Trump administration cracks down on H-1B visa abuse - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/23/technology/h1b-visa-abuse/index.html <comment><USER2> The title is a bit misleading. This directive seems to target 3rd party H-1B contractors such as Tata and Infosys, rather than 'High Tech' companies that directly hire engineers such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Companies that hire H-1Bs directly and employ them onsite shouldn't be affected by this policy change.

I think the linked CNN Money article provides a better explanation of the motives behind this change [http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/23/technology/h1b-visa- abuse/in...](http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/23/technology/h1b-visa- abuse/index.html)

<comment><USER3> In my experience attempting to get an entry-level programming job at Microsoft (while I lived in the area), they get a lot of hires through hiring agencies, all of whom ask you what your legal residence status is as their first question (which I have to say is highly discouraging when being unable to score an entry-level CS job in one's own country).

<comment><USER4> I've never not been asked my residence status, ever, in direct or agency hires, in my entire career.

It's most likely (almost certainly) a legal obligation. Each time I had to furnish a SS card as well. A non-citizen SS card has a disclaimer on it saying it's not valid for work authorization alone.

<comment><USER5> _I 've never not been asked my residence status, ever, in direct or agency hires, in my entire career_

You probably have been asked for documentation that gives you permission to work. The Department of Labor has a list somewhere (can't find it right now) of what constitutes a work permit, and the employer has to accept anything that conforms.

My wife ran into a particularly obstinate HR drone once who wouldn't accept what she had. She asked _company counsel_ if her documentation was in order and received a phonecall from HR to please come in and sign paperwork before the day was over. Yes, federal law has teeth.

<comment><USER6> It's not the Department of Labor, it's the Department of Homeland Security.

[https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable- documents/list-...](https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable- documents/list-documents/form-i-9-acceptable-documents)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Moving to temp account for this comment.

I have been in US for 15 yrs now. Came here for my masters and still on H-1B today. I'm one layoff away from having to uproot my family and moving back. My girls have only known this as their country.

I earn way above market and have paid plenty in taxes over the years. Because for tax purposes you are considered a permanent resident after 1 yr. Someone brilliant came up with this.

I never complained about my situation because I always have a choice to leave US and it is my decision to stay. Most in my situation feel that we deserve to be bumped up over random lottery and unskilled immigrants. I don't because I don't feel this entitlement. Maybe the current generation is unskilled but their future generations could go on to create a lot of value. Some even become President.

Finally this year I'm considering moving out of US. In media it sounds like an awesome place but a glance at the indexes show a different story (education, social security, health care, even freedom). Every time I drop my kids at school I'm worried about them. It all seems not worth it anymore.

<comment><USER8> It's still, also by many indexes, one of the safest countries in the world, despite the objectively isolated issues you see in the media... Unless you come from another top OECD, coming back doesn't sound like a great deal.

<comment><USER9> What's your definition of "isolated issue"? Most people use it to mean a random one-off that isn't part of a pattern, which can't reasonably be applied to mass shootings in the US at this point.

<comment><USER10> Mass shooting and terrorist atacks are still extremely rare events, very much like plane crashes, compared to the many other ways one could get killed or injured.

<comment><USER9> So your definition of "isolated issue" is an extremely rare event and not an event that isn't part of a larger pattern?

<comment><USER10> Call it isolated issue, call it extremely rare, whatever it is, it's not worth taking into account when deciding to live in the US or not.

<comment><USER9> I agree that mass shootings aren't a large statistical risk for an individual. I'm only objecting to the use of language that suggests they aren't a systemic issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a good thing.

And I say this as an Indian H1B worker who's actually left the US because of the broken immigration system.

I spent 8 years working for a big tech firm, and left the country when I realized that I was essentially never going to get a green card, despite my application being approved 4 years ago. The queue is now decades-long.

I worked directly for a giant tech company that you all know, and was paid a very good salary, easily at par with a US Citizen. I know of so many people who gamed the system, working in cahoots with consulting companies that exist solely to scam people.

Now I live in Canada, working for the same company, making the same amount of money, but as a Permanent Resident here. Life is so much simpler because I don't need to worry about capricious immigration policy, and being treated with suspicion at the border every time I fly back home.

Your system is broken and needs to be fixed. Now, I don't think your current administration is going to fix it, but who knows.

<comment><USER12> <From throwaway account to avoid leaking personal info>

I feel so great for you! Finally, I am moving out. Enough dealing with the immigration crap here!

I waited for 8 years too. Didn't let immigration stall my career. Built a company, sold it to one of the top tech companies in Bay Area. Building another company to solve a really tough problem. But man it has been stressful! USCIS keeps getting hung up on technicality and makes it as difficult as possible to live here.

Meanwhile I have paid millions in taxes in US.

People who are in the lowest part of the value chain, will always find a loophole - there is too much money at stake and they don't have any other choice!

Accomplished people will move out or stop coming! US, keep doing this and eventually H1B will be just be a tool for cheap labor! Best talent from India, doesn't come to US anymore! And most of who are still here will move out!

I applied for EB-1. They need 3 criteria. Accepted 2 criteria (extra ordinary contribution to my field and leading role in organizations). They rejected the media and press criteria because most of the press about my company's acquisition, while mentioned me by name, was about the _company_ and not _me_. And BTW I was Founder of the company and built it from scratch.

In any other country, one of the criteria that they accepted would have been enough.

If you are talented and from India, don't waste your life in US. Where ever you go, jobs will follow you. Move out as soon as you can!

Good bye US!

<comment><USER13> >I applied EB-1. They need 3 criteria. Accepted 2 criteria (extra ordinary contribution to my field and leading role in organizations). They rejected the media and press criteria because most of the press about my company's acquisition, while mentioned me by name, was about the company and not me. And BTW I was Founder of the company and built it from scratch.

That is such BS. I was gonna try (I have some publications and stuff) but that's about it. Now I feel like I am rotting away here.

<comment><USER12> Going for EB-1 has been one of the worst decisions of my life. I wasted 2 years collecting paper work, getting letters, wasting money and waiting!

It really a luck thing. And if you have to go premium. You will find out sooner!

<comment><USER13> Lawyer adviced the same. Told me it was almost impossible for me to do EB-1 and it was all about luck. I don't really want to do that. It's just frustrating seeing people I went to school with years ago from other countries become greencard holders so quickly without even doing grad school or STEM.

<comment><USER12> It's not luck as in buying a lottery ticket. If the case is not strong and not well prepared - it will definitely get rejected.

But if the case is really strong, and the petition is really strong - it's possible that you might get lucky and they might approve it.

It depends on which officer did you get, which side of the bed they woke up and did they have a fight with their spouse recently!

It really sucks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was a beneficiary of an H1B in 99 from Switzerland (easily confused with Sweden that Trump wants qualified candidates from). After months of waiting I moved to the US, and got a green card five years later.

I'm grateful. I made my life here. But I think it's not worth it, the America we all romanticized is long gone.

<comment><USER15> I think that that America actually never existed, it was all just propaganda.

<comment><USER16> I think that America existed for a short time after WW2 and maybe the time before 9/11.

That's when all that Suburban sprawl started and we all think of maybe when we think of "great USA." Nevertheless, I do think that propaganda (mainly Hollywood) is adding to that positive image.

<comment><USER17> Sounds like it started and ended with Bretton Woods

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If this actually does target the outsourcing firms, eg: Tata, Infosys, Cognizant, then this is good for tech. We need more experienced foreigners and not spaghetti code shops.

But really, the system is broken. A lottery is a horrible way to decide value or qualifications. Let in the people who truly deserve it, not the ones who flood the system with applications.

Point system, please.

