Blizzard Employees Staged a Walkout to Protest Banned Pro-Hong Kong Gamer - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/blizzard-employees-staged-a-walkout-to-protest-banned-pro-hong-kong-gamer <comment><USER2> The Internet's reaction to this has warmed my heart a little. Overwatch and Hearthstone are among my favorite computer games. I've certainly played more Overwatch than any other game. I have made real-world and online friends in Overwatch. I met my girlfriend in Overwatch.

It made me sad to have to throw all that away yesterday.

But the conversations we're having as a result of this is great. The mainstream media is talking about it. Congress is talking about it. We're going to have to ask ourselves: can we really let China have this much influence? Is it really worth it? (Remember: this is what Europe is asking about Silicon Valley with things like GDPR, and it's working out quite well for them.)

Banning someone from Hearthstone GM doesn't matter. But we are heading down a path where we decide what our values are, and they're looking pretty good.

<comment><USER3> It's interesting to see people give up Blizzard games, but still continue supporting companies like Apple that do far worse, like effectively giving the keys to iCloud to China. I think the conversation is great, and maybe now we'll actually reconsider what the TPP's goal was. But in the end, the people picked money first, so it shouldn't be a surprise when businesses do this as well.

<comment><USER4> I'm sad to see you downvoted. Its frustrating to me too when a company like Apple champions human rights in the USA then hands over the management of iCloud to China.

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT208351)

<comment><USER5> The juicy parts from the Legal Agreement for folks in China using iCloud:

> E. Access to Your Account and Content

> We reserve the right to take steps we believe are reasonably necessary or > appropriate to enforce and/or verify compliance with any part of this > Agreement. You acknowledge and agree that we may, without liability to you, > access, use, preserve and/or disclose your Account information and Content > to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or a third party, > as we believe is reasonably necessary or appropriate, if legally required to > do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, > or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or > request; (b) enforce this Agreement, including investigation of any > potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address > security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or > safety of GCBD, its users, Apple, a third party, or the public as required > or permitted by applicable law. You understand and agree that Apple and GCBD > will have access to all data that you store on this service, including the > right to share, exchange and disclose all user data, including Content, to > and between each other under applicable law.

<comment><USER6> mind blown meme levels of wtf.

They sleep at night with the sad belief that because they hand it over to the Chinese and don't do it themselves it's all fine...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As much as I want to think change will happen, it's much more likely this will be a few weeks of PR and ultimately nothing will change.

For something to change people have to vote with their wallets. In this context that means cancelling subscriptions or dropping games they are already playing in favor for ones by competitors with better integrity, and I don't see that happening.

Diablo players could go to Path of Exile, its closest competitor, but that game is massively invested into China as well and partially owned by Tencent.

Warcraft RTS players represent a small market right now with almost no microtransactions or ongoing revenue.

WoW players have alternatives, but not many I am aware of that aren't heavily Chinese based as the MMORPG category is dominated by Chinese companies like Perfect World.

Starcraft players don't have a lot of alternatives as SC has dominated the esports and highly polished RTS category for over 5 years with the same game. The closest competitor would be Age of Empires or Warhammer, I'm not sure how much influence China has over them, but they are different types of RTS games.

Heroes of the Storm players can go to Dota or LoL. LoL being owned by China and Dota being owned by Valve with strong Chinese market involvement.

More alternatives are needed IMO.

<comment><AUTHOR> A common albeit reductive meme around the entire controversy is that Blizzard games were already declining in popularity (especially Starcraft and HotS) so it's easy to boycott them.

Path of Exile is an interesting case as I know a lot of Diablo players went there since Diablo III is effectively on life support (including myself), but the resurfacing of the Tencent ownership news is causing ethical complications: [https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/df5zx7/anyone_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/df5zx7/anyone_else_suddenly_worried_about_ggg_censoring/)

<comment><USER8> I think the good will that Blizzard earned with their early games has been eroding for a long time. They did, legitimately, used to have enormous community good will. I can think of two ways that's eroded:

(1) Blizzard's early games earned huge amounts of goodwill by enabling players to mod them. The map editor of Warcraft and the UI mod-ability of WoW let people build entire communities around modded content (DotA, for example!). To my knowledge games after Starcraft II have largely lacked anything resembling this kind of functionality (please correct me if I'm wrong). Hearthstone, HotS, Diablo 3, and Overwatch all have 100% of their content locked down from the top down. I don't think the contribution of mods to the longevity of Blizzard's early titles can be overstated, and I'm confused why they haven't kept up that spirit.

(2) Blizzard has had a long string of eyebrow-raising failures to foster the competitive gaming scene, which they've been tone-deaf on since at least Starcraft II. They pulled the cord entirely on HotS after getting the game into great shape, the kept the Overwatch meta unbelievably stale for years, the Hearthstone Grandmaster League has been a joke on multiple fronts (in addition to an objectively stupid format decision for the first season, they insist on reserving seats in their flagship tournament for popular streamers rather than top players, resulting in some just... awful games). In general they try to retain far too much control and stifle anything they feel inconveniences them.

Add to that (3) a string of jaw-droppingly bad community management moves ("you think you want that"... Diablo for mobile...) and (4) Activision looming like an insect and (5) lots of Bizarre changes to games to appease Blizzard China

I don't know, I used to perceive Blizzard as a good steward for games. Now I don't think the game makers have that degree of control over the company's decisions, or their priorities have changed.

So it doesn't surprise me that people were as quick to kick them to the curb as they were. It would have 10 years ago, but not today.

<comment><USER9> You're right, the goodwill has been eroding for this lifelong fan. I adored Starcraft: Brood War, it was great to play online even over dial-up and relatively well balanced (though looking back I think that was mostly by accident) and as you say it had a great mod scene when you wanted to take a break from serious competition.

I didn't particularly like the shift to heroes, creeps, and semi-3D in Warcraft 3, but that's a personal opinion.

Then they hit me with Diablo 3 -> Starcraft 2 -> Hearthstone. Diablo 3's faults are well documented, it's apparently in a good place now but that ship has sailed for me. Starcraft 2 just didn't feel good to play for me. The snappy control and clean sprites of SC:BW was replaced with muddy 3D visuals and slow turning 3D models. And Hearthstone was fun, but they dialed up the RNG to entice casual players and make streams exciting. It got annoying to keep rolling the dice - both when opening packs and in the game (Dr Boom anyone?).

It took a while but eventually I realised their spark and magic was gone. They're just another AAA developer that I mostly ignore now.

<comment><USER10> I experienced the loss of that "spark and magic" in games twice in my lifetime.

The first time with Japanese console games, sometime during the PlayStation/2 era. There was something of a golden age on the way to mastery of 2D in the 1990's. I'm talking about the craftsmanship, the attention to minute details, the cognitive approach in designing difficulty and progression and outright "fun" games playing on our senses etc. The ingenuosity of some RPG systems, etc.

All that gradually took a back-seat as 3D was emphasizing visuals and "shiny" replaced "smart", "realistic" replaced "immersive".

The second time was with Blizzard, in very comparable ways — when you go back to the basics, how characters move and behave, how actually fun it is to press a button over and over, etc. Things that make some games absolutely stellar and others garbage and you just can't know until you try your hands on it for some time.

Needless to say I don't bother with most AAA today. (not that I game a lot if at all)

<comment><USER9> Yes the shift to 3D was absolutely a mixed bag. It is simply so much more work to make a 3D world, from level design to art. It enables some genres and games to exist (something like Monster Hunter: World just wouldn't be the same, and while Dark Souls is similar to Zelda and Metroid it also gains a lot from 3D) but it just diverts so many resources.

A common complaint about the open world trend is that environments feel bland, sparse, and copy-pasted. There is a lack of that hand-crafted attention to detail you mention when compared to something like Hollow Knight with beautiful backgrounds and precise control.

<comment><USER10> Oh totally agreed on the diversion of resources, and even before the machine (skills hired, teams divisions etc).

However open worlds, imho, pose challenges but not to the extent that it explains or excuses the lack of 'basic' low-level (physiological almost) engagement. It's a different problem I think, e.g. consider the 'blandness' of a typical NES or early PC world, and yet how engaging some titles managed to be. That's what I'm talking about. Sure, visuals help immersion (so a great open world may help, a bland one may deter), but this is at another, higher level than controls.

For instance, even in 3D, I remember having more fun "farming" in old-school ugly MMOs — up to and including WoW 1.x — than in later very "rich" worlds. The problem is so basic: for instance, visual feedback not perfectly timed to provoke "satisfaction" or a "reward" feeling, but rather feels frustrating and/or working _against_ me (the worst feeling ever in a game, when the part that's _yours_ — e.g. feedback, hitpoints — seems rigged or not fair or simply deceitful / obfuscated).

I remember reading Square Enix devs for FFXIV that "yes, boss X is essentially 'cheating' but that's because hollywood experience! better this way!"... — err, no, sorry, not ever was a game better because your opponent is visibly unfair — hasn't anyone learned from Metal Gear. This was the day I knew I just couldn't keep playing the game, it would never be satisfying to me because of its design philosophy.

