Hacker News Reader

martinpannieron iOS is anti-Unix and anti-programmer

Sorry, but the article says nothing about companies maintaining control for the sake of profits — only the parent developed this point.

The article made the point about the lack of composability of iOS, with the Grail of composability being the command-line. And I stand by what I said. Design is the result of trade-offs: you can't have ease of use and composability.

Steve Jobs understood the necessity of trade-offs better than anyone else.

martinpannieron iOS is anti-Unix and anti-programmer

Additional thought, because your post is just so wrong.

> limitless and powerful computer

More like confusing and impairing computer

> no way to organize thoughts your way

More ways to do so with my iDevice than with any other computer I ever owned!

> no need to understand how the technology works

Yay! Finally!

(Not to bring up the car analogy again, but do I really need to know how my motor works to drive to work?)

> technology is now magic

True, it's now accessible to (almost) all!

Etc. ad nauseam

martinpannieron iOS is anti-Unix and anti-programmer

Most comments in this thread strike me as being anti-"normal users". This is the elite, talking about how they can maintain their elite position.

martinpannieron iOS is anti-Unix and anti-programmer

The capacity to compose is giving way to the possibility for almost anyone to express his/her creativity in a concrete way. So maybe what you're saying is true, but then iOS is pro-artist and pro-creation. See that 10-yr old Taiwanese "programmer" for example.

And what are computers if not tools for creation? "Unix" and "programming" are means, not ends.

martinpannieron Another 'Android from the perspective of an iOS developer' Post

Key word here is 'Another'. Just do what you want, and if you put all your eggs in one basket, don't complain if at one point its owner purposefully empties it to put his own eggs inside.

martinpannieron The <img> Is Not Enough

In this post I review the different categories of "Rich pictures" (360° product pictures, 3D pictures, Lytro pictures, pictures with product & people tags, etc.) and how we can make their embedding possible. I'm looking to spark a conversation on the topic, so please weigh in!

martinpannieron Show HN: I wrote a co-founder equity calculator over the weekend

The quality of comments on HN seems to be falling pretty quickly.

It's a good idea. I think technical founders are probably a little underrated in your model.

Otherwise, I don't know if equity calculators are a great solution in general. They just tend to shift the problem from the importance startuppers give to different topics to the importance a program gives to these topics. On top of that, discussing non-round amounts >10% (such as 19%, 23%, etc.) just gives much too much importance to a few %, which paradoxically makes discussions tougher down the road. Better to round things up (70/20/10, 60/40) and just leave things at that.

martinpannieron That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing?

I think the question was whether there were sites which stripped you of your copyright privileges, not of your copyright. I've argued elsewhere in the thread that these services cannot strip your copyright. However, if you give a license to a website to profit from your content, I think we can agree that the website stripped you from your copyright privileges (at least a big part of them).

martinpannieron That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing?

Sorry, but you're wrong.

> But has anyone done that?

Good examples of paid-for TwitPic photos include pictures in the wake of the Haiti earthquake, or the pictures taken of the Boeing which emergency-landed in the Hudson.

> Whey would they pay, given that it's available anyway?

Because they have to—the user only relinquished part of her rights on the picture, namely distribution on the Twitter/TwitPic medium, not her entire rights. If you think that were the TOS to change, the users would still upload pictures, you're so very wrong—see the TwitPic debacle recently and how MobyPicture gained a few k users because they state in their TOS that they can't sell their users' pictures without prior agreement.

You seem to think that your analogy is good, but I don't think it is. Were a magazine to publish SO answers in a Q&A section in a paid magazine, I think SO would be subject to licensing fees. In that case, the relationship between SO and you is governed by their TOS. Check them out, you'll have your answer.

martinpannieron That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing?

I think it would be a mistake to confuse the artistic value of something with its monetary value—the two are only loosely coupled.

The monetary value here is tied to the rarity of the picture. Sure, it sucks, and it was taken in 2s. But it's still unique. And interesting. So it's worth a lot.

martinpannieron That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing?

Flickr doesn't exactly act as an agent for customers; they do however have a partnership with Getty to sell pictures, but as far as I know only a very small percentage of pictures are concerned.

martinpannieron That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing?