<comment><USER19> Why not award the visas to the companies bidding for the highest salaries? This aligns incentives better for everyone I think. It would improve the talent pool and prevent the body shops from using the program to staff project managers who send work offshore.

<comment><USER20> With this approach wouldn't you help established companies against startups which provide compensation with more stock options and less salary?

<comment><USER21> Have a separate startup visa for complies below a fixed size?

<comment><USER22> And that's how you get Infosys/TCS to start/acquire a thousand consulting startups

<comment><USER21> This can have its own set of criteria, it's much easier to protect a special purpose visa. For example just outright ban consulting on the startup visa.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _" Let's compare the number of H-1B recipients with the 1.1 million green cards that are issued every year. Why are we quibbling over 65,000 people that corporations are trying to recruit? And the government is trying to micromanage this? It makes no sense."_

[https://www.hpe.com/us/en/insights/articles/the- incredible-s...](https://www.hpe.com/us/en/insights/articles/the-incredible- shrinking-h-1b-visa-what-it-means-for-tech-companies-1706.html)

<comment><USER24> I wonder how many people who say "Oh God yes, please run Trump, please run" because they thought he'd lose badly now regret that attitude. Telling people to stop looking at the tech visa issue because the number of green cards dwarf it just invites a push towards a return to pre 1960s immigration policies.

<comment><USER25> If I understand it correctly the Trump admin wants to institute something more akin to the AU and CA visa systems --preferring people who fill skills voids in the US. It's not a return to pre-60's policies.

I think this aligns with most other modern economies out there. If anything, we're the outlier allowing randoms to come in without regard to skills or means.

<comment><USER26> Why is this controversial? Why would Americans prefer immigrants chosen at random through a lottery vs. those who are skilled and vetted? Or worse, giving illegal immigrants immunity?

<comment><USER25> I don't think it's controversial. Any country I've been to that can control ingress does control ingress and will promptly deport people who didn't enter the proper way.

Japan, S Korea, China, Singapore, etc., would be extremely hard for anyone to work off the books without having to resort to the underworld. Otherwise you may last a month or two, but most people will get kicked out without a visa. What's more regular police have the authority and responsibility to make sure anyone without a visa gets expelled.

<comment><USER27> Does that work even if the visa-less person can't remember which country they came from ?

<comment><USER25> This would be so rare that it'd be of little impact. That said, they would likely investigate who this person was, who originally employed them, and use those records along with any other trails left at points of entry and use that info to return the overstayer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The proportion of H1Bs that are employed by actual tech companies, rather than technical consulting companies, is stark[1]. Having dealt with a number of the latter batch of outfits, through our customers that have outsourced their IT work to them, I would not be sad to see their business model go away. Neither would most of our customers, who tend to be regretting the experiment and trying to bring their IT back in-house, as soon as their contracts are up.

I think the H1B system is dumb. Educated, highly effective workers in in- demand fields are exactly the kind of immigrants you would want to fast-track in for real citizenship, rather than exploiting them in quasi-indentured servitude. The other category I found somewhat mind-blowing was the situation of a lot of my international classmates upon graduation; educate them for four years or more at a prestigious US university, and once they graduate, kick them back home and make it difficult for them to come back.

[1] [http://fortune.com/2017/08/03/companies-h1b-visa- holders/](http://fortune.com/2017/08/03/companies-h1b-visa-holders/)

<comment><USER29> Well some of that is universities charge more for international students and see them as a revenue stream.

<comment><USER30> What universities charge more for international students than for random, unaffiliated students from other US states?

Some state systems "discount" fees for state residents, but that's based on the premise that those families have been paying into the system.

<comment><USER31> It's not that they charge more (though I don't have evidence they don't), it's just that international students almost always pay full price.

American students may receive financial aid either from the government, or the university itself (scholarship or other aid). International students on the other hand usually don't. They pay full price. They make universities, particularly private ones, a lot of money.

I went to a good but not top private college on scholarship. Some undergrad majors such as business and the graduate business school were overwhelmingly international students. The law school is approaching 50% international students.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think that this is useful for companies who abuse the H1B.

I doubt that any of the big Four (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple) will have any problem with this, but the consulting body shops will be scrambling.

And, this is something else problematic for startups who want to import talent. You need to have some sort of legal/immigration department to deal with this paperwork, and most startups don't have/can't afford that.

<comment><USER33> Not directly related, but a friend of mine from India got a J1 visa for an internship at a big four rejected last week.

<comment><USER32> Sure. I'm just saying that the big four has the ability to deal with this contingency, and backing paperwork and documentation.

You don't get rejected out of hand for not being authorized to work in the USA currently.

<comment><USER33> Sure you do. Google, Apple and Facebook (and virtually every company in the Bay Area) have all stopped trying to get H1Bs for new grads with degrees from outside the US.

Microsoft is the exception for now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> H1b from India here and I think these rules are good. I am working in the US for the last 7 years and my green card (I-140) was approved 6 years ago. At the current pace it would take another 8 years to get my green card. It's hard for me to switch jobs, can't start any company, can't get promoted to management etc. There is uncertainty in almost all aspects of my life.

I am on H1b, I am not cheap labor. I get paid exorbitant amount of money for my skills. I seriously thought of moving to Canada, but because of our health issues with cold weather we could not move. I love this country, my life, prospects of success once I get my green card and quality of life that my kids would have.

But I am tired! I am so tired!

<comment><USER35> Why does being on a H1B prevent you from getting promoted to management ?

Source : Work at a big tech where several H1Bs have made it to the higher levels of management.

<comment><USER34> A green card application is tied to job responsibilities, role and job location. Switching to a new job location or accepting a new role (for example, switch from engineering to product management or for that matter other management positions) is hard. Such changes would usually require the whole green card to be restarted (LCA, hiring, cool-off period, PERM, I-140) and it easily takes more than a year and is stressful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> We're shooting ourselves in the foot _so hard._ China is expanding aggressively, and will likely be the next superpower. We need all the engineers we can get our hands on, or soon, people won't _want_ citizenship here.

<comment><USER37> Then why doesn't the US produce more top quality engineers? It isn't as though the US lacks the population or resources to solve this problem domestically. My thinking is that Americans simply don't want it that badly.

<comment><USER38> We produce excellent engineers. We also want them badly. We just don't want to pay them.

<comment><USER26> This logically doesn't make any sense.

What are they doing then, sitting on their ass at home? Emigrating outside of the US? If not, and they're working, and companies are still having trouble filling positions, how would paying the existing American engineers more fill those outstanding positions?

<comment><USER39> When I was applying to job openings after college, the very few times I heard back from them, I was offered pay in the range of $15/hr, 35k, etc. for a junior software developer position. Luckily I eventually got something decent but it really is a problem with the companies. There are way more than enough programmers out there, companies just don't want to pay them/don't want to invest in junior devs anymore, as discussed here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16367997](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16367997)

<comment><USER26> What year was this in? It wasn't my experience in college in 2010-2015 at all.

Many SV companies recruited mostly useless interns like me and mentored us and paid us well over the median US household income. All in the hopes that we would become useful and join after graduation (at well over six figures salary).

And I'm Canadian so they were also paying flights, relocation, visa fees, etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to do these things if it's so easy to hire an American developer at $50k, but maybe their hiring process is that broken?

<comment><USER39> 2017\. They could easily fly in students from other states too if they wanted. My experience was in NY.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I always find the concept of technology worker immigration to be a rather strange scenario. How the hell can the US be so dependent upon immigrants for work when there are so many Americans wanting to work for big technology companies?

This begs the question: _Are Americans workers too incompetent at technology development?_ If so what is the cause of that problem?

