Yeah, but we have to consider a few things here. The apps are driven by the App Stores themselves Apple / Google alone has the power to influence the decision of the users. TBH I had no clue what an "Instagram" is or was (and from what I can gather its merely a unit measurement of stupidity) but until FB purchased it and it made headlines only 30 million people were the wiser.
App Stores brand awareness is built by the concept of someone owning a device and thinking "I want an app that does...." and then "Oh there are 10 out there that are listed, 3 of them that have lots of stars against it". "One of them is free OK that's the one I'll download, oh crap the free one only had good ratings cause it was free I'll download that other app for 0.99c". Basically what I'm trying to say here is that Instagram as a brand is really nothing.
Now to actual user base value (hardly worth $1b) that's already accounted for and wrapped around larger more powerful framework (Google/Apple). If Google wants to create a native app then how will affect FB and the anti trust case would be hard to build on this one because the option to download the free counterpart is still present. Apple would be the wildcard as it hasn't an allegiance to either company.
Be appalled. If we allow more accidental millionaires/billionaires to hit the scene we only have ourselves to blame for our economical uncertainty.
I'd prefer it if you were appalled at the fact that its hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of peoples potential income being misplaced and abused in the hands of "accidental" rich people. I'm against this as a capitalist at heart because it borders on corporate dictatorship, next you'll tell me that its okay that North Korea can build weapons and fire them at innocent nations out of some warped desire to gain world power because they have the capability to do so?
The article's title speaks volumes "Zuckerberg Made Instagram Deal Alone" which means his responsibility and since he has controlling shares, this only puts Facebook in jeopardy and weakens its desirability.
The fb ad stats comparing to google is what is important and to say the least they are not up to same standard. To insinuate that fb deserves a market cap of 100b would mean that it's ad market is half of that of googles. In realitity it doesn't even come close.
Fb's only attempt to "grow" is to innovate and that is a tough cookie to swallow, look at the compeition, ms, google, apple, all these brands are delivering communications platforms, media centers, self driving cars ffs. So what is fb to innovate?
A instagram type product would of been a perfect product to innovate such as adding it too hardware devices like cameras and strike deals with olympus or nikkon. They didn't need to buy this rather work on the cosy deals and actually write the software themselves. The userbase would of just fallen into line he didn't need to buy it.
The market has given a bucket load of money to a shortsighted moron....
No he's giving his uni mates $1b because he can. I hope the fool gets found out and they wrap a set of bars around him. The market said "hey lets give an emotionally unstable little runt bucket loads of money" and now after they did we're supposed to be surprised when he does stupid ass shit with it?
Facebook is a worthless model as is Instagram and I know it has "ad" revenue. I'm sorry but you take the 4 biggest entities on the net into consideration and its so obvious why a bubble will begin. You have Apple. Microsoft. Google. Facebook.
Apple and Facebook can fall off the face of the earth go broke and the internet as we know it wouldn't even feel a bump. Google or Microsoft fell out of existence, well, literally one half of the internet would simply disappear while the other half wouldn't know what to do with itself. Why do lame ass businesses make the same if not more money that ones than actually keep the whole place running?
We give all this money to these useless ass businesses that DONT REALLY DO ANYTHING and we will end up worse off than 09, 01. So on....
How convenient that when bad things are done in the name of government that it is just the work of bad people, but when good things are done with the same government authority, then that demonstrates not that it is people who are good regardless of government, but rather that government has some sort of inherent value. Nope. That is ridiculous. People do bad things and good things irrespective of government, so governments can and should be judged on their intrinsic qualities, which is usually to say their 'laws'. These laws are invariably contradictory, saying 'love thy neighbor' one minute and that gays and disobedient kids are 'worthy of death' the next minute (Romans 1). The Quran has the same schizophrenia, alternately preaching tolerance and hate, uncoincidentally contextualized by Islam's own expansion and relative security.