The TwitPic debacle recently—TwitPic changed their TOS to state that TwitPic could sell their users' pictures without authorization from or revenue sharing with, said user. So, TwitPic?

martinpannieron That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing?

That's not exactly true. American "copyright" is not quite the French "droit d'auteur", which, if I'm not mistaken, is what you're mentioning. And then, even the "droits d'auteur" are broken down in the patrimonial rights and the creation attribution—you can cede your patrimonial rights (rights to profit from the picture), but never the creation attribution: the picture will always be your creation.

martinpannieron That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing?

You WANT it to be distributed and concede the necessary rights to TwitPic, but that's very different from putting it out in the public domain. You still retain copyright, and normally the picture host shouldn't be able to sell it nor journalists to use it (this is precisely the reason there was such a kerfuffle about the TwitPic TOS recently).

I hate being self-promotional, but this issue is exactly the reason we created Picuous, which is a Vimeo/SoundCloud/Scribd for pictures: pictures can be embedded legally, carry automatic attribution, and can be tracked by the picture owner. Using the pictures in the player is free, using them in other contexts is pay-for.

We want to change this traditionnal diffusion/monetization/ownership Bermuda Triangle… People interested in this problem should check it out: http://picuous.com. All feedback is welcome on martin@picuous.com.

martinpannieron Hacker News Etiquette

Care to tell me what you think of this post then? ;)

http://journal.martinpannier.fr/the-267-qualities-all-entrep...

martinpannieron Hacker News Etiquette

Thanks. However, I've found the community to be sensitive at times and wanted to know if there were additional implicit rules that are to be respected.

martinpannieron Monotouch believes Apple's final 4.0 SDK may give more wiggle room.

See also this article on AppleInsider : http://bit.ly/aVCuKz

I'm not privy to the technical details, but it would seem Apple banning other programming languages than Objective-C etc. was not an ideological decision, but that it was based on the new requirements of the multitasking feature in iPhone OS 4.0.

Can anyone with more technical know-how weigh in on this discussion ?

martinpannieron Apple takes stance on consciousness

Do you have any examples? And we're not talking about apps which replicate core functionality, call private APIs, or do a bunch of stuff that is forbidden by the developer agreement ...

martinpannieron Apple takes stance on consciousness

UX is subjective, they can't reject apps on that basis. Whether it's written using Objective-C or another language, however, is not.

And I'm not defending Apple, here. I don't like where they're headed. But I find this whole 'the program was written in my brain' thing ridiculous.

martinpannieron [dead]

Sorry about that, I misread. Anyway, given the recent technological breakthroughs in terms of sense of humour, I absolutely trust the brainy researchers who will read this article in 15 years to understand that it's an April Fools.

martinpannieron Apple takes stance on consciousness

a mistaken belief that consistent developer tooling means a consistent user experience

Not necessarily, but inconsistent developer tools rarely lead to better UXs than consistent ones. I don't know about you, but I haven't tried a single Flash-written app on the iPhone which didn't suck. And Apple's recent deletion of below-standards apps shows that they take app quality very seriously and want to set a high standard for the platform.

As for the author's stance, it's simply ridiculous!

martinpannieron [dead]

'Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.'

martinpannieron [dead]

Aren't April Fools always written in the first few weeks of April?

martinpannieron [dead]

Maybe standards do move too slowly for Apple. The reason they're not like Adobe or Microsoft (to answer your implicit comparison) is that neither Flash nor Silverlight are open standards, whereas Webkit is open-source. In that sense every progress Apple makes is accessible to everyone and not in Apple's control. So I don't really understand your fear (or your comparison).

martinpannieron [dead]

I don't like it when they write "April Fools!" at the end. It ruins the fun. Imagine if you punctuated all your jokes with a laugh and a loud "Joking!" ...

martinpannieron Feature checklist dysfunction

I agree with you. I was pointing that out, regarding the title of the article, "Feature checklist dysfunction". Basically I'm critical of the very system of "checklists" for products or as a mean of comparing products.

martinpannieron Feature checklist dysfunction

I agree. But you seem to forget usability, style, safety (as opposed to security) and a few of other parameters that are actually key to the overall experience. Much more so than the inclusion of a digital fingerprint reader, for example.