiquitous on the Web because of the sheer number of applications available already.
If most of them now need to be re-written to support an interface paradigm that is in essence incompatible with a touch interface, doesn't that invalidate the benefit of ubiquity? I mean, at the point of deciding to re-write an application, an enterprise has an opportunity to choose competing platforms, such as HTML, or native app.
On the other hand, HTML 5 being so new, offers an opportunity: the mobile Web is growing quickly, so in order to take advantage of it the interface needs to be designed to support touch-driven devices. So any new HTML 5 game is more likely to be "touch-friendly," more so than a Flash game built 3 or 4 years ago for desktop PCs.
"Will be more" usually implies a future tense. Flash was crap and proprietary, so not many other enterprises had a desire to complete with Adobe in creating content creation tools for it.
Sure, the Flash container format may have been documented publicly, but the standard was controlled exclusively by Adobe, which meant that Adobe always had the upper hand in its definition and implementation. This was further reason for third-parties to avoid competing with it.
Now that Adobe has effectively blessed HTML 5 as the future platform for the mobile Web, there's every reason to believe that third-parties will join the band-wagon as the popularity of the platform increases. After all, being fully open and consortium-driven means that all competitors have the same standing.
Ah, Meccano! My mind is rushed instantly with a flurry of memories from my childhood. The weird thing is that it's a strange mixture of metal parts with sharp edges, and of 1980s Spanish pop music.
I have a sudden urge to grab a screwdriver and my iPod.
Booting Charlie Miller out of the game is also a completely retarded move. Making it harder for him to find vulnerabilities doesn't mean they'll dissappear. It just increases the chance that they'll be found by someone else, and that means greater risk of the "discoverer" being a black hat who won't tell Apple about it, and just abuse it.
He was booted probably for subverting the vetting process by submitting an app exploiting the flaw publicly, where it could be downloaded by millions of people. The fact that he himself claims to be a "white hacker" and that he claims the payload was not malicious should not be excuse for such irresponsible behaviour.
After all, if you find a flaw in a lock, do you notify the lock company or its users, or do you break into people's houses to prove your point? If the latter, it doesn't matter that you only left a note saying, "boo!"--you are still trespassing and violating trust.
Sure, he may have notified them. But did he also tell them that he seeded the App Store with a trojan, which gives him remote access to exploit the flaw, and which is also available to all iOS users for download?
If Apple ignored him, he could have very simply exposed the flaw publicly to shame them. The moment that he decided to violate policies, subvert the vetting process and inject into the App Store an app exploiting the flaw--at that moment, he made his bed and now he must sleep in it.
You forgot a couple of answers: - Who the f*ck cares, as long as it works. - Why do you care, just don't use the Mac App Store, don't upgrade your OS to the version that locks you out, or don't use a Mac.
You know how they say that people hate talking to machines? It's exactly because of short-sighted, geeky-minded people like you who expect someone to speak to a computer in a robotic mono-tone and say things like "LOCKSMITH. NEAR. (address)."
It is most definitely the strength of Siri to be able to understand natural language, so asking it to do things for you does not feel like talking to a machine.
So, yes, I agree with you and others: if all Siri does is provide another Voice-Command interface, then it's doomed to irrelevance or a niche, like all the other such technologies; and it will only be used by the technophiles and derided by the masses.
However, Siri is more than that and the ability to not only process natural language, but to understand conversational context, immediately puts it in a class apart.
Really? What kind of crap car are you driving? Mine has required none.
If I'm going to purchase a driverless car with the tacit expectation that it's going to be buggy and require regular updates, then I may as well give up and just drive my own car into a tree.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the MSM related to the FSM?
And what do you do with the sections of your workflow that are not specifically Web-based?
H.264 is a video industry standard, which includes myriad delivery media. VP8 is a web video technology.
-dZ.
Those are promotions, not sustained prices. Or are you suggesting that Android users will just forgo the use of an application with the hopes of one day it appearing in the "free app days" listing?
If that's the case, it just reinforces the assertion that Android users will not pay for software (though I don't necessarily think it's to that extreme), and that this is an Android-specific phenomenon. There are plenty of free apps in the Apple App Store, yet people still buy the pricey ones.
-dZ.
Your point is valid. However, you are missing one thing: cause and effect.
The reason there are so many free apps in the Android market nowadays is because developers have moved to "freemium" and ad-supported model on that platform. The evidence suggests that this is precisely because people were not willing to pay the price of apps in the Android Market, so developers adapted.
This appears to be mostly an Android phenomenon, since even the same developers tend to offer the same apps on the iOS App Store for a non-zero price.
Most business, developer, and customer surveys, and even some studies, support this notion that iOS users are willing to pay for stuff, while Android users feel more comfortable with ad-supported software.
Horses for courses, as they say.
This of course says nothing about why games are the top downloads. I was just responding to someone claiming that suggestions of this phenomenon were mere speculation, so I offered some references.
By the way, you are right in that the Apple App Store reflects the same trend of games being the top downloads. Android and iOS users do have some things in common.
-dZ.
In Spanish, it's literally,
Adblock, how I love you.
OK, how about this, or this this.
