Live data from Hacker News

Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

twitter.com

251–255 of 255 posts

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me about it. I'm an iOS engineer at FAANG, but I've been shipping my own apps since 2011. It's depressing that there's no longer a market for paid, high quality, ad-free, fully packaged apps and games. I actually interned at a mobile games studio for a summer and it was made clear to me what the profit model was: pander solely to the whales, ignore the free users. Something like 70% of our revenue came from 2% o…

Can't believe this is the story with iOS as well. I thought Apple fared better as compared to Android when it came to paid apps.

Very similar story with iOS as well. Adware and InApp is the standard.

One way around it is Arcade, which has lots of quality games with no ads nor in apps.

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#252
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Modern gas stations make very little money selling gas. They make money by people buying the stuff in their store.

I don't think many intentionally lose money on gas though. If they weren't covering the cost of the gas, they would raise the price, which seems like a rational thing to do for a popular game.

Quite a few do intentionally lose money on the gas itself, but it depends on the circumstances for the particular station. They consider the gas a loss leader. People are very price-conscious when it comes to gas and will drive far out out of their way to save a couple of pennies. Very few gas stations can afford to price their gas higher than other gas stations, and there is very often a price war going on between stations.

But even the ones who don't lose money are nearly always only breaking even on the gas.

It's a lot like how movies theaters make basically nothing from the ticket sales for the movie. They make their money at the concession stand.

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me about it. I'm an iOS engineer at FAANG, but I've been shipping my own apps since 2011. It's depressing that there's no longer a market for paid, high quality, ad-free, fully packaged apps and games. I actually interned at a mobile games studio for a summer and it was made clear to me what the profit model was: pander solely to the whales, ignore the free users. Something like 70% of our revenue came from 2% o…

you're not an engineer at one of the A's (Apple) if you're shipping your own apps — the employment agreement restricts it.

He can have a Spouse or son that can manage/have the finance side of things -edit: Or husband, whatever be

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#255
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a nuanced take on this. Say, hypothetically, that I am the creator of a song, book, video game or whatever. One day, for purely selfish reasons that I don't need others to understand, I decide that I no longer want to offer my creation to others. Do I forfeit any and all rights over something that I personally produced; that I invented, designed, fabricated and brought into existence; just because I once offer…

Beyond that scenario, the principal that I come at this from is that I, as a creator, rightfully recognize and defend my own rights to the things that I pour a significant portion of myself and life into Does data deserve special rights in the first place? If I make a table and sell it I don't get to control whether the buyer sells it to someone else or lets someone else look at it and make their own identical table.…

Data doesn't deserve rights, individual human beings do.

This isn't about the ability to resell something that you bought and paid for. It's about exploiting the efforts of others for personal gain.

> If I make a table and sell it I don't get to control whether the buyer sells it to someone else or lets someone else look at it and make their own identical table.

The first half of that sentence is true, the second half is not so cut and dry.

If the design of the table is your invention, which is to say that you identified and solved problems intrinsic with that table design, you provided the artistic and aesthetic creativity that went into its look, you prototyped it, maybe you built small scale versions before moving on to the full thing, you poured years of your time, effort and money into bringing it into existence - you can apply for a patent in order to protect your investment and your creation.

If we're not talking about a table but instead an artistic creation, that's when copyright applies.

I'm a magician, and magic has an interesting history with respects to IP law. Back in the vaudeville days, stage illusionists would commonly protect their illusions through patents. And the business was cut-throat. Magicians would steal from others like crazy. Also a patent only protects a mechanical invention for a period of time. So if one magician did the exact same trick but using a different method, there is no infringement on a patent. Teller, from Penn & Teller, took what was at the time an uncommon position with respects to his works. He observed that his "inventions" were more appropriately considered theatrical works and sought to protect them under copyright law instead of patent law. For decades this was only theoretical until someone started selling a method for one of his tricks. It's worth noting that the method was different from Teller's method, but the routine, the trick, the structure was the same. Teller sued him for copyright infringement and won.

You are free to disagree with me that ideas ARE real (we can measure their effects on the physical world) and that anyone that wants to profit from the intellectual and laborious efforts of another without consent or due compensation to the creator is a parasite and a mooch. But that's the world-view that I subscribe to.

Post reply on HN