So there's nothing inherently unsafe about C. Its just that most implementations haven't bothered to deal with the problem.
C is inherently unsafe because the default mode is unsafe. History has shown that expecting implementations to add security after the fact does not lead to secure programs. C's builtin strings, which are null-terminated and prone to security flaws, are a perfect example of C's insecure defaults.
Also, the Heartbleed over-read could have happened in Java. Plenty of high-performance Java projects use buffer pools that look identical to what OpenSSL was doing. They do it to cut down on garbage churn.
Could have, yes, but you have to go out of your way in Java to fall to this kind of bug. There's a huge difference.
Depends on the amonut of auditing. C has huge problems, but OpenBSD shows it can be safe.
How so? OpenBSD says they audit their operating system (which includes code that they did not write). OpenBSD was affected by Heartbleed, which means OpenBSD's audit did not catch this bug, and they were affected just like everybody else.
Also, most of the bugs on their advisory page are for typical C memory problems, such as use after free and buffer overruns.
So having made a stupid defense of the original post, you now fall back to a point the first guy who replied to already made, which while maybe true, is moving the goalposts. Of course the idiot mods are having a field day with this crap.
Please just stop. The original poster was exaggerating in stupid fashion. Too often on Slashdot do you get these arguments, trying to find some technicality to defend the indefensible.
Started in 1979 (which for D is 1999), and by 1987: "In 1987 USENIX, the UNIX Users' association, took the initiative to hold the first conference specifically devoted to C++. Thirty papers were presented to 214 people in Santa Fe, NM in November of 1987." (page 36 in A History of C++: 1979-1991.
Objective-C
Debatable. From Wikipedia: "Objective-C was created primarily by Brad Cox and Tom Love in the early 1980s at their company Stepstone.[2] Both had been introduced to Smalltalk while at ITT Corporation's Programming Technology Center in 1981. The earliest work on Objective-C traces back to around that time.[3] [..] In 1988, NeXT licensed Objective-C from StepStone (the new name of PPI, the owner of the Objective-C trademark) and extended the GCC compiler to support Objective-C, and developed the AppKit and Foundation Kit libraries on which the NeXTstep user interface and Interface Builder were based. While the NeXT workstations failed to make a great impact in the marketplace, the tools were widely lauded in the industry. This led NeXT to drop hardware production and focus on software tools, selling NeXTstep (and OpenStep) as a platform for custom programming."
So while Objective-C really didn't take hold until it was the de facto implementation for iOS, it was a central component for a major commercial endeavor, and went with Jobs to Apple.
SQL
From Wikipedia: "SQL was initially developed at IBM by Donald D. Chamberlin and Raymond F. Boyce in the early 1970s.[13] [..]
In the late 1970s, Relational Software, Inc. (now Oracle Corporation) saw the potential of the concepts described by Codd, Chamberlin, and Boyce and developed their own SQL-based RDBMS with aspirations of selling it to the U.S. Navy, Central Intelligence Agency, and other U.S. government agencies. In June 1979, Relational Software, Inc. introduced the first commercially available implementation of SQL, Oracle V2 (Version2) for VAX computers.
After testing SQL at customer test sites to determine the usefulness and practicality of the system, IBM began developing commercial products based on their System R prototype including System/38, SQL/DS, and DB2, which were commercially available in 1979, 1981, and 1983, respectively.[15]"
What did D have going for it in 2009 in comparison?
ML and Haskell (while not as "major") also took a long time to find their feet.
I'll pass on these. They're both still niche. Anyways, it's been 15 years since the start of D (or 13 since the work has been made public). It's hardly a young language, especially when you compare it to the success C++ had on the same timelines, which is the most appropriate comparison here.
D is actually picking up some momentum - it's now being used fairly heavily at Twitter for instance. It's still a quite young language, only invented in 2004.
It's actually quite old for a "new" language. The announcement (with a draft specification) came in 2001. Thirteen years later and it's still a niche language. Can you name a major language in use that wasn't firmly established within 10 years?
That said, I think D still stands a chance, even though they don't have their story around garbage collection sorted out, and I'm not sure what shape their troubled concurrency story is in either.
Complete control over what people do with their idevice is monopolistic. If walmart was the only store you were allowed to shop at if you lived in New York then walmart has a monopoly there. The fact that you don't have to live in New York, and can shop somewhere else if you first moved to a new city doesn't change that fact. Likewise, being able to abandon your idevice and buy a whole new device doesn't change the fact that Apple's practice of control over idevices is monopolistic
Except users never had to buy iDevice in the first place, which makes your Walmart analogy inept. And they most certainly don't have to keep buying it, especially given the amount of churn in the mobile industry. Apple's policy regarding apps is well-known.
