iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising - <AUTHOR> http://www.rinich.com/post/357307070/this-is-why-its-worth-learning-about-advertising

<comment><USER5> Is it me, or is computing not boring anymore?

I'll explain what I mean. From about 1995 to about 2007, the copmuter industry was predictable. Microsoft dominated the desktop and the laptop. A user interface in 1995 (e.g. Windows 95) looked and worked much the same as one in 2007 (e.g. Ubuntu 7.10). Sure, Microsoft had competitors, but Linux and Mac OS were niche systems that seemed likely to continue to be so.

But now, we have new user interface paradigms, e.g. the gesture systems used by the iPhone and iPad. We have new computing devices, particularly smartphones. We have new killer applications -- telephony and TV and books are all merging into computers, i.e. becoming a program you run on your computer.

It's even exciting on the programming language front, with new languages like Clojure, Erlang, Haskell, F#, etc having the possiblity of breaking out into the staid corporate computing world dominated by Java and C#.

Microsoft's dominance no longer seems assured. Apple or Google could easily exceed their market capitalisation in a few years. And platforms are doing deals with search engines: Firefox with Google, Ubuntu with Yahoo. Everything seems up in the air, uncertain, exciting.

<comment><USER6> Yes, I think it's safe to say that the middle ages/dark ages of personal computing are over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _shrug_

Let's see how well it actually does before we go on about how brilliant Apple's marketing guys are.

Yes, the iPad has potential. It doesn't make sense to dismiss it offhand just because some of us might not have a use for it.

No, not every single Apple product has changed the world, even though they're all introduced as revolutionary. It doesn't make sense to accept their marketing copy as gospel. Lots of companies pay lots of money for sentences like that, it doesn't mean they're all successful.

Ultimately, the market will decide this one. Yes, it MIGHT change the world, but it really is too early to tell one way or another.

<comment><AUTHOR> Certainly marketing can lie. The "funnest iPod ever" didn't make the iPod touch into a brilliant gaming console. (Casual gaming, maybe, come to think of it, but that's beyond my knowledge. Anybody else know about this?) However, it's good at indicating what somebody _wants_ you to think. Droid's ad wanted you to think: "iPhone sucks, Droid rules." Apple's ad wants you to think: "This thing was made by a wizard." Relevant to today's discussions because a _lot_ of people seem to be wondering what Apple's thinking, when I think Apple's been pretty obvious.

I actually wouldn't call this revolutionary. That's why we're not reacting gleefully. It's evolutionary. It just happens to have evolved in a way that gives it a potential radical significance.

Semirelated: Studying advertisements is a brilliant way to study history. It lets you in on all society's biases and wants and needs and fears. Modern advertisement is as insightful to the human condition as modern poetry, though it goes at it a bit ass-backwards and rarely as tactfully.

<comment><USER8> I disagree that it's just "potential" radical significance. I think the advertising claims are quite verifiable by looking at the specs and comparing with the iPhone's success, and thus it's a slam dunk. I think you made a strong argument that those who say it's not going to be a big deal because it lacks GPS and a camera aren't representative of the target audience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed! But all sorts of things can happen to stop it from becoming truly radically huge. Certainly it'll sell well at first — so did the Kindle. I wouldn't call the Kindle radical, though, even if it is pretty big (and a damn good product at that). By "radical" I mean "so big every family has two". I can imagine that happening, but I wouldn't take it as a given.

<comment><USER8> Ah, I see. I didn't realize you were speaking proper English rather than Internet English, and thus "radical" actually meant something far removed from the ordinary. I've been spending too much time on twitter where "awesome" often means "not bad".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I gotta say, the tone of this almost turned me off. I got an impression of mouth-foamy vehemence in some of those paragraphs, and it was a little off- putting.

However, you're entirely right. It's going to be really interesting to see how this pans out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now my entire blog's in a very stream-of-consciousness mode. I'm writing lots of long unedited things every day just to get it out in time for an upcoming major revision.

I submitted this because I was a bit irked at how commentary here is steadfastly ignoring what the iPad is and how it's going to be sold. I enjoy critics as long as they understand what they're criticizing. Aaronsw's post was enough to provoke me into submitting this.

If anybody thinks this isn't appropriate tone for HN, feel free to flag it! I have no particular expectations for this submission.

<comment><USER10> Your essay is great. It makes me feel less alone in this world. I didn't find it full of vehemence.

`

It is okay to speak with force. At times force is needed to cut through layers of of mental resistance. New ideas that we don't understand scare us. We fear what we don't understand. The points you are trying to make are over the head of most people. 99.9999999% don't get "it". If they did we would have more companies that could compete with apple not just copy apple.

`

What do I mean by copy Apple? One example is the iPhone. If Apple never made the iPhone. What would phones look like right now? We would have the the Razor3 and it would allow us to download ring tones, not apps.

Heres some food for thought from Einstein:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - Albert Einstein

And the most important to this discussion:

"The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." - Albert Einstein

The iPad is not a solution to the question of: whats a better computer or whats a better phone. Just as the iPhone wasn't a better Razor.

<comment><USER11> > _The iPad is not a solution to the question of: whats a better computer or > whats a better phone. Just as the iPhone wasn't a better Razor._

The iPad is a consumer device in the truest sense of the word. It's a device that was built to make it as easy as possible for the user to consume media whether it's the Web, movies, music, photos, etc. Plain and simple.

Oh, and comparing the iPhone to the Razr is a bit of a strawman. There have been plenty of PDA-phones in the past: WindowsMobile phones, Palm PDA-phones, etc. They just never did provided a good enough interface to the user to really take off. So yes. The iPhone was an _evolutionary_ leap instead of a _revolutionary_ leap.

> _At times force is needed to cut through layers of of mental resistance. New > ideas that we don't understand scare us. We fear what we don't understand._

At the end of the day, the iPad is a consumer electronic device not a solution to world hunger. Please get some perspective. Writing a blog post praising the iPad when everyone else is disappointed with it is not some sort of 'shining moment' for journalism that will be recognized by generations to come as a turning point when the tide of Apple-haters was stemmed, ushering in the new Golden Era of Apple.

> _99.9999999% don't get "it"_

I'd say that 98% of people don't even know that Apple had a keynote today.

> _If they did we would have more companies that could compete with apple not > just copy apple._

Most other companies are not in Apple's business. They are making hardware with some software thrown on to push the hardware, or they are selling some software for some hardware. Most companies don't have the attention to detail that Apple does. Yea, sometimes they screw things up (sometimes _badly_ ), but OS X doesn't have parts of OS7 hanging around in it the way that Windows Vista still had some little-used apps with icons from the Windows 3.1 days. Most other companies are just pushing their product out the door to turn a profit, but Apple prides itself on projecting an image of quality they way that a high-end car-maker does.

I also really don't like it when people get all uppity about 'copying.' "Who copied who" is a tired game in the software/hardware industry. The real issue is when someone copies something and claims it as their own, _not_ when someone copies something. People adopting the techniques and methods of others is how progress is made.

If you want to play that game, then Apple _copied_ the entire idea for the gui/mouse interface from Xerox. Apple also _copied_ the functionality of Time Machine from countless other utilities that were mostly relegated to the realm of system admins (or 'power users' in the case of Linux/BSD + rsync/rdiff). You might say 'but they copied it _better_.' But if you want to start talking like that then you better suffix 'everyone copies Apple' with 'poorly' lest you imply that 'copying' at all is a bad thing (and there should be a stigma attached to it).

<comment><USER12> _Oh, and comparing the iPhone to the Razr is a bit of a strawman._

The Razr, first time around, captured people's imaginations because it suddenly offered the deep, unheard of cultural _need_ to have the world in your pocket and have it be so small and sleek that you forget what that means. The iPhone is very comparable, except when Apple did it they redefined _world_.

 _I'd say that 98% of people don't even know that Apple had a keynote today._

But when the commercials come out, 75% of people will drool.

If you look at it from a cultural perspective, Apple is once again selling us the future. It was already here, sure, but now it'll be at your doorstep, charged, as soon as you like.

<comment><USER11> > _it suddenly offered the deep, unheard of cultural need to have the world in > your pocket and have it be so small and sleek that you forget what that > means_

Maybe I missed those adverts, but the Razr was just a sleek design. Its claim to fame was how small it was. It was still just a phone though. It didn't offer 'the world in your pocket' unless you define 'the world' to mean 'a phone line and my contacts book.'

<comment><USER13> For what it's worth, check out the wikipedia page on the RAZR, specifically the section on Cultural Impact: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razr>. Key quote: "The RAZR has been said to the 'iPod' of mobile phones. Being the slimmest phone during its release in 2004, it easily stood out amongst other phone models. IT has also been one of the most popular mobile phone models since its first release, until being surpassed by the iPhone 3G in November 2008..."

