51–57 of 57 posts
A lot of people have energy to give to open source because they get something out of it that's not money. Most people who play sports are not paid, or do art, dance, blog or lots of things really.
If you don't want to work for free, don't, I'm sure someone else who's bored or wants to sharpen their skills will step and fill the void you left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet has a lot of porn... but I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude the internet promotes porn. The world has a lot of racists... but I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude the world promote racism.
The Internet definitely promotes porn. Reasonable people have observed that Google profits off piracy in other contexts. Your last sentence is a non sequitur.
So... reasonable people observed that Google profits off piracy... and that leads to the conclusion that "open devices are designed to enable piracy"?
>Your last sentence is a non sequitur.
Side note: Interesting that non sequitur has two different uses that make you either wrong or right depending on which you were using.
If you are thinking of it as a literary device because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it, then I would say you are wrong. It is an example of how the formula THIS has a lot of THAT, therefore THIS promotes THAT is not an accurate formula. I believe it to be a relevant example, therefore not a non sequitur (literary device)
If you are thinking of it in terms of logic because its conclusion does not follow from its premises, then I would say you are right... because that was the whole point of giving those examples. The premise of THIS has a lot of THAT is not sufficient to make the conclusion that THIS promotes THAT. It almost never is. So... yes, a non sequitur (logic).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a level of badness at which ideas become shameful to promote, but that's a pretty high bar to clear In your subjective view, which has exactly zero more, or less, validity here than mine. This feels like you're wasting time, arguing for the sake of being pedantic, or just because you like arguing. Is there some fundamental point you're trying to make here? Because if there is, it doesn't look like anyone els…
People who disagree with you are not shameful. If we agree there, I think we can just move on.
We expect piracy of our apps and priced them accordingly. Our users pay the $2 simply for the ease of automatic updates & notifications. If you pirate the app you'll always be a version (or 15) behind and have to keep up on your own. If it's worth it, you clearly need the $2 more than us. Kewl.
For something you want to seriously scale, you have to do it for free anyway. It's still land rush for new markets. Nothing's changed there.
Valid or not, the point is undermined by the author's abrasive response to counterpoint: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/227818567851180032
Having your words twisted is definitely insulting.
Valid or not, the point is undermined by the author's abrasive response to counterpoint: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/227818567851180032
I wouldn't call that abrasive. The "counterpoint" was quoting a previous article of his out of context, acting as if he was saying it was OK to steal content - which he was not, he was explaining WHY people steal content. Having your words twisted is definitely insulting.
And, whether you agree with Mr. Gemmell or the other two gentlemen, this was a misunderstanding at worst and the assertion that the "piece is really personally insulting" is laughable. (It's probable that he responded out of frustration, which is only human, but perhaps he could have used the opportunity to clarify himself.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, it's quite a good analogy. No one benefits from this strategy in the final analysis because a race to the bottom makes all developers paupers. Smoking a cigarette relieves the pains of addiction (delivers short-term profit), kills you in the long term (destroys your business model), and imperils the health of the people around you (makes iOS and Android less desirable platforms). That said, I disagree with…
Casting price competition as a sin might be the most preposterous possible reaction to market failure. There are definitely barriers to making a living selling apps, but blaming them on your fellow victims is utterly foolish.
Econ 101 says that competition will push prices down to the level where everyone makes exactly enough to keep producing their product. Econ 101 assumes zero differentiation between products, zero brand value, etc., in these cases of perfect competition.
If you are a developer who's making something innovative and useful, whether on iOS or no, it is differentiated from the rest of the market. You are free to compete on price by selling for $1, but you may also compete on quality, solve a unique problem for your market, and sell for $5 or $10. I believe that many developers are doing exactly the latter, but still selling for $1 simply because they think it's "what is done." If they instead sold for $5 or $10, people would still buy and the developer would make more money. If enough people did this, it would remove the noxious attitude that "nothing is worth more than a couple bucks on the App Store." Consumers would get better apps, iOS developers would make a better living, and the ecosystem would improve as a whole.