<comment><USER40> Think of it this way - does a global company like Apple or Google want to hire just from the best in the US, or the best in the _world_?

If they hire from the best in the world, is it better for America if those hires are in the US paying US taxes, or overseas paying taxes to some other country?

<comment><USER39> Another perspective: does a global company like Apple or Google want to hire just from the cheapest in the US, or the cheapest in the world?

<comment><USER40> If they wanted cheap, why would they put their HQs in Silicon Valley?

Google has an office in freaking _Paris_. It's not like international hires choose Silicon Valley over Paris because they're enamored with overpriced suburban living. It's just because they need to be at the HQ for better career advancement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is a major gift to the non infosys/Tata type employers. It looks good on the surface but it does nothing to address the real problem h1b causes. The power imbalance remains, the wage suppression continues, the greencard backlog remains and the government gets to wipe their hands and say they fixed it.

</comment><comment><USER42> I think the best place for an Indian to be an entrepreneur is, surprise, surprise -- India. I faced this problem a decade ago and decided that it was better give up a green card than to give up on entrepreneurship and returned to India. I really cherish my decade in the US, and in many ways that country defined my liberal political views. But returning to India was the right decision. Still I feel sad for the this generation of smart young Indian graduates who may not be able to get the experience of working in a foreign country and really understanding its culture.

</comment><comment><USER43> What exactly does this change? Now there's some extra paperwork? Presumably this wont be a problem for the companies already willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for the H-1B process.

<comment><USER44> It's not just paperwork, it's more chance to accidentally distort the truth. This increases risk substantially, and the chance for penalties to rise increases as well.

So the direct costs may not be huge, but the indirect costs just got raised quite a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> But not the H-2B visas that Trump uses for his properties. Hmm.

[https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2017/7/20/16003254/t...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2017/7/20/16003254/trump-h2b-visa-program)

<comment><USER46> It would be illogical for a businessman not to exploit the system within the bounds of the law. Those who don't get outcompeted. The behavior of businesspeople should not be expected to be the same as elected politicians.

<comment><USER47> Sure, but he is a politician, and so we are holding him to those stated standards.

Why shouldn't we judge a politican as a politician?

<comment><USER46> We shouldn't judge all his past behaviors under the lens of a politician because he wasn't a politician. He was a businessman. The fact that he is pushing for immigration reform while he historically exploited those systems shows that he is able to differentiate between necessary ruthless business tactics and civic duty.

<comment><USER47> I'm not.

These are things his companies are still doing since he's been a politician and the President.

So, I ask again: Why shouldn't we judge a politician as a politician?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Does this change anything ?. This is not something new. This is something that is being enforced already ( source: I am on H1 and doing this already). can somebody tell me what is different this time ?

</comment><comment><USER49> Do you think this will put positive or negative pressure on wages for current and future US tech employees?

</comment><comment><USER50> As an Indian who suffers from discriminatory policies of Indian government(reservation based on caste, gender and physical disability), if someone offered me an option to move to US(or any other developed country for that matter), but on a salary say 3x less than avg salary of US employee, I'd most likely accept it. The grass looks greener on the other side, and there is hardly anything to lose by trying.

If you really want to stop people from scamming the system, you need to make the system stronger.

</comment><comment><USER51> When is the minimum salary requirement going into effect? Trump had promised $100k minimum salary. Now, paying immigrants $100k is foolish macro economic policy, when they've been shown to work for substantially less. The purpose of the $100k minimum is to make the US citizens more competitive, but there's no reason the additional money needs to go to the H1B. Instead, the additional money should be a tax (say $40k for an H1B making $60k), and that money should be earmarked for scholarships for US citizens studying in the field occupied by the H1B. This increases the labor pool, which is the justification for the H1B system in the first place, and keeps these newly minted US citizen graduates competitive against the H1B flood. The policy should be supported by the left as it helps college students and by the right as it increases the labor pool, ultimately driving down wages using domestic labor and improving trade balance by dramatically reducing money sent overseas.</comment>


Scaling the Manhattan Project - <AUTHOR> http://soundboy.tumblr.com/post/23930265694/scaling-the-manhattan-project

<comment><USER2> It's a noble idea, but doing _big_ science is really expensive (take the LHC or the Manhattan project for example). Stuff like software development of mathematical research is nice because you have pretty much 0 material cost, but it is really the exception and not the rule.

How would you go about doing brain cancer research without conducting the many and necessarily costly experiments (not to mention the oversight and legal support required)?

Frankly, I've yet to hear a credible answer to these issues. It seems that the best you can really do is try to raise awareness (nebulous and often ineffective as that is) and try to support existing research teams. Or if you are extremely wealthy, you can just fund your own lab to work on whatever you think is important...</comment>


Why CVS sucks (humor) - <AUTHOR> http://www.ubersite.com/m/12454

<comment><USER2> where is the mod down button.

This is about the store not the version control

<comment><USER3> Hey, it's a somewhat entertaining story for a Sunday morning.

And CVS does suck. The store, not the version control.

<comment><USER4> Looking at the comments under the post, evidently the content is stolen from another site. :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bartman, you really really suck

</comment><comment><USER6> 9.99 for 12 is a sale price? I buy them by the gross for King Size savings:

[http://www.amazon.com/Lifestyles-King-Size-Condoms- Pack/dp/B...](http://www.amazon.com/Lifestyles-King-Size-Condoms- Pack/dp/B0009VGSD8/)

</comment><comment><USER7> For a talk (partially) dedicated to the vesion control system and why it sucks:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8></comment>


Show HN: We'll guess competitors' keywords,we'll predict your App Store position - <AUTHOR> http://blog.appcod.es/we-will-guess-your-competitors-keywords-we-will-predict-your-app-store-position/

<comment><USER2> The article says that the app store ranking algorithm is more or less known and is linking to the following presentation:

<http://www.slideshare.net/kolinko/app-store-seo-tutorial>

Which does not actually say anything about the actual algorithm, just tips and tricks for indie apps and SEO.

It would be the same as saying the Google algorithm is known and then link to some SEO tricks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps the link to the presentation wasn't too fortunate.

The app store ranking algorithm is quite well known, and the presentation also includes information about it. In brief - first go the apps with search query in title/publisher name/in-app purchase names, then apps with search query in keywords. The sales are used as a tiebreaker.

The problem is in the details & special cases. And that's what we more or less figured out :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have still no clue how you guys are pulling this off. are you spidering descriptions of apps inside the marketplace? maybe look for similar keywords in different languages? or do you have actual access to search queries?

<comment><AUTHOR> In short (i'm on mobile) we're guessing the keywords an then verifying them with apple.

<comment><USER4> verifying them with apple = typing them in to iTunes?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We've been working on a similar idea for a few months now, and have some pretty solid data and sophisticated algorithms which are now giving us quite reasonable insights. We support iOS App Store and Android Market. We want to really focus on _how to get better_ at organic distribution within the app stores (e.g. what keywords _should_ I focus on based on my competition and, most importantly, where the search volume is in the app stores).

TechCrunch wrote about it a couple weeks ago and since then we've been on a tear (thousands of signups representing tens of thousands in monthly revenue): [http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/28/aso-app-store- optimization-...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/28/aso-app-store-optimization- is-the-new-seo-and-heres-a-tool-to-do-it/)

App Store Optimization (ASO) is a big deal today, and is going to be a HUGE deal shortly. The growth of mobile is just too much, too fast for search not to become massively important. You can see Apple bet on this fact with its acquisition of Chomp recently.

Even more broadly, there are too many players in the mobile app ecosystem who are searching for ways to help app marketers get distribution through various paid means, but not enough (virtually none) who are searching for ways to help app marketers get distribution through organic (unpaid) means. Yet this is exactly where the vast majority of downloads come from.