However, it notes this popularity was never matched outside the USA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I really like some of the points of your blog post, namely:

\- Apple does marketing really well.

\- Apple does ridiculously awesome UIs

\- Complaining about the fact that it's not particularly technically impressive is irrelevant, most people buy Apple products because of the magic rather than tech specs.

However, thinking about it some more I can see a few problems for the iPad in general:

\- Two of the previous 'magical things' Apple produced - namely the iPod and iPhone, had a clear application to get people in the door. In the iPod case it was n-thousand songs in your pocket, in the iPhone case it was 'look, it's an iPod you can make calls with'. People were already sold on portable music players and phones beforehand, Apple just took that need and made a much more awesome device.

\- The iPad on the other hand does not have such a clear application. All of the cool stuff like maps/music/games and things can already be done on the iPhone (which most people will be carrying around anyway). The other side - normal web surfing, applications, writing, graphics, etc. - is handled quite nicely by Apple's laptops. I'm not sure why someone would buy an iPad instead of an iPhone, and then, once they have an iPhone, I'm not sure what the iPad offers that makes it worth the extra $500.

\- Apple have had beautiful, well marketed things in the past that haven't conquered the universe (the G4 cube, for instance, which was lovely). Marketing isn't always enough.

Still, I have to love Steve Jobs if only for his ability to (apparently) congruently gush that as a tablet the iPad is much better than either phones or laptops, both of which his company sells lots of.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's my favorite part about Apple: When they introduce a product that makes other products of theirs look obsolete. I used to love my laptop's multitouch until I tried a Magic Mouse; now my scrolling all feel stodgy.

I agree that the iPod and iPhone were much easier sells. But I suspect that the iPad will be seen as a superior product. I mean, the one thing Apple does _not_ corner the market in is standard computing. OS X machines lose out to the Windows market. If anything, this is an entry into that market, same as netbooks were; if you look at this as a cheap, simplistic laptop that just happens not to be a clamshell, then it makes more sense. People looking for a good deal can buy this, and it handles basic computer-y things for them, and it turns out that they don't need all the cruft modern computers bring with them.

But actually in this case I've got some perspective, because last month my mother began asking me about the tablet. She owns an iPhone but no laptop; she likes my laptop but doesn't want to drop that much money for something she won't use much. Her questions were things like: Can I watch a movie on one? Can I check my email? Can I read books? For somebody who needs to do basic computer things like email and Internet, but who doesn't need anything specialized, there's nothing you need that the iPad can't do. (I'm curious as to how many people in the US own laptops. I've never thought about it before.)

As for the G4 cube comparison (though that made me think for a second!), I think there's one huge difference: The OS. This is easily the best operating system ever made in terms of usability. There's almost no abstraction. No mouse, no doubleclicking, no app folder, no dock, no task bar... you push a button and it launches something, and that thing is usually designed so that it makes perfect sense without instructions.

I didn't get why that was a big deal until I saw the streaming keynote and actually looked at the applications. I'd bet that Youtube on an iPad is simpler and funner than Youtube on a Macbook, because there're fewer steps to going about doing anything. The simplicity of the OS allows for far more elegant app design, to the point where I think people will notice and be sold on that design alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You say that the entire world wants an iPad. I disagree. I think this will appeal to a specific (but fairly common) kind of computer user. Namely, the sort of person who really doesn't know what they're doing on a computer, and only uses their PC for very basic tasks. This kind of person will be able to replace their laptop (or even their desktop) with an iPad, and I think it will be a fantastic solution for them.

The problem, though, is that this "magical screen" probably won't be very efficient for getting work done. Which means most people won't be able to replace their computers. And I think it's going to be hard to convince these people that they need a so-called "middle device".

EDIT: I should also add that I think the appeal will be much broader once publishers make digital books and textbooks that are actually superior to their paper counterparts. But that might take years.

<comment><USER16> "Namely, the sort of person who really doesn't know what they're doing on a computer, and only uses their PC for very basic tasks."

From my personal experience of being "that computer guy" for countless friends, relatives, and random people on the street, that statement accurately describes over 90% of the home computer market (i.e. everything but business/professional use).

<comment><USER11> Really? No one in that 90% does something like build a resume in Word/OOWriter?

<comment><AUTHOR> And you can't make a resume in iWork? I think that part of Apple's announcement was more significant to a certain crowd than we're giving it credit for.

<comment><USER17> If you can hook up a printer, this does everything my sister (she's a social worker) needs to do with a computer, cheaper and more reliably.

<comment><AUTHOR> (That actually gets me thinking — do we know anything about the iPad's printer compatibility? Did I miss some announcement about that?)

<comment><USER18> I work at a school considering a laptop program. This was our first question, and we couldn't find anything in specs that explicitly talked about this.

I have to assume that you will be able to print wirelessly, but there's that tiny fear that somehow you can't as a protective feature for the ebooks. Silly question, but can you print from a Kindle or a Nook?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've never seen a way to do so from a Kindle. I'd imagine it would be risky for them to offer that service: What's there to stop you from printing your own book?

<comment><USER19> The cost of paper and binding, for one. That's why physical books are so rarely pirated when compared to digital media. Printing a few pages sounds perfectly reasonable to me though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Other companies are selling computers. Apple's selling magic. Which one > would you rather have?

I'd rather have a computer, which is why I don't like Apple products. However, I understand why this puts me in the minority.

<comment><USER5> Last time I looked, Apple's market share of computers and laptops was a good deal <50%

<comment><USER20> Given that Apple is primarily in the business of selling magic devices rather than computers, their share of the computer market isn't really relevant here.

<comment><USER21> Yep. Apple's share in the magic devices category is more like >95%.

Funny how hard it is for geeks to let go of thinking that the worth of a product is defined by how many features it has!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I agree with the author of this article, and I get where Apple is coming from with the iPad. I don't know what to say to the people who are disappointed it's not an OSX tablet computer - I don't know why you thought it would be. I don't think an OSX tablet would be a good thing either, but that's beside the point, Apple could still do that if they wanted.

I think huge segment of peoples computing needs could be met by a device like this. I think there is a whole segment of computing uses now that have left the keyboard and screen formfactor behind. Rather than this device needing a niche, I think it may end up that portable computers with keyboards are a niche.

Having said all that, I was disappointed by the release. The bezel is ugly and I'm not convinced that it's necessary for holding. The aspect ratio seems wrong and ugly. The screen is much lower ppi than the ipod/iphone. Half an inch seems too thick as well. All in all its not the sleek futuristic machine it should be. Hopefully version 2 will fix some of these things.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's how I feel, too. The bezel I'm uncertain about, the aspect ratio is certainly different if nothing else. I'm curious how it'll feel when held. Perhaps the radical screen change will prove to feel surprisingly natural.

I think the huge (relatively) screen will make up for the ppi. As for half an inch, I suspect that with something this big anything thinner might even seem fragile. But we'll find out on launch, and whatever we hate Apple will fix and sell to us again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I agree with the article, but I understand the reaction here. HN is a group of very smart people, and logical genius, that despise the power of emotions.

Human beings are not machines, and one of the most important things is how they feel. Apple knows that,that is what marketing is all about and this means for me that Ipad is going to be a success because:

1)When you rotate the screen, it feels responsible instantly.

2) When you touch, it feels responsible again because of the hardware accelerated touch screen.

3) People could use it to write without making sounds(silence).

4) No cables, no strings, it just "feels right" like a physical notebook.

5) No ugly keyboard.

6) No limits in the orientation.

7) First serious computer you can rotate to read a book right, when you use a laptop and rotate for changing the aspect ratio ugly keyboard gets on your way.

I'm happy for the ipad, it means computer competitors that don't get it will just copy it, like the iphone.

<comment><USER5> > _1)When you rotate the screen, it feels responsible instantly._

Not to nitpick, but ITYM responsive.

<comment><USER24> > Not to nitpick

That's exactly nitpicking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think you're going a bit over the top by saying they've killed every photo frame company on the planet. People aren't going to buy five iPads and put them up around their house.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was referring to the digital frames. Maybe I'm missing something (entirely possible!) but I don't know what any other "display photos in a digital box" hardware has to offer that this doesn't.

Upvoted, among other things, for making me imagine a waterfall of iPads displaying upon them photographs of waterfalls. Unrelated imagery. Thanks!

<comment><USER15> Other "display photos in a digital box" hardware has a sub $100 pricetag, which means you can leave them around your house doing nothing but display photos without feeling guilty (or stupid).

<comment><AUTHOR> Touche! So the digital photos won't disappear instantly. I'd bet, though, that they'll take something of a hit from this, and certainly as this thing lowers in prices they'll be hurt even further.