These are very convenient devices, because it means that government can display a nice face to the world and then preach murder and hate behind closed doors, fostering jihadists and abortion clinic bombers. Both are sourced in the same place, the fundamental supposedly divine authority of their so-called illuminated texts. Only people do good and evil things, and because government itself is a construct of people, it too is layered with the good and bad ideas and actions of the people who created it.
Hahahahahah.... And I present you with my example...
Exorcism did work, placebo effect still means it worked for some even if the success rate was low. Burning witches and the control issue whatever this attitude comes from too many idiots watching the Da Vinci code and passing it off as law and is based on opinion and hearsay.
"Some" religions were "perhaps" created to control the masses, there are plenty that were not but this argument i see as mute since we are so awakened now as a people that control of the masses has been transmuted from biblical passages into database variables stored in banks.
Religion does have its place, it has historical value and its base moral values hold much importance to the world. Blaming it for the worlds ills is poor judgement.
Raping kids, killing infidels, torturing, etc. These were done by bad people not by religion, bringing religion into it is fucking tragic - rule #1 do unto others. Anything else is the work of ones own wickedness nothing more.
Yes, and what fetches me is the stance of the type of atheist whom don't just dismiss religion and spirituality but belittle those who follow or practice as such.
Religion is the epicentre of civilisation and cultural backbone to everything we have, all the way back to cavemen worshiping the sun. Though much of dogma has been surpassed by science we must not ridicule our intellectual roots for without the capacity to create religion is to be without the capacity to understand anything more than our animal counterparts.
Religion and it's evolution was our science without science, categorize the unknown. And why do we do that? to shed our fears of what cannot be comprehended but present rational. Science answers what religion didn't let's say demonic possession as an example, excorisim as ridged as it is was created to manage it. Now we have a science that manages and classifies it as mental illness but to claim excorism was completely ineffective is idiotic and unscientific.
What's disconcerting is facebook and their indescrimant use of their funds. The start up capital for instagram was 500k and all it is is quite a straightforward app. So facebook is buying the marketshare and brand. It isn't like FB hasn't these things...
Is this just another "I'm CEO bitch" displays of zukkers childish attitudes?
Let me get this straight $1b for some freaking iPhone app? really? a free one? Who on earth gave these people money in the first place? and then let them go off and use that free money they received to buy a free app which apparently someone somewhere said was worth $1b?
I really need to rethink this whole doing something tangible in order to actually make money concept. Perhaps look towards the do something miniscule but make it look like it was tangible department? any ideas?
That's a mixed bag. Zimbra vs Exchange springs to mind and is the complete opposite. Software where open source has given a marketing edge would only be something very niche and hold no direct value to the customer.
The secret to selling software has nothing to do with code quality or even platform. IT managers couldn't be assed tinkering with code so the only advantage to selling open source is to market to integrators and entice them to stick with your product. My post above deals with alternatives such as APIing the software.
Open sourcing on a positive note allows for long term sanctity of the code, allows for freedom, and for the preservation of the code itself holds a grand philosophical value. Freedom trumps billable hours for some and that's why for the life of my a cannot understand why it wasn't originally decided before the project was started.
Do what Netsuite does, provoke an API that allows for bolt ons and leg space for separation yet boast flexibility.
The philosophy of open source though admirable is not the only means to channel 3rd party contributions. Entire industry subsets are created under Netsuite/Salesforce because of this approach. Consider their licence fees are fairly reasonable that most of the time on consultation and integration and the software part of it makes very little difference.
Saas, might not be everyones cup of tea... That's probably the only limiter for you.
My problem is this. How can one spend time writing a piece of software wanting to base it on a business model BEFORE the business model was actually considered? The whole post smells of "lets get/, posters wound up over nothing" but moving back to the question how does one fund a serious operation without taking in bare business concepts? Is the world so Gen Y these days that money has now actually started growing on trees?
To answer the question open or closed source? I'd consider how valuable is the software first. If you're out to make money and its so valuable and unique that other people will profit from it without returning thing benefits back to you, close it and move it. If its commodity software open it up, let the tech world tinker with it for free.