What do steam and apple have control over? Steam Answer: The contents of your steam account and the steam store. That's it.
Apple Answer: The contents of your apple account and the apple app store. AND you are prevented from obtaining software for your idevice anywhere else. AND you are prevented from using software you acquire on non-idevices.
Sure, Apple has more tightfisted control. But both Valve and Apple are gatekeepers to a large userbase, and they both take 30%. That was the basic principle being argued over initially before this topic became faceted into just how Evil(TM) Apple really is. That one has control over a device and one is just a dominant "store" (that also hosts achievements, "cloud" saves, and matchmaking) for PC gaming doesn't make that principle go away.
I think we've exhausted this topic, so last reply for me.
Monopolostic vs non-monopolistic is the bit that counts.
Except you haven't shown Apple to be a monopoly. You don't have to buy an iPhone to get smartphone service. You don't have to buy an iPad to get a tablet computer. They have a "monopoly" on the users that bought their iDevice, just like Valve does on users who only buy games through Steam.
The walled garden is also very much about entering.
What does that even mean? Valve's not a walled garden. Its just a garden. Or more accurately its just a store.
Are you really that obtuse? They decide what games they will sell and under what terms. They are more than a store, they are a platform unto themselves for delivering games. That's why they can make their own console, because gamers have bought into their platform. It's also why there's always the occasional murmurings about what would happen if Steam went out of business. If a normal store goes out of business, there's not even a possibility I lose access to my games.
But it shouldn't be their fear. Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to charge 30% for everything anyone does with the OS. That ought to be illegal.
Uh huh, and you're going to make the same argument that Valve shouldn't be able to charge 30% on their "Steam Machines"?
No, it's the similarities that count. Glad we have that settled.
With Steam its just a garden. There is no wall. You can leave the garden.
The walled garden is also very much about entering.
Only if you put your head up your ass and pretend that someone owning a PC and deciding to shop at GoG.com by just going there instead of instead of Steam that day represents the same class as "having alternatives" as someone owning an ipad and deciding to shop at at another store by buying a whole new device first.
You've got to have your head up your ass to ignore the market dominance that Valve has with gamers. Users don't have to be Steam sheep, but they are. They don't have to be Apple sheep, but they are. Apple wants their cut, Valve wants their cut. You're just hypocritical in your stance because you're part of Valve's herd, so much so that it bothers you that you can't be part of the Valve herd on an Apple farm.
All the things that make steam similiar to apples app store are accurate.
Which makes it a hypocritical choice to use as your poster boy for a degraded app on Apple's app store.
But the lock in is different.
Different, yet remarkably similar. Build a walled garden and force 30% of revenue to get in.
And the fact that one can buy an android to avoid it is entirely beside the point.
The cognitive dissonance is strong within this one... There are alternatives to Valve, and there are alternatives to Apple. That Valve runs on a PC doesn't change the reality that they have become a platform to themselves, and game companies have to make painful decisions because Valve has carved out such a strong marketplace, just like Apple has in the mobile world.
Because you sincerely think consumers shouldn't have the right to do what they want with the cars they bought?
That's a strawman argument. There's a huge difference between voiding the warranty and not being allowed to do what you want to your car.
Everquest 2, for example, is available on steam. In-app purchases don't appear to go through valve's transaction processing at all
How do you know? I'm pretty sure Valve takes a cut of in-app purchases on free-to-play games.
Steam's not really the victim of apple. We the consumer are. We can't shop from steam's app because of apple.
First, I'm not a victim of Apple because I don't buy their products. I don't like their walled garden, so I don't give them my money. Second, Valve chooses not to pay the gatekeeper, just like many game companies don't want to pay Valve, though many do because of Valve's market dominance on the PC. Third, there are alternatives to Apple, just like there are alternatives to Valve.
We can however login to the steam website and shop from that though even on an apple device. That's how pointless and fucked up it is.
*shrug* So there's an alternative, even on the iDevice.
I know why they don't. That doesn't mean it's the right answer.
Just because Chevy lets you tinker with the engine and get oil changes where you like doesn't mean its ok for Ford to bolt your hood shut and only give dealers the keys.
Its still illegal for Ford, and it should be illegal for Apple.