We want to focus on the organic side of app distribution: search, rankings, social/sharing, earned media, web landing pages, etc. All things that help app marketers promote their apps without paying per download. Marketing channels that really scale. It's the SEO/social/viral channels for mobile.

Check out our product at: <http://www.mobiledevhq.com/aso>

And always feel free to email me with any questions, ever: email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply iseff, it's always nice to hear from the competition :)

I totally agree that ASO is going to get huge. There is also an interesting "fight of tools" coming up, as there are many ways to organize the whole process, and no "right one" discovered yet.

For example our tool (<http://www.AppCod.es>) has a totally different interface from yours, and we offer a different set of functionalities (like for example the prediction tool and the keyword guessing module), while of course there is plenty that we can learn from you :)

What I also think is that a good tool should not only track your position in the store, but also help - at least a little bit - with your PR actions. Suggest & teach you how to get the word out about your app.

Cheers! :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We spent the last 2 weeks analyzing the intricacies of the App Store rankings, and here are the results. Questions more than welcome :)

<comment><USER6> Nice bit of data mining but the data doesn't seem quite right -- an unusual balance of foreign keywords that seems quite surprising to me at least (look at "Smurfs' Village" for instance)?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is because apple's search has approximate match, so a word like "historiska" will cause the smurfs village to be found if they used the word "history" in their keywords. For example, try searching in us store for "historiska centex" - it will find smurf's village. Also, some apps seem to simply use Spanish words as well, for example google uses "busca", which is Spanish for search if I'm not mistaken. In u.s app store search for "google busca" will find google

I'm on mobile, sorry for formatting etc :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Poker games have some _weird_ results, like having numbers for keywords. Is this some way of gaming the system or a bug?

<http://www.appcod.es/appsearch/poker>

<comment><AUTHOR> More like an "artifact" :) You can actually find the poker apps by using these weird keywords, but I doubt they appear in the keyword list.

In case of the apps with in-apps our system cannot distinguish between a keyword from the in-app, and a keyword from the keyword list. Also, Apple uses fuzzy matching, so if a poker app has an in-app like "Stack of 22,000 chips", our system may try to guess that one of the keywords is "22ch".

Finally - usually the big players don't use keywords for promotion, but the more traditional PR techniques. It's interesting to watch their keywords, but it's far more interesting to see how the little players (i.e. your competition) perform.

<comment><USER7> Interesting. Thanks for the response.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Checked a few games for which I know what the keywords are.

I would not say it is completely of the mark, for all games it guessed 1-2 keywords correctly (out of 10-15 it suggested). Long way to go.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you send the keywords/games which didn't work to firstname.lastname@example.com? And how did you check whether the keywords worked? This result seems below our average.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > We will guess your competitors' keywords.

Sounds great - but how can I check if it works, before opening a real account?

<comment><USER9> Try it here: <http://www.appcod.es/appsearch/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting. I checked their guess of keywords against one of my apps. They guessed 13 keywords for my app. 5 of their guesses are most assuredly not in our keyword list.

However, of the remaining 8, 5 of them are pretty general keywords (that most of our competitors use.)

But the really interesting thing is, three of our keywords that were guessed are ones we consider "proprietary" as they relate to unique features of our app, that our competitors are not using.

That's a pretty impressive result. You got some that I think no human would likely figure out. But you also had some guesses that are way off the mark.

Very interesting!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :)</comment></comment>


Hummingbird; A powerful RaspberryPi competitor - <AUTHOR> http://www.solid-run.com/products/hummingboard/

<comment><USER2> Kind of silly. RaspberryPi doesn't compete with anybody. They're like a charity, with the goal of doing the most good.</comment>


California Today: Fretting Over the 'Netflix Tax' - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/us/california-today-netflix-tax-video-streaming.html <comment><AUTHOR> California finally passed a $2 per pack cigarette tax increase (now to $2.87). But this is still far below NY State ($4.35) and NYC (an additional $1.50 for a total NYC $5.85).

The health care costs from smoking, including that paid for by your taxes far exceeds the revenues from tobacco taxes which means that most of the population, non-smokers, are paying additional taxes to pay for smokers.

Raising the cost of tobacco of all interventions to help people to quit smoking, contributes more than half the total effect. Thus further increasing tobacco taxes ensures that youth never start and smokers quit, thus providing a positive feedback loop for decreasing health care costs at the state, federal, and private firm level.

Additional info from Techdirt: [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160926/11295235634/46-ca...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160926/11295235634/46-california- cities-join-rush-to-impose-netflix-tax.shtml)</comment>


Apple now requires user permission in iOS 6 before apps can access private data - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/14/apple-now-requires-user-permission-in-ios-6-before-apps-can-access-private-data/ <comment><USER2> > In iOS 6, the system now protects Calendars, Reminders, Contacts, and Photos > as part of Apple's data isolation privacy initiative.

This shouldn't be an "initiative." This should have been a standard practice from day one.

<comment><USER3> I think the idea was that you wouldn't install apps on your phone that you didn't trust. Obviously that didn't turn out to be practical so now they're adding more fine-grained control.

<comment><USER4> > the idea was that you wouldn't install apps on your phone that you didn't > trust

We've known this doesn't work out on PCs for years; why would phones be any different?

<comment><USER5> This phone has a much more restricted installation experience. There is only one installer, and Apple knows who to blame if any of the software it installs turns out to be malware.

I think the idea was that that tractability would deter people from trying to put malware on the App Store.

And that has worked reasonably well. Yes, there were several cases of apps that did not inform users that they uploaded data to implement features they advertised, but I am not aware of downright malware (say a fart app that uploads you address book to some server), and yes, Charlie Miller got a nefarious app on the App Store, but that malware was traceable back to him.

The thing Apple did not think through well enough is the privacy issue. Users can feel uncomfortable about apps uploading their data, even if that is necessary to implement app functionality, because they may not trust the app writer to do nothing else with the data.

<comment><USER6> Also the personal information is more limited. At first the only "personal" information was my name and the name and phone numbers of my friends. This information is available (in theory) in a phone book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As an iPhone dev, I've wondered why they didn't do this since way back when they added GPS in 3.0 with its permission popup.

<comment><USER8> Address Book has always been a C API, not an Objective-C API, for legacy reasons. I suspect that had a lot to do with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Let's hope this goads Google to do the same thing in Android.

<comment><USER10> They already do this to an extent with permissions. It's not as in-your-face about it, but it's certainly far more fine grained (read vs. write access, more services have permissions, etc.)

<comment><USER11> Not really. There are virtually no permissions that can be approved on a case by case basis in Android. Google claims that interactively approving permissions will make life "too complex" for developers. I hope this inspires them to be a little more open minded about it. There are so many useful but optional features of apps that need intrusive permissions (eg: read your contacts) - but apps need to request blanket permissions to them up front, which is just silly. I think developers can handle a little if-else logic especially if the trade-off is they can avoid the stupidity of having to push multiple versions in to the app market just to cater for different permission requirements.

<comment><USER12> You can (and should) install LBE privacy guard. If you don't want an app to access, say, your contacts list, it gets an empty contacts list.

<comment><USER13> Yay, I enjoy being a systems integrator for my mobile phone.

Not.

<comment><USER12> How are you being a systems integrator? Or do you mean you need an app that reads your mind as to what permissions to grant?

<comment><USER13> If I have to download and configure a custom application into my toaster in order to choose whether I permit raisin bread, I'm being a toaster systems integrator.