As for the FOSS lovers out there, my statement is this, the world makes money from selling tobacco, alcohol, weapons, oil, blah blah blah. Selling something you busted your ass on creating which only helps other businesses MAKE MONEY ANYWAY is not unethical - get a fuckin haircut before posting your responses, thank you!
Yes, married life differs of course. Infact I find being married I get "hit on" by more woman than when I was single and if you're a guy whose in a position of power and married in march the "girls with daddy issues" in herds.
Fact remains, you're married that spark in the relationship doesn't seem all that important anyway and as for the "sluts" not only am I open with me wife about their advances so both of us can have a little chuckle but they don't hold any interest for myself either. Likewise anybody hits on her she isn't afraid of sharing it with me.
I know cynical but my wife is Brazilian she was raised simply accepting her political system is completely corrupt. The ONLY reason why they have implemented electronic voting is to simplify the fraudulent process.
Money makes things happen over there, or hide things, or kill people, or whatever. Politicians rip off the system on a daily basis and though end up in jail its so common place it doesn't even raise an eyebrow.
And jail don't get me started there, crims get away with having freaking mobile phones. Again money and if you have it and in prison the place has a revolving door.
People need to stop reading junk off the net to justify an argument... Maybe once upon a time in the last 200 years someone somewhere in Australia used the term tinny to describe a beer... 99% of Aussies will think your talking about a boat if you use the term tinny.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but we have to consider a few things here. The apps are driven by the App Stores themselves Apple / Google alone has the power to influence the decision of the users. TBH I had no clue what an "Instagram" is or was (and from what I can gather its merely a unit measurement of stupidity) but until FB purchased it and it made headlines only 30 million people were the wiser.
App Stores brand awareness is built by the concept of someone owning a device and thinking "I want an app that does ...." and then "Oh there are 10 out there that are listed, 3 of them that have lots of stars against it". "One of them is free OK that's the one I'll download, oh crap the free one only had good ratings cause it was free I'll download that other app for 0.99c". Basically what I'm trying to say here is that Instagram as a brand is really nothing.
Now to actual user base value (hardly worth $1b) that's already accounted for and wrapped around larger more powerful framework (Google/Apple). If Google wants to create a native app then how will affect FB and the anti trust case would be hard to build on this one because the option to download the free counterpart is still present. Apple would be the wildcard as it hasn't an allegiance to either company.
Be appalled. If we allow more accidental millionaires/billionaires to hit the scene we only have ourselves to blame for our economical uncertainty.
I'd prefer it if you were appalled at the fact that its hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of peoples potential income being misplaced and abused in the hands of "accidental" rich people. I'm against this as a capitalist at heart because it borders on corporate dictatorship, next you'll tell me that its okay that North Korea can build weapons and fire them at innocent nations out of some warped desire to gain world power because they have the capability to do so?
The article's title speaks volumes "Zuckerberg Made Instagram Deal Alone" which means his responsibility and since he has controlling shares, this only puts Facebook in jeopardy and weakens its desirability.
The fb ad stats comparing to google is what is important and to say the least they are not up to same standard. To insinuate that fb deserves a market cap of 100b would mean that it's ad market is half of that of googles. In realitity it doesn't even come close.
Fb's only attempt to "grow" is to innovate and that is a tough cookie to swallow, look at the compeition, ms, google, apple, all these brands are delivering communications platforms, media centers, self driving cars ffs. So what is fb to innovate?
A instagram type product would of been a perfect product to innovate such as adding it too hardware devices like cameras and strike deals with olympus or nikkon. They didn't need to buy this rather work on the cosy deals and actually write the software themselves. The userbase would of just fallen into line he didn't need to buy it.
The market has given a bucket load of money to a shortsighted moron....
No he's giving his uni mates $1b because he can. I hope the fool gets found out and they wrap a set of bars around him. The market said "hey lets give an emotionally unstable little runt bucket loads of money" and now after they did we're supposed to be surprised when he does stupid ass shit with it?