Then why don't you apply the same logic to Valve? Don't you think they also take a percentage of in-app purchases? You really made a poor choice by bringing in Steam as a victim of Apple.
Just like car manufacturers should be allowed to dictate that you must get all your service at the dealer, and buy gas from their gas stations right, and only install oem parts?
Arguably, yes.
Apple has done all of these things with its platform. They locked it down so the customer can't install their own software, can't shop at a different store. But its all artificial and could be swept away with a software patch.
Or you can just buy an Android that allows sideloading.
On the other hand, the solution there is simple, best buy just won't carry the ipad unless they can sell it for something. Problem solved.
The Apple solution is simple too. They want 30% of the purchases made through apps on their platform, whether it is upfront or in-app.
The only reason Apple (or Microsoft) get 30% of all purchases for iPads or Xboxes is they are effectively able to force you to. This should be illegal.
I disagree. They invested all the money building and selling their device and platform. They should be able to sell software on it as they see fit.
Do you really think if Best Buy could get 30% of all your after purchase sales they wouldn't?
Of course they would, but they can't. They could try and demand it as a condition for selling items in their store, but manufacturers would balk.
30% for in-app purchases is, in many (but not all) cases, ludicrous. Because at that point its just transaction processing. You aren't paying for a userbase with in app purchases -- these are already your customers, and you app is the "store".
Paying apple 30% for in app purchases is exactly as reasonable as apple paying bestbuy 30% for apple app store purchases since the customer bought the ipad from bestbuy.
The difference is that an app like Comixology can be given away for free while making money on all the in-app purchases. It's just another revenue model. Why shouldn't Apple continue to take their cut? The Best Buy analogy is broken, because they are a store, not a platform. You buy a console and leave the store. You can "leave" the iDevice too to another platform, but when you're on it Apple wants their cut, just like Microsoft does with the Xbox.
Developers wishing to reach the PC, Mac, or Linux game markets do not have to go through Valve.
True enough, but the fact that they "voluntarily" do so undermines your initial argument:
Original poster:
30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button
Your reply:
30% of your gross revenue? For transaction management? Whether you need it or not? Are you high?
Of course, it's not just about the payment transaction, it's very much the exposure to the userbase.
But in apple's case for example, take Microsoft Office. Microsoft doesn't need the app store to generate demand for its product. If they released office for the ipad they could sell it directly without any trouble at all. They certainly don't need apple to provide them infrastructure, exposure, or process Visa cards. But they couldn't. So for the longest time there was no office for ipad.
So what? Apple is a walled garden. If you want in, Apple wants their cut, just like Microsoft does with Xbox. If it isn't worth 30%, Microsoft won't pay. If it is, they will.
And since the original article is about Comixology, 30% to gain access to millions of users ready to purchase doesn't sound all that unreasonable, just like many, many developers publish on Steam, even though they aren't all selling $1 mobile games and can handle their own payments via their own website.
Want to know why, for example, the Steam Mobile app doesn't allow you to buy Windows games for your PC and add them to your steam library right from the mobile app?
30% gross to Apple is why
Look up what percentage Valve charges other game companies to publish on Steam. Valve tries to hide this number, but it's been reported at 30%.
The app store is the only remaining way to sell apps after all other ways have been taken away from you, it's what keeps the market hostage and enables them to get a 30% shakedown of all transactions. Why do you think there's no such thing in the PC world, here's millions of people ready to one-click shop for only 30% of your gross?
For gaming on the PC, there's Steam. Google searches tell me they take 30% as well.
Because no sane business would use it if they had a choice.
Steam is popular with gamers, so game companies take the hit and publish through Steam. They have a choice, and not every game is on Steam, but many are.
I dunno. Speed would not be high on my list of priorities. My dishwasher takes over 2 hours to wash the load, and that's acceptable. The reliability â" which you mention second â" is much more important in my opinion.
I agree. If it takes double the time but comes out right every time it would be worth it. There's no way I would get one of these devices if they aren't reliable.
That said, one advantage to being fast is if you have to make adjustments to your model that are only discovered after printing.
Slashdot Mirror
So there's nothing inherently unsafe about C. Its just that most implementations haven't bothered to deal with the problem.
C is inherently unsafe because the default mode is unsafe. History has shown that expecting implementations to add security after the fact does not lead to secure programs. C's builtin strings, which are null-terminated and prone to security flaws, are a perfect example of C's insecure defaults.
