Apple blocking SkyDrive from iOS store, wants cut of revenue - <AUTHOR> http://microsoft-news.com/apple-blocking-skydrive-from-ios-store-wants-cut-of-revenue/ <comment><USER3> So I'm very curious if anyone can help see a "intuitive fair line" better than I can (because I can't find one).

On the one hand, it makes perfect sense Apple wants 30% on apps. They run the store.

On the other hand, it seems like Amazon should be able to sell books, Dropbox should be able to sell space, etc., without paying 30% -- otherwise it's financially impossible.

But if you allow apps to sell content within without paying 30%, then all of a sudden all apps become free, selling "upgrading functionality" within, and the app store is no longer viable for Apple.

You can't even make a rule like "reselling 3rd party content is exempt from the fee", because apps will claim additional functionality as 3rd-party. You can't make a rule that "content accessible on other devices is exempt from the fee", because gamemakers will just make their in-game purchases accessible on the Android version too, or something.

Can anyone think of a clear, unambiguous rule that would allow things like Dropbox, Skydrive, Amazon, etc. to get around the 30% fee, but without allowing loopholes that would allow everyone to skirt it? I swear my brain thinks there's a distinction, but I can't figure out what it is.

<comment><USER4> I think the problem is in how the question is framed. The App Store has always been revenue neutral [1]. It's not a profit center for Apple. It's not about "getting their cut". It's about having one billing statement to look at. It's about eliminating shady billing tactics a la gym memberships. It's about keeping your address out of some developer's mailing list.

You'd be surprised about the extent of this problem. I get e-mails all the time from people who are worried that they have a monthly payment for my app, for example. There are just an awful lot of people who don't "get" software at all and derive real value from simplified one-party billing.

So if you start from the premise that billing for iOS apps has to be brain- dead simple, we arrive at the present rule: any payment that looks like it happens on an iPhone must [2] run through IAP at whatever rate Apple can break even. If your payment collection process consists of people using their fingers on the screen of an iPhone, then it is potentially confusable with IAP by Grandpa and he might get mad at Apple; this is unacceptable. But monetizing your pizza ordering app by handing money to a pizza delivery guy who shows up at your house is not confusable, so it's A-OK.

Now, it's perfectly debatable whether or not consumer confusion is really that big of a problem, or a problem big enough to justify the negative externalities of solving it. But if it is, then the result follows: the solution is to run all the billing through a break-even single party. If you accept the premise, then the rule that is fairest and best and also solves the problem is the rule that we already have.

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where the economics of Dropbox, Skydrive, Amazon et al seemingly don't allow enough profit margin to pay Apple's overhead to process payments. But I'm not really sure who is to blame for that: the consumers, for being confused about billing; Apple, for trying to fix it for them; Skydrive etc. for not creating a two-tiered pricing structure to charge IAP customers at 30% more; or consumers again for being unwilling to pay an extra 30% for single-party billing.

[1] [http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_app_store_runs_...](http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_app_store_runs_just_above_break_even) [2] there are some exceptions, I'm speaking broadly to make a point

<comment><USER5> Potential consumer confusion has nothing to do with the size of Apple's cut or how it is structured.

Clearly, a 30% cut is fair for the average $1.5 purchase because it includes fees for payment processing and fixed cost per app.

But Apple will have to decide whether or not they want people to sell more expensive stuff on their platform. Taking a 30% cut on a $100 purchase is not economically viable and it is unnecessary if the goal is to avoid consumer confusion.

They could just charge 50 cents + 5%

<comment><USER4> > Taking a 30% cut on a $100 purchase is not economically viable

The market for a $100 app isn't very large, and that price point is also a target for fraud / scams / accidental purchase complaints. This risk is offset by additional review scrutiny, but the cost for that additional scrutiny is amortized over a small number of potential customers.

The result of all this is that $100 purchases are expensive for Apple to run, and Apple as a rational actor should discourage them. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the whole $50+ market runs at a loss that is covered by the cheaper apps.

<comment><USER6> Even for a $20 item 30% cut is not acceptable either, considering what Apple actually did is simply app hosting + payment processing. App Store did a really bad job on app discovery and promotion, so I don't think they deserve anything on marketing. However, they can charge developers for being featured on the front page.

<comment><USER7> > _App Store did a really bad job on app discovery and promotion_

You think most app buyers found their apps outside the app store? Unlike folks reading HN or tech sites and trying new apps thanks to app launch news, the normals I know find their apps _only_ within the app store (other than the occasional app roundup in a mainstream printed magazine).

If you look at the CC processing industry, ranging from 5% fees for the most basic service (transaction + cc + merchant + bank) to 15% fees for an end to end service that cuts you a check, the 30% to also manage the user authentication and customer service is a reasonable deal, completely aside from marketing.

Finally, as a user, I don't want featured apps to be the ones paying to be featured. Not cool.

<comment><USER8> 15% for an end to end service? Citation Please! Paypal, Stripe, Braintree and those guys don't even come close to that. If you are getting charged 5% in fees in this day and age then you are doing something wrong... at least here in the USA.

Apple has a cost of no more than 2.5% for credit card fees, and its probably even a few tenths lower than that. That I will guarantee (seeing as how I have seen companies in the $5million/year range get that percentage from an end-to- end provider, and Apple is quite a bit more than that in volume).

What I think is really ridiculous is that they want to charge 30% for subscription type services. One time app purchases... ok, maybe I can see that. But for a $5/month or more subscription being bought through there its absurd and making it more of a pain for the user because the app developer is forced to break with the single-billing system due to costs. So, simplicity actually hinders the experience here.

<comment><USER7> > _Citation Please!_

My company has developed a CC gateway server, and has processed as much as $80M a year in transactions for a single client. This is a business I've spent a lot of time in.

Also note that digital goods and physical goods are different categories. A full service provider of "digital goods only" processing for clients without merchant accounts charges much more than a company like Paypal, Braintree, or Stripe, which process for physical goods as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Apple is NOT acting in the best interest of its customers. The main reason I got an iPod touch was the ease of updating, combined with the presence of Microsoft software I like and use elsewhere - OneNote, Skype, SkyDrive, Photosynth.

From the article (emphasis mine): "Microsoft has a new version of the application ready, INCLUDING A KEY FIX THAT RECTIFIES A CRASHING BUG, but cannot get it through."

<comment><USER10> Yep, that's the reality of app store. Want to push a serious bug fix? Be prepared to wait 2 weeks or more. Could be up to a month, if reviewer decides that your app violates some rule that previous reviewer didn't notice or didn't care about.

<comment><USER11> If it's a serious bug, you can request an "Expedited App Review"[1] that can take between hours or a couple days.

If you abuse it though, I think they'll ignore you from that point on :)

[1]: [https://developer.apple.com/appstore/contact/appreviewteam/i...](https://developer.apple.com/appstore/contact/appreviewteam/index.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The fact that Apple even refused when Microsoft offered to simply remove the subscription option from the app, is well.. fucking retarded.

Shame on you, Apple.

</comment><comment><USER13> Here is the linked TNW article that goes into more details of the problem: [http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive- balks-a...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-at- the-30-fee-third-party-developers-feel-the-heat-as-apple-blocks-apps- integrating-the-microsoft-service/)

I am not associated with TNW, I just think that everyone should read it as it seems like there are quite a lot of questions regarding things that has been covered in the article.

</comment><comment><USER14> Seems only fair, everybody else has to pay 30% on purchases made in-app, Microsoft should too.

The only thing worse than a stupid rule is a stupid rule that some people get excluded from.

<comment><USER13> The fact that everyone has to pay 30% for putting a link to their subscription sign up itself is not fair. The TNW article goes more into more detail on this.

<comment><USER15> It kind of is/kind of isn't.

Without this rule, it makes it easy to circumvent Apples payment altogether.

And of course, there are some things that Apple should be be getting 30% for.

It is not black and white. I wonder how Microsoft will handle this in their store? I would be surprised if they did not copy Apples model, as they already have.

<comment><USER13> From the original article:

      Our iOS app "Files Pro" [Link] includes support for SkyDrive using the official Live SDK.
      A few days ago our last update was rejected by the Apple   review team because of the presence of the "Sign Up" button  in the Live login authorisation page. According to Apple the presence of this button violates their guideline that[quote from Apple guideline]:

and also:

      My iOS app "CloudMusic for SkyDrive" utilizes LiveConnect SDK for iOS to stream user's audio content to iDevice.  I have a "Sign In" button that invokes LiveConnectClient "login" method which shows Windows Live sign-in page in UIWebView.   The app was rejected by Apple review team saying that "the log in interface must be native and not a link or a web view."  Is there any other way to login to SkyDrive?

