Why we are suing Apple for better HTML5 support in iOS - <AUTHOR> https://www.nexedi.com/blog/NXD-Apple.Lawsuit.Blog <comment><USER2> Looks like a pr stunt.

But, here is another point of view (perhaps it can help, i'd love to see html 5 support improve on iOS).

Internet Access is a "human right" and according to the United Nations ( [https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adop...](https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted.pdf) ) , they condemn countries that intentionally take away or disrupt its citizens' internet access.

Perhaps by not allowing "basic internet access" ( html 5 is part of the web), Apple is a distrupter of a basic human right.

The platform, where we could least of all platforms, use our basic human right to browse the web is iOS. So Apple is, in it's own way, a company that blocks a basic human right. And the block it because of own financial gain ( using the app store instead of the browser earns them money)

<comment><USER3> I _really_ doubt you could pass HTML5 compatibility as a "basic internet access".

<comment><USER2> HTML 5 IS part of the web, so why shouldn't it? By not having several html 5 functions, you actually disallow access/usage to certain websites.

<comment><USER3> Apple doesn't provide Internet access -- ISPs do. Nobody forces you to choose Apple's products, there are plenty of others to choose from.

<comment><USER2> For basic internet access to the general public you need:

\- broadband

\- a browser

Broadband is by ISP's and a browser is in this case by Apple.

And yeah, i don't buy Apple ( obviously). "Add to homescreen" is probably my most used functionality :p .

<comment><USER4> You are confusing the internet with the World Wide Web, Apple does not support Flash do you want to claim that a flash plugin is a human rights issue? Because I can guarantee that the amount of content you cannot access due to lack of flash is orders of magnitude greater than what you cannot access due to lackluster HTML5 support.

In fact I can't think of any HTML5 content which you would not be able to view, it might not be formatted properly but it will be accessible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Many of the HTML5 technologies Apple is steering clear from make the Web more App like meaning they become a threat to their dominance with the App Store on their own platform. The longer they take to adopt them the longer they can benefit from the exclusiveness and control over iOS app ecosystem. I don't think sueing them will get them anywhere but it might be a push to get them understand that users are aware of the shortcomings.

<comment><USER6> From ordinary users, nobody cares about the web platform on mobile.

Native apps are faster, with better integration to platform APIs and features, lighter on battery, and consistent (even if a large part of an app is just a webview in a native app shell).

And for developers, they can actually be monetized and attract paying users, unlike mobile browser-based apps.

Safari on mobile is pretty up to date as mobile technologies come. Google Chrome is hardly any better:

[http://mobilehtml5.org/](http://mobilehtml5.org/)

So I don't really buy the conspiracy theory. People just want all kinds of desktop level HTML5 stuff on mobile browsers that they might or might not be suitable for. The most common HN response to Web 3D demos, advanced SVG/canvas etc is that people's fans started to blaze, CPU jumped to the sky...

<comment><USER7> > From ordinary users, nobody cares about the web platform on mobile. Native > apps are faster

Well, that's a problem right there. Instead of helping the web forward, Apple is keeping the web and web-apps second-class citizens. And of course this helps their own app platform and app store to be successful, and as a bonus it keeps developers within the walls of their garden.

<comment><USER6> > _Well, that 's a problem right there. Instead of helping the web forward, > Apple is keeping the web and web-apps second-class citizens._

The are de-facto second class citizens. The are apps that run on a second platform (the browser).

If someone wants first-class support, build for the OS.

Apple already spends tons of money to make an OS and a dev SDK for it.

<comment><USER7> > If someone wants first-class support, build for the OS.

Yes, that was my argument: Apple is favoring native apps.

Developing native apps helps Apple further build and exploit its ecosystem, and pushes us further down the rabbit hole.

<comment><USER6> > _Yes, that was my argument: Apple is favoring native apps._

Yes, but one can make it sound like a conspiracy, when it's in fact a DUH!

<comment><USER7> Lots of things are "duh" in hindsight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's really hard to believe that Apple is holding back the 'mobile web' when it's shown time and time again that they have the best performing web platform in the market. It was true when iPhone was introduced in 2008, it was true in 2015[0] and it is still true now[1].

"In a nutshell, the fastest known Android device available today -- and there are millions of Android devices much slower than that out there -- performs 5× slower than a new iPhone 6s, and a little worse than a 2012 era iPhone 5 in Ember. How depressing."

[0]: [https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on- andr...](https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android- in-2015-is-poor/33889) [1]: [https://twitter.com/CraftyDeano/status/779461778677895169](https://twitter.com/CraftyDeano/status/779461778677895169)

<comment><USER9> It's obvious you are not a web developer using HTML5/CSS3/ES6. iOS has became the new Internet Explorer hands down, and now it's the first platform I test on to check for compatibility issues (as it's the one that normally gives those issues).

<comment><USER8> Nope. (Front end) web developer by trade. What I say I say from experience - I've never had a client ask for a feature that Safari doesn't support. However, clients do ask for things like a carousel, which Chrome doesn't support natively.

iOS is a significantly easier support target compared to Android due to how much of a stable target it is. Android is a bit of a 'which Android?' when it comes to browser support.

<comment><USER10> I could be swayed that iOS is easier to target than some other browsers but Chrome? You can definitely build a slider natively...

Maybe the confusion is that Chrome =/= Android Browser

<comment><USER8> > You can definitely build a slider natively...

Nope [http://caniuse.com/#search=snap](http://caniuse.com/#search=snap)

<comment><USER11> "Build natively" means to create it yourself in vanilla JavaScript, like this [http://meandmax.github.io/lory/](http://meandmax.github.io/lory/). What's the use of a native element that only one browser has when you need cross browser support anyway?

<comment><USER8> "Natively" as in 2 lines of CSS rather than yet another JS dependency. The cool thinks about CSS Snap Points is that they fall back rather gracefully on brothers that don't support them to just standard overflow scrolling.

<comment><USER10> Well that's not what native means. Beyond that, the issue isn't that Safari is not implementing HTML5 features fast enough, it's that they are choosing to not implement specific ones in order to protect their platform. You just don't see that from other browser vendors (today)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To Nexedi, if you're reading this discussion:

As you know Apple these days has devices and platforms to which users entrust a tremendous amount of very personal and often private data. Therefore, Apple is relatively careful about security issues, and slow to introduce features that may open holes that expose users' private data.

Your entire blog post does not even once mention the word security. It seems this concept does not even enter your thinking at all as an explanation for why Apple must be very conservative about adding the types of functionalities you list.

When weighing the tradeoffs between the benefits you mention versus protection of user security and privacy, I'm pretty sure Apple has the right to make the choice it is making, and you'll find your argument is a difficult one to make.

<comment><USER13> >It seems this concept does not even enter your thinking at all as an explanation for why Apple must be very conservative about adding the types of functionalities you list.

Read the article again -- I don't think they are asking Apple to add more HTML5 functionality, they are asking Apple to allow other browsers which have already implemented the functionality they need onto iOS. Their legal team thinks French law is on their side.

The security thing is a bit of a strawman, you are implying that Google, Mozilla, or Microsoft, who all have better HTML5 support, do not take browser security seriously. That's simply not true.

<comment><USER12> Your points don't hold up, because Apple has to worry about platform security, not just browser security. And taking Microsoft and Google as examples does not support your argument. Mozilla, maybe (though possibly just by having fewer users as compared to all of Android and all of Windows) but again they don't have to worry about platform security as much as Apple does.

French law is outside of my expertise. I'm just talking common sense here. I do recognize that there might not be much overlap between the two in matters of technology, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Remember when Apple was bashing Adobe for Flash and how they were about standards? (I'm going to get downvoted for this)

Anyways you were a fool for believing it.

<comment><USER8> Blackberry CEO back in 2010[0]:

        For those of us who live outside of Apple's distortion field, we know that
        7-inch tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know
        that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web
        experience. We also know that while Apple's attempt to control the
        ecosystem and maintain a closed platform may be good for Apple, developers
        want more options and customers want to fully access the overwhelming
        majority of web sites that use Flash.

Adobe, 12 months ago[1]:

        Adobe said that it will now "encourage content creators to build with ne
        web standards," such as HTML5, rather than Flash.

[0]: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/30/balsillie-2010](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/30/balsillie-2010)

[1]: [https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/11/flash- html5-an...](https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/11/flash-html5-and- open-web- standards.html?scid=social_20151201_55826586&adbid=671559505906282496&adbpl=tw&adbpr=63786611)

<comment><USER15> You are missing the point.

Of course Flash was/is terrible, and not only for mobile phones.

But what keyle is pointing out is the irony of Apple arguing against Flash for being a proprietary and non standard technology, praising HTML5, and now relegating HTML5 as a second class technology in iOS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My company builds software applications for hospitals and healthcare providers. Across the board, we have stopped recommending Apple devices for solutions.

Some of our applications use the headphone jack to communicate with our apps (we take readings from an Ultrasound, for example). Without a headphone jack, this solution is dead in the water. The unknowns around how this will work on future iOS devices is too risky for us to invest in.

The app review process is brutal for project management. Our clients run studies and trials on our software and we need to be able to say to them "yes, your app will be on the store on this day". And if we need to make an update, I need to be able to say that the update will be available at a specific date. Submitting apps and patches into the Apple wormhole and praying it doesn't take two weeks to come out the other side is a huge risk for us.

We just sent 60 android phones to Africa for an HIV study. If these were iPhones, it would have cost close to $50,000 for the devices alone. But we picked up 60 Samsung Galaxy Cores for $100 a pop and they work perfectly (they stopped making Cores around the same time the iPhone 5 came out). Android devices seem to age much more gracefully than iOS devices. I feel much more confident advising a hospital to purchase 100 Android devices than I do iPads.