"This isn't a problem, install this third party app to keep your permissions secure! But sorry, it could break at any time because Google don't provide support for it."

This is a desktop computer mentality. Sorry dude, I'm a programmer and a sysadmin, but my phone is a #*$@ing APPLIANCE! I want it to make and receive calls, and maybe play a few rounds of Angry Birds without wondering if Rovio is tweeting my location behind my back.

<comment><USER12> So you become a systems integrator by downloading apps to your phone? Then I'm afraid you already _are_ one, sadly.

Who do these phone companies think they are, expecting people to actually program numbers in a device just to call someone? Not everyone is a programmer!

<comment><USER13> You're being intentionally dense or missing the point.

<comment><USER12> What is the point?

EDIT: You edited your comment above, but it still makes no sense to me. Your phone can't know if you want an app to access your personal info or not, you have to tell it. The only difference between what you want and what I propose is that you have to spend an extra two seconds installing an app. This doesn't sound so onerous, and doesn't mean you have to be an expert.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Genetically Modified Food You Eat - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2009/07/15/the-genetically-modified-food-you-eat/

<comment><USER2> _Unless you're technophobic by nature (in which case, reading this blog amounts to masochism), it's hard to deny the benefits of GM foods._

As a libertarian who's anything but technophobic and who knows something about gene splicing let me disagree:

 _GM foods resistant to insect attack actually require fewer pesticides than their natural counterparts_

For now. Until pests become resistant to Bt toxin. Then organic farmers who use Bacillus thuringiensis might be adversely affected. This is an uncounted for externality.

But this externality may be worth it, if for example it gets us cheaper food. But the best way to get A LOT cheaper food is to simply stop ag. subsidies.

Now I happen to think the long term consumption of plants with Bt genes has a probability of being bad for you that's arbitrarily close to zero. BUT I am also a software engineer and so I know NOTHING is certain, shit happens.

As a libertarian I know the basics of how free markets work, and information is a key part of a working free market. Which is why I wish GM crops would be labeled as such.

If pests do become immune to Bt, splicing something else in is going to be harder. Because we didn't invent Bt toxin, we took it from bacteria. When happens we run out of naturally occurring toxins? If we could design molecules that would be awesome, but we're not there yet.

Keep in mind you can also splice pesticide resistance into crops and the way they work is by enabling yyou to go nuts with the pesticides, bathe your fields in them.

 _Stress-resistant GM crops can survive droughts and disease,_

Drought resistant crops are still in the works. This not nearly as easy as Bt toxin was. It's a major change in plant physiology and we can't do that yet.

But Israel can profitably grow crops with desalinated water and computer controlled irrigation.

The "this will help poor farmers" line is a red herring. Poor farmers in developing countries are poor because their countries are a mess. If your country isn't a mess you can even grow crops in the Israeli desert.

 _warding off famine in developing countries across_

Read up on how famines happen, The Economist had a great study. In short it's about the government response, not about any one or two crop failures.

 _Frankly, it's amazing that we can remix our food to be more nutritious_

Not yet. Well for simple things, like rice and vitamin A, but not in general.

We know that fruits and vegetables are not as nutritious today as they used to be. This is because they've been careful selected for looks and shipability. The most popular variety of tomato isn't called "Bulletproof" because it's so super tasty and nutritious.

Simply put, the mass market wants big unbruised fruits and vegetables. Why would this change just because we can now gene splice more nutrition into our vegetables? We can have more nutritious today, there's just no _real_ demand for them.

And the tiny market segment that does demand it, is ironically least likely to buy GM foods.

 _faster-growing_

See drought hardy.

 _longer-lasting_

Not a problem for me. This is about shipping and storing crops for resale. How does that interest me? Lower prices - see ag. subsidies.

 _and tastier_

See more nutritious.

The fact is, the genetic engineering that's going on today is not about more taste or more nutrients or really anything that affects the end consumer. It's about higher profit margins for the produces and middle men.

Ah you say, but surely those fat profits will shrink over time and we'll get cheaper food, but again: _subsidies_.

Or maybe those profits/prices will help developing countries? Again it's not the climate or the soil is the government.

 _make us healthier_

No that's other kinds of gene splicing, crops don't do that yet, and I doubt they will ever be the best vector for medicine or what ever.

 _improve ag production_

Depends on your definition of improve, see roundup resistant crops. Also see ag. subsidies. Many people live on $1 a day. Pretty much all European cows are subsidized to the tune of $2 a day.

 _make pharmaceuticals_

Maybe, but almost certainly there's better vectors.

 _and survive hell and high water. Maybe future crops could recycle more nutrients back into dirt and help avert the looming topsoil crisis._

Now you're getting into utopian fantasy and running into some fundamental limits of, you know, physics and stuff.

 _So that's what all the fuss is about._

It's about free markets and information, it's about not letting private companies have undue influence on our system of government. Or on other companies, through a very imperfect legal system, i.e. Monsanto suing companies who market their milk as rBGH free.

As a libertarian who works in biotech let me say: Seriously fuck Monsanto!

</comment><comment><USER3> Stewart Brand said it well in his TED Talk ([http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environme...](http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environmental_heresies.html)): "We are gods, and we better get good at it." (or something very close to that). Also in his talk was the importance of genetically modified foods for the future of our environment, and the well-being of many people.

The issue of genetically modified food is not binary, it is not that genetic modification is good, or that it is bad, and when our primary terms of discussion are how much genetic modification is around and whether or not we like genetic modification - well, it's here, and we've been doing it thousands of years slowly, and now we can do it quickly.

On one hand you have the kind of work that went on in Mexico and is now making its way into Africa; the works of people like Normal Borlaug (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug>) .

On the other hand we have Monsanto as the iconic forerunner of delusional- antisocial-take-over-the world-food-supply companies.

The binary discussion, is GM good or bad, is misdirection. The valuable discussion is in what is good engineering, and what is bad engineering and what are we going to do about that distinction? This article is taking it in the right direction (even if it has some errors like mentioned in the other comment).

<comment><USER4> I think that saying that genetically engineered organisms are bad is kind of like saying "chemicals" are bad. "Chemicals" is an incredible broad category as is/will be GMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why should I care?

The article presents the fact that most of our food supply contains some genetically modified plants. The article mentions that some people "feel" this is a bad thing.

I appear to have missed the point. Was there a point?

<comment><USER6> 1\. Ubquity of GM food is not widely known / apparent to consumers. 2\. Most GM strains are produced by a company of questionable ethics. 3\. Some countries have outright banned GM foods (though for reasons / motives not given -- elaboration would have been nice here). 4\. "Critics claim there haven't been any long-term studies done (GM food has only been around for 20 years), that supportive research was biased or inadequate, and that the FDA rushed the approval."

<comment><USER7> > 2\. Most GM strains are produced by a company of questionable ethics.

It turns out that the "questionable ethics" charge is essentially circular. It's basically yelling that someone is bad and then refering to the yelling as evidence of bad.

> Critics claim there haven't been any long-term studies done (GM food has > only been around for 20 years), that supportive research was biased or > inadequate, and that the FDA rushed the approval."

Said critics don't have any objection to genetic alteration by other means, of which there has been no testing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Help me understand the business model of GM crops: Does Monsanto create GM crops that are seedless? I think this is evil since it gives too much power to one corporation and removes the farmer's prerogative. On the other hand, how will Monsanto make money after the first crop cycle?

<comment><USER9> When you buy seeds, they require you to agree not to use seeds from the resultant plants in the next crop cycle. So if you want to use the seeds again in the next cycle, you have to buy more. They have people who go to farms and test plants to ensure compliance.

