BigZaphod

For almost all typical programming jobs out there, isn't asking a question such as this like hiring someone to flip burgers and expecting them to demonstrate how to butcher a cow during the interview?

I've never written a cover letter. In fact, I've only needed a resume once in my life so far (I'm 31, been employed steadily in the field since I was 15) - and that was just so the company could "keep it on file." (I have no idea why it mattered to them - they had already hired me before even seeing one!)

I hope this trend continues for me. :)

This is a pretty stupid article. It basically boils down to, "I'm old and it's my right to assume kids are stupid even if maybe they aren't - but I know they are! So there!"

I'm sure that sometimes it's the rush and sometimes it's the ego, but I find a huge problem with off-the-shelf code is that it rarely fits into what you've already written. It can be something as simple as having different naming conventions, to the almost-impossible-to-deal with problem of the third party code having a whole different idea of the place it should fit into the overall program's structure. That stuff is a tough problem, I think, and one there isn't a good/known solution for.

That is my speculation as well. I posted about it here a bit ago (whoa.. 26 days.. time flies!): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1657709

I'm not sure why you'd assume that being okay with being paid average (or even slightly below) is such a crime. How does this translate to the company being filled with "terrible employees" and the like? I think you're assuming that everyone's goal in life is to just make as much money as possible and damn the risk. It's not.

The company I work for has been around for more than 10 years but is very small and fiscally conservative. I've worked for plenty of high paying startups (often from home and coffee shops and doing interesting things) who die in less than half the time this one has been around. In some cases, they died because they were paying above average wages in a misguided attempt to compete for the best of the best. That didn't work out so well. Of the 5 or so startups I've been with in the last few years, only Tapulous remains in business. Sure, they all paid great and I got rid of my debt during those years, but it didn't work out so well for them, did it?

This is very true, but I'd like to add that old cliche: money isn't everything.

I'm making about 65% of what I was making 2 years ago, but the experience is far better. I have awesomely talented coworkers, get to work on fun stuff, have freedom to explore interesting alternative side projects/ideas, work from home and coffee shops every day, and have no strictly defined schedule. As far as some people are concerned, I don't have a job at all - but that's what you get when you love what you do and the company treats you like a responsible adult (an all-too-rare thing).

While I do sometimes feel that the money is not enough month-to-month, I have enough to invest some in retirement each month, pay a little extra on my mortgage each month, and occasionally buy a new Apple gadget. Not having any other debt (besides mortgage) makes this easier, too. If there's a bigger lesson here, it's to eliminate your debt while you're making the big bucks at the boring job - because that'll free you up to take the more interesting but lower-paying job when it comes along. Don't be a slave to your lifestyle.

I'd suggest not burning anything.

My immediate response was: Ha! Good!

..but that's the problem with all these sorts of debates, isn't it? Everyone is acting on their first, almost instinctual response and never stopping to think beyond their own selfish beliefs and desires. Somehow that seems ironic.

It was a just bit more than a "slight" increase. I think Apple had been planning on being able to double it all along - hence the initially lower dpi. But of course they'll never say for sure.

If it's so easy, why had no one else put them in their phones or built their laptops out of them?

Apple uses most of the same components as everyone else, but not exactly identical and not always in standardized configurations. They are doing the work of coming up with solid, profitable, and interesting combinations of mostly-pre-existing hardware and combining it with a solid, profitable, and interesting combination of mostly-pre-existing software. (Some of which they own entirely, and plenty of open source stuff as you said.)

Apple has a hell of an R&D department. As far as I know, their retina display, unibody laptop manufacturing processes, and touch-based trackpad tech are unique to them. It's been shown a number of times that their touch screens are way more accurate than others, and somehow their battery life is quite remarkable compared to competitors as well. With the exception of the display and the unibody cases, the stuff I've listed here all require hardware and software to work closely together to achieve the perfect experience. It's areas like that which the PC makers will always suffer in if they don't change their approach, IMO.

While reading this, I couldn't help but feel like he wants the "more open" platforms to beat Apple mostly because it means that he (and others) can just leech off the work being done by the OS or hardware vendors so they don't have to bother with everything themselves. It feels lazy.

Apple does everything themselves so they can offer a complete, cohesive, unified package that their customers want. The PC vendors always seem to be looking for an easy way out so they only have to do half as much work. Either they don't want to mess with hardware, or they don't want to mess with software. They want someone else to come and build stuff they can take and bundle rather than digging in and doing what it takes to make a complete product for their customers.

I actually know one of the designers who worked on iTunes 10, and frankly, I'm tired of seeing all the hate. All of the designers worked really hard on it and considered and balanced hundreds of conflicting constraints that no one outside Apple has any insight of. Everyone is just bitching based on the one way they happen to see iTunes and not considering the whole picture - because they don't have the whole picture. (And neither do I.) Things change. Get over it.

