Apple ordered to not block Epic's Unreal Engine, Fortnite to stay off App Store - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/24/apple-ordered-to-not-block-epic-games-unreal-engine-but-fortnite-to-stay-off-app-store/ <comment><USER2> I'm always frustrated by journalists who never mention the case number (why not?), let alone link to a copy of the actual ruling.

Here's a PDF of the ruling, I think it's worth reading: [https://cdn.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/c...](https://cdn.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/cf2dcbbf_4f0b_4762_94fc_6b0f42ede3ff.pdf)

<comment><USER3> > why not?

Easy: a link off their site doesn't earn them any money. They want to you stay on their domain.

<comment><USER4> Is there a news site that does the opposite? Always cites sources, provide ample links throughout text?

 _that's_ the site I'd subscribe to.

<comment><USER5> Believe it or not, Wikipedia.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events)

<comment><USER4> Thanks. That works for international news reporting. It's a bit thin on local coverage, and anything that is non-news but usually part of a newspaper (opinion/debate, reviews...) isn't there. The easier it is to get the news bit everywhere, the more important the other parts of a newspaper becomes to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some of my highlights:

\- "Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that "self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury."

\- "While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple's 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free."

\- "The Court further recognizes that during these coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) times, virtual escapes may assist in connecting people and providing a space that is otherwise unavailable. However, the showing is not sufficient to conclude that these considerations outweigh the general public interest in requiring private parties to adhere to their contractual agreements or in resolving business disputes through normal, albeit expedited, proceedings."

\- "With respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the calculus changes. The record shows potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers. The public context in which this injury arises differs significantly: not only has the underlying agreement not been breached, but the economy is in dire need of increasing avenues for creativity and innovation, not eliminating them. Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders."

<comment><USER7> > the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative

It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue, which is that Apple (and Google) essentially has the power to make or break any arbitrary business that relies on their platform. They base it on vague and loosely enforced rules, which means companies never know if tomorrow is the end. Having a locked platform in itself isn't an issue. Having an expensive locked platform isn't an issue either.

Having an oligopoly of locked platforms (that are important enough that companies can't ignore) with rules that can change or be selectively enforced and have the power to destroy your business model overnight, is a big problem.

Reducing the cut to 0% still wouldn't change that.

<comment><USER8> I mean the Microsoft Store charges 30% for games, Google play is 30%, Steam is 30%, I'm sure there are app stores I'm not thinking of that charge 30%.

It seems to be the industry standard App Store cut.

<comment><USER9> But the Microsoft Store isn't THE ONLY WAY to get games installed on Windows, and that's what's different.

It isn't the 30%! It's that there's only a single way into iOS. It's a literal monopoly, and they are large enough that this matters, now.

<comment><USER10> As of march 2019

> The updated ADA includes the new Microsoft Store fee structure that delivers > up to 95 percent of the revenue back to consumer app developers. To ensure > you receive the full 95 percent revenue, be sure to instrument your > referring traffic URLs with a CID.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A victory for sanity. Apple threatening developmental licenses and anyone who used the Unreal Engine was nothing short of mafia-esque, and just as obviously Fortnite being restored to the app store is a matter for Epic's lawsuit against apple.

<comment><USER12> Isn't this still an Epic issue? Basically if Epic delivered their engine to their customers as source code and NOT as a compiled binary couldn't the customers build the engine and include it in their App Store submission? But since Epic is trying to deliver the compiled engine to their customer (signed with their dev keys) thats where the problem comes in?

<comment><USER13> How can epic develop the engine if they are banned form using Apple development tools.

<comment><USER14> They aren't banned from using Apple's development tools.

<comment><USER15> They were going to be.

<comment><USER16> No they weren't. You can download and use the developer tools without a developer account.

<comment><USER15> You must agree to the developer program's EULA to use Apple's developer tools, as well as sign your code.

<comment><USER17> you must agree to the Xcode and Apple SDKs Agreement to use Xcode and production SDKs, which is a click-through when starting Xcode.

You must agree to an Apple Developer Program License Agreement to sign and distribute applications and to get access to pre-release SDKs.

<comment><USER15> Don't you need to be registered in the developer program to sign your code for Apple's embedded platforms?

<comment><USER18> You do, but if I built a game using Unreal Engine then I'd be using my developer account to sign my game.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, but as a developer of Unreal Engine itself I'd like to be able to test it on iPhone…

<comment><USER18> Then create a free developer account. You only need to pay if you need to sign for distribution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer.

I think we should speak more about this fact, so that people think twice before they buy some device.

I only make websites, but I am worried, that at some point, Apple would want me to pay them, so that my website is openable on their devices.

<comment><USER20> Because it does not matter to the vast majority of people. In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper.

There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them. It would also be impractical to allow otherwise for many of these. Then you end up with warranty issues.

Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles? Tesla is fighting this one now where people are paying a third party to boost their horsepower.

Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities

Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted? Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?

I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy, because a manufacturer does not adhere to your desire is by no means justification for forcing them to do so.

<comment><USER21> I am thankful every time I drive that I'm able to run software of my choice in my automobile. Mazda never seemed to get around to adding Android Auto to my 2015, and yet I use it whenever I feel like, and I didn't have to pay a dealer $300 to install software!

<comment><USER22> Yeah, people flash their ECMs all the time. I don't really see how using 3rd party software to boost power in a Tesla is all that different. Just don't cover any damage caused by the tinkering under warranty. Tesla just seems salty that they're missing out on their "DLC" profits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Could someone explain what was Apple trying to do? I really don't get their position in this story. It seemed obvious that trying to completely block Epic's Unreal Engine would be causing more legal issues. What is their strategy here? It feels that they actually wanted things to escalate, though I cannot see why they would do this.

<comment><USER24> Apple threatened to revoke Epic's "Apple Developer" account due to repeated violations of the developer policy and agreement.

I am sure Apple did it to try and bully Epic into settling.

<comment><USER25> Both Apple and Google will pull people's developer accounts for this kind of misbehavior. Epic isn't special in this regard.

<comment><USER26> Except the developer Apple wanted to ban was Epic and their Unreal engine. That is an entirely different legal entity and developer than Fortnite the game developers on the app store. It also says so in the ruling. So what Apply did was punish X for what Y did. They might as well have banned Microsoft for siding with Epic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> [https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/24/fortnite-ban-unreal-engine- ap...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/24/fortnite-ban-unreal-engine-apple- restrained/)

Non techcrunch link (as I can't access those with ublock/cookie wall blocker)

<comment><USER28> always use [http://cachedview.nl/](http://cachedview.nl/) to see blocked sites

<comment><USER29> How have I never heard of this site before? Thanks!!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Epic is just the new gang in town establishing themselves while trying to get some shops under their control, by playing being against the long time block owners.

<comment><USER31> This. Actions speak louder than words and Epic's anti-Linux actions with their store are extremely telling that their rhetoric about supporting open platforms is purely self-serving.

<comment><USER32> Valve has had a lot more Linux support, but it seems like they just want Steam to be "Google Play Services" for desktop Linux. GPL software can't even communicate with friends on Steam, isolating the open source community and ultimately turning their devs, if they want to be part of Steam's extensive gaming social network, into serfs for the store.

<comment><USER33> Huh? In what way is Steam on Linux in any way similar to Google Play Services on Android?

Steam on Linux is mostly compatibility hacks so people can play the games they bought. Some games have decent Linux support, but the real value I see in Steam on Linux is all the proton/wine magic/hacks to make games work relatively well without any changes, and frankly it's great.

The rate at which Wine/Proton et al., and Linux gaming in general, has improved in the last few years is staggering.

> GPL software can't even communicate with friends on Steam, isolating the > open source community and ultimately turning their devs, if they want to be > part of Steam's extensive gaming social network, into serfs for the store.

I have no idea what you mean by this, but I also don't see what the GPL has to do with it. You can easily write GPL software that you sell on Steam which uses all of Valve's features.

<comment><USER32> > In what way is Steam on Linux in any way similar to Google Play Services on > Android?

Steamworks.

> I have no idea what you mean by this, but I also don't see what the GPL has > to do with it. You can easily write GPL software that you sell on Steam > which uses all of Valve's features.

Steamworks is needed for that and isn't GPL compatible. You can sell GPL software on Steam, but can't use many features and are isolated from most social/friend stuff.

[https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributin...](https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributing_opensource)

> Which Open Source licenses are compatible with the Steamworks SDK? In > general, permissive licenses that do not put any requirements on you to > redistribute your modifications under an open source license work fine.