Vanity Fair ran a good piece on this last year: [http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...](http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?printable=true&currentPage=all)

<comment><USER10> also, if you inadvertently obtain seeds (like, if your neighbor has Monsanto wheat and his grains blow into your fields) you have to kill your crop or pay Monsanto. reminds me of the RIAA's business model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Monsanto issue makes me think - might there be a place in the world for "open-source seeds"? :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Note that radiation-modified food is not considered genetically modified. (Yup - folks put seeds near radiation and see what happens.)

Selective breeding is also considered okay.</comment>


Out-of-work job applicants told unemployed need not apply - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Outofwork-job-applicants-told-cnnm-3498252371.html?x=0

<comment><USER2> See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1408813></comment>


Google tries again to kill the password, tests new auth idea via your phone - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/article/3018028/security/google-authentication-phone-test-password-itbwcw.html <comment><USER2> This doesn't just kill the password it also makes it difficult to have multiple personas on the web.

It also locks out those who do not have a Google approved always on-line device.

<comment><USER3> > makes it difficult to have multiple personas on the web.

Google is already moving in that direction, often requiring phone number verification to make full use of an account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "If you always have your phone on you..."

How is this clearly not a deal-breaking problem? Tons of people don't have their phone on them 24/7.

Lets just say I lost my phone. Now I want to log into iTunes to use the find my phone feature. But I don't have my phone to use to auth.

<comment><USER5> Backup codes you've printed out and stored safely, as is usually done with 2 factor auth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The formatting on this article makes it nearly unreadable. My eyes are nearly bleeding.</comment>


Karma: Spectacular Test Runner for JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://karma-runner.github.com/0.8/index.html

<comment><USER2> This project was originally called Testacular. I was little confused at first, thinking it was a late and flat April fool's joke.

<comment><USER3> And here is where the decision was made to rename it: <https://github.com/karma-runner/karma/issues/376>

<comment><USER4> Wow. My humor is pretty crude but I'd never made the connection to testicles before. I'd just assumed it was a portmanteau of "test" and "spectacular" but I _am_ British and the latter word still sees some usage ;-)

<comment><USER5> As an American it took... perhaps 5 minutes or so to scratch my head at the name :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very cool project. Nothing like having your tests run every time you save a file... in several different browsers if you like. This and docco made me think about about node differently. Though it is a server side JavaScript framework, it has also become a platform for developer automation tasks.

</comment><comment><USER7> I believe one of the guys behind this is Misko Hevery (of AngularJS). He's test-driven mad (which is a good thing IMO). I've been meaning to try Testacular / Karma out just because of the pedigree.

</comment><comment><USER8> Autorunning tests is cool, and great for TDD. I usually just use Guard for that, but I can understand why they would build their own thing to suit their needs better.</comment>


The New Workplace Is Agile, and Nonstop - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/technology/the-new-workplace-is-agile-and-nonstop-can-you-keep-up.html <comment><USER2> Excited to see the worst parts of agile (aka the parts you can use to interrupt the hard work of planning and research) ruin projects outside of tech.</comment>


Bankers, not borrowers, caused the Global Financial Crisis - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2014/09/07/finally_wall_street_gets_put_on_trial_we_can_still_hold_the_0_1_percent_responsible_for_tanking_the_economy/

<comment><USER2> This article feels overly simplistic (look - bad bankers!) given that it doesn't mention securitization and the lax oversight of the ratings agencies, who should take a significant portion of the culpability.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds more like lack of regulation and oversight to me. The body politic wasn't held to account either. They could easily have legislated against these practices and taken away the option.

Given free reign everyone is more than likely going to take the piss out of a system where their personal gain is contingent on making a certain kind of decision. It is human nature. With no long term consequences it doesn't matter who you hire... it is inevitable.

Trying to personify the banker alone won't do much good in this discussion. There is a damn good reason no one is being prosecuted for crimes against the economy.</comment>


Show HN: A place for wide ranging opinions around the news - <AUTHOR> http://thisaffects.us <comment><USER2> Discourse has devolved so much it is going to be tough getting people to debate respectfully around different viewpoints. It might be better to recruit a handful of people who can set the tone for these debates and then eventually open it up for a larger community.

I agree with your sentiment about publications just rehashing the same story. That's a large reason why I started [http://emergentdata.co](http://emergentdata.co). It's not political focused rather focuses on technological acceleration and large global issues like water scarcity and mass migration. I try to curate content around a few principles: -Try to get to the most original source -Stick to real events, avoid speculation and hearsay -Avoid sensationalist headlines

Good luck to you.

Edit: typo

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the good wishes. . . I agree that getting a core group of folks to talk and set the tone is a good idea.</comment></comment>


Creating a Domain Name Company Entrepreneurs Won't Despise - <AUTHOR> http://domainclarity.tumblr.com/post/18194153518/creating-a-domain-name-company-entrepreneurs-wont

<comment><USER2> Great idea! It would be like leasing any other "asset" (car, boat, office space, etc.).

My only concern is: with a car, boat, office space, etc., if the lessor renegs on the lease, the lessee can likely pursue another lease/purchase on another asset because the underlying asset is more of a commodity than a one-of-a-kind asset.

What protection, if any, does a lessee have should the lessor decide not to transfer the domain should the lessee execute the purchase option? (other than the obvious: going to court, suing, etc.)

My thoughts are the domain should be held in some sort of escrow on behalf of both parties, but then as a lessor would I really trust the escrow/domain holding company?

Which then brings up the point: what other intellectual property (trademarks, patents, etc.) can also be "leased"? could software code, produced on behalf of a startup, be leased back to the startup for a period of time?

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi Guys, I attempted a business model around this idea about 8 years ago. It was a great idea on paper, but in the real world, people just didn't want to lease a domain name. They wanted to own it outright. It's too easy to find a substitute domain name with an alternative top level domain. Or, if you're a heavy hitter with money, just hire lawyers and claim trademark infringement. People don't "try on" domains. Thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow - great insight. We appreciate the thoughts. Were you "leasing" domains names without the option to buy or was it more like a financing deal?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had the same general idea about a year ago, and I setup a site as the entry point of the idea: ParkedAvenue.com

Since I don't have a huge collection of domains, it is kind of a chicken and egg problem getting people to list their domains they would be open to leasing/selling.

Good luck with the endeavor. I am sure someone who gets critical mass will have some success with it.

</comment><comment><USER5> This sounds like a good idea on paper, but I'd think long and hard before building a brand around a domain that you don't own.

<comment><AUTHOR> Technically you DO own it. You just haven't completed the purchase yet.</comment></comment>


The iPhone is White Label Hardware - <AUTHOR> http://dbreunig.tumblr.com/post/120243478/the-iphone-is-white-label-hardware-with-the

<comment><USER2> Full disclosure: I recently purchased a T-Mobile Android-powered G-1, with which I am more than a little enamored. Feel free to discard the following post as fanboy tripe.

Couldn't this article have just as easily been written about the G-1, or certain models of Blackberry? (Especially since Android is open-source. Isn't it?) It disturbs me when Apple products are treated like the exclusive apotheosis of their niche. I remember reading an article in which the journalist blathered spastically about "iPod-jacking," the paradigm-breaking practice of two people swapping headphones on their iPod to see what the other is listening to.

Huh???

ANY pair of MP3 players could accomplish the same thing, just like any modern wi-fi/GPS/accelerometer/etc. enabled smartphone could accomplish what this article is talking about.

Also, I have an open question: I'm perplexed by people who criticize Apple for keeping apps out of the store. Aren't you free to publish your app on your own website, which any user can navigate to, and install your app from there? Are people angry because, if Apple doesn't let you in the app store, you're almost definitely going to get less customers? (That's a fair thing to be angry about). Or... are people angry because, if you get kicked out of the app store, no one can install your app AT ALL?