</comment><comment><USER17> _A few years ago, France passed a Law to protect small companies such as Nexedi against large companies that try to impose unbalanced contracts. [...] Not allowing the publication in Apple 's AppStore of web browsers that are not based on Apple's own Webkit raises in our opinion the same issues as if Carrefour (a company similar to Walmart) was not selling any beans but those based on Carrefour's seeds. This may be legal in other countries but in France, it is most likely not._

This is incredibly weird to me. In France, you can sue to force a major company to sell your product if you don't like their terms? Is this just speculation, or is there actual case law? How is this even tenable?

And it only applies to contracts the aggrieved smaller party views as unbalanced. So you can sue if you don't like the contract offered, but you can't sue if you would accept the terms of their contract but MegaCorp just chooses not to do business with you?

If that's actually the case, I wouldn't be surprised if Carrefour changes their policy from "we only sell Carrefour beans and beans grown from Carrefour seeds" to "we only sell Carrefour beans".

<comment><USER18> >Is this just speculation, or is there actual case law?

France is a civil-law system, so case law is in theory irrelevant. In practice it isn't so irrelevant these days, but it still doesn't carry nearly the same weight that it does in common-law systems (like most of the US, though not Louisiana). On the one hand, this makes it much easier to ignore previous rulings by clearly corrupt judges. On the other hand, it makes consistent interpretation of the law much harder to achieve. It's a tradeoff.

In other words, Nexedi knows that case law is against them in the US, so they cherry-picked a location for the lawsuit that would allow them to circumvent this obstacle.

<comment><USER19> France is their HQ (Lille), so I'm not sure it's fair to accuse them of cherry-picking. (Not that I agree with the suit.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It is long shot, in my opinion PR stunt.

Cited law 'déséquilibre significatif entre les droits et obligations des parties' means 'significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties'

I dont even think it is related (it is not even translated in the post)

<comment><USER21> Definitely a PR stunt, but even so, being sued because you are so behind on standards that it's hurting other businesses certainly puts the spotlight on you.

<comment><USER22> "So behind on standards".

Remind me which browser engine has 100% es6 support?

Now remind me which half-baked web api exposes local network information to the JavaScript environment.

Oh right. It's HN so apple is the work of the devil and Google is basically Jesus returned.

<comment><USER23> The problem isn't so much about how apple is so behind on standards.

The problem is that they make it impossible for alternative browsers providing more up-to-date standards to exist on their platform, effectively locking away that userbase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Some(Apple) may say that the web/browser ecosystem is mess and it's not worth the investment though. However the restrictions on 3rd party browsers is weird. The application is sandboxed (thus no additional security threats compared to other apps) so I think the argument is political not technical.

<comment><USER8> Third party code execution environments seems like a bit of a slippery slope that I can understand Apple wanting to avoid.

<comment><USER25> Pythonista presumably runs Python on the device and is allowed on the App Store.

<comment><USER26> I guess the restriction is about downloading and executing software, not executing alone?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The point is that feature compatibility is not everything. Apple may say that they develop webkit in a more power saving/secure/better manner than other browsers and this is the reason they lag on html5 features.

<comment><USER28> If a user wants to use a different browser because of $reasons and is happy with it draining the battery, the user should be allowed to. There is no technical reason for not allowing other browsers to work on iOS, it's purely a ToS/market/profits issue.

<comment><USER29> I'm not 100% sure, but I think most of the jailbrake exploits use some form of safari or webkit bug to modify the system. Apple is very aware that the browser is the most targeted point in the OS. By the nature of modern JS interpreters they would need some kind of low (or lower) level access to the CPU to be competitive and that will open a new vector, maybe multiple, for attack that Apple would not be able to control.

I think their decision is about a lot of things including the App Store, but security is certainly one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Allowing alternative browsers on iOS would be great. But the real change will happen when there is a way for users to change the default. I hope that is part of their "request".

With just that smaller change people could start using any of the existing alternatives available right now.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm far from one to defend Apple on most things, but is Apple doing anything intentionally malicious here?

In the United States, forcing someone to write code is compelled speech, which is a violation of the First Amendment. I'm not aware of laws in France, but in any case, this seems like a completely wrong approach to solving this problem.

The real problem here is Apple's proprietary platform.

<comment><USER32> I agree that Apple's management of their platform is the underlying problem, but there's no compelled speech here.

Writing code to provide better HTML5 support is only one of the ways Apple could satisfy this complaint. Lifting the developer agreement / Apple App Store restrictions that prevent third-party developers from writing browsers with better HTML5 support is another.

<comment><USER31> Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification.

That would indeed be beneficial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This will be interesting to watch. Apple has become a dominant player in the mobile industry and being in that role it restricts what they can do now (and could earlier get away with). Bundling related rulings had huge impact in the past on e.g. IBM and Microsoft.

<comment><USER20> Apple is not that much dominant like Microsoft or IBM in the past.

<comment><USER34> In the mobile space? They own the mobile space. Which is why everything is labeled an "iPhone killer." No one labels a new product as an "Android killer."

This is still their market to lose.

<comment> vertex-four They have some of the high end, competing heavily with Samsung's Galaxy S line and the occasional high end phone from other manufacturers. There's a _lot_ of space in even the high-end market that's not owned by Apple, never mind all the lower markets.

Just because tech magazines really like them doesn't mean they actually have most of the market.

If you really want to go look for something to pick on... go look at how US telecoms companies fuck over the market by directly selling phones tied to contracts, making it incredibly difficult for a manufacturer to sell a phone if the telecoms companies don't want to put their weight behind it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Very Nice, hope this will get anywhere. Apple got too far with its restrictions, but I also hope that this doesnt go sideways directly into flash issues. :)

</comment><comment><USER36> Looking through the list of features that iOS Safari doesn't support, I am happy that Apple doesn't blindly implement these features. I think a lot of these present tricky user experience issues (fullscreen support, notifications, background, file system api) and can be abused by websites. (I am also noticing a lot of these are still proposals and experimental features.)

</comment><comment><USER37> I am sorry, I get what their intent is but suing? Really? I hope that it gets nowhere. We cannot start a precedent of "Company won't implement this technology so sue them.".

</comment><comment><USER38> Well this should be easy. Their metric (html5test.com) gives points for things utterly unrelated to HTML or web standards like WebP support. Apple just needs to convince them to start giving out points for wide color gamuts and proper tail calls in JavaScript. Hell, those two even are standards, which makes them nearly as relevant to what most web developers care about as Google's fiat.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'd like to launch a law suit against Nexedi because ERP5 is based on Zope instead of Django and I'd like to run a version on Django becaus Zope doesn't have the features I need but Django does. As a result they are unreasonably denying me access to those features. Does anybody know how I can start the litigation process in France?

<comment><USER40> nobody stops you from using another ERP, they can't use another browser.

They don't own the platform where the ERP runs, apple does.

<comment><USER39> Nobody is making them support the iPhone.

<comment><USER41> Back in the day, PageMaker ran only on Macs because only Macs had the underlying technology to support it. People bought Macs to run PageMaker. It was the "killer app".

If Nexedi's product was that good, they could convince people to buy Android devices.

Can a game maker sue Sony because it is extra work to port a game from XBox? Can they force Sony to support Kinect?

<comment><USER42> Furthermore, suppose Mozilla wants to port Firefox to the Nintendo 3DS. Does Nintendo have to let it in to their eShop?

Most game consoles since the NES have had lock-out technology, and that's legal everywhere, as far as I know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Seriously..... as an industry we've been back porting code and implementing browser specific hacks since day 1. Since Netscape Navigator, since every version of IE. Is it a pain? yes but ultimately it's the world we live in and i for one am glad.

If every browser just focused on 'the specs' where would the innovation come from. In fact i'd strongly argue that Apple / iOS is the reason we have such a standard web based eco system at the moment. I mean who remembers the dark days of Java Applets, ActiveX components and browser specific plugins? Apples firm stance on the lack of plugin support was a major factor in their demise and the birth of the amazing rich JS & HTML5 world that many here seem to take for granted.

In short it strikes me as the wines of a spoilt child complaining about their parents forgetting that they are the one's who taught them how to tie their shoes.

</comment><comment><USER6> > _Why we are suing Apple for better HTML5 support in iOS_

Because you don't know how the law works?

</comment><comment><USER44> Does the HTML5 standard specify which video formats browsers should support now? Is webrtc part of the html5 spec now? Seems misleading for them to say they just want the HTML5 standard when what they are asking for isn't in the standard.

</comment><comment><USER45> Succeding would require tons of money, political expediency, and novel strategy from legal experts in French civil law, EU law, tech, and business.

So far the arguments seem weak. Apple scores a little lower on one test?

Some sites can't work offline due lack of service workers? This is a useful but niche use case so it would seem hard to rally massive public support for.

Apple would argue users are not being hurt anyway because you could trivially do what you want by wrapping your site in Cordova. Is a primary motivation here to avoid app revenue sharing for your product? If so I understand but that becomes a whole separate legal mountain to climb.

</comment><comment><USER46> Good luck guys!! Apple is the only company now who slows down the innovation in web.

</comment><comment><USER46> There is a reason why Safari is called "the new Internet Explorer"

</comment><comment><USER29> In a civil case, this has no merit. What they should do is "sue" them using a W3C "court", and if there is no such thing (as I'm pretty sure there is none) it should be created. If members of W3C don't adhere by the standards set after a lengthy and tiresome process of review, they should be "liable" to the standards body.