<comment><USER33> This is borderline FUD. You don't need to use Steamworks to publish a Steam game. With respect to games, most commercial licenses also have these same restrictions, e.g. Unreal Engine.

This seems fine, GPL is probably not suitable here. I don't think Valve is going out of their way to harm anyone's freedoms.

If you really want to release your game as GPL, then do the usual workarounds: use a shim which RPC's to the proprietary bit.

<comment><USER32> > If you really want to release your game as GPL, then do the usual > workarounds: use a shim which RPC's to the proprietary bit.

Sounds like the non-solution to GPL software on Apple's App Store, which restricts GPL (or has in the past): run it on a remote server.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I find a lot of the comments here split down "I want app regulation because I feel it provides a layer of safety and safety is good for the consumer" vs "I want more freedom and choice because choice is good and is better for the consumer". Which brings to mind two things

This sounds similar to the current brouhaha happening in the US over America's inclination towards personal freedom at all cost even when govt regulation could/should step in the make things better.

A concern that once "freedom of choice of App Store" is provided, where does it stop because ultimately those demanding choice will keep demanding aspects be "open up" "for fairness" until iOS isn't special anymore. Part of what makes it special _is_ it's regulation, if you don't want that then "choose" elsewhere. This aspect feels like the problem in the US of big business battling for deregulation which... isn't always so great.

I'm not saying "Apple is doing it for the people!", necessarily but Apple is doing it to be Apple, let's not make everything the same.

<comment><USER35> There's only two choices, which means the market is monopalized. If apple had been reasonable we wouldn't be having this discussion. Apple has shown it can no longer reasonably regulate its own market and will not be the Shepard. Their significant efforts of verticle integration from hardware to software shows their inclination to creating walled garden markets that compete at the economy of scale and are designed to eliminate competition.

No company is allowed to control a market of other companies without oversight. Given that oversight from apple is corrupted it must be provided in other means.

<comment><USER36> > There's only two choices, which means the market is monopalized.

Literally not what monopolized means.

<comment><USER37> Duopolized. The rest of the argument still holds, and a weaker form of it holds for Google as well, since stores like F-Droid can't do everything that Google Play can.

Please steelman the arguments you disagree with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Can anyone explain exactly how Apple "blocks" Unreal Engine? I was under the impression that it's a 3rd-party library, available directly from Epic, that anybody is free to link their game to. So I'm struggling to understand the mechanism by which Apple blocks it. Any clarity on this would be appreciated.

<comment><USER39> Epic needs access to Apple's developer tools and documentation to continue developing the Unreal Engine software and libraries for macOS and iOS.

Without access to those things, it would be difficult for Epic to produce new versions of the Unreal Engine, and game developers wouldn't want to use it any more.

<comment><USER40> Yes but any developer can have his or her own account that gives access to every tool, only for pushing software to the store it's vital to have that one particular account for Epic. Epic will lose perks like direct access to performance tuning teams at Apple, but that's not something you can't do without.

So "difficult" would mean that you need to improvise a bit, but they're still able to develop just like any developer. If you want to put your own cocoapod out, you don't need a developer license to do so and if someone else wants to use your cocoapod they just need their own developer account.

<comment><USER41> Legally Epic would lose access to all Apple developer IP including iOS SDKs and Xcode. You have to click through an EULA to access this stuff. And you can bet that Apple would have sought a court order to enforce it, had they prevailed.

<comment><USER42> Just a note, this isn't past tense. The court case is only beginning. This was only about the initial injunction. The court just told Apple and Epic "cool it, stop fighting each other in public and harming your customers, fight each other in court".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Related discussion of the court ruling: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176).

</comment><comment><USER44> Epic seems to be asserting that access to Apple's developer tools requires a developer account.

Since XCode is freely downloadable by anyone, does anybody know which tools they are talking about?

<comment><USER45> Code signing requires an Apple Developer account. Without being about to sign a package you can't publish to the App Store.

You can develop apps for iOS and OS X, and then publish to (a) test device(s) from XCode without one, but that's about it.

<comment><USER44> If I write an app that includes the Facebook SDK, that doesn't mean that Facebook is involved with submitting my app.

As long as my developer account is valid, Facebook's account doesn't enter the equation when I am submitting an app that includes their SDK in any way I can see.

Can someone shed more light on this?

<comment><USER45> I'm likely looking at this from a narrow case but how does the Facebook SDK scenario related to the question you asked?

Did I misinterpret your original statement to mean how would the closure of _Epic 's_ Apple Developer account impact others (with their own valid Apple Developer accounts) from using their engine within an app they published to the App store?

I understood your question to be "why do I (an app developer) need an Apple Developer account?" A second reading and your response leads me to believe otherwise.

<comment><USER44> >how would the closure of Epic's Apple Developer account impact others (with their own valid Apple Developer accounts) from using their engine within an app they published to the App store

Correct. My understanding of the situation is that developers who include third party code in their app do not involve the author of that third party code when submitting their own app.

I used the Facebook SDK as a frequently seen example of third party code that is included within iOS apps as they are submitted to the App Store.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It would be nice if everyone could start by agreeing that that there's actually a nuanced discussion to be had about how "anti-competitive" a company can be, and also how that answer might change based on the size and profitability of the company under discussion. If your position is that your opinion is absolutely correct and there's no room for discussion, why post at all? It's just ideological battle.

With that said, I am naturally inclined to believe that businesses should have a lot of control over the products they create. My baseline is that I want to be as unencumbered as possible in my product vision and the experience I offer my users, and I'd like minimal government restrictions on my desired UX unless consumers' physical health or safety is on the line.

I see the choice of how third parties should be able to create and sell code that runs on a platform I have created as sacrosanct, from the drawing board, up to the day the first unit is shipped, the developer gets to decide. As my code is my own written word, it is akin to my First Amendment right to free speech. However, I'm willing to accept that somewhere along the journey from that very first prototype, to the 1,000,000,000th unit shipped, the equation shifts.

Most products, that is to say non-open source software, by their very nature, are non-trivially anti-competitive in some way. It is the same thing to say that the product is _differentiated_. I have a BA in Economics, but I'm a long time out of school, so I may be clobbering this definition, but "a product is differentiated in the marketplace to the extend that a product has a feature or benefit or functionality that is not equivalently provided by every other substitute in that market." In order for a product to remain differentiated, it therefore _must_ be non-trivially "anti-competitive". Maybe it makes sense to dive into the definition of that word more deeply, but I don't want to waste your time. My point is simply that "anti-competitive" is synonymous with any market that is not perfectly commoditized. Hopefully it's uncontroversial to claim that "anti-competitive" is _not_ fundamentally bad per se.

It's well recognized that anti-competitive behavior which at one scale is fundamental to a diverse marketplace of products and services which drives innovation, value, and consumer choice, at another scale is used to lock-out potential new market entrants, and enable excessive profitability or rent- seeking behavior. The words "monopoly" and "duopoly" usefully describes the ultimate/penultimate theoretical states of such a market, but they don't adequately describe that various ways we can approach such a limit in the real world. Apple is not a monopoly, but that does not mean that there should not perhaps be elevated limits on acceptable anti-competitive behavior on their part based on the specific facts of their market position.

I think it is also self-evident that it is an extraordinary remedy to judicially limit anti-competitive behavior targeted at a specific company in a competitive market. Indeed when we enjoin a company from making their products function in ways that are quite central to that product's highly differentiated user experience, yes it may grant choice to some customers of that product to operate it in new ways, it is also taking choice _away_ from customers who may have chosen the product for exactly the functionality being target. This to me is an extremely heavy handed remedy, and should only be deployed against a company if it is absolutely warranted based on _unlawful conduct_ by that company.

While the case before the judge today was simply a preliminary hearing on a injunction, and therefore not by any means a ruling on the fundamental issue, we can see this balancing act being employed in the current case. The contract that Epic willingly entered into with Apple and willingly violated is placed in one corner (blocking Fortnite) while the separate contract(s) of developers using Epic's Unreal Engine is placed in another corner. All we know today is that this judge was not willing to allow Apple to retaliate against the violating of one contract by withdrawing from the others, and that the judge was not willing to stop Apple from terminating the first contract after it was willfully violated by Epic. The larger discussion will likely take years to play out.

<comment><USER47> I think part of the reason why this case is so polarizing is that it ties in to unrelated issues like right-to-repair and consumer freedom.

As things stand, the owner of an iOS device doesn't have the final say on what software runs on their device; they can only install apps that Apple allows them to. There are some who would consider that to be wrong regardless of Apple's size or place in the overall market, even though that's not really what this case is about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> If Apple wanted (and they probably are doing it) they could heavily delay the approval of any apps that make use of an engine they seem "risky"... Effectively increasing the costs of those developers using "rogue" engines.