As a friend in game dev at Capcom explained to me once, player controls is a very tedious work of finding the "ideal" timing windows and key combinations / orders that just make it "fun", subjectively. It's a lot of back-and-forth between code and testing some alpha — hundreds of times over a typical day. It's almost biological in nature, like good music. And stupid loads of time + great tooling are paramount to do this job well — one reason PlayStation SDKs are so appreciated in the industry ever since day 1, 1994; a polar opposite to Nintendo's for instance (I hear they got better, but look no further to explain 'lack of third-party support' on many of their platforms).

Controls may be "precise" but above all need to be predictable, learnable — like Sonic has always been 'sloppy', unlike Mario, but this ties in well with his speed (hence inertia) and persona (go-getter), and it's a small learning curve for players, but one that sets 'experienced' players appart. A great "sloppy" implementation, nonetheless precise mathematically.

I definitely have to check out Hollow Knight, though!

Sorry for a long piece, it's one of my 'truths' in game 'quality'. Note that this is all good advice to design UI in general for any kind of software — especially the timing of action, feedback, effect on events. There's a way — through testing — to make it all just 'flow' 'naturally' and with a weirdly 'satisfying' feeling.

<comment><USER9> Yes game feel is hard to quantify sometimes. There have been games that on paper I should adore, but in practice I struggled to enjoy. Bastion and Hyper Light Drifter are two - beautiful presentation, but the controls and gameplay feel just didn't click for me personally.

I play FFXIV and I'm not sure what the quote is referring to but in general I think it has a very good feel. They made a conscious choice to decouple animations from hits, meaning they can go nuts with extensive and flashy animations but your job is to just not be in the ground AOE marker when it vanishes - if you didn't get out in time you are hit, regardless of how long the following animation takes or whether you've walked a few steps since. This has a learning curve and confuses new players so should be explained better, but it makes for snappier gameplay and tighter movement patterns at the higher skill levels once you get it. Top raids are very much a dance of positioning, movement, and maximising uptime, which I enjoy a lot.

To the contrary (referring to ugly old MMOs) I also enjoyed FFXI and that was anything but quick and precise, the battle log itself was delayed and sluggish and abilities only came out every few minutes if you weren't a caster. I'm not sure what it was, but I think it was that feeling of overcoming a challenge in a group (or the challenge of just finding a group!) and the ability to break the rules by beating enemies with 2 skilled people instead of a full group. I revisited it recently and still mostly enjoyed it, so it's not just a case of it being the best we could do back then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> By far the most egregious example of western firms working with China are management consulting companies like McKinsey that work directly with governments on expensive contracts, including of course China.

I mean, in those cases they are often writing the playbook for the government when it comes to implementing certain policies. Crazy that is even legal for a western firm.

<comment><USER12> That's a really good point and not one I had considered in the context of everything that's happened recently.

McKinsey has been involved with a lot of bad stuff internationally over the last decade or two. Monitor's work with Gaddafi was also really gross. There's an odd dichotomy though - the ex-McKinsey employees I know personally and work closely with are all very thoughtful, ethical people.

<comment><USER11> A lot of good, decent human beings justify doing awful things in their day job. Wasn't there just a post on here a few days ago about someone who worked at Capital One writing about how everyone working there justified getting poor people deeper in debt?

<comment><USER13> FWIW, most McKinsey employees won't be doing anything immoral. In fact it's perfectly cool to turn down assignments for personal ethics. E.g. not wanting to work for a gas company, even if the specific task doesn't have any moral implications.

<comment><USER11> Immorality is subjective. McKinsey is hired to (maximize|minimize) some objective. The fact someone didn't want to work on the Purdue Pharma opioid marketing project when McKinsey employs a fungible pool of thousands of consultants means nothing.

<comment><USER13> I don't really think that contradicts anything I said

<comment><USER11> Just because you choose not to work on a project due to personal reasons doesn't free you of the unethical or immoral things the company you chose to work for does. And if you actually believe it does then it only supports the argument that these firms have found a way to act immorally in the pursuit of fees while making sure their staff don't become too demoralized. They know there will always be someone to take on the work because the workforce is highly fungible so they don't care either way, and if anything makes them look compassionate to their employees which benefits them.

<comment><USER13> Conversely, just because a few people do a bad thing does not characterize the moral stature of a large decentralized organization. Sometimes, bad decisions are made. That doesn't mean the day to day is one that makes the world worse, both in fact and in personal perspective.

The Purdue thing was really bad. That's acknowledged. Nobody is happy about it. Plenty of work has been done pro bono to combat the opioid crisis even prior to the realization of what had happened. I have worked at other places and I legit feel comfortable saying that relative to most American businesses, the firm is not an evil purely profit maximizing machine. Most people's day to day is benign and well intended and you can just straight up talk to people about it because people are interested in such things.

tldr: while I fully recognize bad things have happened I would say that on average McKinsey is more morally self conscious than your average us company. Take it as you will

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If Hong Kong becomes a Palestine-style cause celebre it will be bad for China.

China is trapped. They are stuck with this democratic appendix attached to a communist body. China can't keep Hong Kong under a democratic system as they have zero understanding of democracy. But if they try to repress it they risk endangering China's relationships with the rest of the world. They made a mistake thinking they could transform a democratic territory into a communist one without any consequences.

<comment><USER15> It's worth pointing out that today's China is communist in name only. They literally arrested the president of Peking University's Marxist society on ideological grounds: [https://news.yahoo.com/china-arrests-marxist-student- leader-...](https://news.yahoo.com/china-arrests-marxist-student-leader- celebrating-maos-birthday-005941312.html)

China in 2019 is a simple fascist dictatorship.

Edit: Fixed a broken link

<comment><USER16> > China in 2019 is a simple fascist dictatorship.

Maybe the community could help me to understand whether this is accurate?

<comment><USER17> Consider Eco's writing on Ur-Facism: [http://www.interglacial.com/pub/text/Umberto_Eco_- _Eternal_F...](http://www.interglacial.com/pub/text/Umberto_Eco_- _Eternal_Fascism.html) and note that the apologia for the Chinese government by the owner of an NBA team focused heavily on point 8 (for example).

The CCP has long ago abandoned ideas of collective ownership; China has many very wealthy individuals whose wealth is private.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I cancelled my blizzard account as soon as I heard this news.

I doubt I'll renew - since the root cause is unlikely to be fixed with any PR expedient move at this point. They have shown the world where their true nature lies - and it ain't good. Cancel yours if you have them...

</comment><comment><USER15> And still no (American) statement from Blizzard. Whoever runs their PR team is getting fired, if they haven't been already.

<comment><USER19> ... or is currently being held in check by management, who has absolutely no idea how to spin this yet.

Can't march with no marching orders.

<comment><USER15> Generally it's the PR department that figures out how to spin things

<comment><USER20> True, but Execs will gatekeep the final review and approval for larger responses and campaigns.

<comment><USER21> This shouldn't be hard though. Execs shouldn't think "we should maximize shareholder value while following the law". Execs should think "what will I wish I had done when I'm 90". Does it really hurt _that_ much to tell your shareholders "we think it's the right thing to stand up for democracy and human rights even if it means we are bennes from China and our profits are halved".

<comment><USER22> As much as I'd like execs to do that, I think it is actually hard. The board, made up of investors and other stakeholders, have a lot of power too. Execs can tell shareholders that they want to stand up for human rights, but shareholders can also tell execs to stand up for human rights somewhere else (ie. they get fired; execs can be fired too).

<comment><USER21> I should have been more clear: I expect execs to choose what's right even if it means they do get fired at the first difficult choice. I mean "I need my job" or "what we are doing is legal" isn't an excuse.

<comment><USER23> I think this is naive.

Expecting a corporation's officers to enforce moral corporate behavior will generally lead to disappointment. Only law or the market will impose morality and ethical behavior on a corporation. This is by design.

<comment><USER21> > Only law or the market will impose morality

Yes. To be even more clear, when I say "I expect" I mean I'll not purchase products/services unless they do what I expect. I firmly do believe that people should be held to high moral standards - it's not ONLY a question of laws+market though. There are other pressures available. For example, I think NBA execs should be publicly shamed in this case. Right now they are mostly faceless.

This is one segment of a market expecting a compoany to not insult their national pride, and another segment of the market expecting the same company to not infringe on freedoms.

When I say I "expect" NBA, Blizzard etc to leave money on the market it's because I _hope_ that enough people will feel that way, so the market sorts it. I don't think you need to have a number boycotting NBA or Blizard to equal the size of the chinese market - I think moral and ethics actually plays a part once the backlash from the "good" part of the market is big enough, even if it isn't as large as the Chinese market.

<comment><USER23> That makes sense! I find myself agreeing with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Somewhat tangential: Is there a website that tracks companies which do not have Chinese investors and does not use Chinese manufacturing in their supply chain?

I'd like to try to avoid giving money to China, but they are so ingrained into the American economy I'm not sure how to do this in practice.

<comment><USER25> Yeah I'm in the market for a new memory foam mattress and being made in China is non starter. I'd also love to see a website like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Now, a protest by "a dozen to 30" employees is unlikely to change Blizzard policy, even with the public backlash. While employees staging walkouts could actually hamper Blizzard's ability to make money, when each employee is individually up to the whims of the larger company, they may face negative repercussions and many, out of fear of reprisals, don't protest in the first place.

That's why we need unions in the software industry. Via collectivized action, the power differential between employer and employees is leveled. This is not only about collective bargaining, being able to enforce adequate labor standards (e.g. no/less/compensated "crunch" time), but also about being able to force company policy. If the majority of employees would strike/walk out and any negative repercussions against individuals would be met with more strikes, Blizzard would very quickly change.