This of course is not going to happen because members are the ones funding W3C, and they would just take their money elsewhere and the W3C would be sad.

<comment><USER22> > If members of W3C don't adhere by the standards set after a lengthy and > tiresome process of review

Which standard would that be?

Web workers and Webrtc are not standardised.

Html5 makes no specification about video codecs.

So, what standards exactly are not being adhered to?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This actually could be something to hold up in court at least in EU.

It's not really different from when Microsoft was doing something similar with their browser, using their market position to force people using IE.

Apple could be forced to open their rendering engine and allow real fully fledged browsers to be used in iOS, because at this point, just fixing the compatibility to HTML standards on iOS may not be enough anymore.

<comment><USER8> Actually, very different from Microsoft.

Apple has plenty of competition and the mobile web has not stalled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I honestly think that the latest iOS safari has really good html5 support and very fast JavaScript. Including support for things such as web workers.

</comment><comment><USER49> Ah... Apple wants you in the app store they create.

Chrome is forced to use Safari under in IOS.

Google want's browser to get the ads revenue.

Suffers the web developer and end user.

</comment><comment><USER50> someone should also sue Apple (and Google?) for worse performance in the webview. something that run smoothly on native Safari was laggy in webview. haven't checked in a while though, not sure if this is still the case.

<comment><USER36> WKWebView is supposed to fix this issue.

[https://developer.apple.com/reference/webkit/wkwebview](https://developer.apple.com/reference/webkit/wkwebview)

<comment><USER15> WKWebView is a mess.

There are bugs that have been there since it was released years ago and are still unassigned.

[https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=wkwebview&li...](https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=wkwebview&list_id=2174173)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Probably not the best way to renew their interest in web standards

<comment><USER52> I think the point is that they don't _have_ to care, as long as they allow other browser engines than Apple's specific Webkit.

<comment><USER53> Why do they need to do that? Their platform, their rules. You don't want to play by Apple's rules then leave Apple's sandbox.

This is absurd. You have no rights and no freedoms while using a vendor's software. They knew the restrictions going in. This is going to die quickly in the courts.

<comment><USER34> Do you feel the same way about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and trying to crush all competition in the browser market? Or do you only feel this way because it's Apple's sandbox? At least with Microsoft you _could_ install Netscape. What's your choice here? Buy an Android?

I don't know you; this is a legitimate question. I don't actually know that I have an opinion on the underlying issue (I'm quite libertarian but also hate Safari). That said, I don't see how this is different from other bundling case law.

But IANAL.

<comment><USER53> > Do you feel the same way about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and > trying to crush all competition in the browser market?

Not a comparison. Windows was effectively a monopoly at the time where iOS is a strong but far from dominating force in mobile.

However if you want to make this comparison, honestly? Yes. I think the suit against Microsoft was justified simply because of how blatantly obvious their practices were designed to squeeze out other browser makers after the fact. However it's a different situation here: Safari has _always_ been the defacto browser for iOS since the first publicly available version. There is no significant competition for Safari because there's no way to change iOS to utilize it in the same ways, and the Apple TOS for developers specifically states you cannot create apps that directly reproduce functionality of Apple's built-in applications.

Ergo, they are not decreasing the competition or being anti-market because there was no competition in the first place, and they made no secret of that.

<comment><USER54> This is a strange claim you're making. Squeezing out competition is bad, but banning competition in the first place is okay?

Would it have been okay if Microsoft had charged a 30% tax on all sales of anything (software and content) consumable on the Windows platform on day one?

Or what if the very first iPhone had a provision that for the rest of your life you were not permitted to buy a competing smartphone or participate in the development of one? If enforceable, Android might never have happened. Would that make it okay?

<comment><USER53> > banning competition in the first place is okay?

Yes. Anti-market behavior is the usage of monopoly (or near monopoly) to destroy competing companies after the fact with underhanded tactics and is generally agreed to be a Bad Thing.

Apple's behavior when setting up iOS could be construed as anti-market, but the fact is that market never existed. Ergo if you setup a company to make a web browser for iOS, you can't claim anti-market behavior because the policy in question predates your company. You effectively attempted to enter a market that does not exist.

<comment><USER28> Anti-competitive practices do not apply solely to monopolies.

If it's proven there isn't a technical reason why iOS can't support other browser engine (like there wasn't in the Windows vs. Netscape case), a judge could rule the artificial ToS terms should be lifted.

This happens every time a platform becomes too important/powerful. If Apple smartphones were niche devices with a very small user base, nobody would care. But they now have millions of users and are clearly a general purpose computer, so they will go under increased scrutiny. It's the price of success and they will sooner or later have to play by the (EU) rules. That or they improve Safari so few people have a reason to engage in lawsuits with them.

<comment><USER53> I feel like "You as a company must allow your products to run X software" is a terrible, terrible precedent to set.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> When I see someone suing a company for not innovating fast enough and opening with sexist terminology[0] I just close the tab and move on.

[0] - "Anyone running html5test ([http://html5test.com/](http://html5test.com/)) on his iPhone"

<comment><USER56> I think it may have more to do with the article being written by a native French speaker than sexism.

One of my friends routinely says things like "a woman has rights to his body" when speaking in English because in French possessives agree with the object not the subject, and the French word for body, "corps", is masculine.

In this case, since iPhone starts with a vowel, in French you'd say "son iPhone", so "his iPhone", perhaps.

Alternatively, in French you also always tend to the masculine form in the general case, so maybe that's it? It just strikes me as extremely unlikely that anyone would think, consciously or otherwise, that women don't have iPhones.

<comment><USER55> Yes, of course! Thank you for pointing this out. I guess I'm the ignorant one for not doing my research on the author/company before making such a loaded statement.

On your point about it being "extremely unlikely that anyone would think, consciously or otherwise, that women don't have iPhones", I was more referring to the older (20th century) authoring style where masculine references were used as a default rather than generalising such as "their iPhone".</comment></comment></comment>


Why do we need an API Architecture? - <AUTHOR> http://api-university.com/blog/why-do-we-need-an-api-architecture/ <comment><USER2> API is just an interface, it doesn't have an architecture. Service behind API does.</comment>


View and engage with your website visitors in real-time, built using Node - <AUTHOR> http://soakoptics.com

<comment><USER2> I tried sending test messages but it doesn't seem to work. It looks like you're using Flash, which I have disabled. It won't be that useful if it requires Flash since it won't work on mobile platforms.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey! You're right, it's using Flash as the transport at the moment.. Not for long though, in the coming days I'm going to switch it up to use Socket.IO which supports virtually all platform/browser combinations (including mobile). Thanks for giving it a spin though, would you be interested in giving it another shot later?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is my MVP. Test account is firstname.lastname@example.com/testing and is set up on <http://jvaill.com/wordpress> .. Looking for feedback. :]</comment>


Tuples in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://oli.me.uk/2013/07/12/tuples-in-javascript/ <comment><USER2> The main value of a tuple is as a type-safe alternative to an array/list (e.g. scala tuples don't even have named elements). This makes them a lot less useful in a language like Javascript.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the "unpack" idea of using a function to name the parts of the tuple, it's elegant and fits well into JavaScript. I'm a bit less sure about exposing the "pack" method outside the constructor. That makes tuples mutable, which isn't what I normally want. Normally I want immutable collections of possibly mutable objects for my tuples. If I wanted a mutable collection I would use an array.

I absolutely hate the idea of "valueOf". Why would you ever in your life want to add together tuple values by default? It's a misfeature that is begging to cause bugs. A better feature would be some way of applying functions across tuples of the same size (map and fold type operations) to make it easy to build up correct comparison functions.

<comment><USER4> So what if I made immutable. You can only set once and unpack to a function that can name the values. I could also drop the valueOf usage.

Does that sound saner? It is definitely simpler and a lot closer to an actual tuple implementation.

I want to turn this into a small repository so maybe I will take the little good bits and drop anything unnecessary.

<comment><USER3> Actually thinking about it more you might want to have "Tuple" and "MutableTuple" objects. In languages that use parentheses notation for tuples you need to decide which one you want, but since you have names you can have both just with different names.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why does it even have that pack method, let alone fill the array backwards? You could just do this._store = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments). Tuple.unpack(callback) isn't any better than callback.apply(x, array), so not sure what value it offers there either. The valueOf definition is the sort of thing that makes me cringe because it would undoubtedly lead to hard-to- diagnose bugs in JS applications. Not sure what anyone would use this type for.

Cute demonstration of ways to extend JS, I guess, but please don't use anything like this code.

<comment><USER4> It fills the array backwards because that is the most efficient loop possible within JavaScript when the order does not matter.

I added a pack method to enforce some weak limiting on the size of the array. This will only allow you to set an amount of values equal to the initial values that were set.

I know you can do it with `slice` etc, but the point was to make something a little different to an array or object inspired by the things I have been learning about functional programming.

Please, by all means, treat it as a cute demonstration. That's fine. I _personally_ could see myself using something like this in some situations as a base type to extend from for example. Maybe as a generic coordinate storage system as I have shown in the post.

It has many flaws and might not fit in with your opinions or views, but saying "don't use anything like this code" seems a bit heavy handed to me. I think it has a time and a place, no matter how minute that time or place may be.

<comment><USER5> Adding an implicit coercion to number to a tuple type that contains multiple elements in a dynamically typed language is just a bad idea. Period.

<comment><USER4> Okay, that isn't integral though. This could easily be left out if desired. It's not coercing to a number either, it's simply concatenating. This would work with strings too or any other type that supports valueOf.

