I'm sure there are people who like the hardware or have other reasons to get an Android phone instead of something else. But the number of Android users who are willing to pay for their software is simply too low. The examples are numerous. Forbes had an article on this subject a few months ago and just last week there was something here on Slashdot about a developer who got so fed up with all the piracy going on, he decided to not even try asking money for his game anymore.
I'm not saying this because I don't like Android. I like Android just fine. But I do agree with the guy in the original article that something has to be done to get cash flowing towards the developers of Android applications.
First of all, I don't think selling games for Windows is all that profitable, at least when it comes to single player / offline games (which is the bulk of the Android games). Piracy is huge, that's why the whole industry shifted towards consoles and online during the last decade or so. I'm sure there are some AAA games generating money, but it's pretty much a "the winner takes it all" situation. I'd be glad to be pointed to evidence stating the opposite, but I'm under the impression it's just a handful of publishers who are getting rich and the rest of the industry isn't getting a lot out of selling PC games.
But more significant I think is the fact that Windows is basically a monopoly and for most users synonymous with the PC. People don't think about using Windows, they aren't choosing it consciously, which means the demographic of who is using Windows is pretty much "everyone". So despite the insane amounts of piracy on the Windows platform, that demographic still includes a lot of folks who don't know how to pirate a game or don't mind paying for a game and aren't all that interested in piracy, because everybody uses Windows.
Android on the other hand is in a whole other market. There isn't a clear monopolist when it comes to handhelds, there are all sorts of platforms competing for a piece of the mobile pie. Android appeals mainly to two huge groups of people: 1) the tech savvy folks who like an open platform, but also know how to pirate software and to 2) people who are looking for a bargain. The result of this situation is that the number of Android users who are actually willing to pay for their applications is very, very low.
In my view, this is why it is *a lot* harder for Android to be a profitable ecosystem for developers than it ever was for Windows.
It doesn't matter when Vista was released, what's important is when new computers were for sale with Vista pre-installed. Just a little over 2 years ago you could still find something like that in stores regularly. People who bought such a machine can't install the latest MS Office now.
So you seriously think Wikipedia would attract more editors if the site looked prettier? If they streamlined the editting process by designing a better interface for it, maybe that would help. But making the site look less ugly, I really don't see the relevance of that. Especially since Wikipedia isn't very ugly to begin with.
if Wikipedia wants to make itself more attractive to users, a superficial makeover may be just the thing Wikipedia needs to begin growing in a more meaningful way.
What? Because it looks pretty, people will start reading an encyclopedia? Are you nuts?
First of all, last time I checked Wikipedia was in the top 10 of most visited websites on this planet. So they seem to be attracting users just fine. And obviously, the one and only thing that matters is the quality of their content. As long as Wikipedia continues to provide great information on basically any conceivable subject, a simple uncluttered layout to access that information is all they need.
Now I get the impression (also by the screenshot) that the article is mainly talking about Wikipedia's homepage. There might be some room for improvement there, but seriously, who goes to Wikipedia to look at the homepage? It's all about the articles. And those pages simply look fine.
One of the reasons why Internet Explorer is always the odd one out is that Microsoft only updates their browser with major versions. Every time a new major version of IE comes out it's sort of okay, but it doesn't take long for them to fall awfully behind again as the web just keeps on going forward. Other browsers continually include new functionality, but Microsoft just sits around and does nothing for a few years until they've conceived a new major version. They catch up briefly and start falling behind again.
I'm sure this means the size of the library is increased some but so what? aint that what cache is for?
Mobile is the main reason. Obviously when bandwidth is tight, size matters a lot. And on top of that, phone browsers typically are a lot worse at effectively caching scripts than their desktop counterparts.
If you don't use a library, you have to create your own selectors, event handlers, ajax calls etc. It just moves code from the library to your own script, it doesn't reduce the overall size of the code unless you don't really use the library that much.
This is the web we're talking about. Especially with so many people on mobiles these days, bandwidth is limited so size matters. Even is 2.0 offers exactly the same features as 1.9, 2.0 will be a heck of a lot smaller, meaning faster downloading, faster loading, faster parsing. Especially on phones, that's not just a nice thing to have, it's a necessity.
But.delegate(),.on() and.live() all still work with recent versions of jQuery, so your old code still runs with newer versions of the library. New features being introduced is not bad. The pain starts when old features are dropped.
No, the alternative is just to keep on moving forward and forget about old versions of IE. Simply don't support them. When enough websites do this, the IE-users will figure out the internet is broken with their browser and move to something which does work.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there are people who like the hardware or have other reasons to get an Android phone instead of something else. But the number of Android users who are willing to pay for their software is simply too low. The examples are numerous. Forbes had an article on this subject a few months ago and just last week there was something here on Slashdot about a developer who got so fed up with all the piracy going on, he decided to not even try asking money for his game anymore.
I'm not saying this because I don't like Android. I like Android just fine. But I do agree with the guy in the original article that something has to be done to get cash flowing towards the developers of Android applications.
So once the bulk of the Android devices are on Jelly Bean, this situation will be fixed. Which will be when, 2017 maybe?