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here.

I agree with you: the G1 (and G2!) is a very capable device. As Android is adopted by more and more device manufacturers, Android could very well become a ubiquitous, ambient computing environment.

The reason I focus on the iPhone is for two reasons. First off: it's hardware. No matter how good the G1 is, the crux of the phone is it's OS. That's the standard being pushed in that case. With the iPhone, they're pushing the hardware and software standard.

Second (and this is by far the larger reason) is the install base. There's 40,000,000 iPhones and iPod touches in the market! The ubiquity and large adoption of this device is why it's "White Label." People already have it. For comparison, as of Jan 09 the X-Box 360 had ~28 million units in market. A large % of which might not even be on X-Box Live.

The penetration of the iPhone is what makes it special in this case.

<comment><USER2> I think I see what you were getting at now, about the market penetration. I still don't really understand your point about hardware vs. software. The G-1 and iPhone are both pieces of hardware with pre-packaged software on them. Is there really anything the iPhone's hardware is capable of that the G-1 isn't, in some profound way? They both have wi-fi, GPS, accelerometer, calculator, touch screen, etc.

The iPhone really has become startlingly popular; I think I had a knee-jerk reaction to your article because Apple's incredible aptitude for branding always makes me a little queasy. People get so excited about Apple that and Apple this, that functional alternatives like the G-1 and Blackberry go unnoticed, and in the end, the market suffers because consumers are complacent instead of asking, "Can't it be better?"

<comment><USER3> _in the end, the market suffers because consumers are complacent_

I believe you're projecting your own preferences here. Unless you have evidence to suggest that the average iPhone owner is not happy with his purchase, saying "the market suffers" is a bit much.

<comment><USER4> That's not what he's saying. He's saying that the market suffers because of a lack of competition - and I tend to agree with that.

And as a side note, this article seems to sort of be leading towards that sentiment: "there's very little reason for start-ups to even attempt to pursue the wonky world of hardware."

<comment><USER3> _He's saying that the market suffers because of a lack of competition_

Huh? What lack of competition? The post is _about_ the competition.

 _this article seems to sort of be leading towards that sentiment_

He's referring to stand-alone devices, not other smartphones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> AT&T lock-in is one of the larger barriers preventing the universality of the iPhone as "the" mobile computing platform.

<comment><USER3> The author means universal in the sense of a universal remote control, not universal adoption. Also, a big chunk of that 40 million is iPod Touch owners, who are not subject to carrier lock-in.

The point is that it is a sufficiently generic and popular platform that many companies that might once have rolled their own hardware have diminished need to. If the platform supports what they need and they can make do in a market of 40 million (and growing), why not? For consumers it is the same way; why buy a device when you can just download that functionality? It raises the threshold of utility.

The market doesn't have to be universal, it just has to be big and and consistent. Right now the iPhone is the only platform that can claim to have both of those qualities.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, comparing the iPhone to the horror of making a J2ME application the iPhone is truly the currently best device for applications.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's an interesting argument the author is making, but it sure sounds like it's a bit of a reach at this point. Sure, the iPhone has nice market penetration in a certain demographic (who are more likely than others to buy gizmos) but I strongly doubt that you'll see companies that would have otherwise developed hardware, not do so. Instead, I think you'll see the flourishing of products with small enough niches such that if they had to build their own hardware, the product would have been shelved. This section:

 _Even established businesses seemed to disprove their own divisions: as tomtom showed off their upcoming navigation software I was left wondering why they need to make their own devices anymore._

is the epitome of that reach. Why does TomTom need to make their own devices any more? Because they don't want to add in an implicit $60/month data fee to use their service, which you have when it's iPhone based. Because if it's strictly iPhone, you can't give it to your parents as a gift so they stop getting lost. Because they make some nice margins off their high-end hardware, which they can't on an iPhone. Because they don't want to limit themselves to the (comparatively) small demographic of people with an iPhone who drive in an area with a cellular data connection, as opposed to the much larger one of people who drive cars that have 12V accessory plugs.

Likewise with the ZipCar application - they're not going to go iPhone-only, since it's giving up free market share. So they'll add an iPhone interface for coolness purposes and to appeal to a certain demo (which they probably do pretty well with already), but it won't fundamentally change their business plan.

The Pasco demo (focusing on teaching science to kids) also seemed somewhat contrived - who's gonna outfit a lab with iPhones to do readings? More importantly, what makes more sense for a school board buying a new lab's worth of equipment - buying sensor packages that work with a dedicated ruggedized central station that the school owns, or buying ones that require all students to have and use expensive and relatively flimsy cell phones of one particular brand?

So yes, I think that the iPhone represents an interesting new platform and will enable some new business opportunities (especially at the small end of the busines ecosystem), but it's not going to cause the end of all commercial customized hardware.

</comment><comment><USER8> Except for all the artificial limitations (no background processes is a huge let down) and the fact that Steve Jobs can crush your iPhone businesses if he chooses.

<comment><USER9> How is it a let down? For two years, two releases, two versions of software and one beta of OS 3 it hasn't been present. It's only ever been mentioned by Apple to say they aren't doing it, and always they've been discussing, advertising and working on push notifications as an alternative.

Given all that, why were you in any way expecting it?

<comment><USER10> Maybe because it's possible on competing smartphones?

I was curious about the new features in IPhone OS 3 and decided to take a look at the list. Copy and paste? MMS? Voice memos? Search? You've got to be kidding me. The competition has had that stuff for ages.

If Apple couldn't deliver that stuff on day one that's fine, but it should have been released in an update shortly afterward. It's absurd that 2 years later people are still waiting for basic functionality that's been available elsewhere the whole time.

Don't get me wrong. Although I choose not to use the iPhone, I still like it. Despite the fact that it does some very basic things badly or not at all, it does have some neat features and has driven the competition to work a little harder. The iPhone made mobile app stores commonplace. The 'find my phone' and 'remote wipe' features are very cool and I haven't seen those on another phone. I'm looking forward to how the competition responds.

What does bother me, though, is all the Apple apologists coming out of the woodwork to brush all of their faults under the rug. Apple does some good things and some not so good things. In my opinion, a lot of the features in this update are things that people should not still be waiting for. I also think we don't need to be in the habit of excusing the lack of background applications. We're so fond of innovation, yet this missing features prevents the kind of innovation happening on other platforms.

<comment><USER11> > The competition has had that stuff for ages.

Then by the performance of the competition, we have to surmise that either users don't care about said features, or said features have such flawed execution that the majority of its target users simply choose not to use it.

I would lean to the latter. Sending MMSes on most phones is a _pain_ , recording a voice memo less so, but still convoluted. Search? Oh boy, yeah, some phones have this, but it's an even greater pain to get to.

And this is where usability rears its big ugly head again - the one thing that software engineers tend to ignore (because they themselves do not demand it). It's turned out that all along the UI has been the magic key to everything. For better or for worse, Apple hasn't just made the iPhone _easy_ to use, they've made it _fun_ to use, and that's something the competition has yet to clone.

<comment><USER10> _Then by the performance of the competition, we have to surmise that either users don't care about said features, or said features have such flawed execution that the majority of its target users simply choose not to use it._

That's a strong statement that I can't agree with completely. We can probably agree that most users don't care about most features other than dialing. When I asked why scrolling through a contact list on a Motorola RAZR is so slow the response I got is that most users don't use the contact list.

If most people don't use most of the features of their phones that's fine. But I do, and giving me a prettier package isn't going to change the fact that it doesn't have the features I'm already using. Apple is clearly more interested in less demanding users and have made a boatload of money that way. That's fine too.