<comment><USER49> Of course the "risk" is primarily to Apple's own business interests - competition with Apple's own apps and services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Is the fact that epic has its own store on desktop, where they also take a cut, and also do not allow games to bypass their payment system relevant if this goes to trial?

It seems a bit hypocritical even if the percent is lower

<comment><USER51> I'm not sure if Epic requires you to use their payment processor for IAPs, but even if they do it's not hypocritical in the slightest. The Epic Store isn't the only realistic way to sell a game/app/whatever on PC. That's the issue here - not that the store takes a cut, but that if you don't like the cut you have absolutely no way to try and go with an alternative.

If I don't like the cut Epic takes in their store I can go with Steam. Or gog.com. Or itch.io. Or sell things myself on my own website. If I don't like the cut Apple takes in their store on iOS I can go with... nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm confused. Why doesn't Apple just use their "Termination for Convenience" clause that lets them terminate any contract with a 30 day notice?

<comment><USER53> B/c in that case Apple would be doing what the haters erroneously claim they do now: making 100% arbitrary/capricious decisions when it comes to the App Store walled garden.

As those of us who target iOS know, they're not transparent, but it's not arbitrary. Thank god. We'd never hear the end of unsolicited opinions about the Touch Bar and HN's annual subscription to the year of desktop Linux.

<comment><USER54> > but it's not arbitrary

Then why does Amazon get a special deal?

<comment><USER55> They don't. All subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year so Apple is just counting the existing time where they were figuring out the process. That still applies to everyone, not just Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176)

</comment><comment><USER57> I'd hate apple a lot less if I didn't have to target their shitty browser on any projects.

</comment><comment><USER58> unfortunate, IMHO. Epic violated the terms, willfully. Apple should be able to evict them. Epic can bring a suit while adhering to the terms ...

</comment><comment><USER59> i wonder if fortnite could be wrapped into an unreal SDK so there is some example code and tutorial materials.

to wit fortnite code becomes part of the engine

</comment><comment><USER60> Shame, blocking the Unreal engine would have hurt Apple a lot more than Epic though lets face it the real losers would have been developers.

<comment><USER8> How do you figure? Apple's customers usually have gaming as a pretty low priority for purchasing of Apple products.

The PR hit?

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> They also should be blasted for forbidding competing browsers all this time.

</comment><comment><USER62> Will this pave the way for Firefox using the Gecko engine instead of Webkit in its iOS browser?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS)

<comment><USER63> no, not in any way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Just wow: _Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple's platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple's 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free._

Plus the more or less: why is this an emergency when you decided yourself when to violate the agreement?

</comment><comment><USER65> Change My Mind - I currently agree with Apple's strategy with blocking Unreal Engine. Why is it that a big company (like Epic) thinks it's no longer subject to the Apple Tax while us small guys thrive with the platform for which we wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple. Are we all subject to the same cycle if we "make it", we'll buck against the 30% cut and bite the hand that fed us. This is bad business, it's going to create a stronger reaction by Apple that will only hurt the smaller guys. Plus is Epic doing anything to help us smaller developers in the mean time besides wasting money in a court system? Are they creating a fund for us help bridge us to a different system if their appeal fails? So please let me know your opinion, and if I'm wrong, please let me know why.

<comment><USER66> > We wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple

Is that worth 30% till the end of time? Your argument is like crabs in a bucket -- one crab tries to get a better deal and you pull him down because you have to pay.

Lets say, somehow, Epic manages to get that fee lowered to something more reasonable for everyone. Would you not be happy with that?

<comment><USER67> This is the crux of the matter: is it anticompetitive to setup an ecosystem where you always get a cut?

Generally, historically, no, this is not anticompetitive, especially given there is another ecosystem with far more market share (but maybe not profitability because more people spend money on iOS apps). Inserting yourself to take a cut for a service or a key component is good business practice, and built the empires that every student in business school or in tech entrepreneurship is taught to emulate. So long as the wealth pie grows, it isn't rent seeking to keep taking your cut.

What amazes me is that people think iOS and Apple (and even Android and Google) are near-permanent fixtures that should be regulated as utilities, rather than a temporary incumbent that will eventually be disrupted as the world changes.

Microsoft's reign of dictating terms to ISVs a lasted around 20 years. They're still incredibly profitable and still take a cut of almost every PC sale (or XBox game / movie / tv show sale). They don't have the clout they used to because the tech changed.

At some point, new things will come, such as AR/VR, and we may see companies such as Valve and Oculus/Facebook become the new tech ecosystem dictators. The winner takes all dynamics of platforms seem to make this inevitable. Why enshrine Apple and Google as utilities now, when they'll be less relevant in 10 years?

<comment><USER66> What's more scary is not that a single company or group of companies will be a permanent fixture but rather that this _model of computing_ will be permanent!

If you would have told me 20 years ago that the creator of an operating system would take a 30% cut of every piece of software sold, I would have thought you crazy. If you would have told me Apple or Microsoft would dictate to me what software I could run, I would have considered that a massive invasion of freedom. But today this model is considered totally normal and encouraged.

We aren't seeing other companies competing with this model on price or freedom -- we see companies wanting to enforce their own control and get their own 30% cut. Microsoft has tried it. Google is doing it. Oculus does it. Apple will certainly bring it MacOS.

As software developers and users, is that really what we want?

<comment><USER67> As software users, we definitely have voted with our wallets to say that properly executed vertical integration (As Apple has done), and the end to end UX control that comes with it, are highly desirable. The iPhone is arguably (and surprisingly) the most successful non-food/drug product line in human history by unit sales, revenue, or profits. The 30% cut and ecosystem control are likely a feature, not a bug. The user experience and security of the horizontally open market PC was pretty bad until Microsoft was forced to invest.

As ISVs, clearly there are major downsides to this state of affairs. But I'm not sure I wish for the days where Microsoft reigned and would just put you out of business on a whim.

I don't think Microsoft's antitrust consent decree had as much of an impact as some think, it was more about entrepreneurship and new tech (largely the iPhone! But also Amazon, Facebook, and Google) that reduced their clout.

I don't think Apple will bring this control to MacOS; you can't put genies back into bottles.

<comment><USER66> > The 30% cut and ecosystem control are likely a feature, not a bug.

The only feature I can see for this is making Apple a multi-trillion dollar company. Apple is profiting massively off of our labor and yes, we have been so far happy to give that to them, but perhaps _now_ is the time to revisit that relationship.

With Apple abusing their control to deny access to cloud gaming maybe this success is a Faustian deal.

> I don't think Apple will bring this control to MacOS

I think it will be a function of going to Apple silicon.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Building computed fields in a biological database - <AUTHOR> https://benchling.engineering/building-computed-fields-in-a-biological-database-5cb8774c4a2a?hn <comment><USER2> Interesting write-up on the additional work of almost implementing a spreadsheet in the back-end! I'm curious as to what kinds of functions exactly are these.

In the article, you mention that "We chose to compute asynchronously in case computation takes too long or runs into a fatal error" \-- coming from Excel, how do you handle errors? And how long exactly do these formulas potentially take? (As someone without a lifesci background, it's hard to wrap my head around the concrete parts)

<comment><AUTHOR> (Posting on behalf of Somak)

Hi there, thanks for the feedback! The 2 examples in the write-up are: 1) Molecular Weight: weighted sum across amino acid sequences, using amino acid weights defined in [1] 2) List Concatenation: aggregate lists of added resistances (like ['Ampicillin', 'Kanamycin']) across itself and all ancestors

These are simple, and can be expressed as formulas in Excel or functions. They take < 0.5 s.

A more complex biochemical property for antibodies that can't be as easily expressed in Excel is isoelectric point ([2], see example BioJava implementation at [3]). It requires a binary search, but the search space is constant so usually these calculations finish < 20 s.

Since our implementation is in Python, we can wrap the function in try/catch and, in the catch block, log the error and set the failed computation status.