<comment><USER24> Sounds like a great time to 'accidentally' break production

<comment><USER27> Sounds like a great time to 'deliberately' get fired

<comment><USER24> Just need to be sure they can't prove it was malicious in court

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> >The demonstration's numbers fluctuated throughout the day, the two employees said, ranging from a dozen to 30, and the protesters departed sometime in the late afternoon.

So less than 1% of the company? Not trying to minimize the issue here but let's also not make events sound bigger than they really are.

<comment><USER29> In the same vein, let's say there are only 400k people online showing outrage at this. That's less than 0.01% of the world's population. Now weigh this ratio against the violation of human rights, police violence, ethnic cleansing and organ harvesting, and ask your question again.

Thinking that numbers is all that matters is the same as valuing $$$ over morals, which is what this is all about.

<comment><USER28> You're making a strawman argument about morals, which is not in the same vein as what I said. My point was this piece was sensationalized.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Free Tibet never seemed to be controversial here in the US, makes me wonder why supporting Hong Kong is.

<comment><USER31> Because it started in the eighties and we didn't have Reddit to make shitposts about it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/dfmgst/oc_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/dfmgst/oc_a_quick_look_at_todays_reddit_storm/)

I remember it being mentioned in the "Work rules" book by that Google guy. They had a desert in their canteen called "Free Tibet Goji-Chocolate Creme Pie..." in the canteen. They said "well, the food is free, and the berries come from Tibet, so ..." Trying to be cheeky. But several people threatened to quit over this, and they had a huge discussion on the internal mailing list with over 1300 replies. The chef who created it got suspended, and then people got worried because of the chilling effect that this would have on free speech. Eventually the suspension was reversed. Very dramatic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> WOW classic is ramped in English realms tonight - coincidence ? much!

</comment><comment><USER33> I can't verify this but a video game YouTube channel I subscribe to has reported that the following statement was released on Chinese social media by Blizzard representatives:

"We are very angered and disappointed at what happened at the event and do not condone it in any way. We also highly object the spreading of personal political beliefs in this manner. Effective immediately we've banned the contestant from events and terminated work with the broadcasters. We will always respect and defend the pride of our country."

If true, the Chinese side of Blizzard is anti-Western values and the US corporate side is ultimately responsible for allowing the situation to happen.

As the US/China trade war drags on, as the HK protests continue, I think US corporations will have to choose between profits or values. Some brands and reputations will be reinforced, others--like Blizzard--will take a massive hit.

</comment><comment><USER34> Boycotting Blizzard is easy and achieves almost nothing.

Boycotting Chinese products on the other hand...

<comment><USER24> Is there a website that helps consumers identify brands that do not have Chinese investors and don't use Chinese manufacturing in their supply chain?

<comment><USER35> I thought buycott would have this as a trending campaign but I couldn't find it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > Protesting Blizzard employees from multiple departments gathered at an > iconic statue of an Orc warrior charging into battle in the center of the > company's main campus in Irvine, California

The link says the statue that was made in China, heh.

</comment><comment><USER37> So, basically, 3 people walked out? If they're anything like most corporations the majority of their workers are contractors.

</comment><comment><USER38> > "Doing business in China, it's been easier to ignore the authoritarianism of > the government because they were asking us to do things like remove a > skeleton [from a game]," he said.

It looks like China learned nothing from the USSR (or from their own Great Leap Forward, for that matter). Escalation is not going to go their way. Hawkish members of the CCP are going to blow the whole thing up.

This is much bigger than Activision-Blizzard and it's clear that Western companies are going to have to pick a side soon. There's a very salient conflict between Wall Street and the Classical Liberal underpinnings of our modern democracies. As it stands right now, this is going to get worse before it gets better. Is anyone worried about the HKD/USD peg falling?

<comment><USER39> Wall Street has nothing to do with it.

[https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that-tencent- has-...](https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that-tencent-has-invested- in/)

<comment><USER38> I'm not sure if I agree. "Expansion in Chinese markets" seems to be a staple of quarterly earnings reports.

<comment><USER39> Do you see companies that _aren 't_ partially owned by Chinese interests doing things like this?

Admittedly I'm not fully up to speed on the situation, but I doubt Blizzard would have taken this action without considering Tencent's influence.

<comment><USER40> > without considering Tencent's influence

At 5% ownership, Tencent doesn't have the muscle to force Blizzard to do anything it wouldn't have already done of its own volition.

<comment><USER41> Activist investors often have less than 10% stakes in the companies they're trying to institute changes in. 5% is not a meaningless amount to hold.

<comment><USER42> Agreed, but Epic Games, which is 40% owned by Tencent, is now claiming it won't do what Blizzard did:

[https://www.insider.com/epic-unlike-blizzard-wont-ban- player...](https://www.insider.com/epic-unlike-blizzard-wont-ban-players- talking-politics-hong-kong-2019-10)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Freedom is always more important than money. Shame on these greedy companies

</comment><comment><USER44> I figured it out!

Why are we so up in arms about this? Why not before this?

Well, because we were insulated from China's behavior. Their heavy handed approach only affected their own citizens. They jailed their own citizens, but not Americans, not other people.

We got our supply chain from them and they gave us what we wanted, so we're good.

However! _Now_ China's tyranny is leaking out of China. It's getting into arenas where _we_ are. You could have been playing that game. _You_ could have said something that offended China -- maybe without even knowing it.

Plus, they are in our IoT devices, our iphones, our cameras. China is watching and controlling _us_ now. They are restricting _our_ access to games -- not just their own people.

The culture and rules of countries don't exist solely within the borders of that country.

This is new for Americans. It's not new for the rest of the world. What USA wanted, USA got.

Now, what China wants, China gets -- even if it's not what _we_ want.

<comment><USER45> Now here's a thought ... could video games and entertainment be tools for generating change in countries?

Could every game developer and internet service pulling their services from China completely compel the population to try to change their regime?

I know if suddenly my entertainment was taken away I would flip my shit if it was my government that was responsible.

Edit : To offset potential cost to companies, could this behavior be subsidized by _our_ government?

<comment><USER44> _Interesting!_

It's certainly subsidized by _China_ , so yes.

Continuing your thought. In the past, wars were fought physically by _damaging_ the opponent. We are at a place in history where we can fight not with fists and bullets, but with _entertainment_.

Like national rap battles.

Wars were fought over _resources_ : water, oil, food. Now they are fought over games, movies, ... _products_.

Instead of war winners being those who can inflict the most _harm_ on the opponent, maybe now we can shift that into the winner being the most _entertaining_.

This _could_ be a good thing.

<comment><USER42> >We are at a place in history where we can fight not with fists and bullets, but with _entertainment_.

Not sure if sarcastic or genuine, but er... you know that this used to be called "soft power"? As in America used to have all this soft power and made the whole world worship how awesome American life is? Like, even Rammstein sang about how "we all live in Amerika / Amerika ist wunderbar"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I just got some faith back in Blizzard. It was lost.

<comment><USER47> I don't know why "a small group of Activision Blizzard employees" would do anything to change your "faith" in the company as a whole.

Wake me up when their C-suite staff and board of directors "walk out" or make a meaningful public statement.

<comment><USER48> from the looks of it (they shut down their whole subreddit for a while) their pants are a shade of brown right now. they're in a damned-if-you-do damned-if- you-don't situation and that's what the one of the comments here is alluding to by saying that they have to pick a side. there isn't going back to business as usual after this now, though they'll sure try before Chinese new years. we'll see how the bigger picture will look like in a couple of weeks.

google was there a few years ago, i can't imagine their COs aren't grateful for dodging the bullet right now.

<comment><USER49> Just a slight correction, the subreddit has no affiliation with Blizzard, one of their mods went rogue and made it private, but it's open now and mods are in full support of the Hong Kong movement.

<comment><USER48> thanks for the correction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> This is probably not going to be a popular opinion here, but I wonder if any folks have considered what it looks like on the China side? Specifically, you are in China, and the HK protestors want _what_ to happen to China?

You have HK protesters waving American and British flags. These are the countries that have started wars all over, in the last 70 years since the end of WWII, ostensibly to promote democracy, and everywhere this happens there is chaos and destruction.

Add to that, China's cultural history of being invaded and exploited by various foreigners whenever it was weak or divided, and what happened to Russia in the 90s after democracy and neo-liberal capitalism were introduced, and you don't really have a good story here.

So, imagine then, you are in China, and the HK protestors sound like they want _what_ for China?

The popular notion is that China would become a place friendly to Western ideals if it became successful. But even here, the West – and in particular, the US/UK – doesn't "get" China. Whatever is said here, China will bypass the US/UK, for practical purposes. But in any case, it is not as if they are representative of the West as a whole, nor can they claim to have a better human rights record – or equality record – or a fairer society.