But if you want to talk smartphones for power users, I think the iPhone has been missing some important features. In other areas, they've clearly surpassed the competition. This is a good thing for everyone. Even though I don't use an iPhone I've got a much better browser on my phone because of it.

Personally, there's no way I'm buying a smartphone that doesn't do MMS or copy/paste when there are others that do this in addition to just about everything else the iPhone can do. But I put a premium on features instead of user interface and it's not as if the worthwhile competitors' user interfaces are from the stone age.

The competition hasn't exactly been left destitute since the release of the iPhone either. If anything, their product line ups have only gotten stronger even if market share has decreased. Sure, Nokia is in the toilet, but I think it probably has more to do with the fact that they've more or less been sitting on their asses for a few years than the iPhone. I won't even bring up Windows Mobile because it's just sad. Blackberry, excluding the Storm, is looking better and better. Despite the fact that the design and build quality of the T-Mobile G1 is a cruel joke, Android is something worth getting excited about. If someone puts it on nice hardware we could end up with a very cool phone.

<comment><USER3> _power users_

I am perpetually at a loss for what this term means. On the one hand you're describing these features as "basic" but on the other they're for "power users". Is that not a contradiction?

<comment><USER10> I think you are trying argue semantics instead of any particular point, but I'll clarify things anyway. When MMS, for example, has been available for years from every major carrier in the US on even some of the cheapest phones I would consider it a basic feature. The fact that many people don't use it doesn't change that. If that were the case, you could just as easily make the argument that text messaging doesn't necessarily need to be included because most people don't use it.

The bottom line is you can't sell me a so-called smartphone in a pretty package and sing the praises of all its bells and whistles when it doesn't have the features I use on a daily basis. When you can get MMS on a free phone from MetroPCS it seems like a pretty glaring omission on the iPhone.

I'm not just picking on Apple. I was using Apple products long before it was the cool thing to do and I happen to like them, but let's be realistic. I owned a Sidekick a couple years back and had the same complaint. The thing is marketed as this socially connected, multimedia phone and it can't even do MMS. The 4 year old POS Nokia I switched from was able to do that. The Sidekick was, rightfully, ripped for this so I don't understand why Apple gets a free pass.

<comment><USER3> That doesn't even remotely answer my question. All you've done here is restate your personal preferences as if they were data. Don't do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Apple's hardware isn't appropriate for every situation. If it were to be white label, they would need to make the software available to other hardware developers, and that's never going to happen.

This article is more about software than hardware, the apps largely don't care what hardware it's running on.

<comment><USER13> Your sentence doesn't make any sense, you start with "Apple's hardware" then you talk about "make the software available to other hardware developers". Do you mean hardware accessories for iPhone? It's in 3.0.

<comment><USER12> What? No. I mean they would need to make the software (iPhone OS 3.0) available to 3rd party hardware developers in order to have a "white label" platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just don't get why Apple doesn't just sell a higher-priced, unlocked iPhone, so that you don't have to get yourself screwed by your local carrier.

<comment><AUTHOR> As always: business. AT&T is effectively paying Apple to prevent that very scenario.

AT&T is weathering the downturn relatively nicely thanks to their exclusive deal with Apple. The ~$200 check they cut Apple per 2-year contract is paying for that exclusivity plus like-advertising.

<comment><USER14> Sometimes I just wish that they would focus more on the customers' needs :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Oh FSM I love it when someone gets it exactly right!</comment>


What's the worst API documentation you've ever used? - <AUTHOR>

As an alternative to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5268976<p>For me it was Janrain's old one before they updated it. <comment><USER2> Rails</comment>


The Coffee Junkie's Guide to Caffeine Addiction - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/restaurants/features/breakfast/47395/

<comment><USER2> What's the typical caffeinated-beverage consumption for a News.YC reader? I'm not much of a coffee drinker, but I'll down 4-6 cups of tea on a normal weekday.

<comment><USER3> Just stopped drinking it 3 weeks ago.

<comment><USER4> Switched to caffeine pills here.

1\. Easier to keep intake from growing out of control.

2\. Easier to keep caffeine levels steady since the pills take less time and effort than making more coffee and the dosage is very consistent. No unexpected crashes.

3\. Teeth/mouth.

<comment><USER5> How much do you take?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> 4-6 caffeine shots a day, with the least one close to midnight. If I don't have any, then I am feeling blue.

</comment><comment><USER7> One cup of coffee a day, average. Some days more.</comment>


How to enable Facebook timeline right now(Developer release) - <AUTHOR> http://itechtalks.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-to-enable-facebook-timeline-right.html

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the advice. It's fun to play around with, even if most people can't see it yet. Makes traveling through Facebook history extremely easily.</comment>


US intelligence chiefs don't trust Kaspersky. But why? - <AUTHOR> ... because they are not dumb. [Kapersky's EULA](https://support.kaspersky.com/12915) forbids verifying his claims of trustworthiness: "You shall not [...] decompile, or reverse-engineer the Software. You shall not otherwise reduce any part of the Software to human-readable form.". Therefore, you cannot check or otherwise verify his trustworthiness. Hence, Kapersky cannot be trusted by design. In that sense, the intelligence chiefs' [answers to Marco Rubio](https://www.grahamcluley.com/us-intelligence-chiefs-dont-trust-kaspersky) in the Senate Committee were spot on: Don't trust Kaspersky. <comment><USER2> > Is it because - gulp - Kaspersky is Russian?

Having worked with government IT, I suspect that the answer isn't any more complex than that.</comment>


New Chrome extension: block sites from Google's web search results - <AUTHOR> http://chrome.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-chrome-extension-block-sites-from.html

<comment><USER2> This is an excellent step forward, especially since they're sending all of this data to Google for review.

Ideally I'd like to see this just rolled-into the default signed-in search interface, but this will be a good test to see how such a service could work.

</comment><comment><USER3> A while back, Google let you remove search-entries whenever you were logged- in.

This seems similar but I'm not sure why they didn't just continue letting you remove content straight from the Google page.

The feedback page also now doesn't go directly to a form where you can report a content farm but rather to a bunch of choices (I had trouble even determining what to chose to report Spam - the first one I chose was to report porn). By the time a lot of users have gotten to the report-a-site section, they've probably forgotten the original URL.

It is a complex problem, certainly - reporting websites is a good way to screw your competitors for example.

</comment><comment><USER4> Discussion is here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2218382></comment>


Why Does LinkedIn Make It Impossible to Downgrade Your Subscription? - <AUTHOR> http://launch.is/blog/why-does-linkedin-make-it-impossible-to-downgrade-your-subsc.html

<comment><USER2> Actually, it's quite easy to cancel or downgrade your linkedin subscription. See <http://ang.us/qNiD3G> and <http://ang.us/pPA0Ab> for example.

<comment><USER3> wish it was...just checked mine and it doesn't have the downgrade option :S

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I downgraded recently, and it was a hassle for me. (At least when I did it) there was no downgrade button or explanation of how to do it - well there was but it was extremely subtle and hard to find. What it came down to was finding and contacting the customer service address and stating you wanted to downgrade.

</comment><comment><USER5> They should make billing choices as easy as accept a connection request. Forced continuity is the domain of Girls Gone Wild DVD memberships and scam artists.

</comment><comment><USER6> I dunno, I recently downgraded and don't remember it being a hassle at all.</comment>


6 Marketing Techniques That Will Make You Better at Selling - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140821031041-18720225-6-marketing-techniques-that-will-make-you-better-at-selling?trk=hb_ntf_MEGAPHONE_ARTICLE_POST

<comment><USER2> :)</comment>