jkincaid

Yeah, based on what they said they have some much more ambitious plans than just photo swapping. Unfortunately (but unsurprisingly) they were vague about what those plans entail — they made some references to heavy data crunching, but I couldn't really get a straight answer as to exactly what they were crunching or what it would be used for.

The other companies were "off the record". This is journalist lingo for stuff you can't write about. It's an agreement between YC and the press in attendance that they won't write about companies that don't want to be 'outed' as being part of YC (or haven't announced their existence at all).

Sure, someone could go and write about those companies anyway, but they wouldn't be invited back.

I didn't pay for access, but the linked article points to a URL for The Sunday Times. Last I checked this is a sister publication to The Times. Not sure how the editorial standards compare.

I did suck it up and switched to Android. It isn't painless. I now like Android better than iOS, but you need to change your muscle memory and learn where various options are. And all of the apps and content you purchased on iOS are no longer accessible, which is the real pain-point.

These things weren't difficult for me, but they're a pretty big hurdle for 'normal' people. If Amazon pulls the Kindle app, a user is probably more likely to "just switch" to iBooks as opposed to a different platform that supports Kindle. Which is apparently what Apple is counting on.

Actually it does affect the Kindle and other non-subscription apps, as confirmed in this report: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_A...

That's a good idea — I'll start asking about the standard setup.

Of course it's unnatural. There's people walking around with big cameras and I'm sticking a microphone in their face. We could show people coding with their head down, but that would be pretty dull. So we get some shots showing people doing actual work, and then explore some of the things that make the office unique, and what they do to blow off steam.

That's just me :)

Perhaps the free press generated by every brief downtime more than compensates for it? (that isn't me being sarcastic, it's just a guess)

Well, remember Apple has a screening process so they don't have to detect credentials — they can just have the reviewer try buying something.

And they probably only really care about the big content sellers (Amazon, Google, etc.) so they wouldn't have that many apps to enforce it on.

As for the variety of different apps, Apple isn't exactly known for being consistent. I'm sure they could come up with different rules for subscription vs. a la carte downloads.

It sounds like that's banned too though.

"The company has told some applications developers, including Sony, that they can no longer sell content, like e-books, within their apps, or let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store."

The really interesting bit is where it says that developers won't be able to "let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store".

Amazon has worked around Apple's rules by always kicking users out to the browser to complete the transaction. This apparently kills that.

Check out the post for some of their plans. They're looking to become a platform for helping businesses/bands/venues connect with patrons.

I don't think the goading was that bad. The skinning has been a real issue for Android, and (having been in a similar situation) you can't ask questions like that once and move on to another topic, otherwise you'll just get the response the PR team crafted. You need to dance around a bit and hope something more interesting comes out.

Ugh. This post is flawed. I've been in contact with him all afternoon trying to explain why (I wrote the original post he is attempting to debunk).

Under his 'Paid Apps' banner he is counting applications that use in-app purchases (but are initially free) and that offer free demo periods.

He doesn't know how many of those users are actually paying for items within the applications using in-app purchases, and he doesn't know how many people are paying once their demo expires.

I did my homework on this one. I looked at the 'Paid Apps' section listed on the official Chrome Web Store. When I noticed how low the running weekly download count was, I contacted Google and asked what was up. They said that the 'Top Paid' section on their store was not listed in order (no idea why), but even when I browsed through all of the 'Top Paid' applications, the one with the most downloads still wasn't doing very well.

Good point. I certainly wasn't trying to be misleading — the "slowed to" was based on my observation immediately after the store launched, when I believe some of the paid apps had higher numbers of installs. However, I don't have the sales figures on those handy (I'd have to ask Google) and it may not be fair to base sales data off the initial launch anyway.

I've changed the title to be less ambiguous/misleading.

Very cool as a V1, with a user experience that's loads better than existing alternatives. Couple feature suggestions (that are probably already on your roadmap):

-User and/or editor reviews are a must. Tab quality tends to range from completely wrong to almost right, and without any kind of community input it can be difficult for newbies to tell the difference.

-I don't know how feasible it is, but a web based version of PowerTab (or comparable solutions) would be great. Old-school tabs are nice, but when you can listen to a MIDI-fied version of a portion of a tab, it helps a lot.

I tried to address this in the article, but it's a little confusing.

If you and a coworker are both editing a document using native versions of Office, then the changes should sync seamlessly.

If you create a document using Office, then sync to the cloud, then edit that document using a Google Docs web-based editor, it should look right, but there may be some fidelity issues. However, any changes you make WILL NOT be saved to the version of the document that was originally created in Office. You can still save this as an Office Doc using the export feature, but it breaks the syncing.

Google intends to release a version that will work with the iPad/iPod Touch (no VoIP calls, at least at first, but you'll be able to use texts and access your voicemail).

Valid point, but the hurdle associated with exporting and re-uploading that data is non-trivial for most people. Is it truly portable if a user can't figure out how to take it with them in the first place?

Edit: I should add that I think a fairer exchange of information between Google and Facebook would be a good thing for users. I just think the way Google is doing this conflicts to some degree with their past mission statements regarding users owning their data.

Perhaps closed was the wrong word — it's certainly more restrictive, is it not?

It's my data. If I want to bring it to another service, I should be able to — at least, that's what Google has been saying for a long time now. Even if my data is ultimately going to be locked up in this other site, is that not my decision to make?

This is true, though to my knowledge if we agree to an embargo (as in, you ask, I actually say "Yes" as opposed to you just blasting a press release to my inbox) then we don't generally break them. At least that's my policy.

FYI, The Wall Street Journal stopped honoring embargoes last year. Your PR firm knew this.

Forgive me if the answer to this is obvious (I skimmed the linked page), but how much Rails/general programming experience do I need to be able to follow this?

Strongly disagree with this (and I've seen my fair share of pitches). I'd much rather hear you're the "x of y" followed by an explanation of your key differences than listen to you reinvent the wheel.

The report about the phone was true. Here's (yet more) confirmation: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-23/facebook-is-said-to...

Google submitted a native, official Google Voice application to the App Store in the first half of 2009. That application was rejected, though Apple told the press and FCC that it was still "pondering" whether or not to accept it (which was clearly bullshit).

Last week I asked Google if they planned to resubmit/release the official app, and was told that they had nothing to announce at this time.

No. Was there something specific about the article that made you wonder that, or is this merely one of the knee-jerk reactions we get every time we write a positive article about anything?

One other thing that has helped me keep my sanity: wash and fold laundry service. You take your dirty laundry, put it in a bag, and they'll clean and fold it for a modest fee (the place around the corner from me is around $1.10 a pound). In urban areas you can find services that will pickup and deliver.

It's a luxury, but it isn't that expensive (especially if you typically rely on coin-op laundromats anyway) and it's one less thing to worry about.

Yes, sorry for not being more clear in my original post. It sounded to me like fees from outbound international calls originating in the US will be used to subsidize the domestic US calls.