You have valid points though. I just didn't like to think of this as something that could never be used in the real world. Or at least contain little ideas that could be used in the real world. It has at least some relevance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

<comment><USER7> Sometimes porting features from other languages into one you are familiar with helps you get a better feel for them, even if they are useless due to not aligning with the feel/philosophy of the language at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "I recently read Functional JavaScript and can't physically recommend it enough".

I believe this is a must read book for all advanced JavaScript developers. Michael Fogus uses UnderScore.js library by Jeremy Ashkenas, to teach functional programming using JavaScript. It changed my perspective on how to create reusable javascript functions that are easy to maintain.

</comment><comment><USER9> Nice use of the valueOf override. Those interested in set theory in javascript may also find Set.js handy: [https://github.com/gkatsev/set.js](https://github.com/gkatsev/set.js)

</comment><comment><USER10> Not sure what value tuples really provide in JS (as other comment pointed out, they are offer the most utility in strongly-typed languages)... but this is a neat technique nonetheless and an interesting read.

</comment><comment><USER11> How does this differ than using a magnetized needle and a steady hand?

</comment><comment><USER12> Why so much code? A closure is shorter and simpler. [https://gist.github.com/strager/6107955](https://gist.github.com/strager/6107955)

</comment><comment><USER13> where is data matching operations like in Erlang?

<comment><USER14> If wishing made it so.</comment></comment>


Maxing Out SE Pay by Interviewing Strategically - barry-cotter http://lesswrong.com/lw/hd1/maximizing_your_donations_via_a_job/

<comment> barry-cotter The first two paragraphs are intro, almost everything after that is a description of Paul's quest to get a good software engineer job for great pay. It includes interview prep and negotiation advice that is both excellent and very recent.</comment>


Apple reportedly evaluating Apple Silicon-powered macOS on iPhone - <AUTHOR> https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/30/apple-reportedly-evaluating-apple-silicon-powered-macos-on-iphone <comment><USER2> Who remembers those rumors about something from Apple called the "Brick"?

We all had these wild guesses about a dockable iPhone that could snap into an larger display and turn it into a full desktop.

It turned out the "brick" was the aluminum unibody of the laptops, but it was fun to dream about it. Might be fun to think about it again.

</comment><comment><USER3> After working almost exclusively via remote desktop, I am left wondering what is actually important in a client device. Maybe an iphone with a monitor hooked up to cloud processing and GPUs is the future.</comment>


Metro app design tips (start at 3:00) - <AUTHOR> http://channel9.msdn.com/events/BUILD/BUILD2011/BPS-100#

<comment><USER2> Link doesn't work. I think he meant <http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/BPS-1004></comment>


OpenIndiana 151a release 9/14 - with illumos kernel/KVM support - <AUTHOR> http://alasdairrr.tumblr.com/

<comment><USER2> Just a note: KVM support in Solaris/Illumos/SmartOS is Intel only at the moment.

(It wasn't clear to me, and I though I was doing something wrong when it failed on an AMD server)</comment>


Stephen Hawking's Computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/disability/thecomputer

<comment><USER2> Interesting to know that Hawking writes in TeX... which only makes sense (he _is_ a serious mathematician after all...)</comment>


Putin Passes Law Requiring $3.8B Security Payments From Visa, MasterCard - <AUTHOR> http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/putin-passes-law-requiring-38bln-security-payments-from-visa-mastercard/499532.html <comment><USER2> The last paragraph is the heart of the article.

"The law also creates the basis for a new Russian national payment system that hopes to compete with the two U.S. companies."

This seems to achieve several goals at once:

1) Highlight that foreign payment processors are unreliable for Russians.

2) Either edge them out of the market or get a crap-ton of 'insurance' money. I wonder if the companies can even pay this money, according to U.S. authorities?

3) Keep the profit from becoming the de facto payment standard for Russians.

If the new payment companies are making money for Putin's government I would not bet against them, using bitcoins or anything else.

<comment><USER3> This has happened in the past (a few decades ago). I remember a story from a business professor about how they forced some companies to make their factories there, and then they just took over them. Putin is quickly moving to turn Russia into another China. Before we know it, I think they'll require every foreign business to give 51 percent ownership to the state, if they want to do business there.

<comment><USER4> How is this "moving to turn Russia into another China"? While China has been pushing the economic reform agenda and cracking down on SOEs -- as was seen at the report of the Third Plenum -- Russia is going in the opposite direction with things like this. In China you don't have to give any ownership to the state. Just setup a WFOE ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholly_Foreign- Owned_Enterpris...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholly_Foreign- Owned_Enterprise)). Yes, you have to jump through a lot more hoops than setting up a business in the west but, speaking from having done it, it's not that hard. And yes there are certain sectors you can't participate in; but, pretty much every country on the planet has restricted sectors. Even the US: just look at the defence industry. China has been working opening these up while Russia has been been closing these. A good recent example for China is the recent reduction in rice self sufficiency. Plus compared to Russia, China is rather stable, prosperous, and corruption free. It would serve Russia well to become a bit more like China -- but this move is not it.

<comment><USER5> I think it's absolutely amazing that you would call China corruption free, even in contrast to Russia.

<comment><USER6> Transparency International rates perceived public-sector corruption in 175 countries. China ranks at 80, Russia 127, USA 19, Canada 9, New Zealand and Denmark tied for first place. Contrast China with Hong Kong at 15.

[http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/](http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's a funny turn of events. I know plenty of companies that were sunk by arbitrary fines from Visa and Mastercard in the past (whole IPSPs tanked because of ridiculous and ill motivated fines).

Sure sucks to be on the receiving side of something like this. The only thing this will do as a result is to slightly increase Visa and Mastercard fees.

One way VISA/MC could strike against this law is by simply cutting off all Russian cc's. That would hurt them as well but they could simply stop doing business there for a week or so. I think that Putin would very quickly recant once it becomes evident how much of the Russian economy is now dependent on such instruments.

The new Russian owned payment system is dead in the water from a non-Russian perspective, the only reason VISA and MC are so popular in Russia is because people do not trust local alternatives, not because they don't have other options.

<comment><USER8> > One way VISA/MC could strike against this law is by simply cutting off all > Russian cc's. That would hurt them as well but they could simply stop doing > business there for a week or so. I think that Putin would very quickly > recant once it becomes evident how much of the Russian economy is now > dependent on such instruments.

They already did that, to Bank Rossiya. This move by Russians is a retaliation for that.

> The new Russian owned payment system is dead in the water from a non-Russian > perspective, the only reason VISA and MC are so popular in Russia is because > people do not trust local alternatives, not because they don't have other > options.

The reason why VISA and MC are so popular is because there is nothing else. Not only in Russia, but in other countries too. (Note that Maestro is owned and operated by MC).

<comment><USER7> I mean across the board.

JCB, AMEX, Discover and a bunch of others would disagree.

<comment><USER8> "Nothing" as for large values of nothing.

JCB, AMEX, Discover are virtually unusable outside NA. Yes, you might find a restaurant or two that do accept Discover, but you cannot rely on that. Just like you cannot rely on Maestro in NA, for example.

VISA and MC are the only two accepted somewhat worldwide. Even VISA has work to do, to expand their coverage (e.g. Austria and Germany; they are not as universally accepted as Maestro or local "bank cards").

<comment><USER9> Regarding Europe, Visa and the dirty tricks, see London 2012:

[http://www.geek.com/news/visa-is-the-exclusive-payment- partn...](http://www.geek.com/news/visa-is-the-exclusive-payment-partner-of- the-olympics-literally-1507979/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> With Russia and Putin, you never really know: Is this move extraordinarily stupid or extraordinarily brilliant? Russia is an authoritarian state, that on the one hand isn't doing terribly bad economically, but on the other hand notoriously corrupt and not getting a foot in the door innovation-wise.

Of course, the "security deposit" isn't for security against these companies failing. The deposit will help with the squeeze Russia is feeling, and on the other hand this whole law would allow the Russian one-party government (which doesn't know any kind of division of power, by the way) to extort Visa and MasterCard.

I don't know if building a state-controlled credit card processor is worth it to risk being cut off from Visa and MasterCard. You would certainly expect foreign businesses to be extremely careful or suspicious toward such an entity...

<comment><USER11> I sometimes wish more states would build state-controlled basic financial infrastructure and cut out the established financial services companies from the low end of the market -- whether that is the big card companies or the big banks or the big insurers or the big mortgage lenders. These financial services organisations make staggering amounts of money for providing services that almost everyone depends on to function in society, yet with very little real accountability and rarely serving the little guy well, and with a long track record of fighting against any state-led efforts to improve the situation on either count. I'm not generally a fan of over-centralising government and infrastructure, but in this case I suspect there are now strong arguments for providing basic state-run financial services that look much the arguments for having currency and the lender of last resort run by the state and not for private profit.

The use of card payment schemes as a mechanism for sanctions in this case demonstrates external political influence. Maybe in this specific case some would agree with that, given Russia's recent track record. But just imagine the response if Russia could do the same to the US or the major economies of Western Europe. Or consider a more ethically dubious example, like the UK invoking terrorism legislation to freeze assets when Iceland was in financial difficulty not so long ago. More than the political influence, these measures demonstrate the rather arbitrary nature of the services these big companies provide, or don't provide, particularly across borders. For any first world national economy in the 21st century to remain vulnerable to some big commercial interest getting upset and taking the ball home, whatever the underlying reason, seems unwise on the part of the corresponding government.

