Well, theoretically such a machine could be worth billions but actually you’d probably sell a few to research institutes and then one to a commercial company and then it is game over for you.
sure sounds like
I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
I've got no predictions on the future world wide market for 3D printing, but big predictions on future tech are usually wrong.
>
1. Open up the platform, or
2. Go down the same road that they went down in the 80s/90s, handing the bulk of the business over to an open platform.
>
You gave two options at a crossroads as a result of a maps fiasco, both options end up with the "open" solution winning. My reading comprehension is fine, your arguments are faulty.
What is it with fluorescent light and programmers? I left a gig specifically because of a mid-afternoon fluorescent hum that was soul sucking. Decent light and a good ergonomic work environment are so important.
I used to burn some time when my son was young by sitting him in front of the attract loop of games in places like Dave & Busters. The more things change...
>>>Conditons are so poor<<<
is your interpretation. It does not take a mass delusion Stockholm syndrome sort of interpretation to figure out that a lot of developers get great satisfaction working on the platform. I'm sure to a person there are things they dislike and would change, but that doesn't mean they are being abused.
It's much easier when you accept that people have different opinions about just about everything and that those differing opinions don't always indicate a lack of reason or ulterior motive.
...
Those that refuse to ditch iOS aren't doing so because they'll miss out on potential customers, it's because they like the idea of building apps for the most popular phone on the market, despite the crap they have to put up with.
...
Trying to assess peoples motivations is unlikely to be accurate or useful.
Financial freedom is a hedge against the loss of your human capital. Most people dramatically overestimate the continuity of their human capital and are surprised when it starts to diminish. It's a great thing that a certain percentage of people remain vital their entire lives, but you can't count on it.
People get tied up in knots about the Efficient Market Hypothesis. The factor that often gets ignored when approaching the problem is the costs factor. Trading fees, Analysis, Commissions, etc. make it very hard in practicality to beat passive investment with the markets only being passably efficient.
The part I consider sharecropping is the lack of communication with your customer. In Amazon's case they've been able to build a very strong brand with lot's of global mindshare, but they had to rely on a webpage in a Kindle blog to explain the changes in the iOS app. They couldn't even put a link in the release notes to explain the loss of a popular feature. In this case, it's sharecropping because you drop your high value branded crop in the Apple cotton gin and Apple decides what commodity that suites their needs comes out the other side.
The most important thing to focus on is not life extension, but extending healthy vitality longer or compressed morbidity. Life extension is way too much of a tax on humanity if we can't solve the problem of frailty in the extreme old.
Here is a post from a Kobo developer outlining their experience with their store. It doesn't sound like there was any room for taking a stand in their case and that they got boxed into not being able to communicate anything about their product. It does sound like there may be a different set of rules for different apps enforced capriciously but I doubt it had much about Amazon taking a stand.
That's my biggest beef about the whole thing. I guess you could argue it is Apple's prerogative to change rules, but Kobo and Amazon can't even communicate why things are changing to their customers. It really points out how much the App store is sharecropping. Making apps is not a viable business when so much about developing a business is the customer relationship.
I hear that argument a lot, but I've never found myself where a kludge of a technology really saved the day. I lump it with the web browser on the Kindle where the idea of having it available is much more interesting then even the desert island use of the tech.
Again, he seems happy with his revenue generation and he cuts down significantly on annoying chatter in his ear. Seems like a good decision. Some folks would talk about his "lifestyle business" and how he needs to change x and y, I'd say just keep on trucking.
While I'm relatively bullish on Apple as a company, I can't say that I'm bullish on Apple stock. It's the same old growth story where a company gets priced to perfection and no company is perfect in strategy or execution. Couple that with technical market factors like this and the inevitable "What goes up, must come down" seems likely.
fake discipline might have been a poor choice of words. My intent was to indict a process of using quantitative skills in a manner that was supposed to "add rigor" to finance, to encapsulate and tame risk. It didn't work.
My fake discipline comment is a direct response to the havoc wrought by attempting to place a normal distribution, which worked so nicely in insurance when dealing with things like lifespan, on top of a chaotic system like finance. Long Term Capital Management, Value at Risk, and other models from very, very smart quantitative minds who simply misunderstood the problem space and almost took down the world economy. I call that a "fake discipline".
I'd say as a developer, all I care about is a nice niche market to serve with a development environment I enjoy. All of that world domination, battle stuff doesn't interest me very much at all.
The percentage of smart people working in finance trended much higher then science and engineering. Fake disciplines like "Financial Engineering" thus became paramount. Institutions supported these changes.