Also, the Heartbleed over-read could have happened in Java. Plenty of high-performance Java projects use buffer pools that look identical to what OpenSSL was doing. They do it to cut down on garbage churn.
Could have, yes, but you have to go out of your way in Java to fall to this kind of bug. There's a huge difference.
Depends on the amonut of auditing. C has huge problems, but OpenBSD shows it can be safe.
How so? OpenBSD says they audit their operating system (which includes code that they did not write). OpenBSD was affected by Heartbleed, which means OpenBSD's audit did not catch this bug, and they were affected just like everybody else.
Also, most of the bugs on their advisory page are for typical C memory problems, such as use after free and buffer overruns.
So having made a stupid defense of the original post, you now fall back to a point the first guy who replied to already made, which while maybe true, is moving the goalposts. Of course the idiot mods are having a field day with this crap.
Please just stop. The original poster was exaggerating in stupid fashion. Too often on Slashdot do you get these arguments, trying to find some technicality to defend the indefensible.
One of the first steps on the way to the holocaust was to deny Jews and other undesirables the right to a bank account.
Maybe so, but remember the original poster's claim:
"How the hell are you people still not realizing you're living in a situation worse than Nazi Germany?"
Which is just fucking ridiculous, no matter how you slice it.
C++
Started in 1979 (which for D is 1999), and by 1987: "In 1987 USENIX, the UNIX Users' association, took the initiative to hold the first conference specifically devoted to C++. Thirty papers were presented to 214 people in Santa Fe, NM in November of 1987." (page 36 in A History of C++: 1979-1991.
Objective-C
Debatable. From Wikipedia: "Objective-C was created primarily by Brad Cox and Tom Love in the early 1980s at their company Stepstone.[2] Both had been introduced to Smalltalk while at ITT Corporation's Programming Technology Center in 1981. The earliest work on Objective-C traces back to around that time.[3] [..] In 1988, NeXT licensed Objective-C from StepStone (the new name of PPI, the owner of the Objective-C trademark) and extended the GCC compiler to support Objective-C, and developed the AppKit and Foundation Kit libraries on which the NeXTstep user interface and Interface Builder were based. While the NeXT workstations failed to make a great impact in the marketplace, the tools were widely lauded in the industry. This led NeXT to drop hardware production and focus on software tools, selling NeXTstep (and OpenStep) as a platform for custom programming."
So while Objective-C really didn't take hold until it was the de facto implementation for iOS, it was a central component for a major commercial endeavor, and went with Jobs to Apple.
SQL
From Wikipedia: "SQL was initially developed at IBM by Donald D. Chamberlin and Raymond F. Boyce in the early 1970s.[13] [..]
In the late 1970s, Relational Software, Inc. (now Oracle Corporation) saw the potential of the concepts described by Codd, Chamberlin, and Boyce and developed their own SQL-based RDBMS with aspirations of selling it to the U.S. Navy, Central Intelligence Agency, and other U.S. government agencies. In June 1979, Relational Software, Inc. introduced the first commercially available implementation of SQL, Oracle V2 (Version2) for VAX computers.
After testing SQL at customer test sites to determine the usefulness and practicality of the system, IBM began developing commercial products based on their System R prototype including System/38, SQL/DS, and DB2, which were commercially available in 1979, 1981, and 1983, respectively.[15]"
What did D have going for it in 2009 in comparison?
ML and Haskell (while not as "major") also took a long time to find their feet.
I'll pass on these. They're both still niche. Anyways, it's been 15 years since the start of D (or 13 since the work has been made public). It's hardly a young language, especially when you compare it to the success C++ had on the same timelines, which is the most appropriate comparison here.
No excuses. You lost.
He brings up counter-evidence, and then you just call him crazy. You lost the argument.
STOP FUCKING SHOPPING.
You go live in your hippy commune. I'm going to live in a modern society where I shop for stuff I like.
D is actually picking up some momentum - it's now being used fairly heavily at Twitter for instance. It's still a quite young language, only invented in 2004.
It's actually quite old for a "new" language. The announcement (with a draft specification) came in 2001. Thirteen years later and it's still a niche language. Can you name a major language in use that wasn't firmly established within 10 years?
That said, I think D still stands a chance, even though they don't have their story around garbage collection sorted out, and I'm not sure what shape their troubled concurrency story is in either.
