81–90 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Coming to the HN front page later this year..?" I assume this may be a theme in the making.. I wonder if App Store like ecosystems have similar issues. I havnt heared of any in the android market, but im sure similar cases can be found.
Still, with android market, once your app has a reputation, you have a fair chance to distribute by yourself, as few devices lock down the side-loading capability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The repeated comparison with Microsoft's "former" evil lacks perspective. Microsoft aimed higher and sought to pretty much own the entire ecosystem and everything in it . You don't need to kill of someone's revenue stream if you've taken said someone out of the equation entirely. The painful difference is, where Microsoft actively aimed for the big game, leaving most smaller businesses to do as they please as long as…
But it's still nowhere near as "evil" as MS former dominance This argument comes up a lot but I just don't see it. In regards to the death of such companies like Netscape or Borland, you cannot put the blame on Microsoft's evilness. Sorry but you cannot. These companies completely fucked up their products. If they kept working and improving instead of fucking up their products, Borland would still sell developer tool…
Somewhat tangental, but this is the second post I've seen here recently that plays up the ".. and this happened on my birthday!" angle ( this being the first: http://lunduke.com/?p=2206 ). I'm extremely sympathetic to anyone who's struggling, but seriously, why should a birthday matter in this context? You can debate Apple's app store policy, but should they be expected to factor in stuff like birthdays when they enf…
That looks like the same guy?
I have apps on the iOS store as well (just like many of you) so I am aware of the emails you get from Apple telling you that your Apple developer account is going to expire. I have never heard of another developer having a problem with renewing their credentials. If there was an actual bug, I don't doubt more developers would be affected.
Honestly, I bet he forgot to renew, his apps got pulled, and now he's scrambling to cover his losses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The repeated comparison with Microsoft's "former" evil lacks perspective. Microsoft aimed higher and sought to pretty much own the entire ecosystem and everything in it . You don't need to kill of someone's revenue stream if you've taken said someone out of the equation entirely. The painful difference is, where Microsoft actively aimed for the big game, leaving most smaller businesses to do as they please as long as…
But it's still nowhere near as "evil" as MS former dominance This argument comes up a lot but I just don't see it. In regards to the death of such companies like Netscape or Borland, you cannot put the blame on Microsoft's evilness. Sorry but you cannot. These companies completely fucked up their products. If they kept working and improving instead of fucking up their products, Borland would still sell developer tool…
IE > Netscape
Visual Studio > anything by Borland
Excel > Lotus
Word > Wordperfect
I sympathise with the developers plight and this is a reason why I haven't wanted to get into App development. If your not battling people cloning your games, you have a constant axe swinging above your head that the app store may find fault with your App and remove it. You then have changing rules and requirements in the App Store.. The thing that bugs me a bit though is how the developer is asking for money. "Save…
As someone making a living from an App Store (though not Apples one), 14 days are enough to turn your emergency alarms. You need to know that 1- You get paid a month later. (and apparently, he is not going to for January) 2- If that's your dependable income, you'll need 3-4 months until you find a job or figure out a different revenue stream. So if he is not getting paid for January, that's already 2 months of non-pa…
Obviously it isn't ideal but you do what you have to do to keep going. If your revenue stream dries up you contact Apple to try to reestablish it. How long does that take? Maybe 1 email and 2 phone calls a day. Lets be generous and say this takes an hour each day. That then leaves 7 hours of thumb twiddling.
I have been in similar situations and have just nabbed a job on Guru. Its horrible BUT it brings in that little bit of money to keep the lights on until more work comes in.
This is the same Apple that plans for GateKeeper to check a certificate server for blacklisted apps and developers in OS X 10.8. Imagine not even being in the App Store and your app's mainstream customers with default settings seeing a scary warning message because your certificate was accidentally blacklisted. Coming to the HN front page later this year..? :-) Orienting your business around the ecosystem of a corpor…
This isn't just an Apple problem. There's a disturbing trend here. All of the dominant internet companies exhibit this kind of nonsensical "evil" behavior: Google, eBay, Apple and Paypal, to name the most salient examples. Way back when, Microsoft was openly painted by Apple (and the Apple cult followers) as being evil. Interestingly enough, Microsoft never sought to have this kind of a death grip on its users, at le…
The Free Software/Open Source community has been talking about this for years.
We'll still here. We have open source licences that you can use to prevent people doing certain things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diversification really helps. Basing something on a single platform, particularly one that is so tighly controlled is suicidal.
Great in theory, but there really isn't a good way to diversify if you're making apps. Yes there's Android, and some apps can make as much or more money on Android, but even if the app is making the same amount on both platforms, iOS kicking you out for no good reason could cut your income in half, which can put a company out of business almost as quickly as cutting off all of their money, if they've grown it based o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's still nowhere near as "evil" as MS former dominance This argument comes up a lot but I just don't see it. In regards to the death of such companies like Netscape or Borland, you cannot put the blame on Microsoft's evilness. Sorry but you cannot. These companies completely fucked up their products. If they kept working and improving instead of fucking up their products, Borland would still sell developer tool…
Half of the reason Netscape and Borland died was because of their own mistakes. The other half was that Microsoft had competing products and proceeded to crush them. If Microsoft had taken graphics editing more seriously by creating a Photoshop competitor bundled with Office or built Silverlight 5 years earlier than they did instead of bundling Flash into Windows, Adobe's story would have been very different.
Even if a company is one of the biggest and wealthiest in the world, development still takes time and resources. Which is why hypothetical questions like what would have happened if Microsoft built Silverlight earlier DO NOT make sense, simply because they didn't build Silverlight earlier and that's that.
Disregarding the fact that Microsoft already had a Flash competitor (ActiveX), Silverlight's technical advantages comes from the underlying platform, which is .NET and no matter how you look at it, if you're talking about current-day Silverlight, then you must include .NET into that equation.
On building Silverlight 5 years earlier, that would have been impossible, considering you're talking about year 2003, with .NET being initially released in 2002. So to make that decision 5 years earlier, then you have to shift the evolution of everything that led to it 5 years earlier. That means the release of .NET should have been in 1997, so development on it should have started somewhere in 1994, before the release of Windows 95.
You could then say that if only Microsoft invested more resources into .NET and Silverlight, then these projects would have been released faster. But by all indications Microsoft made .NET and the Avalon-related technologies (like WPF and Silverlight) their top priority, so they simply couldn't work faster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The repeated comparison with Microsoft's "former" evil lacks perspective. Microsoft aimed higher and sought to pretty much own the entire ecosystem and everything in it . You don't need to kill of someone's revenue stream if you've taken said someone out of the equation entirely. The painful difference is, where Microsoft actively aimed for the big game, leaving most smaller businesses to do as they please as long as…
But it's still nowhere near as "evil" as MS former dominance This argument comes up a lot but I just don't see it. In regards to the death of such companies like Netscape or Borland, you cannot put the blame on Microsoft's evilness. Sorry but you cannot. These companies completely fucked up their products. If they kept working and improving instead of fucking up their products, Borland would still sell developer tool…
screen savers
disk compressors