91–100 of 104 posts
Surely that would be the infamous "I am rich" $1000 app that does nothing ? https://www.wired.com/2008/08/eight-people-bo/
Interesting: >For example, I’ve been rejected multiple times because they didn’t find IAP content on the iOS, rather than the reviewer taking the time to understand it’s a watchOS app with an iOS control interface. >edit:hooray! Apple gave me a phone call and told me they would try to work with me more effectively on app reviews, and left a phone contact number to call. Thanks Apple! Apple seems to be in full damage…
There is no way they would improve out of the goodness of their heart. That kind of behaviour is worthless under capitalism.
Looks like a great app! Congrats on getting two paying customers. One tip for the author: In setting prices, remember the price elasticity of demand, which is how much people respond in terms of the quantity they buy depending on the price. The demand curve might be such that as demonstrated two people want the app for $20 (the price charged). But perhaps ten people would buy it it for $9, maybe fifty people want it…
> Starting at $20 and going down from there seems reasonable. slowly reducing the price doesn't work because the consumer would see that the price is being reduced, and wait for the reduction to stop, even if the current price would've been worth it for the consumer to purchase (aka, they would've gotten excess value at a higher price, but still wait for the reduction to finish). After all, buying the app isn't urgen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it the weird subtext? Seems to me like someone who properly thought about what he could do, did build it and then actually sold it to customers. You know, like, the basis of proper honest entrepreneurship. Or are you concerned about the use of preflop charts? Because they are clearly allowed in the rules of most tournaments and not actually cheating.
> Subtext The legitimacy of the preflop charts was also mentioned in the article - ya know, the actual written, non-subtexty text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the fact that somebody pays for somebody else to show me ads is useful to all of them, but it certainly isn't useful to me... I'm not saying it's illegitimate in any legal sense. But morally it is not so clear. > doing the entrepreneurial endeavor is just trying to improve their own situation This person said they work as an engineer on growth teams in Silicon Valley, which is hilariously appropriate by the way,…
> somebody pays for somebody else to show me ads is useful to all of them, but it certainly isn't useful to me... presumably the ads being shown has subsidized the usage of the app that you're using for free. So i dont think it's not useful to you - it might be an annoyance, but you've made the trade to use the app for free (or for a lower cost than it otherwise wouldve been). > They're doing morally dubious and diff…
The point of griping about this author's morality is: people have different moralities, and this one in particular sucks, so if you're reading this, hopefully you noticed that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Noone parts with money for an exchange that they don't find useful. Come on, there's many. You can, for example, manipulate people to pay for something. You can get them addicted, so that they become repeat customers, despite rationality. You can lie to a lot of people, so that you will have one time customers, but you can do that to a large crowd. You can quasi-force people to buy something, if it's a prerequisite…
> You can, for example, manipulate people to pay for something. How? > You can get them addicted, so that they become repeat customers, despite rationality. No one purchases anything to become addicted. You may download a game, find it fun and purchase in-game items. It's useful because it's entertaining. > You can lie to a lot of people, so that you will have one time customers, but you can do that to a large crowd.…
> How?
What's the point of pretending like you can't answer that question yourself? It doesn't make your position seem stronger; quite the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The need to make money is not a universal defense of anything that makes money.
It is a variation of the Nuremberg defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders We pretend to be rational and as soon as livelihood is affected logic goes out of the window. (not talking about the specific person, just about the logical argument)
You’re making a very interesting point about capitalism and democracy that people should keep in mind.
But…
1) I disagree that logic is the thing that goes out of the window, instead it’s “morality.” We sacrifice our sense of acting in the greater good and instead optimize for ourselves
2) There have been too many events in business and democratic history for me to believe that this disposal of our morality though repugnant is not just a human trait developed via evolution for some sort of greater purpose that benefits our species in a larger way than all of the disasters its caused (ie. Great Recession, Opiod Epidemic, Nazi Germany, Challenger Disaster, etc)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, I'm Bob... welcome to ideators anonymous. If you can't stop incentivizing perspectives, and monetizing paradigms this may be the place for you.
I think we can turn Ideators Anonymous into a successful business - seminars, book deals, retreats, rehab centres, the works!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can, for example, manipulate people to pay for something. How? > You can get them addicted, so that they become repeat customers, despite rationality. No one purchases anything to become addicted. You may download a game, find it fun and purchase in-game items. It's useful because it's entertaining. > You can lie to a lot of people, so that you will have one time customers, but you can do that to a large crowd.…
> You can, for example, manipulate people to pay for something. > How? What's the point of pretending like you can't answer that question yourself? It doesn't make your position seem stronger; quite the opposite.
How can you manipulate someone into spending money on something where they don't perceive any value from its usefulness?
Through blackmail or coercion?
There's no reasonable explanation where someone can be manipulated into spending money that they think is entirely wasteful from the outset.
The sibling comment on marketing, whilst somewhat manipulative, is still a useful purchase -- I want to be a musician so I buy a Macbook Pro to further my dream and use GarageBand. In that case I've been manipulated into buying something expensive for my end goal (however unlikely I'll be to achieve it) but I still perceive some use from it.
Even if you consider spending money on purely charitable causes there's a usefulness in the warm fuzzy feelings the donator will get and the anticipated beneficial use of those funds to the needy.
Now, everyone, think about how much worse the world would be if this was a lauded or primary way to think about "how to make software." While I appreciate the self-motivation idea generally - this article does nothing for me except make me grateful for free and open source types of folks. People should mostly just not do this.
This article made me pretty sad to be honest. This little app made more money in hours than many free software and open source projects do in years.