Complete control over what people do with their idevice is monopolistic. If walmart was the only store you were allowed to shop at if you lived in New York then walmart has a monopoly there. The fact that you don't have to live in New York, and can shop somewhere else if you first moved to a new city doesn't change that fact. Likewise, being able to abandon your idevice and buy a whole new device doesn't change the fact that Apple's practice of control over idevices is monopolistic
Except users never had to buy iDevice in the first place, which makes your Walmart analogy inept. And they most certainly don't have to keep buying it, especially given the amount of churn in the mobile industry. Apple's policy regarding apps is well-known.
What do steam and apple have control over?
Steam Answer: The contents of your steam account and the steam store. That's it.
Apple Answer: The contents of your apple account and the apple app store. AND you are prevented from obtaining software for your idevice anywhere else. AND you are prevented from using software you acquire on non-idevices.
Sure, Apple has more tightfisted control. But both Valve and Apple are gatekeepers to a large userbase, and they both take 30%. That was the basic principle being argued over initially before this topic became faceted into just how Evil(TM) Apple really is. That one has control over a device and one is just a dominant "store" (that also hosts achievements, "cloud" saves, and matchmaking) for PC gaming doesn't make that principle go away.
I think we've exhausted this topic, so last reply for me.
Monopolostic vs non-monopolistic is the bit that counts.
Except you haven't shown Apple to be a monopoly. You don't have to buy an iPhone to get smartphone service. You don't have to buy an iPad to get a tablet computer. They have a "monopoly" on the users that bought their iDevice, just like Valve does on users who only buy games through Steam.
The walled garden is also very much about entering.
What does that even mean? Valve's not a walled garden. Its just a garden. Or more accurately its just a store.
Are you really that obtuse? They decide what games they will sell and under what terms. They are more than a store, they are a platform unto themselves for delivering games. That's why they can make their own console, because gamers have bought into their platform. It's also why there's always the occasional murmurings about what would happen if Steam went out of business. If a normal store goes out of business, there's not even a possibility I lose access to my games.
But it shouldn't be their fear. Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to charge 30% for everything anyone does with the OS. That ought to be illegal.
Uh huh, and you're going to make the same argument that Valve shouldn't be able to charge 30% on their "Steam Machines"?
Its the differences that count here.
No, it's the similarities that count. Glad we have that settled.
With Steam its just a garden. There is no wall. You can leave the garden.
The walled garden is also very much about entering.
Only if you put your head up your ass and pretend that someone owning a PC and deciding to shop at GoG.com by just going there instead of instead of Steam that day represents the same class as "having alternatives" as someone owning an ipad and deciding to shop at at another store by buying a whole new device first.
You've got to have your head up your ass to ignore the market dominance that Valve has with gamers. Users don't have to be Steam sheep, but they are. They don't have to be Apple sheep, but they are. Apple wants their cut, Valve wants their cut. You're just hypocritical in your stance because you're part of Valve's herd, so much so that it bothers you that you can't be part of the Valve herd on an Apple farm.
All the things that make steam similiar to apples app store are accurate.
Which makes it a hypocritical choice to use as your poster boy for a degraded app on Apple's app store.
But the lock in is different.
Different, yet remarkably similar. Build a walled garden and force 30% of revenue to get in.
And the fact that one can buy an android to avoid it is entirely beside the point.
The cognitive dissonance is strong within this one... There are alternatives to Valve, and there are alternatives to Apple. That Valve runs on a PC doesn't change the reality that they have become a platform to themselves, and game companies have to make painful decisions because Valve has carved out such a strong marketplace, just like Apple has in the mobile world.
Because you sincerely think consumers shouldn't have the right to do what they want with the cars they bought?
That's a strawman argument. There's a huge difference between voiding the warranty and not being allowed to do what you want to your car.
Everquest 2, for example, is available on steam. In-app purchases don't appear to go through valve's transaction processing at all
How do you know? I'm pretty sure Valve takes a cut of in-app purchases on free-to-play games.
Steam's not really the victim of apple. We the consumer are. We can't shop from steam's app because of apple.
First, I'm not a victim of Apple because I don't buy their products. I don't like their walled garden, so I don't give them my money. Second, Valve chooses not to pay the gatekeeper, just like many game companies don't want to pay Valve, though many do because of Valve's market dominance on the PC. Third, there are alternatives to Apple, just like there are alternatives to Valve.
We can however login to the steam website and shop from that though even on an apple device. That's how pointless and fucked up it is.
*shrug* So there's an alternative, even on the iDevice.
You ever wonder why they don't?
I know why they don't. That doesn't mean it's the right answer.
Just because Chevy lets you tinker with the engine and get oil changes where you like doesn't mean its ok for Ford to bolt your hood shut and only give dealers the keys.