<comment><USER12> Because the Soviet Union's state-run banks served the little guy so well. The reason the "little guy" gets poor service is because the risk profile is extremely high for the return; however, micro-lending is filling in some of that (see [http://kiva.org/](http://kiva.org/), for example).

The use of the financial sector as a political weapon is concerning (but that is more possible with state run financial institutions). I'm not sure how you prevent that without basically allowing mega-corporations to be above any national laws.

What we really need is an international court that can arbitrate these kinds of disputes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> That's actually a very reasonable response to what Visa/MC did.

I guess that Visa will now quietly back away from the sanctions and in return Russia will either extend the deadline, reduce the security deposit or allow them to participate in development of the national payment system. Probably latter.

<comment><USER14> Visa and its competitors cannot back away from the sanctions at will, as they are ordered by the US federal government. As such, Visa et co. are caught between a rock (US ordered sanctions) and a hard place (this Russian law saying "don't dare apply those sanctions to Russian citizens").

<comment><USER15> That new law seems to address this: "... and require them to base their processing center in Russia". How would sanctions work with a local subsidiary that does the processing?

<comment><USER16> The same way the USA has been taking control of the rest of the financial system. They say to American VISA/MC executives, "we require any transactions processed by your subsidiary to comply with US sanctions, or else we're going to tell the whole world that you're a bunch of financial terrorists and throw you in jail".

Then the US executives say, OK, then we won't process payments in Russia. And then Russia says ....

<comment><USER17> Feels similar to FATCA requirements: report all transactions that involve even the remotest link to an "American person or company" or you're sancioned from operating in the US and with any "American person or company".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Economic sanctions are counterproductive. Severing economic ties makes war more likely, not less.

<comment><USER19> How do you suggest the world punish Russia for acting out?

<comment><USER20> Fulfill protection treaties. Either put "boots on the ground" or don't promise to in the first place.

Ukraine gave up deterrent weapons (world's 3rd largest nuke stockpile) on promise that the USA would fill the strategic power gap accordingly. Latter didn't, Russia doesn't care about mere "sanctions" in light of empire-building goals, there's only one thing that stops such "acting out".

<comment><USER21> The US meanwhile continued to expand NATO and attempted to box Russia in. Contrary to the agreements you mention.

Who exactly is building an empire here?

Boots on the ground probably will be the answer in the end. And when people see what it produces they may finally come to their senses.

<comment><USER20> Separate interests, perfectly and fairly satisfied, rarely favor everyone involved. NATO and Russian sovereignty & protection interests involve conflicting desire to control border areas, as both are suspicious of the intentions of the other. NATO having all but abandoned Ukraine, Russia is emboldened to re-take that buffer area, putting boots on the ground where answered only by rhetoric.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Knowing how corrupt the Russian government is I'm certain this new electronic payment system will be... As Borat would say, a great success...

<comment><USER16> As opposed to the stagnant duopoly VISA/MasterCard, who routinely manage to find ways to stiff their merchants with fines, fees and who are deeply in bed with US politicians? As opposed to PayPal that routinely seizes funds for no reason at all?

What kind of corruption are you afraid of, that the world doesn't already have to deal with?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Putin could kick it up a notch, nationalize the companies assets in Russia and forgive all dept held by the companies in Russia. What kind of a hit would this cause the shareholders of these companies I wonder?

Now sure, international lenders would be more wary of Russia after that, but when you have the resources Russia does maybe credit is less important? Besides, if lenders are going to be used to destroy your economy why not behave proactively?

I doubt it will come to this level... at least immediately, but some people think only the west has the capability to cause financial chaos and pain. I don't think this is the case. This is why I believe we should be more cautious about hostility, financial or otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER23> Interesting. I wonder whether they'll pay the protection money or choose to leave? I wonder if this will drive Bitcoin adoption in Russia?

Note that the US government is no stranger to strong-arming payment processors into refusing payment to businesses it deems undesirable, not always on a legal basis. For example, donations to wikileaks. The Russian position is that _Putin_ insists on being the one strong-arming opponents. This is not an improvement.

(I wonder if this thread is going to be "yay, someone breaking the payments cartel and going after the banks" or "boo, Putin"?)

<comment><USER10> Well "boo, Putin" wouldn't be such a bad attitude. He is, after all, a former KGB officer who runs an authoritarian nation, where the mere notion of free press or due process is ridiculous.

The biggest mistake non-Russians seem to make with regards to interpreting the "West vs Putin" debate is, that they forget that western political systems are hugely more transparent and reliable.

Essentially this means that virtually any "misdeed" on the part of a western government will come out over time, whereas there will be no such evidence or a wider discussion over what Putin is doing.

Given the choice over the U.S. strong-arming payment processors in very few cases, and Putin strong arming them for whatever reasons he sees fit, I'll choose the U.S. any time...

<comment><USER23> "boo, Putin" is certainly valid and correct, and I'm not asserting general moral equivalence. I'm just saying that actions which erode due process make it much harder to fight this kind of action.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> One more reason to leave this stupid country.

</comment><comment><USER25> Oh, the US government will just retaliate with sanctions against Russian companies.

<comment><USER10> They don't need to. Foreign companies have a hard time trusting a widely state-controlled economy which on top of being utterly corrupt and lacking innovation also breaks its promises left and right.

For that matter even if the U.S. government took back every sanction, private businesses will be wary of the risk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Max Keiser is going to blow an artery with excitement.

</comment><comment><USER27> Why so many Visa and MasterCard ass kissing here? It doesn't matter what you guys think of Russia and Putin. Visa and Mastercard ain't innocent here either. They fudged their rate and have been sued multiple time since their existence.

Personally, I don't think any country should rely on Visa or Mastercard since like the article said any countries that face U.S. sanction is basically fucked. This is equivalent of using closed source software to run your govrt.

Russia or any countries for that matter have the rights and should develop their own domestic payment transaction.

<comment><USER28> People aren't upset about Russia ensuring independence from US payment networks. They are upset that Russia appears to them to be trending toward isolation from the world while expanding its territory. They worry about that combined isolationism and expansionism resulting in a new global cold war.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Visa already announced that it stays. After all this is ugly practice that Visa chosen to block certain banks for imaginary reasons and customers of that bank suddenly can't use their cards anymore.</comment>


Tumblr down for maintenance. Posterous /switch related? - <AUTHOR> http://tumblr.com

<comment><USER2> I heard that it was problems with a network switch, but they've been down for most of the afternoon and the evening now.</comment>


Virtual Reality Readies Some Prisoners for Release - <AUTHOR> http://www.cpr.org/news/story/for-some-prisoners-on-the-cusp-of-release-virtual-reality-readies-them-for-freedom <comment><USER2> > Gardenhire is among a group of inmates who have lived behind bars since they > were children--never thinking that one day they'd be let out. They've never > used a debit card or a cell phone. Many haven't ever done their own laundry > or driven a car.

I fucking hate this country. Why are we still doing this. Why is this ok. The people responsible for the continuation of this system should be made to live out the rest of their lives in the prisons they designed.

<comment><USER3> In the same article, these are "children" (15-17 year olds) tried as adults for serious crimes such as murder.

<comment><USER2> It honestly doesn't matter what the crime or the age is. The fact that we respond by spending years producing socially disabled people, and then send them back out into the world... How can this be happening. In whose interest can this possibly be?

<comment><USER4> Indeed many of the victims and their relatives would say that these criminals should be kept locked up, for the protection of others and the betterment of the world. A punishments primary purpose is not to produce socially great people, the punishment is meant to, you know, _punish_ as well as be fair, and protect others.

<comment><USER5> The intend is quite clear.

The problem is that this makes rehabilitation more difficult which in turn leads to recidive.

Back in the 90s (when I looked into this cause it was part of political standpoints by politicians in my country) both the general public and behavioural science was on the fence whether longer punishments or shorter punishments with a focus on rehabilitation worked better. A quick search on DDG showed news articles and studies arguing both ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Did someone watch Demolition Man to come up with this scheme?</comment>


Robotic Objects Designed to Be Stabbed and Beaten to Help You Feel Better - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/home-robots/these-robotic-objects-are-designed-to-be-stabbed-and-beaten-to-help-you-feel-better <comment><USER2> There was an episode of minefield by vsauce (it was titled something like "destruction") that argued strongly against the idea of catharsis from violence, postulating that it actually makes people more angry/violent. A question for anyone with a background in the field: is vsauce's take on catharsis the scientifically accepted view? Or could these robots actually help you feel better?</comment>


For tablet computer visionary Roger Fidler, a lot of what-ifs - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/for-tablet-computer-visionary-roger-fidler-a-lot-of-what-ifs/2012/02/28/gIQAM0kN1R_print.html

<comment><USER2> Of course, this ignores a lot of prior art: for example <http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/UbiHome.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> I'll say it again: Apple was not the first to invent the tablet, they were the _last_ , and that is precisely why they succeeded.

</comment><comment><USER4> 1989: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRiDPad>

</comment><comment><USER5> "black, thin, rectangular, with text and video displayed on-screen"

He better stay away from rounded corners.

<comment><USER6> He had those too: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/did-apple-crib- this-m...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/did-apple-crib-this-mans- idea-for-a-tablet-computer/2012/03/09/gIQA7rcN1R_gallery.html#photo=2)</comment></comment>


Apple is offering free genetic tests to all its Silicon Valley employees - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/13/apple-teams-with-color-to-offer-free-dna-tests-to-employees.html <comment><USER2> Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't want my employer to be so closely associated with medical files that hold the results from genetic disease screenings.