<comment><USER25> The point of a digital photo frame is to display photos. The point of the iPad is to do magical fun stuff. Displaying photos is just one thing it can do. I don't think it's going to do anything to the digital frame industry. A computer can also display photos, so whatever damage that has been done has already been done.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it's going to come down to how consumers perceive the iPad. If they see it as a simplified computer, then you're absolutely right. If, however, they start treating it like a household appliance, one that simply cuts many more specialized tools out of the picture, then I think digital photo frames might be among the ones to do. When you can call up your photos in a slideshow at any time on a machine that makes doing so feel intuitive, you might not like the programmable frame.

But, as I said, I could be wrong. My own apathy for the product certainly isn't anybody else's.

<comment><USER11> > _When you can call up your photos in a slideshow at any time on a machine > that makes doing so feel intuitive, you might not like the programmable > frame._

I thought that point of photo frames (digital or not) was to display your photos, not to have an iPad sitting on the coffee table that has _all_ of your photos on it ready to sift through. This is like saying that putting a photo album on your coffee table makes photos in frames obsolete.

Unless you're claiming that people will buy iPads with iPad-holsters and set them up on tables/shelves to constantly display a stream of their photos, then you haven't proved that the digital photo frame is "on it's way out."

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is that I never really got picture frames. I think it's weird having photos of people just randomly hanging around. Especially if it's a small screen giving me a crappy cycling photo. I'd rather have a device upon which all my family memories are stored.

But I'm the odd man out, I guess. I'd always thought digital photo frames were dead anyway; from the opposition that line got here, I guess I'm wrong! Apologies.

<comment><USER26> So basically you just wrote an article about how us nerds don't get "normal people," and in the process committed the same sin by not getting what a digital picture frame is for "normal people?" Funny

<comment><USER25> I think he doesn't get photo frames in general, not just the digital ones.

> I'd rather have a device upon which all my family memories are stored.

This has been possible with computers for what, at least 15 years now? Whether or not it's more intuitive on an iPad is subjective. But as far as having it all stored digitally, a computer can already do that.

The thing the iPad revolutionizes about photos is that it allows you to walk around with it around the house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> >"... because that sentence will sell several billion of these things."

Several billion? what are you smoking?

<comment><AUTHOR>
        hyperbole /haɪp'ɜːʳbəli/
        Synonyms: exaggeration, hyperbola, overstatement

        If someone uses hyperbole, they say or write things
        that make something sound much more impressive than
        it really is.

<comment><USER27> Are you implying your audience are a bunch of idiots?

Seriously, that's not even a hyperbole. That's a really stupid statement, even for a hyperbole.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll explain again. The point of hyperbole is to deliberately exaggerate something for effect, in this case humorous. I could have tried to estimate how much Apple will sell, but I don't care about estimation. My point is they will sell a lot.

My audience is not a bunch of idiots. They got it. You're the only one out of thousands of readers who's complained.

<comment><USER28> Not to make an issue out of something so trivial, but honestly, it didn't come across as hyperbole. The general tone of the article is pretty direct and in- your-face, so it looks more like an actual attempt at estimation rather than humor, for consistency's sake.

<comment><AUTHOR> Direct and in-your-face, perhaps, but this is also an article that says the iPad is magic, and we all know it's not literally magic. I refuse to believe we're that incapable of discerning not-so-subtleties.

<comment><USER29> Don't worry. Most people can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's one thing to make great technology. It's another thing to market and sell it. Apple can do both. Apple really gets it. But what is it exactly that they get? Here it is, they can do 5 things very well:

        - <USER2>
        - <USER3>
        - Human Interface Design
        - <USER4>
        - User/Developer Ecosystem

If they weren't able to do all 5 of these very well, it wouldn't matter how great the devices are. Other companies do the hardware & the software. Some are even pretty good at the marketing. Very few companies do all 5 of these things as well as Apple does and make that a seamless whole.

Of these 5, _the last two_ are often the missing secret sauce. Of these 5, _the last one_ is the most powerful. They realize this. Why do you think they do everything that they do with the stores?

Open Source shows that you can have nothing but software and ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm underwhelmed not because the geek in me finds the technical specs lacking, but because I don't see _anything innovative_. The hardware and software are absolutely predictable (except for lacking a few features like a webcam and a USB port): no brilliant UI solution to the problem of typing while holding the tablet, no special screen tech to work well in reflective mode, no new business model for news or books, nothing. It's the lowest common denominator of all the rumors and anybody's guess at what a "big ipod touch" would look like. It shouldn't have taken any CE/computing company, much less Apple, years to design this.

<comment><USER18> I'm sorry, but did you actually read the post you're commenting on?

You may not agree with all his arguments, but the post addresses the "no innovation" claim head on (scan for Sgt. Pepper's, if you can't find it).

<comment><USER31> I read it, and found the 'Yes, but it's never been done all at once' assertion weak. The OP's general point is that the iPad is 'magic', which I correlate with 'innovation'; I think many of us are bummed because we see neither. (If it matters, I was giddy when the iPhone was announced; there was a lot of innovation in that device.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I get what you mean. At first this was a real let-down event for me. I was hoping, stupid and irrational as it would be, for Apple to unveil a completely new OS, completely new functionality and technology, and instead all they did was take their already-successful technology and reemploy it.

What excited me after I saw the keynote: Speed and apps. The fact that this thing is blisteringly fast is exciting in and of itself. No load times for anything? Pretty neat. And then they did some of the demo apps, the NY Times one in particular, and basically showed off then and there how the newspaper industry could save itself, and I was struck by the fact that given a screen of this size and a processor of this speed (whatever that actual speed is), you're capable of making a lot of very powerful things.

iPhone apps right now are some of the best programs ever made. In terms of build and ease-of-use and aesthetic quality, there're some things there that blow away and Windows/Mac app I've ever used. The fact that now developers have even more room to make their content means to me that we're going to see some applications that are cool to a degree that we've never seen before. If hearing birdcalls on your phone is magical already, I want to see what those same creative minds are capable of given ten inches of real estate.

So, not exciting on the surface, but the implications make me really giddy. I'm sure when we get closer to launch date Apple will reveal ads that say all that but more smoothly. I'm actually excited to see what the ads will be like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> If HN ever wanted to make some money, I would be glad to pay to not have to see articles like this one.

Seriously though, the article is pretty good -- I can _feel_ the stickiness of the jizz on his keyboard.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, jrockway. Here's to our upcoming 2-year anniversary of you being a fucker and my calling you a fucker. You've been with me since the start!

I think it's all right for me to call Apple my favorite company. If we want to be douchesnobs, they've earned their pedigree. More red dot design awards than any other company in history, more black pencils, an impressive list of advertising trophies, and business sales that shock and awe us all. As an entrepreneurial advertising major who enjoys industrial design, I think it's safe to say I've got a good excuse for liking Apple.

<comment><USER32> Your article is pretty good, but it just gets annoying when every article on HN is about how the iPad is going to solve world hunger with its super-shiny screen. It wasn't you personally that I was reacting to, but rather the onslaught of similarly-themed articles whenever Apple releases a new product. (The jizz reference reflects well on your writing ability, but not so much on Apple. The fact that your article exists proves the points your article makes. Excellent. :)

 _As an entrepreneurial advertising major who enjoys industrial design, I think it's safe to say I've got a good excuse Apple._

And I think it's safe to say, that as someone who makes a living from writing software, that I am not going to like devices that restrict users from running my software... even if it has a really pretty case. (I have eyes. I know Apple's stuff is beautiful.)

FWIW, I was a long-time Apple fanboi, diligently lining up to buy whatever new product they had the first day it was available. But then one night, I was debugging some software, and some debugging functionality didn't work because Apple specifically broke it to prevent someone from reverse-engineering iTunes. (Google "PT_DENY_ATTACH".) I formatted my Powerbook that night, switched to Linux, and never looked back.

Apple's not going to win me back with a nice screen or great marketing. When they stop selling music and videos with Restrictions Management and when anyone can run any code on any of their devices, Apple will be my favorite company too. But I doubt that will ever happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep! We've gotten into a lot of these discussions before. (I hope you took my comment lightheartedly, and not as a personal insult — it's more my way of saying we'll agree to disagree here.)

Usually I'm not a fan of the slew of Apple articles. This time I thought it warranted some, but even so it's very over-the-top. For whatever reason we've all decided to hate the shiny thing with the terrible name. I thought it might be fun to chip in with my opinion, which I'd written as a private blog entry a bit earlier.

I'm satisfied with the compromise Apple and independent developers have reached with the iPhone. If I can jailbreak at any time and get more freedom for my machine, then I'm fine with ceding it for the time being. Maybe some point in the future I'll turncoat and go after something more open, but I'm moderately retarded as a programmer at the moment and I've been slow to develop.

This is an aside, but, based on your last comment: Does Apple sell music with DRM anymore? Now they sell their files as unlocked m4ps with an option to convert to aac. That stopped me from downloading mp3 copies of all those albums, so I was satisfied; is there a restriction still there that I somehow missed?