So, my main problem is not just about payment(even though I think it is a problem as well), its more about how Apple wants to get a cut from every single little thing that have the possibility of making money from developers to the point of being [almost] unreasonable.

ah, btw, Windows Store allows 3rd party transaction processor. [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/apps/jj19359...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/apps/jj193599.aspx/)

<comment><USER16> Very frustrating for developers who get caught in the middle. Same thing happened with Dropbox a while ago, where developers had to wait for a new SDK which was safe for the App Store, before being able to update their apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Thank god for jailbreaking. Apple's devices get a lot more useful when you don't have to play by their idiotic rules.

<comment><USER18> Just buy a different device. Jailbreaking isn't the best option as one day, they might just find a way of making it impossible.

<comment><USER19> Not only that, but by buying from Apple you are subsidizing the practice anyway, so that next time they can develop an even harder to crack version. Aside from that it's a boondoggle, an economic waste to build protections just to crack them. Better to buy hardware from vendors that allow (or tolerates, such as Samsung) rooting and installing custom firmwares.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I buy stuff from Amazon on the desktop computer and read it on iPad and iPhone Kindle apps. So far works great for me. Dropbox is even easier, you really need to worry about paying for premium once a year, if that, more like once in five years when your credit card expires, so this is a non-issue.

In both cases I downloaded apps because I used desktop versions extensively not vice versa. I wonder if Apple's cut is a big deterrent for mobile-first strategy that was recently discussed in Fred Wilson's post that appeared on HN.

</comment><comment><USER21> This kind of garbage is eventually going to attract legislative scrutiny. The iPhone is the single most popular mobile device in at least the USA, and Apple has a complete monopoly on applications for that device.

<comment><USER22> Indeed it will certainly attract needed scrutiny. Both by the lawmakers and by the courts.

The presumption by all of these vendors who operate their own app store is that they are legally protected in tying their hardware product (their smartphone, for example) to their online store.

But there is a history in both the written law and from the courts that makes these 'company store' policies illegal.

There is no technical reason whatsoever that prevents a smartphone/tablet vendor from allowing their smartphone/tablet from accessing anybody's online store. An Amazon tablet should be able to visit the Apple online store (if they sold Android apps) just as easily as an iPhone should be able to visit the Android marketplace (if they sold iOS apps.)

Imagine the outcry if Chevy could force you to only buy tires or gas for your Malibu from their store. Or if Mattel could force you to only buy outfits for your kid's Barbie doll from their store. Or if Dell could force you to only buy software for your laptop from their store.

The law has long been clear that this type of market coercion is illegal.

The only reason that today's device vendors are still getting away with this is because the threshold for an outcry hasn't yet been passed. But the more stories we read like this, the louder the volume is from the everyday consumer.

<comment><USER23> > Imagine the outcry if Chevy could force you to only buy tires or gas for > your Malibu from their store. Or if Mattel could force you to only buy > outfits for your kid's Barbie doll from their store. Or if Dell could force > you to only buy software for your laptop from their store.

Or if Apple could "force" you to only upgrade/fix your laptop at their store? Or if they could "force" you to develop iPhone apps on a Mac? Or if Tesla could "force" you to only buy a replacement battery from them?

I can't imagine any of these companies "forcing" these things, however, unless they're colluding with the government to make alternatives illegal, and then regulations aren't going to help anyway. They can make things _inconvenient_ , which is quite different, and the market has a history of customers going to the competition when the inconvenience factor is high enough. Why invoke legislation at all, _especially_ when the market under consideration is already competitive, which it is with smartphones? (If competition is stagnant and it's a difficult market to enter, then perhaps you have an argument to use government power to remove barriers to entry (often caused by the government) or to level the playing field or to provide incentives to make the market easier to enter.)

<comment><USER24> The expectation that customers should act in a way to basically create the conditions for a perfectly free market is misguided. Not invoking legislation just makes things painful for everyone. Sure, I can switch to Android - <USER2> the cost of buying everything again is rather high. Tomorrow I might have to switch back for similar political reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> MS can get around this the way Amazon has and redirect users to the web site. Or, I'm sure they can work something special out with Apple - they are Microsoft, after all.

BTW, Microsoft has done a real bang-up job with SkyDrive. The free versions of Word and Excel are fantastic, and even scroll with native app like speed in the browser. SO much better than the horrible code base they use for the Word/Excel viewers in Outlook Web Access and Sharepoint.

<comment><USER13> Read the linked TNW article, they are not even allowed to do that. Not even the 3rd party developers using the Skydrive SDK is allowed to do that.

<comment><USER25> Hmm, I stand corrected. That's quite a pickle there for Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Original article: [http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive- balks-a...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-at- the-30-fee-third-party-developers-feel-the-heat-as-apple-blocks-apps- integrating-the-microsoft-service)

</comment><comment><USER27> In most of these discussions there's a question about the fairness of Apple's 30% cut. Are they charging too much?

Most might just look at the cost of a credit card transaction (~3%) and think that 30% is just crazy. That, of course, is the wrong way to look at it. The act of selling a product costs far more than the credit card processing fees. This is particularly true for physical products that you have to store and ship.

The best comparison I can make is to take a look at having Amazon sell your product. Here are the fees:

<http://www.amazonservices.com/selling/pricing.htm>

In very rough strokes, fees range from about 5% to 50% of the transaction total, depending on the cost and nature of the items sold.

Clearly Apple could charge a lot less for higher valued items. Right? The flat 30% cut starts to become excessive at some point. If I understand Amazon's pricing for selling your software product the two services compare as follows (assuming no shipping, only downloads):

         price   Apple  Amazon    % of Amazon take
          1.00    0.30    2.49    249%
          5.00    1.50    3.09     62%
         10.00    3.00    3.84     38%
         15.00    4.50    4.59     31%
         20.00    6.00    5.34     27%
         25.00    7.50    6.09     24%
         30.00    9.00    6.84     23%
         35.00   10.50    7.59     22%
         40.00   12.00    8.34     21%
         45.00   13.50    9.09     20%
         50.00   15.00    9.84     20%
         75.00   22.50   13.59     18%
        100.00   30.00   17.34     17%

In this possibly contrived comparison it'd cost about the same to sell your product through Amazon up to about $15 to $20. After that Amazon charges you less. For low price items Apple is ridiculously cheap.

Can you do better if you handle your own transactions, fulfillment, hosting, customer service, fraud/loss prevention, etc. Possibly. It certainly doesn't get down to the raw ~3% you pay for CC transactions. My guess is that a highly optimized operation might be able to achieve 5% to 25% depending on the nature of the product and sale price. Clearly selling items below about $10 requires a highly optimized operation with huge volume or your are going to loose your shirt --and more-- no matter how you approach it (keep that in mind when selling something for a buck on eBay).

</comment><comment><USER28> This isn't anything new.

Apple has enforced this same restriction on numerous app developers and companies before. The only reason for this being "bigger news" is the pre- existing rivalry between Apple and Microsoft, or more likely because of Microsoft's PR team.

<comment><USER29> It's also something that most people don't agree with, so every time it happens, it gets a lot of discussion. Maybe eventually Apple will have some solution that doesn't involve getting 30% for doing nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> You already can't buy books for the Kindle or Nook app via in-app purchase, nor can you pay Dropbox for space. Why is this news when SkyDrive has the same rule?

And why doesn't SkyDrive just go "oh", and like everyone else, remove the in- app purchase option?

<comment><USER31> From the (much better) Next Web article which I wish had been linked instead:

 _Microsoft has persisted in trying to work out a compromise with Apple, but has thus far failed to come to an agreement. The company offered to remove all subscription options from its application, leaving it a non-revenue generating experience on iOS. The offer was rebuffed.

If a service has a subscription option, it seems, and it is not listed in the iOS store, the application cannot, and will not be allowed. That is, unless you are small enough that Apple doesn't bothers to check. I assume that smaller companies could slip under the radar._

(note for transparency: I worked on the SkyDrive team until a few months ago, but don't know the latest details of this situation.)

<comment><USER32> Something that needs a bit of clarification, what do they mean by "offered to remove all subscription options", and "the offer was rebuffed"? Do they mean that they created a new build with the subscription options removed, resubmitted, and had that build rejected? Or do they mean they sent an email to someone at apple and didn't get a response in a timely fashion?

<comment><USER33> I'm pretty sure that if you have an iOS application with signups and you have a subscription on your website, you have to have subscriptions available in the iOS app. Microsoft could just do what Dropbox did and allow subscriptions from their app and also allow the same from their website. Dropbox has more flexible options on their website than on their iOS app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Perhaps Microsoft should start charging Apple 30% for every song sold on iTunes for Windows.

</comment><comment><USER35> "Rebuffed"? I suspect it was more like "ignored." Because Apple won't negotiate on the rules. It's their playground, and the rules are posted plainly.

So you submitted an app (or an update to one) with a feature not allowed by Apple and got rejected. Now, you remove the offending functionality and resubmit ... and they'll get to you when they're good-n-ready. And they'll take their dear sweet time because we can't have you overlooking the rules _again_ (or trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the reviewer...)