Piracy is great for the platform, Bill Gates understood that very well. But for the individual developer, piracy is a disaster.
If you think a black box API is open then yeah sure, Windows is open.
Most Android developers would be very, very happy if only 50% of their users pirated their software.
First of all, I don't think selling games for Windows is all that profitable, at least when it comes to single player / offline games (which is the bulk of the Android games). Piracy is huge, that's why the whole industry shifted towards consoles and online during the last decade or so. I'm sure there are some AAA games generating money, but it's pretty much a "the winner takes it all" situation. I'd be glad to be pointed to evidence stating the opposite, but I'm under the impression it's just a handful of publishers who are getting rich and the rest of the industry isn't getting a lot out of selling PC games.
But more significant I think is the fact that Windows is basically a monopoly and for most users synonymous with the PC. People don't think about using Windows, they aren't choosing it consciously, which means the demographic of who is using Windows is pretty much "everyone". So despite the insane amounts of piracy on the Windows platform, that demographic still includes a lot of folks who don't know how to pirate a game or don't mind paying for a game and aren't all that interested in piracy, because everybody uses Windows.
Android on the other hand is in a whole other market. There isn't a clear monopolist when it comes to handhelds, there are all sorts of platforms competing for a piece of the mobile pie. Android appeals mainly to two huge groups of people: 1) the tech savvy folks who like an open platform, but also know how to pirate software and to 2) people who are looking for a bargain. The result of this situation is that the number of Android users who are actually willing to pay for their applications is very, very low.
In my view, this is why it is *a lot* harder for Android to be a profitable ecosystem for developers than it ever was for Windows.
Using something like Coda equals to hand coding in my book.
You forgot to mention the part about your client's site getting hacked and you being liable.
Because programmers have no concert halls or theaters to perform at.
It doesn't matter when Vista was released, what's important is when new computers were for sale with Vista pre-installed. Just a little over 2 years ago you could still find something like that in stores regularly. People who bought such a machine can't install the latest MS Office now.
Why the hell does the summary include a link to Slashdot (wtf?), but not to the actual Reddit post the summary is referring to?
I guess they'll release Battlefield 4 before "the future" then, as it is the same EA that predicts that in the future all games will be free.
So you seriously think Wikipedia would attract more editors if the site looked prettier? If they streamlined the editting process by designing a better interface for it, maybe that would help. But making the site look less ugly, I really don't see the relevance of that. Especially since Wikipedia isn't very ugly to begin with.
if Wikipedia wants to make itself more attractive to users, a superficial makeover may be just the thing Wikipedia needs to begin growing in a more meaningful way.
What? Because it looks pretty, people will start reading an encyclopedia? Are you nuts?
First of all, last time I checked Wikipedia was in the top 10 of most visited websites on this planet. So they seem to be attracting users just fine. And obviously, the one and only thing that matters is the quality of their content. As long as Wikipedia continues to provide great information on basically any conceivable subject, a simple uncluttered layout to access that information is all they need.
Now I get the impression (also by the screenshot) that the article is mainly talking about Wikipedia's homepage. There might be some room for improvement there, but seriously, who goes to Wikipedia to look at the homepage? It's all about the articles. And those pages simply look fine.
Because the DOM's API is so bad, libraries such as jQuery will always be a blessing from the heavens.
One of the reasons why Internet Explorer is always the odd one out is that Microsoft only updates their browser with major versions. Every time a new major version of IE comes out it's sort of okay, but it doesn't take long for them to fall awfully behind again as the web just keeps on going forward. Other browsers continually include new functionality, but Microsoft just sits around and does nothing for a few years until they've conceived a new major version. They catch up briefly and start falling behind again.
I'm sure this means the size of the library is increased some but so what? aint that what cache is for?
Mobile is the main reason. Obviously when bandwidth is tight, size matters a lot. And on top of that, phone browsers typically are a lot worse at effectively caching scripts than their desktop counterparts.
If you don't use a library, you have to create your own selectors, event handlers, ajax calls etc. It just moves code from the library to your own script, it doesn't reduce the overall size of the code unless you don't really use the library that much.
Then that feature doesn't work in that browser. Doesn't mean the rest of your web application has to fall apart.
Windows XP doesn't have to die for IE8 to go away. Every other browsers' latest version runs great on XP.
This is the web we're talking about. Especially with so many people on mobiles these days, bandwidth is limited so size matters. Even is 2.0 offers exactly the same features as 1.9, 2.0 will be a heck of a lot smaller, meaning faster downloading, faster loading, faster parsing. Especially on phones, that's not just a nice thing to have, it's a necessity.
That's why the jQuery team is going to provide security fixes for 1.9 for a while.
But .delegate(), .on() and .live() all still work with recent versions of jQuery, so your old code still runs with newer versions of the library. New features being introduced is not bad. The pain starts when old features are dropped.
No, the alternative is just to keep on moving forward and forget about old versions of IE. Simply don't support them. When enough websites do this, the IE-users will figure out the internet is broken with their browser and move to something which does work.
Once a version of jQuery 2.x comes out with an API which isn't compatible with 1.9, IE8 better be long forgotten.