[1] [https://www.promega.com/-/media/files/resources/technical- re...](https://www.promega.com/-/media/files/resources/technical- references/amino-acid-abbreviations-and-molecular-weights.pdf) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoelectric_point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoelectric_point) [3] [http://biojava.org/docs/api1.9.1/src- html/org/biojava/bio/pr...](http://biojava.org/docs/api1.9.1/src- html/org/biojava/bio/proteomics/IsoelectricPointCalc.html)</comment></comment>


Ruby Procs And Lambdas (And The Difference Between Them) - <AUTHOR> http://www.skorks.com/2010/05/ruby-procs-and-lambdas-and-the-difference-between-them/ <comment><AUTHOR> great post! love the arity tip and finding number of args when they are variable.</comment>


Did Oxygen Therapy Really 'Reverse' Child's Brain Damage? Experts Are Skeptical - <AUTHOR> https://www.livescience.com/59899-hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy-brain-damage.html <comment><USER2> When I got to the point in the article where the Doctor promoting this amazing treatment (standard hyperbaric oxygen therapy BTW) OWNS the treatment centers which promote this specific treatment then I stopped.

Even people that aren't experts are skeptical. I wish experts were incensed or shocked or something stronger than skeptical.</comment>


Gemnasium is acquired by GitLab - <AUTHOR> https://gemnasium.com/blog/gemnasium-is-acquired-by-gitlab? <comment><USER2> > GitHub didn't seem (or didn't want) to realize they were attacking our core > business directly.

They don't explain what they think GitHub should, or even could, have done instead. Should GitHub have stopped improving their product, even in ways like the ones mentioned (package distribution, minimal issue management, security scanning) that were obvious and in-demand years ago?

To me, the post doesn't acknowledge that GitHub did nothing wrong or even unpredictable, and Gemnasium accepts full responsibility for the outcome.

Another way to write the GitHub-related part of this post would be "We had years to make this a business before GitHub acted on customer requests for things that customers obviously wanted. GitHub actually moved slowly enough that we had more time than any reasonable entrepreneur might have expected. We couldn't."

<comment><USER3> It sucks that their business was, effectively, obsoleted by GitHub. I totally get that.

However, if your business can be pretty much wiped out by another company simply adding a new feature to their own product, well, one could argue that you didn't really have much of a product to begin with.

<comment><USER4> I don't know if that's necessarily true. Just following GH as an example. If they added CI it would probably severely hurt every hosted CI platform but that doesn't mean companies like Travis aren't providing a useful product.</comment></comment></comment>


Tracking cold fronts with hyperlocal weather networks in Kansas City and Dallas - <AUTHOR> http://understoryweather.com/tracking-cold-fronts-with-hyperlocal-weather-networks-in-kansas-city-and-dallas/

<comment><USER2> Beautiful data.

But what was the advantage of processing all that local sensor data? The article never explains it.

Were they able to deliver more accurate rain forecasts than the NEXRAD radar? (say, to the minute instead of the hour?) Did they predict the cold front and/or rain where the NOAA & NWS did not?

<comment><USER3> Insurance underwriting and fraud analysis. They also offer a hail sensor.</comment></comment>


Hardware Review:  PocketCHIP - <AUTHOR> http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/08/hardware_review_pocketchip <comment><AUTHOR> One of my co-workers backed the CHIP Kickstarter and got four of them in the mail recently. One of them landed on my desk and I've been playing with it for a few days.

It's a neat little computer and the way they've standardized their expansion modules ("DIPs" in CHIP-speak) makes me think of how the Arduino popularized the "Shield" concept. I'm looking forward to seeing what people do with this once it gets more widespread.

Another thing, which is small but important, is what they've done with power management. First, they've put a connector for a one-cell LiPo battery on the board. Second, they've put a power management chip on the board that can charge the LiPo from USB power and seamlessly switch from USB to LiPo power. Finally, they've put a power button on the board. This, in my view, makes it very suitable for certain types of embedded systems.</comment>


Facebook policy change – incentivizing likes no longer allowed - <AUTHOR> https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/changelog?platformchanges

<comment><AUTHOR> Under Changes to Platform Policies:

You must not incentivize people to use social plugins or to like a Page. This includes offering rewards, or gating apps or app content based on whether or not a person has liked a Page. It remains acceptable to incentivize people to login to your app, checkin at a place or enter a promotion on your app's Page. To ensure quality connections and help businesses reach the people who matter to them, we want people to like Pages because they want to connect and hear from the business, not because of artificial incentives. We believe this update will benefit people and advertisers alike.

I'm very interested n how they intend to enforce this. Are they going to penalize pages? Kick them off? How could they enforce this?</comment>


An Alternative to WebBundles - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@samuelmichaelsquire/an-alternative-to-webbundles-4b13f1350ebf <comment><USER2> That would just be used as a new tracking mechanism.</comment>


Ask HN: How to bring site in Google News? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I am not sure what your question is...

If you mean, how can you be included in Google News?

[https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787?hl=en](https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787?hl=en)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your reply!

Yeah, you got my question rightly and i have already gone through google support recommendation. I have seen some site which don't have sufficient no. of post as some blog suggest and they are in Google news. Hardly 20 post been done, one month old site and they are in google news. So i want to know more about it. Any help would be much appreciated.

<comment><USER3> "Yeah, you got my question rightly and i have already gone through google support recommendation."

Do you mean you've already implemented all of the guidelines listed on that page (listed under 'News technical guidelines' and 'Additional News inclusion guidelines') as well as the linked 'webmaster quality guidelines'? And _after_ implementing those, you applied for inclusion in the Publisher Center?

"I have seen some site which don't have sufficient no. of post as some blog suggest and they are in Google news."

The guidelines on the support page don't mention any minimum quantity of articles.

"Hardly 20 post been done, one month old site and they are in google news."

The guidelines on that page don't mention any minimum site age.

It's not clear from your post. Is your objective to get your own site listed, or to get these other small/new sites delisted?</comment></comment></comment>


IoT Growing Faster Than the Ability to Defend It - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iot-growing-faster-than-the-ability-to-defend-it/ <comment><USER3> Can we please stop trying to force everything to be connected to the internet? I have no issue with those that want to make a smart house, but it seems like it is increasingly more difficult to find certain quality appliances that are not connected, televisions as an example.

I find this whole iot thing very frustrating as a consumer.

<comment><USER4> The consumer market desires cheap, fast, and push button easy solutions. The manufacturers have to comply, and due to technological and financial constraints they opt to open up ports and use fixed default passwords. It's not going to change until the consumer is aware of the risks, and I can't imagine that happening soon. We might see 100m node botnets before that.

<comment><USER5> > _The manufacturers have to comply_

They don't _have_ to do shit. They chose it themselves. IoT market is pretty much pure marketing/hype creation. Current solutions don't make any sense, and are pushed to people who don't understand it.

There are deeper problems here though. Current _smartphone_ model doesn't make any sense either, but this is something even many techies are blind about. Like apps, third of which shouldn't exist in the first place, and another third should be OS-level components. Interoperability sucks because everyone is trying to make a lock-in business out of their small part in the solution.

But I'm just a grumpy techie myself. Until the world gets its shit together (i.e. never), I'll continue to build my smart home out of Raspberry Pis and DIY components, while also telling everyone to avoid _anything_ that's done over cloud.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article is taking a rather lack stance against manufacturers with words like "ability" and "interest":

> The IoT is expanding faster than device makers' interest in cybersecurity

This is just pure bullshit. It has nothing to do with 'expanding' or 'interest' or 'ability'. This type of security has nothing to do with the scale at which it has it deing deployed or growing.

The fact of the matter is that manufacturers are __too cheap __to provide decent security. This is a profit problem. And dancing around the issue by the media is just weak-ass journalism.

The solution is simple: The government holds them accountable for creating shoddy products. The companies creating these products pay for the damages done. It's really this simple.

Unfortunately, the U.S seems to have this completely unhealthy obsession with keeping the government impotent and companies powerful at the expense of the people. And not just the american people, but the entire world.

Baiscally the only hope we have at this point is the European Union.

<comment><USER7> The solution is simpler and doesn't involve giving more power to idiots: don't buy shit.

<comment><USER8> I didn't buy any Internet of Shit products.

Unfortunately, my neighbour did, and now his toaster is used as part of a DDOS attack against a critical piece of internet infrastructure.

How does your solution help?

<comment><USER9> This is an amazing problem. There is simply no solution because most people don't care!

<comment><USER5> There is a solution, and it's called "government" and "law". No, really. We've been dealing with people who don't care from the very dawn of civilization. There's a reason societies always end up creating governments and regulations, and it's precisely that reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a huge issue. Bigger than huge.

We live in an age equivalent to the great Pollution period of industrial revolution. Where any crap steam engine or boiler was built as long as its golden path worked. Boiler explosions killed thousands and damaged businesses for decades. Smog killed perhaps hundreds of thousands - and only government regulation reeled it in.

But we have proved awful at building service based global regulations - <USER2> is barely limping now and there is little expectation that "free open global internet" is going to be rallying cry to save the agreements.