Its still illegal for Ford, and it should be illegal for Apple.
Then why don't you apply the same logic to Valve? Don't you think they also take a percentage of in-app purchases? You really made a poor choice by bringing in Steam as a victim of Apple.
Just like car manufacturers should be allowed to dictate that you must get all your service at the dealer, and buy gas from their gas stations right, and only install oem parts?
Arguably, yes.
Apple has done all of these things with its platform. They locked it down so the customer can't install their own software, can't shop at a different store. But its all artificial and could be swept away with a software patch.
Or you can just buy an Android that allows sideloading.
On the other hand, the solution there is simple, best buy just won't carry the ipad unless they can sell it for something. Problem solved.
The Apple solution is simple too. They want 30% of the purchases made through apps on their platform, whether it is upfront or in-app.
The only reason Apple (or Microsoft) get 30% of all purchases for iPads or Xboxes is they are effectively able to force you to. This should be illegal.
I disagree. They invested all the money building and selling their device and platform. They should be able to sell software on it as they see fit.
Do you really think if Best Buy could get 30% of all your after purchase sales they wouldn't?
Of course they would, but they can't. They could try and demand it as a condition for selling items in their store, but manufacturers would balk.
30% for in-app purchases is, in many (but not all) cases, ludicrous. Because at that point its just transaction processing. You aren't paying for a userbase with in app purchases -- these are already your customers, and you app is the "store".
Paying apple 30% for in app purchases is exactly as reasonable as apple paying bestbuy 30% for apple app store purchases since the customer bought the ipad from bestbuy.
The difference is that an app like Comixology can be given away for free while making money on all the in-app purchases. It's just another revenue model. Why shouldn't Apple continue to take their cut? The Best Buy analogy is broken, because they are a store, not a platform. You buy a console and leave the store. You can "leave" the iDevice too to another platform, but when you're on it Apple wants their cut, just like Microsoft does with the Xbox.
Developers wishing to reach the PC, Mac, or Linux game markets do not have to go through Valve.
True enough, but the fact that they "voluntarily" do so undermines your initial argument:
Original poster:
30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button
Your reply:
30% of your gross revenue? For transaction management? Whether you need it or not? Are you high?
Of course, it's not just about the payment transaction, it's very much the exposure to the userbase.
But in apple's case for example, take Microsoft Office. Microsoft doesn't need the app store to generate demand for its product. If they released office for the ipad they could sell it directly without any trouble at all. They certainly don't need apple to provide them infrastructure, exposure, or process Visa cards. But they couldn't. So for the longest time there was no office for ipad.
So what? Apple is a walled garden. If you want in, Apple wants their cut, just like Microsoft does with Xbox. If it isn't worth 30%, Microsoft won't pay. If it is, they will.
And since the original article is about Comixology, 30% to gain access to millions of users ready to purchase doesn't sound all that unreasonable, just like many, many developers publish on Steam, even though they aren't all selling $1 mobile games and can handle their own payments via their own website.
Want to know why, for example, the Steam Mobile app doesn't allow you to buy Windows games for your PC and add them to your steam library right from the mobile app?
30% gross to Apple is why
Look up what percentage Valve charges other game companies to publish on Steam. Valve tries to hide this number, but it's been reported at 30%.
The app store is the only remaining way to sell apps after all other ways have been taken away from you, it's what keeps the market hostage and enables them to get a 30% shakedown of all transactions. Why do you think there's no such thing in the PC world, here's millions of people ready to one-click shop for only 30% of your gross?
For gaming on the PC, there's Steam. Google searches tell me they take 30% as well.
Because no sane business would use it if they had a choice.
Steam is popular with gamers, so game companies take the hit and publish through Steam. They have a choice, and not every game is on Steam, but many are.
You're being obtuse. Now that the dust has settled between both the feds and the civil trial, the question arose why nobody was put in jail.
No, the feds already settled. This is a civil suit. Difference.
The question is why the feds settled with nobody in jail. The answer, of course, is that there are different rules for CEOs of big American companies.
I dunno. Speed would not be high on my list of priorities. My dishwasher takes over 2 hours to wash the load, and that's acceptable. The reliability â" which you mention second â" is much more important in my opinion.
I agree. If it takes double the time but comes out right every time it would be worth it. There's no way I would get one of these devices if they aren't reliable.
That said, one advantage to being fast is if you have to make adjustments to your model that are only discovered after printing.