</comment><comment><USER3> Because if you can't trust a large tech company with your most intimate data, who can you trust?</comment>


Programmer Books Lists by B. Batsov, Uncle Bob, K. Beck, J. Atwood, and DHH - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@shvetsovdm/essential-books-that-every-programmer-should-read-a61565095781 <comment><USER2> Yet another batch of Amazon affiliate links (tag=sdm50-20)</comment>


Pycoder's Weekly - <AUTHOR> http://pycoders.com/

<comment><USER2> For the sake of completeness, there's also <http://www.pythonweekly.com/> that I know about. Sadly, not being a Pythonista I don't know how they compare.

And in the interest of healthy self promotion(!) <http://rubyweekly.com/> <http://html5weekly.com/> and <http://javascriptweekly.com/> ;-)

<comment><USER3> I am an absolute fan of all weekly emails. Peters are excellent and I would highly recommend signing up for each of them. I also run a weekly newsletter called Web Design Weekly which might be worth a look... <http://web-design- weekly.com> :D

<comment><USER4> _"... I am an absolute fan of all weekly emails. ..."_

Out of curiosity, what is it about regular emails that you find appealing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I highly recommend subscribing to this newsletter. I've been receiving it for a few months months now and it's been really good. The curators are well aware of the latest developments in the community and it shows. The articles highlight the important bits. It's really nice and useful.

<comment><USER6> I also want to echo this - I've learned about quite a few packages and discussions that I wouldn't have seen otherwise that have been really beneficial.

<comment><USER7> I want to echo the sentiment in my response to agentultra. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I dont think the "view sample issue" link should be so small and hidden. Make it as big as the subscribe button. Its the first thing I looked for on the page.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the feedback. We have been meaning to do something about that for awhile, as well as add an about page and a bunch of other things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Minor comment. With javascript not enabled for this site, it returns an error from mailchimp but still registers you. If you then turn on javascript and register, it gives an error for too many subscriptions for the email address.

Might be confusing for some users.

</comment><comment><USER10> Relevant shameless plug: www.InterTechTion.com for technical interview questions every other day by email.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is there any rss for the archive?

<comment><USER12> RSS can be found here. <http://feeds.feedburner.com/pycodersweekly>

<comment><USER13> Unfortunately this RSS ends at issue #10. And the latest is #20...

<comment><USER7> Really? That's weird. I'm one of the curators and I subscribe to the rss so I can check it. I get every issue as suspected.

I will definately check into this. What newsreader are you using?

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the RSS :D Unfortunately, I've got the same problem: the latest issue is #10 on my Google Reader.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Betatype - A freelance site where clients pay $3,500 for prototypes - <AUTHOR> http://betatype.io <comment><USER2> As someone who is a member of both of this site's target audiences, I'd be curious to actually see some live samples of products that were developed on a $3,500 budget. I think that would help give "idea people" a realistic expectation for what the scope of their project should be in it's first iteration, and it would set some expectation for the developers as to what they should be able to produce on a $3,500 budget.

Another thing I'd like to see Betatype providing is some sort of franchised coaching and guidance to both the product owner and the developer on how to best set themselves and the other party up for success.

<comment><USER3> > Another thing I'd like to see Betatype providing is some sort of franchised > coaching and guidance to both the product owner and the developer on how to > best set themselves and the other party up for success.

Coaching and guidance isn't a substitute for experience. You can learn about the product lifecycle by reading a book or taking a class, but that doesn't mean you know how to manage it in the real world. Frankly, the number of good developers who can also credibly wear the hat of product manager is much, much smaller than the number of good developers.

<comment><USER4> No way I would wear the hats of a product manager and a developer at that price point. The spec better be really good, and no "little changes".

If they have a way to make this happen, then it's an amazing product. If not, then there will be a lot of disappointment on both sides.

<comment><USER5> To all the people dismissing the site based on low potential earnings for the developer.

From a quick look on elance. There are currently 10,344 "Web Developers" with a listed hourly rate. The cutoffs for 50/75/90 percentiles are $15, $25 & $40 per hour. Obviously dance doesn't represent the top earning developers. Elance covers the low end, mostly.

The hourly rate of developers ranges a lot. So does the hourly output. Silicon Valley veterans expect $100-$200 per hour. On a worldwide scale, that's high end free lancing. Jobs usually come by way of personal introductions and relationships.

I totally agree that few are going to turn down a job at Google to build $3500 prototypes.

The gigs you can get as a freelancer for a SV company are not something that most elance developers can compete for. You can't cold call your way into them and you can't get them through a website. Part of the reason is skillet, some of it is cultural. The ability to relate to the person hiring, sell yourself and a whole bunch of other soft reasons play a role too. They can't get to the high end.

A lot of the startups in this space seem to be trying to crack the middle end, which IMO is underdeveloped. My guess is that's the $25-$60 per hour range. This is (as mentioned elsewhere on this thread) rational in the context of average developer salaries in some parts of the world. BTW, $50 per hour X 20-40 hours per week will buy you a great lifestyle.

Also, a freelancer on his 26th $3500 prototype may get pretty good at it. They'll be using suitable tools have methods for coxing ideas out of clients. It is it's own skillet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I look at it like this: There are 4 directions that a software project can be constrained: Time, price, scope, and quality.

1\. Elance or ODesk can offer you fixed time, price, and scope, but highly erratic quality.

2\. An expensive contracting agency can offer you fixed time, scope, and quality, but with high costs.

3\. This site promises fixed cost, and quality, but makes no promises on scope or completion timeline.

All that's left is for someone to make a site that has fixed timing, like "Software Prototypes in One Week". I'll wait for that one to hit the front page of HN. As a developer I'd actually prefer that because I know when it's going to be over.

<comment><USER7> "All that's left is for someone to make a site that has fixed timing, like "Software Prototypes in One Week"."

Looks like someone already did that too: [http://protoverstas.com](http://protoverstas.com)

<comment><USER8> 10,000 EUR + 2.5% equity (o_O);

<comment><USER9> More realistic though; you really cannot do anything for $3500 (E2500). Well you can do something but it won't be very nice I don't think. E10k is good for a proto.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Neat idea. Initial thought is that I have trouble seeing this be profitable, given how little Betatype is taking. Betatype itself is only getting $140 / project and for this is promising to "help clients flesh out their idea into a clear list of requirements." That alone could take many hours of back and forth.

<comment><USER2> Agree. One strategy would be to do the upfront project analysis at a loss until they get the hang of it and identify the patterns, then create automated tools that product owners can work with to get the same work done. Or maybe they already have automated tools.

However, my bigger concern is that working out the requirements is being done by someone other than the developer that's going to be working on the project. If you're trying to get something done on a budget, fewer people in the mix is better.

Furthermore, the conversation about product requirements needs to be a two way discussion. Developers are often in a unique position to guide a product owner into what's easy to implement and provides the biggest "bang for your buck." Their early insight can radically shape the product and is not based on what the customer thinks they need, but what the customer communicates their goals are. This is where a consultant can provide serious ROI to a product owner.

<comment><USER11> It seems like the fear is that allowing the developer to have direct communication with the client could result in people circumventing the 4% commission. But unless they come up with an excellent workaround, it might be hard for the site to catch on without allowing that communication.

<comment><USER12> They are trying to create a two-sided marketplace on something that is traditionally a consulting gig.

So many things can go sideways, and at a 4% take on $3,500 projects, as loosely defined as that is, there is no way this can scale.

<comment><USER13> > No way

Sure there is, limit to what time they spend working on getting projects ready, if they don't meet a certain standard, drop them and give quick 5 second tips to get them back in the queue. If they don't produce a reasonable spec in enough attempts just drop them as a user.

Even the AP had a work around for scaling this further, run at a loss for some time while you identify patterns of failure, produce resources for the user to solve their own problems.

For $140 I could easily spend 10-20 minutes looking at a rough spec and tell you if it is workable for 3500, I'd even be able to put in a few slash points on which features would likely need to be cut.

For some perspective, $3500 @ $50/hour = 70 hours. In other words, 1-3 weeks of dev time.

<comment><USER14> LOL, $50/hour.

The types of developers you want creating your prototypes are those that can justify charging $200+ per hour because they have past business/user experience to truly understand what you want to achieve from your project as opposed to what you've specified.

<comment><USER15> In developing countries, $50/hour is considered very lucrative. Thus the hourly rate is not a good indicator of developer quality.

<comment><USER14> I assure you, it very much is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm sure a could read a bunch to find out your answer, but it wasn't quickly enough obvious to me (as a programmer) how you ensure the scope of work is actually equal to $3500 of my time.

<comment><USER17> Agreed. An example scope of a prototype would be very valuable to see if it's worth the time signing up. Additionally, I'm guessing that rudimentary design skills would be required because there's a helluva difference between a functional bootstrap proto vs designing a product with specific design goals in mind.

<comment><USER18> I agree with this - I think both parties would greatly benefit from being able to see a "standard" prototype. Over time, I'm sure a that few spec templates could be developed that would cover 80% percent of use cases. It sounds like a scalable model to me.

As a university student, this is really pretty great. I will have the opportunity to work on reasonably sized projects, earn some extra cash, and probably build a pretty sweet portfolio. I even think it would be cool to form student orgs around this - have upperclassmen train underclassmen in the art of full stack web-dev, and then have let two underclassmen jump into one of these projects with the guidance of an experienced dev. Finally, split the profits. If any of the founders are reading this, would you be open to something like this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's nice that the dollar figures are all upfront on this page, but it seems a bit strange to say "Get a working, launchable prototype for $3,500" when the client actually pays $3570. It seems that you're putting half of your fee on the client side and the other half on the programmer side, but in doing so the client's seeing a mixed message that could be off putting.