So why doesn't Microsoft just market the hell out of SkyDrive?

"Use it. Love it. Sign up at skydrive.live.com. And now, access your SkyDrive subscription on your favorite mobile devices: Windows, Android and iOS."

Don't try to sell SkyDrive on Apple's App Store, just provide "free access" to the subscription. Plenty other services do exactly this.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's the "poor kid that won the lottery" syndrome: doing things just because they can, hoarding cash, making up stupid rules to see how far people will comply, testing developer's patience at each turn, fearing that the miracle machine might eventually run out of steam if they stop sacrificing expansion slots to the almighty gods of dumbed down design.

It is mildly amusing if your livelihood does not depend 100% on them and you still have interesting platforms to work on (not necessarily mobile).

Apple will hopefully grow out of it and become an adult company: less bullshit, less "geniuses" at the bar, less patronizing.

Google, which is supposed to be a competitor, _still_ takes 30% and you _still_ don't even get a search box in the in-app purchases list...

<comment><USER6> at least Google doesn't force you to distribute apps on their store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> In all honesty I don't get these arguments. Why does it matter when Apple is fucking Dropbox/Microsoft? Am I supposed to be angry at Apple?

I hate Apple for a lot of reasons, but the idea they should be lenient to other large corporations is hilarious. Why on earth should I extend my empathy like that?

<comment><USER38> >the idea they should be lenient to other large corporations is hilarious.

The rules apply to developers of all sizes--not just Microsoft. This is Apple being greedy--which is fine in principle. But as a heavily-invested Apple customer, I "cheer" for the Apple ecosystem (and the company's fair dealings with developers) _because I'd like continued priority and investment given to this platform._ That's my angle, and Apple seems to be working against it. I find it offensive (as I'm sure many developers do) that Apple claims the right to revenue made from outside of its App ecosystem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> In general I think that Apple should be saying to developers, 'we want our 30%' because it's their store, their revenue stream and it's pretty transparent, but when this kicked off with Dropbox I said it then, it's really stupid. If it's a case that they're selling the subscription _through_ the device then fine, take the 30% charge, however if it's a case that the subscription is setup outside of the iOS store, off the device then Apple needs to go "oh well".

EDIT: mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It sounds like Microsoft has removed the subs options from their app and resubmitted it to Apple who have yet to approve it, not denied it. It sounds like Microsoft have leaked that they were waiting in some attempt to look like Apple is picking on them.

<comment><USER40> That's the way it works though - I have a subscription to DropBox that I setup outside the iOS store, and I'm pretty certain that Apple didn't get 30% of that subscription fee.

<comment><USER39> Except, Apple set up an agreement with Dropbox to do that, but apparently they're refusing to let Microsoft do it with Skydrive.

<comment><USER41> Remember we're getting one side of the story here leaked by Microsoft.

<comment><USER39> True, it could be Microsoft spinning it to make Apple look bad, they might be trying to push against the rules, so if I turn out to be off the mark I'll mea culpa.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Well, it may be a sucky rule, but it's been there for a long time. They can't say they're surprised.

</comment><comment><USER43> If Apple allows in-app purchases freely, what may happen is that every app is a free app, and the first screen is a screen asking you to buy the paid app. I have already experience a similar experience in some apps like NYT where basically you need in-app subscription. As a user, I felt that I was faked into thinking that it is a free app. On the other hand, it is also crazy for Apple to prevent any sort of in-app upgrades.

</comment><comment><USER34> This will have big implications on Microsoft's plans to release Office for iOS in the new year. It has been reported that to use the apps you'll need an Office 365 subscription, obviously purchased from outside the app store. Apple have probably seen this coming and are drawing a line in the sand now.

<comment><USER44> Which probably means Apple is not scared of its competition at all. Otherwise they'd be happy to have Office on their tablets...

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Hate it, but can see why its happening.

What if Apple offered the purchasing of services THROUGH their app store? Then there is this clear understanding that Apple made the sale and they actually had to play a part in the transaction. I still would think 30% would be too much, maybe 15-20.

</comment><comment><USER46> Nothing is stopping Microsoft from having a web presence that people use to purchase things at. Apple might be going a bit overboard to force their payment system as the "one true payment system", but it's also a lot better for the average user in most cases, which is what Apple builds for. They don't support many corner cases. Android does. Nobody is forcing you to have an app on iOS right?

Also, the process for setting up a dev account on Apple is far more pleasant than for the Windows 8 store. Also, Microsoft won't even let you publish Metro apps outside of the MSFT store, so who are they to complain about vendor lock in or requiring a cut of purchases and such?

</comment><comment><USER47> Allow users to run unsigned code if they so desire. What is the problem. if you want curated store - use it. If you don't want this obtain your software however you desire.

<comment><USER35> And when Uncle Bob downloads malware, has his bank account drained by unscrupulous developers, takes his phone to a "Genius" to fix the problem, he's going to blame Apple for his trouble.

Let's do the old car analogy: if Mercedes tells you the car requires high octane fuel, but you insist on putting in cheaper fuel, is Mercedes going to repair the resulting damage under warranty? Certainly not.

So Apple decides to create/craft/curate a certain user experience for their customers. And they create rules to enforce it because they don't want to be responsible for their screw-ups (like jailbreaking and installing malware) - if you don't like it, why are you buying Apple's products?

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> The title is incorrect. Apple isn't blocking SkyDrive from the App Store. Microsoft has decided that they didn't want Apple taking a 30% cut of revenue generated from iOS devices. This is a fine distinction. Like it or not, Apple controls their ecosystem, and your choices are to either play by their rules or not play at all. Microsoft decided that they didn't want to play by those rules, so they took their ball and went home.

I can't say that I blame them, but don't make it out like Microsoft is getting any kind of special scrutiny. It is worth noting though that both Dropbox and Box.net have found ways to live within the iOS ecosystem.

<comment><USER34> How is the title incorrect? Microsoft have the app waiting for approval, which Apple has blocked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Next you'll tell me Microsoft will complain about not being able to put IE10 on iOS. Wouldn't that be ironic?

</comment><comment><USER6> amazon + MS + dropbox should just bring the case to justice department.

<comment><USER35> Why? Because there's no competition from the "leading mobile phone OS?" Because you can't get access to these companies' services on other devices? Because Apple has a de facto monopoly?

<comment><USER6> One way to look at: as amazon customer, you can't buy ebook from kindle iOS app. Amazon has a simpler one-click payment system, why should they give 30% (which is almost all they are making) to apple for a inferior service?

<comment><USER50> Apple is not blocking you from purchasing an ebook via Kindle's app. Amazon has chosen not to include this functionality in their app because they don't want to lose money on sales through their app.

<comment><USER6> So do you really think Amazon has a choice?

<comment><USER50> Amazon is choosing to sell via iOS devices. They did fine before the iPhone was released, and I doubt having to forgo the sales via IAP is making a dent in their non-existent profits...

Here's a game. Go to Amazon, tell them you want to become one of their merchants. See how far they'll negotiate with you regarding their cut of your sales...

iOS is Apple's platform, just as much as Amazon is a platform for sales. Apple has just as much right to control it via rules and fees as Amazon does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I work on the Ubuntu One iOS team. Our apps have this same issue. I think it really affects user experience, because you can't allow sign up for premium features, but you also can't even _mention_ those premium features (say, with a link to where you can find out more). If you don't already know about them, you're not going to find out in the app.

<comment><USER30> You can't link to anything, but I believe you can verbally describe them and that's fine.

<comment><USER11> I think you can even point out the url in plain text, like

"Subscribe by visiting www.myapp.com/iphone/subscribe"

(i.e., no link - user has to type that in Safari herself)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> How is this a surprise, it's right there in the app store documents.

This is Microsoft complaining they should be except from the rules just because they're big. This is the beauty of the App Store, doesn't matter how big you are you still get treated the same as the little guy</comment>


Twitter open sources its MySQL fork - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.twitter.com/2012/04/mysql-at-twitter.html

<comment><USER2> One interesting improvement relates to NUMA node allocations.

I think the reasoning is that if you touch all the memory in the buffer pool after you allocate it, you're more likely to get a balanced node allocation than if you let MySQL organically access it.</comment>


How three connected hardware companies killed their devices - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@gigastacey/memo-to-nest-how-3-connected-hardware-companies-killed-their-devices-7f2368a5710b <comment><USER2> One problem with the IoT for consumers is that in many cases we're replacing devices that we're used to lasting many years, but vendors want them to have the lifetime of a smartphone.

We're still in an early adopter phase on a lot of it though, so it's hard to judge how it will play out.

Caveat: staunchly an IoT skeptic.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Even beyond the monetary aspect, it'd be an absolute headache to have to replace this stuff with any frequency.

The biggest reason I'm a skeptic though is the incredibly carefree and reckless approach I've seen used by many IoT devices.

