timeuser

That definitely matches my experience. I spend so much more time re-writing existing songs than I did when I was younger. It used to be almost entirely creating new material and moving on to create more. I wonder how much is my standards have gone up or lack of novelty in general as opposed to how much I've become attached to some of what I've created and feel it is worth polishing. Some of both I think.

When a human recalls something from memory, the process of remembering itself alters the memory. It's an analog process. So a human creating art, code etc. based on their knowledge and memory is an inherently flawed analog copying process at best. Digital copies and processes are perfect and reproducible unless you alter their algorithm or data. These models are more like an applied form of lossy digital compression. We already treat analog copies and digital copies differently for copyright and many other purposes. At least that's how I'm thinking of it right now.

I'd think it's more comparable to compression. No one would argue that a jpeg or mp3 file can't contain a reasonable representation of the original because it is smaller.

That does not link to a real Michigan government site. Completely fake. Nothing to see here but a tweet of a GIF of a fake website, probably by a fake Twitter account.

I understand what you are saying and agree that algorithmic manipulation is a problem. I think it's very profitable for these companies and people can be manipulated by it. I still think it's a small aspect of the problems of the network & scale of information access/publishing which are leading to conspiracy content and mob amplification. Problems which exist even without algorithmic manipulation being involved. At this point, just due to the network of EVERYONE using mobile devices to connect & consume content it's similar to the eternal September problem but at full scale and saturation. Is the algorithmic manipulation needed for Fox News & other biased media to reach, feed & manipulate its audience? I think you could delete Facebook from everyone's phones and we'd still have a polarized world with these bubbles, conspiracy and mobs continuing as long as everyone still has their smartphones. I also think pagerank and similar popularity based ranking is just as big of a problem as the algorithmic timelines because it directly amplifies what we say and want to hear even without the personalization of search aspect. I'm not defending Facebook and algorithmic manipulation, I just think there is too much focus on that aspect of the problem and don't think we can fix things with that focus.

It was a good explanation of some issues with current social media platforms. But I don't think that ad driven business models and algorithmic content manipulation are the biggest problems we are facing in all this. The fundamental problem is we humans aren't wired to deal with information and social connection and this scale and speed. It's too easy for just about anyone to find and confirm anything they want to believe and so many others that believe it. On the other side of that coin it's too easy for anyone to reach an audience with whatever they want. Focusing on the algorithms and business models is a bit of hubris and a distraction from the harder problem of empowering mobs. I know people caught up in the conspiracy theories. They aren't finding them through Facebook. Some of it is through YouTube rabbit holes but a lot of it is just websites found through Google (which is really just popularity ranking) or text messages shared between friends & family directly. People have these biases and want to believe these things and the access to these easy tools of connection and communication are amplifying us. Maybe regulation, moderation, filtering and defensive algorithms can help? Maybe we will learn to deal with it better and society will change to accommodate it but it's becoming a rough transition at the least.

Thanks for sharing. It doesn't seem to work well in Safari on desktop or iOS. Seemed to connect but if you make the video larger than thumbnail or fullscreen it either doesn't show or only displays a small sliver.

Yep. Search is terrible. I don't see how the app store search ranking is so irrelevant, especially after the "clean up". How can crap like this get in the store at all. I recently had to resubmit our legit app over and over for what seemed to be almost random nitpick rejections for things that aren't documented in the rules. And then struggle to get enough exposure for a handful of downloads per day. This is so discouraging.

I've had the understanding that subscription isn't an option for most types of apps. Auto-renewing subscriptions are only allowed for content or services. And non-renewing subscriptions are pretty narrow in scope as well. What type of subscriptions are you selling and for what type of features?

Here is Apple's guidance document: https://developer.apple.com/in-app-purchase/In-App-Purchase-...

I think the biggest issue is you switched to using credits. That and you've only let this play out for 20 days. People can take quite a while to evaluate an app and decide to purchase. You have more experimenting to do. A one-time upgrade fee for unlimited or a yearly subscription seem like a better fit for how a user would expect to pay for this type of app than credits. At the very least perhaps add an "expensive" unlimited use option and I bet you get some purchases of that.

PayPal has pretty clear direction and limits regarding crowdfunding.

https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/lifecycle/crowdfun...

That was a lot of analysis that seems pretty useless to me. What action would you take based on that information? I know that my photos get more likes if I use hashtags. If I don't hashtag a photo I only get likes from my existing followers. If I do put on hashtags I get some likes from people that don't follow me. I'm sure they are searching for photos by hashtag. I myself find photos and people to follow based on hashtag searches. The bulk of likes I receive are always from my followers and hashtags make no difference to them. But hashtags bring new followers.