<comment><USER51> I'm Chinese and can say some words explaining the perspective from where I sit. I don't think memory of historical wrongs lie at the root of Chinese reactions. They may be the reasons most commonly given, but I don't think it's psychologically operative for most Chinese people. (This as following partly from introspective observation as a Chinese, and partly from the general principle against giving much credence to reasons given in explaining one's own actions and attitudes.) I think what lies at the root of Chinese reactions is simply the perception that the all the noble moral condemnations from the West do not feel _genuine_ at all, that they do not feel like they come from the noble place they purport to. There are so many alternative explanations of what really lies behind these moral condemnations (e.g. that they really come from a place of self-interest (the Plaza Accord theories are very popoular here), from bias and hostility, from a malevelant intention to do harm, or simply from the desire to find someone to blame) and --- I hope this is something even an American can agree with --- the West has done very very little, nothing even, by way of ruling out those explanations for China. It simply repeats the moral condemnations. It's hard not to see this as showing either gross arrogance (I don't need to prove anything to _you_ ) or that one of those explanations really is true.

We can all agree that if someone criticizes us morally we should examine our behavior, so we can do better. However, what if you have reasonable suspicion that ulterior motives lie behind the critic's "criticism", that the critic is doing this only because he stands to profit from it somehow at your expenses, and that the critic doesn't really believe in the noble ideals he purport to believe in? Are you to give in to such a person so that he can get what he wants?

<comment><USER24> Freedom of speech is a core moral principle in the United States: it is literally the first right enshrined in our constitution and for good reason.

I believe much of the recent moral outrage stems from China (and Chinese companies on their behalf) using the financial threat of lost profits to force American businesses to self-censor in ways that do not uphold this value.

Allowing totalitarian censorship of unpleasant truths like Tiananmen Square and organ harvesting of political prisoners gives governments the ability to continue committing similar atrocities in the future. If you look at American political discourse that is critical of the government, a significant portion of it is related to similar government suppression of information that prevents the public holding government officials responsible for the atrocities they commit: see Abu Ghraib, Wikileaks Collateral Murder, Bay of Pigs, Snowden revelations, current Trump whistleblower crackdown, etc.

I would strongly encourage you to read Orwell's 1984 if you can access it: it is somewhat superlative and dated, but artfully illustrates the danger to personal freedoms that can result from totalitarian government control of discourse.

<comment><USER51> Of course I'm aware that freedom of speech is in the US constitution. It is in the Chinese Constitution as well. My point is that just as you hold genuine doubts about the level of sincerity behind this second fact I gave, most Chinese harbor just as genuine doubts about the level of sincerity behind the first fact you gave.

There are rarely any self-consciously unjust wars. Throughout history, all wars have been justified on moral grounds (including the Nazi invasion of Poland). Doing bad things in the name of morality is extremely common. Why is the Chinese not allowed to wonder whether this description fits current US behavior? (By many American's own admission, it fits American behavior towards the Japanese during the 70s and 80s)

<comment><USER24> You have every right to your opinions, and I vouched this (then [dead]) reply because I do not think you should be censored, despite being skeptical of your argument.

I'm glad you are suspicious of the US, that is a healthy emotion to feel when you are on the weaker side of a power imbalance. I am also suspicious that the US intelligence apparatus may play a role in the Hong Kong protests - though I sincerely hope they are not.

I believe the 5 demands being made by the Hong Kong protests are rooted in noble moral principles, so I am comfortable supporting them regardless of their origin. Powerful secretive organizations manipulating discourse always ends up hurting the common man, and the more we as humans stand together, the more we make a just world for all people into the future. I believe individuals choosing their actions and words based on consistent moral principles is one of the best defenses we have remaining in a world of increasing ambiguity of truth. Allowing free and open discourse seems like another good defense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I know it's the original but this title is turrible.

'Staged' \- usually means faked

'Protest Banned Pro-Hong King Gamer' reads like they are protesting the gamer

<comment><USER53> Synonyms and context clues exist, you know.

<comment><USER52> Sure but what's wrong with something like:

Blizzard Employees Protest Banning of Pro-Hong Kong Gamer

<comment><USER53> Nothing unless, as I said in another comment one is either just not a native English speaker or is deliberately trying to misconstrue the words used in a vacuum of context.

But I fear we're quibbling the point now and getting pretty far off topic. So I'll desist.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Rise and Fall of BowieNet - <AUTHOR> http://www.openculture.com/2020/04/when-david-bowie-launched-his-own-internet-service-provider.html <comment><USER2> I'm sure a lot of people here have already seen it, however this 1999 interview with the BBC shows off Bowie's early understanding of the value & potential of the Internet (after the six minute mark):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiK7s_0tGsg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiK7s_0tGsg)

<comment><USER3> Such a breathtaking interview. The internet bit starts around 7min.

> Bowie: I don't think we've even seen the tip of the iceberg. I think the > potential of what the internet is going to do to society, both good and bad, > is unimaginable. I think we're actually on the cusp of something > exhilarating and terrifying.

> Paxman: It's just a tool though, isn't it?

> Bowie. No. No it's not. It's an alien life-form. It's just landed here.

<comment><USER4> That got me too! I immediately recalled a paper I found in one of the free NASA ebooks (see link below):

\---

Susan Blackmore. "Dangerous Memes; or, What the Pandorans Let Loose" (Cosmos & Culture p297)

"This reveals the fundamental difference between all other theories of gene- culture coevolution and memetics: for the former the final arbiter is genetic advantage so that culture must always remain on its leash, even if the leash sometimes gets very loose; for memetics both genes and memes have replicator power and can drive change and creativity. For other theories, cultural traits are an aspect of the human phenotype, but for memetics they are living things in their own right.

These include a vast range of memeplexes (coadapted complexes of memes) that are copied, stored, and propagated by their human hosts using a wide variety of adaptations. All these, according to Humphrey, "should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically." (Dawkins 1989, 192).

Some survive predominantly because they are useful to their hosts (e.g., effective financial institutions, scientific theories, or useful technologies); others depend on fulfilling human desires and preferences (e.g., the arts, music, and literature); and still others are positively harmful, tricking their hosts into propagating them. We humans are selective imitation devices (Blackmore 2001); we try to select only the useful or valuable memes but are inevitably tricked by some of the rest." (p. 302)

\---

There are a lot of interesting bits in there, but this one has that creepy invasion has already happened and the aliens are living among us vibe to it.

I watched this Bowie interview before. I am of an age that I remember the 1990s and can recall how people talked about the internet's potential--always in terms of other previous technologies (really Jeremy Paxman, the telephone?).

Right now, I'm wondering what Bowie was reading and who he was talking to that informed his beliefs about the cultural change the internet was going to effect. (I was not as good a reader in the 1990s as I am now, so I'm sure I was describing the internet by the same unhelpful metaphors).

Did Bowie describe the internet as an alien life-form, because it's shocking/what we expect David-Ziggie Stardust-Bowie to say? Or, was his belief based-on, informed-by, his artistic practice (research), or ideology (his own personal experiences and world-view)? Of course the truth is likely a mix, but the bit which makes a difference--the bit that makes Bowie an informed speaker with lucid ideas and insight--would I expect be research (or surround yourself with people who are smarter than you).

\---

Sunday March 29, NASA's free history e-book collection (nasa.gov) ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22718489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22718489))

And in the collection is this book, Cosmos & Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context Edited by Steven J. Dick and Mark L. Lupisella (2009?) ([https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/hist_culture_cosmos_deta...](https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/hist_culture_cosmos_detail.html))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The `Bowie Bond' from around the same time, was a much more interesting innovation:

[https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/01/11/2149761/a-short- histo...](https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/01/11/2149761/a-short-history-of- the-bowie-bond/)

<comment><USER6> Archive link for those who don't want to create an account: [https://archive.md/ubmyY](https://archive.md/ubmyY)

Also, holy crap, David Bowie was incredibly prescient.

> "The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music > will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. > I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm > fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 > years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing."

> "Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity," he > added. "So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because > none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for > doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation > that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it > doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to > happen."

If only we could hurry up and abolish intellectual property so we could get on with restructuring the economy around the inevitable.

Also, it's cool to see decentralized financial platforms like Ethereum already enabling a democratization of the kind of thing Bowie was trying to do with the Bowie Bond: [https://asone.andysimon.co/](https://asone.andysimon.co/)

<comment><USER7> Sure, Bowie was right that the industry overall would swiftly move to a situation where many people are getting music for free (or for next to free on streaming) and artists tour to actually make money. Yet he himself was still able to spend nearly a decade from 2004–2012 not actively working, living entirely off his royalties that persisted thanks to those copyright laws, so things didn't develop as suddenly and drastically as he suggested.

<comment><USER8> And the bonds! That's the amazing thing, he wanted the cash but knew it was at risk, so he made a financial instrument to extract that value before the market could price the risk. Brilliant!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> He was a visionary. He also tried his hand at a branded VISA card: [https://www.forbes.com/2000/03/04/feat.html#4304e53130da](https://www.forbes.com/2000/03/04/feat.html#4304e53130da)

I think worshipping people is not a healthy habit, but I make an exception for him.

<comment><USER10> I love Bowie too.

But the credit card, the ISP, the whatever... I don't care about any of that. That's typical for people that are brands to make a quick buck, like Branson putting his "Virgin" name on a cellphone company, Trump putting his name on steaks, or Kim Kardashian putting her name on a perfume.

It's all basically the George Foreman Grill -- a company leases the name from the famous person to promote something they have little to do with.

<comment><USER11> The article actually calls out that this wasn't the case for the ISP at least:

> As Ars Technica's interview with BowieNet co-founder Ron Roy confirms, Bowie > didn't just lend the enterprise his brand but was "tremendously involved > from day one." As Roy tells it, Bowie kept BowieNet fresh "by exploring new > technologies to keep fans engaged and excited. He always preached [that] > it's about the experience, the new."