The Nest is a great example - I was shocked to discover there's no division between the part that directly controls the furnace/AC/etc and the rest of the device. That should've been a no-brainer, because first and foremost the device shouldn't cause harm, and when the "smart" portion inevitably has a problem (even if temporary), a user shouldn't wake up to a frozen or overheating home.

This stuff _needs_ a higher level of safety and guarantee, and treating them like smartphone apps is going to end very poorly.

<comment><USER4> Like I've written before, I want a segmented IoT chip design.

[http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-March/02...](http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-March/028666.html)

It should be possible to split up the functionality across a trusted controller with hard safety limits (only accepting signed updates) from a powerful CPU providing the IoT logic and control functions, with all the I/O components wired such that the trusted controller has the ability to disconnect them.

Ideally they'd also have all traffic routed through a home server acting as a firewall (and would ONLY work while firewalled after "firmware expiration").

<comment><USER5> I was involved with a hardware/IoT startup a few years back - we built Christmas tree lights (so nothing _nearly_ as big a deal if it broke tha your thermostat or door locks,,,) - but even for that our hardware design had baked into it the "do not ruin Christmas" design principle - while it required the Linux half of the controller to allow wifi connection to your phone and all the other "connected" stuff - there was also a microcontroller directly driving the lights, which all on it's own (in the absence of the Linux half coming up) could at least do some minimal blinky light patterns, so that the nearest thing we had to "critical functionality" could be delivered even if(/when) the most-complex-by-far piece failed.

(It did, though, add enough to our BOM cost that I have very little doubt that if we'd got to the "get enough investment to find a production run of 100,000" part of our plan, the requisite "adult supervision" that investment would have brought along with it would have fought tooth and nail to reduce our unit costs by a dollar or two, at the expense of all the reliability/redundancy we'd engineered in there...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm working on building all of my own IoT (outlets, lights, sensors) using ESP8266's, Amazon Alexa, and a Raspberry Pi as the "hub". If Alexa gets deprecated, or I want to use some other voice control, I can (hopefully) easily swap her out with whatever is cool then.

Of course, this is cheaper in $$ but way more expensive in my own time. Fortunately I think of it as a hobby and not work.

<comment><USER7> Can you share more details on your work? I've wanted to build my own connected outlet for a while and if you have any pointers to resources on this, I'd love to see them.

<comment><USER8> This could be as simple as directly connecting ESP8266 GPIO to a solid state relay and programming ESP8266 to change the state of the pin in response to a HTTP post, e.g. [1]

Note that you should probably familiarize yourself with basic electrical safety rules when working with mains voltage, as well as fire safety. An intro to digital electronics would probably be a logical next step. Lastly, SSRs have an undesired feature of failing in connected state, so don't connect any loads that could overheat when plugged continuously.

[1] [https://www.openhomeautomation.net/control-a-lamp- remotely-u...](https://www.openhomeautomation.net/control-a-lamp-remotely- using-the-esp8266-wifi-chip/)

<comment><USER7> Super helpful, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My biggest concern with the precedent the Nest decision sets. What happens when a company disables devices with health and safety implications?

At the edges maybe a company disables a refrigerator -- or worse smoke alarms. At the core is bricking a medical device such as an insulin pump.

<comment><USER10> ...On the other hand, what happens when a company stops supporting a product but allows it to keep functioning afterwards...and at some point, the maintenance-mode device fails and hurts the user? One of the purported benefits of connected hardware is that a company can push out updates and fixes and users don't have to worry about paying attention (as much) to warnings and recalls when it comes to software.

When a product is initially released, users come to expect that support. If a company needs to shut down a product line and continued support...sure, ideally, users will pay attention and slowly migrate to new hardware when they can, just like people are still getting by with cars that have deadly airbags because they haven't had the time to leave their car at the shop...but as devices continue to have a feature set more dependent on the cloud and instant-push-updates...is there potential harm in letting a life-critical device function in zombie mode in such a way that it's good enough for months or even a year after the shutdown, but may be deadly sometimes afterward? The additional problem that connected devices add to the mix is that consumers have a hard time distinguishing between what features require the cloud and which features can work independently.

Obviously, there should never be the situation in which a critical device just dies as soon as the company shuts down its servers. Life-critical time- sensitive things, such as a heart pump, should thus be designed to operate independently, with connectedness being an optional feature.

But for other things, such as a smoke alarm...if a company designed it in such a way that connectedness is essential to its functionality, and that its usefulness in zombie mode can't be predicted a year down the road...can't it be argued that it's more responsible for the company to give the user a hard cutoff, rather than allowing the user the false comfort of zombie mode?

<comment><USER11> As someone in a different thread put it "It's not so much about the cost of the device as much as it's about the time invested in setting things up".

It's very poor form to sunset a product without offering users (your early adopters none the less) a easy migration path to another product. Had there actually been data standards for setup and captured data, I'd expect the ability to export my setup and data so that I can use it to configure an alternative product.

<comment><USER10> Oh no doubt, I think _these_ instances are poor form, and in this young age of IoT, companies as big as Nest/Google should bend over a bit backwards for early adopters when it comes to sunset period and possibly even rebates...if nothing else than to treat them like loss leaders.

But later on, as always-on-devices are the norm...I do think it'll be more acceptable -- with the appropriate regulations and consumer protections -- to kill a device at the end of the cycle instead of designing it to operate as a zombie, in the same way that users accept that MMOs and other multiplayer- heavy games are heavily dependent on company servers...though in that case, it's easier to design a game to allow non-official servers so that the community can carry on after the official shut-off...but that's where the analogy of video game == important home device ends, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I looked into wiring up the house as a "smarthome" in 1999. That stuff is all ludicrously obsolete today. Glad I didn't bother.

But I did run cat5 everywhere, and that has paid off nicely.

<comment><USER13> I've heard that good architecture involves doing just enough to responsibly _defer_ decisions... But in your case it's technical _and_ physical :p

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > The key in doing so is communicating your decision to users in a clear > manner... For example, [J Random Company] explained that customers' devices > would still work but would start losing functionality as partners, such as > Pandora and Spotify, changed their code...

Which is it? "Communicating in a clear manner," or "keeping the servers running and not breaking people's stuff?" I would guess it's the latter, since Nest seems to have communicated pretty clearly that it's bricking people's Revolv devices. The lesson for "Internet of Shit" companies is completely clear: if you want happy buyers of physical devices, keep the servers running until the devices physically break. Yes, this will cost you a bit more money.

</comment><comment><USER15> I really don't like all these IoT things. Modern software (except for Apple mobile devices) is full or bugs and vulnerabilities. So yesterday a hacker could break into your PC and see your files and tomorrow NSA or some bored teenager will be able to turn off the light and open the doors in your home.

And I don't like the idea of having critical parts of a device or infrastructure somewhere in a foreign country. Today "smart" phones, TVs or even cars send encrypted data over Internet to their manuacturers. How do you check they don't spy on you?

"Cloud" services have much in common with proprietary software: user cannot have full control over them.

<comment><USER16> _Modern software (except for Apple mobile devices) is full or bugs and vulnerabilities._

A search for "ios brick" suggests that your exception isn't much of an exception, unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems the IoT community should push for manufacturers to provide up front guarantees that if they discontinue a device / platform they will open source the entire system for the community of users to continue as they wish.

That way first adopters will feel safe in their purchases no matter what the outcome.

</comment><comment><USER18> My dead Chumby still sits on my desk. It's been what...3 years now?

I know people have revived part of the network, I'm just too lazy to do all the work to revive it.</comment>


Among the Lizard People: Silent Connections at the Reptile Expo - <AUTHOR> https://theawl.com/among-the-lizard-people-99826d6476e#.qunz2vlc6 <comment><USER2> "It's a strange thing to keep a creature you have no hope of developing a relationship with."

I keep tropical fish because I find it super relaxing to watch them flit around. We're not bros or buddies.

My grandparents put out feeder and nectar for hummingbirds because hummingbirds are totally awesome, not because they enjoyed a deep personal relationship with those little sugar fiends.

Its a strange theme for a reptile show story in that most stories are a variation on pointing out the unusually high percentage of white trash followed by the usual preaching to the choir social signalling about how awesome we are because we aren't them.

I also noted the lack of sense of wonder or beauty. Perhaps another symptom of excessive projection about human relationships is refusal to admit some animals are part of our lives for shallow reasons because of fear of judgment about the depth of human relationships. Maybe something to do with age; I'm confident enough in my long marriage to buy a tropical fish based solely on how it looks (aside from blindingly obvious higher priority engineering constraints like compatibility and biochemistry, within those constraints, pick something based on looks) Or the opposite, Mexican Mole Lizard totally not happening any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are a LOT of people who talk about their lizard "loving" them, and for them this is the article. My cousin though, has had reptiles since she was a little girl, and not because she thought she was going to bond with them. Instead, she likes lizards. She likes to watch them, and interact with them, and find them fascinating. Personally, I find them boring, but I get it.

