Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Demoted

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Demoted

#101

Post by RyanMcGreal »

billybob wrote: post #88
patrickaljord wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The worst thing that could happen is One Platform To Rule Them All, if that platform is controlled by a company for its own interests. The web is not controlled by one company. Edit: For the downvoters, the html5 APIs are made of contributions from mozilla, microsoft, opera, yahoo, apple, google and many more. How many companies participate in writing the iOS API?

Exactly. Web standards - or standards in general - are not a player in a competition; they are a field upon which to play. We want everyone playing on that field.

Thank you. I couldn't have stated it better.

Re: Demoted

#102

Post by niels_olson »

paulirish wrote: post #26
niels_olson wrote: post #8

having used the Cr48 and a 3g iPad for several months in the US and Japan, I think Apple's vision is more robust, ultimately better for me, the end user. When I'm mobile, whether I'm doing sysadmin, reading, listening to music, I can do more of it, in more locations (especially offline), with better, more reliable apps, on an iPad. edit: reposted here from a comment on the webian group: === I wrote this a few weeks a…

> offline use remains fundamental Absolutely agree. The ChromeOS platform is absolutely focused on offline capability as well. A huge number of apps within the Chrome Web Store work offline without any connectivity. Many regular web apps work offline. All of Google Apps will within a few months. I think many people forget that you can take web apps offline, perhaps because launching a mobile browser while you have no…

> A huge number of apps within the Chrome Web Store work offline without any connectivity. Many regular web apps work offline.

Could you name some for me? SourceKit died so many times at that conference I felt physically ill. Switching to qemacs was an easy decision. MagicScroll for my books never really worked.

Seriously, I would like to know because the Cr48 form factor, battery life, weight, temperature and speed would be great in Japan, but for me it was a paperweight, while my roommate brought his iPad2 and was loving life by comparison. I'm not talking about being offline for a few hours. Try weeks. Sure, the military provides me plenty of wired network access, for ports 80 and 443, for sites they believe are appropriate (like Fox News, but not NPR). But if I'm in the field, not at headquarters unit or near a WiFi hotspot, the Cr48 has only been truly useful for qemacs. In my experience.

Re: Demoted

#103

Post by [deleted] »

paulirish wrote: post #26
niels_olson wrote: post #8

having used the Cr48 and a 3g iPad for several months in the US and Japan, I think Apple's vision is more robust, ultimately better for me, the end user. When I'm mobile, whether I'm doing sysadmin, reading, listening to music, I can do more of it, in more locations (especially offline), with better, more reliable apps, on an iPad. edit: reposted here from a comment on the webian group: === I wrote this a few weeks a…

> offline use remains fundamental Absolutely agree. The ChromeOS platform is absolutely focused on offline capability as well. A huge number of apps within the Chrome Web Store work offline without any connectivity. Many regular web apps work offline. All of Google Apps will within a few months. I think many people forget that you can take web apps offline, perhaps because launching a mobile browser while you have no…

[deleted]

Re: Demoted

#104

Post by niels_olson »

saurik wrote: post #85
rimantas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your music is tied to a $25 iTunes subscriptions But it is not. > they even want your text messaging tied to your iOS > devices Another way to look at it: your text messaging is freed from your carrier. > Then there's all those apps you bought on the Mac and iOS App > Stores that you'll never be able to transfer to another system. How is that different from any other system?

Seriously? Before the unified App Store concept, cross-device upgrade pricing was very common. You get Word for Mac one year, and then you pay a fraction of the price to upgrade to word for Windows the next; you get a medical dictionary for your Palm Treo one year, and then pay a fraction of the price to upgrade to the same app for your new BlackBerry the next... Apple wants to control the business of software sale,…

Your examples seem to be pretty small corner cases. I'll add one though: when I got the Adobe Lightroom beta, I got executables for Windows and Mac. And with my upgrades, I still get both executables. But the elephant in the room at the time was that the vast majority of software was being sold into Windows boxes and the only upgrade path was up. the lateral transfer schemes were many and varied, but all trivial compared to the big pipe called Windows XP.

Re: Demoted

#105

Post by saurik »

niels_olson wrote: post #104
saurik wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? Before the unified App Store concept, cross-device upgrade pricing was very common. You get Word for Mac one year, and then you pay a fraction of the price to upgrade to word for Windows the next; you get a medical dictionary for your Palm Treo one year, and then pay a fraction of the price to upgrade to the same app for your new BlackBerry the next... Apple wants to control the business of software sale,…

Your examples seem to be pretty small corner cases. I'll add one though: when I got the Adobe Lightroom beta, I got executables for Windows and Mac. And with my upgrades, I still get both executables. But the elephant in the room at the time was that the vast majority of software was being sold into Windows boxes and the only upgrade path was up. the lateral transfer schemes were many and varied, but all trivial comp…

On mobile, these "corner cases" are the majority of sales: every year there is some "new king of the hill", from random Nokia or Motorola devices, through Palm, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry.