<comment><USER20> I doubt it's off putting. 2% for the sake of simplicity is OK. Similarly, "$10k" would be fine instead of "$10,200."

<comment><USER21> In UK, prices are always inclusive of VAT. Going back to the U.S. pricing model after that is annoying to say the least. A price discrepancy leaves room for dispute unless you add "fine print" for "hidden fees", both of which are frowned upon to the extent that many products market themselves as having no "hidden fees". Consumers never benefit from any of it, only companies do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > As part of our screening, we'll help clients flesh out their idea into a > clear list of requirements.

At market rate for an _experienced_ contract product manager or developer with product management chops, the process of defining functional requirements for a new product will usually entail more than $3,500 worth of work.

</comment><comment><USER22> I just can't imagine any non brochure-ware prototype that can be built for $3500 (let's leave off the problems of the middleman not making much money on this one /and/ promising to do project management).

two problems

1) limited hours - you're talking about somewhere around 20-30 hours of senior dev time or 40-70 hours of a newer devs time. Let's say they can both accomplish the same amount during that timeframe. It's still /not that much/ especially if you are taking any design into consideration beyond popping bootstrap on it.

2) zero iterations. (and this is perhaps a bigger problem, since the first can be solved simply be changing it to a prototype for $10k or whatever) I've never seen even an MVP come out fully baked without a lot of iterations at the beginning. Arguably prototyping is the process of rapid iteration. One and done just doesn't work for what a prototype needs.

<comment><USER23> Considering that a mid-level to senior South African developer makes around R40'000 per month (which is roughly what $3500 equates to), you would be able to get an entire month's worth of work from a competent developer based here in SA.

<comment><USER24> Came here to say this. I'd go so far as to say that a two man team from a country like SA or India, with a back-ender + front-ender, working on 2 prototypes a month, can make a healthy living.

<comment><USER13> I find this kind of funny I've seen this forgetfulness elsewhere in the thread. We all work in the worldwide web here on hns, yet we constantly forget about the rest of the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This seems more like "vet my potential idea" rather than "Show hn".

Domain was registered today and we can assume the idea was hatched today if not fairly recently.

There is nothing here other than a single page and a way to signup for either a programmer or person with an idea.

This isn't a business it's an idea. Wrapping it in a somewhat acceptably designed website and some marketing speak and seeing HN start to nibble as if it's some real thing actually happening is always interesting.

When is the line crossed between "Show HN" and free advertising for your idea?

<comment><USER26> The same person registered another similar domain for more personal offers just a few weeks ago. [http://prototypefor2345.com/](http://prototypefor2345.com/)

Betatype seems like an iteration of this previous site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I see a lot of comments here about the quality of work that can be delivered on a $3500 budget. While this may be considered a shoestring budget in developed countries, it is completely reasonable in developing countries such as South Africa. Here, $3500 equates to roughly R37'000, which would be considered a decent monthly salary for a mid-level to senior software developer (depending on location, of course). So from this perspective, a South African developer would easily be able to spend a month developing such a prototype, which is almost enough time to develop a functional system for a simple-enough use-case. I've personally developed a few pieces of software around this price-point: software that is actively in use now and not just a prototype, and whose code I don't consider completely terrible either.

</comment><comment><USER27> Will need to do 10,000 apps to make $1.4M in revenue. Pretty tough business. If I were CEO I would raise your 4% fee and charge more than $3,500 per app.

<comment><USER13> I have a feeling their numbers are soft for a reason. 5000 is a solid investment, 3500, thats a small portion of dayjobs income i could drop to get a sideproject trialed. 4% is also very minor, where 5+ would likely look a little too middleman-y for my liking.

Limit the size of the project, limit the size of the investment, limit the cost.

Going forward I expect they will have to do some form of tiering once they see the type of work is in demand, and which type of work is achievable by their developers (which all is still unknown at this point) Example tiers: 500-1000 = quick site, 3500 = mvp, 5000-10000 = soft launch

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It turns out you have to submit a CV and portfolio. If I knew I was applying for a job I wouldn't have submitted my email :/

</comment><comment><USER29> It wasn't clear to me that the prototypes would be web only - I'm an iOS developer and figured I'd sign up.

To be fair, I think the idea would work for different platforms, but perhaps be explicit on the front page.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sort of offtopic, but has any non technical person launched a startup / business without a technical cofounder?

The company I work for gets people asking for quotes to build their "next big idea", where the person isn't technical but has industry experience behind them.. this has turned out pretty well for some people.

<comment><USER3> It happens all the time. I have been involved in such businesses, and there are public examples[1].

Entrepreneurs who don't code _do not_ need technical co-founders. There are plenty of talented firms and solo developers with product management chops who will collaborate with you to build a product. The entrepreneur pays a fair rate and the service provider delivers a solid foundation on which to pursue the business.

Many if not most of the folks looking to jump into bed with a technical co- founder they have no existing relationship with are doing so because they don't have adequate capital. Undercapitalization is one of the top reasons new businesses fail, so most equity-only/deferred comp. technical co-founder opportunities are unattractive from the start.

[1] [http://www.groovehq.com/blog/technical-co- founder](http://www.groovehq.com/blog/technical-co-founder)

<comment><USER31> So this is quite relevant to me.

I wouldn't like to be a solo founder because it's too much work and stress for one person. I've had this idea for a mobile app (it's a social network game - littlequest.me) for about 2 years now but still haven't done it because I don't have the right co-founder. Mostly because my network is too dispersed I think.

I do have a couple friends with no experience with building mobile apps interested though. Do you think I should team up with them or hire a professional? I really don't like the idea of doing a business by myself though.

<comment><USER12> Since you're asking for advice, don't go into business "with your friends" who have "no experience." You'll lose one without gaining any of the other.

<comment><USER31> Why is that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Are you handling the escrow in a safe manner to make sure everyone gets paid? What is your dispute resolution plan?

<comment><USER33> They mention on the homepage of the site that you _can_ handle payment entirely outside of their system in your own terms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sometimes a blank canvas is not a good thing. Twitter invented something entirely defined by its constraints.

The process of negotiating, defining and developing an "prototype" between a client and a freelance developer is hard, for both sides. Often, neither are skilled at managing the process.

Once you limit some aspect of the project, you can adjust the other aspects around the limitation and everything becomes simpler. It's a lot easier to scope a project when the scope needs to fit in a $3500 budget. Simplifying negotiations and decision making could be a big win. Choosing a developer by looking at a portfolio is a lot easier when the scope budgets are the same.

I wonder if this idea could usefully be applied to something outside of software. How about a $3500 (or whatever) custom kitchen.

<comment><USER34> For me, I use a one-hour skype session to talk every potential client "down off the ceiling". We discuss their idea, and then work together to define a scope I can do for $5,000 in 4 weeks (this is the service I offer at [http://builtFromIdeas.com](http://builtFromIdeas.com) )

<comment><USER35> Could you go into more detail about how you deal with the initial stages? What if the client wants more, eg. "without this feature it doesn't make sense", etc. Thanks in advance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is a cool idea. I've been experimenting with a similar model for design. Undesigned[1] will redesign or prototype a single page in one week for $1500.

In your case, the greatest struggle is going to be supplying the marketplace. It makes sense to offer the service at unsustainable margins for now while you seed the market, so I wouldn't worry too much about all the comments talking about how unsustainable it is, and instead focus on the ones talking about the difficulty of building a marketplace.

1: [http://www.undesigned.io](http://www.undesigned.io)

<comment><USER37> You're on good tracks, this is one of the things 37signals did in the beginning.

" Want to make one of your site's pages better? Check out 37express: 1-page redesigns in 1-week. 37express is perfect for companies that need one more design comp, rapid professional prototyping of a wireframe or early-design concept, or just a quick, hassle-free, "how could this page be better?" creative spark. "

[http://37signals.com/better.php](http://37signals.com/better.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> You make it pretty hard to register. I don't want to send all kinds of details about myself when checking if a service is worth my time and I don't think I'm the only one.

<comment><USER39> Show stopper for me as well. I wanted to see if they had any projects that would be fun for a night/weekend type thing, but they are asking a lot of info without giving enough back to make me feel comfortable sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's a nice site ... what's your strategy for solving the chicken-and-egg marketplace problem?

<comment><USER41> Upon creating my account I received an account id of around 1050~. Looks like little is done to obscure the numbers. Perhaps they hope sufficient hype will solve the problem?

<comment><USER42> 1806\. Looks like they're getting popular.

<comment><USER43> Indeed, 2010 here. Sequential for sure.

<comment><USER44> North of 2800 here

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Are all prototypes worth $3500? I'm confused as to why there is a fixed price.

<comment><USER46> I think it makes sense. It implicitly keeps the project scope very limited and it eliminates a lot of the haggling.

My biggest concern, like others have mentioned, is that it seems unscalable with the cut that the company keeps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Spotted a typo:

[http://betatype.io/whyapply](http://betatype.io/whyapply) says:

> All job postings are required to be as clear and specific as possible, and > they're required to pay 1/4 ($625) up front.

This points to conclusion, that the author initially set the price to $2500, but changed to $3500 later.

</comment><comment><USER48> I like the idea of it, was thinking of something myself not too long ago.

It's great because it provides big value, and your (i.e. betatype founder, contractor specialising on prototypes, etc) job is to highlight the value because it's not obvious for many. Doing that seems like a fun experience.

Tell the "idea people" that you will sell some seemingly incomplete software which might need to be thrown away for $3500 and they will shrug their shoulders or laugh.