There are some pigeons that routines stop by my living room window and spend hours there, and occasionally I watch them. Over time, I've learned to recognize a lot of their behavioral "routines", the constant maintenance of their personal space, grooming, cooing, fighting, mating. I've seen their sleek young pigeons come, and grow into adult birds.

They're not terribly complicated really, but they're interesting. They do have relationships with each other that express themselves in mutual grooming, or fighting, or in the case of mates a total exception to the "personal space" rule.

Nothing about my affection for them comes from a sense of connection, or the possibility of connection. They are frankly disinterested in anything other than other pigeons (friend, foe, mate, shelter), and food; everything else is something to be wary of of. I just enjoy seeing them go about their lives, often making pleasant noises, and just being alive and different.

</comment><comment><USER4> There's a quote from the TV show Archer that I think reveals an aspect of the reptilian appeal that was missing in the article:

"Gee, I don't know, Cyril. Maybe deep down I'm afraid of any apex predator that lived through the K-T extinction. Physically unchanged for a hundred million years, because it's the perfect killing machine. A half ton of cold- blooded fury, the bite force of 20,000 Newtons, and stomach acid so strong it can dissolve bones and hoofs."

The sense of fear that Archer has is also expressed in our pop cultural fascination with all things Dinosaur (Jurassic World/Park, etc.).

To be able to keep a miniature dinosaur as a pet seems like a great thing.

</comment><comment><USER5> > At its most serene, a lizard won't interact with you any differently than it > would a branch.

Sure but it's still interacting. I've had tortoises and lizards for a long time and I really like interacting with them. See them react to different things, whether it be me or a branch.

<comment><USER6> Maybe it depends on the lizard, if you raised it, or some other factor but I don't feel that's quite accurate. I dated a girl who had lizards all her life and to hear her tell it, her bearded dragons grew quite fond of her. One had surgery to remove a tumor and when she saw him after surgery he flat out fought the vet to come running to her, despite being bandaged and still semi- sedated. I know when I came home from work, one of the dragons we had would clamber off his perch and claw at the glass, presumably for attention. I'm sure most of the time they would snuggle for the body heat, but those bearded dragons showed some awareness that I'm more than a log.

<comment><USER5> Your story makes me want to get a bearded dragon again. :) The one I had was really really old (we were his retirement home) so could have been that.

<comment><USER6> I had a pair of hatchlings with my ex. I didn't quite get to see them to full maturity, but just about. They're almost like the puppies of the lizard world, especially if you get them young. The first one we had, his mate died about a year on. He went from being a fairly social critter to burrowing under his pool most of the time until we got him a new mate. I try not to anthropomorphize but I swear he cheered up and became his old self because of his new friend. I know anecdote != data but damn if I'm not gonna believe those things had something more to them than "hey, you're just a stick"

If you want a cool pet that's less effort than a dog, bearded dragons are a great option. Just make sure to be careful handling them when they're small. Sneaky little things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > because the relationship is all projection

Yup. I'm convinced my cat is on my lap for reasons other than "This thing feeds me and pets me" too. But at least it comes and sits on my lap, even if it's conning me. And... I'm not projecting that, either.

<comment><USER3> You're warm, you feed it, you groom it, and let it groom you. You presumably never hurt it, even when it's vulnerable. That's trust. I'm not sure that human love is so much more than that, run through a metacognitive filter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If I were a Jeff bezos level gazillionaire I would probably sponsor a high budget giant Galapagos land tortoise exhibit with its own full time staff. What else is so huge, serene, slow moving and lives for 200 years?</comment>


Why You Should Pay Attention to Node.Js - <AUTHOR> http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/05/13/node-js/

<comment><USER2> Something I feel that is significant and only touched on tangentially is that there are a _ton_ of javascript programmers out there. If Node.js or a project like it becomes successful it could provide a very easy mechanism for all the javascript programmers to do server side software as well. It's something that could significantly alter the web programming ecosystem.

<comment><USER3> It seems like knowing the syntax of whatever language you're doing server programming is not the most important aspect of server side development. It's a really different skill set than what javascript has been used for up to now.

<comment><USER2> To a degree perhaps. However, Node.js has a programming style that's highly reminiscent of code you would see in a browser. For instance, responding to a conenct event on a socket

      socket.addListener("connect", function () {
        socket.write("hello\r\n");
      });

is really not that different from responding to a click event on an element in jQuery.

      $("#my-element").click(function() {
        alert('Element Clicked!');
      });

I'm not saying that it will instantly make everyone a server side programmer, but it definitely makes the barrier to entry quite a bit lower.

<comment><USER4> I don't see how that is much different, syntactically, from:

      public void service(ServletRequest req, ServletResponse res) throws IOException {
        res.getWriter().println("hello");
      }

Yes, JavaScript is dynamically typed so you don't have to type the types.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They are missing the JS-on-the-server boat for being too focused on pleasing asynchronous-rocket-scientists while the web is simply asking for plain JS.

All the web world need is a way to print('
Hello world
') easily, no need to create servers and listen to ports to just spit some html, and there is where node fails.

V8CGI is an interesting option but lacks penetration.

Google could hit a home run if they provide NATIVE js on app engine (not rhino on top of Java)

<comment><USER6> So you want it to run per-request like PHP?

<comment><USER5> Personally, I don't care how it runs as long as I can code JS on the server as easy as php.

I'll be more explicit, this is all I want:

      - open editor and type:
      - response.write("
Hello world!
")
      - save it as hello.js and run it

See? nothing else.

Right now V8CGI is the closest to my dream I've found.

<comment><USER7> I don't see why someone couldn't create that as a layer on top of what Node.js already does since it's just a special case.

<comment><USER5> Exactly my point.

Node is cool and stuff, but lacking the layer of simplicity Joe scripter needs to write his family album or personal shop.

Abstract everything from me and just let me write html (without having to use any framework)

And no, it is not a special case, it is what 99% of web scripters today need. The other one percent are those who lurk around node.js in google groups, the brains behind the monster, the ones who want to compete with nginx and apache, those building frameworks and utilities, not the ones who write casual stuff who take a look and decide to go shopping while something easier comes along, count me among them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This post alludes to performance faster than nginx. Anybody have any real- world experience comparing the two? I'd love to hear about it if so...

<comment><USER9> I'm also interested since I've never seen it benched faster than nginx. It's usually about 80% of the speed on echo benches, but there's an ongoing email thread about response latency causing major slowdowns, so perf improvements are ongoing.

It's still far faster than anything else I've used as far as response time. The other dynamic languages don't run as fast and it lacks the layers of filtering/abstraction that bog down the compiled languges.

<comment><USER10> See slides 4-6 in Ryan's presentation (<http://nodejs.org/cinco_de_node.pdf>). He caveated the comparison heavily, and also took pains to note the vast differential in memory consumption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is this a replacement for stuff like Python's eventlet, etc. ? I mean, if I am not building a web-app (but a network app nevertheless), does it still make sense to use Node.js ?

For example, someone wrote the same example in eventlet, gevent, node.js, eventmachine, tornado and twisted. <http://gist.github.com/376416>

it's pretty obvious how to use gevent from your python code, how does one use node.js (without resorting to web frameworks, like Django etc.)

<comment><USER12> <http://expressjs.com/intro.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Could someone please hurry up and write a well-supported, popular lisp that compiles to javascript and runs on V8 (it could be friends with clojure)? I hate hate hate javascript's syntax and object model, but evented I/O in a lisp would be heavenly to work with.

<comment><USER14> Personally, I think CoffeeScript is close to the perfect syntax for a language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Implicit in node is a fundamental rejection of traditional I/O. It's pushing an asynchronous agenda with its event loops, based on the assumption that concurrency cannot be achieved with a thread per connection" This is actually very very wrong event based using kqueue/epool in 'modern operating systems' (read:monolithic/hybrid/posix) takes ~ 8 system calls while a threaded approach takes about 2/3 of that to do the same.

</comment><comment><USER16> Cool writeup. I am enthusiastic about node.js and I have Heroku node.js beta access - now all I need is more free time.

Javascript and node.js have a nice development story and I am trying to spin up a bit on Emacs support for Javascript.

</comment><comment><USER17> mod_v8 for nginx would be much better idea. Or, state it differently, v8 + nginx portable runtime.

It is better to put together what is great, than reinvent the wheel.

