Live data from Hacker News

Fertile Ground

marco.org

181–190 of 219 posts

Re: Fertile Ground

#181
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is a number of developers are just writing for 4.0 and above. I've not saying fragmentation on Android isn't bad. What I'm arguing is fragmentation on iOS is being framed as a good thing (actually a "great" thing) by the author of the post.

But Android wouldn't be (OS) fragmented if you had 90%+ of the user population on Jelly Bean 4.1+ iOS isn't going to fragment - the vast majority of the user base will immediately upgrade to iOS 7.

You're probably right. But Marco's argument hinges on the idea that:

- there will be fragmentation

- hence it will be difficult for developers to write apps that make the most of iOS6 and iOS7

- hence this is an opportunity for nimble new players to enter the market and capture the iOS7 userbase

I agree that there probably wont be fragmentation, but the point is, Marco is saying if there was, it will be a brilliant opportunity. Therein lies the mental gymnastics.

Re: Fertile Ground

#182
1. Given Apple history of screwing developers, I doubt they are doing it for developers.

2. It's my opinion. I think the hybrid new design is much worse than the old one. I like the old design. It's different and not old.

3. How is starting from scratch is good for users? Remember, we are here for users and not developers. Also, there are lots of apps not affected by this change: games and apps with their own UI just come to my mind.

Re: Fertile Ground

#183
post #129
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the idea that four years is a prohibitively long time for a device that I spend hundreds of dollars on.

No need to spend hundreds of dollars; just sit behind the curve a little bit. Spent $68 on an Optimus S with Ting a year ago, and it gets everything I need to do done at less than the cost of my Verizon dumbphone contract. It's as fast as the computer I took to college not that many years ago, and I got a lot done on that. Battery runs for days too, even with considerable use. Looking forward to upgrading to an S2 or…

If you use your smartphone as much as most people do, a few hundred bucks is a steal on a per-hour basis.

Re: Fertile Ground

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, keep in mind iOS 6 was (somewhat) held back in terms of adoption because google hadn't released maps for the platform yet.

That is absolutely, utterly subjective and anecdotal. I think blaming Google for iOS 6 adoption not being (even) quicker is grasping at straws that in all likelihood don't exist.

Given I've also known a few unrelated people do this, I believe your blanket dismissal foolish when it's simple to falsify the thesis: check iOS 6 adoption after Google Maps was released.

Re: Fertile Ground

#185
post #121
post #2

"iOS 7 is different. It isn’t just a new skin: it introduces entirely new navigational and structural standards..." Beyond the parallax effect, what are these new navigation and structural changes? I'm not trolling here, I'm genuinely curious. I'm about to build a new iOS app and I did not see major navigation or structural changes that would drastically affect how I design an app's UI or UX.

SpriteKit is going to be huge. Expect about a year of getting developers ready with it, and good at it, then Apple TV may have something awesome for us.

What's SpriteKit? Sugar Cube Software's Cocoa Sprite Kit? How is it related to iOS7?

Re: Fertile Ground

#186
post #121
post #2

"iOS 7 is different. It isn’t just a new skin: it introduces entirely new navigational and structural standards..." Beyond the parallax effect, what are these new navigation and structural changes? I'm not trolling here, I'm genuinely curious. I'm about to build a new iOS app and I did not see major navigation or structural changes that would drastically affect how I design an app's UI or UX.

SpriteKit is going to be huge. Expect about a year of getting developers ready with it, and good at it, then Apple TV may have something awesome for us.

Compared to Cocos2d, I'm not that interested in Sprite Kit as a framework. But combined with the new gamepad APIs, I think you might be on to something in regards to the Apple TV.

Re: Fertile Ground

#187
Good design is long-lasting - #7 of Dieter Rams ten principles of good design.

I wonder how many app designers will realise that the apps they produced were subject to the fashion of the design of the operating system, and now that the fashion and trend has moved, whether the app designers will be confident enough to apply their own timeless design.

The iOS7 colour palette and style is fresh and new (to iOS users), but it is just the next fashion, and as fresh and new as it feels today, it will feel equally old and stale (like iOS6) at some point in the future.

Good design is long-lasting. App designers should concentrate on getting their design right for their application, and not just follow the trend and wear the attire of the operating system.

Marco is right that when the fashion changes, those who cannot keep up with fashion leave a large opportunity for those who can. I also agree that there is also a lot of money to be made by being one of those who can follow fashion closely.

But from a design perspective... those who follow others (the operating system) rather than having the courage to lead (the right design for the app), will always be subject to vulnerability when the fashion changes.

Re: Fertile Ground

#188
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listen to half a dozen developers at WWDC right now - see if, based on what they have seen so far with the DP, if they aren't completely rethinking their approach towards how their apps need to work/behave to feel "modern?" I'm not up in the city right now, but from the few podcasts I've listened to - people are already commenting on how "dated" their app feels. And - with the exception of the Mail/Calendar (Apple Fa…

(and as an extra thought) you do not need to go far to imagine what apps with these new functionalities will be like - Android had them for a long time and Android apps are basically very similar to iOS ones.