<comment><USER32> _(I hope you took my comment lightheartedly, and not as a personal insult — it's more my way of saying we'll agree to disagree here.)_

Indeed I did :)

 _Does Apple sell music with DRM anymore?_

As far as I know, _many_ songs are non-DRM'd, but not all of them. But really, DRM didn't work out for the music industry, and it is gradually going away. It's videos/software/books that I am worried about now. For example, I would love to be able to buy TV episodes instead of pirating them. But they won't play on any computers I own, so I can't. DRM goes away, the content industry gets my cash. (But it's not good for Apple if I can watch the videos on non- Apple hardware, so I can't.)

<comment><AUTHOR> _As far as I know, many songs are non-DRM'd, but not all of them._

Hm. I thought that their big announcement last year was that they'd converted the entire store to DRM-free, but I could be mistaken.

 _It's videos/software/books that I am worried about now._

Yeah, I agree about this one. Right now, I try and treat each thing on a case- by-case basis. I never buy digital video, but I'll buy my games off Steam and I buy the occasional Kindle book because Valve and Amazon have done such a job of winning my trust. (Even when Amazon messes up, like with the 1984 thing, they're very good at realizing they were dumb and sounding convincing in their apology.) I also feel like books and games are so easily pirated that if something bad happens, I can get myself a copy anyway.

Now, video _rental_ is something different. I'm completely fine with the idea of paying for temporary access if I'm watching a TV show or a movie. DRM doesn't matter if it'll be gone a few hours from now anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > They figure the only people who won't want an iPad are people who don't like > magic.

Now I understand why I don't want one. I don't like magic in my reality. I prefer tech.

<comment><USER34> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." \- Arthur C. Clarke

<comment><USER33> "Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced" so Steve, round up your engineers and send them back to drawing boards because everybody (apart from apple marketing) can still see the difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Reading this article raised the bullshit alarm BIG TIME.

Yes Apple will make these things sell, using empty buzzwords that makes geeks cringe. But the author didn't have to be a dick about it.

The Howard Zinn story was more important than this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Isn't that what sucks about HN's rise and fall story display? I completely agree with you. But if people read this and like it, the only way they can spread it to other people is to vote it, potentially past other stories.

But you missed my point. They're _not_ empty buzzwords. Looking at the tablet in terms of dimensions and RAM and DPI is like looking at a film in terms of how many reels it takes to project it in a theater. Yeah, there's something going on there that's worth a discussion, but to assume that the point of the movie is to make a long film strip is a little silly.

"Magic" is not an empty buzzword. "DPI" is. I don't care about DPI. I care about I can push a button here and it'll give me a blank screen and I can DRAW on it. Just like magic. Or I can watch baseball and TOUCH it and make things happen on the screen.

There's a lot of technology going on there, but the technology isn't the point. The magic is the point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> For a readable font, paste this into your address bar:

      javascript:(function w(){document.body.style.fontFamily='Georgia';})()

<comment><AUTHOR> Not a fan of Calluna? I'm partial to it.

It'll make you happy to know I'm switching to a no-holds-barred Helvetica/Cufón combination shortly. Everybody wins!

EDIT: Just for you guys, Georgia's the default font again.

<comment><USER36> The Calluna would be alright, I suppose. However, I think a lot of users have your second preference, Didot, installed which is unsuitable for body copy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoops! I completely forgot I'd put Didot in there for a day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > 'I will give you this magical thing that can do anything' Well, it will not > open to applications at the same time.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, it can't, but it really doesn't matter that it can't. Most applications save your place in them, so the only cost of switching is that you have to wait a second for it to relaunch. If you've got a powerful enough processor, then relaunching applications is simply like switching. And because we've got a single-process tablet, there's no slowdown over time, no gucking up as things run dry.

I'd like Apple to figure out a policy that lets Pandora stream in the background, or Last.FM. Those are the only two I care about. Using push notifications for IM works perfectly for me: I see the messages as they happen, which is all I care about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Hyperbole is the best thing ever!

This made me laugh: "and so the only thing you need to make a beautiful program is a beautiful graphic designer"

<comment><AUTHOR> In every field of art, you see the biggest innovations when the technical barriers to doing things are taken away. Make film equipment cheaper and a lot of brilliant people without much money hit the scene. Make synthesizers cheaper and you have the 80s.

Something very similar is happening here. If I have an idea for a great hardware product, now I have the option of using this existing hardware, which is beautiful and has a beautiful method of interacting. Certain of the UI specs have already been handled for me. So there's less of a gap between my having an idea and my launching it than there was, say, five years ago.

I'm hoping for further similar breakthroughs. It would be nice if making a program was simply a matter of sketching out the user interface and seeing it realized.</comment></comment>


Tidbit: Client-Side Bitcoin Mining - <AUTHOR> http://www.tidbit.co.in/ <comment><USER2> Hey HN!

I'm Jeremy, one of the devs of this hackathon project. Thanks for checking this out, glad to see the community has interest in it. We made this project for NodeKnockout, and did not intend for it to be posted on HN.

In the current release, we have a couple of things blocked out for various reasons (legal, ethical, etc) so that it is not 100% functional.

We are very well aware that our current hashrate is pretty impractical. However, there are a number of optimizations we plan to implement to greatly improve this, including using WebGL. The problem that we're looking at starts with bitcoin, but we're also looking at more general purpose computing in the client too (ie, text mining).

And in terms of battery life, yes, it does run up the cpu a bit. However, for certain users (ie, desktop), spare processor cycles could be more worth it than seeing ads. Web services using tidbit could make it an opt in thing for desktop clients.

<comment><USER3> I really like this idea actually. If the performance would be (a lot) better, it could be a very nice alternative to advertising. Everyone who visits your website would 'pay' you with some CPU/GPU cycles, and in trade for that you give them a web page that's completely rid of advertising, third-party tracking cookies, and other stuff that users find annoying.

Personally I think advertising has been dying for years now, especially with all the adblockers that become more and more popular. It's time to come up with an alternative business model for websites (no, not talking about SaaS here..).

What's your share in this? You take a certain percentage of the mined coins?

Too bad mining is becoming more and more difficult, meaning that you will earn less and less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bear in mind that this will net the creator a few cents a day (if that even), and burn thousands of dollars in power for their clients. This wasn't economical in 2011 and it's sure as hell not economical now. I'd be pretty pissed off is websites started eating my CPU and battery just to make such a pitiful amount of revenue.

To put this in perspective, for $5 you can buy a USB ASIC miner that will do 335MH/s, worth tens of thousands of full time JavaScript clients.

<comment><USER5> I don't think you can get a USB ASIC for $5. They're still in the tens of dollars range.

<comment><USER4> For new ones sure, but there's people selling used ones for a lot less. There's cheaper Bitfury based ones now anyway, so I can't imagine why anybody would spend their money so unwisely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seriously? This idea was horrible back when Coinlab tried it in 2012 ( [http://bitcoinmagazine.com/1086/bitcoin-mining-a-new- means-o...](http://bitcoinmagazine.com/1086/bitcoin-mining-a-new-means-of- paying-for-video-games/) ) and it's even more horrible now. At the very least mine Litecoin or Primecoin.

<comment><USER7> How do the various cryptocurrencies compare? There appear to be quite a few of them [1,2]. Are BTC, Litecoin, and Primecoin the best/most popular?

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies)

[2] [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_alternative_cryptocurrenc...](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_alternative_cryptocurrencies)

<comment><USER8> [http://coinmarketcap.com/](http://coinmarketcap.com/) has estimates of market capitalization based on exchanges for various cryptocurrencies. A reasonable proxy for popular in some cases.

<comment><USER9> Litecoin is #2 but when you click the bottom link "Looking for Ripple?", Ripple is #2.

Ripple/Opencoin has 10x the market cap of Litecoin: [http://coinmarketcap.com/ripple.html](http://coinmarketcap.com/ripple.html)

But Ripple isn't a typical open source "crypto-currency". It's well financed and backed by big SF investors with the intention of making the founders/investors money, instead of miners, as the currency scales in price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _20K hashes /client_

ha, good luck with that

28nm asic miners are out and they do 600GH/sec at $4k + 1Watt/GHs

bitcoin is just about out of reach for normal people, we missed the train

<comment><USER7> I'm only casually familiar with ASIC mining, but I do recall hearing that the best position to be in is selling tools to the miners. Still, I'm curious; how much would you have to invest into modern mining hardware in order to see a return on investment? I'm going to assume you either need a lot of these or have to join a pool.

Is this a game only playable by those with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

<comment><USER11> The biggest problem with ASIC miners that I see is that they do not ship until "a few months". With the mining difficulty growing exponentially [1], the hardware you buy now will be relatively obsolete in a few months. For example by buying the latest 600GH/s from Butterfly labs[2] at 4500$, you'd break even in about a month according to the acula mining calculator[3].