Yes, exactly!

With no content storage and 100% streaming, there's no reason this couldn't work from any iDevice to any AppleTV. What I mean is: Say you have the MLB app on your iPhone, but your friend doesn't but he has an AppleTV and giant screen. You go over there with your iPhone, tap a single button, and you can both enjoy the game on the big screen. There's no syncing or sharing of iTunes accounts necessary. The same for sharing and enjoying movies and TV shows with friends. This is exactly the element that's missing in almost all current online content delivery schemes.

There's already a Hulu app for iOS. The only reason they'd have for blocking AirPlay would be if the content providers got bitchy about it - but the thing about AppleTV is that it's all streaming. This makes it, conceptually, no different than streaming the content to a browser or to the Hulu app itself like they already do. The AppleTV is a closed box with no apps, so Apple can claim to the networks that it's very secure, etc. The content providers might be more open to that idea since the data itself is always transient (streamed from the net to the app, from the app to the TV - nothing is ever stored which is what the providers are deathly afraid of).

The other angle here is that this could eliminate the need for Hulu entirely. Smart networks could make their own apps that follow their own desired content rules (letting you see live, non-live, only the last X days, whatever they want). And they can stream the content to the app in whatever manner of subscription they choose. And indie production companies could skip networks entirely and go straight to the App Store - just like indie musicians and podcasters are already doing.

I think the big thing people are missing in Apple's strategy with this is the streaming from iOS to AppleTV. Steve demoed the feature in such a way that it got very little attention - but I think that was intentional because the feature isn't coming until iOS 4.2 and Apple doesn't ordinarily like to show off features that are so distant, but since iOS 4.2 was already mentioned, they decided to show it yesterday.

I think that feature is the disruptive angle to the AppleTV and that's the reason I bought one. Here's why:

All Apple has to do is add a single Boolean switch to the built in video player: allowsAirPlay. If they do this, then with a single line of code, any app developer can make an app that allows their content to be streamed to an AppleTV. Your iDevice becomes the worlds most powerful remote control almost instantly. Developers (studios, individual shows, whatever) just need to create apps for iOS which authenticate or manage the subscription to their content, and the customers can tap a single button to see it on their big screen. You gain all the advantages of apps on the AppleTV itself without actually needing them to be installed there!

Suddenly the App Store becomes a cable TV network. The added benefit is - you don't need to have an AppleTV to enjoy the benefits! Plug your iPad into your TV using that adapter cable, and you could still enjoy the same content. Or take it with you when you travel - your TV channels are all there. And when you're at home, just tap the AirPlay button to see it on the big screen.

That's the disruption I'm hoping for and Apple has every single piece in place now to do this.

What about this particular startup required you to get to America? The world is a pretty big place and there's plenty of other places to work within that don't have the (hopefully temporary) political issues with your religion.

I'm no expert, but I've always understood that to be basically true - that our entire system depends on debt because debt is how money is created and our system depends on that process in order to avoid falling over itself. It's part of the magic of fiat money, I believe. If our money was based on a physical good (say, gold), then I don't think the same rules apply.

Edit: I'm doing my part in aiding the collapse of civilization by not carrying any debt. (Except for my house - but I wish I didn't even have that one hanging over my head.)

As is mine. Why waste money on interest? If you don't have enough to pay for a thing, you shouldn't buy the thing.

I was going leave a comment asking why this was here, but after reading about his mathematical prowess/history all I've got to say is: whoa.

I'm not so sure. My own terms are pretty hardcore... :)

I guess that'd depend on the situation and I certainly understand that feeling - I've been there before!

I presently work for http://iconfactory.com, and we try to keep meetings to a minimum as a matter of principal. Artists need flow to do their thing just as us programmers do, and the company is run by artists. I'm also remote so the only random co-worker interruptions I have are via iChat.

For me, the answer is: I like programming. If I did my own thing, I'd have to do all that other non-programming crap, too. Suddenly I wouldn't be a programmer anymore. Meh.

I think you'll find that pretty much anyone will freely give him a pass on that. It's beyond well-earned. His skills are freaking legendary.

What do you mean "got around to updating it?" The iPod touch gets updated every year - just like the iPhone! Apple most certainly does care about the iPod touch. It sells like crazy.

I hate money, but it'd be nice to have more of it.

Character is important! In Plants vs. Zombies there's that crazy guy named Dave who sells upgrades and says ridiculous things. Each plant and zombie has a distinct personality you can read about that's fun and goofy. There's visual jokes as well. And the end-game music video is an awesomely silly reward for all your time spent playing. All of this adds up to an experience people feel connected to.

Things change.

I'm curious why you'd be eager to trust the government with this big responsibility when you used a government-caused period of hyperinflation as an example of why this is hard for people to succeed at on their own.