I would like to see a framework where the user owns root and so is responsible for the upkeep but the manufacturer is obliged to provide ten years worth of patches for anything sold - or provided funding to an open development process to supply patches and updates.

</comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone know if there are ongoing efforts to reign this in? Like a standards working group for a UL-like certification process for IoT security?

Maybe a group like the Linux Foundation or Core Infrastructure Initiative could take this on and lay out some goals for IoT manufacturers to aspire to (product update guarantees, secure communication, secure coding practices, signed firmware...)

One of the biggest problems now is the free-for-all nature of developing IoT products. Though I personally don't see a complete solution unless there is regulation or a government agency like the FTC steps in. I view this as kinda similar to bans on other not-immmediately-visibly-harmful things like CFCs.

But I don't see them having any traction themselves to get started. I think if the industry developed a standard certification process they could latch on and help manufacturers and distributors solve the problem.

</comment><comment><USER12> It's not like there was no warning, anyone with half a clue knew that security wasn't good enough, yet people plowed ahead with IoT anyway.

</comment><comment><USER13> There should be government organization currently responsible for data security. Unfortunately, with the proposed leadership options for the White House, I don't think this will be a priority. The FCC is too concerned with rationing out the electromagnetic spectrum. I doubt UL and CE has enough resources to step up here.

For the device makers who want to provide a secure interface to their cloud servers, I think platform and infrastructure providers should set out an easy to adopt standard that any device maker can follow. The expectations on getting a device to market is already so high that small companies typically do not invest in data security.

The incentive to adopt the security best practices could come from retailers. Retailers who only stock products with this standard would save on returns / lawsuits. In the coming year, DDOS attacks are the least of their worries if hackers can commandeer devices that see into people's homes and monitor people's lives.

<comment><USER14> ISPs could provide seed funding for UL to spin up a certification for connected smart devices. They certainly have the resources and are kind of mixed up in the problem already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Many manufacturers incur liability for their products' defects. How do IoT manufacturers get away without incurring such liability? Is it because the EULAs users sign are airtight? Is it because they are overseas companies? Is it because they are small and would just close up shop if they got sued? Is each incident so tiny that it does not make sense to sue (what about class- actions or ultimate-victim-initiated actions?)

Not that I'm proposing litigation as a solution here, but I don't understand what makes IoT manufacturers so different.

<comment><USER16> They are no different. It's just that noone sued yet.

Wait for an attack to Brick the vulnerable IoT devices and then the class actions will begin :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The horizontal progress indicator on this page is funny (a blue strip on the bottom if you look). It looks like it's moving from left to right to meet the scroll bar which is going from top to bottom.

Several online publications have used this web design pattern and it confuses me. What's wrong with looking to the scroll bar position to know how much text is left on a page?

</comment><comment><USER17> Routers should be adapting to growing IoT. The ability to easily prevent Internet access or access to certain country IP pools like China. A really easy way to manage routers e.g. through an app will help mitigate the threat somewhat. But it would require a unified API or some sort and not installing CF.

<comment><USER18> Routers are themselves often easily hackable and turned into malware launching nodes. Expecting router manufacturers to help us is a pipe dream.

<comment><USER5> Routers are a joke. Did I ever tell how my current solution at home fetches the DHCP leases (to get the list of devices connected to the network)?

Basically, to access the data you need to send an auth token along with request. How can you get such a token? By logging in, of course. Or, by firing your request anyway, which will cause the router to return you an error page with _a cookie containing the auth token you need_.

That's just... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Couldn't a smarter home router solve a lot of this? Only allow reasonable outbound traffic to whitelist ? Or black hole a lot of the internet for untrusted devices?

</comment><comment><USER20> I think there is a great use case for open source software running on our IoT devices, where we are cognizant of features, security and implication of updates. I predict this will be more commonplace in the next 5 years.

At present, we are so blissfully unaware of what runs on our devices that it is scary.</comment>


Sony's 3D Visor To Change 3D Forever. 750-Inch Screen Mounted on Your Head - <AUTHOR> http://www.tqcast.com/2011/08/30/sonys-3d-visor-to-change-3d-forever-750-inch-screen-mounted-on-your-head/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm always skeptical of these technologies. I recall see another article on Hacker News about a Y.C. startup (Launchpad Toys I believe) that predicted the future may not be about robots, but rather virtual reality. Personally I believe we'll have both :)</comment>


What Are the Features of Apache Hadoop? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Features of Apache Spark: 1) Open Source 2) Not Bounded by Single Schema 3) Economical 4) Data Locality 5) Fault Tolerant 6) Reliable for more detailed study you can visit [http://data-flair.training/blogs/hadoop-features-design- prin...](http://data-flair.training/blogs/hadoop-features-design-principles- tutorial/)</comment>


Sony needed to have basic digital protection. It failed - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/21/sony-hacking-north-korea-cyber-security

<comment><USER2> Isn't Sony part of the group that insists that Google should _know_ what is legal content from what isn't and that DRM is essential and cannot be broken?

I really hope that if the movie doesn't air here in the U.S. that it becomes quickly available on DVD/BluRay or leaked to torrents... That said, it's possible they reviewed it and realized it was just a bad movie?

In any case, despite the fact that the people who made this breach are likely scumbags... it couldn't happen to a more deserving company imho... I still shudder at the crap Sony Music's infected "CD" discs caused. (Assholes)

</comment><comment><USER3> They had _plenty_ of "digital protection," all of it aimed at harassing lawful purchasers of its content.</comment>


Alexa will soon express emotions through its voice - <AUTHOR> https://techtudor.blogspot.com/2019/11/alexa-will-soon-express-emotions.html <comment><USER2> Fast forward 10 years of development: ;)

> Amazon sued for emotional manipulation of customers using AI voice > assistant.</comment>


Apple and Mental Health Issues, Employees Speak on Hostile Environment - <AUTHOR> https://mic.com/articles/154788/apple-employees-say-their-mental-health-issues-came-from-alleged-hostile-work-environment <comment><USER2> These are Cupertino engineer complaints or customer service complaints?

<comment><USER3> > Before he worked for Apple's call center, Ben* had a clean bill of mental > health

Employee complaints of all sorts.</comment></comment>


Renting a 1-bedroom apartment near BART in the Bay Area - <AUTHOR> http://blog.onradpad.com/renting-a-1-bedroom-apartment-near-bart-in-san-francisco/ <comment><USER2> I find this data very 'surpising'. Average rent in Rockridge: 1775, Average Rent in Fruitvale: 2300. For those not familiar, Rockridge is probably the fanciest, most expensive neighborhood in Oakland, whereas Fruitvale is a 'hood where you won't find a lot of people walking around after dark.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, I think their data must be sparse for some areas but it would be nice to see them post at least the number, mean, median and standard deviation for each region. Also be interesting to grab data off craigslist to compare.

<comment><AUTHOR> See my reply below, but the main issue is that they didn't use walking or driving distance from the station but a straight 1/2 mile radius, which is grabbing neighboring not-so-good neighborhoods.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Founders, if you are reading this: When I click on the top left [http://d.pr/i/JLux](http://d.pr/i/JLux) , please take me to the main site. It seems a bit counter intuitive, but I wanted to know what you guys do and there was no way other than to edit the URL (I've made the same mistakes).

Great post!

</comment><comment><USER5> It only gets harder if you happen to have kids and are looking for decent schools. Would be interesting to see an infographic like this with both rent and school quality included.

<comment><USER6> The bay area is great when you're young with no kid. As soon as you have kids it's better to move.

<comment><USER7> I think you mean the San Francisco area, which, yes, is terrible once you have a family. South Bay (Cupertino/San Jose) and deep East Bay (Fremont/Castro Valley) are relatively safe areas with several good schools. I don't have kids or live in the Bay Area anymore, but I know many people who grew up there and still have younger family growing up there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As European, I'm usually astonished about the massive salaries that IT companies pay. When taking the rent into account, though, then it's a vastly different picture - I'd even say that in some of the mentioned areas the renters will have less income after rent and taxes than I have in Munich, Germany's 2nd expensive city.

<comment><USER9> Same impression (from Brussels, Belgium). + as a freelancer, it's actually quite possible to get rates in Brussels that are around 80% of what you can get in California (500€/day is totally possible).

For the record, for the rent of a 1 bedroom appartment in SF, you can get a 240 square meters house in the center of Brussels.

<comment><USER10> For the metric impaired, that's about 2400 sq feet, which sounds like a king's palace and in the center of the city to boot!

