WTF? Fuck "engaging in the conversation". What a crock of shit. You make a demonstrably valid point and fuck it, who cares...
131 karma · joined December 1, 2011
I just want to clarify that the awful marketing you are speaking of is the one that caused you to look at the product...
It seems like such an obvious engagement tactic, I'm surprised so many companies don't employ it.
(That said, those same emails will piss me off more than anything else if I've JUST purchased the product for full price. Another seemingly obvious fail.)
My basis was that the button pusher was critical to your business and automation was not feasible, since you would have done that from the beginning. I don't know which economic concept this describes, but the idea is that you are compensating the button pusher based on their absolute, objective value (no pushing, no profit) rather than subjectively (skill-less "schlep").
As I understand it, your scenario is how unions justify their continued existence.
(If you're not already an American Republican, you really should look into it. trollolol...)
Having recently rewatched Gattaca and falling in the Asperger range of ASD, I can't help but wonder if studies of this nature will nudge us closer to passive forms of eugenics. We're certainly within the realm of feasibility at this point...
You say "Of course your app should be useful", yet your post opened with "Chances are, someone has already thought of your app idea". So to me your post communicates, "Since your app is just another knockoff, polish it up real nice and hope for a media/celebrity mention or a front page link on HN/Reddit."
My tendency would be to say, "Of course your app should have a decent UI" but having owned a few Android devices and an iPhone, my experience is that utility trumps all. It's not unusual for very useful apps to exhibit truly shameful user experience. They may have a high utility factor and even have a polished interface, but be terrible to actually use. (We're going to assume through all of this that we're not even talking about minimal bugs or smooth, consistent performance, those should also be a given.)
Plus half of your first point was really your second point -- in essence, "Getting People to Use Your App" boils down to "Figure out a strategy to get popular."
Look, all I'm trying to say is that surely, with your background, you have more insight to offer than "...make your app high quality. Hike up production value. Make it really good."
Liiike??
1) Solve an actual problem.
2) Resemble/enhance something people already enjoy.
Because the article's #1 point is entirely valid and thoroughly unnecessary for popularity. And #2? Well, good luck with all that (no, seriously, that's exactly what you need.)
Edit: The article has a demo, but live code is sexy.
Edit2: Now with music, courtesy http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4693403 (rudimentary play/pause control at top left via partially-exposed video)
They should probably contract a couple Disney Imagineers and do it right. They could benefit from the the humanizing effects and even create a quirky, niche destination in the process. Hell, throw in an "Android Experience" showroom and it'd probably even have legitimate commercial value.
The only data stored there is probably Doodles...
Was it so hard to find a chemist way back in aught-9? (Go down to the nearest uni and find a chem major at least...)
The wide distribution of oversimplified, media-sanitized, pseudo-science is likely one of the affectations of Western culture that has kept it from progressing further for a solid 60 years--since television gave the ability for snake oil salesmen to multiply their effectiveness. The internet exponentially increased that ability.
This could be viewed as either an inability or unwillingness to scale. ("Inability" could be inherent in the effort, as in there is just not a feasible means to scale effectively.)
These must be the same people that complain about the cost of a 99 cent app for their >=US$200 smartphone.
Of which the efficacy is certainly arguable, since a truly reputable firm might seek to provide such a mechanism in an easy-to-use manner. Whereas a shady operation would, and do, ignore the directive anyhow.
tl;dr
The issue in question was whether or not Dell's Terms and Conditions of Sale could legally force the company's customers to settle disputes through arbitration rather than in a court of law. This is the second time in recent history that the ninth circuit has found such arbitration clauses unenforceable due to the unconscionable burden they place upon the purchaser.
...
The court based its ruling in Omstead v. Dell directly upon an earlier case, Oestreicher v. Alienware, in which Alienware (a Dell subsidiary) attempted to force Mr. Oestreicher into arbitration. In that decision, the court wrote that the Alienware contract was unconscionable because it was a "contract of adhesion." A contract of adhesion is a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party [the customer] only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it.
Made me consider stockpiling a supply of CD players to gouge future hipsters with...
It makes you a great reproductionist and it's probably a marketable skill.
Nor does it deserve respect from the artistic community.
"Respect" is a highly subjective thing that is often achieved at a net negative cost. Historically, many respected artists were under-appreciated by their contemporaries, dying broke and alone.
All it says is that I have enough skill to operate a paint brush when given an exact template.
The skill of an artisan is not necessarily measured by originality. And unlike a quality such as "great artist", skill is largely quantifiable, the rarer the ability, (typically) the greater the demand for it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/1982/02/have-you-e...