<comment><USER12> It's certainly possible - but the wording in article is exactly the same as Perfume or Clothes designers say about celebrity branded products: Oh, Jennifer [Aniston|Lopez|Garner] had HUGE impact and was VERY clear on her vision from day one. She's been very specific and hands-on to ensure that we bring fresh new scents & ideas never seen before, and really push the boundaries of what the market has experienced. etc etc etc.

It's part & parcel - in order for your name/brand to have any value to the manufacturer/producer, it has to at least appear, plausibly, that you actively contributed. Some celebrities buy into their own spiel too... (and some, to be fair, actually find they have talent and/or invest actual effort into it, that may not even have to be secretly undone by the actual experts :P )

<comment><USER13> Bowie lived around the corner from the data centre and could often be seen popping in, of an evening, to swap out a defective drive or two.

(Possibly.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> He also went all in on a video game Omikron: The Nomad Soul, starring in it and writing the sound track. It was kind of cool as I remember but I never finished it. Just another part of that era of Bowie.

<comment><USER15> That game is pretty bad but also fascinating at the same time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The website had a collection of music (online radio?!)curated by him that he gathered for his son musical education. I wish i could listen that again. Incidentally Duncan jones mentioned in an interview he is not into music and listening to songs is 'like watching your dad do accounting'.:p

</comment><comment><USER17> Another on the list of Bowie innovations was a random lyrics generator called the Verbasizer [https://youtu.be/H7Sgq0XoxPw](https://youtu.be/H7Sgq0XoxPw)

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm a big Bowie fan, but this isn't that notable imho. During this time, there were hundreds if not thousands of 'ISP's springing up. Even Kmart of all people had an ISP.

</comment><comment><USER19> AS number or it didn't happen

<comment><USER20> Most small ISPs in the mid-late 1990s didn't have ASNs, which you only needed once you scaled to the point where you were peering with your upstreams.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Bowie was always bleeding edge. He helped fund Eyebeam ([https://www.eyebeam.org/](https://www.eyebeam.org/)) as well</comment>


An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection - <AUTHOR> http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ <comment><USER2> > To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. > In our view, it's your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any > policy you like.

It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Apple's enforcement of what can and can not run on these devices is not some fundamental property right, but an artificial construct.

<comment><USER3> _It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there._

Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might _own_ the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it.

A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not run on "your" hardware. But in the current scenario you're buying iron-wrapped software (or I guess plastic-and-glass-wrapped software). Apple is really controlling what happens with the _software_ , not the _hardware_.

This is an importnat distinction, IMO, because I don't believe any of the "I paid for it so it's mine" arguments out there really pass muster until you also create your _own_ (not jailbroken) software stack.

<comment><USER4> I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...

<comment><USER5> Not a great comparison. Windows is an OS, the App Store is a channel.

A better example would be Google. What would happen if Google tried to own some of the dollars that flow through the organic search channel? /shudder

<comment><USER6> > Not a great comparison. Windows is an OS, the App Store is a channel.

It is a pretty good comparison as long as App Store is the only way to install anything on iOS

<comment><USER7> For somebody new to the whole iTunes Store ecosystem it is neither faster nor less mentally challenging to set up a new ITS account than it is to jailbreak their new device.

It may strike you as obviously false, and it may well have been so two years ago, but when I got my new iPad after moving to another country I've spent about twice as much time getting iTunes to let me pay for apps in foreign App Store than I've spent researching jailbreak options and caveats and then actually pwning the device.

So no, App Store is far from the only way to distribute iOS software, even though it still is the default and sometimes the only apparent way.

<comment><USER8> Jailbreaking comes with all sorts of downsides. You may have gotten lucky, but also observe that every jailbreaking tutorial on the web has hundreds of comments from people who didn't get everything to work right and pleading for advice from others that will never come.

From my experience, it turns older iPhones into a stuttering laggy mess and breaks visual voicemail, and makes you paranoid about every iTunes update.

<comment><USER9> Whether it's easy or not is irrelevant. There are other ways to do it, and Apple is under no obligation to support those methods or make it easy for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If I understand Readability's issue, it breaks down like this:

What they want: For a $1 subscription fee, Readability keeps $0.30 and the publisher/writer of the articles viewed through that $1 sub get $0.70

What Apple requires: For a $1 subscription fee, Apple keeps $0.30, Readability then has the option of keeping $0.30 (30% of $1) or $0.21 (30% of the remainder after Apple's cut) and then the publisher/writer gets either $0.40 or $0.49, respectively.

Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless.

<comment><USER11> I think its a little different.

Readability has made a contract with the media suppliers: you get 70% of every dollar from the customer. If Apple takes the other 30%, there is 0% left for Readability.

If they want to make any kind of revenue for themselves in Apple's system, the only option is to give the content creators a smaller percentage and charge a higher price.

It's not really a matter of if Readability deserves 30%, but if Readability deserves any money at all. Apple is basically eating their entire revenue stream.

<comment><USER10> I understand that Apple has thrown a wrench into Readability's plans. I'm trying to understand why I should believe that Readability's plans are "fair" whereas Apple's plans are not.

Readability has made a contract with Apple, so I'm not clear how establishing a contract with media suppliers matters (have they? or have they taken it upon themselves to distribute a portion of their revenue due to eliminating the existing revenue model the publisher uses, without the publishers explicit consent?). Readability's contract with media suppliers is firstly contingent on Readability's contract with Apple, if Readability intends to leverage iOS app distribution. Readability cannot provide a contract to media suppliers that is in opposition to Readability's contract with Apple (again, if Readability intends to release an iOS app).

Fundamentally however, Readability's value is derived from processing articles. Readability decided they deserve 30% of any revenue they can acquire from offering that service to readers. Apple's value is derived from supplying an eco-system and they have decided they deserve 30% of any revenue they can acquire from offering that service.

Why does one of those service providers "fairly" get to receive 30% but the other does not?

<comment><USER12> In my opinion, the old AppStore 30% cut for apps and in-app purchase was fair, but the new subscription cut is unfair.

Here's my reasoning: AppStore provides distribution and one-click payment processing. Selling access to a web app is painful because you have to ask people to enter credit card details, or sign in to a third party payment processor, lots of hassle. With the AppStore, it is just as easy to take people's money as it is to give away your app for free. So, Apple is providing a service, and it seems fair that Apple would get paid for that service.

The main issue with the AppStore cut is that Apple doesn't allow direct competition to the AppStore on iDevices (I think that 30% would be smaller if users were not locked in to the AppStore) however the value added is real.

With the new subscription rules, the value added by Apple is much less clear, since Readability was already taking in money without Apple's help. So, the assumption is that Apple's subscription tools won't provide a boost to sales large enough to cover Apple's cut, hence unfair. With Readability's 70%-goes- to-authors business model, they will never be able to make up the loss by selling more content.

I've not tried out Readability, but the argument is probably that they fall into the first category along with the AppStore, since they make it easier to give money to creators without having to look at ads. So, they are providing value, and a 30% cut is "fair".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm fairly quick to defend Apple, because a lot of the flack they take is BS, but in this case I'm really struggling to find the upside.

Richard says that their 30% would account for a tiny sliver of Apple's overall revenue, but lots of tiny slivers start to add up eventually. The problem though, is that if the cost of those slivers is to drive the developers away from the App Store, then those slivers disappear. Considering that third party apps are possibly the most important feature of the platform, it doesn't seem like a smart idea.

The 30% cut on App sales is understandable, because software generally has high margins, but it doesn't sound like the same is true for content subscriptions. Maybe it's a case of trying to keep their policy too uniform (i.e 30% on everything)?

Does anyone know where the subscription content comes from? From my understanding, the subscription content will usually come from a third party, rather than Apple's CDN, so there's no marginal cost to Apple.

</comment><comment><USER14> I really don't understand Apple's moves here. They have a terrific platform, and much of the value of their platform comes from third-party apps. If app devs start leaving for WebOS or Android in droves, much of their traction is going to be lost. I think if they would have gone for 10% or 15% they wouldn't have gotten this kind of response.

I predict either reversals or abandonment of their platform. I still maintain that HP or RIM have a great opportunity here to announce that they are going to build app stores that are low fee for subscription apps. I think you'd definitely see a move there from numerous devs.

And I too worry that my beloved Instapaper may be going to face trouble soon as well.

<comment><USER15> It's because in-app subscriptions are really just recurring in-app purchases that can be cancelled at any time.

If you accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for sales of apps, by logical extension you must accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for in-app purchases, because technically one could provide a free app with an in-app purchase to make it a full app, and anything less than 30% on Apple's take would gravitate the market toward this model.

If you accept that 70-30 is fair for in-app purchases, then you must by logical extension accept that recurring in-app purchases that can be cancelled at any time would also have this split, because technically one could provide all in-app purchases at a steep discount simply as "subscriptions" that can be cancelled after the first payment.

As far as I can tell, this is Apple's reasoning and rather inescapable at that.

<comment><USER14> I don't think that's a logical extension, personally.

However, I think Apple could say that a subscription purchase was 85-15 or 90-10 and they would have gotten this in with little push back.