There is a lot more new than just background downloads. And it will change how developers think about their applications. Dynamic text, UIKit Dynamics, UIMotionEffect will change a lot as will new navigation/transition schemes.

Re: Fertile Ground

#189
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vine only supports 4.0 and above & there's no uproar. It is a Top 3 app on Google Play. Are people really likely to get in an uproar over Vine? Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, sure... but Vine?

Do you know that Vine has already overtaken Instagram as the biggest social sharing on Twitter?

Overtaken due to the Android release but pretty soon back in sync according to this: http://www.itproportal.com/2013/06/12/vine-and-instagram-in-...

And really, I'm not entirely shocked that a Twitter-owned service is getting more sharing on Twitter compared with a service that gets a reasonable amount of obstruction from Twitter.

Re: Fertile Ground

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he knows. The disagreement here is that characterizing pure-CS-stuff as "innovation" and the other stuff as not is an incredibly narrow way to define innovation. It feels like LowKarmaAccount really defines innovation as how far down the stack it is, which is a wholly arbitrary (and IMO nonsensical) criteria. By that criteria a helicopter is not innovative because it's just a slight rearrangement of fixed win…

droopyEyelids was correct in saying that I was talking about software innovation from a CS standpoint, so I didn't respond to the first reply to my comment. After reading your comment, I realized that I should make it clear that I'm using David A. Wheeler's definition of software innovation [1]. It was linked to on HN a few years ago[2]; it has an excellent listing of important innovations. The list was made to show…

To respond to the quote about "few software innovations identified in recent times", there's been plenty of innovation in the last decade or so. It might not be quite as fundamental as the innovations of the 20th century - perhaps because all those fundamental things needed to be invented but now have been - but it's there. These are not directly smartphone related, because I agree that most of the innovation of smartphones in particular has been in areas other than computer science, but your posts and the page you linked to are more broadly critical of progress in computer science, and most of them are present in or related to smartphones. Anyway:

SMP - parallelism not among separate, isolated computers whose fastest connection is probably an Ethernet port, but among multiple cores in the same die, accessing the same core RAM. Of course someone had a SMP system decades ago, it's not that complicated an idea, but only recently has it become ubiquitous and critical to taking continued advantage of Moore's Law. Although it's fundamentally a hardware innovation, the ways we write multithreaded programs have evolved to take advantage of it - it's only recently that the sort of software used on millions of systems has had to focus on fine-grained locking and lock-free algorithms, rather than slapping big locks on everything with the only downside being latency. And more unorthodox approaches are gaining traction: CSP, though invented 35 years ago, is being rediscovered with Go, various languages have experimented with software transactional memory (e.g. PyPy, Clojure), and Intel's new processors will finally bring hardware transactional memory mainstream, which might finally realize the dream of fast transactional memory.

GPUs - massive parallelism of relatively small, minimally branching algorithms, again on a single chip found in millions of devices; again, a hardware innovation that requires new ways to write software. Yes, I know how old the transputer is, but now it's mainstream.

Virtual machines - a new consummation of the idea of time sharing, innovative in practice if not theory. It's my personal opinion that they're a massive hack, a poor man's multi-user system that accomplishes no more than a traditional kernel could have, with the right operating system design, with all the kludginess you'd expect from a system based on hacking kernels designed to run directly on the hardware into running side-by-side - but when disk space and RAM became cheap enough that it became obvious that each user of a server should have their own isolated copy of all software, allowing them to install and maintain whatever versions of whatever packages they need, Unix had developed so much around the idea of a central administrator that the new paradigm had to evolve rather than being designed. But who cares? Worse is better, the heritage of Unix and perhaps its conqueror - however it came about, ordinary users of multi-user systems now have more power on average than ever before. Consider the difference between a PHP script hosted on shared hosting and a modern webapp stack. And maybe a new design will come around to replace it all, one of these days.

Closely related, cloud computing - I suppose driven by the decreasing price of hardware. The idea of computing as a commodity is hardly new, but in the last few years it has become a reality: virtual servers can now be spun up and down in minutes, as part of massive server farms provided as a service to a huge number of users, for low cost. This is fundamentally changing the way software is designed: scalability is easier than ever, but it has become more and more useful to write distributed systems that can tolerate internal failure.

HTML5. You can enter a URL and instantly and safely run fast code. Yes, it's just a another VM; yes, Java had this a long time ago. But we avoided some of Java's mistakes and CPUs are faster, so who knows, write-once-run-anywhere might become a reality this time.

Sandboxing. We might still be stuck with C and unsafe code, but sandboxing is starting to make software a lot harder to exploit anyway. Software security in general is receiving a lot of attention these days.

Functional programming and other languages with strong static type systems have had a resurgence lately. Going back a bit farther, you could say the same about dynamic programming languages such as Python, Ruby, and JavaScript. There are so many different languages which have taken different paths that it's hard to identify a single clear direction that programming languages have gone in, but there are some commonalities, and they add up to a significant amount of incremental innovation. There is a lot more to say about this, but I'm getting tired and it would take a lot to do it justice.

Ways to write software: test driven development, agile, etc.

Post reply on HN