Facebook is a worthless model as is Instagram and I know it has "ad" revenue. I'm sorry but you take the 4 biggest entities on the net into consideration and its so obvious why a bubble will begin. You have Apple. Microsoft. Google. Facebook.
Apple and Facebook can fall off the face of the earth go broke and the internet as we know it wouldn't even feel a bump. Google or Microsoft fell out of existence, well, literally one half of the internet would simply disappear while the other half wouldn't know what to do with itself. Why do lame ass businesses make the same if not more money that ones than actually keep the whole place running?
We give all this money to these useless ass businesses that DONT REALLY DO ANYTHING and we will end up worse off than 09, 01. So on....
Yes but scientifically magic does exist, any one whose watched Thor knows that magic is simply science we haven't discovered yet.
How convenient that when bad things are done in the name of government that it is just the work of bad people, but when good things are done with the same government authority, then that demonstrates not that it is people who are good regardless of government, but rather that government has some sort of inherent value. Nope. That is ridiculous. People do bad things and good things irrespective of government, so governments can and should be judged on their intrinsic qualities, which is usually to say their 'laws'. These laws are invariably contradictory, saying 'love thy neighbor' one minute and that gays and disobedient kids are 'worthy of death' the next minute (Romans 1). The Quran has the same schizophrenia, alternately preaching tolerance and hate, uncoincidentally contextualized by Islam's own expansion and relative security.
These are very convenient devices, because it means that government can display a nice face to the world and then preach murder and hate behind closed doors, fostering jihadists and abortion clinic bombers. Both are sourced in the same place, the fundamental supposedly divine authority of their so-called illuminated texts. Only people do good and evil things, and because government itself is a construct of people, it too is layered with the good and bad ideas and actions of the people who created it.
FTFY
Hahahahahah .... And I present you with my example ...
Exorcism did work, placebo effect still means it worked for some even if the success rate was low. Burning witches and the control issue whatever this attitude comes from too many idiots watching the Da Vinci code and passing it off as law and is based on opinion and hearsay.
"Some" religions were "perhaps" created to control the masses, there are plenty that were not but this argument i see as mute since we are so awakened now as a people that control of the masses has been transmuted from biblical passages into database variables stored in banks.
Religion does have its place, it has historical value and its base moral values hold much importance to the world. Blaming it for the worlds ills is poor judgement.
Raping kids, killing infidels, torturing, etc. These were done by bad people not by religion, bringing religion into it is fucking tragic - rule #1 do unto others. Anything else is the work of ones own wickedness nothing more.
Yes, and what fetches me is the stance of the type of atheist whom don't just dismiss religion and spirituality but belittle those who follow or practice as such.
Religion is the epicentre of civilisation and cultural backbone to everything we have, all the way back to cavemen worshiping the sun. Though much of dogma has been surpassed by science we must not ridicule our intellectual roots for without the capacity to create religion is to be without the capacity to understand anything more than our animal counterparts.
Religion and it's evolution was our science without science, categorize the unknown. And why do we do that? to shed our fears of what cannot be comprehended but present rational. Science answers what religion didn't let's say demonic possession as an example, excorisim as ridged as it is was created to manage it. Now we have a science that manages and classifies it as mental illness but to claim excorism was completely ineffective is idiotic and unscientific.
Oh comeon Mac's are simply PC Clones that run a preinstalled FreeBSD distro.
Maybe they can mange the repository on megaupload.
No Macs would be categorised as PC Clones. Never really as good as the original thing though.
What's disconcerting is facebook and their indescrimant use of their funds. The start up capital for instagram was 500k and all it is is quite a straightforward app. So facebook is buying the marketshare and brand. It isn't like FB hasn't these things ...
Is this just another "I'm CEO bitch" displays of zukkers childish attitudes?
Let me get this straight $1b for some freaking iPhone app? really? a free one? Who on earth gave these people money in the first place? and then let them go off and use that free money they received to buy a free app which apparently someone somewhere said was worth $1b?
