11–20 of 26 posts
TBH, I think 5$/issue is a bit steep. In Canada I currently pay 40$/yr for my print subscription and I know that an American Print subscription is 20$/yr, so the price difference is pretty substantial. I will be keeping my print subscription until prices are more reasonable.
So we have: Translated from Flash to Objective-C by hand: OK Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program: Not OK The good news, I guess, is that Apple is apparently confirming that "originally written in Objective-C" doesn't mean "the first concrete representation of the program was in Objective-C", which means people are free to prototype an app in whatever language they want, as long as they totally re…
> Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program: Not OK Assuming you're referring to the CS5 feature, it converts Flash to byte-code, not Objective-C.
http://www.runrev.com/company/runrev-blog/revmobile-and-appl...
I feel like the $5 price tag plus advertisements might be a result of Wired passing on the cost of Adobe's misfortune to the consumer.
TBH, I think 5$/issue is a bit steep. In Canada I currently pay 40$/yr for my print subscription and I know that an American Print subscription is 20$/yr, so the price difference is pretty substantial. I will be keeping my print subscription until prices are more reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No we don't, we have: Rewritten in Objective-C: OK Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program: Not OK It's like the difference between hiring a translator and using Google translate or hiring a typist versus using speech recognition. [Edited for clarity: meant to change translated by hand to rewritten by intelligent human, and keep the second one the same].
I don't see how "Machine translation" is any different than "Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program".
The parent was implying some kind of double standard where the "computing device" doing the change made a difference but shouldn't, and I was pointing out that the human isn't "mechanically translating", but "reinterpreting / rewriting". I just didn't write it out very clearly that the second one is the same. Will edit.
TBH, I think 5$/issue is a bit steep. In Canada I currently pay 40$/yr for my print subscription and I know that an American Print subscription is 20$/yr, so the price difference is pretty substantial. I will be keeping my print subscription until prices are more reasonable.
I feel like the $5 price tag plus advertisements might be a result of Wired passing on the cost of Adobe's misfortune to the consumer.
I have a strange feeling we've been here before: Are Magazine apps going to be the new Flash website?
I think they are generally uninteresting, and not "the future," but could be an OK short-term product idea for legacy media companies. (But not business model)
Old-school publishing companies have lots customers who might not exercise the same effort in discovery that you and i do.
Let's compare to familiar territory: tech companies:
Shrinking technology paradigms (giant life cycle desktop OS's like Microsoft Windows, Sun's SPARC) can launch new products, and make money off of shrinking, but existing customers. That doesn't mean they're being realistic about how to survive the future. Or that these "short burst" products are a good use of their time. (Sun maybe spent too much time denying SPARC's disappearance. MS seems to be doing just fine with Windows 7.)
Coming back to magazine apps... it's a short-term blast kind of thinking. Sometimes those things work out great, and get you enough money to survive to the next era... sometime it doesn't. I won't buy 'em. But depending on what else is going on inside of their organization, I don't necessarily blame msm for trying it out.