<comment><USER9> And I forgot to mention that it is to pay a mortgage on the house, not renting it. (Renting would be a bit less expensive).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A couple folks have mentioned some of the numbers being off and not passing the sniff test. It's important to look at the methodology. All they did was calculate the median for all rentals within 1/2 mile of the station, as the crow flies.

Glen Park is a perfect example of how this goes wrong. It's right next to a freeway, and the homes right on the other side in the not so good neighborhood, while far away from BART, are counted because as the crow flies they are very close.

<comment><USER11> Also, _actual_ Glen Park[1] has almost no apartment buildings -- it's almost entirely single-family homes.

So if you're only looking at apartments-for-rent within the given radius, your data is going to be almost entirely dominated by places in Sunnyside, Excelsior, and Diamond Heights.

[1] [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Glen+Park,+San+Francisco](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Glen+Park,+San+Francisco)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> RadPad is a company with a sexist and inappropriate launch video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kXTual0lfk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kXTual0lfk)

Probably worth watching before making up your mind about the startup.

<comment><USER13> I didn't notice the sexism. It is extremely cringeworthy, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Median posted rental prices may not be a great metric. Some comparisons don't pass the smell test - West Oakland should not be more expensive than Glen Park or Berkeley. Berkeley should not be cheaper than Fruitvale or Lake Merritt.

<comment><USER15> They're using too large a radius for their pricing data, so e.g. the weirdly low Glen Park number includes a good portion of Excelsior.

<comment><USER16> Or too small. In some cases, I bet there might just be one new luxo-lifestyle super expensive apartment building right next to the station, and nothing else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does anybody have children in SF? How is it possible with these rent prices?

<comment><USER3> About 80% of folks I know with kids leave San Francisco before they turn 5. The big issues are high rent, variability of school quality and logistics getting kids+gear around. City has done some great work to upgrade the kid's parks but the rent, schools and logistics make it very expensive to raise kids in SF.

<comment><USER18> In 2012, at least, SF had the lowest percentage of children of any major city in the country:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/families-flee- san-f...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/families-flee-san- francisco_n_1335639.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think there has to be an error for that Orinda number. There's no way anything is that cheap in Orinda.

</comment><comment><USER20> These costs are highly biased by the fact that most older apartments are multi-bedroom dwellings. Single bedroom apartments in the Mission or SoMa are newer buildings charging higher rates. A room in a 3 bdr apartment in the Mission is ~$1,000 - 1,400 / month.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'd like to see the followup post, "how we spent time and money creating a useless infographic". If the data is just bad (see HN comments here), how is it in any way helpful? You have to start with valid data.

</comment><comment><USER22> Bad title. None of the Bart stops / communities they discuss are "in" San Francisco.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, but HN requires me to copy the title exactly. Otherwise I would have changed it to appeal to a more global audience.</comment></comment>


Why Reddit Alternatives Won't Defeat Reddit (Yet) - <AUTHOR> https://artplusmarketing.com/why-no-one-will-defeat-reddit-yet-c401922beff4 <comment><AUTHOR> Or in other words:

1\. They focus too much on tech, too little on the community 2\. The content/community isn't there for everyday topics, and only exists for politics or discussing why this site is 'better' than Reddit. 3\. Free speech/privacy is not a marketing hook for average people 4\. Big community sites tend not to fall to competitors with the exact same concepts, but ones that do things in a better or more interesting way.

Honestly, I'd say Discord is probably a bigger threat to Reddit than anything mentioned on the Reddit alternatives subreddit, in part because its privacy keeps the mainstream media out of the way.</comment>


Filament raises $5M to bring the blockchain to the Internet of things - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/filament-blockchain-iot/

<comment><AUTHOR> Another article on the same topic: [http://www.computerworld.com/article/2969396/internet-of- thi...](http://www.computerworld.com/article/2969396/internet-of-things/peak- iot-platform-filament-raises-5m.html)

"Filament looks really interesting. It would be possible to dismiss this fledgling business as a hodgepodge of buzzwords, but the credibility of its investor pool, the novel approach it seems to be taking to the problem, and the very real opportunity that exists for IoT networks all combine to make this an interesting play."

edit: a better written version: [http://www.coindesk.com/filament- nets-5-million-for-blockcha...](http://www.coindesk.com/filament- nets-5-million-for-blockchain-based-internet-of-things-hardware/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Filiment looks like a really robust system with what amounts to "eventual consistency" for IoT data, which is great for data which doesn't need to be acted on in near real time.

1\. I'd be interested to see a bit more about how they will handle systems with actuators as well as sensors - i.e. controlling things like windows and sprinklers. I think IoT gets really interesting when it's not just about sensors.

2\. It will be even more interesting to see if people are wiling to allow their nodes to be used to help a neighbour get their data through the mesh. Clearly your node will use more power if it's relaying more data, so I wonder how willing people (for example farmers) will be willing to share resources like that.

<comment><USER3> Hey, I'm working with Filament and wanted to give you some info.

1) Our basic Tap has USB and a few analog/digital pins exposed externally for this type of control. We expect USB to be one of the larger factors down the road and are looking at ways to simplify that path.

2) You sir, are thinking well ahead and in the right places.

Feel free to email us with any direct questions! firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "To build its technology, Filament is using a series of protocols that include the blockchain transaction database behind Bitcoin; BitTorrent, the popular peer-to-peer file sharing software; Jose, a contract management protocol that is also used in the OAuth authentication service that lets people use their Facebook ID to log in and manage permissions to other sites around the web; TMesh, a long-range mesh networking technology and Telehash for private messaging."

</comment><comment><USER4> As someone who needs sensor data for their product, this looks pretty cool. I'd love to see the API docs.

<comment><USER5> Docs will be available soon. Shoot us an note: email@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> IBM and Samsung are also working on a similar project using Ethereum, Bittorrent and Telehash:

[http://www.coindesk.com/ibm-reveals-proof-concept- blockchain...](http://www.coindesk.com/ibm-reveals-proof-concept-blockchain- powered-internet-things/)

[https://www.theprotocol.tv/adept-demo-ibm- samsung/](https://www.theprotocol.tv/adept-demo-ibm-samsung/)

I wonder why they don't just use IPFS, too.

<comment><USER7> IPFS is a cool tech, for sure. But it looks like IPFS is focused on "high throughput content-addressed block storage model, with content-addressed hyperlinks".

The file-transfer needs of DIST is simply for a decentralized method of firmware updates--as outlined in the IBM ADEPT paper.</comment></comment>


GiftRocket (YC W11) Lets You Send Gifts That Can Be Redeemed At Any Location - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/21/giftrocket-lets-you-send-gifts-that-can-be-redeemed-only-at-specific-locations/

<comment><USER2> So... a few questions:

1\. What happens if I forget about my GiftRocket? Yes, you could say the same about gift cards, but those are physical items I can keep in my wallet and discover months later. If I forget about a GiftRocket, what happens...? Do I get a notification that it's gone unused after a set period?

2\. Will you notify me upon entering a restaurant that I have a GiftRocket, or must I remember that I have one?

3\. Are you linking paypal transfers based on location? So I have to be at said restaurant for me to get my money that my friend gave me? I get it's not _that_ much different from a gift card, but the actual card itself carries an inherent value. I will always have it, and it will always be worth a certain amount given the expiry date has not passed. It seems like my gift is locked somewhere in your cloud until I have proven to you that I am at a given location.

4\. Do many people even use paypal to buy food when they're out?

5\. If yes to 4, are the paypal transfers instant? It would seem kind of bizarre to eat at Bill's Burritos using my credit card, and then redeem my GiftRocket thinking to myself "It's ok, the cost of this meal will be compensated to me in a few days' time pending my GiftRocket transfer."

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. I feel like there's a lot being hidden from the user here. A gift card is something delivered to me by the the gifter -- there's no middle man putting a restriction on when you actually receive your gift card. And when I lose a gift card, it's money I've lost somewhere in my nightstand, not money I've left in my gift card broker's pocket.

Maybe I am wrong.

<comment><USER3> Hi there

1\. Yes, we remind you.

2\. No. Would be possible with native apps, but we chose to have recipients click a browser link on their phone for ease of use so they wouldn't have to download an app / create an account. I agree though, this would be nice.

3a. Yes, we link to location.

3b. You can access your GiftRocket on your phone at any time by clicking the GiftRocket link, much like you'd look at a gift card in your wallet or purse.

4\. No, not commonly used.

5\. Yes, they're instant.

Hope that helps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So I pay a company 5% for the privilege of sending my friend blocks away so I can put money in his paypal account?