Can you offer any more detail on what you were specifically forbidden from doing? Is it that you aren't allowed to offer updates outside of the App Store to App Store purchased apps? Or is it the method you were using with OmniKeyMaster that was disallowed?

Do you think Apple would allow other ways of supporting upgrade pricing between two versions of an App Store app possibly through in app purchase or similar?

Perhaps. It's an interesting theory. I've seen it claimed in the past that Apple has given explicit permission to activate in app purchasable features through other means such as contacting a developer's server with an unlock code. I'm still leery of going through the effort to build and support a kludgy solution like that and still have the risk of Apple not approving of it.

As I said in my other response it seems likely Apple won't allow these upgrade schemes any more than they are allowing Omni to do upgrades around the App Store. Why would they block what Omni was doing entirely outside of the App Store and allow apps distributed through the App Store to accomplish something similar?

The drawbacks are pretty significant. A lot of users really aren't that savvy or motivated to register ahead or deal with some complicated upgrade process. If you have an app that's been in the store for a while it's even more problematic since more users have old app versions. Anyone that gets a new device and wants to install the upgraded app would have to install the old app version or go through some other odd process if they want to activate the upgrade. Also it seems likely Apple won't allow these upgrade schemes any more than they are allowing Omni to do upgrades around the App Store.

How do you propose accomplishing (3) that isn't a difficult confusing mess for users and verifies they are indeed an owner of the n-1 version?

How frightening what a bit of water can become inside your helmet in zero gravity due to surface adhesion. I was thinking of Chris Hadfield's water wringing experiment while reading. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TssbmY-GM

First, thank you for continuing to participate in this discussion. I think you are bringing some different perspective and make some good points.

> I agree, whistleblower protections would be a massively positive change in how governance works in the US, and would make people accountable for decisions which have significant impact on national policy, security, and economy. That being said, I don't see either Manning or Snowden as whistleblowers.

What do you think disqualifies them as whistleblowers? Manning seems disqualified on some level because his leaks were large, not specific, without a specific goal, and possibly not even motivated by the content of what he leaked. Snowden's leaks seem more specific and motivated by a desire to blow the whistle on specific practices he sees as illegal or immoral. Daniel Ellsberg's leaks were rather large and non-specific in many ways but he is widely regarded as a whistleblower. What is the qualification or disqualification?

Firefox on OS X is remarkably better in the past year. I ditched Chrome many months ago because Firefox now is better with memory and remaining quick and responsive than Chrome for me on OS X.

Permethrin treated clothing is the best deterrent I've used. Deet doesn't do much in my experience but if ticks get on pants treated with permethrin they get off as quick as they can. I've use this spray to treat my clothing before going out in the woods anymore: http://www.rei.com/product/768970/sawyer-permethrin-pump-spr...

I'm getting the same in Firefox 9.0.1 on Mac. Works in Safari.

Yeah, I used Chrome for a while and have switched back to Firefox. The latest versions of Firefox are much faster, Chrome seems to have lost the speed advantage it had for a bit. Chrome didn't seem to have any better memory usage either. Given that Firefox is much more customizable and has more extensions it's clearly the best browsing experience for me now.

Codes are all used.

Reviews and ratings are very important on the App Stores and you don't have any for your app yet. It's a bit of a chicken and egg type problem to get those first reviews but they are really important. I don't know of a good solution for getting genuine user reviews reliably other than asking in-app. That's something that's done often in iOS apps, but I haven't seen it in a Mac app. It can be annoying and intrusive so it's definitely something to consider carefully. I don't have your app, perhaps you could suggest a user review in an intro screen that comes up the first time your app launches?

It's really the only way to do a trial of any kind in Apple's app stores. It's better than a lot of apps in the App Store where you have to pay in full for it without being able to try it at all, including Apple's.

In Firefox 6 on Mac the slider knob jumps up and down to avoid the mouse when you move it.

Can this be used in a release distribution app or only beta test ad hoc apps? It sounds like it's only for test distribution, which is cool, but reporting on distribution apps would be nice.

This looks interesting. I'd like to try it out but the link to the iOS SDK on their site doesn't work.

In my experience with our app, prompting for reviews is worth it. Our average sales have gone up about 3x and I attribute it mostly to having more reviews spurred by prompting. Especially with a low number of users you just don't get enough reviews otherwise. Prompting doesn't have to be too onerous either if the app waits until it's been in use for a while. Also if it lets a user dismiss the prompt permanently how annoying can it be? If someone likes an app and uses it, giving a review is a significant way they can help ensure it survives. If it takes a little prompt to motivate them it's worth it for both sides. Prompts have gotten me to review apps positively in the past that I otherwise might not have bothered.