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

We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

huemanapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 319 posts

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#291

Post by mavhc »

etler wrote: post #269
guenard wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Larger? It's not that easy. There is more Android smartphones sold than Apple phones yep, but 1. thanks to telcos a lot of Android users don't even know what is Android/Google Play (= they'll never download apps) and 2. global app store revenues are still higher on iOS versus Google Play.

The downloads stat is no longer true[1]. Revenue is still much higher on iOS, but the trends have been clear, and cannot be ignored. Before, it was "Android is open, but there are way more iPhones", then it was "Android has more phones but iPhones get more downloads", it won't be long until revenue surpases it too. [1] http://www.siliconbeat.com/2013/07/31/google-play-passes-app... EDIT: More stats on revenue: In nov…

Plus that ignores ad revenue, more Android apps are ad supported

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#292

Post by raldi »

Sheepshow wrote: post #285
raldi wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be legitimately great. See, for example, The Phantom Edit, or Brokeback to the Future, or Girl Talk's All Day. Could you rephrase your comment without the sarcasm so I can see what point you're actually trying to make?

All those features are hogshit, completely irrelevant, and extremely complicated and difficult to achieve. I have never once watched a movie and said "I didn't like that movie. Let me watch it again with taller actors and more rounded furniture."

You don't have to. But those features might allow someone else to mash it up into something better. Like the three examples in my comment.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#293

Post by MereInterest »

coldtea wrote: post #235
MereInterest wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/users/most users/g If I want to install software on a device that I bought, I should not need to jailbreak it. If I want to install software on a device that I bought, I should not need to buy a developer's license.

Well, in the abstract I agree. But if the platform was built by someone else, he gets to set the rules. And if the rules are lax enough, like the App Store is, and people using the platform dont mind much, then we don't have much of a case.

Every platform was built by somebody. If I buy batteries, should the engineer who designed those batteries (or, heck, Alessandro Volta) be able to place restrictions on the use of those batteries? If I buy a car, should the seller be able to place restrictions on which roads I drive on? If I buy flour, should I be able to use it in recipes only with ingredients bought from the same company?

Apple should by no means ever restrict the ability to place code on a device that they sell. Restrict things from the App Store? Sure. Restrict devices to only use the App Store? Absolutely not.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#294

Post by saurik »

zachrose wrote: post #149
saurik wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the movie came with the full set of trailers (preview, theatrical, etc.) for the movie? And had a director's commentary track? With a second audio track that had the actors telling jokes? Or even just take all of the funny moments that happened while filming, where people missed their lines, and put them on the same DVD? Maybe they could even throw in an entirely different ending for the movie that was replac…

I guess what I'm getting at is that some of the nicest things in this world are what they are because of spaces not filled in, or aspects that aren't shoved into tropes, or—if you'll excuse the cliché—notes not played. I think we're all in agreement that this sounds like a cool app. I'm just lamenting the lack of creative authority given to its developers, regardless of whatever their future plans may be.

Yet throwing in an instrumental version of the song seems to generally work out fine (or an alternative version that is a duet with Rihanna); you seem to be stuck on "there are bad things that can be added to something that make it worse" when you are simply plucking examples chosen to be uniquely the most bad, even when there are obvious examples that no one has a problem with for the exact same cases that no one has a problem with (and are even semi-expected these days).

I mean, a movie release on DVD with just be movie and nothing more is simply not done and many people would consider it cheap and disappointing. The reaction most people who have to a movie that is only 20 minutes long is or a song that was only 30 seconds long is going to be similar: I doubt many movie theaters, radio stations, or content distributors, would consider the "short" sufficient.

In this case, we know the developers have "notes left to play", and could spend the time to do those now. Clearly, I would be the first to point at Apple and say "this is not a legitimate selection criteria" (sufficiently so that even bothering to say it explicitly is kind if redundant ;P), but if I were those developers... this is just a really self-defeating reaction that is not likely to sway either Apple or the people who actually like Apple not wanting to sell things that don't feel "complete enough".

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#295

Post by ekianjo »

bduerst wrote: post #260
mattmanser wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was so original. I can't believe anyone contests this. I remember seeing an iPhone for the first time. Compared to all other phones it was 10 years ahead in vision. All other phones were suddenly ludicrously laid out, with stupid designs. Even the settings section for the iPhone blew every single other phone in existence out of the water. Something that simple, that essential, had been revolutionised by this thoug…

You're confusing aesthetic design with functional originality. The original iphone was very well designed, but it stood on the shoulders of PDAs and was a natural next step. Just as an open-sourced OS like Android was the next step.

Exactly. Everything was already in the PDAs. Apple just changed things a bit and made it cooler, but they did not invent anything.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#296

Post by ekianjo »

mattmanser wrote: post #157
ekianjo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And going "nuclear" on Android because they felt that their iOS was soooo original it should be protected by all patents, trademarks and laws in place. Apple is the Disney of IT, seriously.

It was so original. I can't believe anyone contests this. I remember seeing an iPhone for the first time. Compared to all other phones it was 10 years ahead in vision. All other phones were suddenly ludicrously laid out, with stupid designs. Even the settings section for the iPhone blew every single other phone in existence out of the water. Something that simple, that essential, had been revolutionised by this thoug…

> Compared to all other phones it was 10 years ahead in vision. All other phones were suddenly ludicrously laid out, with stupid designs.

You are wrong because you are looking at the wrong category for a comparison. Look at PDAs. PDAs had everything that the iPhone could do, more or less. And this, YEARS before the iPhone came out. I know it, because I had PDAs very early on and I remember making fun of the people thinking that the iPhone was so revolutionary at work because I had been doing the same stuff with my PDA for 5 years. Of course, the iPhone had a better browser, was easier to use, was more cool looking, but nonetheless it had nothing NEW in functionality over the previous PDAs. Comparing with phones is therefore irrelevant, the iPhone was PDA-Phone, thus being called a Smart-Phone later on by the mainstream media.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#297

Post by ekianjo »

ikurei wrote: post #240
mattmanser wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was so original. I can't believe anyone contests this. I remember seeing an iPhone for the first time. Compared to all other phones it was 10 years ahead in vision. All other phones were suddenly ludicrously laid out, with stupid designs. Even the settings section for the iPhone blew every single other phone in existence out of the water. Something that simple, that essential, had been revolutionised by this thoug…

It blew every other phone, but it wasn't that original over PDAs. I had a Windows 6.5 pda then, and I thought the iPhone was way cooler and well-designed. Of course it was inmensely superior to my PDA, but not so incredibly original. It didn't do anything at all I wasn't already doing with PDAs, it just did some of them (chiefly, web browsing) way better, most of them in a cooler way (pinch to zoom, animations), and…

> I think it was extremely childish of Jobs to get so pissed.

I've never thought of Jobs as being someone mature and reasonable anyway. He was already like that in his younger years whenever the competition heated up. He didn't change.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#298

Post by benched »

My heavens. This is in danger of turning all the rhetoric around depression on its ear! Everyone knows happiness or the lack of it is determined by brain chemistry, not life events. A well-adjusted person feels the same whether you run them over with a car or give them a hand job.
Post reply on HN