<comment><USER5> You always have to pay to send someone money. And a giftcard for a store or restaurant also requires your friend to go there.

<comment><USER4> Me: "Hey dude, there's this great new Mexican place on your block. Here's $30. Enjoy." = free

Me: "Hey dude, check out this website that's going to tell you about this great new Mexican place on your block. Here's $30. Enjoy." = not free

<comment><USER6> Seems like you're arguing against gift cards in general. $100b worth of gift card spending suggests other people feel differently. Maybe you're not the target market?

<http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1005802>

<comment><USER4> $X is worth $X in gift cards. I'm fine with that. I hate the idea of paying this company when they don't add any value.

<comment> old-gregg "Don't add any value"? I thought the idea/value was to give people the option of sending gift cards for _any_ business. That Mexican restaurant you keep referring in your examples may not even have a giftcard program.

<comment><USER4> It wasn't a gift card in my examples. It was cash. Or an American Express giftcard. Just like you'd be getting with GiftRocket, except GiftRocket wants a cut.

<comment><USER5> _It wasn't a gift card in my examples._

That's what makes it invalid as an example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Everyone's ripping into this, and I'll be honest: I just wrote a long rant about what a terrible idea it is, but I thought about it some more and deleted it. And as a gift card, I still think I'm correct, this is not a great value proposition, primarily because _you can't actually use the money (which comes in via PayPal) to buy stuff wherever you are_. As someone that still remembers all too well being in college with $3 in my pocket and an overdrawn bank account, the greatest thing about gift cards was that they let you actually buy stuff immediately even if you have no money. The Paypal involvement bollockses that up, and that's not good; it also makes the fact that you're sent to a physical business kind of annoying, since you can really only use the money for online stuff unless you transfer it out of Paypal first.

But...

I had similar "who would ever use that?" thoughts about Foursquare when it launched, and had to revisit my feelings after seeing its success. It turns out that even if there's little value in the actual _services_ provided, people really like the types of game mechanics that location-based apps make possible. This, IMO, is where GiftRocket should be focusing: they really should be pitching a _game experience_ instead of a mere gift card.

I can easily imagine people setting up scavenger hunts, races, treasure maps, etc., if the site was set up to make that sort of thing easy and fun. You could even set up entire Amazing Race-style multi-leg races if it was done right. There are a _lot_ of possibilities, and I could see the same sorts of people that get really into Foursquare getting really into this.

Don't get me wrong: I think this is a pivot that may need to be made, it's not where they are right now. As-is I don't see much emphasis of any game-mechanic in the marketing (and for that matter, the most likely fun applications, races and multi-leg treasure hunts, don't seem to be possible to construct), and the exclusive focus on sending people to businesses may not turn out to be the best approach unless they can start to sign on businesses to sweeten the deal (I'm sure they _can_ line up things like 10% off if you redeem a gift card there or something like that). But even that's a bit of a shift, and it puts them more in the discount-seeking business than the gift card one.

Or I could just be wrong. This _is_ a YC company, so they're sure as hell going to get enough eyeballs to battle-test the idea, and maybe the sheer novelty of it all will lure enough users to make this work even if they just stick with the current model.

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting concept. I tend to give a lot of gifts in the form of gift certificates to friends and loved ones, and they tend to be a little bit different from your run of the mill Old Navy card. I go for "experiential" gifts, like short plane tickets if I can afford it, speaker series tickets, theater tickets, etc.

From a gift giver perspective, I always screen my gift ideas for things I can physically deliver in person. I want to be able to wrap it up and see the surprise on their face when they open it. "You got me a _Southwest Airlines_ gift card?? I can go _anywhere_??" If the process is completely electronic, it turns me off.

How do you plan to handle this? What are the specific use cases?

<comment><USER3> We originally built this so we'd be able to send our friends in other cities a gift card to the restaurant or bar where they'd be celebrating their birthday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is literally one of two ideas we have been flipping between.

What we found was that all the current mobile gifting services lacked local businesses, were mostly SMS based and, the surprising problem, were partnering with the merchant. This means they are not "everywhere" nor are they granular - Not personal enough ($25 at Target). We tested a few last year and found that when we went to redeem the gift, either the merchants had no idea what we were talking about, even with phone and print out in hand, or the redemption process was a pain in the ass.

We also found something that surprised us. We assumed people would think it was rather impersonal. However, finding new ways to say "thanks for helping me move", etc., people found to be much more fun and personal - We also implied a level of custom-ability in gifting and had no interest in partnerships, big box or otherwise.

It is fantastic to see someone else taking this on as I personally think there is something huge here. There are so many nuisances to this and it is very interesting to see how each company is tackling them.

</comment><comment><USER10> I admit it's an interesting idea at first thought. However, usually gift cards are perceived as lame gifts by me and my friends/family. The train of thought usually goes something like "I couldn't think of anything to get you because I don't really care enough about you to pay attention to the things you might actually want or need but I'm obligated to get you something soooo here you go." And in that case I think you're better off just giving an AmEx or Visa Gift/Check card. Among my circle this is usually acceptable for occurrences where you're just lost, like giving a gift card at a baby shower since I know nothing about babies, etc. But, my group could totally be outliers here. I think the tech is cool and could be interesting for pub crawls or the like where on each stop you get a discount. Any unclaimed discounts could be pocketed by the company or the group that setup the crawl. That's very niche but maybe that can scale to something else.

</comment><comment><USER11> The concept has merit IMO, but I'm not sure about the current implementation. I assume (perhaps wrongly) that they are going to establish relationships with merchants ... or maybe they're building something that FB or Groupon can plugin to their network of merchants.

When I need to send a list-minute gift or a gift to someone out of town, I almost always email an Amazon gift card. And I can't see (yet) why I'd use this instead.

</comment><comment><USER4> "Of course, the recipient can always opt not to actually use the gifted money..." That's some A+ writing there, Lou.

<comment><USER12> I think the idea of NOT letting the recipient opt out of the gifted money is much better. GiftRocket, get on that!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How many billions do people spend on gift cards each year? Must be a multi- billion market...and that's constrained by the fact that with normal gift cards merchants must actually opt-in to start offering gift cards. With this it seems like they're able to expand the market by offering "gift cards" to places that haven't opted in or signed up. That's brilliant.

<comment><USER13> This is essentially the gist. Plus, it's super simple to send a GiftRocket. It's usually very painful to get a gift-card at stores, like, me physically being at the location.

This is much more convenient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Oh wow! I've thought of something like this too, and really wanted it for myself. Very cool, good luck to you! (:

</comment><comment><USER15> that ! now pair with breakupnotifier ! and create giftonbreakup. It's like URL programming of life events.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's actually quite interesting. I didn't know about these guys, but was thinking through this idea a few weeks ago. My version was called "Money Drop". I concluded that technology was cool,but I couldn't think of a compelling reason to use this application, except for 2 cases. 1) Drug dealers and 2) Kidnappers.

Say I just kidnapped your dog and I'm holding it ransom. I email you and tell you to MoneyDrop $100 at the local mall. Once I see the money has been "dropped" I go there and collect it with my smart phone app. Why would this be useful? It's harder to figure out who picked it up since you are in a public space and are just clicking a "pickup" button. Win-win!</comment>


Jade Robot: Hands on STEM for Kids and Classrooms - <AUTHOR> http://robohub.org/jade-robot-hands-on-stem-for-kids-and-classrooms/

<comment><USER2> We're looking to help bring STEM to more kids through robotics and programming! Please check out the campaign and help us out.

myke</comment>


Sexism at Uber from female management - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@contactkeala/sexism-at-uber-from-female-management-uberstory-238874075bbb#.phg9gxz6z <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13784509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13784509)

</comment><comment><USER3> Kind of wondering if her manager was somehow feeling threatened/insecure by the writer. Of the "she's a better engineer than me" or (sic) "she's both prettier and smarter than me" (etc) kind of threat... and was purposely belittling and attacking her self-esteem due to that. The old "put down" approach. Ugh.

It's something I've seen done by insecure & mis-competitive individuals. Normally outside the workplace.

It would seriously suck to have it coming from your workplace manager. :(

</comment><comment><USER4> Woman can be very sexist to other women. This is news apparently to a lot of men. Exhibit A is Patti Sanger on the reality show, Millionaire Matchmaker. She's a full blown misogynist from the Howard Stern / Trump school. When I see that show I'm watching through splayed fingers.

</comment><comment><USER5> How is it that engineering managers are able to have such an outsized influence on company culture?