Or even required that subscription apps cost $9.99 for the initial purchase ($9.99 is a number from my head with no basis in reality) and a following 90-10 split, or requiring that apps with a free initial release go to a 70-30 split on subscriptions. I really think they could have done that and not had a major revolt on their hands. They may not have made the same in the short term, but I think they would have had a better response and a better long-term hold on small developer and publisher loyalty to their platform.

I would personally buy a Palm Pre 3 if it had Instapaper and Kindle and the iPhone 5 didn't. I would venture that their are numerous other consumers who have similar preferences.

[Edited for clarity]

<comment><USER16> Could you elaborate on why you don't think the parent comment has a point?

<comment><USER14> I don't agree that Apple's rules have to be structured the way they are. I do agree that if one merely extrapolates out the current structure, then the rules make sense, but I don't think it's a logical extension of how it has to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like to think of Apple's side of all the negative stories, but this time, I can't come up with a cogent excuse for what they are doing - save inept App Store policies/reviewers.

By this logic, flattr will never get a native iOS app. And when are Apple going to shut the Instapaper app down, when Marco decides to let his one- dollar monthly subscribers[1] receive premium benefits?

Apple really hates newspapers and magazines.

[1]: <http://www.instapaper.com/subscription>

<comment><USER18> I think a large chunk of Instapaper's revenue comes from the iOS apps so assuming Apple continues to keep acting like a douche, Marco would probably just as soon cancel the subscription plan rather than let his app get rejected.

<comment><USER19> When he doesn't, and when he adds in-app subscriptions, will it cause you to revise your perspective?

Instapaper is exactly the kind of app this is directed at. It is a SaaS subscription. It would be foolish to turn away all the additional sales you'd get by being able to offer subscriptions within the app (something you couldn't do previously, forcing Marco to take paypal.)

<comment><USER18> _When he doesn't, and when he adds in-app subscriptions, will it cause you to revise your perspective?_

Sure, I'd be curious to see if it's economical to hand over 30% of whatever subscriptions he receives to Apple.

<comment><USER20> If it triples the number of subscriptions then it could be.

<comment><USER21> Triple of zero is still zero. The open letter states that their current share is 30%. Apple would essentially get 100% of their profits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Perhaps this will be the one that gets enough publicity to make Apple come to their senses and see the collateral damage being caused by their War on Amazon.

<comment><USER22> The collateral damage? They're making out just fine, what do they care about a handful of app developers?

Maybe this will be the one that _gets developers to realize this is not a sustainable game they are playing with Apple, by Apple's rules, in Apple's world_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I picked up an iPhone 3GS when they came out with intent of developing iOS apps. Even at that time it was clear that playing in someone else's yard meant playing by their rules, and that it was highly likely that I wasn't going to like their rules. I decided to not make an app. Simple decision really.

A lot of developers are now complaining that they're getting burned by what is a reasonably obvious profit motive from Apple. They're not offering an app store because they're good guys. They're offering an app store to make money.

They take 30% of purchases. It only makes sense to take 30% of in-app purchases and related subscription services as well. Did anyone honestly believe that apple would fall for the ebay $0.90 purchase with $90 shipping fee-dodging trick? Letting subs through just opens the door for people to ship free apps with subscription "unlocks", thus cutting out Apple.

The simple fact is that Apple owns the mountain, and if you want to mine their gold you can expect to pay their taxes.

Of course the simple solution is to just build a web app (as these guys have done). Why restrict yourself to Apple's yard and Apple's rules when you can target every device without rules, without restrictions and without a 30% tax? The sooner ever developer realizes this the better off we'll all be.

</comment><comment><USER24> My satellite TV provider has an app I can only use if signed up to them. Do they now need to offer TV subscription through their app? What about the 37signals Campfire clients? Do they now need to offer Campfire subs via inapp purchase too?

<comment><USER25> Answer to the first one is no, because you don't get their service in the app.

<comment><USER26> As far as I can tell, Apple's new guidelines wouldn't let them put that app in the App Store anymore. Apple's guidelines say you have to sell through the app using their API and can't sell anywhere else. And you can't link to a place where customers can buy your service outside of Apple's control.

<comment><USER27> They can sell other places, but not promote those other places within the app.

They could offer their subscription on their web site and collect 100%. Their app would then be required to offer the same subscription deal as an in-app purchase for the same-or-lower price, and then they would collect 70%. The app could not refer users to their web site for purchases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache:http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an- open-letter-to-apple/)

<comment><USER29> An Open Letter to Apple

by Richard Ziade on Feb 21, 2011

Dear Apple: It's your friends from Readability. Remember us? You put our technology into your Safari browser last year. We're writing this open letter because – well – we're a little upset right now.

Last Friday, you notified us that our Readability iOS application was rejected. In explaining the rejection, you pointed us to 11.2 in the App Store Review Guidelines:

11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected.

We're obviously disappointed by this decision, and surprised by the broad language. By including "functionality, or services," it's clear that you intend to pursue any subscription-based apps, not merely those of services serving up content. Readability's model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers. If we implemented In App purchasing, your 30% cut drastically undermines a key premise of how Readability works. Before we cool down and come to our senses, we might as well share how we're feeling right now: we believe that your new policy smacks of greed. Subscription apps like ours represent a tiny sliver of app sales that represent a tiny sliver of your revenue. You've achieved much of your success in hardware sales by cultivating an incredibly impressive app ecosystem. Every iPad or iPhone TV ad puts the apps developed by companies like ours front and center. It was a healthy and mutually beneficial dynamic: apps like ours get exposure and you get to show the world how these apps make your hardware shine. That's why we're a bit baffled here.

To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it's your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. But to impose this course on any web service or web application that delivers any value outside of iOS will only discourage smaller ventures like ours to invest in iOS apps for our services. As far as Readability is concerned, our response is fairly straight-forward: go the other way… towards the web.

Since we re-launched, we've already seen a significant amount of usage across a wide range of browsers, operating systems and devices via the Readability web interface – for both mobile and desktop. Looking ahead, we plan to redouble our efforts to deliver the best possible reading app using the latest best-of-breed web technology.

The new Readability is fueled by the free-form nature of the web. Just as content pumps through the web's piping, apps like ours thrive as nodes on the web – unencumbered by levies or barriers imposed by others. As we said months ago: "for us, the web is the right bet."

Still, we're always looking to give readers the best possible reading experience and a native iOS client would help us do that. We hope you'll change your mind. If you do, we'd be happy to resubmit the Readability iOS app. Regards,

The Readability Team

P.S. We'd we be glad to deliver Readability for iOS – with in-app purchasing – if you'd carve out 70% from your 30% fee and share it with writers and publishers, just as we do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I wish these open letters said, "we are ebaying our iPhones, removing our other apps from the App Store, and switching to Android and Windows Mobile" instead of "we are going to change our business model just because the default icons you guys pick are so great".

Apple does not care about whiney letters. They might care if there are no more apps for or users of iOS.

</comment><comment><USER31> If the subscriptions policy isn't the absolutely craziest move Apple's ever made, I don't know what is. iOS has converted me into an Apple fan, but not if stuff like this continues.

<comment><USER32> It still doesn't beat the "Objective-C Only" fiasco..does it?

<comment><USER31> It's a strong second place then if it's not the first. Good thing is, Apple backed down on that which is why I was just today trying out Airplay SDK on Windows. Hopefully they'll back down on the subscriptions plan, too.

That said, it really should require us all getting up in arms over it for Apple to stop stuff like this. They shouldn't have made such a policy to start with! Very worrying for the future of the platform...

<comment><USER19> That policy has been in place for 2.5 years, since the original AppStore terms and conditions. It wasn't enforced because before now, Apple didn't offer SDK support for subscriptions. People have had 2.5 years to prepare.

<comment><USER33> To draw a parallel:

A law is only as good as it is enforced. There's a huge amount of laws out there that would be very controversial if they started getting enforced. For example, many states still have crazy/puritanical sex laws on the books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This may be a stupid comment to make, but one I feel should be added to the conversation. Why are people so willing to develop for Apple when Android is now the larger platform, and has a far easier barrier to entry?

<comment><USER35> There might be more Android phones out there, but you also can't get to them through the Android Market. Not every country that has Android has an App Store that will accept commercial apps. It's getting bigger and growing faster, but Apple is still ahead of Android.

Also, Apple's tools for developing are just superior. The Android SDK is an Eclipse/Netbeans Plug-in. Apple's is an 800MB-1GB version of XCode.

<comment><USER36> The metric you've used to measure "betterness" here appears to be sdk file size.

<comment><USER35> No, the metric here is Interface builder vs. the eclipse plugin for Android UI design. It's a lot harder to create an of equal or superior polish for Android.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I haven't heard anything about this subscription model and Netflix. Will Netflix be able to continue to provide their iOS apps without giving a cut to apple? Seems crazy that they would have to.

<comment><USER38> Netflix may be exempt, somehow:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-not-affected-by- apple...](http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-not-affected-by-apples-new- subscription-plan-2011-2)

<comment><USER37> It implies that Amazon could get around this just by removing the "get books" button from their kindle iPhone client, requiring people to make purchases from a browser.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Apple, I bought an iPad _because_ I could watch movies in Netflix and read bookmarks in Instapaper, news in Reeder, and books in Kindle. Please send each $37.50 (30% of the iPad sale shared four ways) to each developer for bringing you a customer.