Tell the same people that for $3500 you will help them to find out the potential of their idea for a small price, and they, in the ideal world, should love it. Many of us have worked on some project, which was sort of stealth project and founders spent loads of cash just to find out that no one needs it. All of it could have been avoided for $3500.

But how close the real world is to the ideal world?

</comment><comment><USER49> To all the people saying this price is so too low- don't you think that they are doing this to attract a bunch of people to solve the chicken-egg network effect problem first? Then I'm sure they will raise their cut.

<comment><USER50> They should also have some good reference-able wins as well, and most importably, knowledge of the advisory/selection process well in hand.

I'm in neither market, but I'm very interested to see how this goes, and whether it can be extended to mobile app dev, or longer than 1wk dev projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Really should be https. I like the idea though and hope it's successful.

</comment><comment><USER52> On the bright side, this project acknowledges the killer issue with these kinds of marketplaces: scalably managing quality, scope, and disputes.

But on the other hand, I see nothing but assurances and a woefully low cut that I can't imagine could keep this train chugging without shoveling time (=money) into the furnace. At ~$140 revenue a pop, if even 4% of projects go off the rails, the "insurance" policy already puts the company in the red -- forget profit.

There is a huge problem to solve here, for sure. I want someone to solve it. But I'm not seeing a solution.

</comment><comment><USER53> Cool but there are already similar services: [http://launchyard.com/](http://launchyard.com/)

They will help you focus your idea and one of their partners will build the prototype.

<comment><USER54> Thanks for the shoutout Bruce.

I'm the Founder of LaunchYard.com, and we have been successfully helping entrepreneurs from the last 1 and half years to launch their products. For instance: [http://launchyard.com/case- studies/albums/](http://launchyard.com/case-studies/albums/)

Shoot me a line if anyone wants to learn more. atif at launchyard.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I liked the idea, atleast Betatype will have less noise and better quality of developers/hackers. I wonders how will the quality be maintained though. Also there is thin line between what are beta products ? will you prescreen the projects posted ? also there are good chances that buyers will misuse the service due it being flat cost in nature. Expect people asking for N number of features and changing deliverable as well as unsatisfied buyers.

</comment><comment><USER56> Clicking "learn more" on the "idea guy" side 500s for me:

[http://betatype.io/whypost](http://betatype.io/whypost)

<comment><USER57> Everything that I'd expect to 404 gives me 500s.

<comment><USER58> Probably using a framework (Django, for instance) that doesn't have a default 404 path.

<comment><USER59> If 404 template is absent, in the case of django it will show Not Found The requested URL /whypost was not found on this server.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Really cool idea, but I think a flat-cost of $3,500 for a prototype is way too low and the approach is error prone. How about iteration? Iteration is one of the key factors during the prototyping process. Does that $3,500 figure cover only one iteration or the initial development and consequent iterations? Or does a company/individual have to pay another $3,500 per each revision?

</comment><comment><USER61> Interesting idea but so far poor start. We need more information, less errors. I would like a video on main page explaining what you are doing here and why anyone should use you. Outline strengths of your idea and give much more details please. The next few hours will be probably a turning point if this idea will work for you or not. So be quick and fix all the issues!

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady What does the programmer screening process involve?

</comment><comment><USER62> Assuming this is 2-3 weeks of work, I hope there are a lot of strict controls in place concerning requirements to stave off the "wait, this should be simple" chronic under-estimators, but I've been in plenty of spots where quickly getting a project like this would have meant a lot. Hope it works out for this site.

</comment><comment><USER63> This is one of the most interesting things I've seen as a Show HN in ages... Awesome! I can't wait to see how this plays out, and how scared people are to tell each other about what they're building with it, while it's begin built (e.g. if listings for ideas are public to developers?)

</comment><comment><USER64> > launchable web application prototype

This sounds like an oxymoron which would imply the two sides of the transaction have separate expectations.

As reasonable developers, do we build out the system, security, data backup plan of a "prototype"? As reasonable buyers do we "launch" an application without them?

</comment><comment><USER9> $3500 is one week without talking too much to the client; not sure how to get something usable from that? If your idea is clear then sure, but (hopefully) most aren't and then you need a few days talking/sketching and starting up your favorite edi... oops $3500 gone.

</comment><comment><USER65> > Automatic payments without any hassle. We'll drop money into your bank > account on a rolling basis.

What does this mean exactly? My prototype will be connected up to your Stripe account and then you'll transfer the money my app makes to me through periodical bank transfers?

<comment><USER66> No, I believe it means the programmer gets automatically paid when milestones are marked as done. They are referring to the 3.5k being paid for the job. Any revenue the app gets has nothing to do with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Looks like this is something interesting that came up from cwilson's suggestion on one of brandonhsiao's earlier submissions: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7606963](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7606963)

</comment><comment><USER68> Did anyone else notice that the "Apply as programmer" sign up page doesn't use HTTPS? Is it just me or this is the case for everyone.

[http://betatype.io/createacc/hacker](http://betatype.io/createacc/hacker)

It stopped my sign up immediately.

</comment><comment><USER69> Love it taking something thats seemingly a complex process and turning it into a product. Only thing is, they should be charging a lot more than 4%. Perhaps the 500 USD or a similar fee on top. If you provide value, charge for that value.

</comment><comment><USER70> OK, what the actual f __k? I register as a programmer and then a page shows up saying "Thank you for registering, now please EMAIL us your info - and we'll get back in touch". Fail on so many levels.

</comment><comment><USER71> I really like this idea, and in combination with the bitnami stacks, the "handover" to the client could be very easy too.

[1] [https://bitnami.com/stacks](https://bitnami.com/stacks)

</comment><comment><USER72> I think you should take more than a 4% cut, that doesn't seem sustainable.

</comment><comment><USER73> Nice. I've thought about building such a service myself. Found this when I was looking around: [http://iwbyp.chris-granger.com/](http://iwbyp.chris- granger.com/)

</comment><comment><USER74> The term prototype seem ambiguous enough that will cause problems. How far does it have to done? How much bugs can it have? Cross-browser compatible? The problem with fixed pricing is that its not scalable.

</comment><comment><USER75> This would only makes sense to me if I could acquire and complete 3 prototypes a month which would be an unlikely outcome with an insane amount of work with little hope of making more.

</comment><comment><USER76> I interpret this as "get a crappy MVP prototype for a very low price" which I think sounds great. I don't think the price is too low if that's the expected outcome.

</comment><comment><USER77> I love that you allow people to "pay outside". I wish more services offered this. Just be sure that users understand the risks associated with "paying outside".

</comment><comment><USER78> Nice product. 1 year ago, I launched "Two weeks to materialize your idea": [http://munda.me](http://munda.me)

This business model works well. Congrats.

</comment><comment><USER14> 4% doesn't seem sustainable if they're taking credit card payments. The best they can probably get to is around 1.2% transaction fee (if they've shopped around) and this is unlikely given the risk profile of a _marketplace_ like this. I bet they are paying 2.5%+. So 1.5% ($52.50) profit per project?

I have to wonder how they came up with 4% (2% per side). Surely 10-20% is still a reasonable fee to connect these parties and manage the relationship.

Heck, both I and the purchaser pays 10% to an auctioneer to sell my stuff in < 60 seconds (yes, I know they do a little more than that… but mostly it's about supplying the marketplace).

<comment><USER79> Unless the creator of this marketplace is himself a provider, in which case he picks the best projects for himself at $3000 profit, and offloads the bad projects to others for $50 profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> From the /whyapply page:

 _We 're a site that pairs contract programmers with clients. Specifically, we're a marketplace where clients buy prototypes for $2,500._

<comment><USER81> It says $3,500 now. (Maybe somebody read your comment and fixed it?)

<comment><USER82> The price grows as a function of time. Clients had better get in now while it's still this cheap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A business where most customers aren't qualified to be good customers. (Bad at defining, scoping, specs, estimating, having realistic expectations...)

</comment><comment> Jean-Philipe I've tried to contact them a few times via their application form and via email, but no response. Has anybody actually get into the program?

</comment><comment><USER83> No SSL? Not even for sign up and sign in? How is my info (user, password, e-mail, name, banking info) going to be "protected"?

Has people given up on SSL (and any security for that matter) already because of Heartbleed? I guess I can hear some people talking: "We don't need SSL! Not having it is pretty much the same, but with less overhead!"

Seriously, without SSL, you are Beta at best. And if you have been operating like this for a while, well that's terrible... Your users should be very concerned.

</comment><comment><USER84> Typo under 'Both sides get what they really want'.

> Programmers get _get_ paid to implement a well-defined spec.

</comment><comment><USER85> I have seen similar sites like this like 5k MVP, 10k MVP. wanted to know if pricing is the only difference .

</comment><comment><USER86> I feel like this is the startup that so many of us have always wanted to do. Kudos for doing it!

</comment><comment><USER87> So, assuming you had an extra $3,500 to blow. What would you most like to have built?

</comment><comment><USER88> "What We Offer" "I'll write this when I have time."

Looking forward to this.

</comment><comment><USER89> Interesting.. signed up for this. I wonder what the scope of work is for $3,500.

</comment><comment><USER90> Change description on login page unless you're Rokumo ;)

</comment><comment><USER91> price should be higher to have a decent output. Around $5000.

</comment><comment><USER92> How are you taking payments? Checks?

</comment><comment><USER93> The premise alone makes me think that someone is trying to get some free money ... snake oil smell. Know what I mean? Why read this?

</comment><comment><USER94> Sounds too good to be true.</comment>