The problem is that your card will arrive in January. In 2 months, if the bitcoin difficulty keeps growning at a steady pace (which is improbably, it probably keep growing exponentially), the break-even will be closer to 2 months. While you will probably keep making a few hundred of dollars after the break-even point, your chances to "double up" your initial 4500$ investments are close to zero. I have no idea about the profit marging ButterflyLabs make on those cards, but I'd bet it's larger than "a few hundred of dollars". That's why the mining gear business is probably more profitable than the mining business itself.

Of course this doesn't stop Butterfly Labs from having large farms of those cards...

[1] [http://bitcoindifficulty.com/](http://bitcoindifficulty.com/)

[2] [http://www.butterflylabs.com/monarch/](http://www.butterflylabs.com/monarch/)

[3] [http://www.alcula.com/calculators/finance/bitcoin- mining/](http://www.alcula.com/calculators/finance/bitcoin-mining/)

<comment><USER12> Butterflylabs is notorious for delivering many months late.

<comment><USER13> All the ASIC miners are notorious for delivering many months late.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> the-kenny You can be sure that no one with a computer running on a battery will ever visit your website again...

<comment><USER14> Even more so now that Android and OSX indicate at the application level what is impacting system battery.

</comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Couldn't this be considered a malicious feature?

The site offers virtually no information, so is the user notified that their machine is being used as part of a mining effort, or does it occur silently in the background?

</comment><comment><USER15> This should be converted to litecoin, maybe then it would make some money. 1000 KH/s ~0.8 LTC/day so with 50 users all day you would make $4 * 0.8 = $3.2 and if you had a million users it would be worth 64K/day assuming you could get the same hash rates.

<comment><USER16> > assuming you could get the same hash rates

You won't. Litecoin's scrypt is (purposely) much slower.

<comment><USER15> well even assuming it was two orders of magnitude less then bitcoin, it would still be $640/day which is a good improvement over bitcoin. Based on this, that seems to be about the actual difference. [https://litecoin.info/Comparison_between_Litecoin_and_Bitcoi...](https://litecoin.info/Comparison_between_Litecoin_and_Bitcoin#Differences_in_hashing_algorithms)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> You would need 500,000 people mining on your site all the time to match one 10GH ASIC...

Any site that constantly has 500,000 active users would have server costs that dwarf any revenue this would bring.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is not very new idea, I think this is first PoC I can find quickly: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=166417.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=166417.0)

Given current network difficulty, this won't earn 0.000001 $ per impression (more exact calculations are needed)

</comment><comment><USER19> Wow, this is scary. I guess as long as it's EXTREMELY visible that someone were using up my CPU to make them money, I'd be alright with it, but otherwise, I would see this as blatant malware.

</comment><comment><USER20> If they could somehow get a hold of the GPU and you had the equivalent of 10 decent gaming PCs connected at all times you'd get a little over $450 a year by my lazy calculations

[http://i.imgur.com/jrHoaOV.png](http://i.imgur.com/jrHoaOV.png)

</comment><comment><USER21> In fact, I'm testing it now and the indicator "connected clients" does not rise above 0. Probably, not even works. This is an experiment for a contest => [http://nodeknockout.com/](http://nodeknockout.com/)

<comment><USER20> Same here, would like to give it a try at least

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Aren't we well past the point where bitcoin mining on general purpose hardware costs more in energy usage than you earn by mining? I don't think that a model that has you earning less for viewing your site than the power company is going to be viable.

<comment><USER23> We're long past the point where mining on a GPU makes economic sense, and this thing is roughly 1/10,000 as energy-efficient as a GPU.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This seems real scary. "Give us your wallet address, email, and a password, then let us run a bitcoin miner for everyone that hits your page that may magically cash out any where."

Mmm... Although if it's legit I'd use it, but only if it's open source.

<comment><USER25> Just make a bitcoin wallet for this sole purpose, if they steal it then it won't be that bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Reminded me of the Unoceros team, and their SDK (currently in Alpha): [http://unoceros.com/](http://unoceros.com/)

The idea is "make money with your phone, in the background."

</comment><comment><USER27> This will bring to your business $0.0001 /per month. Or less.

Sign up here....

</comment><comment><USER28> So how many live clients would you need to mine 0.1 bc/day?

<comment><USER29> 5 million, given present work factor and 20khashes/s per client.

<comment><USER30> For what time duration?

<comment><USER31> 1 day? I think it was mentioned in OP in the form of 0.1bc/day. If someone big like cnn.com integrates this js code, you might make $20 a day. I still think adsense has better pay with that many viewers. One would need 5 million visitors to stay on your site for 24 hours. There are very few websites where people do that... maybe facebook/gmail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> 24 million hours at 20KH/sec nets you $6.80 at current difficulty and price.

</comment><comment><USER33> 20k hash rate is too low, even with 20k live clients.

</comment><comment><USER34> Now that's an efficient use of CPUs!

</comment><comment><USER35> related to the article's topic: anyone with a major interest in the security/robustness of Bitcoin miners, please contact me. email in my profile here.</comment>


MultiView - <AUTHOR> http://www.bitgravity.com/interactive/ <comment><USER2> Two _guys_ on a couch may not be the ideal use for this technology.

<comment><USER3> I heard rumors that the porn industry had uses for this.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I should have elaborated instead of making it sound snarky. I remember reading that when DVDs came out, there was an option for multiview. I've never seen that option in any of the DVDs I've watched, even though it was supported. Watching this reminded me of that.</comment></comment></comment>


Free eBook – Learn to build a paywall with serverless, next.js and sanity.io - <AUTHOR> I've been playing around with serverless a lot lately. I love the fact I can build any idea that comes to my head, while hosting it for free and test if the idea has a market.
So, I decided to write an ebook on how to build a paywall using netlify functions, nextjs and sanity.io (data storage). Think of this as a gumroad replacement.
I'm giving this ebook away for free, well for a twitter follow. That's it. Check it out at https://app.creatorsgate.com/products/build-a-paywall-and <comment><AUTHOR> [https://app.creatorsgate.com/products/build-a-paywall- and](https://app.creatorsgate.com/products/build-a-paywall-and)</comment>


Winning words: the language that got Donald Trump elected - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2016/nov/11/winning-words-the-language-that-got-donald-trump-elected <comment><USER2> Trump groked persuasion, while Clinton hired him (Robert Cialdini) as a consultant & still couldn't get out of her own way.</comment>


PyCon SG 2013 Call for Proposals - <AUTHOR> https://pycon.sg/proposals/ We are inviting for proposals for talks and tutorials for the first PyCon Singapore Conference, to be held from June 13 to 15, 2013. <comment><USER2> The website needs updating:

"Note: The submission deadline for proposals for talks and tutorials is April 1, 2012"

<comment><USER3> Nice catch! Fixed that :)

<comment><USER4> Whoa that was fast, thanks Victor :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I know this isn't quite the place to ask, but is there any Singapore HNer out there willing to take a self-taught Rails neophyte under their wing? I have a site running but would like some proper experience and exposure to best practices.

(I'm also signed up for RedDotRubyConf already)</comment>


It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission - <AUTHOR> http://bemmu.posterous.com/its-easier-to-ask-for-forgiveness-than-it-is

<comment><USER5> There are quite a few things about the Japanese regulatory state which are like this, so much so that half of the reason to have a lawyer/accountant/行政書士(+) is so that you can have someone with a good guess as to which rules are rules and which rules are more of suggestions (and, relatedly, someone to argue the point with the relevant office when they notice your paperwork is out of compliance with ministerial regulation 437 b) xvii).

I've had to sit through some _very_ amusing telephone calls to Tokyo while the local Social Security Office was apprised that, nope, Japan really _does_ occasionally sign treaties on the subject of taxes and "We can't help you with that" is in fact _not_ acceptable procedure when asked for the relevant documentation to secure one's status under the treaty. (I subsequently learned that there are roughly 400 natural people who apply for that treaty's benefits in the entire world and 399 of them use one of a handful of legal firms in downtown Tokyo.)

(+) for our American friends: a licensed form-filler-inner who are combination notaries, paralegals, and gophers who you can grant Power of Attorney to. For example, if you have a fairly straightforward visa situation, you could give one of them $2,000 and they'd prepare the relevant documents for you. (And, should the Ministry of Justice not agree that your situation is straightforward, everyone will politely pretend that "Really, are you _sure_ about that?" does not mean "Look, he was good for $2,000, how bad could he possibly be? We've been buddies since high school, do me a favor here.")

</comment><comment><USER6> This reminds me of my experience freelancing in 2009. In my effort to try to figure out how to claim my income, aka "do the right thing", I submitted a 1099-MISC form, which apparently was a grave error. Since then, I've been trying to convince the IRS that I submitted the form in error, all the while with them sending me increasing bills for taxes and penalties on income I didn't actually received. I just got another letter last week.