<comment><USER18> The author of nginx, Igor Sysoev, actually investigated on this and decided creating contexts in V8 is too slow (2ms) for being used in such a manner:

[http://translate.google.ru/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl...](http://translate.google.ru/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://sysoev.ru/prog/v8.html&sl=ru&tl=en)

<comment><USER17> V8 is open source, and I think they will be happy to incorporate some performance enhancement patches. =)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Recommendations for internal docs / knowledge-base? - <AUTHOR> Digital Agency; we've got an incredible amount of docs scattered between google drive, emails, confluence, repo wiki's and readme's, trello/aha, and inside people's heads - just thought I'd see if folks have any advice / recommendations on tools / processes to get it all together in one place, and make it more uniform / easier to search / use - as currently it's still easier just to grab the "knowledge" person and pick their brain (with the detriment of disturbing them during their current work sprint).<p>I'm more concerned with "internal" stuff; such as guides to a platform, who to notify when X happens, or who'd be the best person to talk to about Y platform etc - essentially a company handbook of sorts, rather than client related stuff such as specs / scope of works etc. <comment><USER2> Few contenders for you:

[https://documize.com/](https://documize.com/) \- can be self-hosted with open-source community version

[https://www.nuclino.com/](https://www.nuclino.com/) \- free in beta</comment>


Firefoxs "Private Mode" saves visited sites permissions to disk - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3af3q4/firefoxs_private_browsing_mode_saves_your_visited/

<comment><USER2> Possibly the bigger issue for users of private mode in Firefox is that extensions are run: Users have to trust that extension developers implemented private mode correctly. In Chrome, extensions don't get to run in private mode, unless the users allows them explicitly.</comment>


The Making of Margaret Atwood - <AUTHOR> https://thewalrus.ca/the-making-of-margaret-atwood/ <comment><USER2> I gave a book of her poetry (Penelopiad) to a friend of mine, a talented poet herself. She said it made her angry: this was what she'd been aiming for her whole life, and Atwood made it look easy.

I'm glad that Handmaid's Tale has brought her to a wider audience. It would be easy for her to be shunted into "genre fiction" for that book, or into "chick lit" for most of her other novels. But she's one of the most gifted prose stylists I've ever read. Her nonfiction book Payback, about debt, is actually quite insightful as well -- it came out at the heart of the financial crisis, but was developed before it began and is a very astute criticism of the entire financial system.

<comment><USER3> I'll have to read payback, I was unfamiliar with it, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I have to say, though, this comment seems an odd mix of praising Atwood and seriously underestimating the scale and longevity of her fame and international regard. Like yes, her standard fiction novels are written by a woman and have female main characters, but nearly all of them were nominated for major international literary awards and many of them won - I don't think any would qualify as "chick lit", unless you're taking the extremely broad stance of putting any novel written from a female perspective under that umbrella.

And assuming that your poet friend was unfamiliar with Atwood seems bizarre to me - I'm not a poet or in a literary field at all, but I was under the impression that she is one of the most well-known living poets (as a poet, not only a novelist), it's just that poets/poetry don't tend to be that well known in general.

<comment><USER2> She is well known in literary circles, but I didn't think of her as a household name. My friend the poet knew her from Handmaid's Tale, but her poetry was less well known. (There are so many poets that even people who read a lot of poetry can easily miss a great one.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The context is that various authors comment on Atwood:

>> The office of Jonathan Franzen: While he was pleased to receive your invitation, he must decline due to the fact that, although he is aware of Ms. Atwood's love of birds, and he loves her for it, he's never birded with her personally and can't speak to any specifics regarding her conservation work.

</comment><comment><USER5> She looks down her nose at "science fiction" and claims that her work is "speculative fiction" instead. It is a pretentious, pedantic distinction and, as a lifelong scifi fan, it makes me deeply ambivalent to anything she produces. Even if it is good science fiction.

<comment><USER6> To be fair to Atwood, there was a lot of junk sci fi over the years that she would want to distance her work from.

<comment><USER7> Hell, even some of the most popular sci-fi today (cough— _Three Body Problem_ —cough) would fit that bill. If I was an author in complete command of my craft like Atwood is, I wouldn't want to be explicitly associated with the genre, either.

<comment><USER6> I'd love to hear your opinion on Three Body Problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm still flabbergasted that she and others seriously proclaimed Trump's election would bring about the scenario of the handmaids tale. I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age, but I've lost all interest in her work.

(downvotes incoming in 3...2...1....)

<comment><USER9> Please don't post political flamebait to Hacker News, and please don't downvote-bait. Both those things are in the site guidelines, and if you'd review and follow them, we'd be grateful.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER8> Doesn't that apply to the submission about Atwood, though? It seems to me the "political flamebait" rule is applied rather selectively on HN.

<comment><USER9> How to handle politics on HN is a hard question. We've worked out an answer over the years that derives from the site guidelines, is not rooted in any particular politics, and so far seems to be stable.

To see why it's a hard question, look at the two extremes of the solution space. One would be to ban every topic that you find politically provocative—i.e. that _anybody_ finds politically provocative, since there's no reason to privilege one user over others. That would exclude most stories that get posted here—certainly everything about economics, history, philosophy, literature, city planning, etc., but also most stories about business and industry. Even many stories that appear purely technical would have to go. Probably everything would, once people got done being provoked by what remained. As some are fond of pointing out, everything is political when you get down to it.

The other extreme would be to allow every political topic and all escalations and flamewars. That would turn this place into scorched earth and kill it as a site for intellectual curiosity, its mandate ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).

Since both extremes are impossible for HN, we need to draw a line somewhere. Where should it be? If we're optimizing for intellectual curiosity, we have to cast a wide net, because curiosity likes to meander. Any topic that supports intellectual curiosity is ok, even if it has political overlap. The topics that aren't ok are the ones that are (a) purely political, (b) purely sensational, (c) have usually turned into flamewars in the past.

What about stories that don't gratify your curiosity? Well, that's always the case, in the sense that no one likes every story and no story is liked by everyone. It suffices to gratify curiosity for some segment of the audience. If you run into one that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of others to read. If you run out, the 'past' link in the top bar is guaranteed to find popular threads that you missed. And if a submission really breaks the site guidelines, you can flag it. What's _not_ ok is to start posting comments in the thread from a place of provocation rather than curiosity. That's not in the spirit of HN and the guidelines ask you not to.

All these concepts require interpretation, so any line we draw is fuzzy. Other moderators might make different calls. But the OP is obviously on topic by that standard, and while I understand how it can appear that we apply the rules selectively, I'd caution against leaping to a belief in moderation bias motivated by secret political preferences (inevitably opposed to your own of course! See [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment) (later edit: and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870))). All political sides get moderated and/or not moderated at times. When it comes to politics, the mods do something for everyone to dislike—which unfortunately distorts how people perceive moderation ([https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by:dang)).

If you see a case that violates this standard, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing everything on HN. The second-likeliest explanation is that we thought it over and came up with some reason that is based on the site guidelines. Sometimes that leads to counterintuitive places. People are always welcome to ask.

If that's not enough, there are plenty of prior explanations: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang). Take a look, and if there's still something I haven't addressed, I'd be curious to know what it is.

<comment><USER8> Thank you for taking the time trying to explain!

Obviously, I disagree with many things about the approach HN has taken, but of course it is your site, you can do as you want.

For starters, if you say people can just skip things that don't satisfy their curiosity, I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to political controversies. I can understand if you want to moderate the "root articles" (the once that are listed on the homepage), but why do you care about the comments? If people discuss something, obviously it interests them (strikes their curiosity). What does it matter if they make a 10000 comment thread about it? I think you have some sort of algorithmic counter measures against long threads, which does nothing but enrage (presumably based on some heuristic PG once made, when he felt long comment threads signal flame wars)

Ultimately it seems to me all about the people you attract here to vote on things. I've just tried to read that article about Atwood, and it is entirely too long-winded for me. If HN had been founded by some famous literary professor, you would probably get only submissions like that, and nothing about technology or science. But it was founded by PG and now it is associated with YCombinator, so it draws a different crowd.

Just saying I don't think the "curiosity" rule is really what makes HN, it is the people you manage to attract.

And to that I personally can say, I wouldn't mind some other user ripping into me in comments for some political or other reasons. I do mind HN itself telling me I am not wanted here , which it does in so many ways.

Of course, again, that is your right to do, as it is your site. It just makes me sad (unsurprisingly), having been on HN since the early days. And ultimately it does seem to boil down to political opinions, even if you don't consciously target certain opinions above others, as you claim.

<comment><USER9> It matters what people post in the comments because the comments very much affect what sort of people HN manages to attract. You seem to be treating these two things as independent, but they are intensely interdependent.

Since the value of HN is its community, we have to regulate the comments carefully. The main tool for doing that is [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Not to do so would cause HN to suffer the default fate of internet communities, which tend eventually to become burnt-out husks of their former selves. The idea here is to stave that off for as long as we can: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20stave&sort=byDate&type=comment).

That's why we keep asking you to follow the site guidelines. It's not just because your individual comments get better when you do that. It's also because the feedback loops involved (the effects of comment quality on the community) are large and existential for HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> She do get a lot of press, may be perhaps that is so because she is tune with the political fads of the time, rather than anything else. But shorn of their topicality, does her work has lasting value?

Even considering women writers writing in English only, she'd be considerably behind writers like Marilynne Robinson, Donna Tart, A.S Byatt or Arundhati Roy in the accomplishment of her work.