I really need to rethink this whole doing something tangible in order to actually make money concept. Perhaps look towards the do something miniscule but make it look like it was tangible department? any ideas?
That's a mixed bag. Zimbra vs Exchange springs to mind and is the complete opposite. Software where open source has given a marketing edge would only be something very niche and hold no direct value to the customer.
The secret to selling software has nothing to do with code quality or even platform. IT managers couldn't be assed tinkering with code so the only advantage to selling open source is to market to integrators and entice them to stick with your product. My post above deals with alternatives such as APIing the software.
Open sourcing on a positive note allows for long term sanctity of the code, allows for freedom, and for the preservation of the code itself holds a grand philosophical value. Freedom trumps billable hours for some and that's why for the life of my a cannot understand why it wasn't originally decided before the project was started.
Do what Netsuite does, provoke an API that allows for bolt ons and leg space for separation yet boast flexibility.
The philosophy of open source though admirable is not the only means to channel 3rd party contributions. Entire industry subsets are created under Netsuite/Salesforce because of this approach. Consider their licence fees are fairly reasonable that most of the time on consultation and integration and the software part of it makes very little difference.
Saas, might not be everyones cup of tea ... That's probably the only limiter for you.
My problem is this. How can one spend time writing a piece of software wanting to base it on a business model BEFORE the business model was actually considered? The whole post smells of "lets get /, posters wound up over nothing" but moving back to the question how does one fund a serious operation without taking in bare business concepts? Is the world so Gen Y these days that money has now actually started growing on trees?
To answer the question open or closed source? I'd consider how valuable is the software first. If you're out to make money and its so valuable and unique that other people will profit from it without returning thing benefits back to you, close it and move it. If its commodity software open it up, let the tech world tinker with it for free.
As for the FOSS lovers out there, my statement is this, the world makes money from selling tobacco, alcohol, weapons, oil, blah blah blah. Selling something you busted your ass on creating which only helps other businesses MAKE MONEY ANYWAY is not unethical - get a fuckin haircut before posting your responses, thank you!
I was so hoping he was going heave himself of the ledge at the end ...
Speaking as a male and a avid Slashdot poster. I've never really had the problem of women stalking me before and wonder why it hasn't happened yet?
Yes, married life differs of course. Infact I find being married I get "hit on" by more woman than when I was single and if you're a guy whose in a position of power and married in march the "girls with daddy issues" in herds.
Fact remains, you're married that spark in the relationship doesn't seem all that important anyway and as for the "sluts" not only am I open with me wife about their advances so both of us can have a little chuckle but they don't hold any interest for myself either. Likewise anybody hits on her she isn't afraid of sharing it with me.
Okay ... Let me fix my original comment then ...
Hackers breach prominent payment service provider, 10,000s of credit cards stolen - including Obama campeign.
From experience its just the opposite.
From the lack of sex, you find that you spend most of your time secluded in your shed. As such you have one of two choices
a) accrue a large collection of adult material ...
b) find a hobby
I went with hobby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8UV2BtndW8
Hope it's secure I could really see the future headline "hackers breach Obama campaign systems, 1000s of credit cards stolen"
ITS BRAZIL PEOPLE, OF COURSE THERE IS FRAUD!
I know cynical but my wife is Brazilian she was raised simply accepting her political system is completely corrupt. The ONLY reason why they have implemented electronic voting is to simplify the fraudulent process.
Money makes things happen over there, or hide things, or kill people, or whatever. Politicians rip off the system on a daily basis and though end up in jail its so common place it doesn't even raise an eyebrow.
And jail don't get me started there, crims get away with having freaking mobile phones. Again money and if you have it and in prison the place has a revolving door.
People need to stop reading junk off the net to justify an argument ... Maybe once upon a time in the last 200 years someone somewhere in Australia used the term tinny to describe a beer ... 99% of Aussies will think your talking about a boat if you use the term tinny.