As it turns out, what I should have done was nothing. Instead of trying to figure out the proper, "by the book" procedure, I would have been much better off if I had either A) done nothing or B) just reported it as some kind of supplemental income on my 1040 or whatever.

The lesson I learned is that strict rules and procedures in any system that largely involves humans can usually be ignored, at least on the first pass. If you've missed something that's actually important, they'll let you know. Otherwise, everyone's better off leaving well enough alone.

<comment><USER7> If you freelance you should never do your own taxes. There are so many federal, state and city rules that could bite you that you aren't even aware of. And if you make a mistake (which you will), you saw what happens.

If I ever get elected president, I'd insist the tax code get smaller by 10% each year. If congress/senate can't figure that out then every item whose number ends in a particular digit would be automatically deleted (eg all ending in '3').

Over $12 billion is spent each year on tax preparation. That is a huge waste and there are many many better places for that to be spent.

<comment><USER8> Replacing income tax with a national sales tax and a prebate check seems like it would make living in the USA 13% better just by making April a less stressful month on the whole. (Yeah, I speak mostly in jest, but I'm referring to the so-called "fair tax" which I like despite not really being qualified to have an opinion about it).

<comment><USER9> > Replacing income tax with a national sales tax

Not in jest: This would be terrible for the poor and middle class and wonderful for the rich, which is the only reason you've ever heard of this cockamamie scheme.

The reason is that the poor and middle class need to spend a greater proportion of their income just to survive, whereas the richest can more-or- less sit on most of their money (in banks and other investments, to be sure) and still live like rich people. Taxing spending is therefore what's known as a 'regressive tax', in that it affects the poor more than the rich, as opposed to a 'progressive tax', which affects the rich more than the poor.

<comment><USER10> It's worth noting that the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, and almost every other western democracy finance very large chunks of their governmental expenditures via high consumption taxes. Most people agree that not only are they _not_ hellholes with the poor and middle class starving on the streets, but they're actually nicer places to be poor than the US. So while you're right that this would be a shift to a less progressive tax system, it's also clear that this isn't the whole story.

In fact, the progessivity of the tax system has very little impact on inequality. You can have a highly progressive system (like the US, which by some measures has the most progressive tax system of any first world country), or a relatively regressive system like most of Europe, and it just doesn't matter. In which case, anything to simplify the tax system in the US is probably a good idea.

Further, the "rich" in your example are able to easily evade most taxes. Consumption taxes - specifically if implemented as a VAT, as in Europe - <USER3> effectively impossible to dodge, even if you're very rich. You may not pay a lot as a percentage of your total income, but you will pay. The (nominally) highly progressive system in the US is unable to guarantee that.

(And in any case, as recursive pointed out, the prebate check would make the system arbitrarily progressive, undermining your entire complaint. Although personally, I'd favour just implementing a straight up European-style regressive VAT, and if you want to redistribute income, do it via welfare payments; that's what they're there for. And unlike tinkering with the tax code, they actually are _capable_ of effecting significant redistribution. Your entire argument seems predicated on the idea that the US tax code has something to offer that the typical European tax code does not. Will all due respect, I question this. The US tax code is a disaster, and US prosperity has been achieved in spite of it, not because of it.)

<comment><USER11> _Consumption taxes - specifically if implemented as a VAT, as in Europe - <USER3> effectively impossible to dodge_

Very funny. In fact, VAT is actually the easiest tax-dodge of all: just buy through a business and you can claim VAT relief, getting an effective 20% discount on everything. Say you are a graphic designer with your own Ltd company: you can now buy your Spider-Man DVDs, file them under "research expenses", and get 20% back (or whatever VAT is in your country). There are guidelines on what is acceptable, of course, but they are enforced only to a degree. Where they are strictly enforced, it's _exactly_ because the system itself is otherwise wide open for abuse by individuals.

As soon as your business is large enough and diversified enough, abuse cannot realistically be detected -- your 3-people agency will indeed need DVDs for research... and printers, iPhones, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers... most small- firm owners and CEOs never pay VAT, as simple as that. VAT is a tax on fixed- income employees, an incredibly regressive tool. Its popularity is yet another cause of the widening disparity between have and have-nots throughout the continent.

<comment><USER12> In Israel, who runs a european-style welfare state, you are supposed to only get the VAT relief on stuff your business sells forward (the idea being that VAT is only ever paid once on every item).

People still abuse this, claiming e.g. that the Spiderman DVDs used for "research" ended up inside the final product and thus qualifies for tax relief -- but if they audit you, that might not fly, and a VAT audit is one of the easiest way to get in real legal trouble.

<comment><USER11> Guidelines vary between countries, but when you move from classic trading/manufacturing to services, they simply cannot be applied literally -- i'll need my computer to make software, but i won't sell it over, and i'll get vat relief anyway; and obviously i'll need an ipad or three to test my website, etc.

This is why vat auditing is so ruthless: because it's routinely abused by everyone, so the enforcers have to be harsh to maintain a shred of credibility.

I'm not saying VAT is bad per se (it's just another tax), only that is a clever way to tax consumption by fixed-income employees in a regressive way, which is really not what you want if you're trying to make the system fairer for, er, those fixed-income employees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Bemmu, is your wife Japanese? I'm willing to bet that if you did an A/B test, with A=Bemmu and B=Bemmu's wife, you'd get more _yes_ answers with B.

(I'm aware that this might sound cynical to some, but it's pretty much common sense if you have lived in Japan for some time.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but I was trying not to jump to that conclusion as I have no particular reason to think that. It probably has more to do with the office she happened to visit, it was the same one that gave me a nonchalant "yeah, whatever" -answer before.

<comment><USER13> Ah, you hadn't said it was the same post office...

In any case, I'm not saying being Japanese is the only factor. But it's very likely a factor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Tangent:

The phrase "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission" is attributed to Grace Hopper[1], who developed the first compiler(!) and is credited with popularizing the term "debugging" for fixing computer glitches.

The phrase has always resonated with me and I was blown away to see that it originated with a pioneer in computer science.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper>

<comment><USER15> _and I was blown away to see that it originated with a pioneer in computer science_

And also, a woman. Like, the first programmer, IIRC (Ada Lovelace). It took a woman to first get us programming, and another one to write the first compiler.

Just a trivia to keep in mind.

<comment><USER16> IIRC, originally a "computer" was a term which referred to a (generally female) person, whose job was to feed numbers into an adding machine / calculator. So it makes sense that the first programmers would have been women; it was (is) a secretarial position of repetitive, mundane tasks below an idea-thinking boss-man.

That programmers are now ~90% male, is surely just further evidence that the tables are turning, and women will be running the world soon. jk (kinda)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Given that the postal workers seem to not have a clue about the proper protocol anyway, this is a gamble based on social engineering.

You're betting that the postal workers don't know or care enough to go against the book, and you're probably making their job easier anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> A pretty good gamble though, probably the worst that can happen is that I have to do what I was already doing anyway. You're right this makes their job easier, as they no longer have to deal with my constant requests to get more and more of those forms.

<comment><USER18> According to sods law, some helpful post office worker will very soon knock on your door holding a thousand or so of them :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why not print them using a font that looks like handwriting?

<comment><AUTHOR> I do print my signature on them, which is an actual scan of my signature.

<comment><USER9> > I do print my signature on them, which is an actual scan of my signature.

And this never seems to occur to people who think faxes are any more 'secure' than unencrypted email.

This, plus any of the 'send a fax from my PC' services or software, just never seem or occur to anyone who demands faxes for security reasons.

<comment><USER20> Handwritten signatures are a truly ridiculous form of verification.

<comment><USER21> Recently, I had to send in a number of forms via a PostIdent procedure in Germany. You have to sign an additional form and be present with your papers for verification in the Post Office.

There was a problem later on in the process - The signature I gave at the Post Office (produced in a crowded situation, under stress) did not match the one on the forms (6 pages, all individually signed in the comfort of my home). As a result, I was asked to re-send the 6 pages and have them match with my initial PostIdent signature. Not redo the process so all match - reproduce the PostIdent signature six times.

As this was in dealing with an online service, I could see exactly what those pages and their signatures looked like in my account and indeed, the PostIdent signature looked a lot different. It looked: _impossible to reproduce_.

Cutting the story short: I found myself having to _fake my own signature_ 6 times. I tried for about half an hour to reproduce my meaningless squiggles. I ended up taking a completely different route than using this service - <USER4> solely based on this problem, but hugely influenced by it.

That is to say: Yes, signatures truly are a ridiculous form of verification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The more I hear about your adventures with Candy Japan, the more I love it, even if the product is something that I would never be able to justify buying. (Replace candy with Gashapon–capsule toys–and I'd have a hard time not pulling the trigger).

<comment><AUTHOR> Random ones?