<comment><USER11> Considering that _The Handmaid's Tale_ was published in 1985, I'd say her work has lasting value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "A worldwide cultural phenomenon"? I have never even heard her name, not a single time. Maybe your world is smaller then I thought.

<comment> dan-robertson What they mean is that her books were popular and read throughout the (developed I guess) world. And this is true. They were also made into tv series many people watched and radio plays. So obviously producers thought they would be popular. The books are also very critically acclaimed.

I think it would be hard to somewhat regularly buy books or go to a (typical English language) bookstore without seeing anything about Margaret Atwood.

But maybe there is a large world of English speaking people who don't at all follow book releases or tv or even headlines in the mainstream news (where her winning of awards would be announced).

<comment><USER13> I read a ton of books, and recall only briefly hearing of it maybe a year ago. Didn't read it; too culturally-political for my taste, and didn't hear of it again. I'll admit, however, I don't go to bookstores much anymore.

<comment><USER14> It? What is it? The Testaments? The Handmaid's Tale?

Margaret Atwood has written much more than those two books - she is a prolific author. According to Wikipedia she's she has published 17 books of poetry, 16 novels, 10 books of non-fiction, eight collections of short fiction, eight children's books, and one graphic novel, as well as a number of small press editions in poetry and fiction. Her works are popular, both with the general public and with critics.

<comment><USER13> _The Handmaid's Tale_, which seems to be her best-known work. See above as to why I didn't read it. I didn't specify an antecedent as I meant to reply to Freak_NL's comment; mea culpa.

<comment><USER15> She actually has other far more important and well-known books and has won many prestigious international literary awards for them. A few have even been made into successful TV shows, if your knowledge of literature is based on what is available on internet streaming services.

<comment><USER13> Right. I've heard _of_ her in passing, but wasn't that interested in what I heard; that was my point. It seems her work is targeted at a different demographic, so fine. Most of her work appears to be "feminist literature", which is not how I prefer to spend my free time. Not necessarily bad, just not that high on my reading list. Anyway, my point was that there are plenty of people who aren't as familiar with this particular author. I don't subscribe to streaming services; that did not influence my opinion.

<comment><USER16> Just read the book. It's not "Feminist literature", although I suppose it could be, it's just a damn good book, with a distinctly feminine perspective. As a not particularly 'woke' British bloke, it's one of my favourite ever books.

<comment><USER17> I love how the book has a strong first-person perspective, and you're often not seeing all the workings of the dystopian society, but the moments where you do get a bit revealed to you (eg: the US congress being attacked) are incredibly satisfying to read since it's so built up.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Just Do It. Burn the ships. Stop Consulting & Start Building a Product - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kveton.com/2011/08/19/burn-the-ships/

<comment><USER2> Cash is king. Walking away from a revenue stream you understand for a product you don't understand is a formula for putting yourself in the poir house. If it is worth doing, people will invest in your idea. Spend their money, not your own,.unless you're rich.</comment>


How America will collapse (by 2025) - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025

<comment><USER2> After having lived the last 4 or so years overseas in a developing country, here's why I'm not as concerned about America as alarmist pundits:

1) I'm not trying to be nationalistic here, but we have one of if not THE most entrepreneurial, hard working, critical thinking work forces in the world. That is an intangible but one I believe will keep the US competitive long in the future. It generally takes generations for this to change (both in countries that lack it and in countries that have it.)

2) Economics isn't a zero sum game. Just because China or India overtakes the US as the world's leading economy doesn't mean that the US is worse off for it. Value can be added without being taken away. If China becomes the world's largest economy and at the same time, the US's per capita GDP doubles from where it is today, is the US really any worse off?

<comment><USER3> The point the article was making but didn't flesh out is that the dollar's status as a reserve currency has _HUGE_ benefits for the US public. If that status disappears (due to the rise of other countries), the standard of living in the US _will_ decrease.

<comment><USER4> True ... but as of yet, I just don't see a replacement, although 2025 it a long ways out there.

Right now, the dollar is still the least worst currency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> China and India each have about three times the population of the United States. While I don't agree with the direction the country has been on since 2000, I think the problems facing the US are not so terrible as to be unavoidable.

Being the top superpower economically, militarily, and governmentally with three hundred million people rather than one billion long-term is not realistic. Eventually you are going to be outproduced in most areas.

Unless we are about to go over the edge now into Great Depression II I think America will be fine. Having China, India, US and the EU as essentially four superpowers will be a political situation like we have never seen before.

</comment><comment><USER6> I grew up in india and live in US for the past 10 years and visit india often. I am amused by all this doom doctors... Trust me, US is the best country in the world and has a lot of long term advantages (like natural resources, relatively strong capitalistic system, stable political system, great universities, a big entrepreneurial population, open to immigration etc etc). There are a lot of problems in china and india which media don't talk about.

I agree US has a lot of short term issues like deficit etc. But its all manageable. If i go by the deficit commissions report just reforming the tax system and increasing the retirement age by 2 years will wipe out the deficit.

</comment><comment><USER7> Music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery. That's all America _should_ do. The whole military empire thing has always been the opiate of the elite.

<comment><USER8> Was that a deliberate reference to Snow Crash?

<comment><USER7> It would be wildly improbable to include "microcode" otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Err... why such a dismissive attitude towards the thesis of the article? We _do_ have some massive problems including:

1\. Foreign wars that are a drag on resources

2\. Internal entitlements (SS, medicare) that are unsustainable and also a growing drag on resources

3\. A political culture that seems incapable of meeting the long-term needs of the nation

4\. Increasingly better global competitors

Will these problems just go away once we climb out of the recession?

<comment><USER10> I can't speak for anyone else but my dismissive attitude is based on the fact that he seems to have done no more than 15 minutes worth of research for this article and what research he has done is badly attributed. To give an example of this he quotes the number of Patents filed by the U.S., Japan and China. But anyone whose looked at a random batch of patents can tell you a lot of them ill conceived tripe (ever watch cable TV between 1am and 5am?). Which means it proves very little without looking at the content of the patents (which he clearly didn't do)

So even if he's right the piece is so badly done that it doesn't deserve a lot of respect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Known holywar, weak proofs, nothing new, flag, yawn.

<comment><USER10> My favorite was when he just starts making up actual scenarios. This paragraph is classic...

"It's mid-summer 2014 and a drawn-down U.S. garrison in embattled Kandahar in southern Afghanistan is suddenly, unexpectedly overrun by Taliban guerrillas, while U.S. aircraft are grounded by a blinding sandstorm. Heavy loses are taken and in retaliation, an embarrassed American war commander looses B-1 bombers and F-16 fighters to demolish whole neighborhoods of the city that are believed to be under Taliban control, while AC-130U "Spooky" gunships rake the rubble with devastating cannon fire."

When you're using fictional accounts that you made up as proof of your concept it's probably a sign you need to find some more supporting research before you publish

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Glen Beck for intellectuals

</comment><comment><USER13> Next superpower is not China IMHO, but Germany-centered smaller EU. Or, if for example if Russia truly change, that will be a real force as well.

</comment><comment><USER14> China leading the US in technological innovation? That's rich.

<comment><USER15> You sound just like Doc in Back to the Future (he was talking about Japan however).

This little tidbit points to the problem.

 _just as America's current supply of brilliant scientists and engineers retires, without adequate replacement by an ill-educated younger generation._

Without the collage educated middle class to fill startups and R&D firms/departments what is the US going to build it's continued technological innovation on?

Education is a long term investment in the future and one that the US has being failing making for some time now.

<comment><USER16> > Education is a long term investment in the future and one that the US has > being failing making for some time now.

The treatment of foreign students is particularly perplexing. We come here, spend 4+ years learning at the best colleges, honing our craft, becoming skilled, and learning from the experts.

What happens when we graduate? We face a supremely unfriendly immigration scenario where we have to essentially find a job or be deported. Even when we find a job, we're totally at the mercy of our employer to remain in the US.

I know quite a few people who just left the country because of these immigration related issues... and I think it's america's loss because these people have gone on to launch startups/do research abroad.

<comment><USER5> I don't know if it's just fears about offshoring or what but anyone who has already been allowed to come and study in the country should have an opportunity to stay.

Running a school as a business and then sending "clients" away after graduation makes sense for the school, but not for the idea of education.

Like people who "buy American" and get a Ford made in Mexico rather than a Honda made in America, it isn't "us" and "them." If a foreign student gets hired here, has a family, and contributes to the American economy, they've become American and those statistics about degree shortages look a lot better.

<comment><USER16> It's specially ridiculous when you consider the fact that as a grad student you are actually PAID to study (granted, it's not a huge amount, but the point remains). So essentially, I come here, get paid to study, learn from the best, and go back home where I can put my skills to use for people other than Americans.