And, even on desktop with our example: Windows itself was the lock-in, not the sale; if a competitor to Windows did show up, the apps would rapidly move (and were in fact already selling both executables): if the sales were caught up in a monolithic App Store, users would balk at developer's inabilities to give them upgrade discounts, and are much more likely to stick to their platform.

Re: Demoted

#106

Post by sesqu »

swombat wrote: post #100
sesqu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's not what vendor lock-in is about. Lock-in means that after you bought it, you can't reasonably switch to something better, something that commonly you didn't know about or that didn't exist when you made the initial buy. For example, when offering integrated services, lock-in might mean that they won't allow a third party to integrate with their suite. http://en.wikipedia.or…

Well, I just bought car X, but then car Y came out and I like it better, but they won't allow me to switch without buying a whole new car! I guess car makers practice vendor lock-in too by your definition. In fact, almost anyone who sells something practices some form of lock-in.

No. For the car example, lock-in means you aren't able to use off-brand accessories, or service your car in an unlicensed shop. However, cars are mostly self-contained, so this mostly only comes up with aftermarket stereo systems and membership programs.

And yes, mild lock-in is very common. That doesn't make it a good practice from the consumer's point of view.

Re: Demoted

#107

Post by swombat »

sesqu wrote: post #106
swombat wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I just bought car X, but then car Y came out and I like it better, but they won't allow me to switch without buying a whole new car! I guess car makers practice vendor lock-in too by your definition. In fact, almost anyone who sells something practices some form of lock-in.

No. For the car example, lock-in means you aren't able to use off-brand accessories, or service your car in an unlicensed shop. However, cars are mostly self-contained, so this mostly only comes up with aftermarket stereo systems and membership programs. And yes, mild lock-in is very common. That doesn't make it a good practice from the consumer's point of view.

Considering how hard it is to get people to agree on interoperability standards even if they want to agree, I think lock-in is simply inevitable.

Re: Demoted

#108

Post by niels_olson »

saurik wrote: post #105
niels_olson wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your examples seem to be pretty small corner cases. I'll add one though: when I got the Adobe Lightroom beta, I got executables for Windows and Mac. And with my upgrades, I still get both executables. But the elephant in the room at the time was that the vast majority of software was being sold into Windows boxes and the only upgrade path was up. the lateral transfer schemes were many and varied, but all trivial comp…

On mobile, these "corner cases" are the majority of sales: every year there is some "new king of the hill", from random Nokia or Motorola devices, through Palm, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry. And, even on desktop with our example: Windows itself was the lock-in, not the sale; if a competitor to Windows did show up, the apps would rapidly move (and were in fact already selling both executables): if the sales were cau…

I was just aiming for the cornerstone of your argument

> cross-device upgrade pricing was very common

Perhaps from within the industry having a lateral path was a common denominator, something every company had, and in that definition, it may have been "common", but not from a consumer perspective. The opportunity to buy PC software for a Mac was quite unusual for a consumer. There are still plenty of full time Windows folks thinking about getting Macs and asking their friends "Will I be able to use on it?". Maybe not in SF, but most of the people I work with (and we're talking doctors, military planners, etc) are still in a Windows world, at work and at home.

Re: Demoted

#109

Post by saurik »

niels_olson wrote: post #108
saurik wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On mobile, these "corner cases" are the majority of sales: every year there is some "new king of the hill", from random Nokia or Motorola devices, through Palm, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry. And, even on desktop with our example: Windows itself was the lock-in, not the sale; if a competitor to Windows did show up, the apps would rapidly move (and were in fact already selling both executables): if the sales were cau…

I was just aiming for the cornerstone of your argument > cross-device upgrade pricing was very common Perhaps from within the industry having a lateral path was a common denominator, something every company had, and in that definition, it may have been "common", but not from a consumer perspective. The opportunity to buy PC software for a Mac was quite unusual for a consumer. There are still plenty of full time Windo…

My argument mentioned Windows and Mac only because most people are more comfortable with that example. As end-to-end App Stores have only become popular recently on mobile, I only consider this conversation to currently apply there. However, the premise of the Mac App Store also /assumes/ a non-Windows-dominated world /by definition/, so I fail to see why you feel your comment attacks my argument... :(.

Re: Demoted

#110

Post by esrauch »

ralfd wrote: post #96
hexix wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard that before. I think Google gets the money. Verizon probably gets a cut just for the carrier billing option when used. I just did a search and couldn't find anything saying Verizon gets the money for android app payments. Also I can't think of a single Google Android app that has been discontinued and replaced with a web version. I think you're getting confused about google also offering mobile web v…

This was in October 2008: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-marke... -------------------------------- "Developers will get 70% of the revenue from each purchase; the remaining amount goes to carriers and billing settlement fees — Google does not take a percentage. We believe this revenue model creates a fair and positive experience for users, developers, and carriers," notes Eric Chu. -----------…

An issue of wired I think 2 months ago claimed that the current payout was 30% to Verizon and 70% to the developer with Google getting no cut from app sales. Obviously their information could have been dated as well.
Post reply on HN