<comment><USER8> Well, maybe I should be careful what I wish for, but most of the ones I see are little robots or anime characters that tend to look cool and be well designed. But maybe only the neat looking ones make it to the places where I can find them in the states.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> well, everything that could have been done to resolve the situation was tried within reason. it would be an entirely different situation if the process was easy but no attempts were made to use it.

</comment><comment><USER23> "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission."

I used this technique to get three desks in two offices as an undergrad in uni (undergrads typically did not get any desks allocated at all). We were also given access to the postgrad labs and made use of the postgrad kitchen facilities (though we were careful not to get in the way of any of the actual postgrads and to leave it as we found it as we didn't want to be a burden to them).

</comment><comment><USER24> There are lots of these small regulations that are totally stupid and don't help anyone but no one bothers to change or remove them because it inconveniences only a small number of people.

That said, couldn't you get around it by printing them with a handwritten font (or even your own handwriting, scanned)?

That's what I do with any PDF form that needs to be hand signed and faxed - sign with a handwritten font, fax using an online service...

</comment><comment><USER25> I was so convinced by the title that this article would be about Path, permissions, and iPhone contact list scraping

</comment><comment><USER26> > Phone calls ensued

Pretty much what happened to me every time I sked a question in Japan. Extremely helpful people, even though some times the incompetence of the helper was too much to bear.

</comment><comment><USER27> "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission."

Possibly, but people who are constantly apologizing are usually annoying, manipulative, cloying, or insincere.

<comment><USER28> Psh! You only ask for forgiveness if someone says that you did something wrong. And, in the author's case, he hasn't had to ask for forgiveness yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Did anybody else think this article was about Facebook before clicking the link?</comment>


MySQL performance tuning between disk types - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cloud-benchmarks.org/2015/10/14/mysql-performance-tuning.html <comment><USER2> Good questions in the comments from Kristian Köhntopp.</comment>


Background on Futurist Programming (1994) - <AUTHOR> http://www.graficaobscura.com/future/index.html <comment><USER2> Despite being one of my favourite parts, I have yet to have the courage to implement the exercise in the notes:

"Remove all system files that haven't been accessed in the last 6 months. Ours works fine!"

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Additional notes: [http://www.graficaobscura.com/future/futnotes.html](http://www.graficaobscura.com/future/futnotes.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's unfortunate to see people commenting on this article mischaracterizing it as an attempt to create a "future of programming." You would think that reading the first line of the article, "Futurism is an Italian fine arts movement that was founded in 1909," would prevent such comments.

That said, I'm not a big fan of Futurism, although like anyone else, I've felt the urge to "burn our disk packs," and I think that might be healthy.

<comment><USER4> Are you commenting this in anticipation of MORE commentators that didn't read the article?

Right now there is only a single parent comment making the error you describe.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I was commenting to discourage further low-quality comments of that sort.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There have been so many such "lets make future of programming" initiatives and all of them have failed. That must tell you that something is really wrong with all these initiatives at a very fundamental level.

<comment><USER6> Because they're all trying to let people who can't program create programs.

<comment><USER5> There are no people "who can't program". There are only those who know how to program and those who don't know to program. Those who don't know can learn to program, just like any skill, by putting focused effort.</comment></comment></comment>


IE10 to send "Do Not Track" DNT header by default - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/05/31/advancing-consumer-trust-and-privacy-internet-explorer-in-windows-8.aspx?Redirected=true <comment><USER2> Mozilla's reaction: [http://blog.mozilla.org/privacy/2012/05/31/do-not-track- its-...](http://blog.mozilla.org/privacy/2012/05/31/do-not-track-its-the- users-voice-that-matters/)

"There are three different signals to consider in broadcasting the user's preferences for tracking:

      User says they accept tracking
      User says they reject tracking
      User hasn't chosen anything

Firefox defaults to state 3: we don't know what the user wants, so we're not sending any signals to servers. This causes the presence of the signal to mean more — the signal being sent should be the user's choice, not ours. Therefore, Firefox doesn't broadcast anything until our user has told us what to send."

<comment><USER3> >we don't know what the user wants

How about they ask their users on first install?

<comment><USER4> So everyone clicks "no" (or gets confused and asks a technical relative), Firefox always sends the DNT header, so no sites respect it.

<comment><USER5> >or gets confused and asks a technical relative

Isn't that a good thing for users to know about tracking? Firefox can always include some small popup help with the prompt explaining the DNT.

>so no sites respect it

But they will lose a big excuse(it's default) not to support it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a really bad idea. Most people don't change defaults -- the idea behind DNT is that the people who care about privacy can easily take steps to assure their own privacy. As long as businesses know that browsers sending the DNT header are sending it _intentionally_ , there's a chance that websites will respect it.

With this change, DNT becomes meaningless. How can businesses determine which users are OK with being tracked, and which are not? Since it's technologically easier to simply track everyone, and it makes good business sense to gather as many metrics as possible, businesses will simply argue that they can't respect a header that most people don't know/care about (since it was on by default). That makes things worse for the people who _do_ care about it.

<comment><USER7> I had the exact opposite feeling.

First, everybody cares about privacy. Just because businesses have taken advantage of users being clueless, doesn't mean those clueless people don't care about privacy.

Second, your "nobody knows about it" argument can cut the other way. How can a business track people when most people don't know/care that they can opt out of being tracked?

Nobody wants to mention it, but the truth is that if it were on by default, few people would turn off DNT once they knew what it was for.

I don't like MS, and I don't even own a computer that can run IE10, but I think this is a great idea.

<comment><USER8> I spent several years working for a marketing firm and based on my experience with the industry I would guess that there will be no adoption of honoring these tags if they are sent by default unless it becomes legally mandated.

<comment><USER7> Well there's really nothing Microsoft can do about that, is there?

It seems silly for marketing firms to tell everybody, "Oh yeah, we're totally serious about privacy and we'll honor DNT," and then backtrack when lots of browsers start sending it.

It's not Microsoft looking bad here.

<comment><USER8> Other than companies like Google most marketing companies couldn't give a shit about what you think of them as you aren't their customer. Additionally a lot of marketing companies would likely publicly get behind a DNT header when the recommendation is that browsers send "no preference set" by default. As soon as a browser vendor goes to default DNT the marketers support of the standard and honoring of it will go out the window as it's not in their interests to participate any longer.

The end result will be that Microsofts choice will result in everyone being tracked rather than only those people that have no preference set or have explicitly opted in.

A good example of companies not honoring a restrictive default is the P3P header. Damn near everyone sends a P3P header but most of them don't actually honor the settings from the header, or have the other components set up. It's all about getting third party cookies set successfully and not honoring how MS implemented P3P in IE or what the user wants.

<comment><USER7> It will be the marketing companies choosing to disregard the DNT headers and track everybody, not Microsoft.

Blaming it on Microsoft makes no sense.

<comment><USER8> Microsofts actions will have consequences, pointing out the consequences of their actions makes perfect sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Seems like a terrible idea. I think the vast majority of online marketing companies are very willing to let people opt-out of tracking [1], but people who haven't expressed a preference? If DNT header becomes the default for browsers then I predict ignoring DNT will become the default for ad networks.

[1] <http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp>

<comment><USER5> In that case I hope someone makes an extension that blocks ads from such networks by default.

<comment><USER4> How many people will install it that haven't installed Adblock Plus?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Oh wow, I haven't seen a page that destroyed by Chrome's default to not load insecure content like this one. <http://imgur.com/qfdqG>

<comment><USER11> I've seen worse. Agh, I can't find it now... but some Microsoft website for developers... can't remember which one though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The header isn't called "tracking permission", it's "Do Not Track", an explicit negative. Genius move on MS part though. By making DNT too detrimental for advertisers to implement, they ensure no one will implement it, which means they will also be able to ignore it.

<comment><USER13> Indeed. I seriously think this is a sly attempt at crippling DNT and boosting ad revenues (also, remember: Microsoft owns a significant stake in Facebook, whose "Like" beacons would be adversely affected by legislation regulating DNT).

As a bonus, they get to look like a modern, privacy-conscious, I've-got-your- back company while they're at it. From a business perspective, it's really smart.

Disclaimer: Used to work for Microsoft, though nothing web-related.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I like the idea of privacy-by-default, but I can't help thinking they're announcing it prematurely for the PR. It may even undermine voluntary adoption of the tag, since it no longer represents an explicit request not to track.

<comment><USER3> They just released a new version of IE10 preview and it's expected to go gold in about 2 months, so they're giving time for websites to prepare before releasing it.

>It may even undermine voluntary adoption of the tag, since it no longer represents an explicit request not to track

I think this is sort of like how Apple disabled third party cookies in Safari on the iPhone by default and then Google was caught circumventing it. It could end up in a PR nightmare for advertizing companies if they don't follow DNT requests, whether opt-in or opt-out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Isn't that kind of behavior just going to lead to websites ignoring it by default?

