28 karma · joined December 7, 2009
This seems like an arbitrary restriction. What if I want to tag lots of people but only share my tags or tagged photos with select circles?
http://kiln.stackexchange.com/questions/935/connection-ended...
Also 550m equated to 3000 man years includes hardware costs or not?
I did, and it looks awesome, much better than Facebook. Really!
Not what one would expect on any train especially an automated train.
Your point is not very clear here. Are you claiming that Android cannot be run on the iPhone (technology wise), or that iOS provides an API whereas Android does not? Both don't seem to be the case.
>In return, Apple believes they can charge fees for various methods in which a developer may choose to use the wide range of features Apple has created in their iOS eco-system.
My contention is that if Apple charges for the application usage revenue share for using iOS, then its fine. Also if Apple dictates that if an App is free to install for a customer (in which case it gets zero revenue from end user for iOS services), then it can charge a share of the subscription revenue. However, Apple dictates that it be paid 30% of the end user subscription revenue regardless of any distinction of whether the revenue is from the application, or for its content. (Yes there is a fine distinction between the two. To Apples credit some of these application are distributed for very low cost (near free), in which case Apples revenue share is disproportionate. But then Apple also charges an annual developer license fee!
>If Readability is "allowed" to charge the content owner 30% to give me that special Readability access, why can Apple "not" charge the developer 30% to give them access to that special Apple eco-system?
Of course Apple can, and it does charge developer 30% of Application revenue. It also charges $100/year per developer for its API. But what is not fair is that it also demands an additional 30% of subscription revenue. What has Apple done additional to providing an iOS environment and API (the first 30% cut) to warrant a subsequent subscription revenue share (blood sucking second 30% cut)?
>My entire point would be moot if Apple required 30% of all revenue from Readability regardless of whether the subscription originated from within the iOS app or from Readability's website - but Apple has not done that
- No link allowed to App publishers website to subscribe from there.
- Not allowed to use items which were subscribed outside iStore, unless it is also available in iStore.
These points reek of blood sucking greed. May Apples developers leave in droves to Android, and beat some sense into shitty Managers unfairly monopolizing Application development on its iOS platform.
You're right, but you know what? They wouldn't allow a link to the App publishers website, where the end user could pay for services etc.
This is an interesting question that deserves thought. Readability provides publishers/writers with an application and a new medium to distribute their efforts. And for their efforts towards building this new medium, they require a 30% of cut from end users cost.
- Would publishers/writers be able to publish their content in any other way on the iphone. Of course. - Would publishers/writers be better off using another way publishing their content on the iphone. Maybe.
Apple provides iOS API for App writers to distribute their efforts (Apps). Apple takes a 30% (or is it 40%?) cut from the App end users cost for their efforts. So far so good, all sounds fair.
Now Apple (for whatever reasons; we'll go through them soon) enforces that:
- All developers use only iStore for any end user transaction. This may be enforced by Apple on the grounds of providing a consistent and safe end user experience. But its is mostly to do with keeping a tight control over the market (end user) and their revenue stream. - Use only iOS for developing any Applications. Ditto said and actual reasons. - And now Apple also wants not only a 30% cut of the App sales (which is fair), but also a further 30% cut of the subscription revenue stream (which the App publishers have rightly described as exceedingly greedy. But it is also "monopolistic")
So lets view the fairness arguments again. What would be fair for Apple to do so that they are paid a deserving portion of revenue for their efforts? They could mandate that 1. Any paid for App will not encumber additional subscription revenue share (tax), as long as they do not use Apple's streaming resources (is this 100% possible for subscription services?) 2. Any App which is distributed free, but is paid for by a subscription model, will have a revenue share agreement with Apple.
What about the user community and the society as a whole? What is fair for them? - It is definitely fair for the user community to have an ability to use their devices (both hard and soft parts of it) in ways that they seem fit, unless of course it harms anyone else. Although I strongly believe in a "take it as it is or leave it" argument for Apple, I also believe in a code for fair conduct (think "consumer rights") towards consumers. - It is healthy for the society as a whole to have ecosystems for software stacks (iOS), application stacks (iOS API and Apps), and content. It is also healthy for society as a whole to have companies like Apple take profit in certain ways that aid their business. However there is some rights for consumers that must be upheld by society. For instance if an iphone leaks acid causing injury to user, then surely Apple will be held accountable in a court. There is some similarity in Apple leaking because of its revenue share causing financial injury to developers.
All things said and discussed, what all of this really about is, Apple controlling their user revenue stream, and pricing out its competitors in the application stack. iTunes <=> music store iBooks <=> book store so on and so forth.
A lot of those 30% subscription cuts could be going towards development of Apple's competing applications. Apple is most certainly monopolizing its customer base against other developers in its App market. And Apple invited them in the first place and has misplaced their trust. It is a thin line that they have now crossed without much discussion (public).
>It’s not political correctness, it’s fundamental respect.
It is narrow mindedness. And when you say its respect for some, it is disrespect for others ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Hinduism ). So your context is too narrow. In your high seat of judging other people, your views are shallow.
>If you think the swastika symbol should be re-evaluated by societies all over the Earth, I think that’s great.
Good, you agree. But it seems you don't give a shit if it is.
>Your Xbox LIVE profile or in game logo, which doesn’t have the context to explain your goal, is probably not the right place to do that.
Care to explain why? No. And what is the purpose of the LIVE profile or in game logo? And what if the Swastika actually has entirely different meaning in other places? Oh, places like these: http://www.xbox.com/en-IN/live
>And by the way, that doesn't just go for the Swastika, it applies to many other symbols as well that my team does indeed take action on when we see it.
Bother to list some? No. And how do you judge what to act upon? Is there an objective criterion? Or is the subjective criterion explained or listed somewhere?
>Context.
Is unexplained, subjective, narrow minded, dogmatic, force-fed
>Yes we can have the discussion in other venues about the double meaning of various terms, something my team does everyday.
Ah you want to show that you are considerate and well reasoned person. But that belies your shallow views and blind beliefs.
>But for many topics, its kind of a no-brainer.
And this shows me your sheeple traits. No-brain-uh
>Context
Whatever
That's interesting. I wonder if you or anyone else had raised a question about this at the presentation. Communication is a key aspect of partnership. And if there is little communication, or terms on communication SLAs, then there is plentiful scope for ill partnership.
Reading your notes about the presentation on Slashdot, it appears that Apple had thought very carefully and prepared extensively about the iTunes business model. I am pretty sure they must have had something about this aspect as well. Its pretty surprising that no one else on the other side raised anything about it.
That said I would be interested in PG and other peoples response on this question.
One good reason not to work for already big companies like Google and Microsoft, is that your growth potential is limited. Case in point, video.google.com and www.youtubue.com. Nobody needs to wonder about which of the two developers among these projects struck it rich.
Why shovel for someone else's palace when you can build your own?
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/microsoft-sues-salesforce-c...