Or, optionally, stop acting like you, as a middle man, provides more added value than the developers that make your platform so damn profitable.

P.S. WebOS still looks pretty damn nice.

</comment><comment><USER40> The reason this doesn't work is because Apple had to pick a number - 30%. For some businesses, that makes perfect sense. for others 1% or maybe 70% might make sense. But rigidly adhering to 30% (no doubt because of the massive complexity of the alternative) is going to cut lots of business out just because it doesn't make sense. Apple needs to rethink this - it's clumsy.

<comment><USER41> They have to pick 30% because in-app purchases are charged at 30%. You can't have two variations of the same thing (one that auto-renews and one that doesn't) charged differently.

Let's say the subscription cut was 10%. Everyone would release their apps as free, and charge for everything as a "subscription" because it's less than the 30% cut for app sales or non-auto renewable in-app purchases.

Basically, there is no other percentage that Apple can use here, for very good reasons. If they lower the percentage for this, they have to lower all the other percentages.

And that's not going to happen, because 30% is pretty reasonable for what they provide. The Android Market takes 30%, and Amazon takes _70%_ for Kindle subscriptions.

Edit: IMHO, everyone talking about the percentage is missing the point. The problem is the policy itself. It's just too general and broadly applied for a huge amount of stuff out there. Marco nails the issues here: <http://www.marco.org/3437484678>

<comment><USER40> The way I see it, 30% is not "pretty reasonable". It _might_ be reasonable, it might be a great deal, or it might be a deal killer.

It's not much different than if Google were to decide that all AdWords clicks are now $3.

The thing is that nobody cared when it was a one time fee for their $1.99 app. When Apple starts talking about subscriptions that may cost 10's or 100's of times that each month, Apple starts to look like their overreaching - and it could be damaging to long term adoption of the platform.

One might even hypothesize that these ham fisted policies are defining the very nature of the offerings in the app store - it explains the preference for fart apps over sophisticated (expensive) products.

Apple is just coming off as if they didn't think this through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I believe what Apple is trying to do is to head off the possibility of being scammed: app writers can give away their apps for free, but unlock the full potential only when you "buy" a (lifetime) subscription. This way the writer can keep 100% of the price of the app, instead of just 70%.

Do I agree with Apple? No. But I think this is where they're coming from.

<comment><USER43> Apple already had measures in place to block that 'loophole' without these new rules—or new interpretations of the rules, if you will. Apple banned an update to ReadItLater, last year, because the reviewer believed the developer was attempting to circumvent the in-app purchase: [http://readitlaterlist.com/blog/2010/08/version-2-2-rejected...](http://readitlaterlist.com/blog/2010/08/version-2-2-rejected- new-rejection-reason-from-apple-may-have-major-implications/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> As a developer I made the decision a few years ago to move away from Apple's platforms because of their capriciousness, their extreme secrecy, and their lack of respect for their developers.

I don't know how people invest in their platforms, I'd be constantly scared that Apple would turn around and screw me over.

<comment><USER45> The trick is to get in, make your money, and get out before Apple decides it wants in on your territory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm not impressed with anyone here...

Readability was trusting enough to release their code with a license which allowed Apple to put the code in their product and then freeze readability's product out of Apple's store.

And now the readability folks don't seem inclined to admit their trust was a might miss-placed.

But perhaps that's because the readability model is aiming for a kinder, gentler version of Apple's monopoly. They distributed a "product" that reworking website in a manner that steals the original site's advertising revenue. And then they "offer" to give the authors a different revenue source (along with "offering" a lack of choice concerning how their product is presented).

Edit: And problem with readability isn't in it just distributing a web-site- rewriter in itself but it doing that AND then asking revenues from content providers...

</comment><comment><USER47> I don't understand why Apple is putting themselves in this situation.. Bad for business. Apple HAD the market, then Google came along with Android, now they're being snobs and just forcing their own users to switch to Android powered phones just because of this exact thing. Shame really.

</comment><comment><USER48> The App Store does have the potential to drive a massive amount new business for an app like Readability. Apple believes they should be paid for that publishing and marketing service and it's hard to argue about that, particularly when comparing to the relative poor performance of other "app stores."

If the App Store fails to bring these developers new business then it doesn't cost the developers anything. If the App Store does bring them new business then it's up to the developers to weigh the cost of the App Store vs. the new business it brings.

Is 30% the right price? Ultimately the market will decide that, because if there's one thing this industry doesn't lack, it's competition.

</comment><comment><USER49> What a slap to the face. Apple uses their technology then tells them they can't use it themselves without offering in app purchases?!?!

<comment><USER17> Not exactly. If you haven't read about it, Readability (Arc90) has a new subscription model[1]. That's the point of contention.

(Not that it's any less stupid.)

[1]: <https://www.readability.com/learn-more>

<comment><USER49> I know about the subscription model; I'm a subscriber.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Why do these types of letters have to start with the headline "An Open Letter to...". If you're publishing it, it's obviously open.

<comment><USER51> Just to be nice and actually answer this person's question rather than just downvoting them:

The distinction, as I understand it, is that labeling it an "open letter" tells us that one entity (Readability) intends not just to publish a given letter for all to read, but also make clear that it is directed at a second entity (in this case, Apple), in the same way as if Readability had sent it directly TO Apple.

It is also often hoped that such an open letter might elicit a public response.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I tend to agree with Apple's right to do this, but I can't tell if it's a genius move or a stupid move.

I think this move could further empower Apple, in as much as to put people like Rhapsody out of business. On the other hand, it makes sense to create a hospitable ecosystem, and right now it feels like they are carpet bombing what was once a nice place to hang out.

More of my thoughts here (podcast) [http://bluerize.com/free-market- anarchy-020-apple-subscripti...](http://bluerize.com/free-market- anarchy-020-apple-subscription)

</comment><comment> T-hawk We don't like it, but Apple's got every allowance and reason to do this. Either Readability will cave to Apple's pricing model, or somebody else will come in with the same technology and do so. Apple believes that the competitive position they have attained allows them to dictate pricing terms. The market will decide whether they are correct.

The only argument against Apple that holds water is abuse of monopolistic power, but I don't think that will fly given that the whole market of Android and Windows and other phones also exists.

</comment><comment><USER53> So basically: "We totally think your policies are right and groovy, but please make an exception for us"?

<comment><USER54> Not quite. More like a "we know it's in your legal power to be needlessly greedy, but we'd like you to stop swimming in money and be a little more friendly for small developers."

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I posted this to my blog a few days ago, but I think it's worth repeating here because it applies directly to this open letter:

While apps and content are just break even businesses for Apple, they are instrumental to the company's financial success. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are each technology platforms that bring together consumers, apps, and content. The value of each platform (iPod, iPhone, and iPad) to consumers hinges on the availability of apps and content; and the value of each platform to app developers and content publishers hinges on the number of consumers that have adopted the platform.

In short, there is a virtuous circle in effect; hardware sales to consumers attract more app developers and content publishers, and more apps and content drive more hardware sales to consumers.

Apple's new subscription model might strain or even break this virtuous circle. First, since Apple is only requesting 30% of revenues if content is subscribed to through iTunes it will likely cause content publishers to encourage consumers to bypass iTunes and purchase content directly. Over time this may reduce the relevance and significance of iTunes. Second, this 30% cut will compel app developers and content publishers to find alternative, less- expensive distribution channels. Google is the natural alternative given Android and the Android Market, and the company has already launched the "One Pass" payment system, which charges a lower fee (10%).

If this new subscription model is potentially damaging to Apple's financial success, then what's motivating Apple to launch such a model?

It's possible, though very unlikely, that Apple failed to consider the implications of the model and the strain it would place on app developers and content publishers. A second, more likely scenario is that this subscription model reflects efforts by Apple to generate greater revenues and profits from its apps and content business. A third likely scenario is that Apple is trying to create barriers to entry for competing distribution platforms, such as Netflix and Amazon, which will find it cost prohibitive to offer their service through iTunes given the 30% in fees. These barriers may give Apple time to further develop its own content distribution business. The immediate risk that content publishers will turn en masse to Android is low given the delay of Android-based tablets and other connected devices (e.g., connected TVs).

This subscription model may boost iTunes revenues and profits, and it may create a barrier to entry for competing distribution platforms, such as Netflix and Amazon. That said, I believe this move is a strategic mistake. There may be some short-term benefits to Apple, but overall it will strain the company's relationship with app developers and content publishers. Over time this will reduce the selection of apps and content available via iTunes, reducing the value of Apple products to consumers, thus putting downward pressure on hardware sales. In the meantime, partners and resources will migrate away from Apple, towards Android. Over time this will add further energy to Android adoption for app developers, content publishers, consumers, and hardware producers. Android is already emerging as a force in smartphones. With the launch of Motorola's Xoom and other tablets, Android will soon gain significant share in the tablet market as well.

<comment><USER56> After reading this, I am struck with the idea that maybe Apple's reluctance to support flash, is not just motivated by the performance issues. That it could also be that the DRM support in flash would mean that companies could just abondon the app model and just use flash (i.e. Netflix or a flash based Amazon ebook reader).

<comment><USER57> I believe Jobs actually made this point fairly directly, though couched it in terms like "if people start using 3rd party tools to generate cross platform apps, you wind up with crappy apps that don't suit the platform, have undesirable performance characteristics, and fail to take advantage of platform specific features that get added."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> DHH, if you're reading, is this what you were talking about?