<comment><USER6> Because managers are part of the corporate power structure, and the corporate power structure is the biggest determinant in the nature of internal discourse.

Never forget that companies are people and structure. Either the people or the structure are to blame.</comment></comment>


Sosml: An Interpreter for Standard ML Written in TypeScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/SOSML/SOSML <comment><USER2> Just a quick look at the code. One of the first lines in the random first file I checked:

> function printBasis( state: any, dynamicBasis: any, staticBasis: any, > indent: number = 0 ): string { ...

When Microsoft removes the 'any' type this language (and hype) is dead. I've never came across a TS code base that is actually 100% type safe, and that apart from the fact that at run time there is no type checking at all, just Javascript.. That's why I still prefer the ease and security of dynamic type checking, because it is real safety. I know TS can still help in a large code base especially for the less experienced dev's out there, but it comes with a very high price that no TS proponent dears to admit or cannot assess. We live in a world of dreamers.

<comment><USER3> I've never had any trouble avoiding usage of any thanks to how powerful TS generics and interfaces are. Also why would it type check dynamically? TS is a static typing utility, there are other ways to type check JS at runtime if you need to do so. These statements (and that you seem to think TS is most helpful for "less experienced secs") make me think you're not actually that familiar with its usage

I'll be the first person to say that I'm eager for a viable front end solution without any JavaScript (shoutout vugu, an awesome but young and experimental go lib), but TS isn't going to die with the removal of any lol</comment></comment>


Living on the wrong side of a time zone can be hazardous to your health - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/04/19/how-living-wrong-side-time-zone-can-be-hazardous-your-health/ <comment><AUTHOR> Previously posted at: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19701806](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19701806)

Thanks to HN poster acqq for finding the source paper:

[http://www.oseagiuntella.com/resources/GM_SLEEP_june2017.pdf](http://www.oseagiuntella.com/resources/GM_SLEEP_june2017.pdf)

"Sunset Time and the Economic Effects of Social Jetlag Evidence from US Time Zone Borders

Osea Giuntella, University of Pittsburgh, Fabrizio Mazzonnay, Universita della Svizzera Italiana (USI)"

</comment><comment><USER2> > _People on the late side of sunset across U.S. time zones were 11 percent > more likely, on average, to be overweight and 21 percent more likely to be > obese. Diabetes was more prevalent, and the risk of heart attack increased > by 19 percent. Breast cancer rates were slightly elevated, too — about 5 > percent higher than average._

And yet many people advocate the adoption of permanent DST, which would make that even worse for _everyone_...

<comment><USER3> It looks like there is no good answer. I used to think syncing time with the naval clock with the appropriate offset for location would be great, so that the system drifts such that noon is always highest point in the sky would be great, but it has too many consequences (like when traveling and an hour isn't an hour, or just syncing with other people)... so we're stuck with a practical but less than ideal solution.

<comment><USER4> What is wrong with standard time?

<comment><USER5> People who play golf or engage in other outdoor activities like to maximize the amount of daylight hours after work. Instead of adjusting their work hours they have society and the government adjust the clock for everyone. Ideally the clock would be left alone but not everyone's employer is willing to allow for shifting one's work hours. Also schools aren't willing to seasonally adjust their hours so parents who want to maximize afternoon and evening daylight hours desire clock shifting.

<comment><USER6> Believe golf is usually played at dawn, which always kept it out of my purview.

<comment> B-Con Completely depends. Different people have different preferences. Different locations have different weather benefits for time of day. When I played golf I played during twilight almost exclusively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://outline.com/PG6H78](https://outline.com/PG6H78) for those of you (like me) who just get a blank page.

</comment><comment><USER8> Just a quick glance at the map on that one and you can see it is "stupid data mining tricks." Colorado (skinny) and Georgia (fat) could account for all of the difference. There's a half dozen ways of falsifying this, but as its Elsevier, we'll never know.

<comment><USER9> I can't see the map (paywall).

One thing I'd want to check is the difference across time zone boundaries. There's not much of a difference between western Georgia and eastern Alabama, other than time zones; do they have different health outcomes? (Or, if you want to say that maybe Georgia has more money than Alabama for public health, look at a state like Tennessee or Kentucky where the time zone boundary isn't the state boundary.

<comment><USER8> Using the "web" thing takes me here:

[https://nypost.com/2019/04/23/living-on-the-wrong-side- of-a-...](https://nypost.com/2019/04/23/living-on-the-wrong-side-of-a-time- zone-can-damage-your-health/)

You can see there are huge cultural differences in a couple of places that could account for all of it. I agree, checking the local difference is a decent way to falsify this stinker. Bootstrapping a few states in and out of the data set would do so also.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Europe has a timezone spanning quite a large area, I looked up 2 small towns at each side at almost the same latitude and compared their sunrise/sunset times for today (according to Google):

Niš Serbia; 43.3209° N, 21.8958° E: Rise 04:52, Set 20:12

A Coruña Spain; 43.3623° N, 8.4115° W: Rise 06:53, Set 22:14.

A whole 2 hours difference!

<comment><USER11> Spain is more of a night owl culture anyways.

<comment><USER12> It is, by the wall clock. But is it by the sun?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting correlation in the US: except for Pacific Time, it seems the populations in each time zone are more dense on the sunrise side. Aren't these health issues and economic outcomes typical of rural America?

</comment><comment><USER5> I used to live in a highrise with windows that faced west. Since we were above the trees and there were no other buildings of similar height nearby, I got full afternoon sunlight. Summers were miserable and I suffered from insomnia greatly. Even blackout shades couldn't fix things due to the intensity of leakage around the edges. I suffered from many health issues, most likely due to poor sleep quality, during that time. It also harmed my performance at work. Things improved quickly when I sold my condo and bought a house with my bedroom facing south east.

</comment><comment><USER14> I occasionally reside in two cities, about a thousand km apart east-west but in one time zone. Schedules between them diverge by about 1.5 hours: shops opening and closing times, public transport schedules, etc. Pretty much the only thing keeping them strictly in sync would be TV programming—which however is staggered across the country anyway so it's not insurmountable.

So, if your country has set times for schools, business etc in a time zone despite the difference in sun time, you probably should ask whose bright idea that was.

<comment><USER15> That's exactly what time zones are supposed to solve. Sounds like your country has multiple time zones, but doesn't want to call them that.

<comment><USER14> Sounds more like my country has fewer time zones than fifteen-degree chunks of longitude. Which didn't prevent people from living their life by the sun.

<comment><USER16> We do here in Norway; I am in the GMT zone at 6 degrees east, while in the extreme east of the country, they're squarely in GMT+2 at 30 degrees east.

All of the country is in GMT+1. The difference between standard and solar time is quite pronounced, especially during DST.

<comment><USER14> Difficult for me to sympathize in this case, considering how you managed to squeeze both Sweden and Finland away from oil and fish, and how I almost wept when paying for bus between cities in Norway.

<comment><USER16> Fun fact - we offered the Swedes commercial rights to sectors in the North Sea as a trade for Volvo stock; the Swedish secretary of commerce basically said 'Hell, no!" at the last minute and backed out of the deal.

Edit: It wasn't the Secretary of commerce but the Volvo general assembly which turned the deal down. My bad.

<comment><USER14> Well, Volvo should probably outlast those oil reservoirs and the oil dependence. And possibly the fish too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of the few nice things I can say about living in Indiana is how it sits on the western side of the eastern timezone.

There was light outside when I was outside. It got dark when it was time to go to bed.

Now living in the Bay Area, I feel when the clocks shift in November, it is getting dark at like, 5PM! I am still working at that time. I do not like having to go about my evening when it is pitch black outside, it is super uncomfortable.

<comment><USER18> Georgia is the same and I like it on the western side of the Eastern TZ. I would much rather have light after work than nothing. Maine would not be a good place. I felt the same way at the equator 6-6 then darkness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Longer periods of light increases insulin resistance and blood glucose levels.

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160518141416.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160518141416.htm)

</comment><comment><USER20> As it often happens, the paper is ignoring people with DSPD aka night owls. We almost never see sunrises, and I wish we had a permanent DST to have later sunsets and longer daylight.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'd much rather have some extra daylight in the evenings, especially in winter.

<comment><USER5> There is no free lunch or free daylight. You end up robbing the morning of light to get it in the evening. Even down here in Georgia schools often start late during the winter when overnight freezing temperatures creates black ice on the roads. Seasonally adjusted school hours would help avoid this but that has a cascading effect on parent's schedules which in turn can cause issues for employers. Tinkering with the clock just moved problems around, advantaging some groups at the expense of others.</comment></comment>