From that last one,
I wonder what's the interest of these two in this.
-dZ.
You were supposed to never, ever say that!
-dZ.
Hum... On standard measuring conventions, it'll take exactly one Library of Congress.
Because Netflix is not an innocent party here. They made some very questionable decisions, and then try to double-talk their customers into accepting higher charges for reduced service levels as if it were a discount or added value.
That's why people are lashing out at Netflix.
-dZ.
You can count me in the "Star Wars, the original movie, is the best of the three" camp.
There, you've heard from at least one single person. Now, get off my lawn.
-dZ.
I agree with your comment, but I think you misspelled chicken.
-dZ.
Which means that Apple has some room to adjust the price, if needed. Amazon may not be able to, since it is already sold at a loss.
-dZ.
Yes, that's what Google needs, to antagonize more the content owners by engaging them on an arms race.
Burning bridges is always the best option.
dZ.
They did not "cripple" HTML5 apps in iOS. They added JIT-compilation of JavaScript code for Safari with an exception in their kernel access controls for code execution. They have not added the same to apps using embedded WebKit.
Presumably this is because the special security privileges required for JIT-compilation of JavaScript from data have a potential risk which is currently localized to Safari.
It is expected that the acceleration will eventually come to the embedded control, though of course, this is not official.
Anyway, the point is that not enabling a bleeding-edge, experimental feature is not the same as crippling currently functioning features.
-dZ.
Wait, I can't keep up with these changing arguments... I thought the appeal of Flash was that it was ubiquitous on the Web because of the sheer number of applications available already.
If most of them now need to be re-written to support an interface paradigm that is in essence incompatible with a touch interface, doesn't that invalidate the benefit of ubiquity? I mean, at the point of deciding to re-write an application, an enterprise has an opportunity to choose competing platforms, such as HTML, or native app.
On the other hand, HTML 5 being so new, offers an opportunity: the mobile Web is growing quickly, so in order to take advantage of it the interface needs to be designed to support touch-driven devices. So any new HTML 5 game is more likely to be "touch-friendly," more so than a Flash game built 3 or 4 years ago for desktop PCs.
-dZ.
"Will be more" usually implies a future tense. Flash was crap and proprietary, so not many other enterprises had a desire to complete with Adobe in creating content creation tools for it.
Sure, the Flash container format may have been documented publicly, but the standard was controlled exclusively by Adobe, which meant that Adobe always had the upper hand in its definition and implementation. This was further reason for third-parties to avoid competing with it.
Now that Adobe has effectively blessed HTML 5 as the future platform for the mobile Web, there's every reason to believe that third-parties will join the band-wagon as the popularity of the platform increases. After all, being fully open and consortium-driven means that all competitors have the same standing.
-dZ.
Ah, Meccano! My mind is rushed instantly with a flurry of memories from my childhood. The weird thing is that it's a strange mixture of metal parts with sharp edges, and of 1980s Spanish pop music.
I have a sudden urge to grab a screwdriver and my iPod.
-dZ.
He was booted probably for subverting the vetting process by submitting an app exploiting the flaw publicly, where it could be downloaded by millions of people. The fact that he himself claims to be a "white hacker" and that he claims the payload was not malicious should not be excuse for such irresponsible behaviour.
After all, if you find a flaw in a lock, do you notify the lock company or its users, or do you break into people's houses to prove your point? If the latter, it doesn't matter that you only left a note saying, "boo!"--you are still trespassing and violating trust.
-dZ.
Sure, he may have notified them. But did he also tell them that he seeded the App Store with a trojan, which gives him remote access to exploit the flaw, and which is also available to all iOS users for download?
If Apple ignored him, he could have very simply exposed the flaw publicly to shame them. The moment that he decided to violate policies, subvert the vetting process and inject into the App Store an app exploiting the flaw--at that moment, he made his bed and now he must sleep in it.
-dZ.
You forgot a couple of answers:
- Who the f*ck cares, as long as it works.
- Why do you care, just don't use the Mac App Store, don't upgrade your OS to the version that locks you out, or don't use a Mac.
-dZ.
You know how they say that people hate talking to machines? It's exactly because of short-sighted, geeky-minded people like you who expect someone to speak to a computer in a robotic mono-tone and say things like "LOCKSMITH. NEAR. (address)."
It is most definitely the strength of Siri to be able to understand natural language, so asking it to do things for you does not feel like talking to a machine.
So, yes, I agree with you and others: if all Siri does is provide another Voice-Command interface, then it's doomed to irrelevance or a niche, like all the other such technologies; and it will only be used by the technophiles and derided by the masses.
However, Siri is more than that and the ability to not only process natural language, but to understand conversational context, immediately puts it in a class apart.
-dZ.
Yes, leverage.
Screen display, and keyboard and disk I/O were handled by DOS or deferred to the BIOS. INT-21h, anyone?
Now, don't make me get my cane!
-dZ.
I think the LOCs in the Library of Congress are measured in football fields.
-dZ.
Really? What kind of crap car are you driving? Mine has required none.
If I'm going to purchase a driverless car with the tacit expectation that it's going to be buggy and require regular updates, then I may as well give up and just drive my own car into a tree.
-dZ.