</comment><comment><USER59> _P.S. We'd we be glad to deliver Readability for iOS – with in-app purchasing – if you'd carve out 70% from your 30% fee and share it with writers and publishers, just as we do._

This will never happen, but if it did I'd be ecstatic. It could be a great PR move and really help Readability's goals to fund independent content producers online.

</comment><comment><USER60> Believe you me, I want these guys to succeed as much as anyone else, but... wouldn't keeping the payment processing for subscriptions OUTSIDE of the iOS app solve the issue? I must be missing something critical to the functionality of the app?

There are no non-profit or even strictly business-related terms under the umbrella of the App Store as far as I know. There are no corporate/business iTunes purchasing accounts, no escalation to root-level privileges allowed for apps in the MacAppStore(postponing backup and other more powerful apps). This seems like another oversight on Apples part due to treating it as a lower priority.

And although they have every right to be proud of their achievements, it seems a bit like "you owe me" to remind Apple that they used the Apache-licensed Readability tech for Reader. Their proposed app could stand on its on.

<comment><USER61> > Believe you me, I want these guys to succeed as much as anyone else, but... > wouldn't keeping the payment processing for subscriptions OUTSIDE of the iOS > app solve the issue?

What you're missing is the other rules which _force_ you to offer purchase via IAP _because_ you offer subscriptions outside the app, too. The following terms apply:

11.1 -- Apps that unlock or enable additional features or functionality with mechanisms other than the App Store, except as approved in section 11.13, will be rejected

11.12 -- Apps offering subscriptions must do so using IAP, Apple will share the same 70/30 revenue split with developers for these purchases, as set forth in the Developer Program License Agreement.

11.13 -- Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.

11.14 -- Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be used in the app, such as a "buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I think Apple may have decided to enforce an untenable rule, simply so it can be used as a reasonably large concession when the antitrust machinery slides into gear.

If you are going to be required to give up ground - you might as well grab all the ground you can prior to any punitive action.

<comment><USER63> That sounds like the man who beat his head against the wall; because it felt so good when he quit.

<comment><USER62> I know what you mean - this scenario sounds quite backwards, but I'm really having quite a lot of trouble understanding why Apple has decided to go ahead with this.

If they honestly think they can get away with it, I think this might be a signal that they're losing touch with their community.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I don't understand the legal ownership fuss of their decision. If they had decided to take 5% instead of 30% there would be no discussion here. The only difference between 5% and 30% appears to be whether or not it's a good business decision. It does alienate a number of applications that have less than 30% margin, but that appears to be Apple's motivation. I would not go so far to say this should be expected, but it's a risk you take when you play with a company that likes to own such a large portion of the experience.

</comment><comment><USER65> Avoiding a lot of the discussion here to make a quick but important observation: I suggested in a comment I believe I posted here months ago that Apple would add its "Reader" to the iOS platform.

This is a calculated move on Apple's part to make sure that when they deploys Safari Reader for the iPhone it is /their/ idea and not the folks at Readability.

Shame, shame, shame. I know you're name.

</comment><comment><USER66> I think they might have a point, but their ineffective communication style and adversarial tone will surely guarantee they are ignored this time around.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think it is worth noting, because everyone seems to have forgotten, that this has always been the rule. I remember it from the very first reading of the terms and conditions (back when they were under NDA).

It has always been against AppStore rules to monetize apps outside of the AppStore. Apple has been lax in enforcing it, _primarily_ because Apple didn't offer a subscription mechanism.

Now they offer a mechanism, and so now people can comply with the rule, and so now they are enforcing it.

<comment><USER45> A rule isn't a rule until it's enforced. Apple has effectively changed the rules after tricking companies like Amazon and Netflix to develop software for the App Store, which was – until now – a mutually beneficial arrangement.

<comment><USER67> Wasn't Netflix functionality something Apple used as a selling point for the iPad?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Through all of this I wonder if they knew there'd be so much angst and now they will "concede" to something like 15% with that being their plan all along. When you make a policy that's really really really bad to then scale it back to just being really bad, people think they're getting a deal.</comment>


Jay Z Says Firm That Sold Him Tidal Inflated Subscriber Numbers - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-31/jay-z-says-firm-that-sold-him-tidal-inflated-subscriber-numbers <comment><USER2> Why didn't they do an audit before making the purchase?!</comment>


Ask HN: How does Gemcutter support itself? - <AUTHOR>

http://gemcutter.org/
Gemcutter seems to have displaced Github as the gem host of choice these days. That's not a plug - I have no dog in this fight.
But I am wondering how reliable they will be over the long term since I don't see much evidence of a business plan. They prominently display the Heroku and ThoughtBot logos on the main page.
But there must be more to their business model than simple sponsorship?
Or it simply not very expensive to host all of the world's gems? <comment><USER2> I believe they are storing the gems on amazon S3 and the costs are quite minimal. Here is the guy who runs gemcutter calculating S3 costs based on metrics for rubyforge: [http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems- developers/2009-Augu...](http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems- developers/2009-August/004929.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Not sure either... how does RubyForge stay afloat?</comment>


Oculus wants to build a billion-person MMO with Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/5/5684236/oculus-wants-to-build-a-billion-person-mmo-with-facebook/ <comment><USER2> Sure, and Elon Musk wants to sell Teslas to Facebook users. Doritos wants to sell them Cool Ranch. Why didn't Facebook buy Tesla, or Frito-Lay? Because it doesn't make any business sense, and neither does the Oculus acquisition. Facebook bought Oculus because Mark Zuckerberg thought it was cool, and is swimming in cash. Oculus took the money because it was far, far in excess of any valuation they might attain in the foreseeable future. The 'vision' presented in the article is just a thin rationalization.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like they are trying to make the metaverse the killer app for VR. Hopefully they wont close it off in order to cash in on advertisement or virtual goods.</comment>


Do you pay apple tax even if you don't have apple priducts? - <AUTHOR> http://arty.li/Zgs

<comment><USER2> The actual URL: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/29/revealed_the_secret_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/29/revealed_the_secret_apple_deals_that_squeeze_rivals_and_tax_you/)

</comment><comment><USER3> wow, thats an impressive amount of mysterious sources, mysterious legal experts and mysterious industry analysts.

Not to mention the link bait headline "REVEALED" and a major +1 for the other link to another link bait headline about iPhone 5C orders being cut ("Apple slams brakes"). Maybe someday "industry experts" will get tired of being proven wrong and stop trying to predict results from supply chain - they've never been right before.

</comment><comment><USER4> Aww, the poor carriers.

<comment><USER5> Forget the carriers, it's the customers who are getting screwed....

<comment><USER6> Totally unrelated to this topic...

Do you know why your submissions are all marked [dead]? Mine started to do that a couple of days ago and I'm trying to figure out why. Looking at your submission history it looks like it is permanent for you.

<comment><USER5> Really? That's a bit unnerving, and I can't understand why. It would certainly account for a lack of traction, and the fact that the same stuff gets submitted later and attracts comments....

So to answer your question: I didn't know and I have no idea.

Just looking at your submissions, they are not marked Dead as far as I can see.... [http://imgur.com/na2DuiK](http://imgur.com/na2DuiK)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How we pay people at Basecamp (DHH) - <AUTHOR> https://m.signalvnoise.com/how-we-pay-people-at-basecamp-f1d04f4f194b <comment><USER2> If this is all so standardized I'm surprised they don't just write some numbers down.

I find that all these companies who pride themselves on transparent or standardized salaries just have low salaries.

[EDIT]: Yeah, so Paysa has them listed as paying an average 79k for programmers: [https://www.paysa.com/salaries/basecamp-- programmer](https://www.paysa.com/salaries/basecamp--programmer) which is kind of a joke</comment>


The Clacks - discworld semaphore - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clacks_%28Discworld%29

<comment><USER2> I don't know how this made it up so high on HN, but I'm glad to see that there are other Discworld fans on here. It's an incredible series.

<comment><USER3> I just started reading the series myself a few weeks ago, and I'm completely addicted now.

I like the idea of a really long series, because too often I get sucked into the world of a story, and I'm disappointed when the story ends.

<comment><USER4> Sadly this series will end because Pratchett has been diagnosed with a form of dementia. He will be sadly missed, but his books are chock full of obscure references that I am enjoying hunting down.

It's worth dipping into the Annotated Pratchett File:

<http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/>

and checking out the reading guide:

[http://www.lspace.org/books/reading-order-guides/the- discwor...](http://www.lspace.org/books/reading-order-guides/the-discworld- reading-order-guide-1-5.jpg)</comment></comment></comment>


US believes Russian jet was in Syrian airspace when Turkey shot it down - <AUTHOR> http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/US-believes-Russian-jet-was-in-Syrian-airspace-when-Turkey-shot-it-down-435275 <comment><USER2> So the Russian plane was over Turkey just before it was hit, but over Syria at the moment of explosion, and at some point it was 1km from the border.

Makes me wonder how long these missiles take from being launched until they hit. Half a second? Two seconds? Fifteen?

At mach 1.5 1km is two seconds.

<comment><USER3> Remember that both aircraft are also moving at very high speed. It can take several seconds depending on range and vectors.

Does anyone know which missile they used?

This is troubling to me. Why didn't they just intercept and escort him out?</comment></comment>