<comment><USER17> There's a lot of anti-immigration sentiment. The logic (or anti-logic if you will) plays out something like this:

* I don't like immigrants because they take jobs from hard-working Americans. [ Note that this doesn't differentiate between 'off-shoring' and 'immigration' ]

* Foreigners in our schools are taking away spots that could be filled by Americans.

* If we allow foreigners to study here, and _then_ make it easy for them to stay, then it's a double-whammy. They are "taking education away from Americans," and then staying here to "take jobs away from Americans" too.

There is also a smattering of, "oh noes, the person from country X will only be loyal to country X and will therefore be a spy in our midst!"

Note: I don't hold the above beliefs.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Statistically evaluating Internet auction authenticity - <AUTHOR> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00470.x/abstract

<comment><AUTHOR> I could see this being used by existing auction sites, or an opening for a startup.</comment>


HN Poll: How strongly do you feel about having an email-free signup experience? - <AUTHOR> HN,
On  a scale of 1 to 10,where 1 would be you completely hate the proposal and 10 is you absolutley like it, what do you think of this signup experience for your favorite services:
-  Email is required at the registration page, but the user can uncheck a checkbox to waive the requirement.
-  In order for a user to waive this requirement, a second factor of authentication (one time codes or a FIDO device) must be enabled.
-  Account recovery, including for the second factor of authentication must be done using accoint recovery codes supplied to a user during registration. The user is advised to write down  and/or store the codes in a secure location.
-  At anytime, the user can provide an email address and optionally turn off two facor authentication.
Why?
-  Email is not a good way to avoid spam bots (not in 2020 where it's cheap to rent captcha bypassing bot farms).
- If a user's email is compromised, all accounts that depend on email account recovery can also be compromised. Transfering risk this way in 2020 is bad engineering.
- Anonymous email services exist but they all eventually get banned by services, many of them also require phone or email addresses to use them and the ones that don't require credir card payment (not exactly anonymous)
- Services should respect the wishes of their users.
-  I have tried every single free email provider while using a VPN. All of them required me to give up my phone number (now I have to get a burner phone!)
-  Most people who dislike having to give up their email adresses don't know how to jump through all these hoops like a criminal just to use a service.
- For the service, there are people like myself that were stopped from signing up for a lot of services simply due to a phone or email requirement. This makes no sense given how email does not help much by itself with preventing fraud and it actually reduces account security!
How do you feel about this? <comment><USER2> Why enforce the second factor authentication?

The main reason that I wouldn't want to be using an email address is because I want the account to be disposable.

Just make it that if I don't have a second factor for recovery, there is no recovery.

</comment><comment><USER3> ProtonMail doesn't require a phone number, does it? Or even Yandex might be an option if you just want a persistent email address distinct from your regular ones, and you don't necessarily care if it's secure or not.

<comment><AUTHOR> Both did when I tried them while connected through protonvpn. Not sure about yandex but proton requires credit card payment or phone number even wihout a VPN IP. I use to use yandex a few years ago, they let you sign up now but if you don't give phone number or recovery email at sign up, emails won't show up at your inbox and the ones you send will silently not be delivered.</comment></comment>


Overclocking SSL - <AUTHOR> http://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/06/25/overclocking-ssl.html

<comment><USER2> Great read. Don't miss the last section, in which Google talks about the things they've been doing in Chrome and Android to make SSL seedier, especially in Google apps. In case anyone was wondering why Google made a browser...

</comment><comment><USER3> " However, with a pure RSA ciphersuite, an attacker can record traffic, crack (or steal) your private key at will and decrypt the traffic retrospectively, so consider your needs."

Can somebody please explain what this means. Sounds bad!

<comment><USER4> RSA ciphersuites involve the client generating a random session key, encrypting it using the server's public key and sending it to the server. The session key is then used to key the MAC and bulk cipher.

If an attacker records the traffic, then factors or steals the public key, they can decrypt the session key and read the traffic.

With ephemeral Diffie-Hellman, a random DH public value is generated for each connection and the server signs it with its public key. Each side then performs key agreement to generate the session key. Now, an attacker can solve the discreet logarithm and decrypt the traffic, but they have to break each connection separately.

The trick in the future is to perform Diffie-Hellman much faster (answer: write tuned code to work in an elliptic curve group) and then to perform EDH without the latency hit (longer term).

<comment><USER5> I am glad you mentioned (EC)DHE. The TLS snap start draft is quite discouraging against (EC)DHE ciphersuites because it says snap start doesn't work for (EC)DHE key exchange, and I got the impression that Google isn't interested in using (EC)DHE, despite its significant security advantages.

I think snap start would work for _resuming_ connections that were originally started with (EC)DHE key exchange. And, with an optimal OCSP stapling + snap start configuration, the only types of handshakes that would be done would be full non-snap-start handshakes (with OCSP responses stapled to them) and snap start resuming handshakes. This leads me to believe that snap start only needs to be defined for the resuming case; if snap start full handshakes are happening then it means something needs to be improved w.r.t. OCSP response caching. I believe this would make snap start much simpler.

Coincidentally, I was just working on reducing memory consumption in NSS, probably very similar to the way that you reduced it in OpenSSL. I am curious as to why Google is doing its optimizations for servers using OpenSSL and for clients using NSS. What makes NSS less suitable for servers than OpenSSL?

<comment><USER4> There are several aspects of the web's transport security ecosystem which need to be improved, and the addition of DHE is one of them.

The latency implications of DHE are a problem: it pretty much requires an extra round trip. As you mention, we could amortise that over several connections using resumption, and we might well do that. We can also do SSL connection pre-warming to get rid of the latency issues. We have lots of ideas, but not an army of people working on them I'm afraid :)

To answer your other question: our use of different SSL libraries on the client and server side are largely historical. Having said that, OpenSSL is easier to hack away on. Personally, I find that, at the small scale, NSS code is cleaner. However, on the larger scale OpenSSL wins. Once I get past the insane OpenSSL code style, I prefer hacking on OpenSSL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I worked out a solution on solving exactly this problem in a browser setting using Javascript. Before you jump on man-in-the-middle, DNS spoofing, code injection or cross domain security, please take a look at <http://www.research.rutgers.edu/~ashwink/ajaxcrypt/> and let me know if you have any comments!

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm curious why they recommend against 4096-bit certs; they say they mentioned it, but I must have missed it... Is it just because it will make the size of the certificate bigger?

<comment><USER4> If you can afford 4096-bit certs, or you need them, then you should use them. However, on my laptop, I can only handle 34 connections/second/core with a 4096-bit cert. Such performance is likely to be unacceptable for many uses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So what they're really saying is "Yes you should enable HTTPS provided you check all sorts of things and understand all sorts of complicated stuff".

Speaking for those of us living with long-latency links to the US (South Africa), unnecessary HTTPS on websites is a major PITA.

</comment><comment><USER9> The author mentioned encrypted Google search - I haven't heard of it before:

<https://encrypted.google.com/></comment>


'Nokia Is Back' And Ballsy; 'We're Not Sorry We're Not Apple' - <AUTHOR> http://moconews.net/article/419-nokia-is-back-and-ballsy-were-not-sorry-were-not-apple/ <comment><USER2> Nokia will keep dying a slow and painful death that no one cares about if they don't stop using their "market share" argument soon.

It's not about existing share of underpowered phones with poor UIs and apps. No one cares about that, and you're not making any profit off it, so obviously, it doesn't matter.

What matters is innovation on both hardware and software fronts, which Nokia has failed to execute on for at least 5 years.

The sooner Nokia wakes up and pulls its head from the ground, the sooner they'll have a chance to slowly inch back into relevance. But at this stage, there's no way it's going to happen.

Nokia are essentially screwed.

</comment><comment><USER3> "In the past quarter, people bought far more Nokia phones than Apple and Android combined."

Then shouldn't he be ashamed that people aren't excited about them?</comment>


FBI Still Unable to Unlock San Bernardino Shooter's Phone Content - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-director-says-investigators-unable-unlock-san-bernardino-204543082.html <comment><USER2> The "news" on this is vague to the point of being useless FUD. No information whatsoever on the phone hardware, operating system, or encryption used, let alone the methods they've tried to bypass it _(although one can hardly expect the latter, in the "interests of national security")_.

This isn't journalism -- this is parroting a boilerplate anti-crypto talking point.

</comment><comment><USER3> They should get with the NSA and the phones internet service provider. Between the two of them everything will be logged (websites visited, files downloaded, texts sent, photos sent) etc. After that there is very little leftover.

<comment><USER2> It's perfectly possible they can get into the phone just fine -- it's been suggested that the shooting incident is being used as a convenient soapbox from which to attack civilian use of crypto.</comment></comment>


Rotary Dial Phone Revival - <AUTHOR> https://trandi.wordpress.com/2019/10/28/rotary-dial-phone-revival-4-final/ <comment><USER2> Totally impractical, but still pretty neat. That's a lot of effort. The rest of their blog looks pretty neat too: self balancing robots, thermal printer photo booths .. lots of creative stuff.</comment>