</comment><comment><USER16> This seems like an unfortunate case of Microsoft looking to what will be the standard several years from now - a good thing for most web technology, given their slow browser development speed. However, due to the politics and industry regulation that is still being decided, this will actually sway the direction of DNT and make it useless (as many users have pointed out here). There are two fundamental things to keep in mind:

1) There will always be ads on the internet. We are not moving to a direct pay internet economy anytime soon. 2) Behavior targeting is significantly more effective than other types of targeting including the context based approach heavily favored by privacy advocates. (See [http://idaconcpts.com/2011/04/13/behavioral-targeting- double...](http://idaconcpts.com/2011/04/13/behavioral-targeting-doubles-ad- effectiveness/)). Because of this, the advertising companies will find ways to keep doing behavior targetting - ranging from the benign like site retargetting to the more troubling association with private data.

DNT as an opt out solution is great because it allows people who probably won't click on ads to say they don't want them. Private users and advertising companies both win. But third party cookies exist for a reason and if they are removed from the equation then advertising companies will simply find another way.

</comment><comment><USER17> meaning nobody will honor it.

</comment><comment><USER18> If IE10 installer asked you this question: Do you want websites to track you? () Yes () No I think most people would say No. So, defaulting to No seems like the correct thing to do.

I don't know if that would really hurt Google or Facebook because if you have a google account, you are opted-in to have google or facebook track you.

It might hurt 'lurker' ad networks which track you without you even having any account or relationship with them.

<comment><USER19> And if waiters asked restaurant patrons if they wanted dihydrogen monoxide used in the cooking of their food, most people would say no. That doesn't mean we should stop cooking with water.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm not normally one for tinfoil-hat theories... but given that "online advertising" is basically synonymous with Google, how does this decision impact Google?

</comment><comment><USER21> From: <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/06/01/opt-in-opt-out>

"If "Do Not Track" defaults to on, most users will have it on; if it defaults to off, most users will have it off. Defaulting to off is no more a representation of "the user's voice" than defaulting to on is."</comment>


Ask HN: Android vs. iOS security? - <AUTHOR> Which one is recommended for better security and why? <comment><USER2> As the other comment mentioned, "Android" is not one thing the same way iOS is. But a reasonable simplification here is:

\- google phones (pixel line) is the baseline - you'll get there what you'd expect from the upstream docs

\- copperhead ([https://copperhead.co/android/](https://copperhead.co/android/)) is going way ahead of that with actual work at kernel level, extended selinux profiles, and more - but you lose the default app market by default (that's ok if you do want to have your own managed device)

\- every other OEM (whatever you can buy from the local provider) - they're going to be behind by design - they do custom addons on google releases, but no system-level development, so they can be at best as good as google devices (usually worse)

So when comparing, decide which level of Android support are you really after. Then there's the threat model: are you worried about random apps that you're going to try, or are you going to use a minimal selection from known companies and you mainly want to stop remote driveby exploitation via ads? Or are you looking for something that will be well protected from seizure and physical access?

</comment><comment><USER3> The Android world is extremely divided, and it very much depends on which phone you buy. There's this story recently: [https://www.wired.com/story/android-phones-hide-missed- secur...](https://www.wired.com/story/android-phones-hide-missed-security- updates-from-you/)

But there have been other problems in the past, for example that most Android phones are not encrypted by default.

</comment><comment><USER4> iOS. E.g. [https://techsolidarity.org/resources/basic_security.htm](https://techsolidarity.org/resources/basic_security.htm)</comment>


Rovio Employee Negotiations Concluded - <AUTHOR> http://www.rovio.com/en/news/press-releases/587/rovio-employee-negotiations-concluded <comment><USER2> I worked on Crush the Castle for Armor Games in the late 2000s. Angry Birds took the same game concept, added much cuter characters and art, and blew us out of the water with it. (No offense: we took it from someone else.) Now I feel kinda sad, kinda smug that their glory is fading a bit. Rovio seems to have forgotten the lesson that the greater your success, the more likely you are not to be able to repeat it. People tend to assume their best days are ahead, and thus expansion proves to be overexpansion when the best days turn out to be behind.

<comment><USER3> > Rovio seems to have forgotten the lesson that the greater your success, the > more likely you are not to be able to repeat it.

Well said.

Another way to look at it is if your company can grow very quickly from almost nothing, it's vulnerable to shrinking almost as quickly too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I guess they were not able to innovate enough. It was a good franchise, but it hasn't had the longevity of things like Minecraft or Halo.

Details:

[http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=angry%20birds%2C%20mi...](http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=angry%20birds%2C%20minecraft%2C%20clash%20of%20clans%2C%20halo&cmpt=q)

I wonder what they could have done differently? They sure licensed enough IP to create Star Wars, Rio, etc variants. They tried expanding into freemium racing games. I wonder if there was a way forward for them that they missed?

Q: How does this affect the Angry Birds movie expected in July 2016? [https://www.pehub.com/2014/08/angry-birds-creator-rovio- ceo-...](https://www.pehub.com/2014/08/angry-birds-creator-rovio-ceo-hed-to- step-down/)

<comment><USER5> Angry Birds had excellent design (Visually), something that has made both Rovio and King stand out.

I think Rovio just tried to monetize (and merchandize) too hard, in a way not fitting the mobile model. They should have tried to focus on growing horizontally and making the Rovio brand bigger than the Angry Birds brand.

<comment><USER6> They did try that by publishing apps under the Rovio Stars brand. None of the published apps became as big as Angry Birds though, so it was moot.

<comment><USER5> That's when you maybe reconsider hiring 800 employees behind the success of a single mobile game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This post was an opportunity to discover that Rovio had much more employee than what I expected.

Angry bird looks so much like one of those flash games you can create with a single coder and a single designer I never imagined they had more than 800 people now. I would have guessed a small dozen max...

<comment><USER8> I like how they never even gave money to the guy that built the physics engine powering their whole schtick. He only asked for a shirt--when they finally sent him one, it wasn't the one he'd asked for. Stay classy Rovio!

<comment><USER9> I didn't know you were supposed to pay for using free software. Regarding the color he didn't ask for anything, they just sent him a red one after which he said that he didn't like the color.

<comment><USER8> When you've made as much money as they did off of something that is largely a tech demo for somebody's free software project, I think it's only right to show your appreciation for that person--at least offering a well-paying job or fellowship or something. Otherwise, you're just being mooches.

<comment><USER9> Definitely but I'm pretty sure the maker of Box2D has no problem finding jobs. Would you really give money if you were Rovio? How much? Genuine question. Would you do the same for every author of free software you were using? I'm guessing that would be thousands of people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was wondering why they would need employee negotiations until I realized this was in Finland. In the US, you would come in one day to work and you badge would no longer work!

</comment><comment><USER11> the press release doesn't give much context to what this is about - why are they reducing headcount? what's the story here?

<comment><USER12> Inability to find / produce / buy another Angry Birds.

<comment><USER13> My kid and I would still be playing Angry Birds and he would still be asking for the merch this Christmas if I hadn't become extremely disgusted with the constant push to make in-app purchases and buy other apps. It's before, during and after every board, every retry. I stopped playing, encouraged him to play other things and I eventually removed it from all our devices, it hasn't been missed since. They should have stuck with a free app (no ads, no in-app purchases) and made money from merchandise. They had a good thing going with the Star Wars TelePods except after spending an embarrassing amount on the figures to scan in we still had to deal with ads to buy weapons and tools.

<comment><USER14> I never appreciated how awful the modern gaming environment was until I had a kid. For little kids in particular, it's incredibly difficult for them to deal with accidentally clicking the "buy X now" buttons and back out of the purchase process.

Personally, I shifted my son and nephews/nieces to old video game consoles. They love the NES, N64 and ColecoVision that we found in my parent's attic, and there's no nickel and diming within the games!

<comment><USER15> I can't get behind it, I prefer to pay 5-75$ upfront for a full game (depending on platform) and no in-game purchases.

If I can't play the whole game without in-game purchases, then it's not a game, it's an interactive ad. If on top of that I have to pay for the privilege of playing the ad, it's downright criminal.

(I'm excluding expansion-type DLC, I don't mind paying for more _optional_ content.)

<comment><USER11> it's unfortunate that the market has spoken - a studio earns more money doing IAP than traditional selling. I don't like IAP model either, but because it simply out-earns the old model, it's either do it or die for most studios.

I really wish more people would paid for a game the traditional way.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Negative subliminal messages work - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8274773.stm

<comment><AUTHOR> Official release: <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/notaware>

Some interesting points:

1\. "They were able to accurately categorise 66% of the negative words compared to 50% of the positive ones."

I'd have to see the accuracy on "neutral" images, but assuming equal distribution of positive/negative/neutral categorisation, you would expect a 33% response normally. However, if people tend not to categorise the words as neutral this would be closer to 50% on positive/negative.

2\. In 1974 despite no evidence that it worked the UN said it was a major threat to human rights</comment>